Sitting of 18 December 1996

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

Pairing Arrangements
9.34 am
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although you are concerned with the reputation of the House, you are obviously not responsible in any way, any more than your predecessors were, for pairing arrangements. Would you, however, consider it part of your duty to say that the way in which parties organise themselves, and make arrangements accordingly, reflects on the House's reputation?
It is now quite clear that the Government party cheated outright on Monday by pairing the same names with both the main Opposition party and the Liberal Democrat party, which is certainly unsatisfactory. It is deplorable that such cheating occurred. I hope that, since the Government are a minority Administration, they will behave somewhat differently in the new year.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to put words into my mouth. As he and the entire House know, the arrangements that political parties come to in this House are not at all the business of the Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a further point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, on this the last day before the Christmas recess, the Government sometimes make a statement. Have you had any indication, either through the usual business channels or whatever, that the Government will make a statement on pairing arrangements?
My point of order is a little different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) since I do not believe in the pairing system. I regard it as organised truancy. Frankly, I am pleased that the rest of my colleagues have been relieved from the pairing nonsense. I hope that, from now on, to the day of this Tory Government's demise, there will be no pairing. When we get into power, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) becomes Prime Minister and puts up the pink curtains in No. 10 Downing street, I hope that there will be no pairing, and we will drive through our legislation—new and old Labour.
Madam Speaker: I wonder whether that was really a point of order or just an expression of opinion. I think that the hon. Gentleman asked whether a statement would be made. He will have to wait and see.

Adjournment (Christmas)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
9.36 am
Mr. David Porter: Before we go into the Christmas recess, I should like to raise some points about the economy and my constituency. Like many of our coastal communities and their rural hinterlands, Waveney's unemployment and some infrastructural obstacles remain stubbornly high. In Waveney, there is not the same relative prosperity, per capita income or inward investment that there is in most of East Anglia.
I have taken the view ever since I was elected that I should make a judgment on each issue before the House in the light of how my constituents will be affected. I am one of the happy minority of Members who represents the area where he was born and brought up. When I have decided not to support the Government—on Europe, fisheries, or health matters, for instance—I have done so with the best intentions of serving my constituents.
Many years ago, I first became convinced as a teenager of the Conservative philosophy of freedom of choice, free enterprise, freedom to spend more of one's own money and freedom from state control. Through my childhood I watched my parents working day and night to establish a small business in a shop over which we lived. I was in the sixth form during the 1964 general election campaign, when I saw two prominent Labour party Front Benchers, Fred Peart and George Brown, swan in and treat Lowestoft to a display of hypocrisy, contempt and arrogance that sickened me.
Mr. Paul Flynn: They still won the election.
Mr. Porter: Indeed they did, but that was old Labour. Since then, it has repackaged its image. The Conservative party has repackaged its image too, to some extent—freedom of choice has become an opportunity for all. That same basic gut feeling about offering opportunity made it possible for me, from an ordinary background, to become a Conservative Member of Parliament and speak for Waveney, as I am doing quite unashamedly in this speech.
We live in a world in which we have to accept regulation and control, where freedom exists under the law, and where responsibilities run alongside freedom of choice. It is a fact of life that sometimes the market needs stimulating, realigning and fine-tuning in the public interest, just as privatised industries need regulators.
I say all that by way of preamble, because I wish to praise the Government for listening to some of the representations that I and others, of all parties and none, have made about the need to inject public money in a structured and targeted way into parts of my constituency.
We have missed out on assisted area status each time so far. Great Yarmouth, up the road, has it, and there is no doubt that that fact has the potential to suck many jobs out of Waveney and into Great Yarmouth. However, we have objective 5b status, and from that some money is beginning to flow into a variety of projects.
This week we have had not merely an injection but a transfusion of money and targeted support. The Kirkley regeneration initiative, Lowestoft, has been successful

865
under round 3 of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. That is a seven-year scheme in an area rated as the second most deprived in Suffolk, which suffers from high unemployment and from social, environmental and crime problems. Incidentally, both Benjamin Britten and I were born there.
The scheme aims to support business and to introduce crime prevention measures, infrastructure improvements, health measures, drug and alcohol counselling, training for the unemployed, housing improvements and an expansion of tourism. The council failed last year with a bid for industry-led regeneration, and it has built on advice from the Government office for the eastern region—an excellent support body.
Over the full seven years, the scheme should receive £4.2 million in support from the challenge fund. That money, complemented by nearly £22 million of private sector funding and other public money, should create 100 jobs, support 75 business start-ups, fund 50,000 weeks of training, help 875 people obtain qualifications and 125 people obtain jobs, provide 10,000 sq m of new business and commercial floor space, and improve or build 400 homes.
Kirkley, which is in south Lowestoft, is an area of enormous potential, with the best beach in Britain. The news is good, by any standards. As required under the rules of the challenge, Waveney district council led the bid. What puzzles me is why the controlling Labour party on the council should be happy that the Government have accepted that deserving case, yet still threatens to do away with such competitive bidding. I do not understand why Labour wants to stop ensuring that public money goes where it will be well spent and is most needed. That is new Labour with its old roots showing.
In the rest of the county, Suffolk Prosper, another seven-year project, is to receive more than £750,000, yet still Labour would remove that targeted money and the competitive edge. Labour wants to stop keeping local authorities on their toes in that way.
We are also to receive almost £3.2 million for the final 1-km phase of the Lowestoft northern spine road, which will promote economic development and alleviate traffic problems, and which includes the provision of a major cycle track. In addition, under the local transport capital expenditure we shall receive £150,000 for a package to assist public transport, make pedestrian route improvements and encourage more cycling.
There are still major problems caused by the axing of the trunk roads programme before the A12 had been properly dualled from London to Great Yarmouth. The third crossing at Lowestoft is the one project that would best link all the other schemes and plans, all the hopes and aspirations of businesses and individuals. I have not given up on that, and I shall see my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads about it yet again next month.
We still need success under the challenge for help with funding for closed-circuit television cameras in Kirkley and south Lowestoft, as well as in central Lowestoft, to complete the major drive in which Waveney is fighting for Waveney. However, what we already have is significant, at a time when public resources are in such demand.
866
The Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council, the chamber of commerce and industry, and business link will all merge in April. The Lowestoft 2000 consortium of local business is marketing Lowestoft aggressively and effectively. Yes, things have been hard, but the horizon is bright, provided that we do not throw it all away.
The Futura project, and the "Caring for Education" initiative, both of which I have mentioned in the House recently, are new ideas—innovative exciting projects that will harness the best in local people, enterprise, and both public and private finance. Next year, East Anglia will have the east of England investment agency, which will serve Lowestoft and the other parts of my constituency, including the towns of Beccles, Bungay, Southwold and Halesworth. Truly the future is bright—the future is blue.
Of course it could be argued that all that money in grants, especially the European Union money, would not be necessary if the country were not paying a subscription to the EU. Our subscription could stay in the United Kingdom to fund the regeneration, the inward investment and the attraction of tourists, and to give business even lower taxes. But I shall not develop that argument now.
I shall finish on a truth that is a lesson for us all, including my right hon. and hon. Friends in government. A Government who respond positively to communities that are determined to succeed for themselves are an effective Government, a Government who truly extend opportunities for all.
9.44 am
Mr. David Winnick: Before the House rises for the recess, one or two matters should be raised. We all know that an election should have been held before now. The Government cling on desperately, hoping against hope that something will turn up to reverse the tide of public opinion that is flowing against them.
It would be far better for our democracy and for the political health of the country if the election had taken place in the autumn. Then the electorate would have decided accordingly. For a Government who have been in office for more than 17 years to hang on as a minority Administration is not in the interests of this country, and clearly we can expect the Government to remain determined to cling on until almost the last moment, to see whether they can stay in office.
Ministers seem to be adopting today's equivalent of the 17th-century monarch's divine right to rule. To them it seems almost an impertinence that there could be a different Government in this country. However, democracy depends on changes in Government and in the political parties that form Administrations; it does not mean one party being in power all the time. I believe that there is undoubtedly a wish for change in the country—we shall see whether I am right when the time comes—and that by clinging to office the Government are doing themselves no good.
If I may refer to the point of order that I raised earlier—without involving you in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and taking full responsibility for my own words—I shall add that in my view an apology is required from Ministers for what occurred on Monday.
If that does not happen, I hope that the policy announced by the Opposition Chief Whip will come into operation in the new year, and pairing arrangements will

867
come to an end. If the Government feel otherwise, it would be appropriate for the Leader of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Government Chief Whip before we rise for the recess today. That is the least that we expect from the Government.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winnick: Not with any enthusiasm, but I suppose so, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
Mr. Arnold: I am flattered indeed. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he was a Member of Parliament in the late 1970s, when the Labour Government that he supported were in a considerable minority? Would he care to justify what went on then and tell the House about the skulduggery in the Labour Whips Office, and thereby show an interesting modesty?
Mr. Winnick: One thing is certain: at all times we have acted with dignity. [Interruption.] I see that the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway)—the Government Whip who is, rightly or wrongly, being held responsible for Monday's cheating—is having a laugh.
I remember one incident from the late 1970s that has not been and is not likely to be repeated. That was when the present Deputy Prime Minister, who was then a prominent figure on the Opposition Front Bench, picked up the Mace and started brandishing it. No wonder he acquired the nickname "Tarzan".
I was not present at the time—I was between parliamentary seats—but many of my hon. Friends were, and they witnessed that incident. So we do not require any lectures, least of all from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who will be extremely fortunate if he manages to hold on to his seat at the election. I imagine that he will be one of the casualties.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Deputy Prime Minister was not suspended when he did that, either.
Mr. Winnick: No, he was not—unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who has been suspended once or twice.
I want now to draw attention to what life will be like for many of our fellow citizens this Christmas. This should be a festive season and people should have the financial means to have a reasonably happy Christmas and new year but far too many people live in poverty or near-poverty. The proportion of people living in poverty has more than trebled since 1979, from one in 14 to one in four. The number of children living in poverty has soared from one in 10 to one in three. The number of people dependent on means-tested benefits has doubled, from one in 12 to one in six. On income, the bottom tenth of the population is 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms, while the top tenth is almost two thirds better off. That has happened during the past 17 years.
Some might say that the figures were produced by the Labour party, but they are based on parliamentary replies from Government Departments. When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is certainly non-party, published its report on income and wealth in February
868
1995, it concluded that the divide between rich and poor was deepening. It recommended a far-reaching programme to stop what it described as the damaging consequences of that divide.
It is unfortunate that so many of the things that we hoped had gone for ever, such as mass unemployment, poverty, large numbers of people on means-tested benefits, the many pensioners who live on the smallest possible income and who find it almost impossible—perhaps the word "almost" is unnecessary—to make ends meet from day to day, have come back to our country. That is why, on the eve of Christmas 1996, after nearly 18 years of Tory government, we should be deeply concerned about what has happened to our country.
I do not suggest that post-war Governments, including Conservative ones, had no social problems or that people did not live on small incomes. Things were far from perfect after the second world war, but we all hoped, in the 30 years or so after the war, that the worst sort of poverty and poverty-related illnesses had been removed from our country for good, that at least we had made that much progress since the 1920s and 1930s. We hoped that the social changes had not only been made but consolidated to form a permanent part of British society. It is an unfortunate curse that in 1996 so many of our fellow citizens, through no fault of their own, should live on incomes on which they cannot manage.
The statistics that I have cited show what sort of country Britain has again become. We have gone back to the past in ways that I and my hon. Friends hoped would never again return to our shores. The Opposition look forward to a change of Government and policy, to an honest Government that will be concerned with all our people, not one tiny section.
We can only conclude that this Christmas will be sad in many respects for the people that I have described who live on the barest possible income and who do not have anywhere near enough to live on. They include pensioners, many of whom served in the last war. They sometimes ask me, "Who won the war?", and we know exactly what they mean. Anyone who disputes that, disputes what is actually happening up and down the country. I only hope that we can change policies so that we can give hope to them that they will have enough to live on and will not have to live in circumstances that are disgraceful in an advanced industrial country such as Britain.
9.54 am
Mr. Jacques Arnold: We should not adjourn for Christmas without carefully considering several concerns of importance to my constituents. I wish to raise four issues: first, the success of the Government's private finance initiative and the opportunities that it creates for north-west Kent finally to gain our new district general hospital at Darenth Park; secondly, a matter that concerns my Sikh constituents, the state of human rights in their homeland, the Punjab; thirdly, the Kent Thames-side bid for the British academy of sports; fourthly, the south Thames-side development route phase 4, which is vital for the developments at Ebbsfleet in my constituency and to the peace and well-being of the people of Northfleet.
My constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), rely on three ancient hospitals: Joyce Green, West Hill and Gravesend and

869
North Kent. We have been in the queue for 25 years for a brand new district general hospital, which would cost some £100 million. Each time that our local NHS has built up the project, the powers that be—under Governments of both parties—have considered it, gone white at the size of the price tag, and asked us to revise the project and find whether we could do it in phases. If we did it in phases, we would be trapped on the highly unsuitable Joyce Green site, north of Dartford.
That was the old NHS system: queuing up for the annual dole of capital funding—a system to which the Labour party would like to return. That is why I welcome the fresh thinking that the Government have applied through the PFI. Surely out there in the market, there are consortia that would like to bid to provide new district general hospitals, with the magnificent construction work that they involve; to provide estate management and management of the buildings, catering, cleaning and maintenance—everything that is required. That would be provided at a cost to the NHS, which would provide the doctors, nurses, medical administration and all that goes into making the NHS something of which people are proud.
In north-west Kent, we had five bidders to build, manage and run our district general hospital. Earlier this year, the Pentlands Healthcare group became the front runner to provide the hospital. It has provided a magnificent hospital on paper, which my constituents are looking at. It is not only excellent for the current population; it has immense scope for expansion as the Thames gateway developments bring thousands more residents into north-west Kent.
The PFI is wonderful for large capital projects, but it is hideously complex. Imagine the contracts running over 25 years, the disposal of current land holdings and all that that involves. That complexity needs the attention of Ministers to ensure that projects come through. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends in the Department of Health, the Treasury and the Department of the Environment for their positive interest and hard work in ensuring that this project will take place.
The Darenth Park hospital offers a magnificent opportunity for my constituents, so, in the spirit of Christmas, I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Ministers for what they have done. I would also like to ask them to keep up the pressure in the new year so that we can see bulldozers on that site soon constructing our new district general hospital—a hospital that has been possible only because of the Conservatives' PFI policy.
I should like to raise the subject of human rights in Punjab, as the chairman of the Punjab human rights sub-committee of the all-party human rights group in the House and also because it is my duty to express the concerns of the Sikh community of Gravesend and Northfleet in my constituency. That community has its roots in the province of Punjab.
Hon. Members will recall that, until 1947, the House was responsible for the affairs of India. When we departed from India, the then Viceroy, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, negotiated the settlement for withdrawal jointly with the successor authorities of
870
Mr. Nehru and the Congress party. He did so in the clear knowledge that Nehru and the Congress party had given undertakings to the Sikh leaders, particularly those in the province of Punjab. Subsequent to those negotiations and independence, the Sikh community was betrayed over the assurances that it had been given. The sour atmosphere generated then led to the tensions and misery that finally led to the desecration of the golden temple at Amritsar.
The past few years have been highlighted by continuing incidents of police brutality in Punjab, which has been responded to by zealots, who range from those whose objective is civil rights in Punjab to those who have had enough and are calling for an independent state of Khalistan.
In common with all disputes of that kind, the victims are invariably ordinary people, in this case the villagers throughout the rural areas of the province of Punjab. In recent months there have been signs of improvement, but great concern is still being expressed about abductions and disappearances. I would like to draw the House's attention to two particular examples.
The first is that of Jaswant Singh Khalra, the general secretary of the human rights wing of the Akali Dal party, a Sikh political party. He has not been seen since September 1995, when he was abducted by the police. The police have since refused to reveal Mr. Khalra's whereabouts, and he has not been brought before a magistrate or charged with an offence. It is precisely that type of disappearance, of which there are many precedents in history, that causes so much concern. The second example is that of Mr. Harjit Singh, a 34-year-old, who, last year, was picked up by 10 plain-clothes policemen in Punjab. He was abducted and subsequently brutalised.
Those examples are just two from a wide variety of cases. I believe that the House should make it clear to the Indian authorities that we expect the Indian Government to comply with their obligations to protect human rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights. They should ensure that all allegations of torture, extra-judicial execution, custodial death, custodial rape and disappearance are fully investigated by an impartial and independent body. It is high time that India, which is deemed to be a country of the future, cleared up its own back yard and saw that human rights were protected.
My constituency is part of the Thames gateway. For many decades, north-west Kent has depended on heavy industry for its future. In the past 20 years, those heavy industries have mostly disappeared, although those connected with paper and cement still remain, but they rely on high technology and a highly skilled but far smaller work force than used to be the case. That is why we welcomed so much the enthusiasm with which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Thames gateway scheme and the vision with which that has been carried forward by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. The aura of the projects that the Government are encouraging offers great hope for the future. Those opportunities are already being realised, which explains the rapid fall in unemployment in Gravesham in particular.

871
The decision taken some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to re-route the channel tunnel rail link obviously raised considerable environmental concerns in north-west Kent, with which we are still struggling. It also brought one overwhelming benefit, however, with the Government's decision to locate the international station at Ebbsfleet in north-west Kent. That has provided immense opportunities for new development. In fact, it has been estimated that, in time, 30,000 new jobs will be created. Transport links will also improve to the extent that my constituents, who currently suffer a 50-minute commute to London, will be able to travel from the Ebbsfleet domestic station to the capital in just 19 minutes. The development also means that a series of new roads will be built in north-west Kent, not least to the new district general hospital.
Much needs to be done. That is why I should particularly like to draw attention to the bid from Kent Thames-Side Grouping for the British Academy of Sport to be located in north-west Kent. In the past few days, the Department of National Heritage and the Sports Council have shortlisted the many bids received to 12. The bid from the Kent Thames-Side is particularly fascinating because the academy might be located on the Swanscombe peninsula on the River Thames. It would be close to Ebbsfleet international station. We have thousands of acres that could be developed for sport and consortium of interested local authorities, companies and the like, which have put together the magnificent bid.
The north-west Kent location is close to London and it has a unique advantage because, were the academy to be based at Ebbsfleet, which borders my constituency, it would supplement magnificently the sporting facilities of the capital, and enhance its bid to stage the 2004 Olympics. I hope that my right hon. Friends will pay close attention to the bid from Kent Thames-Side, which would so enhance sporting opportunities for local people in my constituency as well as the bid from London to stage the 2004 Olympics.
Considerable concern has been expressed about the access routes in north-west Kent because of the construction of the high-speed rail link and the associated major civil engineering projects, which are due to start within the next few months as a result of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which recently passed through all its stages in the House.
The principal projects will be the tunnel underneath the River Thames from the Swanscombe peninsula on one side of Northfleet, and the construction of the Ebbsfleet international station on the other side of Northfleet. It does not take much imagination to envisage the heavy goods vehicles that will roll through the town between the two major construction sites, because currently there is no alternative to passing through the centre of the old town. For that reason, I and many of my constituents have campaigned for an effective Northfleet town bypass, known in the bureaucratic world as the south Thames-side development route, phase 4.
Many hon. Members know all about backing bids for town bypasses—there must be thousands of such projects throughout the country and dozens of them in Kent alone. What has made the difference to my Northfleet constituents is the channel tunnel rail link
872
and the two major civil engineering projects to which I have referred. Without the bypass, the lives of my constituents will increasingly become a nightmare. It was for those reasons that the project was worked up, but I have to draw the House's attention to the crass incompetence of Kent county council in its handling of the project.
Almost two years ago, my constituents attended a public exhibition at St. Botolph's school, Northfleet, to see the details of the bypass project. The council's meandering slowness since then means that there are no signs that we shall have the bypass before construction starts on the two big civil engineering projects. In those two years, the council has meandered through designing the project; its department of highways has applied to the department of planning for permission to build the bypass; and it has considered how to accumulate the land and involved itself in a hideously complex and delayed process of land swaps between the Labour-controlled borough council and the Lib-Lab-controlled county council.
After two years, we find that the council has landed itself in such disputes over land that the whole matter has had to be referred to the Department of Transport for a public inquiry. I do not know how long that inquiry will take, and I hope that Ministers at the Department of Transport will do all they can to speed up that process, which has so far been handled with outrageous incompetence.
Nearly four years ago, I was distressed by Kent county council passing out of Conservative councillors' hands into the control of a coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. My only consolation was that several of the leaders of Kent county council's Labour group sat for Gravesham county divisions. I thought that they would at least give our town priority and get the bypass project through. Not a bit of it. Two years ago, the Government made it plain that they would accept two new highway projects in Kent, so those clever county councillors put the bypass in third position on their list. One year ago, the Government said they would accept one new project in Kent, so the councillors put the bypass in second position. The result was that the project failed, two years in a row.
I was delighted when my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport gave £1.5 million of special credit approval to get the project going. The Government clearly perceived the need for the bypass, and my constituents were grateful for the Government's interest in the matter. My constituents are now appalled that, because Kent county council has got itself into such a mess, that £1.5 million must be returned, unspent, to the Government. Given the time requirements of the inquiry, it is unlikely that any more money will be spent in the coming financial year. I hope that Ministers will examine this matter, highlight the incompetence of the Labour councillors who control Kent county council and exert pressure so that progress can be made.
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these four, admittedly parochial, issues that are of great concern to my constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the time available for the remainder of the

873
debate, no fewer than 11 hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. With a little co-operation, all of them might be successful.
10.13 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I value the time for this debate, so I hope that I shall be able to express my views succinctly.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have been Members of this House long enough to know that one of the Government's habits is to wait until the House is nearing the recess and then provide—especially on the last day—a series of written answers containing a great deal of politically sensitive and difficult material. That is not a new trick, but is one that the current Government have played with total effrontery and, in the past few years, with an increasing lack of respect. I do not think that the Leader of the House is aware of the extent to which individual Ministries save up for the last day those matters that they do not know how to present and put them all on the Order Paper at the last minute. A classic example is the difficulties relating to the important issue of railway pensions.
I am an individual member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and I remember that, during the passage of the Railways Act 1993, there was a considerable altercation with the Government, who accepted that they could not deal with the existing pension fund by simply taking all the money into the Treasury and keeping it for their own purposes. The Government did not make it clear, however, that future pensioners of the railway industry would have to see large sums of money being taken out of the pension funds and used as sweeteners for private buyers of existing assets, yet that is happening on an increasing scale.
It is deplorable that those who contribute to a pension fund—either taxpayers or fund members—should suddenly discover that their moneys are to be used, not to enhance benefits for individual pensioners, but to improve the tax position of someone who is already buying assets that will be of considerable use in the future. When we examine carefully what has happened in respect of railway franchises, we see that some of them do not make sense—they are being lauded as of such advantage to taxpayer that the incoming companies will end up in a negative position: in other words, they will be paying the Government for the holding of the franchise.
I am a very trusting creature, but when I read that, my little brain thinks, "That's interesting—why should a commercial firm want to take over assets in that manner and be prepared to pay a considerable sum to the Government at the end of its period of tenure?" Then I read the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office on the award of the first three passenger rail franchises. We have not yet reached the stage at which we can use visual aids, which will come as a great relief to most hon. Members; but it is important that hon. Members should know that when I refer to the report, I am talking about figure 8 on page 33, which sets out the subsidy payable to British Rail in 1995–96 and to the franchise companies from 1996 onwards.
Figure 8 shows that there is an impressive fall in the amount of subsidy for the three franchises, so taxpayers should be delighted that they are, in theory, getting such
874
good value for money. Then one suddenly realises that, if those same companies know that they are to be given access to large sums of pension fund money, which they can use as they want in terms of contribution holidays, the reality does not match the appearance on paper. Far from the companies being disadvantaged in any way by having to pay contributions to the Government, they will have access to large pension surpluses to which they did not contribute and for which they are not responsible, but which the companies can use to subsidise their businesses.
In my opinion, that is sharp practice, and I think that members of the pension funds will agree with me. If there are surpluses in a pension fund, as there are in the British Rail fund, those surpluses should be used to enhance the benefits of those who contributed to the fund and those who work in the industry. They should not be consistently used to subsidise private companies.
That is an extremely unhealthy and unacceptable practice, which the Government have kept very quiet about. They have not sought to draw it to the attention of people considering the effects of the Bill that became the Railways Act 1993 or of people who currently contribute to pension funds. If it is such an excellent process, why is that the case? Why have not the Government simply said, "One of the deals that we shall make in unloading what we regard as loss-making services on to the private sector is that we shall give large sweeteners—£500 million sweeteners at every level—so that the franchise companies do jolly well out of it, whatever happens"?
There are fears—which, sadly, I believe to be well founded—that some companies will take the money from the public service obligation, bank it or squirrel it away and, when the going gets rough, find it very easy to go bankrupt. The 1993 Act provides that, if that does happen and private companies go bankrupt, the taxpayer, who owned the original asset, who lost that asset to a private company and who is sweetening that private company's finances, must pay for replacement services. Whichever way one looks at it, the taxpayer is caught coming and going, and that is reprehensible.
I am afraid that several nasty little bombs are sitting upstairs in the Press Gallery, waiting for the Government. When access is given to information, nasty questions are always tucked away in the Press Gallery long before they are given to Members of Parliament, and we might have a nasty habit of raising those matters on the Floor of the House just before we rise. That will not happen, because we shall not have the information.
I nevertheless believe that the Leader of the House has a specific task for the recess—to say firmly to some Ministers that, irrespective of party involvement, it does them and the House of Commons no good if that practice becomes more widespread. It is not helpful when Ministers say in a text that they hand out to the press, "We are thinking of privatising the Coastguard," and then, when Members such as myself question that, the Government say, "We did not mean that. The Minister did not say that. It is one of the things that he is thinking about, but he did not say it even though it was in the text." When Ministers of the Crown send out press notices and texts, if they do not intend to do what they have said they will do, they should tell everyone why they have changed their minds.
The acquisition of people's surplus pension funds will not damage the employees of the old British Rail—who, luckily, were protected by the action of Members of

875
Parliament who made public what was likely to happen—but future contributors under the privatised system will find their surplus pension funds used by their employers in a way that they are not aware of and would not support.
The House of Commons has a duty to examine more closely the behaviour of the present Government. Their stewardship is reprehensible, and I hope that we shall be able to alert the public to the appalling things that happen daily.
10.23 am
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three matters, but first I shall mention some pieces of good news.
It is splendid news that unemployment has fallen below 2 million—I understand that the precise figure is 1,938,000. Obviously, every person who wants to work and cannot find employment is a human tragedy, but the House will rejoice that unemployment has fallen below 2 million for the first time. I understand that there has also been an unexpected boost to retail sales and that the markets are reacting extremely well.
The second piece of good news is that the present Conservative Government introduced the national lottery. Increasingly, not enough credit is given to the Government for the amount of money given to various organisations in our constituencies. I am delighted, therefore, that yesterday I received a letter headed, "Third grant programme: Health, Disability and Care", telling me that the Basildon and District Crossroads organisation—a community-based respite service for carers of people suffering from short-term memory loss—will be given £118,477. That is magnificent. I know that all the local carers will be delighted.
The third piece of good news was the ten-minute rule Bill—the Abortion (Amendment) Bill—which I successfully introduced yesterday, to amend the Abortion Act 1967. I was delighted that it received an unopposed First Reading. I was slightly confused, however. An Opposition Member spoke for seven minutes against the Bill. There was a loud call of "Division" and I appointed Tellers but, for some reason, no Opposition Tellers were appointed.
I know that there is some difficulty between the Government and the Opposition at the moment, but I am confused. An Opposition Member spoke for seven minutes and any number of Members entered the Chamber to oppose the Bill. One would have thought that two Tellers could have been appointed from the people who opposed the Bill, but no doubt—
Mr. Tony Banks: I got in a bit of trouble about that yesterday. The hon. Gentleman is constantly confused about such situations. The voice of the hon. Member opposing the ten-minute rule Bill motion is what matters. There does not necessarily have to be a Division.
Mr. Amess: That is an interesting explanation; obviously we will rearrange our business in the House in future. I believe that the general public would draw the conclusion—
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, having made a slight clown of himself
876
yesterday, should choose to keep bringing the matter up. As it suits him to do so, however, let me explain, because he obviously does not understand. Yesterday he announced a date on which he believes that his Bill will be considered. If there is a debate, the House will have no trouble in considering what he proposes and voting then. This is a serious matter, and if the Bill were anything other than an extraordinarily self-seeking bit of publicity, the hon. Gentleman would be aware of that and would behave sensibly.
Mr. Amess: I do not need lessons from the hon. Lady. To suggest that many well-intentioned people throughout the country who supported the Bill yesterday thought that it was a clown is deeply distasteful. The hon. Lady knows that it was gutlessness on the part of several individuals who did not want the recorded vote, and that is a disgrace.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend believe that the true explanation is as follows? Yesterday we were discussing one of the most important questions that could come before the House—not an issue to be taken lightly, as Opposition Members said earlier. It concerns the value, the sanctity, the dignity of human life, and I am ashamed that Opposition Members should speak as they have. Is it not a fact that the Opposition did not appoint Tellers, did not want to vote yesterday, because they were, rightly, ashamed of what they were doing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must inform the House that I was in the Chair on that occasion yesterday, and I ruled on the points of order then. Nothing has changed between then and now.
Mr. Amess: The first matter I want to raise is about a constituent in prison. No doubt we all have constituents in prison, and never before, in the years that I have been in the House, have I raised a specific matter concerning a constituent in prison. I have spent an enormous amount of time, however, on that constituent's circumstances; the wife visits my surgery every week, as does my constituent's brother, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I shall raise one or two points about that gentleman's circumstances.
Just this morning I received a letter from my constituent's brother in the following terms:
"Mr. X has been wrongly convicted by the use of fabricated evidence. This was 'observation logs' supposedly contemporaneously written by the police and since been shown to be provably false".
The complaints investigation bureau, he says, was granted a dispensation allowing it not to conduct further inquiries because of a 12-month time limitation statute—this despite the seriousness of the allegations, which were that the police had fabricated evidence and had lied on oath.
The point of most concern has been the refusal of the Post Office for more than a year now to answer the question whether a reward was paid following the rejection of my constituent's appeal. This matter greatly disturbs the family. I have tried to get an answer out of the Post Office; we are all busy people, but I have yet to receive a letter signed by the chairman. The last letter that I received stated:
"As Mr. X will no doubt have made you aware, he was arrested by armed police officers of the South East Regional Crime Squad and was prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for his

877
actions. The Post Office Security and Investigation Services were involved in the case to safeguard the interests of the Post Office and to assist if necessary with any specialist or commercially confidential information. Inquiries have been made at Sir Michael's request; however it transpires that the Post Office does not possess a transcript of the trial in this case. In the circumstances I am afraid that I cannot assist you with regard to any instructions that the trial judge may have had in relation to rewards."
As I have said, my constituents are greatly worried. I have a responsibility to my constituent who is in prison, and I intend to carry the case forward. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can do anything to help me, I will greatly appreciate that.
Next I want to consider a trip that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and I made to Brussels a few weeks ago to visit the Commissioner responsible for structural funds and the Fisheries Commissioner. We took with us a local fisherman and a local business person, and we had a very successful meeting. I had never met Commissioner Bonino before; contrary to what I expected, my meeting with her was a complete delight. We raised four points with her. She listened carefully to them all and responded positively.
By contrast, the behaviour of the local Labour Member of the European Parliament was quite extraordinary. He has had every opportunity to help local fishermen. When he learned from the newspapers of our trip, he wrote to us giving us "permission" to visit Brussels. It really is going a bit far to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I needed this man's permission to visit Brussels. He also said that he would be happy to join us, but my hon. Friend and I were not happy to have the MEP along with us for our deliberations.
Commissioner Bonino told us that, during the two years this man has been a Member of the European Parliament, he has had every opportunity to meet her; she would be happy to meet him, she said, any time, any place—yet he has never chosen to arrange such a meeting. By asking to join my hon. Friend and me, he was clearly trying to get some free publicity. I leave the House to judge his actions.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she was disappointed with announcements by Ministers. I, on the other hand, received this morning a letter from the Minister responsible for our fisheries who has been to visit our part of Essex. He is trying to do everything he can to secure extra funding for dredging the Thames estuary and to help the cockles industry.
My last point relates to local government in Essex, where controversy reigns between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Indeed, they have had a great falling out. I understand that my right hon. Friend may refer to the issue later this morning. A Liberal county councillor in Brentwood is so fed up with all the arguing that he has joined the Conservative party.
Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) received a letter enclosing a Christmas card that one of his constituents had received from Basildon district council building control. That constituent has apparently only ever dealt with the council once—over a building application two years ago. The House will already know that Basildon district council has spent huge sums of money over the years on frivolous activities such as sending people Valentine cards. It would appear that the nonsense continues.
878
It has been widely reported that a well known former sporting personality who used to be active on the left wing of the Labour party has now joined the Liberal party. Last week the Liberal party organised a press conference to celebrate the fact. But the falling out between Labour and Liberal parties has meant that this new Liberal candidate has felt compelled to write to the local press. It is said, he argues, that in Basildon
"I failed to win an injunction to overturn the party's women-only shortlist. This is untrue. I did invoke an injunction on the Basildon Constituency Labour Party alleging irregularities in the formation of the new CLP. Delegates had not been re-elected in accordance with Labour Party rules, and therefore meetings of the general committee were invalid. The parties to these proceedings were able to reach a settlement of all matters which arose from party procedures adopted following boundary changes in Essex. No admission of liability was made. The matter has now become academic since the 1995 annual meeting of the branches and of the CLP to which new delegates have been appointed. Both sides recognise the futility of further litigating what is a moot point. Financial aspects of the proceedings have been settled to the satisfaction of the parties.
It was also claimed by Labour Party central office that I was still a fully paid up member of the party. This is also untrue. I left the Labour Party at the beginning of the year. However, this did not deter central office from expelling me from a party I did not belong to."
The Conservative party is often attacked for its internal difficulties, but our differences over Europe, honest and straightforward as they are, bear no relation to the local difficulties in Essex between the Labour and Liberal parties. It all goes to show what broad churches those parties in Essex are.
The Liberals in Essex have made a complete farce of local transport by sending buses down Hobleythick lane; traffic movements on the Marine estate and the local fire station have also been badly handled. It is no good for the Liberals immediately to have a knee-jerk reaction about a local controversy, to jump on the bandwagon and then go completely quiet when their initial reaction is found to be wanting. In Hobleythick lane, a number of residents protested, but now we find that a number of residents want the buses. Initially there were proposals to change traffic movements—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which you can protect the floor of the House of Commons from this trivia?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may think it is trivia, but so far the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has been in order.
Mr. Amess: None of these matters are trivial to my constituents.
On the subject of traffic movements on the Marine estate, the Liberal council first announced that they wanted to alter traffic movements. There was a huge protest, and now the Lib-Lab council have had to back-track on that.
The final fiasco has been over proposed changes to the local fire service. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) attended what he thought was a public meeting last week at county hall, but he was not allowed to speak. Essex county council, which is controlled by the Liberals and the Labour party, has proposed many changes. After the local government settlement, we have

879
a 4.6 per cent. increase in funding for the fire service, but the council wants to shift resources from the south of the county to the middle of the county. The council wishes to downgrade the fire station on Canvey island in my hon. Friend's constituency and it wants to close Leigh fire station for the first time in 100 years. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is concerned about that prospect.
I will visit Basildon fire station later this week and I am concerned about the fact that the foam tender from Basildon will be relocated to Corringham. It is bit of a cheek for local Liberal activists to say that Essex county council's proposals are terrible and that it is all the fault of the Government because of underfunding. That is not the case. The council has been given more money than it has ever been given before and the fire brigade committee is headed by a Liberal county councillor.
Dr. Spink: I wish to clarify one point. The Liberal group on Essex county council accept that the purpose of the proposals is not to save money or make cuts, but to redistribute existing resources. The move is not Government-driven and all the political parties accept that point.
Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not have time to answer all my points this morning, perhaps he could get the various Departments to write to me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will recall that, a few moments ago, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that many hon. Members wished to take part in the debate, and I asked them to consider that. So far, in some cases, my request has been ignored. I hope for some co-operation from now on.
10.42 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be as brief as I can, but in contrast to some of the other contributions, I wish to refer to a matter of great national concern—indeed, a multi-million pound scandal, which I hope the Government will address urgently during the recess. I refer to the over-30-months cattle cull and the lessons that I hope Ministers are now learning for the new accelerated slaughter scheme that the Minister announced on Monday.
In a question to the Minister on Monday, I put this point:
"paragraph 24 of the consultation paper suggests that the way in which the slaughter will be allocated to abattoirs will be similar to that under the 30-months scheme. Is he aware of the real concerns about the way in which a small number of abattoirs have profiteered and made a killing from the scheme? The new scheme must be put out to competitive tender."—[Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 636.]
The Minister replied to an earlier part of my question, but made no response whatever to that latter point. For that reason, I seek the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in pressing Ministers to take a new look at the lessons of the over-30-months scheme.
Hon. Members will recall that the Minister announced the over-30-months scheme on 28 March. He took an arbitrary age with innumerable practical difficulties. The
880
Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Com mittee had recommended that the 30-months age limit should be used for the removal of specified bovine offals. The use of the limit for the whole carcase to be removed from the human food chain was a political decision and had no scientific basis.
An important article, entitled "How the Government turned the beef crisis into a £2.4bn gravy train", was published in the Daily Mail on December 5. It was written by Dr. Richard North who, as hon, Members will know, is an internationally recognised food safety analyst, to whom we are all grateful on this and many other issues. He wrote:
"The scheme has devastated farmers, and taxpayers have been major losers but, as will be revealed on a Channel 4 programme tonight, a new scandal has emerged.
A small group of businessmen who own some of Britain's largest slaughterhouses have literally been making a killing out of the scheme, amassing windfall profits estimated at more than £200 million.
To understand how such a situation came about, we must recall the events immediately after Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell announced to the House of Commons on March 20 the link between Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and BSE. He cited a recommendation from … SEAC that—since some cattle over 30 months old might possibly be harbouring BSE infectivity, although not in the meat—all such cattle should be boned out after killing, before their meat could be sold. This process would allow the removal of potentially infected parts.
Immediately Douglas Hogg banned the sale of meat from all cattle over 30 months old, until a debonine scheme could be arranged."
It is clear that that was to be a temporary scheme. However, just as Ministry officials were about to send out instructions to specifically licensed abattoirs, cutters and butchers, there was a change of heart.
Under pressure from the National Farmers Union, itself blackmailed by the burger giants and the supermarkets, the Minister buckled and the over-30-months scheme for the whole carcase became permanent, not temporary. Richard North's article continues:
"The overpayment scandal began when, faced with the massive problem of slaughtering millions of cattle, the Government bypassed the established practice of awarding contracts by tender. It gave 20 slaughterhouses—out of 470 in the UK—the rights to do most of the killing.
Although some independent slaughterhouses bid £20 per head, MAFF ignored them and awarded the favoured few a lucrative 'provisional' fee of £87 per head, plus the value of the hide, bringing the effective price to more than £100—a £100 million cash bonanza."
That was but the start of the scandal. Almost immediately, despite pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, instead of allocating the competitive tendering bids to those who had submitted them, the Government gave the cull contracts to only 21 plants, although 72 had been approved and some 200 were eligible.
In the debate that I led on 13 May on the continuing delay and confusion that arose from the cattle cull scheme, the Minister mentioned, in answer to questions,
"the 21 that are in it at the moment, but the larger number which I hope will come into it".—[Official Report, 13 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 703.]
In other words, other abattoirs might become involved, but no others were added for many weeks.
On 21 May, as we all know, the Prime Minister declared the infamous and totally counter-productive beef war, but surreptitiously the same afternoon he issued a

881
press statement removing the over-30-months scheme from the control of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and giving it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
At the same time, the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers issued a memorandum to its members that stated:
"Rumours and gossip verging on the scurrilous are widespread. If for short term reasons these are wound up to produce political pressure on Ministers, we are concerned that the option remains for them to take emergency powers, requisition a small number of plants and take total control of the cull themselves".
In other words, Ministers were not in control.
During that period, both the big abattoirs and the Ministers were blaming the renderers for what had gone wrong. However, it seems that the renderers were asking only for through-put seven days a week for which they could cater. The smaller abattoirs were never told about that—in fact, they were bidding blind. Many of them would have been eager to participate and could have filled the Monday, Friday and weekend gaps.
There appears to be a hidden agenda. During that time, the industry was being restructured by default: bigger units were given greater responsibilities and bigger and bigger profits. We should remember that earlier this year, before the BSE bombshell, the Meat and Livestock Commission—which was being pressurised by larger abattoirs—was aiming for the "broilerisation of beef", as it is called in the United States.
At the end of the beef war, on 24 June, the Prime Minister said:
"The targets that we have set are ambitious. It is now up to us in this country—the farming and ancillary industries and the Government—to ensure that we meet them. The point is that this timetable is essentially in our hands."—[Official Report, 24 June 1996: Vol. 280, c. 22.]
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food subsequently back-tracked on that unequivocal statement in the House, and have done so again this week.
The Prime Minister was confident because he said that the OTM cull would be completed by October, but that did not happen. The main reason for the failure to proceed with the so-called accelerated slaughter scheme was that the abattoirs could not cope with any more animals. An insufficient number of abattoirs were forced to try to conduct the cull. The idea was that the Minister would draw up a formal working document after Florence. However, we still have not seen it.
On 17 July, I took a small deputation comprising abattoir and incineration managers from the south-west to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He assured us that the OTM cull delays and the backlog would be swiftly removed. Despite his explicit promise, that did not occur.
In August, the Government's auditor, Coopers and Lybrand, produced its second report—which remains unpublished. It said that the economic cost was £21 per beast and not the £87-plus being paid to abattoirs. It also pointed out that abattoirs could make a further £20 to £25 from the hides. Following a threatened strike by Northern Ireland abattoirs, Ministers caved in again and agreed to a £41 minimum payment and no backdating. It
882
is outrageous that the Coopers and Lybrand report has not been published. At the very least, the Public Accounts Committee must see it urgently.
From 23 October, farmers faced a 10 per cent. cut in the amounts that they received. The reduction was initiated by United Kingdom Ministers in Brussels and was aggravated by a revaluation of the green pound thereafter.
On 21 November, there was the curious case of the missing corpses. I pointed out to the Minister that, although the cull was progressing, nobody could put a figure on the number of carcases that were being refrigerated. Despite more questions on Monday, we still do not know how many carcases are in refrigerated storage. The Minister has not dealt with that huge problem, which also has lessons for the accelerated slaughter scheme.
While the farmers were forced to take a cut, not so the big abattoirs. There was a renegotiation in November which, again, was not published. Richard North's article—which succinctly reports what happened—states:
"The only legal buyers, the slaughterhouses carrying out the disposals, were offering at times prices of £200 less than the official compensation rate. Millions flowed into their coffers by this route.
This exercise has evaporated now that the backlog has all but been cleared. But the slaughterhouses have not had to fall back on the profits of a mere £41 killing fee. Last month"—
that is, November—
"they renegotiated their fee structure, bringing them up to £131 for some animals—backdated to August 26.
Thus, as the animals pour through the slaughterhouses of the favoured few, millions more are pouring into the owners' bank accounts.
The strangest thing about this whole episode, the most bizarre in the history of farming, is that it is continuing at all. Already it has cost the equivalent of a penny in the pound on income tax."
The cull could have been completed and the registration process introduced months ago. Why was it not done in July, August or September? Ministers now tell us that, from 1 April 1997, abattoirs will have to submit competitive tender bids, but only for the programme after that date. We hope that the new programme will be well under way by then.
The Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme entitled "Making a Killing", which was screened on 5 December, lifted the lid on the cull shambles and the scandal. Many hon. Members and I have tabled a motion demanding that the Public Accounts Committee urgently investigates what has occurred. If we do not know what is happening to taxpayers' money, there is a real danger that the European Union Court of Auditors will want to examine the finances. It could remove all the funding from Brussels that supports the programme.
For example, if the 15 per cent. from Brussels—which has not been paid yet—is removed, British taxpayers will have to pay about £300 million extra. Ministers provided no substantial answers on the Channel 4 programme. However, the Intervention Board said that it was confident that there was "no significant overpayment". What is "significant"?
There is a footnote to this sorry saga. Since he was charged with conducting the programme, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not spoken in a debate on the subject in the House. He has not answered questions or made a statement about the matter in the House. Is he to mastermind the accelerated scheme that the Minister of

883
Agriculture announced on Monday and is he answerable to the House for the huge sums of taxpayers' money that he is spending?
10.57 am
Dr. Robert Spink: Unemployment has fallen again by about 92,000. I have not seen that figure confirmed in writing but, if it is accurate, it means that unemployment has fallen from 2,030,000 to 1,938,000. We should celebrate that achievement throughout the country, because unemployment affects people dramatically.
While we are celebrating our excellent economic performance, we should contrast it with the performance on jobs and employment of countries in continental Europe, who are not performing as well as us. Perhaps that has something to do with their minimum wage, the social chapter, inflexible employment structures and non-wage labour costs, which are much higher than ours. We must resist placing such burdens on our industry, thereby making it less competitive and less flexible. We must not follow the policies that the Opposition parties advocate, which would destroy our competitiveness, our jobs and our economy.
Castle Point has shared in the good news. Unemployment peaked at about 4,600 during my time as the Member of Parliament and is now well below 2,500— a fall of more than 40 per cent. I cannot claim to have been instrumental in bringing about that decrease, but I can claim that the Government have been instrumental in setting economic conditions of low inflation, low interest rates, high inward investment and a highly competitive and flexible labour market and economy. That is why jobs have been created in Castle Point and why I am sure that the people of Castle Point will give their verdict at the next election on Opposition policies that would destroy and reverse the trend of falling unemployment in the constituency.
I come now to an equally serious matter. Mr. Geoff Lythgoe dedicated the last years of his life to building the business opportunities for the physically handicapped centre on Canvey island. He was a good man: he was community spirited and spent much of his time working for disadvantaged people. Sadly, he died in the middle of this year. I visited him in hospital just before he died, and he expressed his concern about the future of the centre. I helped Geoff s widow, Joan, to put in a bid to the national lottery. It was successful, and an award of £75,000 was made yesterday.
I am proud to have been associated with such a wonderful man, and proud of the Government's national lottery policy. That policy was opposed by 183 Opposition Members, who voted against the Second Reading of the National Lottery Bill. I am proud to have voted for that policy, which has created 100,000 jobs throughout the country and, I hope, will now create a few more on Canvey island in my constituency.
I want to focus on Canvey island, and to refer to the three issues that I raised on the front page of the Canvey Island Times before prior to the last election. I pressed for an independent sixth form on Canvey island. My Labour opponent fought vociferously against that initiative. The Liberal Democrat candidate was also against it. I have good news for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because year after year you have had to sit in that Chair and endure me batting on about a sixth form for Canvey island. You will not have to hear that again, because we won.
884
The Conservative Government awarded a sixth form to Canvey island last week. I am proud to have been associated with that battle. I am only sorry that the local Labour party so forcefully tried to prevent that facility being made available to the young people on Canvey island, and to the community of nearly 40,000 people. Labour has betrayed my constituents on Canvey island.
The second matter that I raised was the provision of an accident unit; I suppose that it could be called a cottage hospital for Canvey island. I pushed for that, and said on the front page of the Canvey Island Times that I was
"Totally in favour of an accident unit for Canvey".
Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats mentioned this health provision for Canvey island, either in the front-page report or during the election campaign.
On 19 March, the health authority said:
"Following representations from Dr. Spink, we are investing in a package of services including an outpatient clinic and X-ray service in the former Council offices on Canvey."
I am proud to have been associated with the provision of that clinic. I shall speak in more detail about it in a moment.
The third matter that I raised in the front-page report in the Canvey Island Times before the last general election was the improvement in investment and rolling stock on the London, Tilbury and Southend line, which was then known as the misery line. It was unreliable, not punctual and a misery for my constituents. Investment of £180 million has been provided for resignalling and track improvements. Prism Rail, which took on the franchise, is to place a £150 million order for new rolling stock.
Two weeks ago, I had a photograph taken with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on one of the cascaded 10-year-old trains, which are replacing the 35-year-old trains. He has brought forward the policy of privatisation, which has enabled this investment. Furthermore, £14 million will be spent on stations, such as Benfleet station, to improve access for disabled people and to improve information and security. If people feel safer on the trains, they will be encouraged to use them. Those investments are to be welcomed.
It is a little surprising that Labour councillors—who fought tooth and nail against the privatisation that has led to those investments—should now try to associate themselves with the health clinic on Canvey island and with the investments by the privatised railway.
The health clinic on Canvey island will open in January next year. It will provide facilities for gynaecology; neurology; general surgery; orthopaedics; rheumatology; dermatology; urology; diabetes; blood tests; X-ray; ear, nose and throat; and midwifery. Facilities for ophthalmology and oncology, which deals with cancer, will be provided later in the year. My constituents deserve those facilities, and they have been provided entirely by Government money.
I am proud to have delivered on those three election promises for Canvey island. If I am determined and outspoken when I am fighting for Canvey island, so be it: that is why the people of Canvey island voted for me, and why they will vote for me again.
The cottage hospital is provided by the Southend-on-Sea hospital trust and the district health authority from Government money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), my hon.

885
Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I pressed the Minister for that extra money. We make no apologies for fighting hard for it.
I shall now refer to some matters that have not gone quite so well for Canvey island. The exit road from Canvey island is high on my list of priorities. It was high on the county council's list of priorities until the county council was taken over by Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. They control the council and have now put the exit road from Canvey island down the list of priorities.
The exit road is not needed just for convenience and to alleviate congestion; it is required for safety, because Canvey island is a special case. The Labour borough council has approved developers' plans. It should not have done that: it is proving to be the developers' friend, which is very sad. I fought against the de Savary land application that went to appeal and which the Secretary of State called in. The inspector found in favour of the applicant, but I fought on and went to the Secretary of State, who eventually supported me and turned down the application.
It is sad that Labour councillors are not prepared to back me and enable me to fight to prevent the new development proposals. They are proving themselves the developers' friends by approving the development against the wishes of the people. Such developments destroy our environment and communities. They overdevelop our communities and put too much burden on our infrastructure—schools, libraries and sewage works. Moreover, many jobs will be destroyed if an inappropriate, major, out-of-town shopping unit is built.
I come now to the fire station, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon has already mentioned. I shall cover this important matter in some detail.
Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have asked hon. Members to be brief. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 11 minutes and now says that he is going into greater detail. He will prevent several Opposition Members from making a speech. That is selfish and an abuse.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had hoped that my intervention would enable all hon. Members to speak if they so wished. I have no control over the length of hon. Members' speeches; they are responsible for that.
Dr. Spink: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall move on apace. I hope to take less time than the average taken by hon. Members this morning.
Councillors are seeking to close the full-time station on Canvey island, which would leave only a retained station with no full-time cover. It would be manned by part-time firefighters, who, in an emergency, would be called out to the fire station from their homes and work if they were available. Councillors state that this is not a cost-cutting measure, but is purely an attempt to ensure that fire resources across the county are most effectively deployed.
The Home Office has confirmed to me that to close the station or to convert a full-time station into a retained station would require section 19 approval. I have already
886
contacted Lady Blatch, and I shall be doing all that I can to put the case for keeping Canvey island fire station as a full-time station. It should not be closed.
Councillors say that they arrived at their recommendation following assessment of the standards relating to risk, response times, distances and the number of call-outs for engines. Those are interesting statistics, but it would be breathtakingly naive to fail to take account of the special circumstances that exist on Canvey island. In regard to risk, councillors now claim that people on Canvey island are not concerned about flooding; yet, according to a recent constituency-wide survey published in the "Westminster Report", people said that flood defence was one of the two top local issues, equalled only by the reduction in council tax. I can only conclude that the statistic has been misrepresented, because people on Canvey island are concerned about flooding—as anyone would be who lived there in 1953, when 58 people were drowned.
There are many special circumstances on Canvey island. It is a relatively isolated community, with a population approaching 40,000. During peak traffic times, when fires often occur, it is blocked off. That can happen at any time of day when there is a road accident: it has happened twice in recent times. Moreover, houses are tightly packed, and will be even more tightly packed following Labour councillors' recent decision to cram more houses in. That poses the risk that fires will spread and become major catastrophes. Furthermore, in comparison with the middle and the north of Essex, Canvey island is socially deprived, and the fire risk is much higher in areas of relative deprivation.
If councillors also close Leigh fire station—it is east of Hadleigh, while Canvey island is west of it—they will pull the fire engines from Hadleigh station in two different directions. That will affect the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon as well as mine, which is why he is fighting so fiercely to keep Leigh station open. The chief fire officer has admitted to me that the county council's recommendations would result in an increased call-out time, and therefore in a higher risk to life and limb on Canvey island. I do not wish to scaremonger, but that is a simple fact.
I am appalled that councillors are considering cutting our fire stations, when the Government have given them an extra £1,548,000 this year. That is an increase of 4.6 per cent., double the rate of inflation. There is no reason for the councillors to cut fire services; they should be improving them. South Essex is the centre of our wealth generating community in Essex—it is the centre of population—but, yet again, councillors at county hall in Chelmsford are deciding to move resources and facilities from the south of Essex to the centre and the north. They did the same with education and road projects throughout the last decade. I will fight to keep our full-time station open, and I am sure that the public are behind me.
Councillors cut funds for the flood warning systems on Canvey island by £4,000 last year. They also tried to get rid of 41 firemen, but, along with colleagues, I fought that successfully.
In recent times, Canvey island has done exceedingly well in some respects. There is the clinic, investment in the railways, the creation of jobs and the new sixth form—all developments that were entirely the Government's responsibility, and under their control.

887
Where the Labour-controlled borough council and the Labour and Liberal-controlled county council have had responsibility—fire services, flood warning systems and the exit road are examples—Canvey island has done exceedingly badly. Councillors should hang their heads in shame; and I know that they greatly fear the next local elections.
10.14 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I want to raise two issues. The first relates to London hospitals and health care services.
This is the beginning of winter. We never know what kind of weather we shall have in London or, indeed, elsewhere in the country, but we do know that, over the years, London has suffered from cuts in the national health service. Hospitals and wards have closed, and we have lost a great many beds.
My constituency contains St. George's hospital, Tooting. It is an excellent hospital, staffed by dedicated people, but they, along with staff in all the other London hospitals, are being put under increasing pressure to provide services. Last winter, we suffered on-going problems throughout the hospital, but especially in the accident and emergency department, where patients waited on trolleys for beds for hours on end.
Yesterday, the Evening Standard—which, to its credit, has played a major role in highlighting health care problems in London—published, on its front page, the headline "Emergency Wards Chaos", and, below that, the headline "Consultant quits in protest as crisis hits London hospitals". The report referred to my local health authority, the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth authority, which covers St. George's hospital. Chief consultant Dr. John Thurston was quoted as saying:
"This is the beginning of our winter rush. Last winter was the worst ever with a major crisis in south-west London and we are expecting to see the same thing happen this winter.
Really, they should be expanding services rather than trying to run them down. It worries me and I don't want to be part of it."
Dr. Thurston has now resigned from his position as chief consultant to work in another hospital outside the area.
Dr. Thurston went on to say:
"It seems extraordinary to me that just as we are coming up to winter, they are cutting down on services."
Referring to an adjoining hospital that faces enormous problems, he said:
"Kingston cannot cope … They are inundated with work, as we are."
Geoff Martin, of the watchdog service, London Health Emergency, said:
"We are scared because there aren't enough casualty departments in London now, and we are getting patients stacking up on trolleys in corridors."
It is now December. May I ask the Leader of the House what action the Government will take now—not in the coming months of 1997—to ensure that accident and emergency services, not only in my health authority but throughout London, can meet the needs of Londoners? The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Secretary of State for Social Security, and he knows how vital the issue is to London. I ask him to convey to the present Secretary of State for Health the deep concern that I feel
888
about my health authority. I am sure that my comments could be echoed by many other hon. Members representing London constituencies, irrespective of party.
The other issue that I wish to raise is connected with the fact that, this week, the Foreign Secretary made the first visit to Cyprus by such a senior Foreign Office Minister for more than 30 years. As chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group in the House, I welcome that visit. It was much heralded by pre-visit statements and, I understand, by an interview broadcast on the popular and respected London Greek radio station. Regrettably, however, the Foreign Secretary's visit lasted for less than 24 hours.
I have a copy of the Foreign Secretary's statement, and the 10 points highlighted by him during his visit. Much of this is well known, as it is based on United Nations statements and resolutions. I assume that the 10 points constitute the Government's policy on Cyprus. I fully support comments such as those about the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and that there will be no right of petition or secession. I also support the security of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots being achieved by international guarantees and the membership of Cyprus of the European Union. No doubt many hon. Members fully support those aims.
Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary's statement did not include the important issue of the role of Turkey and Ankara. That is a key factor in any negotiations because of Turkey's continuing contacts with Mr. Denktas. Sir David Hannay, the British special envoy to Cyprus, regularly visits Turkey for discussions. We expect Turkey to play a major role in the negotiations. We must never lose sight of the fact that, a year ago, Turkey became a member of the European customs union. As we all know, there are trade-offs in politics. A country that achieves a desirable aim, then, should be helpful on issues on which it has influence, as does Turkey on Cyprus.
I welcome Turkey's involvement, but as one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus and a member of the Commonwealth, we must make it clear that, while Turkey is welcome in the negotiations because of the role that it can play, it will have no veto whatever, and certainly not on a settlement or on the issue of Cyprus's membership of the European Union.
Another issue that was not mentioned in the Foreign Secretary's statement was the demilitarisation of Cyprus. Mr. Clerides, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, has presented a plan for that and such developments are vital because, as we all know, there has been an enormous build-up of arms in Cyprus. It would be interesting to know the view of the Foreign Secretary and the Government on President Clerides' proposals on demilitarisation.
This week, the British press gave a great deal of coverage to the Foreign Secretary's visit. After 22 years of division in the island, we certainly want an honourable settlement. I wish the talks that start next year every success, but already there are demands from Mr. Denktash—as there have been since the events of 1974—in connection with Cyprus's membership of the European Union. He is hostile to that, and has views on sovereignty, security and territory in Cyprus. Yesterday The Independent stated:
"Turks pour cold water on Rifkind's Cyprus mission."

889
That shows that, within days of the Foreign Secretary's visit to Cyprus, Turkey is not all that interested in the proposals. Is that true?
I hope that the Government will make their position plain, because hon. Members wish to see the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots fully honoured in any settlement. I hope that the Government and all parties represented in the House will make it clear to Mr. Denktash and to Turkey that they must play a constructive role that works towards a settlement. We should set out what we expect from next year's discussions.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the importance of the 1997 discussions. We need to know from the Government the role of the United States of America in those talks. The USA has had a special envoy in Cyprus, and the new Secretary of State, Mrs. Madeleine Albright, has a knowledge of Cyprus. The United States certainly has a role to play there, and I hope that we will work in full support of that country throughout the discussions. It knows how crucial are the issues surrounding a united Cyprus, especially because of the continuing tensions in the Mediterranean area, in which Cyprus is an important country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are 45 minutes to go before the start of the winding-up speeches and, in that time, five hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will all be successful.
11.25 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a powerful contribution on the issue of railway pensions and sweeteners. I say amen to what she said. I have a question which I hope will be answered during the winding-up speeches. Can the Leader of the House find out from the Treasury its assessment of the proposed saving to the taxpayer of this so-called sweetener operation? The same question could be asked about the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment. With that I couple the question, what will be the objective device that the building industry trusts? If the research facility is privatised, there will be deep questions about whether contractors would be willing to go to a private building organisation in the way that they have gone to the BRE in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) will know about that because he was engaged in running the council.
I wish to raise two matters, one of which is extremely urgent and relates to the dreadful events last night in Lima, Peru. It is not clear whether British subjects were involved. Sally Bowman seems to have got out and it appears that the British ambassador left before the raid started. The incident raises urgent issues, one of which is international violence. For the first time, possibly for hundreds of years, there is no war in the world. However, there is much interfactional violence ranging from events in Chechnya to, now, Lima. I speak as the vice-chairman of the all-party Latin America group. I went to Lima in 1984 and had to go through armed guards to the private
890
house of the ex-Prime Minister, Manuel Ulloa, who was Prime Minister at the time of the Falklands war—which was the subject of my visit. There were also guards when we went to see President Belaunde Terry.
Peru is a violent country and the Shining Path organisation may be among the roughest, toughest and most determined terrorists on the face of the planet. I am sorry for the Government of Peru. This is an urgent matter for us all because there could easily be copycat incidents. First, I seek any kind of information from the Government about British involvement. Secondly, what measures are likely to be taken for the protection of our embassies' where such incidents, alas, are all too likely to happen? We must never underestimate the copycat factor in the light of such an incident. I ask for a statement on that matter.
My last point has been raised endlessly. Can some judgment be arrived at, at last, after eight long years, on the Lockerbie issue? For the first time, there will not be a service this year at Westminster abbey. It is eight years since, on a point of order, on that dreadful evening as the rumours filtered through, I asked about the crash of a huge airliner not far from my constituency.
Not only are the relatives still dissatisfied, but sanctions go on and on against Libya. That damages British industry. There is a project worth about $10 billion, but the beneficiaries are not British firms, as they might have been because many Libyan decision makers were educated at our technical colleges and universities and not, like those in many Arab countries, in the United States. The loss is Britain's. Apart from moral considerations, this is an urgent matter for British industry.
I recognise that, in the early 1980s, the Libyans were not angels. I accept the views of the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) and others who have had ministerial responsibility that arms went to the south of Ireland from Libya and that they should not have done, but that is different from saying that Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie crime. It is eight long years since it happened.
Before we come back on 13 January, could some serious consideration be given to the matter? In his answer to my written question yesterday, which has not yet appeared in Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
"The Arab League and some Arab Governments have pressed for sanctions to be lifted and a compromise reached on Lockerbie."
That is also the view of many African Governments. President Mandela wrote a personal letter on the subject to the British Prime Minister. Before we come back, could some serious reflection be given to an on-going, deeply unsatisfactory position?
11.30 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who always raises matters of key importance and who campaigns persistently on issues. Many of us should learn from him about the way in which matters should be approached, especially in a debate such as this.
I wish to raise the issue of opencast mining in the north-east corner of Derbyshire. That issue affects the well-being of people in my constituency and in the Chesterfield and Bolsover constituencies.

891
I want to place this in the context of the pit closure programme. No pits remain in Derbyshire. A European Community document entitled "Commission Report on the Application of the Community Rules for State Aid to the Coal Industry in 1994", which has just been published, points out that, during 1994,
"British mines whose production costs were lower than those in other Member States and which were only slightly subsidised have had to be closed for lack of a market while high-cost mines are still being worked elsewhere in Europe—a situation which has helped push up the amount of aid per tonne in the Community very considerably".
If we had only had a level playing field, we would still have pits and the communities around them in north Derbyshire, and we would not have the problems of opencast mining.
The north-east corner of Derbyshire is built on coal. There are great seams of coal from Leeds to Nottingham and Derby. North-east Derbyshire is in the middle of that. To the western side of the region, there used to be cutterills, drift mines and bell pits. To the east, the mines became deeper, so the ones that were closed were deeper mines, with the communities around them then being devastated. There is now great opencast potential in the region as we do not have the pits, and we are in danger of the green belts becoming black belts.
In the region, Budge, Fitzwise and H. J. Banks are the main operators seeking opencast avenues—and some are operating such mines already. Fitzwise and H. J. Banks have headquarters in my constituency. Arkwright is the major operator in the Bolsover constituency. Its operation involves 3.5 million tonnes and covers 417 hectares, which is a considerable development. In view of that, there should be no further development for some considerable time.
The cumulative impact of the operations—those where plans have been agreed and those where applications have been made—is considerable. I do not know how seriously minerals planning guidance note 3 takes the cumulative impact into account, but historical operations, some of which are still being used for landfill purposes, are not taken into account. The guidance note should be altered, as should much else in the note, to tighten the scope for possible applications considerably.
I raised this matter yesterday at Environment Question Time and I received the wrong answer from the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, who said that historical cases were taken into account, which is not so, as anyone who examines MPG note 3 will see.
Derbyshire county council is placed in something of a cleft stick in relation to applications that it receives. It has the MPG hanging over it, and the MPG is disposed towards the acceptance of opencast applications, although the Government deny that. If the council rejects an application, however, the cost of an appeal is a considerable burden for an authority that is strapped for cash. On numerous occasions, I have raised the problems of Derbyshire county council and North East Derbyshire district council in relation to the standard spending assessment and allocation of money from Government sources. That obviously affects this whole game.
My constituents will be affected considerably if three operations go forward. The first is at Avenue Cokeworks, which has been closed. There is considerable contaminated land on the site. It is surrounded by the
892
built-up regions of Grassmoor, Wingerworth, Tupton and Chesterfield to the north. Operations at the works cannot be easily hidden as it is in a valley, with a railway line running through the middle of it. A serious investigation is needed into the impact of operations at Avenue Cokeworks for the work force and nearby residents.
Twenty-nine claimants are operating through a Birmingham solicitor with cases relating mostly to cancer-13 ex-workers and 16 residents. Twelve are women, who live in two streets north-west of Avenue Cokeworks. The agreement that the operation should go ahead should be called in. The case is being pursued through judicial review, but there are massive problems in the region—not just the usual ones involving transport, disruption and the danger of asthma, which is a big problem at Grassmoor primary school, for instance, but serious problems involving the removal of contaminated land.
The idea is to move the former plant and to bury the contamination on the site; yet nearby at Grassmoor Lagoons, where tar and chemicals from Avenue Cokeworks are treated, bio-remediation is going to be used by the county council. If bio-remediation is appropriate in the case of Grassmoor Lagoons, it is likely that it would be also be appropriate in the case of the Avenue Cokeworks.
The second case is at the Breck. The application involves a site north of Barrow Hill and South of Eckington. The majority of the land in question is an attractive green area, currently in intensive agricultural use, with the exception of a disused tip which contains chemical and foundry waste and two oxbow lakes used as a fishery. The opencast operation would last for seven years and would provide for a waste disposal facility that would come into operation within the first year of opencasting and last for a further 19 years.
An average of one train per day would arrive at a railhead to the south of the site. Its 50 sealed containers would be unloaded and transported by road to the site. That would account for 70 per cent. of the waste. The remaining 30 per cent. would arrive entirely by road. If time permitted, I would illustrate the great problems involved in that application. Hon. Members, especially Labour Members, who know the area will understand the difficulties.
The third case is at Heath, next to junction 29 of the M1 motorway. It is a peculiar application which goes first to the district council because there is an argument that platforms should be built for firms operating as redistribution centres. Conveniently, an application will then go to the county council to get out coal that would otherwise be sterilised. The argument is that the ground there will need to be impacted. That is a great problem within the area, because certain firms moved to an industrial estate nearby on the understanding that opencast operations would not take place.
The cases that I have illustrated need to be added to other cases in which applications have already been accepted and where operations are taking place. I commend the Labour party's alternative points about opencast mining, one of which says that there would be a
"rejection of planning applications for opencasting where they may prejudice efforts to attract other investment in the locality."
I hope that that would also apply to existing investment, which would cover the third case that I mentioned.

893
These issues should be debated seriously in the House and I hope that there will be an opportunity to do so in a more comprehensive way at a later stage.
11.42 am
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I want to use my short speech to wish people who live in Nottingham and use the national health service there a happy and healthy Christmas and new year. I also extend that greeting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am extremely concerned about Nottingham health authority, which meets tomorrow and faces some difficult decisions about priorities. It is fair to remind the Leader of the House that,in the Budget statement last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—also a Nottinghamshire Member—told the House that priority would be given to health service issues. He told the Nottingham Evening Post on 27 November:
"I think you will find that he"—
the chairman of the health authority—
"has got a lot of extra money."
The reality is quite different. The health authority faces a standstill budget next year.
The basic underlying problem for the health authority is that it has been underfunded against the national formula for many years. In the current year it received 97.22 per cent. as against 100 per cent. funding. Next year, it is suggested that it will receive 97.56 per cent.— a move of just 0.34 per cent. towards the target. I say quietly and determinedly to the Leader of the House that at that rate of change it will take another seven years for it to reach average funding. It is clear to me and to those who live in Nottingham and work in the health service there that it is not receiving its fair share.
I commend everyone in Nottingham who has lobbied on what has become a bipartisan issue. It has involved hon. Members from all parties. I congratulate the chairman and chief executive of the health authority and all who work in the trust. We all want what is best for Nottingham, which is to reach the 100 per cent. target as quickly as possible.
In the longer term, I want to see more than that. Nottingham is a teaching district and, traditionally, teaching districts have had more than 100 per cent. funding. Camden receives 107 per cent., Manchester receives 106 per cent. and Ealing receives 104 per cent. They are all teaching districts. Nottinghamshire has a centre of excellence in the Queen's medical centre and, in the longer term, we need a greater slice of the cake.
Next year the health authority will have an extra £5.85 million to spend on hospital and community health services. However, it is not so clear-cut as that, because the uplift in its budget is just 2 per cent. and inflation will run at more than that. It is again being asked to make efficiency savings of 2.7 per cent. There comes a time when it is impossible to make any more efficiency savings.
In the Queen's medical centre—the biggest hospital in Europe—routine operations are not taking place this month or next month. I speculate—I do not think that
894
I shall be far from the truth—that within the next few weeks major redundancies will be announced at the hospital. The City hospital has faced one efficiency saving after another and cut upon cut. I do not believe that much more can be done to save money there.
I wish the health authority well in its decision making tomorrow. It faces a difficult task and will have to make some hard choices. Its task would be made much easier if it and the people who live in Nottingham had a fair deal and received 100 per cent. funding. The Leader of the House will know that there is still extra money to be allocated within the NHS for next year. Perhaps he could look at the matter and talk to colleagues in the Department of Health so that some extra help can be given to Nottingham and so that people who live there can truly have a happy and healthy Christmas and a successful new year.
11.47 am
Mr. Paul Flynn: On today's Order Paper there are three early-day motions drawing attention to the deplorable deterioration in the quality, accuracy and truthfulness of answers to questions tabled by hon. Members. It is a serious matter. The three instances quoted are taken almost at random because it has become routine recently to have answers that fit the descriptions that I have mentioned.
One answer is from the Northern Ireland Office. It said that certain documents were in the public domain. After a thorough search, using the time of my staff and the Library, and after a letter to the Department, it had to admit that the documents were not in the public domain.
The second instance refers to a contemptible and contemptuous answer given to an hon. Member last week. When he asked how many representations had been made about the possible closure of benefit offices in Wales, he was told, "A number."
The third issue is a matter of considerable seriousness, and it causes a great many problems not only for my constituents but for the constituents of all hon. Members. I tabled a question about an obligatory form—no other form can be used—to appeal against decisions made on social security matters. I received an answer from a Social Security Minister, telling me that, at my request, he had placed a copy of the form in the Library. No form was in the Library. A fortnight after the regulations came into force, on 21 October 1996, the Minister had to confess that the forms had not yet been printed, and that they would not be printed for a further fortnight. That is an utter disgrace.
The fourth matter does not appear on today's Order Paper—although it should—because the Table Office had difficulties with the wording. It is also a clear case of a Minister not telling the truth to the House. I am limited in the language that I can use in this matter, although we have recently heard such words as "dissembling". In the early-day motion, I stated that the House
"notes the deliberate, calculated untruth contained in a recent answer."
I used those words—instead of "lying", which I would have used outside the Chamber—because there is clear, incontrovertible evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead the House.
I had tabled a question, which was dealt with by the Metropolitan police. My question is included at the top of the reply from the Metropolitan police, of 15 November 1996. It states:

895
"Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the police participation in the state opening of Parliament."
The reply, of 200 words, then provides the answer to my question, and includes full details and explanations of how the costing was determined and the factors that were considered. It gives a figure of £286,000. Any hon. Member would greet with pleasure such a full and detailed answer. On 20 November, however, I was told by the Home Office:
"costs of police staff who took part in the ceremony are not separately costed."—[Official Report, 20 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 621.]
In fact, they were indeed separately costed: Ministers had that document, and they lied to me. I tabled further questions, asking them to confirm that they had received the document. I received a reply confirming that they had received the figure, but the reply did not contain one syllable of apology or regret about the earlier answer.
I have raised these issues with Madam Speaker, and I shall raise them again. I believe that the events occurring in the dying days of this Parliament demean this institution. They attack the integrity of the House and reduce and undermine the role of all Back Benchers. Although we have the authority of our majorities behind us and we speak not only as individuals, our questions have been answered in that manner. We bring matters to the highest forum in the land, but they are treated in a contemptuous and contemptible manner. The Minister did not confess that he had not answered my question according to the Government's instruction to Ministers not to withhold information because it might be politically embarrassing.
My question was about a matter of great concern. The figures reveal that the state opening of Parliament cost approximately three quarters of a million pounds. Some believe that there should be a state opening once per Parliament and not once a year. There have also been indications that the police and many others resent having to provide 1,500 policemen and 1,500 soldiers for it. The ceremony has become increasingly meaningless. This year, for example, the Queen's Speech was found to be of little value because a few hours after it was made the Prime Minister changed it.
The mother of Parliaments is becoming debauched. Recent events have included "Conway-gate" and the resignation of a Minister, who made no act of contrition. We have used the word "dissembling" about that event. We must remember our role as the mother of Parliaments, and that as leaders of the nation we should set an example of morality. As Chaucer said:
"If gold ruste, what shall iren do?"
11.55 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) down the path that he has been treading. However, I should like to follow his colleague, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and underscore his plea about Peru. I do so as one whose family members work there and whose cousins were born there. I understand some of its pressures and problems, and also the problem of copycat action around the world.
896
I should like to say a word of thanks to the Leader of the House. At Business Questions last Thursday, I pressed him on Northern Ireland's omission from the Protection from Harassment Bill. It will now be included by negative resolution.
I believe that the House should not adjourn until it addresses three issues. The first is pressure on residential homes—particularly in Northern Ireland, but also elsewhere. The problem of running the homes is specifically acute in Northern Ireland because the Department of Health and Social Services ultimately holds the purse strings. The point has been bluntly made that in the past 10 years the £260 permitted per week for residents in those homes has not even kept pace with inflation. The tragedy is that statutory homes are allowed more per resident than voluntary or private homes.
Private homes were encouraged to develop, but now they are increasingly being put under strain. The Craigavon trust area, for example, which is responsible for three subsidiary areas, is able to assess and allocate to residential homes only one resident per month. It is also wrong for the Government to rely continually on charitable, voluntary homes to provide care for residents. The reliance is aggravated by the fact that, because of national agreements, auxiliary staff in voluntary homes are paid about 50p less per hour than employees in statutory homes. Staff are trained in voluntary homes, but as soon as there is an opening they move on to better positions in statutory homes, putting more pressure on voluntary homes.
The second issue is more of a constituency matter, concerning the desire of the Sports Council and of the Green Park trust—although the desire has been manifested across the nation—for greater excellence in sportsmanship. The realisation of that goal requires sports medical facilities. I should like to think that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland will help the private sector and those working in the voluntary sector to provide facilities—in a centre for sports medicine, in Musgrave Park hospital, which is part of the Green Park trust—including orthopaedic and physiotherapy care. That is an important objective.
There is a growing belief, which I welcome, that there should be greater participation in sports and that we should raise the standards of our sportsmen. However, injuries occur. That project would provide an opportunity to expand the excellent service already provided by the Gait unit in Musgrave hospital, so that it could serve as a regional centre for excellence for sportsmen and women in Northern Ireland.
My third brief point relates to education. I know that the local management of schools initiative has been going for some time. However, there seem to be differences in its implementation. It appears from information given to me that those schools with fewer than 250 pupils registered are in greater difficulty than the larger schools.
It is a scandal that governors in some schools in Northern Ireland have granted substantial pay increases to principals while the management has had to reduce the number of teaching staff. That will have to be addressed sooner rather than later.
My attention has been drawn to one school in County Down which has not only lost its principal—it was certainly not able to increase his salary—but has now been asked to undertake more work and provide services

897
with a budget already overdrawn by £30,000. The school is being asked to shoulder the increased salary costs of teachers. It is impossible to do that with a deficit budget.
One knock-on effect of that is that rural communities will be disrupted again, with schools being closed by so-called market forces. There will again be a drift from rural communities to the towns. That is not always best, because the harsh reality of life is that, the larger our centres of population, the more the likelihood of growth in deprivation and the development of mischievous incidents. From my experience, larger schools are not necessarily the best, although I attended one that was definitely outstanding. It is important to provide the best education that we can for young people in rural areas. I ask that consideration be given to that cry not just for my constituency, which is urban, but for rural areas throughout Northern Ireland.
12.1 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Given the shortness of the past few speeches, which were models of their kind, there might have been an opportunity for one of the other hon. Members who were in the Chamber earlier to participate. We have not had an overly successful three hours, because the time has not been used as we intended. Three hon. Members—the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—took 55 minutes between them and raised matters that would be better raised in local government than in the House of Commons.
Having attended many of these debates in the past few years since we changed the procedure, I put it seriously to the Leader of the House that we might consider having a ballot the night before for a mixture of five and 10-minute slots, to be allocated to hon. Members by name, in which they could still raise any subject that they wanted. That would be far better than our current hit and miss procedure, with excessively long early speeches denying many hon. Members the opportunity to raise important matters.
I cannot touch on all the matters that have been raised; nor, I imagine, will the Leader of the House be able to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) talked about the health service in London, saying that it was trolley time again in London hospitals. I suspect that we shall hear a good deal more about that in the early months of next year, as the winter starts to bite.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of Cyprus, mentioning the fact that the Foreign Secretary was able to visit for only 24 hours rather than the 48 hours planned. I am sure that the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues will take note that overseas ministerial visits in 1997 will, of necessity, be a good deal shorter than originally planned. That is not good for the conduct of business or for British interests overseas, but it is a consequence of matters being dealt with in the House. That is the price to be paid. There is a net loss to the country as a whole, but, by and large, people will be prepared to pay that price.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised the serious issue of opencast mining, particularly the health hazards of the planned and existing
898
opencast mines in north-east Derbyshire. Ministers will have to address those issues. Clearly, the Leader of the House can only pass them on, but Ministers should take a more proactive view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the events in Peru overnight. We would appreciate any up-to-date information that the Leader of the House has.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) made the model speech of the morning. In five minutes, he raised one issue in a targeted way—the health service in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and the effects on his constituents. I have no doubt that he will be back on that issue in 1997.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) raised the worrying issue of the accuracy of parliamentary answers. The Leader of the House is not responsible for the inaccurate answers, but the accuracy of answers should concern him more than it does most Cabinet Ministers, because he has a House of Commons role. I should be grateful if he would say something about that.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about the BSE crisis—an issue that we shall keep coming back to in 1997, because the bill will fall to the incoming Government. In particular, he raised matters relating to the cull and the gravy train that is operating to the benefit of a few slaughterhouse owners. That has been alluded to in the past. I have been present for many of the statements in the House. The hon. Gentleman made specific allegations that the taxpayer is not getting value for money. It is clear that, if the rules of local government were applied, Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would probably be surcharged for not obtaining value for money by proper competitive tendering arrangements.
Another worrying fact made clear by the hon. Member for North Cornwall—I was not aware of this—is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is in charge of the public face of the BSE cull, appears not to be accountable to the House for the management of the operations that he is conducting on behalf of the Government. I do not understand how he has escaped that—probably by offloading and transferring written questions. There ought to be some means of accountability to the House by the Minister responsible for the expenditure of more than £2 billion, rising to £3 billion. As I recall from a previous Red Book, that sum amounts to the entire contingency fund.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the worrying fact that only 21 of the 72 approved slaughterhouses were used for the work, with slightly more being used later. The big boys of the industry have clearly ripped off the taxpayer, with much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of public expenditure going to them in direct profit, while probably hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses have been destroyed. Looking at the figures in detail, it does not make sense that so much of the public expenditure on dealing with the BSE crisis has lined the pockets of the wrong people, to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, while so many small businesses have been destroyed. The issue cannot be dealt with in this morning's debate, but when the bills are picked up in

899
1997, those accountable for the disaster should be required to pay the price. That price will be in more than pounds, shillings and pence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised the issue of the British Rail pension fund robbery, which is what it amounts to, given that £8 billion of assets exceed the liabilities by £1 billion. Such "robbery" has been going on for a long time, and is related not only to privatised industries but to the private sector as a whole.
From some figures in the Financial Times this morning, it is clear that the proportion of surpluses being taken by companies is exceeding that returned in benefits to pensioners by a ratio of more than 10:1. If there is inside knowledge or good guesswork on pension fund surpluses, low offers can be submitted for companies—especially those in the public sector—that are put up for sale. Companies are queuing up to pay the Government for up to seven years for the franchise of rail companies, which on the surface does not seem to make sense, because they are laughing all the way to the bank by being able to exploit British Rail pension funds.
Such activity occurs in the private sector, too. Many of my constituents have been affected by Lucas Industries plc raiding the company's pension fund surplus. That company has not paid a penny piece in employers' contributions for years. That is exactly what will happen in the railway industry as companies seek to take a pensions holiday. It is no good anyone saying that the matter rests with the trustees: many of them are quite weak, some turn out to be in the company's pocket and not truly independent, and, although most represent current members who are paying into the fund, they certainly do not represent current pensioners.
The matter will have to be dealt with. I understand that the pensions ombudsman has ordered National Grid to pay £44 million back into the pension fund, which may happen in the rest of the privatised sector. Nevertheless, Ministers should address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. If the Leader of the House cannot do so, he should ensure that we get an early and full response from Ministers. There will obviously be investigations—I suspect by the National Audit Office—which will take a long time. It would be very convenient if we could have answers well before the date of the general election is announced so that Ministers can be brought to book for their incompetence in the privatisation of our great national assets.
Although many other hon. Members have spoken, I do not have time to do their speeches justice. I do not think that the debate has been as successful as we could have hoped, due to the abuse of the time for debate by three Conservative Back Benchers.
12.12 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): In the light of some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the frustrations expressed earlier in the debate, it is rather ironic that the hon. Gentleman had some minutes more in which to speak than he had asked for and that I shall have nearly 10 minutes more than I had asked for, which should enable me to do more justice than would otherwise have been possible to some of the speeches. I had expected the
900
occasion to be rather more dominated by the Christmas spirit, although we have certainly had the full and varied diet that is associated with Christmas. I shall do my best to digest as much of it as I have time for.
One point raised in several of the early speeches, which I hoped would have been made more often, concerns today's unquestionable seasonal good news about unemployment. Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment fell today by a record 95,800—down to just over 1.9 million, which is just under 7 per cent. of the work force. I should record that that is the largest monthly fall for 20 years, which brings unemployment down to below 2 million and the total fall since recovery began to more than 1 million.
It is right to make the point that the good news ties in with the outstandingly good report that we received yesterday from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which confirmed that unemployment in the United Kingdom is expected to decline further, and that its unemployment rate over the next two years is expected to be by far the lowest of any major European country and to remain well below the EU average. That is associated with the fact that the OECD expects the United Kingdom to be the fastest growing major European economy this year, next year and in 1998. I was grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for adverting to those points.
I turn to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon, partly because they referred to the recent good news and partly because they went on to give the House a fairly extensive political and geographical tour of Essex—the county in which I was born and educated and now partly represent. Despite my long association with the county, I learned even more about its geography this morning.
I am obviously tempted, because I am an Essex Member of Parliament, to join in with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon. I can certainly confirm that there are many tensions between the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups on Essex county council, as both my hon. Friends said, and that much of the county council's policy seems to leave a lot to be desired. I draw particular attention to some of the actions that it has taken in respect of school transport. I shall not go further down that line, because I would prefer to concentrate on joining both my hon. Friends in expressing pleasure at the grants that were announced this week by the national lottery's charities arm.
I have experienced the very great pleasure of awards being granted to the Halstead day centre, which is not in my constituency but which I know well, and the Tabor centre for physically handicapped adults, in Braintree, with which I have a quite close association. I know how much pleasure has been given by the awards.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon will forgive me for picking up on their remarks about proposals concerning the fire services in Essex. I should make it clear that, if a fire authority wants to reduce the number of its fire stations, appliances or firefighting posts, it needs the approval of the Home Secretary. So far, my right hon. and learned Friend has not received any application from Essex county council in respect of Canvey Island fire station, and I assure my

901
hon. Friends that, should the county council make such an application, he will take account of any representations that he receives in reaching his decision. He has obviously received some representations this morning.
I return to the more logical way of replying to the debate—going through it in order and making such comments as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) referred to something for which I have my own enthusiasm: the benefits that his part of the country has experienced from the single regeneration budget announcements earlier this week and from the capital challenge. I was aware of the Lowestoft and the Suffolk Prosper bids to which he referred, because I act as a sort of honorary Minister for eastern England when such announcements are made. Indeed, I gave interviews on them to Radio Norfolk and Radio Suffolk and know how much encouragement they will have given the area. I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that east Braintree's regeneration plans were the subject of a successful bid in round I of the SRB, and one can already see the transformation on the ground of what was an old industrial part of the town.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to a number of points, but spent most of his speech on poverty. His speech was not as balanced as I would have hoped, even allowing for his political perspective. He failed entirely to acknowledge that the vast majority of people in this country are better off and that, since 1979, average income has risen by more than a third, even after allowing for inflation.
In using figures of the numbers of people on income-related benefit—as if that was some measure of poverty—the hon. Member for Walsall, North did not take any account at all of something about which I know a great deal because I did much work on it while I was Secretary of State for Social Security: in many respects, those figures reflect improvements in the benefit system. There are more people on income-related benefits, due to the huge improvement in the extension of family credit, the introduction of a carers' premium, disability premiums and better and larger premiums for older pensioners. The hon. Gentleman paid no attention to those factors in what I thought was a grossly over-simplified presentation.
Mr. Winnick: Obviously we shall have to agree to disagree about that, but when I say that the bottom 10th of the population as regards income are 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms than in 1979, is the right hon. Gentleman really telling me that he disputes that? That is an important figure, as are the other figures that I gave about people living in poverty; I notice that he has not commented on those.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman put great weight on what I regard as very over-simplified statistics, in an over-simplified presentation. I have given some pretty compelling reasons to support my belief that it was oversimplified. Obviously, we do not have time for an extended debate on the details of all the statistics, but I have made my point and I cleave to it.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was one of a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Newport, West
902
(Mr. Flynn) and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who mentioned parliamentary questions. I take a close interest in that matter, and as it happens, the hon. Lady, who appears to have left her seat, has recently written—
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am here.
Mr. Newton: She is a peripatetic hon. Lady, and has now appeared in what for her is a rather unusual part of the Chamber. Perhaps she is practising to be part of the gang that sits on the Opposition Bench below the Gangway. None the less, I am glad to see her in her place.
The hon. Lady, among others, made some remarks about parliamentary questions. I shall consider with great care what was said, including what the hon. Member for Newport, West said about the State Opening of Parliament. The hon. Lady has written to me recently about related matters, and I am considering those, but it may be appropriate if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster replies, because he was in charge of the exercise that led to the publication of clearer guidelines on answering parliamentary questions. Of course, I always take the hon. Lady's comments seriously.
I accept that, as the hon. Lady said, there is a tendency for a flood of questions to be answered on the last day before a recess, but I think that the hon. Lady is being unduly cynical about the reasons that she attributed for that.
Part of the problem is caused by the huge increase in the volume of parliamentary questions asked, and by the pressure from hon. Members, who sometimes table questions at a late stage before a recess, not to mention the pressure within Departments to publish answers more quickly than they otherwise would. If questions are not answered today, they cannot be answered until 13 January, and if they were left until then, Departments would be criticised for that reason instead. I hope that the hon. Lady will at least acknowledge that point.
The main thrust of the hon. Lady's speech, which was added to by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to some degree by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, concerned railway pensions. Hon. Members will have observed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport not only heard her remarks but has come into the Chamber to hear mine, having had a word with me in the intervening period. I can therefore assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend has taken note of what she said, although I hope that he will not mind my saying that some of his comments on it were less than flattering.
I must make it clear that the position regarding British Rail pensioners' rights will be no less favourable as a result of privatisation. The new arrangements replicate as far as possible those in place under BR, and include safeguards governing the use of surpluses. It is in the nature of a scheme funded jointly by employers and employees—60 per cent. is paid by the one and 40 per cent. by the other—that, when surpluses occur, they should be shared.
I went through a similar argument in a previous capacity when I was the Minister responsible for occupational pensions. In general terms, the topic has

903
been the subject of endless argument over the years, and there has been fresh legislation. I suspect that were a deficit to emerge, the hon. Lady would be the first to demand that the employers find the money to fill it. There must be some balance between the two.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the Government have written in so many exemptions for the private companies that there is no doubt that they would expect other people to support any deficit that appeared. My point is simpler than that: they are taking money to which they are not entitled, and they will make darn sure that they do not pay for any deficits.
Mr. Newton: As my time is now diminishing by the minute, I cannot say more to the hon. Lady than that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened to what she has said—although I must admit that I could hear him uttering dissenting noises from a sedentary position. I am sure that he will come back to her on the subject if he feels it appropriate.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) continued what I acknowledge has been a long and vigorously fought campaign on matters related to BSE. He, probably more than almost anyone else, will be aware that the House had an extensive opportunity, if not to debate the matter, at least to question the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about BSE-related matters after his statement on Monday. Clearly I cannot go over all the ground again in a short speech.
I managed to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech from afar, although I was not in the Chamber at the time, and it struck me as, to put it mildly, somewhat tendentious. Much of what he said was based on 20:20 hindsight. Whatever the genesis of the 30-months scheme may have been, it was undoubtedly supported by the National Farmers Union, partly because farmers recognised that they would not sell any beef from animals older than 30 months unless something along those lines was done.
The hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged the fact that the result of the scheme was an increase in consumer confidence in the British market substantially more rapid than occurred in many other countries in Europe, and that that brought advantage to the British industry.
Mr. Tyler: Can the right hon. Gentleman give one assurance to the House—that, if the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office wished to go through the books and see exactly what happened, the Government would co-operate fully?
Mr. Newton: Of course the Government will always co-operate with properly constituted bodies of that kind. Beyond that, these are not matters on which I can comment off the cuff on the Floor of the House this morning. None the less, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been criticised in some respects—in my view, unfairly. In relation to the BSE culling arrangements, he is in the same position as I am on a range of other matters—that of chairing a Cabinet Committee or a co-ordinating group of Ministers.
904
Executive responsibility remains with those Ministers. A co-ordinating arrangement is necessary, because many Departments are involved. We have four Departments responsible for agriculture, and other Departments have a strong interest in the issue too. The criticisms of my right hon. Friend, who has been assiduous and has done an effective job, are therefore unreasonable and unfair.
I am coming to the end of the time allowed, and I should comment briefly on what was said by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), without whom no debate of this nature would be complete these days. He made a traditional "Tooting speech", starting with hospitals and ending with Cyprus. I noted carefully what he said, and shall ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.
I cannot comment on everything said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who made a characteristic speech—I mean that as a compliment, not as some sort of disguised insult. The latest information that I have on the incident in Lima, which is not as complete as I would like, is that it is possible that some British nationals are in the residence. I cannot say more at this stage. The United Kingdom is in close touch with the Peruvian authorities, and we understand that negotiations are under way. We shall of course pass on any further information at the earliest opportunity, as it emerges.
I do not think that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would expect me to comment in detail on the points that he made in an excellent constituency speech. I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of those of my hon. Friends who are concerned with such matters in detail, just as I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to what was said by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping).
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for the words of thanks that he expressed for the action that we took to enable the Protection from Harassment Bill to extend to Northern Ireland. I take note of the fact that he took the trouble to acknowledge that; we were glad to be able to meet him in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) told me that he wanted me to take note of what he said rather than to comment extensively on it. As he also told me that he would not be able to be here for my winding-up speech, I shall make little further comment, other than to say that I have several points that I think he would find encouraging, and I shall try to communicate them to him in other ways.
Those points include the fact that a public inquiry into the statutory orders needed for the Northfleet bypass scheme will be held before mid-April 1997. I understand that there has been much frustration among the scheme's supporters about delays in progress on that important matter. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, those delays have not been of the Government's making.
Because of the slightly unexpected additional time that I had, I have been able to comment on almost every speech. I hope that my comments will enable hon. Members to depart at least slightly happier than when they arrived and that they all, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have the sort of relaxed and enjoyable Christmas that I am sure they all—or at least some of them—deserve.

Nigeria
12.29 pm
Mr. Keith Hill: I thank the Minister for agreeing to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who has a long record of support for the Nigerian democratic movement, with especially close links to the Nigerian Organisation for Democracy with Integrity. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who has led Labour's campaign against the Nigerian military dictatorship.
Three and a half years ago, on Saturday 12 June 1993, in a jungle clearing south of Benin City, I observed the people of the township of Nikrogha voting in the Nigerian presidential election. Voting was orderly and conducted in a spirit of optimism, and procedures were entirely correct. On the same day, 14 million other Nigerians voted. The turnout was variable, but, as hundreds of international observers and thousands of Nigerian election monitors universally reported, the vote was free and fair.
Chief Moshood Abiola was the unquestionable democratic winner, with majorities across all regions—a genuinely unifying and national mandate for his presidency. We are all familiar with the sequence of events that followed: the annulment of the elections by the then military dictator, Babangida, to nationwide protests; and the assumption of power shortly afterwards by the current military dictator, Abacha, who proceeded to ban political parties, dismantle the existing democratic structures—including state and federal legislatures—and replace civilian state governors with military administrators.
Resistance to the military regime continued. In May 1994, the National Democratic Coalition, NADECO, was created. Soon afterwards, the national assembly reconvened to declare the Abacha Government illegal. In June 1994, Abiola returned to claim his presidency. His arrest on 23 June provoked nationwide strikes led by petroleum workers. In associated demonstrations, hundreds of people were gunned down. Abiola and Frank Ovie Kokori, the leader of the petroleum workers, have remained in detention since 1994.
Bizarrely, even the so-called constitutional conference, set up by Abacha to implement his transition programme and largely appointed by the military, voted in December to end military rule by 1 January 1996, a recommendation that was subsequently reversed after the arrest of the originator of the proposal, Shehu Musa Yar'adua. Wherever and whenever they have had the opportunity, Nigerians have always chosen the path of democracy. It is our duty as democrats to support them in that demand.
Just over a year ago, the world was horrified by the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders in an act described by our Prime Minister as judicial murder. Nineteen Ogonis remain on trial for murder in connection with the same facts and before the same so-called civil disturbances special tribunal that convicted Saro-Wiwa and his co-defendants. That execution is the most extreme and best-known example of the military regime's open contempt for human rights.
The authorities in Nigeria continue to resort to arbitrary detention of prisoners of conscience, ignoring court orders whenever it suits them. Political prisoners continue to face
906
the prospect of unfair trials by special tribunals with the power to impose the death sentence. Detainees continue to be denied access to lawyers, families and essential medical treatment. There are continuing allegations of extra-judicial executions by Nigerian law enforcement officials.
In June and July 1995, former Head of State General Olusegun Obasanjo, Shehu Musa Yar'adua, and 41 other individuals were tried in secret before a military tribunal on charges of plotting a coup against the military Government. They were denied legal representation of their choice, and there was no appeal procedure. Many Nigerians believe that the charges were simply a device to remove military officers and others who posed a threat Abacha's hold on power.
Also swept up in the charges were Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, the chairman of the Campaign for Democracy, and four journalists—Christine Anyanwu, Kunle Ajibade, George Mbah, and Ben Charles Obi—whose guilt consisted solely of publishing articles commenting on the trial. Amnesty International believes that all the so-called coup plotters are prisoners of conscience.
There is a strong suspicion that the regime is resorting to political assassination to supplement its manipulation of the judicial system. In October 1995, Pa Alfred Rewane, a major supporter of the National Democratic Coalition, was shot dead in Lagos in a hail of bullets. In early 1996, Alex Ibru, publisher of the liberal newspaper The Guardian, was the subject of an attempted assassination.
On 4 June 1996, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, senior wife of Chief Abiola and the principal campaigner on her husband's behalf, was murdered in Lagos, in circumstances that have led many to fear that her assassination may have been carried out by Government agents, acting with or without the knowledge of the central authorities. The Government have failed to initiate an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation of her killing.
Apologists for the regime sometimes claim that dissidence is not widespread in Nigeria, and that there is little evidence of internal dissent. It has been aptly remarked that, if dissent is limited, it is the silence of the graveyard. Meanwhile, the Abacha regime has announced its own leisurely programme of transition to democracy, designed to culminate in the swearing in of a newly elected president on 1 October 1998. The programme bears an uncanny resemblance to the abortive Babangida transition programme, and has already been marked by a travesty of local government elections earlier this year and a process of party formation in which none of the parties have managed to meet the Government guidelines.
We cannot leave the transition to democracy in the hands of the military junta. The regime has no democratic legitimacy, and the transition to democracy can have no credibility unless it is carried out in a climate of genuine democratic participation and observation of human rights.
The demands on the regime are clear: the release of all political prisoners and credible guarantees that free and fair elections will go ahead as soon as possible, and well before the proposed date of 1998. It is equally clear that exhortation alone will not persuade the generals. The international community will have to ratchet up its pressure on the Nigerian regime to secure those

907
objectives. That will mean readiness to deploy sanctions beyond those already applied in the aftermath of the Ken Saro-Wiwa execution last November.
The extra sanctions have been well ventilated and were recommended for consideration by the United Stares, the European Union and the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group after its second meeting in April this year. It recommended a ban on air links and additional economic measures, including the freezing of the financial assets and bank accounts in foreign countries of members of the regime and their families. They have been backed by members of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, such as New Zealand and Jamaica, and have been unilaterally imposed by Canada. The virtue of those measures is that they target members of the regime and the elites that sustain it, without increasing the suffering of the population in general.
Britain's historic and cultural links with Nigeria, not least our key role in its economy, make it natural that we should take the lead in renewed international pressure against the regime. The British Government must use their status as the foremost partner in the Commonwealth to co-ordinate a clear and consistent strategy against Abacha and his cohorts. We have the machinery in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, of which we are a member, to enable us to act now.
There is widespread suspicion that Britain has so far exerted its influence to retard effective international action against the generals. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that that is not so. In any case, we do not have long to wait for the election of a Labour Government, who will be whole-heartedly committed to the restoration of human rights and democracy in Nigeria.
12.40 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) for allowing me a few moments to intervene.
We are both sponsors of the Nigerian Organisation for Democracy with Integrity, which is based in the United Kingdom. It is not the only organisation in Britain, the United States or in other countries outside Nigeria that is campaigning vigorously for the restoration of respect for human rights and public integrity in that country, hope that the Nigerian authorities are aware of the depth of feeling about conditions in that country, not just among Nigerians in that country but among those abroad and their friends and allies, among whom I hope that we can number everyone in the House today.
It is a tragedy that Nigeria should be saddled with a dictatorship, violence and corruption, not least because of its great natural resources of oil and in agriculture. The natural appetite of its people for education means that they are well adapted to move forward in the world, so it is also a tragedy that a country that should be leading Africa is so far down the league and kept there by the corruption of its current leaders and their dictatorial system.
In common with my hon. Friend, I ask for an announcement from the Government to the effect that further pressure will be applied by the international community, not least by the Commonwealth, to encourage a return to civilian rule and the restoration of respect for human rights and public integrity. The truth is that
908
democracy will not work successfully in Nigeria unless its society is free of corruption and respects public institutions and the rights of its ordinary people.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the time has come to intensify those pressures. One of the most dramatic reasons for that, although not the only one, was supplied to me in a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department about constituents, in which he spoke of
"concerns about the lack of progress towards civilian democratic rule for Nigeria, and the human rights record there, including the appalling executions of Ken Saro-Wiwa, a minority rights activist, and eight of his associates following a flawed judicial process."
Those are not my words, but those of a Home Office Minister, yet nothing has been done to redeem the situation created by the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his fellow Ogonis. No apology has been forthcoming. Nineteen other members of the Ogoni tribe have been kept in detention without trial since 1994. When one recalls what happened to Ken Saro-Wiwa, perhaps we should not press for those people to be brought to trial. We should, however, argue that those people, who have been kept imprisoned without trial for two years and have not been subject to any proper judicial process, should be released.
The second reason for intensifying our pressure on Nigeria is General Abacha's attitude. Although he says that he wants a transition to civilian rule and wants to encourage the creation of political parties, they are nothing more than sweetheart parties, because the only effective opposition there is the Nigerian Democratic Coalition—NADECO. When its representatives campaign, however, their offices are raided, they are arrested, and they are not allowed to participate in elections.
As my hon. Friend said, political assassinations continue, and I can add to his list the death of Dr. Shola Adeshola, who was recently killed by a car bomb when driving. That bomb was believed to be intended for his brother, who is a leading member of NADECO in Nigeria.
No political prisoners have been released, and the 2,000 Ogoni people who were dispersed from the River State have not been encouraged to return to it. The wasteland created as a result of oil exploitation has not benefited from any major environmental rehabilitation. The only plan seems to be to try to civilianise the dictatorship rather than return Nigeria to a democracy.
The time has come for the international community to apply more pressure and to turn the screw. Nigeria is tragically falling behind because of the regime that has been allowed to continue there. We have many Nigerian friends in this country, and we hope to hear the Minister announce plans to intensify pressure to ensure that the restoration of respect for human rights and democracy will at long last come about.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on obtaining the debate, and I welcome the fact that he chose such an important topic. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) not only for his contribution, but for his extreme courtesy in getting his timing so impeccably correct.

909
I should like to start by discussing the actions of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which, if the House will forgive me, I will refer to as CMAG for the rest of the debate.
The group's representatives visited Nigeria on 18 to 20 November to continue their assessment of Nigeria's adherence to the Harare principles of good governance, as mandated by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland last year. I remind the House exactly of the Harare principles, which place particular emphasis on
"the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth"—
which are defined as democracy; democratic processes and institutions; the rule of law and the independence of judiciary; just and honest government; and fundamental human rights. The hon. Members spoke about all those issues.
My right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker represented the United Kingdom at that meeting, and, far from retarding progress on those issues, she has been an important member of the group, and represents the Government and the country in pushing the process forward. I know that her commitment to reform in Nigeria is without doubt.
Sadly, the Canadian delegation was unable to participate in the visit, as Nigeria refused to issue visas to two security officers who were due to travel with the Canadian Minister. That is indicative of the sort of problem that we still face in our current negotiations.
I should also report that the Nigerians pressed once again, not surprisingly, for Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth to be rescinded; for CMAG to support the transitional programme; for all sanctions to be lifted; and for the resumption of high-level dialogue. There are quite a few conditions that must be met before that can be achieved.
In addition to the Nigerian delegation, CMAG met representatives of the National Electoral Commission and the transitional committees, as well as the leaders of the five recently registered political parties, traditional rulers and the chairman of the Nigerian Human Rights Commission. The group also had an audience with General Abacha, but was not able to see Chief Abiola, General Obasanjo or any other political prisoners. Baroness Chalker met representatives of the human rights and pro-democracy groups in the margins of the visit.
I am pleased to report that the Nigerians released three high-profile political prisoners during the visit: Femi Falana, Gani Fawehinmi and Femi Aborishade. Like CMAG, I welcome their release, but I want to make it clear to the House that is not nearly enough. The group pressed for the prompt restoration of accountable civilian government; the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola; the rapid resolution of the case of the 19 Ogonis who face the same charges as Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates; and a review of prison conditions. All those conditions must be met.
The Nigerians were questioned in detail about the implementation of the transition timetable, including the delay in promulgating the draft constitution and the opportunities for unregistered parties to participate in the process, which we regard as an important, not a nominal,
910
part of any proper democratic process. In addition, they were questioned about the mechanisms for conducting the local elections that are scheduled to take place this month.
The Nigerians assured the group that the transition was on track, although they said, in their terms, that they did not believe that it was logistically possible to conduct the local elections this month. If there are logistical reasons for their not being carried out this month, we hope that they are carried out as soon as is practicably possible, because it is not acceptable for logistics to be given as a reason for a delay in implementing proper democratic reforms.
The majority of those to whom CMAG spoke, both those in the Government and others, expressed confidence in the transition process. The group was also informed that most of the politicians whose associations had not registered in September had now joined one of the five registered parties.
The group also expressed its deep concern about the lack of respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and the use of rule by decree, which concentrates power in the hands of the regime. The group requested clarification on several decrees that impinged on fundamental rights. Not surprisingly, the Nigerian side responded only that rule by decree was not unusual in military regimes. That practice must change.
CMAG made it clear to the Nigerian authorities that it expects the Ogoni Nineteen to be released or brought before a properly constituted court that respects the basic legal rights of the defendant. It also pointed out that any further trials by the same tribunal that tried Ken Saro-Wiwa would provoke a strong international reaction. The group also called again for the Nigerians to receive and to co-operate fully with the visit by the two United Nations Commission on Human Rights thematic rapporteurs.
The hon. Member for Streatham mentioned Amnesty International's recent report. The Government welcome that report and the 10-point programme for human rights reform in Nigeria. Those useful documents were circulated to all members of CMAG before the visit. The group handed a copy of both documents to the Nigerians in Abuja for their urgent attention and, more important, for their response, which we await with interest.
What will be the next steps? CMAG will meet again in the new year to consider the material it received during the visit, and to agree on next steps in preparation for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh next October. We hope that that meeting will also hear submissions from key Nigerian opposition groups in exile and relevant international non-governmental organisations.
We shall be working towards a fair assessment that reflects the wide range of views that CMAG has heard since it began its assessment last December. It is too early to comment on CMAG's recommendations for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next year, but it is clear that Nigeria is still in breach of the principles set out in the Harare declaration, and Nigeria's suspension will have to be considered in that context.
I am pleased to inform the House that the United Kingdom co-sponsored another critical resolution that was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 12 December. The resolution criticises Nigeria's human rights record, and calls on it to implement all the recommendations contained the UN fact-finding mission's report.

911
The resolution also recognises the important work being done by CMAG, and calls for continued co-operation between the Commonwealth and the United Nations. Such co-operation is an issue that is and should be important to the entire international community. The greater the level of co-operation between the UN, CMAG, the European Union and individual Governments, the better. The European Union has rolled over its common position on Nigeria, which means that all EU measures introduced at the end of last year remain firmly in place.
All those decisions combine to send a clear message to the Nigerians that the international community remains resolved and is working together to keep up the pressure on Abacha and his regime to restore human rights and democracy.
The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about where we go from here, and I should like to take those one by one. First, there is the question of further Commonwealth sanctions. The Commonwealth has already taken the significant step of suspending Nigeria's membership of the association. No other organisation has taken that step, so it is important in itself.
CMAG's mandate is to assess Nigeria's adherence to the Harare principles and to make recommendations to the Commonwealth Heads of Government—CMAG is not a sanction-making body. The April package of measures remains on the table, and CMAG has not yet recommended its implementation to the Heads of Government, but we await any decision on that.
The United Kingdom, together with the European Union, has had measures in place since July 1993, and they were reinforced by adoption measures by means of EU common positions on 20 November 1995 and 4 December 1995. Our aim is to identify carefully targeted measures that will be effective and send a clear signal of our concerns to the regime without wrecking the Nigerian economy, and without imposing any more hardship on its 100 million people than is required to achieve our political objectives.
Mr. Keith Hill indicated assent.
Dr. Fox: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding—he understands that it is most difficult to achieve the right balance when any form of sanction is being used to try to achieve political ends.
The full list of EU measures is now suspension of non-essential high-level visits in both directions; suspension of military training; an EU-wide arms ban; visa restrictions; the suspension of development co-operation except for projects in support of human rights and democracy and those concentrating on poverty alleviation; the withdrawal of all military personnel attached to diplomatic representations of EU member
912
states in Nigeria and the expulsion of military personnel attached to Nigerian diplomatic representations in member states; and an interruption of sporting contacts through the denial of visas for official delegations and national teams.
We have noted calls for further economic sanctions, including the severing of trade links, an oil embargo and an assets freeze. In our view, those would require a UN Security Council resolution to be effective, and an oil embargo would, in addition, have to be implemented through a naval blockade. We judge such sanctions to be, in practice, unachievable at present.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an air links ban, but, again, we believe that that would be effective only if applied unanimously by the whole international community. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the UK is not prepared to support an air links ban unless it is supported by all its European and Commonwealth partners.
The issue of defence exports is often raised. On 11 November 1995, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a full UK arms embargo against the Nigerian military, and on 20 November the European Union adopted a common position that extended measures in force since June 1993 to include a full EU-wide arms ban. The restrictions now in place include all military, security and paramilitary goods and arms, ammunition and related material. The rules do not distinguish between items intended for the military and those intended for the police; nor will any exception be allowed for international peacekeeping operations in which the Nigerians might be involved. Sometimes there is confusion on that last point.
I should like to speak on one subject that the hon. Gentleman did not mention—our position on aid and the UK aid programme. Development co-operation is suspended, except for projects in support of human rights and democracy and those concentrating on poverty alleviation.
The UK adheres strictly to the EU common position, being confined to projects bringing direct benefits to poor Nigerians in health, population, water, basic education and small-scale agriculture, using non-military channels such as non-government organisations. Our bilateral expenditure has inevitably dropped from £12 million in 1992–93 to £4.8 million in 1995–96, but it is starting to increase again this year as our new sector programmes develop.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Streatham for initiating the debate and giving me the chance to clarify some of the points that he raised. The Government take the issue extremely seriously. The present Conservative Government are fully committed to democracy, the rule of law, human rights and sustainable development for all the peoples of Nigeria.

Ecclesiastical Heritage
1 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak briefly about one of my favourite subjects. Almost the first thing that I did when I entered the House was to begin moves to introduce a Bill to make public funds available for ecclesiastical buildings in use, because until 1977 they were not.
I am delighted that my campaign met with some success. I joined and was joined by many others. For almost 20 years, the Church of England especially has had cause to be grateful for the funds that have come its way. I say that to emphasise the fact that this is not a carping speech. I hope that I shall say some important things about the preservation of England's churches and cathedrals. I mean no insult to anyone, present or not present, by concentrating on Church of England buildings, because the problem of historic churches is essentially a Church of England problem.
The Church of England has about 16,000 churches, about 13,000 of which are listed buildings, and of course it has 42 cathedrals. Forty per cent. of grade 1 listed buildings in England are ecclesiastical.
It is an appropriate time to talk about churches and cathedrals, to which I hope people throughout the country will flock next Wednesday, which is Christmas day. They will be fuller then than probably at any other time of the year—fuller than most of them will be at Easter. That draws attention to the use of our places of worship.
Many of those who do not choose to go to church next week nevertheless recognise the central importance of the church. In most towns and villages, the church is the most important public building, almost always the most outstanding architecturally and the one with the most interesting history. If one believes, as I do, that one comes closest to the soul and the spirit of a nation in its historic buildings, one recognises the central importance of our churches and cathedrals.
I am glad to see my friend, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in the Chamber. I apologise to him for the fact that I shall not speak about Scottish churches today, but he takes a well-informed interest in all heritage matters and it is always good to see him in our debates.
A month ago today, the Archbishop of Canterbury launched an initiative with a press conference at Lambeth palace. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage is well aware of that. I am glad that he will reply to the debate; he is one of my oldest friends in the House, and no one could question his commitment to the civilised things of life.
The archbishop's initiative, which is encapsulated in the document that I hold in my hand, entitled "Developing the Partnership between Church and State over the Ecclesiastical Heritage", is concerned with developing and strengthening that partnership. I emphasise the word "partnership". After all, we are speaking of our national, established Church—the Church whose services and ministrations are available for every man, woman and child in England, and which therefore has enormously important commitments of mission and worship.
No sensible cleric regards our great, rich legacy of historic churches as anything other than a wonderful asset. One has only to think of some of one's favourite churches
914
to recognise the transcendant beauty of such buildings. I think of my native Lincolnshire, which I left many years ago: of churches as glorious as Louth, Boston and Stow and of little gems such as Snarford. In my adopted county of Staffordshire, in the diocese of Lichfield, I think especially of my parish church at Enville, where I am churchwarden and where, during the past few years, we have struggled to raise about £110,000 to maintain our church.
That says it all, in a way. We have a population of fewer than 400. There is a similar number on the electoral roll. We have received, and are grateful for, state aid, and we have received aid from the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, of which I happen to be a trustee. Nevertheless, we have had to raise a very large sum ourselves. We have done it, and it has brought the community together. We welcomed the challenge, but we would not welcome another one next year because there is a limit to the amount of money that small communities can raise, and a recognition of that is at the heart of the archbishop's commendable initiative.
It is calculated that it costs about £100 million a year to maintain the fabric of the churches and cathedrals of the Church of England. About 75 per cent. of that comes from the Church and from voluntary giving and fund raising, and 25 per cent. comes from grant and lottery money. Welcome as grants are, the sum received from English Heritage is about £11 million—about £5 million less than the VAT that the Church pays on repairs. Every Minister should ponder that figure.
If we are to continue to be regarded as a civilised nation, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the greatest buildings in our country are properly maintained. At the moment, most of our churches and cathedrals are in good repair. As the archbishop said when he launched his document a month ago, in very many cases they have never been in better repair. Yet, looking into the next century and beyond, one must recognise that the continuing burden will be too much for the Church and congregations effectively to discharge unless more help is given.
Today, I am appealing for a recognition of that fact, and of other facts too. The lottery money is certainly welcome, although there are certain reservations about it in Church quarters—reservations that I can well understand. Still, the money has been welcomed by the Archbishop and by those who have the care of our churches, but it is not enough. We are, after all, asking for only a very small sum of money. The budget of English Heritage is being cut. We need more funding from that source, but English Heritage cannot provide more core funding if its resources are being cut.
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for National Heritage and other Ministers have said repeatedly that the lottery money is regarded as additional to Government money, stressing time and again that it is never to be seen as a substitute for Government funding, but it is becoming a substitute. Later today we shall have an opportunity to debate the Second Reading of the National Heritage Bill, and if I am fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye, I may be able to develop some of those arguments then. For now, I merely put down a marker. Ministers must face up to the facts of Government funding; we need more core funding from English Heritage.

915
We also need money to compensate for the £16 million that the Church pays out in VAT. Perhaps it will be possible to negotiate with Brussels a better rate of VAT on repairs to listed buildings throughout the Community. Perhaps also we might take another look at differing rates of VAT in this country. After all, by decision of the House, the VAT rate on fuel is already 8 per cent. Why not an 8 per cent. rate in this case too?
We also need more money for the Churches Conservation Trust, the body that used to be called the Redundant Churches Fund, which maintains the fabric of churches that are no longer regularly used for worship but are of architectural or historic importance. Those churches, vested in Church and state, will need, we calculate, about £3.3 million more if they are to be effectively maintained over the next three years. The same money could buy only a very small bit of a bypass or motorway.
Next year, we shall commemorate the 1,400th anniversary of the arrival of St. Augustine, in 597. Two years after that, we shall begin to celebrate the millennium. People often forget when they talk glibly of the millennium that it is the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of our Lord. There is surely no more fitting way to commemorate the millennium than by guaranteeing the churches and cathedrals of this land the necessary funding to take them through to the next century and beyond.
I am talking about a matter of £5 million a year extra; that would take care of most of the points mentioned by the Archbishop in his press conference. Set in the national context, that is a tiny sum, yet it will ensure that some of the greatest buildings, not just in this country but in Europe, are secure for the future. That is what the debate is all about: making sure that our churches and cathedrals remain the focal points of our towns and villages and of many a wonderful rural landscape. Although congregations will still have a responsibility, they will be able to devote more energy and resources to the other tasks confronting the Church. Bearing in mind the state of our society today, I submit that there never was a time when there was more need for the Christian message to be heeded.
I ask the Minister once again to heed my plea today. I hope that he will not just tell me what has already been done, because I recognise that with gratitude. I hope that he will tell me that more is going to be done and that it is recognised that more must be done if we are to keep faith with our Christian heritage.
1.15 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on his success in securing this short debate. He brings to our heritage, especially our ecclesiastic heritage, not just immense expertise but the sort of passionate commitment that has been on display again this morning. I shall try to explain what can be done and how matters can be taken forward, but, especially for the sake of those who will read the debate, I should also like to put the subject in context by touching on what has already been done. I understand, nevertheless, that my hon. Friend wants to take matters beyond that.
I certainly agree that historic religious buildings stand at the very heart of our national heritage. As my hon. Friend said, it is estimated that nearly 15,000 listed
916
buildings are in religious use, 13,000 of them churches of the Church of England. Of the buildings listed grade I—the top grade, representing only 2 per cent. of all listed buildings—well over a third are Anglican parish churches.
The importance of the ecclesiastical heritage lies not merely in its prodigious quantity but in its astonishing richness and diversity. It reflects every phase in the history of architecture from Saxon times up to the present century. It encompasses buildings of every size and style, from tiny mediaeval churches in remote countryside areas to huge Victorian masterpieces in the inner cities; from nonconformist chapels to the great Anglican cathedrals. It offers countless examples of artistic and technical achievement, and it attracts millions of visitors every year from home and abroad.
Moreover, we appreciate those buildings for more than their intrinsic architectural and artistic qualities. We value the unique contribution that they make to the appearance of the countryside and the townscape. At a deeper level, we are aware of their role in the development of communities and of the nation. We acknowledge their significance as enduring symbols of religious faith through the centuries.
The Government are totally committed to preserving the ecclesiastical heritage in all its fullness. That commitment extends to the historic buildings of all religious denominations and faiths. I well recognise, however, that in initiating this debate my hon. Friend has a particular concern for the buildings of the Church of England. I shall therefore concentrate on that aspect when responding to him.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it has long been accepted that care of the Church of England's heritage involves a partnership between the Church itself and the state. Such a partnership has in fact existed for many years, and has achieved remarkable results. The credit for that can be shared equally between both partners. The Church of England has an excellent record in looking after its historic buildings. I readily accept that caring for those buildings and their contents is a heavy responsibility, much of which must be borne by churchgoers themselves.
Therefore, I am very glad to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those individual congregations who do so much to preserve that outstanding part of the nation's heritage, not least my hon. Friend's village church. For a population of 400 to raise more than £100,000 is an achievement, and I can see why my hon. Friend would not like to go through the process again next year. I congratulate him, in his role as church warden, and the other members of the congregation on that remarkable achievement.
For the past 20 years, Government funding has been available to assist with the repair and maintenance of historic church buildings. Such funding is today channelled through English Heritage. During the past five years, English Heritage has provided grant funding of £61.4 million for repairs to churches and cathedrals, the vast majority of them Anglican. During the current financial year, English Heritage expects to make some 300 grant offers, at a total value of £13 million, for church and cathedral repair schemes. Some 80 per cent. of the grants will be for Anglican buildings. Normally, only churches listed grade 1 or grade 2-star are eligible, but all applications, including those for grade 2 churches, are considered on their merits. The criteria for the award of

917
grant are the historic importance of the building, the urgency of the proposed repairs, and the need for financial support.
The national lottery has now firmly established itself as a further key instrument for securing the future of the ecclesiastical heritage. Already, the heritage lottery fund has made 124 grant awards, totalling £14.5 million, for schemes relating to religious buildings. I understand that 105 of those awards have been for Anglican churches. Unlike English Heritage grants, which are geared towards the maintenance and repair of the fabric of historic churches, lottery funding is able to support a much wider range of projects. For example, a considerable number of lottery awards have been made for the restoration of church monuments, organs and bells. A further important difference is that lottery funding can be offered for unlisted churches in conservation areas and redundant churches.
As the House may be aware, in October, the heritage lottery fund and English Heritage launched an important new joint scheme for funding repairs to churches in use. That will pool lottery and English Heritage resources to create one source of funding. English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund have each set aside £10 million for the scheme during its first year. That will enable available resources to be deployed more effectively and to reach a wider range of church buildings, thereby ensuring that more local communities benefit from lottery grants.
The scheme offers a simplified one-stop application process and will allow English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund to deal with applications more efficiently and quickly. It will provide them with a clearer overall picture of the requirements of churches, thus allowing them to assess individual needs more accurately and to target grants more effectively, but I should emphasise that church organisations or congregations that do not wish to seek lottery funding on moral grounds will still be free to apply only for English Heritage support.
A further expression of the partnership between Church and state is the continued commitment on both sides to the support of the Churches Conservation Trust. The trust is devoted to the repair and maintenance of outstanding Anglican churches that are no longer required for pastoral purposes and for which no suitable alternative use can be found. There are currently more than 300 churches in the care of the trust. Since 1995, the trust has been fortunate to have my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) as its chairman.
The major financial supporter of the Churches Conservation Trust are the Government, who contribute 70 per cent. of the trust's costs, the Church Commissioners providing the remaining 30 per cent. Over the three years from 1994 to 1997, financial provision for the trust has totalled £10.3 million, of which £7.2 million has come from the Government and £3.1 million from the Church Commissioners. Funding for the period 1997 to 2000 has been provisionally agreed at £10.6 million, comprising £7.4 million from the Government and £3.2 million from the Church Commissioners.
The level of funding is intended to enable the trust to keep its churches in a decent state of repair and to allow it to take on a limited number of additional churches. If
918
the trust did not exist, many of those outstanding historic churches would face neglect, damaging alterations or even demolition. As it is, the buildings are maintained in sound condition, remain a focus in their localities and are accessible to the public.
I will also mention the Government's support for the work of the Historic Chapels Trust. The trust was set up in 1993 to acquire outstanding non-Anglican religious buildings—Roman Catholic churches, nonconformist chapels, synagogues and so on—which are no longer needed for worship. In effect, the trust aims to perform for such buildings a similar role to that undertaken by the Churches Conservation Trust.
The establishment of the Historic Chapels Trust was aided by financial support from the Government. The trust is currently funded via English Heritage grant and through private sponsorship. My Department is at present considering an application from the trust for financial support from the heritage grant fund. So far, the trust has acquired six buildings and is negotiating to acquire eight more.
Looking ahead, I should draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that financial support will be available to the churches for the role that we anticipate that they will play in celebrating the new millennium. All the Christian churches have a potentially vital contribution to make in what is, at its heart, a year of religious significance—the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ. The Government are liaising closely with all the churches on how the spiritual aspects of the millennium can be reflected in plans for marking the occasion. In preparation, many historic Anglican churches will benefit from grants worth more than £5 million approved by the Millennium Commission for restoring belfries and casting new bells, for a nationwide peal of church bells to ring in the new millennium.
My hon. Friend mentioned the recently published Church of England document "Developing the Partnership between Church and State over the Ecclesiastical Heritage". Let me say at once that the Government warmly welcome the document. As I have already said, the existing Church and state partnership has already achieved a great deal. However, we are ready to discuss new ways in which the partnership can be developed and strengthened. From what my hon. Friend said in his speech, he might like to use his fertile imagination and experience to suggest ways in which that might be done.
There is much in the Church's document with which we whole-heartedly agree. The financial difficulties and pressures currently facing the Church of England are well understood by the Government. I have to say, too, that there are also constraints on the state side. The continuing need to control public expenditure means that heritage spending programmes are likely to remain under pressure for the foreseeable future. None the less, the Government are ready to work with the Church in exploring other possible sources of funding for the ecclesiastical heritage—for example, from Europe. We are also willing to consider what steps can be taken to improve co-ordination between all the Government and non-Government agencies with a potential role.
His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has already had discussions on the issues with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and my noble Friend the

919
Minister for Tourism. As the next step, officials in my Department will hold discussions with the General Synod to explore the issues raised in the document in detail, identify the constraints on each side and explore possible new options.
Without prejudice to the outcome of the discussions, it may be helpful if I make a couple of observations in response to some comments made in the Church's document. The first is the concern that the Government have gone back on their commitment to the additionality of lottery funding. The document urges that English Heritage funding should not be reduced to take account of the advent of the lottery. I can assure the House that the Government stand by their commitment to the additionality of lottery funding and that we therefore have no intention of reducing core funding programmes to take account of awards from the lottery.
That commitment does not mean that the Government can set aside the constraints on public expenditure to which I have already referred. None the less, I hope hon. Members will have found some encouragement in our recent decision to grant an additional £1.8 million to English Heritage in 1997–98, which means that funding for next year will be substantially maintained at this year's level. It is of course for English Heritage to decide how best to allocate the available resources across all its activities.
The second point relates to the claim—as my hon. Friend mentioned—that, in 1993, VAT on churches and cathedrals repairs cost the Church about £16 million, far more than it receives in English Heritage grants. The document calls for the Government to press the European Commission to add listed building repairs to the categories of services eligible for reduced rates of VAT at national discretion, as alterations already are. My hon. Friend will know that, as a tax matter, this is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. While we have no particular reason to doubt the Church of England's £16 million figure on the amount of VAT paid, I have to say that the way VAT is collected does not allow Customs and Excise to calculate the amount of VAT paid on churches or on listed buildings.
Furthermore, the VAT directive that requires repairs to be taxed at the full 17.5 per cent. is about to be reviewed. Any decision on whether to increase the scope of the list of goods and services to which a reduced rate of VAT may be applied would be taken by the Finance Ministers of all member states. It is currently the UK Government's policy to have a single rate of VAT at 17.5 per cent., but to retain for the present the existing zero rates, which have been agreed with our EU partners.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important matter. I hope that hon. Members will have been reassured about the Government's continuing commitment to the preservation of our ecclesiastical heritage. We look forward to working closely with the Church of England and other denominations and faiths in pursuit of that objective.

East London and the City Health Authority
1.29 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: This debate should not be necessary. Earlier this year, we debated the circumstances of East London and the City district health authority, partly because of the closure of Bart's and the 30 per cent. reduction in the number of beds planned for the three east London boroughs: Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham. They are three of the neediest boroughs in the country, but they do not lack in human spirit and initiative.
The base problem involves capitation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) wishes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and he may pursue that point further. The money allocated to the authority in order to purchase health facilities from the providers is tied to a national formula that is clearly inadequate. The situation has worsened in the past few years: we would have had £50 million more per year, but for an adjustment in the capitation formula that does not take account of the needs of people coming to the borough from other parts of the world, the age of the population and the health needs of the area. In the same period, I am told that Surrey received an increase of £30 million as a result of the same adjustment. That capitation formula must be altered again.
Recently, we have faced an even bigger, visible—if not financial—anomaly: the way in which psychiatric need is met. We all know about the scandalous difficulties in the mental health service. However, we forget that, when people go to court, are found incapable of pleading properly and are not sentenced, they pass from the responsibility of the Home Office to that of the health service. In my district, there are about 60 or 65 persons of that ilk or those who have been released from prison, upon whom the health service spends some £7 million. We believe that that funding should be provided centrally, as few health districts elsewhere carry that sort of load—I believe that it is only about half a dozen.
We aim at least to sustain health service delivery in the area. Despite claims in the Budget and the Prime Minister's comments in Prime Minister's questions yesterday, we cannot do so. On 2 December, I asked the Secretary of State for Health—who was boasting about increases in health service expenditure—about the situation in east London. He replied:
"The authority also has bids for other funds, which are currently being considered".—[Official Report, 2 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 686.]
We need those funds because we must sustain existing services with an £18 million shortfall in delivery. The authority has announced cuts of £40 million. We need that additional £18 million—or as much as the Government can supply through the bids. I received a written reply yesterday about the bids for health authorities, which are described as undergoing structural or strategic change. My health authority is undergoing structural change in respect of possible closures, to which I shall refer in a moment.
When Bart's closed, we were told that we would have a new hospital at Homerton. A few weeks ago, the authority published the option of closing Homerton or Newham general hospital—two major hospitals in east London. It was forced to dismiss that option as unfeasible, but it must

921
still find the equivalent savings. Newham is experiencing difficulties because it maintains a huge accident and emergency facility—although I understand that it costs less per head of population than many similar facilities elsewhere. A and E needs must be met by relocating facilities and resources from elsewhere in the hospital.
We are facing extensive cuts. The authority has told general practitioners that they must be more careful about hospital admissions—it employs bureaucratic terms such as "gatekeeping" or "readjustment of entry". GPs have been told that out-patients will not be seen until after April 1997 and that waiting times may increase to 18 months. There will be a reduction in provider contracts of 7,500 bed days, which means less provision to meet consistently growing needs.
There are 40 vacancies among the estimated 400 GP posts in the area. GPs are finding the load difficult to bear and thus are less enthusiastic about their perceived role. Why should they stay in east London, when the prevailing conditions do not allow them to do their jobs as professionals? As a result of the cuts, GPs are being asked to recommend fewer people for admission to hospital. They are then required to provide more at-home care when people are released from hospital, under a policy of "fewer in and quicker out". At the same time as they are providing increased care on the ground, they are told to expect redundancies among practice nursing staff and general domiciliary services. Local authority social services also have difficulty meeting existing need.
The need is so great that the local medical committee—a statutory body—took the unusual step of writing to the Secretary of State. It was not alone: it was joined by three voluntary borough forums of general practitioners, who work co-operatively together and play an essential part in the structure. Some 200 signed the letter that was sent to the Secretary of State on 5 November. As of yesterday, I understand that they have received no reply or acknowledgment of the letter. That is astonishing—it may be the result of delayering in the civil service; I do not know. It is all the more remarkable because, having received no reply, the group then sent a letter to The Times outlining the problems that they face, which was published on 10 December, but they still received no reply.
I do not know whether officers of the Department of Health read The Times or whether the Minister has been briefed about the matter—perhaps he will tell us today when he replies to the debate. In addition, BBC South-East broadcast a 30-minute television programme on 28 November highlighting the plight of the people of east London and the ineffective funding of their health services. I presume that the Department of Health knows about that.
Not only are the professionals in difficulty, but there is pressure on the voluntary organisations. In east London—like everywhere else—there is great concern for those who are ill, who need constant care and who may turn to hostels or to similar organisations to meet their needs. The Newham Care and Repair service, which allows people to be discharged from hospital and returned to their home sooner than might occur otherwise, is to be cut. The elderly derive particular benefit from the service, as their conditions often necessitate structural adjustments in the
922
home and they may require daily care and visits. It is proposed to cut that service—although decisions are still up in the air in view of the £18 million shortfall.
The organisation Turning Point is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—he may mention it if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. An imaginative scheme, Breaking Ground, deals with 15 mentally retarded people with severe health needs. They literally break ground and are recuperated through horticultural activities.
I have mentioned the problem of those who are found incapable of pleading in court. I highlight the terrible instance of a person who was discharged prematurely from Neasden hospital in Hertfordshire—which has its own problems—visited a club run by the borough and murdered one of my constituents. The Laudat Bennett case is well known, but has not been solved properly. I believe that the circumstances that led to the incident are still cause for concern, although increased funding has been provided for psychiatry in the borough.
We face all those difficulties in an area that demonstrably needs more than other areas. I do not think that the Secretary of State understands the effects of the capitation system and the way in which the market works. Each so-called profit centre naturally seeks to make its own economies without knowing the human knock-on effects. Its work is always predicated on contracts, which are sometimes not fulfilled for the future. The Royal London hospital has problems: it usually makes capital gains, but it cannot be sure of the plans.
The biggest problem of all is closures. It is clear from the documents that have been produced by East London and the City health authority that it is considering closing not Newham or Homerton hospital, but St. Andrew's hospital in Bromley-by-Bow. It is an old building—it is an old workhouse—which has 150 beds and serves mainly Newham. The staff are renowned in the area for their teamwork. They do a great job. The hospital provides ancillary services. By accountants' calculations, it could save so many million pounds if it were run down.
There are long-term plans for the replacement of the facilities at St. Andrew's by facilities at Newham general hospital, which has 40 fewer beds. Those plans depend on the private finance initiative, which is not coming along at all fast. The premature rundown of St. Andrew's in Bromley-by-Bow would be disastrous, and would put pressure on the other hospitals in the area. Beds would be removed and the services provided by the laboratories reduced. The corporate nature of the staff is important: they tend to be long-serving because of the type of surgery that they undertake. They work in difficult conditions, but they are greatly appreciated by the people of Newham.
I want to put several questions to the Minister. Did he receive the letter from GPs? Why did he not reply? Are the facts that it contains not correct? As far as I know, they are. Did he not see their letter in The Times? Did he not hear about the half-hour television broadcast that dealt with the problems in east London? How much of the Government's money, which is out for bidding—the complicated document has been placed in the Library—will be available for application by East London and the City health authority? I am told that some of the money that it hopes to obtain has already been included in its calculations: it has been taken into account, even allowing

923
for the £18 million that the authority has to find. We must know the answer to that question before the coming financial year, in order to make proper plans.
It would be a scandal if people were given long-term notice—which they are now, particularly in the voluntary sector. There are fears throughout the health service staff. The Minister knows that one of the greatest assets of our great health service—or what was once a great health service—is the dedication of the staff. They are being asked to do more and more with less and less. Is that right? The Prime Minister says that the health service is getting more and more, but I do not believe it.
Dissembling has become a d-word in the House, although I would not go as far as to accuse the Government of dissembling in this instance. We need to know—through the loophole of finance—that we shall receive a good part of that £18 million to sustain our services. We are told that the health service is expanding, but how can it be when we have also been told to expect vicious cuts? That is debilitating, and is beginning to destroy a health service of which this country has been proud.
It is because of the initiative of general practitioners and others that we have managed to obtain a response from the people in the service. We await the Government's reply. They are responsible to the electors, who pay for the service that we are all proud of and wish to sustain.
1.44 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on raising this vital subject. As the finances of East London and the City health authority have been spinning out of control, a kind of madness has set in. Hospital closures are still proposed in the medium term. Recently, the chief executive of ELCHA, Peter Coe, said publicly on the radio that no decisions on the closures could be taken before the general election. Thank God for that.
The absurd people who run the most despised bureaucracy in the national health service have at last realised that there are limits to their bizarre betrayal of local people. I am told privately that their thinking is as follows. The Royal London hospital cannot be closed—I certainly do not want it to close—because the Government are committed to spending £300 million on a new hospital there, even if that distorts local finances for decades to come.
In the medium term, the authority wants to close either Homerton or Newham hospital, but not both. It is a satanic choice: Newham people can die, or Hackney people can die—take your pick. Demographically, the authority would prefer to save Newham hospital, with a functioning accident and emergency unit, but Newham has many problems—so I am told—and Homerton is still new and being built, so its closure would be political dynamite.
That is not the end of the savage irrationality. East London and the City health authority has published a list of cuts in community and hospital care. From Hoxton Health to Lorne house, from counselling for Asian women on health to help for Turkish and Kurdish communities, from City and Hackney MIND to the Hackney bereavement service, from Age Concern Hackney to the Jewish care services for frail older people, cuts are being made.
924
General practitioners are up in arms. Consultants are blinking in disbelief, voluntary organisations are angry, and the rest of us are stunned. We wait with interest to see whether the Minister is more than complacent today.
1.45 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on securing this important debate.
East London health services have the most overstretched staff, who work in the shabbiest conditions and deal with the highest levels of ill health in the country. It is scandalous that they struggle in the 1990s in decrepit conditions that were obsolete in the 1970s. Whatever measurement we use, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham have the highest concentration of health and social problems in the country.
At a time when the Government tell us that they are substantially increasing the resources for the health service, how is it that in east London we are facing the appalling cuts that my hon. Friends described? A couple of years ago, the Government removed the needs weighting for the 24 per cent. of funds in the capitation formula that relate to community health services. At first sight, that may appear to be an obscure technical adjustment, but its consequences for east London have been catastrophic, and have culminated in this crisis.
In the summer of last year, an article in the Health Service Journal presented the top 10 losers from that adjustment to the formula developed at York university and introduced by the Department of Health. East London suffered the largest cash loss to its target— £13.2 million. The other biggest losers were Manchester, Liverpool, Sunderland, Barnsley, North Durham, St. Helen's and Knowsley, South of Tyne, Tees and Newcastle.
In whose interest did the Government decide that they needed to make the adjustment? Which areas have such a pressing case for help that it was necessary to cut the amount for east London, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Knowsley? The article spelled it out. The biggest gainer of all, with more than a 5 per cent. increase, was mid-Surrey. The second biggest gainer in the entire country was north-west Surrey. The third biggest was south-west Surrey, and the fourth was east Surrey. Who was the Secretary of State for Health while all that chicanery was going on? It was none other than the right hon. Member for south-west Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley).
The Government have cynically siphoned funds away from areas where they are most needed, to spend them in areas where they think that they can buy the most votes. The health needs of Britain have lost out to the vote needs of the Tory party. The Tory party has concluded that it can get away with gerrymandering the health funding formula. That is why we are now facing this crisis. The figures for next year provide us with no comfort at all.
I take no pleasure in recounting those facts, but I make no apology for being angry about the crisis. As I left home in East Ham this morning, my next-door neighbour told me of the problems that she was having getting the treatment that she needs at our local hospital. She said, "I do not blame the doctors," and nor do I. I do not even blame the administrators appointed by the Government to run the service: in this instance, I think that they are doing their best. The fault lies fairly and squarely with the

925
Conservative party, and the Government's record on health in the hardest-pressed parts of the country is a disgrace.
Across east London, partnerships between local authorities, businesses and Government are bearing fruit and generating new optimism. In health, partnership has barely started, and we are still stuck with the problems of the 1970s. With these huge funding cuts, we are poised to take a huge leap backwards.
The London Docklands development corporation—itself as proud a creature of this Government as any—has at times been in despair at the impossibility of making progress in the health service in east London. What is the Government's response? Their response is to make £18 million-worth of cuts, which constitutes the axing of 5 per cent. of the total budget. I appeal to the Minister to take a close look at the problems in east London, and to see whether, even now, there is some way of averting the catastrophe that is looming.
1.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on his success in securing the debate, and am pleased to be able to respond. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's persistent and pertinent questioning of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and me over the past few months on issues relating to the problems that we are discussing; I also acknowledge the interests of the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), both of whom are obviously sincerely concerned about the issues.
East London and the City health authority, the local health authority of the hon. Member for Newham, South, is one of the largest health authorities in London, with a population of about 600,000. Like every health authority, it is responsible for studying the health needs of the local population, and ensuring the availability and provision of appropriate care and treatment for local residents.
Health authorities' allocations for 1997–98 were recently announced. East London and the City will receive an integrated allocation of £365.4 million—more money than ever before, and a real-terms increase of £8.7 million, or nearly 2.5 per cent., on its funding this year. That is the 1 1 th highest percentage increase awarded to the 100 health authorities in England; I stress that in response to the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East.
As a student of these matters, the hon. Member for Newham, South will know that what we mean by "integrated allocation" is the general allocation of £348 million, together with other allocations influenced by the weighted capitation formula. On top of all that, the authority will receive £25.6 million in non-formula-based moneys for services such as long-term care. After adjustments, that gives the authority a total cash budget of nearly £390 million for 1997–98. Furthermore, central funding is available for national priorities. The health authority is bidding for those funds, and therefore may well have more to spend next year. That means that East
926
London and the City health authority will have at least £650 for each of its residents to spend on health care next year.
Ms Mildred Gordon: If what the Minister is saying is correct, does he not agree that the money must be being misspent? Speech therapy will now be refused to 375 children between the ages of five and 11, and Moorfields hospital is turning away patients from east London who want eye operations and appointments, because of the reduced funding of the contract for east London and the City health authority. Where is all the extra money going?
Mr. Horam: The extra money is going into the provision of extra services in some areas. If the hon. Lady wishes to take up the question of precisely where there may be some underfunding, that is a matter for the health authority, and I am sure that she will take it up with the authority.
How the health authority uses the extra money is a matter for it to determine, having regard to all local needs, circumstances and views. I remind the hon. Member for Newham, South not only that more money is going to East London and the City and other health authorities this year than ever before, but that, with the merger of district health authorities and family health service authorities from the beginning of April, and with ever-increasing efficiency, more money on top of that is available for health services and direct patient care.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, East London and the City's population is ethnically diverse and characteristic of London's densely populated inner-city areas, and it makes much of that. In response to the point made so forcefully—but, in my view, mistakenly—by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, let me say that our allocation policy is to target resources where the need for health care services is greatest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, South must listen to what I am saying. Hospital and community health service funding is largely based on a national formula worked out on the basis of the size of the local population, weighted to take account of factors such as the number of very young or very old people and the degree of social deprivation that exists. It also takes account of market forces such as the higher costs of staff, buildings and land in the south-east.
Next year, for the first time, the formula includes a specific needs index for community health services—the hon. Gentleman referred to that—bringing 86 per cent. of the national allocation within the ambit of the formula. That will benefit the health authorities in inner-city areas such as east London.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Horam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have only five minutes left in which to respond to at least four hon. Members.
Both the changes that have been made to the formula for next year—the introduction of interim needs weighting for community health services, and the refinement of the market forces adjustment—will improve the health authority's weighted-capitation position. That not only means more funds for the authority next year; it means

927
that the authority is no longer above its weighted-capitation position. It is no longer what we call a capitation loser, and can look forward to a larger share of additional health resources over the next few years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed himself to real-terms increases in resources year after year when we are re-elected for the next Parliament.
Before I say more about funding or service planning for next year, let me say something about the health authority's position this year, and the ability of the service to cope for the remainder of the financial year. The authority's initial allocation for the current year was £337 million—£1.63 million more in real terms than in 1995–96. Its forecast at the end of the second financial quarter was that it would end the year with a £13.7 million deficit. That forecast was based on expenditure and trends up to that time; I stress that it is not the position in which the authority is likely to find itself at the end of the year. That is the whole point of forecasts: as part of a proper regime of good financial management and control, they allow action to be taken in good time to keep within the financial balance for the year as a whole.
The health authority has indeed taken action based on its analysis of local circumstances, to ensure that good-quality services continue to be available, and that a sound financial outturn is achieved. In the autumn it bid for, and has received, additional non-recurring funds of £6 million to support strategic change. That is a lump of money that is already going in this year, in addition to the money which—as the hon. Gentleman said—it has bid for next year. That £6 million, together with other measures, means that the authority's residual deficit is now estimated at £2.3 million, or just 0.7 per cent. of its allocation. It is for the authority to manage its affairs for the rest of the year to meet its financial position. The situation certainly does not suggest that local people should be in any way concerned about the continued availability of good-quality services; nor does it suggest a service close to collapse, as some commentators have tried to imply.
928
What about next year? First, let me say that—as I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—East London and the City health authority has been very open with the local community in planning for the future. Given that health care resources can never be infinite and that health authorities must prioritise among competing demands, it is only right for them to outline some of the difficult choices that they must make as purchasers, and to involve the local community in the making of those choices.
In planning for next year, the health authority set up three task groups, which were charged with looking at acute, mental health and primary and community care services. The process began with an exercise to quantify the implications of continuing with the existing health strategy; that is where the projected deficit of £18 million for next year comes from.
Essentially, we are talking about a re-balancing process. We are looking at national and local priorities, and at the balance between, for example, acute services on the one hand and mental health services on the other. That is how the funding will be rearranged, with the aim of meeting what are regarded as priorities. In addition, the health authority is bidding against the funds that we have made available for next year for the development of services in priority areas. I cannot yet say how much will be allocated, but it will include money for community care, adult intensive care and mental health services, which are a particular problem in that part of the world. I take the hon. Gentleman's point: we shall have to make a decision on that before the end of the year.
I shall certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman said about the letter that was sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—
Mr. Spearing: From the 200 doctors.
Mr. Horam: That letter was sent at the end of November, and I saw the letter in The Times. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that far from more and more being got from less and less, in East London and the City more and more is being got from more and more.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Drugs (Clubs and Raves)
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to protect young people from drugs when attending clubs and raves in Scotland. [8131]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): We have given councils the powers to control or close down raves for the purpose of safeguarding young people attending events in licensed premises.
    Mr. Rathbone: That is welcome news because there are great dangers for young people at these dance parties, as is proven by recent research results which show that the real danger of Ecstasy is not appreciated by many young people who are tempted to take it. Has my hon. Friend considered issuing either the guidelines that have been produced by the London drug policy forum in a document called "Dance Till Dawn Safely" or replicating such guidelines for use by clubs in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly consider that. My hon. Friend is correct: there is evidence of an association between the use of Ecstasy and substantial liver damage. It is a class A drug which carries penalties of up to seven years for possession, and life for trafficking. We have set up a new national drugs helpline to provide free confidential advice, support and referrals 24 hours a day to drug misusers, their families and friends, and to supply information for anybody who is concerned about drugs.

    Government Expenditure and Tax Revenues
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the difference between total Government expenditure in Scotland and tax revenues raised in Scotland, expressed as a proportion of Scottish gross domestic product; and if he will make a statement. [8132]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Fourteen per cent.
    Mr. Arnold: Does not that rather generous figure emphasise the good sense of our United Kingdom Government, and would not that generosity be put in danger by Labour's devolution plans? Hypothetically, if those devolution plans were put into effect, how would I as an English Member explain to my constituents why, despite that money going to Scotland, Scottish hon. Members could take decisions on issues in my constituency such as health, education and hospitals, although I would not have a similar say over the spending of United Kingdom resources in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will forgive me for not agreeing with his use of the word "generous". As I have
    930
    just completed public expenditure negotiations with the Treasury, my use of that word might be somewhat wrong. On the overall position, my hon. Friend is right to point out what a good deal Scotland gets from the Union and how our public services and our standard of living would be threatened and destroyed by the policies of the opposition parties either to establish a tax-raising Parliament or to obtain independence—and, of course, the latter would follow from the former.
    Mr. Maxton: On Monday, what amount of tax revenue was used to pay for the cost of an RAF aeroplane to fly the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland from Inverness to London? Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell the House exactly how much such journeys cost the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Forsyth: The cost of the smallest RAF aeroplane, which is what we used, so we could not accommodate the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends on board—although I would have been happy to strap the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to the aircraft's wing after his behaviour at the Highlands and Islands Convention—is about £700 per flying hour.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high revenue level indicates the Scottish economy's success? Is not that confirmed by today's announcement of a dramatic drop in unemployment in Scotland, which shows how well the Scottish economy is going under the Government?
    Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scotland's economy is booming. We have record inward investment. Today, we again have excellent unemployment figures. It is a picture of an economy that has been transformed as a result of the Government's policies, which have been opposed by Opposition Members. All of it would be put at risk by a tartan-tax-raising Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State confirm his already public statement that the Scottish Office budget will be reduced by £880 million in real terms in the next three years? What will that mean for public health in Scotland and our ability to control crises such as E. coli bacteria and the spread of salmonella in Scotland? What if Professor Pennington's expert group suggests, as it should, that there should be an independent food standards agency? Will that be vetoed, like his last research project, on the ground that there is not enough money for it? When will the Government stop covering up their conduct in the E. coli crisis by blaming everyone but Ministers of the Crown? Will the Secretary of State now belatedly tell the House and the country what the role of Ministers was at the beginning of the E. coli crisis in Lanarkshire?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is pathetic. We have had two statements to the House on that matter. I wish that he would stop attacking the conduct of North Lanarkshire council, a Labour authority, which, as he well knows, has been and is responsible, under the Food Safety Act 1990, which had all-party support in the House, for environmental health services.

    931
    When we win the election, Scotland's health service will benefit from our pledge to increase spending year on year in real terms throughout the whole of the next Parliament, a promise that the hon. Gentleman is not allowed to make and cannot make because he has already made promises in secret to his friends in local government.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, relative to the Scottish budget and expenditure, if we were ever to have a Parliament in Edinburgh that decided on matters such as health, Scottish Members could not raise those issues, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has just done, because they would be part-time and unable to ask questions about Scottish matters—and should be paid part-time wages?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) hopes to have many Labour Members coming down from Scotland, whose job would be not to represent Scotland's interests, but to impose socialism on England. That unstable position would wreck his party's proposals, as it has wrecked every previous home rule proposal, but my hon. Friend makes the important point that Scotland's budget would still be determined here at Westminster, where Scotland's voice would be diminished, as hon. Members on the Liberal Benches acknowledge, through the loss of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland in Cabinet. With a tax-raising Parliament in Edinburgh, it is difficult to see how our present advantageous position would be maintained. The hon. Member for Hamilton and his colleagues are putting their socialist interests ahead of the interests of people who depend on education, health, social work and all our other caring services in Scotland. We will expose that in the forthcoming election campaign.

    Skye Bridge Tolls
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Skye bridge tolls upon the economy of the highlands and western isles; and if he will make a statement. [8133]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): All our research shows it has been an enormous success.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge that there is recognition throughout the highlands and islands that this vexed issue will probably be resolved only with the outcome of the general election? The Scottish Liberal Democrats will be campaigning on a manifesto commitment to abolish the tolls. In the interim, given the Secretary of State's commitment on Monday at the Highlands and Islands Convention that the economics of all this will be examined, will he take account of the evidence that has been provided by the joint consultants report to the Highland council and Skye and Lochalsh Enterprise, which showed that the number of heavy goods vehicles and coaches using the bridge has declined by no less than 25 per cent. since it opened? That is having a drastic economic impact on Skye and the Western Isles.
    932
    I hope that we can have the Minister's commitment that that will be taken into account in the pre-election assessment that is to take place.
    Mr. Kynoch: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have recognised what a success the bridge has been for Skye. The figures for the first year, compared with those for the last year of the ferry, show a 16 per cent. increase in throughput. Skye has benefited from the bridge, as has the Mallaig ferry. I should have hoped that he would recognise that the bridge has brought significant benefits to his constituents in Skye.
    It was the idea of the Highland regional council that the bridge should be constructed. If tolls were to be removed, that would put a burden on other areas of local authority expenditure. I challenge the hon. Gentleman: if he is willing to put such a pledge in his election manifesto, where would he cut services in the highlands to pay for it?
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts might not be in the highlands? If the tolls were paid for by the Scottish Office, the money might come from cuts in programmes that would affect my constituents in Eastwood. Will my hon. Friend send a firm message to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and his campaigners that, if that is a possibility, it is not on?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. The proposals from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—(Interruption.] Scottish National party members seem to be indicating that they have the same policies. I am not aware of that party vigorously supporting a tax-raising Parliament other than seeing it as a stepping stone to full independence.
    If the Opposition's policy of a tax-raising Parliament came about, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) would be absolutely right. If the cost had to be funded from the Scottish Office, who knows where it might be taken from. It could be taken from Eastwood—it could even be Hamilton. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) might have to face the stark reality of telling his constituents how he would fund something—for a change.
    Mr. Macdonald: Can the Minister name any other bridge in Britain that is part of the public highway but is not funded, at least in part, out of public taxation? How can he justify using the most remote communities in Britain as the victims of this unique experiment in privatisation?
    Mr. Kynoch: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that, originally, the people of Skye and the tourists visiting Skye had to use a ferry to get there. The tolls charged on the new bridge are significantly less than the ferry fares.
    Mr. Macdonald: They are not.
    Mr. Kynoch: When one looks at the published fares, even the discount fares, one can see that the tolls are significantly less. Only large buses benefited from a non-seasonal discount. Now, across the board, there are low season discounts on tolls, some of which are

    933
    significantly less than the fares in the last year of the ferry's operation. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the bridge has brought about a 16 per cent. increase in throughput for the benefit of the people of Skye.
    Mr. John Marshall: The question refers in part to the economy of the highlands and the western isles. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whisky industry is important to that area? Will he congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce duty on whisky in two consecutive Budgets, and welcome the fact that the Japanese are reducing their discrimination against Scotch? The people of Scotland will drink a toast and a wee dram to the Chancellor—even if mean-minded Opposition Members will not.
    Mr. Kynoch: I am glad that my hon. Friend realises the great benefits that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has brought to the whisky industry and—as we were talking about the Skye bridge—to the people of Skye. The bridge makes it that much easier to transport product backwards and forwards between Skye and the mainland, and I am sure that distilleries on Skye will benefit significantly from that improved access.
    In the past few years, on average, the ferry has not operated—because of bad weather or maintenance—for approximately 80 hours a year, whereas the bridge, in its first year of operation, was closed for only one hour. I argue not only that my right hon. and learned Friend has brought benefits through his whisky tax reduction—which we all welcome—but that the bridge has enabled the people of Skye to live in very much better spirits than they might have with the ferry.
    Mrs. Liddell: Will the Minister explain to the House how many crossings of the Skye bridge could be made for the cost of hiring one RAF jet from Inverness to London? Is that an example of Tory transport policy for the highlands—one service for the privileged, and another for the rest?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady demeans herself by couching a question on the highlands in such terms. It is all about a diversionary tactic by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who spent the first 40 minutes of the first meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention arguing about procedures.
    I think that all those who were present at that meeting agree that, after those first 40 minutes, it was very positive and constructive. We discussed many serious subjects, which was of benefit to the highlands and enabled all the bodies involved in the highlands to get together to co-ordinate their views. We also produced an agenda of topics that future meetings will discuss. Liberal Democrat Members seem to be nodding in agreement. I should think that they would welcome an opportunity to discuss such matters in a sensible forum, without the petty party politics and point-scoring attempted by the hon. Lady.

    Uncollected Local Authority Taxes
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the level of uncollected local authority taxes in Scotland. [8134]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: There is £721 million of uncollected local authority taxes in Scotland.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. That is a lot of money. Which is the worst offending council? What would be the effect in that and other cities in Scotland if the council collected its dues and demands—in other words, carried out its fiduciary duty?
    Mr. Forsyth: On uncollected council tax, the worst offenders are Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Glasgow has the largest amount of uncollected council tax. Currently, band D council tax payers in Glasgow have to pay £807. If all the money were collected, however, they would receive a cheque for £315 from the council.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the £14 billion cost of the poll tax to the British public was due largely to his support for its introduction in Scotland? When will he have the guts and the honesty to confess his share of guilt in imposing that £14 billion tax on the British people? Does he realise the extent to which the people of Scotland regard his cavalier attitude to public spending, which he showed by taking that aircraft on Monday night, as a pathetic spectacle? He might say that the incident was petty, small or minor, but it showed that he has a double standard when it comes to spending public money in Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: I think that we can take that as a commitment, on behalf of the Labour party, that—if Labour is ever in government—Labour Members will not make any use of RAF jets. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) make that commitment.
    Mr. McAvoy: Answer my question.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman wants an answer on the poll tax, but he obviously does not like the answer he has had on the RAF. On his question on the poll tax, the hon. Gentleman might like to note that Labour councils in Scotland are showing an increasingly poor record of collecting council tax. Consequently, council tax payers who pay their council tax are having to pay more. That is what Labour is like in local government, and it would be the same in central Government. If it were ever elected to office, there would be higher taxes and poorer standards in collection and in administering the law. That has been Labour's record in local government, and that is its record in Scotland.

    Inward Investment
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the major inward investment projects in Scotland in the last six months. [8135]
    Mr. Kynoch: We have attracted 45 inward investment projects to Scotland over the past six months. It would be

    935
    impossible to list them all, but I shall mention some. They include projects by: Allied Precision, Appryl, Bermo, CWW Logistics, Hyundai, IBM, Instrument Specialities, Level Nine, Lite-On Technology, PM Support Services, Polaroid, Quintiles, Roche, Rohr, Smart Modular Technologies and Techdrill.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a massive vote of confidence in the Conservatives' management of Scotland. Does he agree that it would be a cruel trick to follow Labour's proposals to saddle such successful industry with a tartan tax, a social chapter and a minimum wage? Those measures would destroy jobs and deter future investment. Surely the people of Scotland will vote the right way and ensure that Labour never has a chance there or in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. We have been successful with inward investment because investors recognise the possibility of locating in Scotland and being competitive in world markets. The seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland released this morning show a reduction of 7,900 people, down to 7.4 per cent. That has happened because Scottish business is competitive.
    Saddling Scottish business with increased taxation, through the tartan tax or the trade tax—taking the uniform business rate away and giving control back to Labour local authorities that appear intent on putting costs up—would be counter-productive. Those measures, together with the social chapter and the minimum wage, would be disastrous for Scottish companies. If we want unemployment to continue falling and inward investment to continue flowing into the country, we must provide the right economic conditions for business to succeed. Only this Government can provide that.
    Mr. Dalyell: How much taxpayers' money went on those 45 projects?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the figures for the regional selective assistance offered to each project are given in the Edinburgh Gazette the quarter after the grant is taken up. The figures are not disclosed at the time of granting, because projects put forward for regional selective assistance have commercial sensitivity. It would be wrong to disclose—
    Mr. Connarty: The Minister obviously does not know.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is prattling from a sedentary position about my not—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has been constantly prattling from a sedentary position since we started. If he expects to be called to put a question, he might contain himself now.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman's prattling from a sedentary position shows his ignorance about how inward investment is attracted to Scotland and how jobs are created in Scotland. If he spent a little more time
    936
    considering his party's policies, he might get a little further in succeeding in keeping people in Scotland and keeping investment flowing in.
    Mr. Gallie: I welcome the fall in unemployment in Scotland—from 7.8 per cent. to 7.4 per cent. —that has been announced today. What proportion of that fall could be attributed to inward investment, and how much to the uniform business rate and its beneficial effects on small businesses? Does my hon. Friend agree that changing the uniform business rate—as the Labour party wants—would be a disaster for those who want to be employed in Scotland?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on the uniform business rate, because businesses, particularly small businesses, in Scotland have been crying out for it and are pleased to see it. They now have a level playing field throughout Scotland and England.
    The Opposition's policy of returning the uniform business rate to local government control and linking it to an increase in band D council tax—the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) does not seem to have decided on the speed with which he will implement it should he ever be able to do so—would have increased business rates for small businesses in Glasgow by 20 per cent. last year. I doubt whether such a policy is good for unemployment. Small businesses would suffer severely under the Labour party's policies.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I acknowledge that Locate in Scotland has been very successful in the past six months or so, but does the Minister accept that there is concern that the financial arrangements that it has put in place to achieve that success have been at the expense of some of the other budgets available to local enterprise companies? Will he give an assurance that there will be no top slicing, which would result in other parts of Scotland paying the price for the recipients of Locate in Scotland's excellent work?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman knows that regional selective assistance, for example, is equally available to indigenous companies. He has drawn the situation in the borders to my attention on numerous occasions. As he knows, I visited the borders in August and talked to Borders Enterprise, which will be putting its case to Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise is responsible for looking after inward investment and, more important, indigenous companies.
    Mr. McFall: The Government have our support in attracting inward investment. The Minister knows that neither added value nor technology ventures have been very successful. What is he doing to convert inward investment into indigenous growth in Scotland? He will be aware that only 21 per cent. of the supplies of inward investors are secured in Scotland. If that figure rose by just 5 per cent., we could produce a Chungwha every year, creating 2,000 jobs. What are the Government doing in those two crucial areas?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has double standards. I recognise his point about attracting research and development—he should welcome the fact that some inward investors are moving research and development activities into Scotland, and we shall obviously try for

    937
    more—but the Opposition's taxation proposals would be far more damaging to the prospects of a Chungwha coming to the country. Given his party's taxation regime, it is utter folly for him to talk about getting a Chungwha every year.

    Local Authority Completions
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority new dwellings were completed in 1995. [8137]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Just under 400.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that, in Glasgow alone, the number of homeless applicants on the waiting list is more than 2,000? Is not that just one of the many scandalous aspects of the Government's housing policy? Does he agree with today's leader in The Herald in Glasgow, which describes our housing system as rotten to the core and in urgent need of reform?
    Mr. Robertson: I agree that our housing system is in urgent need of reform. That is why I have spent the past year and a half encouraging local authorities, such as the one in her constituency, to remove themselves from being direct providers of housing and to transfer their housing stock to housing associations and housing companies.
    I hope that the hon. Lady's council, like all others in Scotland, will address the number of vacant properties they have, which amount to 2.5 per cent. of Scotland's entire council housing stock.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister accept that the problem of homelessness is not confined to urban areas? Rural homelessness is an increasing problem. The former Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and North East Fife district council sold 40 per cent. of its local authority stock and performed the best in Scotland, yet it was not allowed to apply the proceeds from that sale to the problem of homelessness in its area. Why will the Government not adopt a much more flexible approach to the use of council house sales receipts?
    Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that £4 billion-worth of housing debt has to be repaid? That has gone up by 6 per cent. in the past year alone. If he and his hon. Friends are not willing to protect council tenants, I assure him that we most definitely are.
    Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister accept that the dreadful new build figure that he gave will be even worse next year with the 30 per cent. cut in council housing budgets and that the number of housing association starts next year will be slashed from 4,000 to 1,500 due to the 25 per cent. cut in their budgets? Does he realise that renovation of cold, damp houses will be similarly curtailed, at great cost to people's health and NHS budgets? How can the Government seriously claim that they make health a priority when they promote ill health in that way and waste more and more money each year on NHS bureaucracy, as today's annual health statistics make abundantly clear?
    Mr. Robertson: Despite all the rumblings and mutterings from Opposition spokesmen on housing since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his statement, no one has ever said that, if Labour were in our position, it would not require local authorities to make the debt repayments that we require. Perhaps one of them would like to indicate, by nodding or shaking his head, whether Labour would go along with that policy.
    As always on such matters, they see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil; they will not say anything at all. The Opposition criticise us for doing something, but they will not even say whether they would go along with it or cancel it. I hope that every council tenant in Scotland appreciates the fact that, although the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) comes to the Dispatch Box and says one thing, he apparently has not a clue what he would do if he were ever given the privilege of being a Minister.

    Scottish Homes
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the sale of Scottish Homes housing stock. [8138]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My right hon. Friend has received seven letters in the past three months, two of which were from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Canavan: If the Government really want to promote diversity of choice for tenants, why was Falkirk council disqualified from submitting a bid in the Falkirk area, and the Link housing association bid excluded on the grounds that it did not meet the benchmark valuation, although there had been no prior stipulation that would lead to exclusion? As a result, for some housing estates the only bid being considered is that by Paragon, which is in an advantageous position, with access to Scottish Homes funding, staff and inside information. When there is only one name on the ballot paper, is not democracy reduced to a farce?
    Mr. Robertson: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. In view of the nonsense that we have just heard from the Opposition Front Bench, surely he is not asking us to go ahead with stock transfers that do not give value for money. That was the basis on which the other bidders were ruled out, and each of them has had the chance to rebid. Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely think that we should go to the National Audit Office and say that we will accept any bid, regardless of value for money? The Paragon housing association has no greater access to information than any of the other bidders, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent survey revealed that 80 per cent. of people in Scotland say that they want to own their own homes? Can he confirm that since 1979, when 35 per cent. of homes were in private ownership, we have achieved 58 per cent. ownership, and that we are well on the way to achieving recognition by the people of Scotland of the fact that we are meeting their aspirations?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. The significant increase in home ownership during the

    939
    Government's 18 years in office, from eastern European levels to almost 60 per cent., is a tremendous credit to the people of Scotland. That great achievement was fought for in the teeth of opposition by the Labour party both in the House and in town halls and council chambers throughout Scotland. To its eternal shame, Labour fought to refuse our people the right to buy and own their own homes.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the 1997–98 financial settlement for Scottish local government. [8139]
    Mr. Kynoch: Representations were received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and a number of individual councils and other bodies prior to the announcement of the 1997–98 local government finance settlement.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that within that settlement there is a savage 30 per cent. cut in spending on council housing in Scotland at a time when one in four of Scotland's children lives in housing which suffers from dampness, condensation and mould? When there are 7,000 excess deaths in Scotland every year, why are the Government cutting the spending that would keep people's homes warm and dry? Do the Government not understand that cuts in the housing programme increase ill health and thus add to the burdens on an already overstretched national health service?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is great at knocking our proposals for local government in the coming year, but he does not say from where he would take the extra funding if he had the opportunity to decide. Last year he was good enough to tell us that he would take it from the health service. This year he was tempted into saying that he would take it from law and order. We regard health and law and order as priorities, and we believe that local government must get its house in order and start making itself efficient. The settlement that we have given it this year is more than reasonable.
    Mr. Richards: Does my hon. Friend have any information about the views of the Scottish business community on the financial settlement for local government next year, especially in the light of the Labour party's proposals for devolution and the disclosures of the level of uncollected taxes and the fact that some 54 per cent. of Scottish gross domestic product may be taken up in public expenditure when the target for the UK as a whole is 40 per cent.?
    Mr. Kynoch: Business must regard local government with amazement when Glasgow cries out that it is short of funds but spends some £400,000 on painting the Clyde red to celebrate the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. What has that to do with providing services to the people of Glasgow? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the £200 million or so of uncollected tax could mean that band D council tax payers would receive a cheque. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) may be interested to know
    940
    that, if the £25 million uncollected tax in Dundee were applied to band D council tax, it would reduce it by 68 per cent.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister have any clue about the seriousness of the situation facing the people of Glasgow as a result of cuts in the budgets of Scottish Homes, the Greater Glasgow health board and Glasgow Development Agency, and the almost total lack of inward investment projects attracted by Locate in Scotland, which has been singularly unsuccessful in doing anything on behalf of the city? As Glasgow is Scotland's metropolitan area, when will the Minister drop his anti-Glasgow bias and do something to benefit the people of Glasgow, instead of carping all the time?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that I was present at the announcement of an inward investment for Glasgow only the other day—a call centre for Polaroid. Several call centres, with several hundred jobs, have gone to Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman complains about Glasgow development agency's budget, but it has not yet been told its budget for next year. Perhaps he should get his facts right.
    Mr. Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that local authority expenditure in Glasgow is 57 per cent. higher per head of population than in neighbouring East Renfrewshire? That is unsurprising, as Glasgow does not know how many social workers it has. Is it not time that the Scottish Office moved resources away from high-spending cities to needy outlying areas which would spend the money far more effectively?
    Mr. Kynoch: Having been the Minister responsible for local government in Scotland very successfully for many years, my hon. Friend knows how the allocation of funds to local authorities works, using a formula based on discussions between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Office. To give Glasgow a little more time to adjust to the formula allocation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year gave it an extra £15 million. Councillor Gould, when he came to see the Secretary of State, said that he would use that time wisely. The fact that the social work budget has been exceeded six months into the new year by £3.4 million does not say much for the financial controls. I hope that at the end of the year Glasgow will have done what it agreed to do almost 12 months ago.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: It will no doubt be music to the Minister's ears to hear that Argyll and Bute council is embarked on cost cutting and so-called efficiency savings with proposals to axe staff and close three rural schools, one of which is on an island. Why will he not accept that Argyll and Bute, with so many islands to service—which, as he knows, is a costly business—should qualify for the special islands needs allowance?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady has raised the matter with me before, and Argyll and Bute council raised it when I visited in the summer. I am well aware of the council's concerns and needs, which must be reflected in the grant-aided expenditure formula that is applied to it. That is not a matter for me or for the Secretary of State, but

    941
    for the joint COSLA and Scottish Office distribution committee. I know that the hon. Lady's council has been putting its point to the distribution committee, and I urge it, if it believes that it has a case, to continue to do so.
    Mr. George Robertson: Will the Minister admit that the crisis created by the local Government settlement this year, which has at its roots the costs left behind by the gerrymandering of local government by the Conservative Government, will impact upon real services for real people, including schools in the Stirling constituency, which will be badly hit next year as a consequence? Is it not true that that settlement will also impact upon environmental health departments in councils all over Scotland, and therefore hinder their ability to deal with the type of food poisoning outbreaks that we have seen in the past month?
    When will Ministers accept responsibility and answer questions about what they did or did not do at the beginning of the E. coli crisis? What have they got to hide? Why are they afraid to answer the questions that have been repeatedly asked about it? They must stop passing the blame to local authorities and carry the can.
    Mr. Kynoch: That is the hon. Member who believes that he is capable of being Secretary of State for Scotland. I am disappointed that he does not recognise the responsibilities outlined in the Food Safety Act 1990: it is local authorities' concern, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made perfectly clear. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would praise the work of his Labour council and the council executive for what they have done during the difficult crisis.
    On local government funding, the hon. Member constantly says that we do not give enough to local Government, but constantly refuses to say where he would take from in order to give local government more. If he is serious about being part of a potential Government of the country it is about time he told the House and the country where he would sacrifice spending in order to give it to local government, which is more than well funded in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Homelessness
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Shelter to discuss homelessness in Scotland. [8140]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On 29 November.
    Ms Cunningham: Does the Minister agree that the right to a warm, secure and affordable home is a fundamental human right? Has he seen the recent figures from Shelter, which show a 63 per cent. rise in homelessness in Scotland in the past 10 years? In view of that, how can he justify the devastating cuts in the public sector housing budget this year? Will he not at least try to do something to help by commuting the housing debt, in the same way as was done for the private water authorities in England?
    Mr. Robertson: The selective quoting of statistics does the House no good. The hon. Lady should perhaps have quoted the figure which shows that homelessness in
    942
    Scotland is falling—last year it fell by 3 per cent. Shelter does our local authorities no credit by not giving them the credit for providing homes for 90 per cent. of families deemed unintentionally homeless and therefore in priority need. As for the commutation of debt, the hon. Lady tries to imply that there is some magic way of getting rid of the £4 billion debt. It must be picked up by someone. She has asked for it to be transferred to the national Exchequer. Her party's spending proposal have been independently costed and would cause a budget deficit of about £8 billion in Scotland. She has just said that she would add 50 per cent., bringing it up to £12 billion.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister accept that his unwillingness to express any concern about the levels of homelessness in Scotland causes regret within Scotland? Simply to bluff and bluster and to put questions to the House does not answer the real difficulties in Scotland. Simply to shout and bawl is not an adequate response to the many people in my constituency and in others who do not have a warm, dry house to live in. When will he take those problems seriously?
    Mr. Robertson: If I did not care about the plight of the homeless in Scotland, I would not have issued a new draft code on homelessness as guidance for local authorities. I would not have put it out for consultation, nor withdrawn it because of some of the concerns that were expressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have repeatedly said that we are willing to consult all the relevant bodies in the next few weeks with regard to revising the draft code to ensure that it meets Scottish circumstances in a particularly Scottish way. That does not strike me as the action of a Government who do not care.
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in introducing a rough sleepers initiative in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [8141]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My right hon. Friend issued a consultation paper on the rough sleepers initiative on 11 December.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister knows that my question was tabled before the statement was made. Following the variety of questions on housing, has the Minister seen the latest Shelter estimate that the housing waiting list in Scotland is now longer, at 194,579, than it has ever been? Is that not a dreadful comment at the end of 17 years of Tory government?
    Mr. Robertson: I regret that the hon. Gentleman chooses to question me about rough sleepers. When we introduce a rough sleepers initiative, he chooses to ignore the fact that we have done so. That is a matter of real regret. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely had at heart the issue of rough sleeping in Scotland, he would not have continued with that question.
    In reply to a previous question, I said that 2.5 per cent. of all council houses in Scotland are vacant. I hope that all local authorities, including the hon. Gentleman's, will turn their attention to getting those houses back into use.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Is the Minister aware that approximately 1,800 pensioners in Scotland become

    943
    homeless every year and that there is a severe shortage of all types of sheltered accommodation, especially public rented accommodation, to meet the needs of elderly and disabled people? Is he aware that, far from enabling local authorities to adapt and improve unsuitable housing that would allow the elderly to remain and live in the community, the Government's housing policies—especially the increase from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. for debt redemption—will force many elderly people to abandon their homes and communities and go into institutional care?
    Mr. Robertson: First, the hon. Lady obviously has not heard of our care and repair policy, which provides funds to allow elderly people to do the very thing that she describes—to adapt their own homes so that they can stay in them. The hon. Lady is right to say that that is where many of them wish to remain.
    Perhaps the hon. Lady's remarks would be better directed towards hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench, who have committed not one more penny than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has committed to spending on housing in Scotland. I am happy to stand by the plans that my right hon. Friend outlined. The hon. Lady's own Front Benchers will not commit one penny more for housing in Scotland. I hope that she questions them in the same way as she has questioned me.
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he received in the consultation process on the draft code of guidance on homelessness; and when he expects to report his conclusions. [8142]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We have received 140 responses to the consultation document and we shall publish the final code early next year.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister admit that not one closing date submission supported temporary housing for the homeless? Does he accept that temporary housing will not solve the problem, and that only permanent housing will meet the needs of individuals and families who are homeless in Scotland?
    Mr. Robertson: Indeed, not one response supported it, which is why we have gone on to further consultation, and that is one of the elements under review.

    Public Expenditure Statement
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on his public expenditure statement presented to the Scottish Grand Committee on 9 December. [8143]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My public expenditure plans have been welcomed by the universities, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Tourist Board and many others.
    Mr. Salmond: And by the RAF.
    Mr. Forsyth: Yes, and by the RAF.
    Mr. Salmond: Was not the Secretary of State ashamed at having to confirm that total research spending on
    944
    E. coli 0157 by the Scottish Office over a six-year period amounted to a mere £500,000? Given that it was known well before the tragedy in Lanarkshire that we had a particular problem with E. coli 0157 in Scotland, is that not a deplorably low amount? Does it not typify an attitude in Scottish Office towards research spending, environmental health and public safety which reeks of complacency? Was not the so-called insider in the Health Department who was quoted this weekend right to say that the current hyperactivity of the Secretary of State for Scotland is a cover for his inactivity when it mattered?
    Mr. Forsyth: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I am surprised by his ignorance of the way in which research is commissioned by the Government. As he knows, it is done on the advice of the chief scientist's office. He also knows that the Department of Health is the lead Department in that respect. Given that he has been told repeatedly that research into E. coli is more than £2 million, but insists on quoting the Scottish Office figure instead of that for the Department of Health, I can only assume that he is deliberately trying to distort the situation and to make cheap political capital out of a very distressing situation in Scotland. I am sure that he will earn everyone's contempt for doing so.
    Mr. Congdon rose
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"]
    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind those who demand higher public expenditure in Scotland that it is already higher per head than it is in England? Does he agree that those who persist in their demands for devolution will have to answer to taxpayers in England as to why we should continue to subsidise such high levels of public expenditure if they want a devolved Parliament?
    Mr. Forsyth: I noticed that several Opposition Members asked "Who is he?" when my hon. Friend asked the question. The answer is that my hon. Friend is one of many Members of the House who would determine Scotland's budget if we ever had a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers. It would not be determined by Scottish Members of Parliament sitting in a Scottish Parliament. Those Opposition Members who jeer and sneer at the key point that my hon. Friend makes—that devolution threatens Scotland's public services—should recognise the strength of that argument and realise that their responsibility is to the people of Scotland, not to socialism and the Scottish Labour party.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospital projects he has approved for financing under the private finance initiative. [8144]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Ferryfield elderly care facility in Edinburgh, information systems at Law and Yorkhill hospitals and several contracts for care beds, medical analysis equipment and clinical waste disposal have been approved for financing under the private finance initiative by my right hon Friend or have been

    945
    taken forward by health service bodies under delegated authority. A further 15 projects with a capital value of £588 million are at an advanced stage.
    Mr. Foulkes: You will have noticed, Madam Speaker, that the Minister did not mention the East Ayrshire community hospital. In view of all the written questions that I have tabled and in view of the fact that the project was delayed for at least two years by the Minister's predecessor as a result of spurious consultation about alternative sites and has now been delayed for another six months because of the PH proposal, when there is money in the Scottish Office budget to fund that hospital by traditional means, why does the Minister not give it the go-ahead, instead of putting political dogma above my constituents' interests?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, the project has not been delayed as the hon. Gentleman says. Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust won the competition with other trusts on the basis of providing a new hospital. We are determined to make progress on a PH proposal so that that important facility can be secured. Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust must fully explore whether it can provide a hospital under the PFI. The trust is confident that it can do so by further negotiation. Revised proposals from the bidder arrived as recently as mid-November. Those reduced the costs, but further negotiations are required. Negotiations should proceed as quickly as possible.

    Full-time Students
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for expanding the number of full-time students in further education taking higher level courses with particular reference to expanding the availability of bursaries. [8146]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Except in those colleges involved in the university of the highlands and islands project, we have no further plans to expand the number of full-time students in further education taking higher education courses. Future arrangements for bursaries are currently under review.
    Mr. Worthington: I thank the Minister for responding to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and myself to provide bursary money to enable students at Clydebank to continue their courses, which they had been prevented from doing as a result of underfunding.
    Does the Minister realise that about half the colleges in Scotland which are in financial trouble will be unable to expand to attract more students next year because there will not be the bursary money to support those students in their courses?
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentlemen for coming in. We had a useful meeting, which helped to address some of the problems at that college. Regarding the situation on bursaries, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are reviewing all this and we have asked for comments from the entire sector with a view to seeing whether any changes need to be made. We have an open mind on that. Last Friday, I had a useful meeting in
    946
    Inverness with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and some of his college principals. If the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) or any other hon. Member has any views that he wishes to feed in, I am willing to listen to representations and consider the matter.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister carefully examine the plans that are being made, and carried out experimentally in England, to provide proper bursaries for dance and drama students, which are not being mirrored in Scotland? It remains an anomaly that discretionary spending is excluding Scottish would-be dancers and dramatic performers from proper further education opportunities.
    Mr. Robertson: Yes, indeed: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall look carefully at that; and at any information that he wants to give me beforehand. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is shouting from behind me, "What about the Spice Girls?".

    Care in the Community
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about care in the community in Angus and Perth and Kinross; and if he will make a statement. [8147]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have received representations from service users, independent sector providers and my hon. Friend, which led to an inspection of community care services in Angus and Perth and Kinross. The report was published on 14 November.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the report showed clearly that the quality of service in the private sector and the local government sector was exactly the same, but that the private sector was £200 per head per week cheaper? Consequently, if the private sector had been used, many more places would have been available, bed blocking in the health service would have been greatly reduced, and the whole service would have operated much more effectively—not just in Perth and Kinross and Angus, but throughout Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The main finding was that those authorities could achieve long-term savings totalling between £3 million and £6 million by making more use of the independent care sector. We are to introduce directions on information which will require authorities to make public the costs of care in different sectors. I can also confirm that the Secretary of State recently announced an additional £15 million for health boards to reduce pressures that are likely to arise over the winter.

    Electronic Tagging
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the effectiveness of electronic tagging for convicted offenders. [8148]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Representations on this matter were made by 18 of those who responded to

    947
    our "Crime and Punishment" White Paper, and we are still receiving representations in connection with our consultation paper on electronic monitoring of young offenders.
    Mr. Brazier: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that any assessment of the usefulness of tagging in all parts of the United Kingdom must be based not on considerations of the civil liberties of the convicted offenders but on its effectiveness in preventing future crime and hence its impact on the community and especially on the victims of the crimes?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Punishment and deterrence are importance. This is a useful disposal. Under the English pilot schemes, curfew orders have been made—most often for burglary, theft, driving while disqualified, possession of drugs and some violent offences. The initial findings are that the pilot schemes have been successful. We believe that this will be a useful disposal for the courts—to ensure, for instance, that football hooligans are restricted to certain areas.

    Employment (Eastwood)
    Mr. Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest estimate of employment and unemployment in the Eastwood constituency. [8149]
    Mr. Kynoch: The figures announced today show that 10.1 per cent. of the work force in the Eastwood constituency were registered unemployed and claiming benefit in November. This shows a fall of 9.7 per cent. since November 1995 and confirms the extent to which Eastwood, like the rest of the country, is benefiting from the Government's very successful economic policies.
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House and my constituents those extremely encouraging figures. Does he agree that they show the sustained improvement in employment trends throughout my constituency, in large measure due to the expanding small firms and self-employed sector? Does he further agree that that expansion would be wholly undermined by the increases in business rates threatened by the Labour party?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. The policies of the Opposition parties would be
    948
    counter-productive to the future success of small businesses. That is recognised by the small business owners whom I meet as I go around the country.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Given that a number of people from Eastwood work at Scottish Power's headquarters in Cathcart, just as a number of my constituents work at Scottish Power's Cockenzie power station, will the Minister acknowledge that it is vital for the people of Eastwood and of East Lothian that the interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland should be constructed, in the interests of both Northern Ireland and Scotland? Will the Secretary of State therefore withdraw the ridiculous, unwarranted and unprecedented conditions that he has attached to the route across south Ayrshire so that this vital project can go ahead in the interests of people on both sides of the Irish sea?
    Mr. Foulkes indicated dissent.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman should look to his left at the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who was shaking his head throughout the hon. Gentleman's comments. That is yet another split between Opposition Members which I hope the whole House has recognised.
    Mr. Beggs: Despite the reply that the Minister has given, does he accept that there are economic benefits for constituents in Eastwood and elsewhere in Scotland if interconnection happens: that jobs will be secured in Scotland, that new jobs will be created, and that we in Northern Ireland will have security of supply and real competition to bring down electricity prices to domestic and industrial consumers, thereby benefiting both Scotland and Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Kynoch: Of course I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated that he is minded to accept the interconnector, with the condition that four sections should be undergrounded. My right hon. Friend has put that proposal out to swift consultation with interested parties, and responses have to be in by 20 December. Once the responses have been received, my right hon. Friend will reconsider the issue. I am sure that he has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Public Interest Immunity
3.30 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of public interest immunity in relation to Government documents as it operates in England and Wales, in the light of the consultation following publication of the Scott report. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is making a similar statement in another place.
The Government are committed to the principle that there should be the maximum disclosure consistent with protecting essential public interests. The House will recall that the law that prevailed at the time of the Matrix Churchill case was further developed by the House of Lords case of ex parte Wiley in July 1994. Since that case, Ministers have had a gener al discretion to disclose documents without the prior approval of the court, if they consider that to be in the overall public interest.
Against that background, it is the view of Sir Richard Scott that legislation on public interest immunity is neither necessary nor desirable, and the Government agree. Public interest immunity is needed because of the potential conflict between two important public interests—the clear public interest in the administration of justice, which in a criminal case is the fair trial of an accused, and what is sometimes also the clear public interest in the confidentiality of certain documents or information.
The House will bear in mind the fact that the so-called immunity is subject to the ruling of the court, and that, in a criminal case, when Government documents are in issue, the judge himself examines any such document and makes the actual decision on disclosure in the light of the facts of the case.
In their proposals for the future, the Government have had particular regard both to the recommendations of Sir Richard Scott and to the many responses received during the consultation process. The Government's conclusions represent a new approach, which is set out in a paper today being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Under the new approach, Ministers will focus directly on the damage that disclosure would cause. The former division into class and contents claims will no longer be applied. Ministers will claim public interest immunity only when it is believed that disclosure of a document would cause real damage or harm to the public interest.
That new approach constitutes a change in the practice to be adopted by Ministers, but fully respects existing legal principles, as developed by the courts, and is subject to the supervision of the courts. It also accords with the view expressed by the present Lord Chief Justice that
"public interest immunity should only be claimed for the bare minimum of documents for which the claim of serious harm can be seen to be clearly justified".
The Government intend that the test shall be rigorously applied before any public interest immunity claim is made for any Government documents. It is impossible in advance to describe such damage exhaustively. The damage may relate to the safety of an individual, such as an informant, or to a regulatory process; or it may be damage to international relations caused by the disclosure of confidential diplomatic communications.
950
Normally it will be in the form of direct and immediate harm to, for example, the nation's economic interests or our relations with a foreign state. In some cases, it may be indirect or longer-term damage to which the disclosure of the material would contribute, as in the case of damage to a regulatory process. In any event, the nature of the harm will be clearly explained.
This new, restrictive approach will require, so far as possible, the way in which disclosure could cause real damage to the public interest to be clearly identified. Public interest immunity certificates will in future set out in greater detail than before both what the document is and what damage its disclosure would be likely to do—unless to do so would itself cause the damage that the certificate aims to prevent. That will allow even closer scrutiny of claims by the court, which is always the final arbiter.
The new emphasis on the test of serious harm means that Ministers will not, for example, claim PII to protect either internal advice or national security material merely by pointing to the general nature of the document. The only basis for claiming PII will be a belief that disclosure will cause real harm.
In relation to national security, the Government's approach takes into account the types of information that Parliament defined as sensitive in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, although, as I have said, a document will not attract PII simply because it falls into a pre-defined category. Many public interest immunity claims are not the responsibility of Government. Although the Government believe that their approach can be applied more widely, the paper placed in the Library only restricts Government claims.
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate and taken the trouble to respond to the consultation exercise in this complex area. A combination of the revised regime laid down by the House of Lords in ex parte Wiley and the Government's new approach should ensure that PII claims will be significantly less frequent in future. I repeat that any claim in a criminal case will always, in the end, be subject to review by the court itself.
I believe that those factors, combined with the new test based on serious damage, which I have described and which is set out more fully in the paper today being placed in the Library of each House, provide what should prove a sensible, balanced and effective regime for the future; and I commend it to the House.
Mr. John Morris: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for coming to the House to explain the Government's conclusions on the consultations that he set up as long ago as last February—although it has taken a little time. The House will also need time to react properly, and to study his paper that is now in the Library.
First, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the application of his conclusions to Ministers will not affect the run-of-the-mill informant case and the need to protect such information? Secondly, will he clarify whether—and, if so, where—he departs from the substance of Sir Richard Scott's conclusions? Thirdly, does the abolition of the distinction between class and a contents claim mean effectively—particularly in criminal cases—that only contents claims will be made in future, whatever label they may or may not have?

951
Fourthly, when the Attorney-General refers to a claim being made only where there is real damage or harm to the public interest, does that mean the same as Lord Templeman meant in Wiley's case when he referred to "substantial" harm to the public interest?
Fifthly, do the Attorney-General's conclusions in adopting Wiley mean that the effect is a wholly new approach by Government? Does he expect that the claims will be made only rarely in criminal cases, and that Ministers will have to judge for themselves in each particular case whether to claim and the width of such a claim, having regard to the possibility of editing?
Sixthly, I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's response to Scott. Ministers should have more time to consider their position, and should not have to consider matters overnight, which was the position in which the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was placed.
Having had a little experience of the urgency of dealing with red boxes, may I ask how this will operate in practice? What is the bottom line of this new approach? Will the more rigorous approach in civil or criminal cases, together with the effect of new legislation, radically reduce the number of claims? Will claims be made only in exceptional cases, after personal examination by Ministers and, where appropriate, a further check by the courts?
Lastly, can we properly anticipate that, when the liberty of the subject is involved, and when a person may go to gaol or receive other punishment, the chances of a wrong decision will be virtually eliminated? When second thoughts occur about a decision that is adverse to an individual, will the Attorney-General instruct those prosecuting to have no hesitation in withdrawing a criminal case, at whatever stage, if documents that may be of assistance to the defence have been withheld?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to the substance of the report, and for the way in which he put his questions, which I shall answer in the order in which he raised them.
I confirm that the new approach will not affect run-of-the-mill cases. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had great experience in that area, and he knows that, in non-government cases involving police reports, informants and so on, the system works well. Although the courts may choose to adopt some of the practices that the Government are adopting, that will be a matter for them. Those practices will not be forced on them, and I expect the system to continue much as before in run-of-the-mill cases.
Secondly, I confirm that the departure from the previous position relates to the old distinction between class and contents claims and the new emphasis on real harm or real damage. It is not helpful to say that they are all contents claims rather than class claims. Class reasoning may be said to operate in some claims. if that is so, it will be clearly explained in the certificate. In every case, the Minister will have to be satisfied that real harm—which is the same as serious harm or serious damage—would be caused.
That brings me to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fourth point, about whether "real damage" means the same as "substantial harm". In the words of Lord Templeman in the ex parte Wiley case, the straight answer is yes.
952
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's next question was whether there will be fewer such cases in future, following the new approach and the ex parte Wiley case in 1994. He made that point in a number of forms in his last three questions. The straight answer is that I believe that there will be significantly fewer cases.
In fact, the change in the law declared in ex parte Wiley was extremely helpful, because it gave Ministers a discretion where previously there had been an element of rigidity through the need to leave anything except a clear case to the court. For that reason, the number of occasions after 1994 on which public interest immunity certificates had to be used by Ministers was already lower. I am confident that the number will continue to be low in future.
I confirm that the approach is more rigorous. We recognise the importance of giving adequate time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly referred to that: he knows something of the pressures, and I claim to know something of them myself. As the courts in recent criminal cases always looked at the documents, the chances of a miscarriage of justice were happily small.
I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, first, that the court will always continue to see such documents in criminal cases, and secondly that it is one of the key tenets of the prosecution always to keep any prosecution under review. If material emerges that shows that a prosecution ought not to continue, it will then be stopped.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing measures that will certainly give public interest immunity certificates a much better public image. He told us, however, that the judge would make the decision on disclosure. In the light of that, can he tell us whether there have been any miscarriages of justice as a result of the issue of ministerial public interest immunity certificates?
The Attorney-General: I am certainly not aware that any miscarriages of justice have arisen from the issue of a ministerial public interest immunity certificate.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome what the Attorney-General has told the House, so far as it follows the recommendations in chapter 5 of Sir Richard Scott's report. Can he confirm, however, that, notwithstanding his announcement today, if the procedures that he has outlined had been in place at the time Ministers, could well have signed public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case?
Will the Attorney-General also tell the House what his role is to be hereafter? He will recall that Sir Richard Scott was critical of a failure on his part to advise prosecuting counsel to advise, in turn, the judge in the Matrix Churchill case of the reservations of the then President of the Board of Trade when he was called on to sign public interest immunity certificates. Where in the proposals that the Attorney-General has outlined today are the procedures to prevent that from happening again in the future?
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether, under the new procedure, Ministers might still have signed public interest immunity

953
certificates in the Matrix Churchill case. Yes, I expect that there would have been some certificates. They would have covered fewer documents, but they would have been perfectly properly signed—as, indeed, they were properly perfectly signed under the law as it stood at the time.
That brings me to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question. There was a disagreement between SirRichard Scott and myself as to the law that was understood at the time. Sir Richard clearly and courteously set out his findings in his report.
On that issue, the House will recall—certainly it will be recalled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who will have read the report of the debates in the House of Lords—that, while there has been no judicial ruling on the matter, all six Law Lords and former Law Lords who participated in the debate took the view of the law that I had given, and expressly endorsed it. Lord Ackner made that abundantly clear in another place.
Sir Richard Scott himself was good enough—in the House, before the Public Service Committee in May—to make it clear that points made by Lord Ackner, who said that he might have failed to distinguish between the law as it then stood and the law as he thought that it ought to have been, perhaps contained an element of truth. I am very grateful to Sir Richard for saying that.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on getting it right over Matrix Churchill, and welcome the clarification, simplification and improvement of a very complicated area of the law as far as Ministers are concerned. Will he, however, reassure the public that, at the end of the day, it will still be up to the good sense of an independent judiciary to decide whether a public interest immunity certificate should be upheld?
The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend makes a crucial point, which applied in the Matrix Churchill case and applies today. In any criminal case in which public interest immunity is claimed by a Minister of the Crown, the judge will always see the documents, and in the end it will be the judge who decides whether there is any question of withholding such a document from disclosure.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to the Attorney-General, who has thrown a very positive light on the issue of public interest immunity certificates, but may I turn his attention to his other responsibility, as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland?
May I ask about the role of public interest immunity certificates in coroners courts in Northern Ireland? Will coroners there have the same powers in relation to those certificates as an ordinary member of the judiciary? As juries' verdicts in Northern Ireland are based on evidence, the withholding of information by either the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ministry of Defence from coroners' juries can cause severe damage not only to the public interest but to the interests of individuals in Northern Ireland.
The Attorney-General: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, law and practice in Northern Ireland
954
have developed differently, as indeed they have in Scotland. That is why I was careful to say at the beginning of my statement that the new approach that I have set out applies to England and Wales. The law will continue to be developed in Northern Ireland by the judiciary.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I invite my right hon. and learned Friend to see whether we can change the language, and start to describe these certificates as public interest disclosure certificates, which in effect is what they have become. Will he confirm that, up to Wiley and up to the Scott report, the law and procedure had been set only by judges and not by Ministers or Parliament? Will he also confirm that, in future, the advice of Law Officers to Ministers will be on the basis of a public announcement following a review, as today, or to guide Ministers with the words of judges, as in the past?
The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's point about nomenclature, but, albeit that "public interest immunity certificate" is not particularly illuminating, "public interest disclosure certificate" might not be much more so. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not adopt that suggestion. I can confirm that, up to and including the decision in Wiley and since, the law in this area is judge-made. My statement changes practice only in relation to Government documents which are the subject of certificates by Ministers. My hon. Friend is right: the law in this area will continue to be judge-made.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain. I think that this all arose because a number of Ministers said that they had to sign these public interest immunity certificates when there was a prospect of people being sent to gaol. Their defence was, "Look, the Attorney-General told us to sign them." The then President of the Board of Trade had a different view; he said, "Hold on a bit—I'm not too sure about this prospect."
The net result, from what I have heard the Attorney-General say—he can tell me if I am wrong—is that, in similar circumstances where some people could possibly go to gaol, he or another Attorney-General could go to Ministers and say, "Look here, you had better sign these documents." Would they be expected to sign them, or would the Heseltine theory apply? What has really changed? Let us cut all the cackle and hear what the situation is all about.
The Attorney-General: That is a helpful question, from a seeker after truth. The first point that the hon. Gentleman will want confirmed is that there has been no question whatever of suppression in relation to public interest immunity certificates. The whole notion that they were "gagging orders"—a phrase which I might have heard trip off the hon. Gentleman's lips occasionally—
Mr. Skinner: No, I used it last time.
The Attorney-General: I know, but the hon. Gentleman knows better now, and he is not using that language.
They were never "gagging orders", and they are not "gagging orders". If Matrix Churchill were being re-run now, it would be possible for a Minister to have discretion to volunteer disclosure when he felt that the documents

955
could be disclosed, even when it was not a clear case in which they were bound to be disclosed on any balance of the public interest. Consequently, whether my right hon. Friend would have had to make a certificate at all, or whether he could have made one in relation to many fewer documents, which I believe is likely, is a moot point. It would certainly have been a great many fewer documents.
A combination of the decision in ex parte Wiley and the new approach in my statement will, as I said when I was rightly questioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon, lead to many fewer such certificates, covering far fewer such documents in future.
Mr. Rupert Allason: May I give sincere thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend for what I believe to have been the widest consultation on this topic? Is it not correct that every lawyer who has ever had anything to do with PII certificates was invited to contribute to the consultation process?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the abolition of the class and contents claims announced today will eliminate any chance of injustice in future? Does he also agree that the clear explanation that he has described and that will appear in future certificates will also reduce the possibilities of injustice?
Finally, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the abolition of the blanket use of national security, in line with the evidence given by David Bickford to the Matrix Churchill inquiry, will be abolished? Is that not precisely in line with the undertaking to me and to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seven minutes, or whenever it was, before the end of the Matrix Churchill debate?
The attorney-general: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. Taking his last point first, yes, that does fulfil the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend. As part of the consultation, I considered carefully what he had said on the matter, and it has been taken into account, along with the responses from others. I am grateful for his welcome for the clear explanation that will appear in any such certificate, for the ending of the often confusing apparent distinction between class and contents claims, and for the new concentration on real or substantial harm.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I welcome today's proposals, but does the Attorney-General agree that one of the problems is that documents are often considered at the beginning of a trial, when perhaps their full meaning is not fully understood by the tribunal trying the matter? Therefore, would it not be right—will not the Attorney-General give this undertaking—for Law Officers to continue to monitor cases in which documents or ministerial certificates are granted, to ensure that, if the court has misunderstood the full purport of the documents, the officers will intervene and seek to redress that fact?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman makes interesting points. I expect cases of difficulty to come to the Law Officers. I would not expect every case to come to them as a matter of routine. One of the advantages of the system in a criminal case whereby the judge sees the
956
documents, if they are in issue, at the beginning of the case, is that the judge himself will have in mind the possibility that they may become relevant when they had not initially seemed relevant.
The House will recall that, in the Matrix Churchill case, Judge Smedley initially saw the national security documents. When he first saw them, and heard argument, they did not appear to him to be relevant. Counsel for Mr. Henderson then made it clear that Mr. Henderson was saying that he was an agent of the intelligence services. The judge considered the documents again, and changed his view the following day. That is a short-order example of what could happen after a longer period in another case. That is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the label "ministerial gagging order", which the press have attached to PII certificates, is misleading nonsense—like so much else in the newspapers—for the very reason that the effect of that so-called gagging order is to place the documents in question before the trial judge, so that he can decide whether those documents should or should not be admitted into evidence?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who wished to suppress something would be mad to attach it to a PII certificate, because he would know that, in a criminal case, putting those documents in front of the judge would be the first thing that would happen. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the expression "gagging order" should not be used. It should not have been used in the past. It has grossly misled the public, and it should not be used in future.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What would have been the position under the new dispensation of Alan Moses QC? Will the Attorney-General reflect on paragraph G13.119 of the Scott report, which states:
"I question the propriety of instructing counsel 'to seek to avoid the disclosure of documents"'.
It goes on:
"The authority would not have been forthcoming from Mr. Heseltine … The process of seeking the requisite instructions would have exposed the impossible position in which the Treasury Solicitor and Mr. Moses were placed, namely, representing Departments with different views."
Will the House have an opportunity to discuss this after looking at the statement and the documents? Have the views of Professor Anthony Bradley, who wrote a long article in the journal Public Law been taken into account?
The Attorney-General: A great many learned and academic comments have been made on this matter, and, as far as possible, they have been taken into account, but I will not comment on one particular contribution.
I shall now deal with the position of counsel in the case, Mr. Alan Moses, now Mr. Justice Moses, and the fact that he might have been in an impossible position. One of the points that will be considered carefully for the future, and which has been considered in the past on occasion, is whether prosecuting counsel is sufficiently equipped to present arguments on behalf of one Department which may be in conflict with another. That was an interesting and important point made by Sir Richard Scott, and it will be borne in mind carefully in future.

957
In this case, it is not correct to say that Mr. Alan Moses was ever seeking to avoid disclosure, in the sense of seeking to suppress anything. He was arguing in good faith—I do not think that anybody has suggested otherwise, and I would challenge them strongly if they did—that the documents were not necessary or relevant to the issues as he saw them, and that he did not believe that they were bound to be disclosed. Had he believed that they were bound to be disclosed, they would have been disclosed, and I would not have had to advise my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to make his certificate.
The House should be crystal clear. Every such document was put clearly before Judge Smedley. He read every document attached to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's certificate and to the certificates of other Ministers during the argument before the case began, and he made his decision even before the case began. The case did not collapse but ran for four weeks, until it was withdrawn by prosecuting counsel—in accordance with the points made to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)—in exercise of his function of fairness as prosecuting counsel.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Apparently, both sides of the House now agree with open government and with the fact that we have the best civil service in the world. If we are to retain a civil service which is unpoliticised and impartial, it must be confident that advice given to Ministers, particularly that given by private secretaries to Ministers, will be protected unless there is a danger of miscarriage of justice. Can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure civil servants that our traditional way of doing things will be maintained?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the trickiest issues, which is the extent to which documents relating to advice to Ministers should be withheld. What I have made clear today is that documents relating to advice to Ministers will be judged by the same test as documents in the category of national security and various other categories, which is whether disclosure would cause serious harm to the public interest. They will have to pass that test. If they can—I can conceive of circumstances in which they would—they would be entitled to protection, subject of course to the overriding views of the judge, to whom they would be shown and who would make his decision after argument.
Mr. Max Madden: As the Attorney-General has said that judges will remain the final arbiters in those matters, will there be any right of appeal against a judge's decision? Unless there is, yet another legal anomaly would seem to be created whereby there is no right of appeal against an individual judge's decision. Under the new arrangements, will the
958
presumption be that Ministers will seek the advice of the Attorney-General in those matters, or that the Attorney-General will offer Ministers such advice?
The Attorney-General: I shall take the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question first. I should expect—this will be the guidance given to the public service—that cases of difficulty, but not every case, will be referred to the Law Officers for advice.
On the first question, if the trial judge decides that a document should not be disclosed, there will, at the end of the case, be an ultimate right of appeal. The general rule in Crown court trials, which I think would apply in this instance, is that the trial judge's ruling on an interlocutory matter of this nature in the case is final at that moment. One could not rush off to the Court of Appeal on the matter at that stage.
If I have mistaken the position in any way, however, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, as he has raised an interesting point of law, and place a copy of the letter in the Library. But, at the conclusion of the case, if one believed that an injustice had arisen, it would be a ground of appeal.
Mr. Rod Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new PII regime will guarantee protection of sensitive intelligence sources, both human and technical?
The Attorney-General: Broadly, the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. He has posited a very sensitive source, which would normally require protection. In such cases, if the information were essential to a fair trial, the prosecution would have to decide either to disclose the information and to proceed with the trial, or to drop the trial to protect the source. The system provides a method of proper protection for such security information, although occasionally it may be necessary to drop a trial to protect the source.
Mr. Ian Pearson: May I press the Minister further on the issue of ministerial responsibility? As a non-lawyer, I was wondering whether he could explain who in government is responsible as the final arbiter of whether public interest immunity should be claimed? Is it the relevant Secretary of State, or is it the Attorney-General? Is there not an obligation to adhere to the advice of the Attorney-General?
The Attorney-General: The ultimate responsibility is the Minister's, but the Minister will act on advice. If the advice is cogent and appears to be in accordance with the law as it is then understood, the Minister will be likely to follow it, as my right hon. Friend followed the advice that I gave him on that specific occasion. Ultimate responsibility for a decision on whether to claim public interest immunity belongs to the Minister. In future, as I have explained, the matter will be a lot easier, because, first, after ex parte Wiley, the Minister has a much wider discretion; and, secondly, the new approach focuses the mind so very clearly on the test of real harm.

Points of Order
4.8 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for giving you only relatively short notice of my point of order, but it is on a serious matter that has been brought to my attention. Yesterday, I tabled four questions. The first was to the Lord Chancellor's Department, asking whether the new Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland had ever been a Mason or a member of the Orange Order.
The other three questions were to the Home Office. Two were on the intolerable strip searches to which Miss Rosaleen McAliskey has been subjected in Holloway prison, and the fourth was on why prisoners may receive The Times but not The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph but not the Belfast Telegraph, the Daily Mail but not the Irish News, and The Sun but not the News Letter.
Those questions were accepted—although not in that form—by the Table Office and were sent to the Stationery Office, where they were received by those appointed by the House to accept and to check such questions.
Those questions did not appear on the Order Paper. When I asked at the Table Office—I apologise again for giving such short notice—I was informed that they had been lost by the privatised HMSO. In my experience of almost 31 years as a Member of Parliament, that has never happened before. Those at the Table Office were most apologetic, but the matter was not their responsibility.
My point of order is to ask whether you, as Speaker and therefore champion of the House and protector of our rights, have received an apology from the newly privatised HMSO for that flagrant dereliction of its duty, and whether apologies will be received by the other hon. Members who suffered as a result of that dereliction. How shall we be protected in future? We table questions not only for our interests, but for the interests of the general public and those asking us to make their opinions and voices known.
Madam Speaker: I had some indication of this matter only while I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm, so I have not been able to follow through any investigations. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that several questions—not only from him but from other hon. Members—were missing. As far as I can understand, this is an unprecedented lapse. I assure him that, as soon as it was noticed, investigations were put under way.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that, as soon as I have the opportunity this afternoon when I leave the Chair, I shall want to follow through personally on the investigations to see what happened. The hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members, whose identities I am not aware of at this stage, will certainly receive an apology. We must learn from these mistakes.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the controversy that arose last night as a result of the votes in the House on Monday evening. There appears to have been nothing less than a conspiracy to pervert the outcome of the votes. If such behaviour goes on with impunity, does it not give a green light to people to follow similar practices in future? Surely the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Madam Speaker: Similar points of order have been put to me yesterday and this morning. The Speaker has
960
no business involving herself in the arrangements between the political parties in the House. It is not the business of the Speaker to become involved in such matters.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 12.30 pm today, the Leader of the House gave an interim report on the appalling events in Lima last night, saying, among other things, that British subjects could be involved. As the issue involves the safety of embassies around the world and the problems of copycat action, it is a matter of considerable importance, not only to Japan and Peru. Have you received a request from the Government to make a statement on the issues?
Madam Speaker: The direct answer is no, I have not, but of course we still have the day's proceedings to go through. Should the Government feel it necessary or right to make a statement, we can always deal with that later in the day.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker—please excuse my voice. May I express to you, in your role as the much valued and respected protector of all Members of Parliament, my concern about developments in the business of the House over the past 10 days?
On 5 December, reported in column 1203 of Hansard, the Leader of the House said—we appreciate the fact that he now gives us much longer notice of business—that there would be a debate on the Protection from Harassment Bill. It was agreed through the usual channels that the debate would last only one day. That seemed appropriate, because it would have allowed me to attend the inaugural meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention.
On 12 December, the Leader of the House announced that there would be a debate on the common fisheries policy. I challenged that—as reported in column 425 of Hansard—because every hon. Member from the highlands and islands of Scotland has a clear interest in the common fisheries policy, which has implications for our constituencies. I understand from my investigations that it was subsequently decided through the usual channels that two days would be required to discuss the Protection from Harassment Bill, but I had no notification of that, as a Member of Parliament from the highlands and islands.
I had to make a difficult decision on Monday. Fortunately, there was no fog or frost, and we managed to get back to Westminster via normal channels, without having to charter a Royal Air Force plane, in order to vote.
Would you, Madam Speaker, look at the conflicting responsibilities that are placed on individual Members? The issue did not concern individual constituencies; it was a general issue for all Members of Parliament from the highlands and islands. What action can be taken to ensure that we are never placed in the same ludicrous position again, especially in the light of subsequent events? As you know, I had raised points on the matter in the House before those events occurred.
Madam Speaker: I very well remember the hon. Lady raising the issue in business questions. As she will appreciate, the matter is for the usual channels,

961
particularly the Leader of the House. I very much understand that some Members have responsibilities—parliamentary, not constituency responsibilities—outside the House. I take to heart what she has said this afternoon, and shall make it my business to talk the Leader of the House to see what can be done, so that hon. Members are not placed in such a position in future.

Points of Order

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1996.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.

  Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.

  Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996.

  City of Edinburgh Council Order Confirmation Act 1996.

  Edinburgh Merchant Company Order Confirmation Act 1996.

  Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Act 1996.

  Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Act 1996.

  BILL PRESENTED
    SEX OFFENDERS
    Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Forsyth and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to require the notification of information to the police by persons who have committed certain sexual offences; to make provision with respect to the commission of certain sexual acts outside the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13th January, and to be printed [Bill 66].

Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance)
4.16 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require companies to conduct an audit of the capacity of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999 and to report both on those audits and on the actions their directors propose to take in consequence.
The aim of the Bill is to avoid for this country much of the widespread chaos and confusion that it is being increasingly predicted will occur throughout the world at the turn of the century, in just three years' time. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties who have so willingly offered to sponsor it.
The cause of such Doomsday predictions is the inability of the majority of computer systems to recognise 2000. That is because they use, as we all do, two digits for the year of the date instead of four. Thus, today's date is written as 18/12/96, rather than 18/12/1996.
Unless they are properly reprogrammed, computer systems will recognise 2000 as 1900, or simply reset to some other date. That will mean that they will no longer deliver what they are programmed to deliver, and because so much of our daily lives depend on computers, the result will be, to use a tabloid word, catastrophe. As no one who has looked into the bizarre problem in any detail has so far suggested otherwise, the matter must be of urgent concern to the House.
When the matter was first raised on the Floor of the House in my question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister just a year ago, it was greeted with expressions of ridicule and disbelief. One year later, many written questions to Ministers in every Department, follow-up questions where appropriate, and my Adjournment debate on 6 June have contributed to increasing coverage in specialist computer magazines and the national press.
Many hon. Members are now aware of the issue, and realise that there is a real problem that must be addressed. I especially appreciate the interest of the hon. Members who attended my briefing meeting last Wednesday, and the fact that the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has issued a briefing note, No. 89, on "Computer Systems and the Millennium". That is in the Library, and I recommend it as essential background reading.
The briefing note refers to some of the forecasts of the danger of failure to ensure that computer systems are millennium-compliant. Consequences could include payroll systems collapsing so that workers cannot be paid; financial records losing track of investments; invoicing systems failing to generate bills, or charging 100 years' worth of interest; telecommunications networks failing; and problems with supply in utilities such as gas and electricity.
We must also take into account the possible unpredictable behaviour of embedded microchip systems in places such as elevators, bank vaults and medical equipment, and in Government systems such as those responsible for benefit payments, for maintaining criminal and medical records and for revenue collection.
In response to my Adjournment debate in June, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology talked about the action that the Government were taking on their

963
computer systems—which are not, of course, the concern of my Bill. He also mentioned the Government initiatives to encourage awareness of the problem in the private sector. Those include establishing TaskForce 2000, in co-operation with the Confederation of British Industry and the Computing Services and Software Association.
My hon. Friend gave the House two especially telling warnings during my Adjournment debate. He said:
"some companies will go out of business if they have not tackled the problem, or not ensured that their suppliers have tackled it … it is a management problem that must be dealt with at the top … The Government cannot do it for them. It is no use companies coming to us in 1999 and saying, 'The Government have not fixed it.' The Government did not install the computer software. Failure to deal with the problem could lead to commercial collapse".—[Official Report, 6 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 818–9.]
My Bill is designed to avoid such commercial collapse. Even responsible companies that have taken the necessary action will find that others with which they have dealings, such as their suppliers, will not have taken action, which will make all those in the supply chain vulnerable to business failure. Truly the chain will be only as strong as its weakest link. I do not believe that all the warning, advising and cajoling in the world will be enough to ensure that the new millennium will begin trouble-free.
Like the Government, I do not want more regulation and red tape to be imposed upon businesses. Some concern has been expressed that my Bill might add to the many burdens that already fall on them. However, it should not add to the burden, because it merely clarifies an existing duty for directors of companies and their auditors to give shareholders in the annual report a true and fair assessment of the company as a going concern for the foreseeable future.
As the future is uncertain, that usually means looking no further than 12 to 15 months ahead. However, the effects of the unique problem that I am talking about can be assessed now, and a view taken on whether the company will be a going concern in the year 2000 if action is not taken now. Indeed, action must be taken now. It will be no use trying to solve the problem in 1999. Most information technology projects take several years to implement, and this will be the largest information technology project that firms will ever have undertaken.
For instance, British Telecom intends to spend hundreds of millions of pounds simply to ensure that its telecommunications system will work in three years' time. Auditors who sign company accounts for the financial
964
year 1997–98 and beyond will leave themselves liable to legal action by shareholders of firms that go out of business because they did not take action in time.
My Bill is designed to avoid the prospect of huge numbers of legal cases in the new millennium, with costly attempts to determine who is to blame for companies' failure.
The Bill will require companies to conduct audits of the capacity of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31 December 1999 and to report both on the audit and the actions that their directors propose to take in consequence. It is an amendment of the Companies Act 1985, which is the principal company statute in force, and of the duty to prepare a director's report. Both obligations are placed on directors rather than companies.
If the House were to allow me to introduce the Bill today, there may be enough time for it to be given the Royal Assent in the spring, so that it could apply to company reports for the financial years ending in 1998 and 1999. That might be sufficient, with the work of TaskForce 2000 and other initiatives by the private sector and the computer industry, to avoid much of the incalculable chaos that is predicted if too little is done.
I accept that there is a cost to checking computer systems for their millennium compliance but the cost of non-compliance, which may mean going out of business, is far greater. This is a race against time. There are only 750 working days left. The problem is one of the greatest challenges facing business management. Like the change in the millennium, it cannot be avoided. That is why I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Paul Channon, Sir John Cope, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Sir Anthony Durant, Sir Russell Johnston, Sir Dudley Smith, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance)
  COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE)
  Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to require companies to conduct an audit of the capacity of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999 and to report both on those audits and on the actions their directors propose to take in consequence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January, and to be printed [Bill 67].
Orders of the Day

  Protection from Harassment Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 17 December].
  [SIR GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As you know, last night, amendment No. 13 was passed by 179 to 172 votes, to strengthen the Bill. [Interruption.] I apologise, Sir Geoffrey. I think that yesterday the Chairman was adorned with a knighthood perhaps in anticipation of an event this Christmas; I was trying to correct myself.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department applauded our reasons for tabling amendment No. 13 and described its mover, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), as having the best possible motives. The Minister's only objection was that our proposal was akin to punishment and not appropriate to civil courts. In view of that and the passage of the amendment, would it be for the convenience of the Committee for you to invite the Minister to explain the Government's intentions, especially as there is no time between Committee and Report?
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Further to that point of order, Sir Geoffrey. It is not the Government's intention to hold up progress on the Bill. We wish it to reach another place as speedily as possible. We will therefore not today seek to overturn the amendment on Report. However, that we are courteous in commenting that Opposition amendments are not "born out of malice", or that we can "see some merit" in them, does not mean that it would be sensible to leave amendment No. 13 in the Bill. The Opposition spokesman should not confuse our customary courtesy in talking about the amendments with an assumption that we believe that there is considerable merit in them.
  When we come to Third Reading, I shall explain briefly why we think that the amendment is not sensible. We shall seek in another place to remove it from the Bill, but we do not wish to take any action that would cause any delay to the Bill today.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Sir Geoffrey. Although I welcome the Minister's statement that he does not seek today to reverse the decision on the amendment, I hope that you will acknowledge that the procedures of the House are designed to enable Bills to be amended. Some of the comments by Conservative Members appear to suggest that the Government bring Bills before the House that are totally without fault and incapable of amendment. Were that so, we would not need any of those procedures and the Government would not have to come back with fresh legislation to correct mistakes.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a matter for the Chair.

  Protection from Harassment Bill
    Clause 3

      CIVIL REMEDY
      Amendment proposed [17 December]: No. 14, in page 2, line 8, at the end to insert the words—
      '(2B) In considering whether to order an injunction in proceedings under this section, a court shall have primary regard to whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the victim's legitimate interests.'.—[Ms Janet Anderson.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      4.30 pm
      The First Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 29, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2A) Civil proceedings which include a claim under this section for an injunction shall not be referred to arbitration (whether under section 64 of the County Courts Act 1984, or otherwise) without the consent of all the parties to the action.'.
      No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 9 to 24.
      No. 25, in clause 8, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
      '(5B) In considering whether to order an interdict or interim interdict in proceedings under this section, a court shall have primary regard to whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests'.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thought it right, as a courtesy to you, Sir Geoffrey, and to the Committee, to reappear to continue the speech that I started yesterday evening. I must say, however, that any thoughts that I had on amendments Nos. 14 and 25 have, with the passage of time, become a little cloudy. I cannot quite remember why I was so enthusiastic to address the Committee on them. Furthermore, I notice from the clock that I am due any second to chair the proceedings of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, so the Committee will be pleased to hear that I shall not detain it for long.
      I shall detain it only long enough to make the observation that amendment No. 14 requires a court to have
      "primary regard to whether"
      an injunction
      "is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the victim's legitimate interests."
      That seems to me to be nonsense, because it is totally unnecessary. Of course, any civil court considering an injunction will have primary regard to whether an injunction was necessary for the protection of the victim.
      Amendment No. 25 invites the Scottish court to have primary regard to
      "whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests".
      That is the stalker.
      Mr. Beith: It is the plaintiff.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: That just shows the effect that the passage of a few hours and much political activity have upon the mind of even the acutest of lawyers who address hon. Members on such an important matter.

      967
      I am bound to conclude that, if the point on the Scottish interest advanced by Opposition Members is the same as that advanced by Opposition Members representing the English and Welsh interest, my observation about amendment No. 14 applies exactly to amendment No. 25. It is unnecessary to remind a court in a civil action for an injunction that its primary obligation is to have regard to the interests of the victim before making such an order.
      In the climate of yesterday night, I intended to observe that, as the amendments were totally unnecessary and otiose, they must have been tabled either as probing ones—I understand that that was not the intention—or to waste time. As we are interested in maintaining an even keel between the parties, however, I shall forbear to repeat the observation that I intended to make last evening and satisfy myself with my observation about the totally unnecessary nature of amendments Nos. 14 and 25.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): The debate on this group of amendments has been useful, lively and action-packed.
      Amendment No. 14 could be intended to focus the court's mind on the needs of the victim or on the liberty of the defendant; but, either way, the amendment is unnecessary. The court will decide whether to make an injunction on the evidence produced by the victim and the defendant. If it finds that the victim's claim in respect of harassment is made out, it will include in any order that it makes whatever terms are appropriate for the necessary protection of the victim. It will also have in mind the need for any restraints that the order places on the defendant to be reasonable. A defendant who feels that the injunction contains terms that are not necessary for the protection of the victim or that are an unfair restraint may appeal against the order. The amendment therefore adds no benefit to the victim, the defendant or the powers of the court.
      Amendment No. 29 seeks to ensure that civil claims in respect of harassment cannot be referred to arbitration without the consent of all parties. Section 64 of the County Courts Act 1984 enables rules to be made requiring the referral of county court cases to arbitration and, technically, harassment cases could be covered by those arrangements. It is, however, impossible to envisage circumstances in which referral to arbitration could be appropriate, because an arbitrator cannot grant an injunction—only the courts can do that.
      The consent of the parties to arbitration is a rather hollow condition, because it would clearly be unpalatable to a victim who was seeking an injunction to accept a reference to arbitration. The effect would be to deny the victim's claim without hearing it. I hope that at goes without saying that there is no intention of introducing rules requiring harassment to be dealt with by arbitration, but, because it anticipates circumstances that it is impossible to conceive of, the amendment is unnecessary.
      Amendment No. 4 is bad. The provisions that it cuts out of the Bill are part of the important protection that we seek to give to victims of harassment. The effect would be to place on the victim's shoulders the responsibility for collecting evidence of the breach and bringing the matter back to court. It may be that, in some cases, the victim would prefer to proceed against a defendant who breached a civil injunction by restoring the proceedings to the civil court and seeking the court's sanction for contempt; but the amendment would make that compulsory.
      968
      The amendment would also mean that, as long as the defendant remained at large, the harassment could continue. By contrast, the provisions that the amendment would delete would enable the police to act promptly and decisively on behalf of the victim—
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the tests in civil courts are not nearly as strict as those in the criminal courts? In fact, injunctions can be granted without the person against whom the injunction is being sought being present in court. Is he confident that, under the procedure in the Bill of using a civil injunction and enforcing it through the criminal courts, the rights of the individual to know exactly what is occurring will be protected?
      Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in a criminal court, the test applied is "beyond all reasonable doubt", whereas in the civil courts it is "the balance of probabilities". One of the main reasons for introducing the civil tort is to gain access to that lesser test, so that more victims or potential victims might be protected. I am confident that the courts will always act in a way that protects the civil liberties of those involved in a case.
      To return to the sentence that I was halfway through: by contrast, the provisions that the amendment would delete would enable the police to act promptly and decisively on behalf of the victim, to arrest a defendant who breaches an injunction and to investigate the circumstances of that breach and collect the necessary evidence. A defendant who does not breach the court's order has nothing to fear from those provisions, but deleting them substantially diminishes the protection that we want to give to victims.
      Amendment No. 25 attempts to do for Scotland what amendment No. 14 would do for England and Wales, but interdict provides good protection for a victim or potential victim. For example, it can prohibit a stalker from taking a specific action, such as writing to the victim. Interdict is a remedy that is well used and familiar both to the courts and to those who need the protection that it can give. As a matter of course, in considering whether to grant interdict or interim interdict, a Scottish court would take fully into account the interests of the victim or potential victim. There is no need to place any further duty on the court, so, like amendment No. 14, amendment No. 25 is unnecessary.
      I ask the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) to withdraw her amendment.
      Ms Janet Anderson: We have had a useful debate, and it is not our intention to delay the Committee, because we are anxious that the Bill should make speedy progress. When discussing these matters, it is important that we pay particular attention to the interests of victims. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      RESTRAINING ORDERS
      Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 17, leave out
      'or any other person mentioned in the order'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'or until further order'.
      Mr. Bennett: I have two questions. Amendment No. 7 seeks to leave out the words:
      "or any other person mentioned in the order".
      Will that person have to consent to being included in the order?
      Amendment No. 8 concerns how long the period should be. Are there not considerable advantages in having specific rather than indefinite periods, and would it not be better to define a period, however long, than to allow the order to run indefinitely?
      Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 7 would limit to victims of an offence defined in clauses 2 or 4 the protection afforded by a restraining order granted by a criminal court. Under the terms of the Bill, a court has the power to make an order to protect not only the victim, but any other person mentioned in the order. The amendment would prevent a court making an order to protect those, other than the victim, whom the court has reasonable grounds for believing that the stalker might attempt to harass. Most obviously, that would exclude from the scope of such an order the family, other co-habitees or close friends of the victim. I believe that we would all agree that that is unacceptable.
      We are aware that some stalkers attempt to broaden their campaign of intimidation against a person by also contacting and approaching those whom the victim holds dear. The courts must have the power to protect such people with the restraining order, and, obviously, the courts must be aware that the person who is being protected is concerned and wants that protection.
      I shall now discuss amendment No. 8. Clause 5(3) enables a court to make a restraining order for a specified period or until further notice. Allowing the court to make an order until such time as a further order is made is essential for the occasions when a court is not in a position to know, when it makes the order, how long it needs to be in force to have the desired effect.
      It is not difficult to envisage such circumstances. If the stalking is extreme, the victim may need to be protected indefinitely. Allowing the courts to make an open-ended order, which clause 5(4) allows, to be discharged on the application of the prosecution, provides maximum flexibility to the courts to make an order for a period tailored to the circumstances of the case, and it prevents unnecessary hassle for the victim in having to return to the courts to have orders renewed—not that there is great expense involved in returning to renew them, but it is an unnecessary hassle, which could be avoided in some cases.
      Mr. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      970
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following last night's debate, certain issues have been left up in the air and we shall hear more when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. In view of that, it would not be sensible to discuss amendment No. 15, so I do not intend to move it.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8

      HARASSMENT
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 4, line 11, leave out
      ', in respect of an actual breach of that subsection,'.
      No. 41, in page 4, leave out line 35 and insert
      'but a person may not be subjected to the same prohibitions in an interdict or interim'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 13

      EXTENT
      4.45 pm
      Mrs. Helen Liddell: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 7, leave out line 10 and insert—
      '(1) Sections 1 and 2 extend to England and Wales and Scotland
      (1A) Sections 3 to 7 extend to England and Wales only'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to create a separate criminal offence in Scotland, although I regret to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he views it as a wrecking amendment. That is not our intention at all. We view it as an opportunity to correct some of the shortcomings which have become apparent in Scottish law and which will become even more obvious if the Bill receives Royal Assent and is implemented in England and Wales.
      The subject matter of the debate has been gone over extensively in recent weeks in the House, when my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) have made broadly similar points in relation to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. I agree with what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said last night about the Government stretching the good will of Members of this House to the very limit. We have co-operated to the best of our ability to get the legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible, so it is regrettable that Scottish Office Ministers did not see fit to consult the Opposition on the aspects of the Bill that relate to Scots law. There are nevertheless a number of alterations that we would want to make to the Bill.
      The situation in Scotland will be measurably different from that in England and Wales following enactment of the legislation. I should like to draw attention to the great success of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), whose persistent efforts have ensured that this legislation is before the Committee

      971
      today. The problem remains that men and women in Scotland will assume that there is a separate crime of stalking in Scotland even though there will be none.
      Much has been made of the fact that the Scottish common law breach of the peace offence is supposedly sufficient to cover the crime of stalking or harassment. It is my contention—and that of a number of the victims of stalking—that that law is not in itself sufficient to deal with the problems created by such harassment. There is a tinge of complacency in the attitude of the Government and of some members of the legal profession when it comes to how the law on breach of the peace can operate in Scotland, and to the penalties that can be handed down as a result.
      I stress that it is only because the official Opposition have done all in our power to get the Bill through as quickly as possible that we have managed to come thus far in less than 24 hours; it remains a matter of regret that the Bill's provisions will do little to change the law in Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland has written to the Minister responsible for home affairs and health at the Scottish Office, to say that it has considered the measure
      "and notes that the Scottish clauses effectively restate, in modern terminology, the existing law which offers protection from harassment by way of assault."
      It is important that we look further than the existing law in seeking to protect the victims of harassment in Scotland.
      Not being a lawyer myself, I have taken advice from, among others, the university of Strathclyde department of law. I was interested in comments by Professor Alan Miller, a visiting professor at the university of Strathclyde and also the chairman of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. Professor Miller is of the view that, in so far as the Bill covers harassment, it does not add to existing remedies already available in Scots law, and he makes the important point—I ask the Committee to reflect on it seriously—that the Bill probably would not be used by practitioners, who would continue to seek interdicts.
      I hope that the Minister will respond to Professor Miller's further point that, if the law were used, it would certainly have resource implications for a diminishing civil legal aid budget. The nature of the legislation is to seek civil redress for the person who has been subjected to harassment. The dictum from Dicey that justice is open to all, like the Ritz, applies as much in Scotland as it does south of the border. Those who have resources can take court action: those who do not have resources need to apply for legal aid. We already know that there is what could be described as a crisis in civil legal aid in Scotland. It is the view of the Law Society and of Professor Alan Miller that the Bill would not substantially alter the law in Scotland, and the Bill could also lull people into a false sense of security.
      We have also to bear it in mind that one important aspect of the legislation, which has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, is its deterrent impact. Many of the people who commit harassment or stalking do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. Some of them are psychologically disordered, but some think that they are doing nothing more than pursuing a vigorous courtship. The distress that they can cause to their victims is considerable and it needs to be made clear to people, by making it a separate offence, that stalking or harassment is an unacceptable form of behaviour. If that were done, it would be of enormous assistance to the police and the
      972
      victims. In particular, Victim Support has made it clear that a separate crime would greatly assist the prosecution of those guilty of harassment.
      I notice that the Government have drawn attention to the fact that, in Scotland, a specific statutory right to be free of harassment has been created. That right looks nice on paper, but it is the view of the eminent Scottish lawyer Alastair Bonnington, who is a lecturer in criminal procedure, that it is
      "about as worthwhile as giving a woman a right not to he raped. It is no more than the expression of a pious hope that such conduct will cease."
      It is important to give those who are victims of harassment and stalking a clear message that goes beyond a pious hope that such behaviour will end.
      Scottish Members will be aware of two significant cases that have appeared before the Scottish courts recently. One relates to Ms Louise Durie, who lives in the Ayrshire village of Waterside and was, for nine months, vigorously pursued by her next-door neighbour. She suffered appalling harassment, as did her partner. The harassment was even made worse when charges were made against Mr. Pickering, who was the harasser, and he was released on bail and returned home to pursue his harassment. Louise Durie's experience was recounted extensively in the Scottish press. She came to believe that Scottish law—and, indeed, English law—should be changed immediately to make stalking a specific criminal offence with heavy penalties, in order to deter those who would make others suffer in the way that she had suffered. Ms Durie said that, although she had been through "months of hell", it appeared that the man involved faced only a short gaol term.
      Ms Durie drew attention to the need for her tormentor to undergo a course of counselling—which he did not undertake—as a result of his offences. She recognised that he was in need of some psychological assistance. Ms Durie made a very important point in relation to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who she said
      "cannot begin to imagine the living hell which victims go through. If he could, then legislation would be through in a flash."
      It is often assumed that women are the only victims of stalking and harassment. However, another very important case in Scotland concerns a couple: Professor Reggie von Zugbach and his wife Susanna. They were the victims of a disturbed academic who was jealous of their marriage. In a letter to the von Zugbachs, he wrote:
      "God has allowed you to go into this marriage with one purpose … namely to break you, because there is no other way."
      The perpetrator was arrested in connection with the offences and charged with breach of the peace, but, when a file was returned from the procurator fiscal, it was marked "no further action". As a result of his experiences, Professor von Zugbach—who is an author, a former Army major and a lecturer in management studies at Paisley university—is campaigning for a change in the law governing stalking. If I describe some of the incidents that he suffered, I think that hon. Members will understand why.
      Mrs. von Zugbach's ordeal began in 1992 when she rejected an approach from a man she had just met. Shortly after that, in the normal course of such matters, she was bombarded with flowers and threats. It reached the point where she was receiving 100-page letters. She fled to Germany with her husband. While they were in Germany,

      973
      on the anniversary of Mrs. von Zugbach's first meeting with the harasser, Professor Zugbach's car was blown up and he was led to believe that the perpetrator was none other than the harasser. Professor von Zugbach has praised the police for their efforts, but he makes it clear that the law in Scotland appears inadequate to deal with cases of alleged stalking. He said:
      "I used to agree that the breach of the peace laws were sufficient to deal with the problem, but now I realise this is not true".
      A major problem with breach of the peace law relates to the nature of the sentences passed. In many cases, severe custodial sentences are required not only as a deterrence but in order to stop someone who will not take no for an answer. However, of the breach of the peace cases that have appeared before Scottish courts in recent years, only 6 per cent. led to custodial sentences. Only two cases appeared before the High Court—the most solemn court, where more significant sentences may be handed down. It is unfortunate that those who suffer harassment and stalking cannot take comfort from the knowledge that their perpetrator will receive a severe sentence.
      Like many Scots, I am proud of the nature of the Scottish legal system. However, there is a danger of making breach of the peace a catch-all offence, which is too diverse and lacking in specifics. Similar arguments were advanced when hon. Members discussed the need to introduce vandalism legislation and, as a consequence, it was declared a separate offence.
      The many people in Scotland who suffer from harassment are entitled to be reassured that there will be a separate criminal offence that carries clear and distinctive sentences to act as a deterrent and a punishment. That view was put many times by my hon. Friends long before I entered the House. It has been put more widely in the Scottish community, by the police, victims and lawyers involved in such cases.
      I urge the Government to accept the amendment. Notwithstanding the pressures to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, the Opposition feel sufficiently strongly about this matter to put the amendment to the vote. I urge the Minister of State to take into account the wide range of opinion in Scotland. This unpleasant and heinous crime should be dealt with seriously so as to make the job of the police much easier, and a more clearly prescribed sentence should be available.
      5 pm
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am a little concerned about the amendment, not because I disagree with the sentiments that have been expressed, but because I wonder whether it is absolutely necessary.
      I want to make a few points about breach of the peace generally. At the moment, the definition of a breach of the peace is wide and flexible. People in Scotland can be charged for harassment and stalking under the category of a breach of the peace.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) is right to say that there is a big problem with the general public's perception of the seriousness with which the matter is being dealt with. The difficulty is that a breach of the peace can, in theory, encompass serious as well as minor incidents. However, in practice, the approach has been to charge people who have committed minor
      974
      incidents with a breach of the peace, so it is perceived as a minor offence. That is unfortunate, although it could be changed within the terms of existing law. It would require some discussion between those concerned, the Crown Office and the bench to avoid a breach of the peace being merely a bit of shouting and arguing on the street corner, which I suspect is what most people think of as a breach of the peace.
      That matter was discussed in the Standing Committee considering the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. A new clause was discussed and subsequently withdrawn. I would have been slightly happier with that new clause, because it was more detailed, related directly to Scotland and was not simply tacked on in this fashion.
      As the Minister may remember, in that debate in Committee, I expressed my reservation about a breach of the peace. I realise that I may have to repeat some of what I said in Committee. When an individual is convicted, the judge has before him or her a schedule of previous convictions. The judge will consider those convictions before coming to a view on an appropriate disposal—I suspect that that happens in most cases. The difficulty with a breach of the peace is that it only ever shows as that: there is no specification on the schedule that would alert the judge to conduct that may have begun to develop. That is one of the biggest drawbacks.
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I followed up that matter with the Lord Advocate. He has confirmed that it should be possible to include "harassment" in brackets after "breach of the peace" in the schedule of previous convictions. He is actively considering that possibility with a view to implementing it. I shall say more about that later. The hon. Lady's point has been acted on, and is being considered urgently.
      Ms Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement. That will help enormously. One of the difficulties with harassment is that it can be a number of apparently trivial incidents that together cause the problem. If that change were made to the existing practice and procedure, it would make a very big difference. It needs no change in the law to achieve that, but it will allow a judge to assess that crime more seriously. I look forward to hearing from the Minister when that change will take place. In view of his statement, I shall cut short my remarks.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The motive behind the amendment is entirely proper. I do not consider it a wrecking amendment, and if that was said, it was a wholly misplaced comment. However, having spent a little time examining the history of the law of breach of the peace and the current law as presently stated in the most recent codification of the laws of Scotland, I have come reluctantly but firmly to the view that the amendment is misplaced.
      When the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) spoke about breach of the peace, she failed to understand the flexibility of the law in Scotland on common law crime, and the extent to which it has developed since its original 18th or early 19th-century formulation. The basis for the use of the crime of a breach of the peace is to allow sufficient flexibility to deal with a range of situations that have as their consequence the

      975
      alarm or distress of a number of people or of an individual. I suspect that the problems that the hon. Lady outlined so eloquently are related not to the nature or state of the law, but to the willingness of the police or the procurator fiscal to take proceedings against individuals.
      We should also bear in mind the fact that, if we create a such a crime, it will be established only by the use of corroborated evidence. The hon. Lady said that some people may have recourse to an interim interdict. There are good and understandable reasons for that. First, an interim interdict can be obtained before a judge literally at half an hour's notice.
      Secondly, it can be obtained on the basis of ex parte statements—the legal representative appears on behalf of the pursuer. I am hopeful that we may at last educate some Conservative Members—the "pursuer" in Scotland is the term used for the person whom they call the "plaintiff". This is supposed to be the United Kingdom, but I am deeply disappointed that some of the Government's Back-Bench Members are not so immersed in the unity of the kingdom that they understand even the most basic terms used in Scottish law.
      The representative of the pursuer, by stating a sufficiently forceful case, can obtain an interim interdict. Indeed, it can be obtained outwith the presence of the person against whom it is directed. Furthermore, any breach of an interdict—whether interim or permanent—is a contempt of court, and is capable of being dealt with by fine or imprisonment.
      The Minister will recall that we changed the civil evidence rules in Scotland in 1990 when we removed the requirement for corroboration in civil cases. An interim interdict can be obtained on the basis of an ex parte statement at half an hour's notice and without the need for corroboration. It is not surprising that, faced with an urgent case, one adopts that route rather than attempting to invoke the use of the police and a prosecution, because that requires investigation, arrest, appearance in court, committal for trial and all the procedures that follow thereon. There is therefore something to be said for interim interdict.
      In two cases—Montgomery v. McLeod 1977. with which I am sure the Minister is more than familiar, and Young v. Heatley 1959—the breadth of the application of the existing crime of breach of the peace is set out succinctly. The former states:
      "There is no limit to the kind of conduct which may give rise to a charge of breach of the peace. All that is required is that there must be some conduct such as to excite the reasonable apprehension to which we have drawn attention, or such as to create disturbance and alarm to the lieges in fact".
      The language is somewhat Victorian; a liege is simply a citizen.
      According to the latter case:
      "Breach of the peace, however, is an offence the limits of which have never been sharply defined. It is so largely in each case a question of circumstances and of degree".
      In the course of my researches, I encountered a further case, which, unhappily, is not reported. I refer to Mackie v. McLeod 1961, with which the Minister may also be familiar. The circumstances are interesting. The accused person became infatuated with a young woman whom he hardly knew, and formed the habit of waiting outside her place of employment, looking at her and then following her and her fiancé for some part of their time together.
      976
      He was convicted of breach of the peace. An appeal was taken, on the grounds that the facts disclosed in the evidence did not justify the conviction, but the conviction was upheld by the High Court. That may not be the most extreme instance of stalking, but it seems to me to contain substantially the elements of stalking, and I consider it a clear indication that the law has been seen to be adequate to deal with the problem.
      As for bail and the particular case to which the hon. Member for Monklands, East referred, it would have been open to the judge in granting bail—I am surprised that this did not happen—to make it a condition of bail that the person granted it did not go back to live next door to the alleged victim. If that condition had been applied and had then been breached, the individual could have been brought back to court, bail could have been revoked and he could have been kept on remand in prison until such time as it was appropriate to deal with his case.
      What is significant is not the state of the law but the state of willingness of those responsible for the administration of the law—the police in the first instance, and the procurator fiscal service in the second. That lies at the heart of some of the difficulties outlined by the hon. Lady.
      I fear that, if the amendment were passed, it might achieve the opposite of what is intended. At present, if charges are brought under the crime of breach of the peace, there is a degree of flexibility and discretion. Indeed, some argue that the degree of discretion is too great, but that is not an argument that we are considering today. If the crime of harassment is created in Scotland, there may well be cases in which the borderline is drawn in such a way that a person who would otherwise be convicted of breach of the peace will be acquitted of harassment.
      Although the hon. Lady's motive is not to be challenged in any way, and despite her obvious concern and the time and trouble that she took in preparing her speech, she has not appreciated the precise nature of the crime of breach of the peace in Scottish law. If the amendment were accepted, it might actually make the conviction of those guilty of harassment more difficult than it is in Scotland.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made an excellent speech. It is a few years since I acted as his junior counsel in a murder case, which he conducted admirably. I agree with everything that he said. He was right to say that the motive of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) is good. I have great sympathy with her purpose, but I do not think that amendment No. 27 is the best means of achieving it.
      The amendment is unnecessary. In Scotland, any conduct that causes or is likely to cause alarm, annoyance or upset will always be criminal, as the common law offence of breach of the peace. Watching someone, following that person, sending unwanted letters or gifts or attempting to contact the person in any way can give rise to a charge of breach of the peace if the target of such conduct is alarmed, annoyed or upset by it. No statutory offence of harassment is needed.
      Breach of the peace is broad and flexible as an offence. Indeed, it is certainly as wide as the lower-level harassment offence that the hon. Lady now seeks to

      977
      introduce in Scotland. As a common law offence, it incurs a maximum penalty of life imprisonment following a conviction or indictment in the High Court. The creation of statutory offences with statutory minimum penalties will not enable stalking to be dealt with either more effectively or more severely than it is already dealt with in Scotland. No changes are required to Scottish criminal law in that regard.
      5.15 pm
      Like the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, I would be concerned about the effect of the amendment on the structure of the criminal law in Scotland. The lower-level offence and the higher-level offence of putting people in fear of violence are part of a package for England and Wales. Importing the lower-level offence to Scotland would result in prosecutions for less serious conduct being brought under the statutory offence, but where more serious conduct was involved, prosecution would have to be brought under the common law. The lower-level offence would be triable summarily, and would involve a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment.
      In the debate on the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, the Opposition agreed that the sentencing powers of the sheriff summary court should be increased to allow six months' imprisonment. The lower-level offence would fall squarely within the sheriffs' summary jurisdiction. Its introduction would therefore not result in harassments being taken more seriously, or in the imposition of tougher sentences.
      The Bill does not make any changes in Scottish criminal law, because there is no need to do so. The existing law works. In Scotland, any conduct that causes alarm can be dealt with as a breach of the peace. Sentences are at the discretion of the court, but the maximum available penalties for breach of the peace are much greater than those proposed for a statutory offence. Nothing would be gained by creating such an offence.
      Stalking is rightly taken very seriously. A circular was issued by the Crown Office to all procurators fiscal to re-emphasise the Lord Advocate's concern that cases of alleged stalking should be accorded priority. It said that careful consideration should be given to the court venue, so that cases are brought on indictment if appropriate, and that all offending behaviour should be libelled, not just the most recent incident.
      Breach of the peace is a wide-ranging offence, and that has great advantages. It deals with the most minor offences, which would not warrant custodial sentences, but would also tackle the most serious examples of alarming conduct. Custodial sentences are imposed. In a three-year period between 1992 and 1994, 3,063 people received such sentences for breach of the peace. That shows that it is certainly not a trivial offence for which everyone gets just a slap on the wrist.
      The hon. Lady raised the Durie case. I cannot agree with her suggestion that the existence of a statutory offence would have resulted in that case being treated more seriously. Summary proceedings were taken, which meant that the sheriff could impose up to three months' imprisonment. Once the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill is enacted, that will increase to six
      978
      months—the same maximum penalty as for the lower-level harassment offence. Since the Durie case, new powers have come into existence for the Lord Advocate to appeal against sentences that are too lenient.
      The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) raised an important point in the Committee stage of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill about persons who had a history of harassment that was not shown adequately in a schedule of previous convictions. I told her that I would follow that up with the Lord Advocate. It should be possible to record such a conviction as a breach of the peace, with "harassment" added in brackets. I understand that there are precedents for that: "theft" can have "shoplifting" added in brackets after it, so that, if someone is continually involved in shoplifting, that will be picked up. It should be possible to note that harassment has been involved in breach of the peace offences so that appropriate disposals will be made in the event of a long history of offending.
      I applaud the aim of the hon. Member for Monklands, East but in all respects the offence of breach of the peace is adequate to deal with stalking and harassment, and I must resist her amendment.
      Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry that the Minister does not see fit to accept the amendment. One of the great advantages of being a Member of the House is that we are enabled as taxpayers to get the benefit of distinguished legal advice free of charge. I greatly appreciate the remarks by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
      The Minister did not refer to the fact that there is a blurring between the use of civil and criminal remedies in the existing legislation. Without a clearly defined criminal offence, women and others who suffer from harassment will have to have recourse to the civil remedy. The cost of doing that and the crisis in civil legal aid could greatly inhibit opportunities to achieve redress. While I do not wish unnecessarily to delay the Committee, I should like the amendment to be put to the vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 121, Noes 210.

      Division No. 33]

      [5.20 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Clapham, Michael

      Alen, Graham

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Austin-Walker, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Connarty, Michael

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Berry, Roger

      Darling, Alistair

      Blair, Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Dewar, Donald

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Dobson, Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Byers, Stephen

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Caborn, Richard

      Ennis, Jeffrey

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Fisher, Mark

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Foster, Derek

      979

      Foulkes, George

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Gapes, Mike

      Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

      George, Bruce

      Mudie, George

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mullin, Chris

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Olner, Bill

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pope, Greg

      Gunnell, John

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Hall, Mike

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hardy, Peter

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Hoey, Kate

      Rooker, Jeff

      Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Hoyle, Doug

      Sheldon, Robert

      Hutton, John

      Short, Clare

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Keen, Alan

      Smith, Chris (Islington S)

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Strang, Dr Gavin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Straw, Jack

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Timms, Stephen

      McAllion, John

      Tipping, Paddy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Watson, Mike

      Macdonald, Calum

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      McFall, John

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      McLeish, Henry

      Winnick, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McWilliam, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Madden, Max

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Mr. John Cummings and

      Michael, Alun

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Alexander, Richard

      Channon, Paul

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Chidgey, David

      Alton, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Conway, Derek

      Ashby, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cran, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf d)

      Bates, Michael

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Batiste, Spencer

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Beggs, Roy

      Dover, Den

      Beith, A J

      Duncan, Alan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      Booth, Hartley

      Elletson, Harold

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bowis, John

      Evennett, David

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Faber, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brooke, Peter

      Fishbum, Dudley

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Forman, Nigel

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Burns, Simon

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Burt, Alistair

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Butcher, John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Butler, Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gallie, Phil

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      980

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Garnier, Edward

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Gill, Christopher

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Nelson, Anthony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Newton, Tony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Gummer, John

      Norris, Steve

      Hague, William

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Ottaway, Richard

      Harris, David

      Paice, James

      Harvey, Nick

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Hawkins, Nick

      Pawsey, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Porter, David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Heald, Oliver

      Redwood, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rendel, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Richards, Rod

      Heseltine, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Shepherd, Sir Cohn (Heref d)

      Howard, Michael

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Howell, David (Guildf d)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Sproat, Iain

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Stanley, Sir John

      Jessel, Toby

      Steel, Sir David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Steen, Anthony

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Stephen, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Stern, Michael

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Streeter, Gary

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      King, Tom

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Knapman, Roger

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Thomason, Roy

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Kynoch, George

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lamont, Norman

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Trotter, Neville

      Legg, Barry

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Leigh, Edward

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Waldegrave, William

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Walden, George

      Lidington, David

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Lilley, Peter

      Waller, Gary

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Lord, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Watts, John

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      MacKay, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Maclean, David

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Willetts, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Malone, Gerald

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfld)

      Mans, Keith

      Wolfson, Mark

      Marland, Paul

      Yeo, Tim

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Merchant, Piers

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Mr. Bowen Wells.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As it now appears that British personnel are involved in the siege in Lima, and following what Madam

      981
      Speaker said about my point of order earlier today, may I ask yet again whether there has been any hint from the Foreign Office that it will make a statement?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Certainly the occupant of the Chair has not been informed of any intention to make a statement now.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 7, line 12, after 'Act' insert
      '(except section (Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland))'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 2—Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Kirkhope: The consultation period on the paper "Stalking in Northern Ireland" ended on 2 December. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to know that, as all responses broadly supported the introduction of legislation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland.
      There are differences between the current criminal and civil legislation for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland, and the new clause therefore permits the Bill's replication in Northern Ireland by negative resolution. If legislation were to be by affirmative resolution, there would for some time be a gap in the legislation between the jurisdictions, for which, given the vulnerability of the victims that the Bill is designed to protect, we might be criticised. New clause 2 puts into effect the request by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the Bill be replicated for Northern Ireland under the negative resolution procedure.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's words in introducing the amendment. We have had the time since the Loyal Address to refer to the fact that we believe that the Bill should be extended to Northern Ireland. I understand some of the difficulties in legislating for other parts of the kingdom, which were obvious in the debate on amendment No. 27, and I also understand that there are people in Northern Ireland who keep telling us that the differences in legislation make it difficult to do so, but they do not make it impossible. I appreciate that steps have been taken to fill that gap so that we might go forward fairly quickly together.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I am sure that he was involved in the consultation on "Stalking in Northern Ireland" and that he and his colleagues will be pleased. We are, of course, delighted to do what we can to make the Bill applicable there.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 2

      CORRESPONDING PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
      '. An Order in Council made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of sections 1 to 7 and 12 of this Act—

      (a) shall not be subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of paragraph 1 of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but

      (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      POWERS OF COURT TO PROTECT VICTIMS DURING TRIALS
      '. In any proceedings under this Act, where it appears to the court that distress is being caused to any person who may have been the victim of any act of harassment to which this Act applies by reason of the decision of the person accused of that act of harassment to represent himself in those proceedings, it may require the person accused of the act of harassment to be legally represented.'.—[Ms Janet Anderson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms Janet Anderson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause's purpose is to highlight a problem about which the Minister and I have corresponded. It concerns the arrangements for defendants to cross-examine witnesses in person.
      Recently, two cases aroused particular public concern. The first involved Julia Mason, who was cross-examined for six days by the man who was eventually found guilty of raping her.
      The second case was that of Margaret Bent, to whom I have already referred. Margaret was cross-examined by her alleged stalker, Dennis Chambers. At the time of the case, the National Association of Victim Support Schemes called for the victims of domestic or sexual violence or similar cases to have the right not to be examined by the accused. In view of what happened to Margaret Bent, I should be grateful if the Minister would give us a progress report on the deliberations in which I know that his Department is engaged.
      Mr. Maclean: The new clause would give the court discretion in any proceedings under the Act to require a person accused of an act of harassment to be legally represented if it appears to the court that distress is caused to the victim of that harassment by reason of the accused representing himself.
      The Government recognise that serious concerns have arisen from the recent cases in which victims of rape and stalking offences have been caused enormous distress by being cross-examined by defendants who are not legally represented and who appear to take the opportunity during the cross-examination to make the victims relive some of the horrendous experiences they have endured. We find that unacceptable. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in a speech in October that he was determined to ensure that it was prevented. A review of the law covering this matter is under way.

      983
      Depriving a defendant of the right to represent himself if he chooses to do so is a serious matter, and there are some complex issues to consider carefully, including the range of offences to which such measures might apply. Confining it to proceedings relating to harassment alone, which is what the new clause would do, would not meet the concerns of one of the rape victims about whom we heard earlier and would not cover the case that gave rise to the most concern. There are also other serious offences to which this provision would sensibly apply.
      Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister tell us the timetable for the review?
      Mr. Maclean: No, I cannot. The review is being conducted as speedily as possible. I have not set an artificial time scale, but we want the answers as soon as possible. It is not an easy thing to do. The mischief—I use that word in its technical legal sense—or the evil, which is a more colloquial word, caused by the comments and behaviour of those representing themselves is a complex thing to try to prevent. The damage that we want to prevent is simple to describe, as is the concept, but the practical issues are tricky.
      Mr. Michael Stephen: I can well understand that depriving a defendant of the opportunity to be represented at all would be a very serious matter. However, many people within and outside the House of Commons would think that to tell a defendant that he must be represented by a lawyer would not be such a serious deprivation and would not outweigh the right of the complainant not to be subjected to the indignity that the two unfortunate women to whom the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) referred had to endure.
      Mr. Maclean: I have heard my hon. Friend's point of view; he is experienced in these matters. If we propose taking away the right of defendants to represent themselves, we have to be careful how we do it, in what cases we do it and where we draw the line. It could be a slippery slope towards removing the right of defendants to represent themselves in quite the wrong cases.
      When we reach our preliminary conclusions, we will discuss them with the Law Society and the Bar Council, but we are not at that stage yet. We wish to make progress as quickly as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I and all right-thinking people were appalled at the way in which one defendant in particular behaved in the rape cross-examination. We would all like to stamp out such mischief, overnight if possible, but as I have said, this is a complex area of law.
      We fully understand the concerns that lie behind the new clause. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) intends to insist that this should be built into the Bill for harassment only. When we find a solution to the problem, we want it to apply to a sensible and coherent range of measures. There may be a range of offences where we would want to make some changes, if we conclude that change is possible and can be done sensibly.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen will withdraw the motion and accept my assurance that the Government wish to move as speedily
      984
      as possible. We want to reach a sensible conclusion, which, we hope, will be acceptable to most of those in the profession and the judiciary, which will not infringe anyone's rights or take away justice and which victims will find bearable.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister's account of these matters is well judged and appropriate. If one is to innovate on the constitutional right of any individual to defend himself or herself, one must be certain that it is entirely justified. I have not had the benefit of reading the transcripts of the two trials to which reference was made. However, in my experience, which is perhaps becoming increasingly outdated and is confined to Scotland, any effort at repetitious or offensive cross-examination from an individual defending himself or herself was almost always dealt with extremely severely by the judge. The point at which it becomes offensive is a fine judgment to make, but, for most people, the offensive nature of the two cases to which we have referred must have been evident to all who were participating. I am a little surprised that the judges did not feel able to take what one might regard as a firmer hand.
      Mr. Maclean: It may help the hon. and learned Gentleman if I tell him that reading the transcript would not give a full account of the offensiveness. In one case, the defendant wore identical clothes to those he wore during the rape and deported himself in a similar way. The transcript does not give the full picture of the evil that he was committing in the court.
      Mr. Campbell: There is no substitute for being present in the case. One often reads reports of cases in which one has been involved which seem to bear little resemblance to reality. I accept that there is a problem, and my only question is why a firmer hand was not taken. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor should issue some clearer directives on what is permissible.
      Mr. Stephen rose—
      Mr. Campbell: I must make progress, because I know that the Committee is of that mind.
      There are some instances in which the accused commences the case being represented but, as the case progresses, it becomes impossible for his or her legal representatives to continue, either because the nature of the instructions changes dramatically and puts the professional position of the legal representative in jeopardy or because the instructions change so as to suggest an approach that does not amount to a defence in law. If legal representatives have withdrawn, it might be difficult to force the appointment of other legal representatives, who might find themselves faced with the same problem.
      There might be almost a pantomime: the case would be adjourned so that fresh counsel could be instructed and that fresh counsel would turn up the following morning saying, "We have had a consultation with the accused, but, unfortunately, we are unable to represent him." Such circumstances could bedevil proceedings in a way that would not add to the dignity of the court.

      985
      There are complicated issues involved in not just the constitutional principle but the practicality of making a rule such as that proposed in the new clause. I hope that the motion is not pressed to a Division, because I do not believe that, in the present state of our knowledge and the consultation, we would be able to reach an informed decision.
      Mr. Stephen: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned cases in which judges deal quickly and decisively with defendants who represent themselves and break the rules of procedure. Like him, I have some experience in the courts, and I fear that, in many such cases, judges are reluctant to interfere with the conduct of a defence by a defendant in person lest that be used as a ground of appeal leading to a subsequent hearing in the Court of Appeal.
      On the hon. and learned Gentleman's other point—if the defendant were to run a defence that is not a defence in law—there is no more reason for allowing him to run that defence in person than if he were represented by a lawyer.
      Ms Janet Anderson: This is obviously a very difficult issue, and we have no intention of pressing the motion to a Division—although I am grateful for having had the opportunity to air the subject. I am also grateful to the Minister for his concern about the problem. We are thankful that his Department is conducting its review, and we look forward to a speedy response. We hope that it will be possible to do something to end the type of problem experienced by those women.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill, as amended, to be reported.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      5.51 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in yesterday's debate on Second Reading that the Bill had one simple aim: to protect the victims of harassment. The Bill aims to give that protection, not by defining activities that are known as stalking—as we believe that such a definition will inevitably omit some activities that are distressing, or worse, to victims—but by focusing on the harm inflicted on the victim. That harm is harassment. The benefits of proceeding in such a manner are that all forms of harassment—whether stalking, racial abuse, neighbour or work disputes—are covered.
      As I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I was tempted to say that I wish that I had the benefit in England of Scotland's breach of the peace provisions, about which I learned many years ago.
      The Bill adopts a twin-track approach by using the civil and criminal law, both of which have a part to play in providing effective remedies to combat harassment. The new concept of a restraining order that will be available
      986
      to criminal courts on conviction is a major step forward and has been welcomed by those campaigning on the issue.
      The Opposition agreed to co-operate with the Government to pass the Bill without delay. We have made some good progress today, and I am delighted with the support and assistance that we have received today. It is a matter of regret that we got a bit bogged down yesterday and that the Bill was amended in a manner that is unacceptable to the Government and absolutely unworkable in practice. We will have to take a little time in another place to put the Bill back on the straight and narrow.
      Sentencing is a matter for the criminal courts, and conditions of treatment attached to sentences are a matter for them. We believe that they have ample powers to order treatment, which might be probation, intensive therapy or counselling. I believe that counselling is of value only when it is entered into voluntarily and willingly. People seek counselling, but they cannot be forced into it. Moreover, civil courts do not sentence people at all but are a forum for the resolution of disputes. However, that issue can be addressed in another place.
      Mr. George Howarth: The Minister said that counselling is effective only if it is undertaken on a voluntary basis. He should examine some of the programmes for prisoners run by the Prison Service. Prisoners are required to attend those programmes, which often achieve very good results among those who have attended on a non-voluntary basis.
      Mr. Maclean: We do not want to get into that debate now; I merely say that there is a world of difference between the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes and prisoners whose entitlement to parole or early release depends on their participating in the prison regime and other activities, such as drying out from drug dependency. Technically, attending such a programme in prison may be voluntary, but prisoners believe that, if they do not attend, they will not be granted parole. There is a sanction in prison that will not be replicated in the outside world, particularly through civil courts. However, let us not discuss that issue on Third Reading.
      We will continue to place the safety and protection of the British people at the top of our agenda for action. The Bill is one of a number of measures that the Government have recently introduced in the House or in another place that, when enacted, will make the United Kingdom a safer and a better place in which to live. As I said earlier, I have no wish to delay the Bill further. The Government have set out clearly our objections to the Opposition's amendment, and we have stated our intention to put the Bill right in the other place. Victims of stalking and of other forms of harassment should not have their hopes of protection put at risk by any further delay or unnecessary amendments to the Bill.
      I believe that the Bill will provide victims of harassment with the protection that they need. The Bill's provisions strike the right balance between the need to give reassurance and protection to victims and the need not to constrain legitimate activity, whether it is the action of journalists, private investigators, debt collectors or, of course, politicians.
      With the caveat that I have mentioned, I commend this excellent Bill to the House.
      5.55 pm
      Ms Janet Anderson: The Opposition had always intended to be fully co-operative on the Bill, because, like the Minister and Conservative Members, we recognise the need to bring relief to the victims of stalking as quickly as possible. The intention of our amendments, therefore—despite what some hon. Members may think—was not to obstruct. I should tell the Minister that, had we intended to be obstructive, we would have pushed our definition to a Division. We chose not to do so, because we wanted to facilitate the Bill's passage. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust agreed that our amendments were intended to improve the Bill, and that was their intention.
      As the Minister has mentioned yesterday's events, I should mention the reason for what we did. Criminal courts already have powers—which have been confirmed and backed by the Government—to provide counselling to confront offenders' criminal behaviour. However, as the Bill is drafted, that power would arise only when an injunction was breached—when a defendant resumed his stalking—and would be dealt with only by applying the much higher burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt. As we know, many stalkers are obsessive, and firm action to confront their offending behaviour may have to be taken as quickly as possible. The threat of imprisonment is also necessary if victims are to be properly protected.
      That is why, last night, the Opposition moved amendment No. 13, to provide county courts with power to order counselling when making an anti-stalking injunction. In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said:
      "We mean not some pleasant chat over a cup of tea … but the sort of counselling that forces offenders to face up to their offending behaviour".—[Official Report, 17 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 838.]
      The Minister claimed in his speech that our amendments were unworkable. I refer him to the leader page of tonight's Evening Standard, which rightly states:
      "Tony Blair, promised to cooperate with the Home Secretary in getting"
      the Bill
      "through the House without delay",
      and that the Home Secretary
      "is now accusing Labour of going back on its word by putting up amendments to the Bill which would clarify what it means by harassment."
      988
      The Evening Standard goes on to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Labour counterpart
      "is right to insist on scrutiny. Mr. Howard's Bill, like so much of the legislation which has emerged from the Home Office during his tenure, shows signs of clumsy and over-hasty drafting."
      I hope that the Minister will accept that we tabled our amendments with the best of intentions, and we hope that Ministers will give them—particularly the amendment that the House passed last night—serious consideration.
      Having said that, we wish the Bill well and a speedy passage through the other place. I am sure that the thousands of victims of stalking, and those in other categories whom the Minister claims the measures will help—such as those in neighbour or racial disputes—will be greatly relieved when it reaches the statute book.
      5.59 pm
      Mr. Bennett: I, too, hope that the Bill turns out to be a good one, but I have to put down certain markers. I fear that, with the Government not prepared to commit any new resources, the legislation may not be enforced as effectively as the House would like. It is not reasonable to expect the police to be able to give the necessary time and attention to harassment cases in particular without there being resourcing implications. We should be worried about passing legislation without providing the necessary resources.
      We should also ask whether the House did a proper job of scrutiny. I fear that we shall find that the Bill does not protect all those whom we want to protect. We may well find that one or two people whom we did not intend to be caught by the legislation will be. The lessons for the House must he that, although all-party co-operation is a good idea, it should not shorten proper scrutiny. I do not think that the Floor of the House is the proper place for detailed scrutiny. Even though we were trying to get the measure through House quickly, it would have been far better to send the Bill to a Standing Committee, even if the Committee had had to sit for long hours to carry out the scrutiny effectively. I hope that the legislation works, but, when the House looks back on this day and a half, I do not think that we will believe that we carried out our scrutiny role effectively.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

    National Heritage Bill [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    6.1 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    The Bill extends the powers of the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund on the projects that they can fund and the recipients eligible for funding.
    As the House will know, the NHMF trustees distribute the heritage share of the national lottery proceeds. Our aim is to build on the existing success of the lottery as a source of funding for the national heritage. We are keen that everyone should be able to appreciate and benefit from that heritage. We want lottery money to be used to enhance opportunities for people—especially the young—to have ready access to our heritage, to learn about it and to enjoy it. We also want to ensure that any worthwhile heritage project can be considered for lottery funding, with no artificial barriers.
    Under the existing legislation, which predates the advent of the lottery, the NHMF trustees can fund only those projects that involve the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of tangible heritage assets. Of course, that gives the NHMF plenty of scope to support worthwhile projects, and it is taking full advantage of those opportunities.
    However, because of the current terms of the legislation, the NHMF's role as a lottery distributor is more restricted than the Government and the trustees wish. The NHMF cannot, for instance, offer funds for projects that promote access to our heritage or enhance understanding and enjoyment of it. It cannot assist in the development of heritage skills, and is limited in its ability to support nature conservation work.
    We want to lift those constraints. We want the NHMF to back heritage projects comparable with those that other lottery distributors are supporting in their sectors.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister be specific about the inhibitions on undertaking conservation work? My understanding is that the national heritage memorial fund has been very good about supporting New Hailes, near Edinburgh, which is really a conservation project.
    Mr. Sproat: Perhaps I could come back to the hon. Gentleman on that project. The fund exists mainly to acquire, preserve and maintain tangible objects. Conservation can be part of preservation, therefore falling within the fund's current remit, but the NHMF trustees have been uneasy about any project that strays too far from the acquisition, preservation and maintenance of tangible objects. However, I shall look into the New Hailes example and see exactly how it was dealt with.
    The choice of projects is, of course, a matter for the NHMF trustees. However, the trustees and the Government are clear that our heritage offers ample scope for the NHMF to undertake a wider role than is at present legally possible.
    Projects that the trustees might want to consider funding could include the assignment of a professional educationist to a heritage site to train staff and produce
    990
    material for use by school parties, the use of information technology to develop a virtual reality programme showing how a cathedral developed over time, or a training scheme for a heritage-related skill—be it stained glass conservation or hedge laying.
    We also want the NHMF to be able to support projects that enhance understanding of our national history or landscape, independently of its tangible remains.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: Together with other members of the Environment Select Committee, I visited the natural history museum this morning. The nation can be justly proud of the enormous collection held there—the largest in the world—of specimens from the natural world, and of the high-quality scientific research that goes on there. We were shown the efforts made by the museum to put its specimens on computer disk, and to make its collection available to all the scientists in the world through the Internet. I am sure that the museum will welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the availability of money for information technology projects.
    Mr. Sproat: I am glad that my hon. Friend visited the natural history museum, which is one of the finest natural history museums in the world, if not the finest. Anyone who has not discovered how many angles a beetle can be seen from with information technology would not believe it. The natural history museum is far advanced in such matters. I am sure that other museums will take up similar technology in a major way.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will enable the Victoria County History of England, which is a national project, to apply for lottery funding?
    Mr. Sproat: I shall come to that in just a second. You yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, played an important role in that project. I shall deal with it in a few sentences. I ask my right hon. Friend to contain himself.
    We have identified three types of project that fulfil the purpose that I mentioned. The first is an exhibition on a particular aspect of our history. Examples might be a museum exhibition on the life and work of an important figure in history or on the ecology of a particular region. The second is the creation of an archive—for instance, an oral record of the distinctive experiences of particular localities or groups. The third—this was identified during the Bill's passage through another place—is a major work of reference such as the Victoria County History.
    The answer to my right hon. Friend is yes. I want to pay particular tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is not a creepy thing to do, because your great work and valuable advice enabled us to include the project in the Bill. All those who value the county histories pay great credit to your work.
    Mr. William Cash: Perhaps I should declare an interest, because my hon. Friend probably does not know that, together with Denis Mahon and others, I drafted the National Heritage Act 1980, which led to this Bill. Having read the Bill, I congratulate the Minister on it. We are now moving the national heritage memorial fund towards history and school projects, to enable people

    991
    to relate the written word to our history and monuments. The Bill is tremendous, and the Minister deserves every conceivable congratulation on it.
    Mr. Sproat: This is a big evening for congratulations. I thank my hon. Friend for his. It is a tribute to his original work on the 1980 Act that the new Bill is so short. He deserves credit for that.
    The first of the Bill's two main elements is the opening up of the NHMF's statutory terms of reference to embrace a much wider range of worthwhile heritage projects. The second element concerns who is eligible for assistance from the NHMF. Existing legislation permits the NHMF to offer financial assistance only to public and charitable bodies that have been established for a specific heritage purpose.
    That remit, of course, takes in much that is at the very heart of our heritage, but it rules out a great many potentially worthwhile projects. In built heritage alone, more than two thirds of historic buildings are privately owned. As the law stands, those buildings are outside the NHMF's terms of reference and therefore cannot be considered for lottery funding.
    When the National Heritage Committee examined the national lottery earlier this year, the NHMF, English Heritage and other bodies all argued that limiting eligibility for lottery funding in such a way works against the best interests of heritage, and that the restrictions on eligibility should therefore be removed. The Select Committee agreed with that view, and so do the Government. We believe that ownership of property should not determine whether a project is eligible for lottery support. What matters is whether the project has heritage merit and will be for the public good.
    There have been suggestions that the purpose of the proposal is simply to enable lottery money to reach the owners of historic country houses, but privately owned heritage includes buildings of almost every kind. There is considerable scope for the lottery to support heritage projects, such as historic townscape schemes as an element of urban regeneration, or conservation projects in the countryside. A number of such projects have already received lottery awards, but the NHMF has often been unable to help because much of the property concerned is privately owned.
    Nor, of course, is the proposal confined to historic buildings. The new approach to eligibility will also apply, for example, to museums, land and artefacts owned by private individuals. There is of course nothing new about making public funds available for the benefit of privately owned heritage property. For many years, English Heritage and other bodies have been running grant schemes for historic buildings of outstanding quality, irrespective of ownership. Grants are subject, quite properly, to stringent conditions on matters such as public access, and there is provision for the means testing of applicants and for clawback of funds if necessary. The NHMF trustees accept that, if lottery grants are to be given to private owners of heritage property, such rigorous safeguards will be required.

    There has also been concern that the Government's aim in extending the NHMF's funding remit is to enable lottery money to replace core funding for heritage, thus going back on our undertaking that lottery money would be additional to existing expenditure programmes.
    992
    The immediate response to such concern is to point to the extremely favourable public expenditure settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has achieved for heritage bodies in the next financial year.
    Museums and galleries, for instance, have been granted an additional £3 million over previous plans. An additional £1.8 million will be available to English Heritage. Those figures testify to the Government's determination to protect core funding in priority areas of heritage.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Minister will know of the British museum's concern about the terrible dilemma of either paying off staff or being faced with charging for entrance, which for very good reasons they are exceedingly reluctant to undertake. Can he really he so complacent about the position?
    Mr. Sproat: Not a tremor of complacency had entered my voice on the matter. The devastating report on the finances, organisation, management and general efficiency of the British museum came not from the Government but from an independent report that was commissioned by the trustees. It was in that report that the suggestion was made that imposing entry charges was one way in which to make up the shortfall that arose from—not to put it too disagreeably—the not wholly adequate running of the finances and organisation of the British museum in past years. The Government did not say that. The Government do not encourage or discourage charging.
    Some museums, such as the British museum, do not charge, but others, such as the natural history museum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) visited today, the science museum, the imperial war museum and the maritime museum not only charge but are extremely glad that they have done so.
    If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talked to Sir Neil Cossons, Neil Chalmers or Robert Crawford, or went to the maritime museum, he would find that they very much wish to keep a charging policy. That is up to them, just as it is up to the British museum's trustees to decide whether they want to charge. They have not looked after the finances as well as they might have liked, and if they can find another way in which to put finances back on a sound basis without going in for charging, that is fine; so be it. No pressure will come from the Government.
    It would be interesting to know whether, if they were ever in power, the Opposition intend to abolish such charges, and if so, where they would get the money to make up for the charges that currently help the science museum, the natural history museum, the maritime museum, the imperial war museum, and so on.
    The Government stand by our undertaking that lottery money will not replace existing funding. That of course does not mean that, in areas where lottery funding is available, expenditure programmes are immune from the constraints applying to public spending generally. Nor does it prevent lottery money from complementing other funding. In the heritage sector, it is entirely right that projects that are beyond the scope of English Heritage's grant programmes, generous as that is—in terms of either eligibility or affordability—should be able to be considered for lottery funding.

    993
    What is important is that there should be agreed strategies on the role of the lottery in relation to other heritage programmes, so that the available funds can be applied where they are needed. With that in mind, the NHMF is having discussions with English Heritage and other bodies on future funding priorities in the light of the new powers conferred by the Bill.
    I turn to the Bill's specific provisions. Clause 1 redefines the funding powers of the NHMF trustees, as set out in section 3 of the National Heritage Act 1980, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) helped to draft. There are three main changes. First, the NHMF's remit is extended beyond simply the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of land, buildings or objects of importance to national heritage. Under the Bill, the NHMF will also be able to support projects that encourage study, understanding and enjoyment of heritage, promote access to heritage, or develop skills relating to heritage.
    Secondly, there is a new power for the NHMF to fund specified types of project which relate to important aspects of the United Kingdom's history, natural history or landscape, and which the trustees consider are of public benefit. That power encompasses exhibitions, archives and comprehensive works of reference, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) referred.
    Sir Donald Thompson: All over the country in the 1920s, war memorials were erected by public subscription. Some of them belong to local authorities, and many are onerous burdens. Will the Bill enable those war memorials to be looked after properly, providing, of course, that the correct procedures are followed?
    Mr. Sproat: I hope so. My hon. Friend raises a very important point, which we shall perhaps be able to go into in rather more depth in Committee when we consider particular examples.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned New Hailes. The NHMF has been able to support the acquisition of New Hailes by the National Trust for Scotland, because the National Trust is a public body. If the present owner of New Hailes had sought help from the NHMF for repairs to the building—the hon. Gentleman mentioned conservation, which might just fall under the remit of repairs, I suppose—she would not have been able to receive funding. It is in part to allow such added discretion for the trustees that we have introduced the Bill. It would have been possible to help New Hailes under the Bill even had it not been for the acquisition by the National Trust for Scotland.
    Secondly, there is a new power for the NHMF to fund specified types of project that relate to an important aspect of the United Kingdom's history, and so on, including the comprehensive works of reference that I have already mentioned.
    Thirdly, the current list of recipients eligible for NHMF funding will disappear. Instead, the NHMF will be able to support any project that the trustees consider is of importance to the national heritage and of public benefit.
    994
    Clause 2 repeals existing provisions that require the NHMF to obtain departmental and Treasury approval for the payment of allowances to trustees and for certain staffing matters. We propose to table one small amendment to clause 2, which will concern the remuneration for NHMF trustees.
    It is arguable that the work involved in assessing lottery applications is approaching the point at which it becomes unreasonable to ask trustees to give their time unpaid. We do not intend to make any immediate decisions about that. However, the NHMF is virtually alone among lottery distributors in that its trustees are precluded by statute from receiving substantive remuneration. We want to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to remove the current statutory bar. The current chairman has made it clear that he would not wish to make use of the change to receive remuneration himself.
    I am confident that the Bill will be welcomed by all hon. Members with an interest in our country's incomparable heritage. It will effectively bring the whole of the heritage within reach of lottery funding, it will ensure that resources are deployed where they are most needed, and it will open the door to a range of exciting new projects—projects not only to preserve the heritage but also to help deepen our understanding of it and enhance our enjoyment of it.
    I commend the Bill to the House.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Mark Fisher: We welcome the Bill, which has the Opposition's general support. Lord Donoughue, on behalf of the Opposition, made clear our support in the excellent debate in the other place. We accept the case that the Minister has made for augmenting and widening the powers of the national heritage memorial fund and the heritage lottery fund trustees so as to give greater flexibility in the operation of the two funds.
    At present, those funds are circumscribed by the fact that they are charged only with acquisition, maintenance and preservation, so a lot of imaginative opportunities are being missed. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) made a good point about memorials, which are much loved in communities throughout the country, and constitute an extraordinary record of our history and of the sacrifices that communities have made on behalf of this country. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an organisation that cares for memorials, but it is hugely underfunded, and relies purely on charitable money.
    It is precisely such projects that will now be eligible because of the wider powers, and we look forward to exploring that aspect of the Bill in committee. Such opportunities are being missed at present, and the Bill properly opens the possibilities for their inclusion. That is one of the reasons why we welcome it.
    We are enthusiastic about some of the specific powers, especially those concerning wider access. As we understand it, matters such as the cost of transport for school groups to sites, and the pricing policy of some heritage sites, would become eligible for assistance as a result of the Bill. The educational work of schools, youth initiatives and training in heritage-related skills, perhaps by means of bursaries, will be included So will the important issue of information technology, to which the Minister alluded briefly, and which we shall explore

    995
    in Committee. That will arise in connection with access to the great archives of this country and other archive material, which all have enormous potential both for academics and in schools.
    We welcome all those developments, especially the widening of the definition to include conservation of our natural heritage. At present conservation of our habitats, flora and fauna receives only about 9 per cent. of national heritage memorial funding; yet our hedgerows, heaths and sedges, and the extraordinary diversity and beauty of the British landscape in general, tell us a great deal about how our forefathers lived, and how we have created what is often a man-made landscape. As a society, we have not always been as careful as we should have been about that, or given the funding to preserve those great natural and man-made landscapes, so we welcome the fact that such projects will become eligible for funding.
    We should like an assurance from the Minister that wider eligibility for nature conservation will also be recognised by the NHMF—the national heritage memorial fund—and that things will be on a more equal footing generally, not only through lottery funding but in terms of the conservation of nature and the built environment in general. Problems have undoubtedly been identified, as happened with the 1995 report on biodiversity. There is a great deal of work to do.
    We welcome what the Minister said about the Victoria County History, since Staffordshire, the county of which I represent a part, is an especially fine example. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those who, like your colleague, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and like many Members of the House of Lords, have pressed for the change. I am glad that the Government have responded and clarified that aspect.
    We have not always been as careful as we ought to have been about our local histories and oral histories, and our industrial heritage. We welcome the fact that those will now be taken within the ambit of the two funds.
    We welcome not only the widening of the powers but the fact that more bodies will be eligible. The definition of eligibility for receiving funds should range more widely than the public bodies and charities established for a heritage purpose that it covers at present. As we understand the Bill, the new definition will mean that the criteria for eligibility for applying for funds will be both the heritage importance of the project and the public good. Anybody who is doing valuable heritage work will now be eligible to apply to the two funds and to receive grants.
    Of course, that will include the private sector—another area that we need to explore in Committee. We welcome the idea in principle, but we foresee certain problems, which we can examine, although not necessarily tonight. In particular, we should like to hear an assurance from the Minister, either tonight or in Committee, that, just as the private houses he mentioned will be eligible, other areas of our heritage that are in private hands will be eligible, too.
    For example, there are some wonderful examples of 1930s architecture in privately owned cinemas. Whether those will fall within the remit of funding remains to be seen. What about our industrial heritage, including premises that, although they may be in use at the moment, may also be listed buildings? There are many such in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and people have encountered difficulties in modernising and expanding them while maintaining the heritage.
    996
    The Minister, in common with other hon. Members, may have received an interesting letter from a company called Leigh Spinners, from Leigh in Lancashire, on that subject. That is another area that is worth exploring in Committee.
    By and large, we support the widening both of the powers and of the eligibility of recipient bodies, but I want to put on record the fact that there are some serious problems to be addressed. In allowing the private sector access to heritage lottery funding, it is vital that genuine access, rather than token access, be made a priority.
    Inevitably, there will also be problems involving clawback, when there is appreciation or development of privately owned sites that have received funding. For instance, it is the public interest that theatres in the west end of London in private hands, which are often fine works by architects such as Masham, should receive grants. I believe that applications are in train to the arts lottery board. It appears that the Bill would allow application on architectural grounds for privately owned theatres to the heritage lottery fund. We support that, but the system of matching funding must be different from and more rigorous than that for applications from publicly-owned theatres.
    There is also the problem of how means testing will be done on private houses and theatres, and how development appreciation will be clawed back if capital appreciation results from lottery funding. There are concerns that require clarification. It was not clear from the debate in the other place whether the Government have thought them out.
    The Minister gave a rather bland assurance that the Government's position on additionality remained the same. Baroness Trumpington, on Second Reading, stated:
    "The Government have always made it clear that money raised by the lottery for good causes was and is intended to be additional to public expenditure. The Government will not reduce public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery. That commitment cannot, however, mean that the Government should set aside the issue of what they can afford to spend on any programme which benefits from lottery funds compared to any other public expenditure programme. The opposite view would be to give an automatic protection to lottery-supported programmes which was not available to others. Such a result would be absurd."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 1996; Vol. 575, c. 567.]

    There is an internal logic in that, but if one thinks about her view, one sees that it lets the Treasury or the Department of National Heritage make allowances in apportioning grant aid. That opens the door to the end of the additionality principle—a process that is already evident in some grants.
    The Minister gave a partial view of the way in which English Heritage has been treated. He mentioned its slight funding increase this year, but, over the past few years, it has fared badly. There is no doubt that the new funds will do work that would otherwise have been done by English Heritage in some respects. In that sense, they are replacing money that should come through grant aid. The Minister slid off that point far too easily, especially in relation to the British museum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow very properly raised.

    997
    What the Minister said is wrong. If he was seeking to put the blame for the British museum's financial problems on bad management, he would do well to reconsider. People who know and love the British museum will take his criticisms very hard.
    Mr. Sproat: I did not make them.
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister threw a very partial light on the report and on who is responsible for the situation that faces the trustees of the British museum. I hope that in his reply, he will acknowledge the excellent work of the British museum and its very good trustees. In Dr. Robert Anderson it has one of the best national museum directors. Any other interpretation of the Minister's words would not be appreciated by the museum world, and would be unjust to good people and good work. I hope that he will reconsider what he said, because it is easy to put a malign interpretation on it.
    The Minister was disingenuous about additionality in relation to the British museum. He knows perfectly well that national museums, such as the British museum, the Tate gallery, the national gallery and the national portrait gallery, that do not charge for admission, receive a far worse allocation of grant aid from his Department than museums that charge. He was reported in the press as having tacitly acknowledged that he and the Secretary of State took into account the charging policy of museums when apportioning grant aid. He discriminated against those that do not charge.
    Mr. Sproat indicated dissent.
    Mr. Fisher: He denies it, but the record is that museums that do not charge have been penalised this year. That is an extraordinarily hostile political act, which puts his remarks this evening in a different context.
    Mr. Dalyell: I was taken aback when the Minister replied to my question about the British museum. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. We will come back to the matter in Committee. Some marvellous exhibitions have been laid on for the whole of Europe by the British museum, such as the current Chinese exhibition arranged by Carole Michaelson and her colleagues in the oriental department.
    Mr. Fisher: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the spirit of Christmas, we should assume that the Minister misspoke, and that he will put the record right when he replies. If he does not, people will be shocked and depressed by an unwarranted attack on a very fine museum and a very fine director.
    Additionality is much more complicated than the Minister suggested. He raised the charging policy of museums. It sits strangely with the Bill's avowed interest in increased access that he has been encouraging them to charge by giving favourable funding to those that charge. He has been celebrating those that charge. He well knows that, whenever a museum introduces charges, access to it declines.
    Mr. Sproat: Rubbish.
    Mr. Fisher: I shall give way to the Minister.
    Mr. Sproat: Has the hon. Gentleman not seen the figures for the imperial war museum? Before it introduced
    998
    charges, it made people go through turnstiles so it knows exactly how many people visited. After it started charging, the number went up. Even with the science museum, where it is claimed that admissions went down, Sir Neil Cossons does not believe that that was the case, because no proper accounting was done before the introduction of charging. The museum's logbooks give ludicrous numbers of visitors for one day; it would have been impossible for it to hold so many people. For the imperial war museum, we have it in arithmetical black and white that there are more visitors; in the case of the science museum, Sir Neil Cossons believes that there are.
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister should examine the history of charging museums. He will find that attendance at the national museum of Wales, the natural history museum and others has declined with the introduction of charging. He is right to say that it is difficult to say by precisely how much it has declined, because figures were kept on a fairly random, variable basis. No one disputes that; the Minister should not get so exercised. However, he cannot pray in aid precise figures. He should know that there were particular circumstances about the year after the imperial war museum introduced charges involving certain exhibitions. We are talking about the core collection.
    If the Minister knew the history of the imperial war museum, which was very well run by Dr. Alan Borg, he would know that he is not comparing like with like. He is not comparing the figures for core collections; he is talking about specific exhibitions. The important thing about charging does not relate to special exhibitions, for which all museums and galleries sometimes charge, but to access to the core collections. They have been invested in and acquired by the public, who are now being denied free and open access to them. No doubt we will return to the issue, but the Minister should look at his statistics a little more carefully.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman not tending to underestimate the problems faced by the British museum? As I understand it, even if it introduces charging on the basis of the recommendations, it would still be faced with a shortage of resources for further development and might have to contemplate redundancies.
    Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman will know that one relevant factor is that, when the British library moves out of the Reading Room, the British museum will lose a substantial amount of income, but the Government have not yet made it clear that they will fully compensate it. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene to say that the British museum will be fully funded and fully compensated for the loss of that revenue, that would be most welcome. I am happy to give way to him if he wishes to put that on the record, rather than do it from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Sproat: I did not expect to have to go through the Red Book—after all, it is not all that long since we had the Budget—but it makes it quite clear that, for years two and three, the British museum will indeed be recompensed for the removal of the British library. That is absolutely black and white.
    Mr. Fisher: I hope that that recompense will be full, and that there will be no shortfall. The right hon. Member

    999
    for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is quite right to say that there are problems over and above those connected with the loss of the British library, but the British museum is a well-run institution, with a huge international reputation. We should recognise that it is a cultural jewel for the country. We should be proud of it, and fund it accordingly.
    Leaving aside those differences, the Opposition support the general thrust of the Bill, which fits in well with some of the good recommendations of "Treasures in Trust". One problem with that report, however, is the slight hostility towards local authorities. The Bill encourages greater educational work in a sector that has suffered from Government policy.
    Schools museum services around the country, and the number of school visits to museums, have declined because of the Government's hostility towards local education authorities. I welcome the fact that the Bill will fund educational projects, but new initiatives in such projects will be funded in the context of a general decline in support for the schools museum services, which are the bedrock infrastructure of heritage education in our schools. I hope that the Minister will understand that, and work more closely with the Department for Education and Employment.
    We believe that the Bill represents a move in the right direction. The emphasis that it places on the natural environment and access, and its wider definition of eligibility, are in line with the Opposition's policies. It admirably prepares the way for a Labour Government, who will have a far more positive attitude towards our heritage and cultural life. For that reason, we commend the Bill to the House.
    6.42 pm
    Mr. Simon Coombs: It is an immense pleasure to contribute to the debate on a Bill that I greatly welcome, because, for the past five years, other hon. Members and I have called for it.
    We debate the Bill against the background of the extraordinary success of the national lottery. The difference that lottery funding is making to the arts, heritage and sport is quite extraordinary and, dare I say it, beyond the dreams of avarice. In the past few months, however, it has become clear to the Government that one sector of our national heritage is missing out. I welcome the Government's commitment to put that right.
    In debates on the lottery and tourism in 1994 and 1995, I asked for such a Bill to be introduced. On 24 June 1994, I said in the House:
    "The lottery can significantly enhance our ability to restore and preserve the built heritage of Britain, as well as its museums and galleries.
    But what about those parts of the heritage that are still in private hands and are so excellently represented by the Historic Houses Association? Is the Minister willing to see funds made available to the owners of the great houses, castles and palaces of Britain on appropriate terms? If not, we may find ourselves contributing to a form of creeping nationalisation, which would be wrong."—[Official Report, 24 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 464.]
    On 30 March 1995, I said in the House:
    "Private sector heritage sites and historic houses will face a problem as a result of the regulation that provides that the lottery's proceeds can go only to public or charitable bodies. Privately owned historic houses will have to achieve charitable status to benefit, which will create considerable problems for many of their owners.
    1000
    The tax regime burdens the owners of historic houses and, as a result, dilapidation is continuing and the heritage is suffering. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not lose sight of that problem and will continue to look at ways in which help can be given to preserve our national built heritage that is in private hands."—[Official Report, 30 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1256.]
    The cavalry has arrived today.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: It is Christmas.
    Mr. Coombs: Yes, the Bill will bring the cheer of Christmas to many owners of historic houses, which, until now, have been threatened with dilapidation or closure.
    I want to contribute to the debate because of the importance of our heritage to tourism. Last year, 23.7 million foreign visitors came to Britain, no doubt for a variety of reasons, but their desire to see our heritage must have been one of the strongest. Some argue that the Government do not give enough money to the arts, our heritage and tourism, but the lottery, which is enabling us to enhance our tourist attractions, will lead to a growth in the number of visitors. One could think of many examples of such attractions, but I shall limit myself to one. The new Tate gallery of modern art at the Bankside power station site, not far from the House, will undoubtedly attract to London many more visitors who love modern art.
    The opportunities to entice more visitors to Britain will more than offset any reduction that the Government may seek to make in the money that they give to the British Tourist Authority or the English tourist board because of difficult financial times. We have created a honeypot, and the bees are coming to it from around the world.
    I do not need to labour the importance of our heritage to tourism, because those who are present are well aware of that. Tourism will continue to be a massive generator of jobs, but that must be judged against the background of the degeneration of the infrastructure of so much of our heritage. The work needed to maintain our heritage goes on constantly, and in a sense gets more difficult every year because our heritage ages every year. That decay is all very well when people want to look at ruins. Stonehenge would look pretty odd if we rebuilt it, and I hope that we never do. It would obviously be nonsense to suggest that our prehistoric or Roman heritage should be kept in anything other than its current condition, but what about our heritage from the Jacobean and Tudor eras, which is in private hands and has suffered serious decay over many decades?
    British people's interest and that of visitors in our joint heritage is intense and growing. There is no doubt that our generation is far more aware of our past and the importance of our history than any generation that came before it.
    I am lucky enough to represent the constituency in which the Royal Commission for Historical Monuments for England has been relocated. I pay tribute to the work of Tom Hassall and his staff. They have created an extraordinarily rich treasure trove, which is now being explored by more and more visitors who come to see our monuments.
    There is a growth of interest in this country's industrial heritage, so I welcome the Bill's provision to enable access to our industrial heritage and to promote education so that younger generations will become aware of the United Kingdom's industrial heritage.

    1001
    In that context, I want to refer to another project in my constituency. The Great Western Railway museum in Swindon has occupied an extremely small building for many years, and a project is now before the national heritage memorial fund to convert a much larger building on the old railway works site into a magnificent new railway museum. It is an imaginative scheme, which is supported by the local council, and it could, in time, create a national railway museum of the south, which might complement—but not, I hope, rival—the excellent museum in York.
    Interest in railways is intense in Swindon, which has a railway history that is the envy of other towns. That interest is not limited to Swindon and the surrounding area, but is matched by interest throughout the country and around the world. The romance of the Great Western Railway—God's wonderful railway—and of steam brings together people of all ages, each of whom has a small boy or small girl inside who is trying to escape, in remembering the days when they stood on the platform watching the steam engines of the past. I hope that those memories will be found in Swindon's museum of the future.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of a railway museum is that the locomotives should be kept in working order, so that we can see them, hear them and smell them in action and not look at them sitting in a building as a static exhibit?
    Mr. Coombs: I welcome that intervention and assure my hon. Friend that there is every intention of providing a linking line from the main Great Western line to the museum, so that railway engines can be moved off the country's main railway network into the museum. It is also intended that a workshop will be created, where people will be able to watch engines being worked on by railway engineers—there are many such engineers living in my constituency who would love to get back to work, albeit in a museum, in order to demonstrate the skills that they mastered in their working lives. In addition, such engines as King George V and Caerphilly Castle will be on display and I look forward to selling my hon. Friend a ticket to the museum when it is built. However, I must stick to my subject and not allow our mutual love of railways—with which I am sure all hon. Members were born—to cause me to stray too far.
    We must strike a note of caution. The NHMF and the heritage lottery fund are soon likely to be over-subscribed; despite the success of the lottery, there are more projects awaiting consideration than there are resources to fund them. It is therefore inevitable that some discrimination will be necessary and projects will have to be worth while and well thought out if they are to succeed in obtaining grant funding.
    It is not only councils such as my own that are making bids to the HLF; I am glad to say that, rightly, many individuals are seeking to preserve heritage in their area. A quarter of a mile away from the railway museum is a scheme to save the mechanics institution—a building constructed in the 1950s by the Great Western Railway in order to educate its work force and give them an opportunity to understand the cultural advances of the
    1002
    Victorian era. Long before the Education Act 1944 and the Arts Council, an enlightened capitalist company sought to give its employees access to education. The institution was a magnificent building, but it has been closed for many years and has fallen into total disrepair.
    As part of the work undertaken a few years ago by candidates of the Common Purpose organisation, a group of people got together to see whether the mechanics institution could be saved from its current state of disrepair. I pay tribute to the efforts of, in the first instance, Colin Grattan and, more recently, Martha Parry and Donald Brunwin, who have tried to put together a project that could be the subject of a bid to the HLF. However, such ad hoc organisations find it extremely difficult to gain access to the professionalism that is necessary to make such projects work and to bring them to a standard that the HLF will accept.
    I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is room for help to be given at an early stage, to evaluate schemes while they are still merely a dream or a principle at stake and to determine whether they are worth developing further. Recently, I had the opportunity of discussing that point with the chief executive of the NHMF, Anthea Case, and she assured me that anyone coming to the fund would be given as much help as possible, and I pay tribute to that helpful and understanding attitude among the NHMF's staff. There is a gap, which we could do more to fill by reaching out to people who have dreams and who want to try to help preserve our heritage. I would welcome an opportunity at a later stage to look for ways in which that might be achieved. There are obvious financial implications, but they need not be excessive, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the matter.
    That brings me to a more general point that should be taken into account when discussing the Bill—matching funds. In a recent debate on tourism, I talked about the problem of matching funds. I draw the House's attention to an example that I cited then: a proposal to give Kennet and Avon Canal Trust £25 million from the HLF. That was welcomed with enormous enthusiasm in Wiltshire and elsewhere along the line of the Kennet and Avon canal, but since the announcement was made, it has become clear that the matching funds needed to enable the scheme to go ahead are considerable—around £7 million has to be found from local sources, and that is not an easy task.
    I put it to my hon. Friend that, sooner or later, we shall have to revisit the question of matching funds. If we have decided that a project is sufficiently worth while for us to devote £25 million to it, are we really saying that, if it proves impossible to find matching funds, we do not want the scheme to go ahead at all? We are in danger of appearing to say that. I hope that there will be some flexibility in assessing the quality of projects. They should not be assessed in the context of determining whether there is enough local enthusiasm.
    There is always tremendous local enthusiasm for such projects, but there is a limit to the sum that we can ask local authorities to provide out of their necessarily limited budget. There is a limit to how much we can ask the private sector to contribute at local level. All hon. Members know of the constant pressure on the larger employing companies in any area to provide funding for charitable and voluntary organisations. There is a limit to what local fund raisers can raise. A canal stretching

    1003
    100-odd miles from Bristol to London is not a local project and will not be easily funded locally to the tune of about £7 million. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have some thoughts on that subject, if not this afternoon, some time during the Bill's passage through the House.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned access. Of course we would agree that when we give money to, for example, historic houses, it is right to insist on public access—that lottery money cannot be used to prop up a house for its own sake.
    We need to be sensitive. Some projects that are proposed as a result of the Bill's passage will involve very small houses that are still family homes. The idea that the general public should have an absolute, unfettered right to tramp through various rooms in those smaller houses lacks sensitivity. The principle of public access is right and obviously we must ensure that we do not go to the other extreme of handing over funds without public access, but I hope that sensitivity will be shown in deciding appropriate access.
    Let us suppose that a house is a jewel set in a landscape and is threatened with dilapidation to the point of being unsafe and needing to be pulled down. Are we saying that, in those circumstances, the heritage is not worth saving as a jewel in the landscape, even if the public will have access only to the parkland? Are we insisting that every room or a selection of rooms should be available? seek from my hon. Friend the Minister a clue as to his thinking on that matter because, in my view, if we create too rigid a principle, we are in danger of ruling out our ability to help smaller houses, which are part of our heritage.
    I very much welcome the Bill. It will create difficulties in terms of achieving a balance between the resources available to English Heritage and the national heritage memorial fund, but I am certain that that balance can be achieved and that, overall, the Bill's effect is benign. I welcome the fact that, after two years, the Government have concluded that ownership should not be an issue, and I very much hope that the Bill has a speedy passage.
    7.2 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: The general welcome that the Bill has evoked reflects the widespread hope that many projects that have not been eligible for national heritage memorial fund help will, as a result of the enlargement of the scope of the funds and of those to whom moneys may be paid, bring about the restoration of heritage, and in some cases the creation of new facilities.
    The Bill, although short, is important. It should be made plain that the Bill will not increase the money that the fund disperses. The cake is the same size, although the plates on which the slices are to be distributed will be substantially increased.
    Most of the important points about the Bill have been made. I had supposed that it would be largely uncontroversial. It may have been slightly provocative to focus so much attention on the Bill's purpose—to increase access to heritage—at a time when access appears to be threatened by other policies of the Government.
    The issue that has sparked a small explosion on both sides of the House—the funding of the British museum—is important. I venture with caution to step into that ring.
    1004
    When the Minister intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Mr. Fisher) to say that he sought neither to encourage nor to discourage museums regarding a charging policy, he inadvertently adopted an inappropriate attitude for a Minister of the Crown and protector of the public interest.
    Many of the great national collections have been accumulated on the assumption that they would remain free and open to access by all citizens, and a large proportion of the donations were explicitly made on that assumption. It is the duty of Ministers of the Crown, in their attitude to charging, to reflect that consideration. Neutrality about whether the British museum charges is not an appropriate posture. Neutrality about whether the national gallery receives, or must rule itself out from receiving, the benefits of Sir Denis Mahon's bounty is not a matter on which a Minister responsible for heritage should be neutral.
    Although the task of taking decisions on such questions lies with the trustees, Ministers of the Crown cannot be mute on those issues and should make it plain that, as a matter of public policy, it is desirable that the great national collections remain free and open to access. Those collections should not be saved up for the rare special visit to London. They should be regarded as an archive for reference purposes, to be visited frequently, to be dropped in upon on occasion, when the spirit so moves a visitor, perhaps only to look at a single item, to compare it, reflect on it and be moved and inspired by it. It should not be necessary to purchase that access. Those who have charged for such access, in places such as the Victoria and Albert museum, have diminished our heritage by introducing that charging principle.
    The question whether charging diminishes attendance at museums was not conclusively answered by the Minister's intervention about the imperial war museum, based on a relatively short period. There is a pretty strong a priori case against charging, as many people on limited incomes immediately exclude non-necessary expenditure from their spending. Although there have been vast numbers of visitors to the British museum from other countries—notably the United States—who regard much of what is there as world heritage, want to see it when they visit and are well able to afford to pay, there are ways of inducing such visitors to contribute to the costs other than compulsory charging, which adversely affects the least well-off members of our community.
    I did not intend to comment on that matter at length. I simply wanted to note the irony that we are considering a Bill designed to increase access against that background. Having noted that, I shall pass on. However, before passing on, I want to ask the Minister whether it is wrong to view the expenditure decisions on museums in the Budget as not revealing Government policy. That double negative may be difficult to follow, but it certainly appeared that museums with a charging policy were favoured by the Budget and those with no such policy, or with a policy of not charging, did not find favour. The British museum, among them, suffered a cut in its grant of £1.3 million. That cannot have been entirely accidental. It was certainly widely believed to be the Government's intention to move in that direction. If the Government want to disavow that intention on the record, they ought to look again at their funding arrangements for the national museums and galleries, whose acquisition fund in particular is under considerable pressure.

    1005
    The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) spoke about the mechanics institution, which I had the privilege of seeing on a recent visit to Swindon. I share his enthusiasm for the project and hope that it will be a successful applicant for assistance. I, too, have projects which I cherish and which I hope, as a result of the Bill, will be eligible for assistance.
    I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the possibility of townscape heritage being brought within the ambit of the national heritage memorial fund. I have been thinking for some time that the townscape of Wick in Caithness—particularly Pulteneytown, built to a plan by Telford, and one of the first examples of a grid townscape in Scotland—is a site of great historic interest that needs substantial expenditure to restore it to its former glory. The fact that, under the Bill, multiple ownership will not stand in the way of applications for assistance should help projects such as the one at Wick to put together suitable applications for assistance.
    On the limited question of access, I question whether the words in the Bill about imposing a duty on trustees to
    "bear in mind the desirability of public access"
    go far enough. That seems to be a subjective test, which is scarcely adequate to reflect the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that public access is a proper consideration when determining whether money should be paid out.
    There are obviously some objects that it would not be possible to keep on permanent display to the public; they may be very fragile, for instance. That sort of consideration should mean that it is not an absolute duty to offer public access in all circumstances. Quite apart from the difficulty of demonstrating whether the trustees have discharged their duty in this respect, the phrase does not go far enough. I therefore commend to the Government a phrase that could be subjected to a more objective test, such as: "The trustees shall give due weight to the significance of public access." I acknowledge that that is a Committee point, but, as I may not have the opportunity to serve on the Committee, I want to make it now.
    I noted what the Minister said about the Government's intention to alter the provisions on the remuneration of trustees. I welcome the arguments behind that proposal. On the other hand, I notice that the same clause makes the somewhat surprising proposal that the trustees
    "may appoint such officers and servants as they think fit, on such terms … as they think fit".
    That seems rather sweeping, although it may be standard practice with public bodies. Perhaps the Government will consider introducing guidance; the absolute discretion proposed in the Bill may not be right for a public body of this kind.
    In general, I welcome the Bill and its widening of the eligibility criteria. I welcome the new emphasis on access and education, on information technology and on species conservation. I believe that it will enable the fund to do many of the things that it has wanted to do but has hitherto been prevented from doing. I hope that the legislation can be speedily enacted.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Peter Brooke: I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—in Milton's line, he and I were
    "nursed upon the self-same hill".
    I recall his attitude to the original National Lottery etc. Bill. I do not allude to it in any spirit of unkindness on this occasion, but I am delighted to note that, despite his opposition to the legislation, he has retained his interest in the subjects that we are discussing tonight.
    I apologise to the House for my brief absence at the start of the debate during the Minister's speech. The coincidence of Christmas and the arrival of the recess has meant that one's time is not entirely one's own. I therefore apologise if anything that I say is expressed in ignorance of anything that the Minister may have said when opening the debate.
    I welcome the Bill, not least as it gives us the opportunity to praise the national heritage memorial fund and its trustees for their admirable conduct, performance, services and achievements over the past sixteen and a half years. I appreciate the antecedents of the Bill and the need to give greater freedom and flexibility to the trustees to perform—not least through the heritage lottery fund—tasks which everyone believes desirable. That has clearly been the consensus this evening.
    I also recognise that the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 is not without its occasional critics. I was not the architect of the Act—we could start a decent-sized architectural practice with those who claim to have been its architect—but I had a subordinate job in the master mason's department. I hope that, over the next sixteen and a half years, it will come to be seen as having been a leather, not an iron, harness, which has enabled sensible and even regular changes to be made to the working of the national lottery, without the need to return to primary legislation.
    I have not followed the debate in the other place, so I do not know whether the issue of English Heritage working abroad came up there. Some years ago, the National Heritage Select Committee said that it would be desirable if English Heritage were released to work abroad. I had hoped that this occasion might be taken to give legislative cover to that idea. My hon. Friend may tell me that no such cover is necessary; I hope that he will not tell me that such freedom is not desirable. Although English Heritage's headquarters is in my constituency, I stress that it has given me no briefing on this subject, and that I am not speaking on its behalf.
    Matching funds are an important subject; I dare say they will be returned to in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) mentioned the Kennet and Avon canal. I declare an interest as a patron of the partnership project and the appeal application. I thought that he was perhaps a little unfair to everybody concerned when he alluded to the £25 million for a project that everybody believes should happen but did not mention the immense amount of work that the local community had already done. That was a vivid demonstration of how desirable it was that the project should be carried through.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: I did not wish to suggest in what I said earlier that I had anything other than the greatest admiration for the work that had already been done.

    1007
    I merely wished to point out how much more difficult it would be to find further funding, as opposed to the fund-raising that had been done. A huge extra burden will fall on the people in the localities along the length of the canal and it will be difficult for them to match the £25 million, as I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees.
    Mr. Brooke: I take that point totally, and matching funding is a subject to which we should return.
    I make the briefest possible reference to the Victoria County History, which has already been mentioned in the debate. Three Government Departments—the then Department for Education, the Department of National Heritage and the Department of the Environment—all sought to avoid taking responsibility for the Victoria County History. The Commission in Brussels believed that the British have a better co-ordinated civil service than any other country in the Union, but that problem was not a classic example of it working well. Co-operation between the three Departments might have solved the problem, but I am delighted that rescue has arrived through the amendment to the Bill in the Lords.
    I am also delighted that the amendment was initiated by my noble Friend Lord Beloff. Parenthetically, he was a senior member of the library committee of the Oxford union when I was an officer of the union. I am delighted to enrol under his flag in this cause. Both of us were enrolled under the banner of the senior librarian of the union—I shall be brief in this diversion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will not pull me up—Canon Claude Jenkins, who was a remarkable figure and had been the librarian of Lambeth palace. He was not a man of the tidiest disposition, and his fellow canons in Christ Church felt that his garden should be tidied up. They decided to pay for a gardener, but they received a note in Canon Jenkins' enchanting and spidery hand saying, "By order of Canon Jenkins, his garden has this day been consecrated as a bird sanctuary." I bring him into the debate because his garden would clearly have been one of the beneficiaries under the Bill.
    I also wish to pay tribute to C. R. Elrington, the former editor of the Victoria County History, who has undertaken an enormous sponsored journey up and down the length of this land in the past year to raise money for the history. I believe that he raised £27,000. One of his stopping places was a couple of miles from where I was staying in August this year. His journey was worthy of Defoe or Lady Celia Fiennes and, given that his itinerary was so detailed that it included exactly when he would be having breakfast, I was tempted, in the spirit of those earlier travellers, to go and observe both the breakfast and his departure, to cheer and huzza. The journey was enormously to his credit, but I am pleased that the Bill will mean that such enormous travels will not be so necessary in the future.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that there is a connection between C. R. Elrington, Canon Jenkin's and myself. C. R. Elrington and I both listened to Canon Jenkins's lectures on the Theodosian code.
    Mr. Brooke: A debate of this sort is improved and enhanced by intelligence such as I have just received from my right hon. Friend, especially given the subject that we are discussing.
    1008
    The last time that I offered my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench my participation in the Committee stage of a Bill, I am sorry to say that it was refused. I am therefore a little diffident about making the offer again, but the Bill is sufficiently important to me that I am happy to swallow my pride and do so. However, I should not sail under false colours, and I shall close with a brief word about museum charges, because they have been mentioned in the debate already.
    I have no inherent objection to the principle of museum charges per se, but a distinction should conceivably be made between museums about whether charges are desirable. I am delighted that huge numbers of people visit our museums in London. We are periodically told by journalists how much better the French order such matters with the Louvre, but it is significant that far more people visit museums in London than visit museums in Paris.
    My anxiety is that some potential visitors need to approach museums cautiously and try them out, not because of the public face of the museum but because they are unfamiliar with, or frightened by, the contents of the museum. People need to test the water and find out whether they like what is inside museums. I have an uneasy feeling that charging for entry to somewhere such as the British museum might cause some people never to go inside, when both my hon. Friend the Minister and I would wish them to become addicts of that culture. Charging might hinder that. I shall not labour the point: I merely wish to enter it as part of the spirit of the debate. In total, I support the Bill warmly, and I have greatly enjoyed taking part in the debate.
    7.25 pm
    Mr. Sproat: I wish to respond briefly to some of the points made in this interesting, if short, debate. In particular, I wish to thank all those right hon. and hon. Members, starting with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who gave a strong, warm, general welcome to the Bill. I will return in a moment to the charging issue, which was the one area of mildly abrasive acrimony within our gentle debate—I am sure that we shall also return to it in Committee—but first I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm support for the Bill. He continued the tradition started in the other place, where the Bill was first debated.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central also raised an interesting point about nature conservation. The national heritage memorial fund is keen to support a wider range of nature conservation projects and the Bill will enable it to do so. Funding will be available, for example, for projects involving conservation of rare species, flora and fauna, and so on. He chose a good example of the widening of the activities of the national heritage memorial fund which it was not able to undertake under the rather restrictive definitions of the National Heritage Act 1980.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) raised the question of war memorials, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central also mentioned. It would be possible to help war memorials under the present dispensation, but it may be that the widening of the Bill and the psychological increase in the feeling that more causes can be supported will enable war memorials to receive the care and attention that my hon. Friend mentioned that they need. I hope that we shall return to that important example in greater detail in Committee.

    1009
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned the case of privately owned cinemas and industrial premises, and asked whether they would be covered in the Bill. The answer is a firm yes. He also mentioned the case of Leigh mills, and I agree with him. I have been to Leigh mills, although it was some time ago and I cannot remember the exact details. I believe that *he building in its present form was built in about 1921 or 1922. I remember that the upper windows are of the architecture of that time. If a building is listed, the owner has to keep it up, which subtracts money from his business and employment. Listing is a difficult area, and Leigh mills is a good example of the problems that arise. It is the sort of case that we should examine in Committee.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central talked about the clawback. It is not a hypothetical issue. As I said in my opening speech, English Heritage already provides grants to private owners, and there has been a clawback on several occasions. I have looked through the list and, from memory, the biggest clawback in the past few years was £5,500. Sometimes it was £276 or £330. It was nearly always for the sale of a property, although in one case it was for the sale of land. The point is that it has been done, it could be done again and it should be done with rigour. If it is done, that is how it will occur. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks in that area.
    I turn now to the British museum and to the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and subsequently by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central spoke about the excellence of the British museum. No one doubts the excellence of its scholarship—particularly that of Dr. Anderson, who is of world calibre. However, the mildly disagreeable comments that I made were not my views but those of the Edwards report. The Government did not ask the British museum to conduct an inquiry: the British museum trustees commissioned Mr. Edwards to do it. He found that there were deep and long-standing flaws in the museum's financial and general management, in its organisation and in its general efficiency.
    I did not know that the matter would be raised tonight, so I have not refreshed my memory regarding the figures. However, I recall that there has been a 76 per cent. increase in the number of curatorial staff since 1972. That is just one example of the trustees not exercising the kind of control that they might have wished over an expanding staff. My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir Wyn Roberts) pointed out that, even if charges were introduced, redundancies might still be necessary. That is the view of the Edwards report, not of the Government. It would be extremely sad, but there is a direct correlation between the lax grip on management in the 1970s and the state of the museum today. I am informed that the figure was not 76 per cent. but 70 per cent.—so my memory is not too bad.
    The point is that the British museum trustees must decide whether to charge for admission. I know that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not agree with that, but the Government believe that such decisions must be left to the trustees. I have a scrap of
    1010
    paper which sets out the details that I gave off the top of my head. As I was out by a few percentage points, perhaps I should refer to it. Of the 10 museums—the British museum, the imperial war museum, the national gallery, the national maritime museum, the national museums and galleries on Merseyside, the national portrait gallery, the natural history museum, the science museum, the Tate gallery and the Victoria and Albert museum—only four received an increase in cash grants between 1992–93 and 1996–97. However, all four charged throughout that entire period, with the exception of the V and A, which began imposing charges in October this year when Dr. Alan Borg—who had seen how well charges worked at the Imperial War museum—was instrumental in introducing them.
    There is no question of the Government favouring those museums which charge. It is fair to make that assertion, but it is equally fair for me to refute it utterly. Museums received grant increases this year on the basis of how well they were run—it had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they charged. I put it to the House and to any fair-minded person that I could not go to Sir Neil Cossens—who has run a very tight ship at the Science museum in the past few years—and say, "Although you have done wonderfully well for your museum, and the British museum is in such a state that it has set up its own inquiry to investigate what has gone wrong, we will not reward you for doing well: we will take money from you and give it to someone who has not done his duty".
    That would be deeply unfair.
    Some museums received increased grants—the imperial war museum, the maritime museum and others. The hon. Gentleman should be able to remind me of them as he has been going on about it for long enough. The four museums that received increased grants this year did charge for admission, but they were not awarded the grants on that basis. The figures prove that under this Government the museums which do not charge have received more funding. Funding is not based on whether or not museums charge. The facts are irrefutable.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for coming late to the debate. I went to considerable trouble to be here for seven o'clock, because I was told that it would begin then. The issue must be the survival of the British museum, which is a very special place. Whoever is to blame for what has gone wrong—my hon. Friend has understandably worked himself into a lather about it—the fact is that it is not the scholars or the public, who visit the museum in great numbers. It is crucial that the British museum should remain the flagship of our museums. We must not put the trustees into a straitjacket, restrict the scholarship and make it difficult for people, young and old, to visit the museum.
    Mr. Sproat: That is a very important point, but it is not the only one. If museums care well for the artefacts in their charge—as the science museum and the natural history museum have done—it would be unfair to take money away from them to pay for those who have not performed their function. It is the parable of the virgins or the talents—[Interruption.] I was groping for the biblical quotation about the wise and the unwise virgins, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    1011
    Of course, we shall do everything we can to help the British museum, but its trustees must decide whether to charge. We shall be very happy to provide advice or to meet the trustees to discuss the matter. I noticed that the Opposition spokesman did not tell us whether Labour would reinstate compulsory charging in those museums that have removed it already. I see Opposition Front Benchers nodding, so that is another pledge.
    Mr. George Mudie: I was agreeing that my hon. Friend had not told the House.
    Mr. Sproat: Perhaps he will tell us now. Labour should tell us whether it intends to reinstate charging. Charging currently brings in £15 million; if the British museum were to put aside the charging option, it would have to find that sum from Government funds. It is yet another example of the Labour party not telling us what it would do in government. I do not care what a Labour Government would do, but Opposition Members should have the courage of their convictions and tell the House whether they would forbid the museums to charge. If they would, they must confirm whether they would compensate the museums.
    Mr. Fisher: I am happy that the Minister has given way on an issue that is hardly central to the Bill. We are getting distracted, but the Minister provokes me somewhat.
    I shall make our position clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said on numerous occasions that the Labour party wishes to see access to all the core collections of our great national museums returned to the state of being free by the end of the century. To achieve that, we shall work with those museums. It is a matter not of compulsion, but of coherent partnership policies. Having discussed this matter with many of the museums, we believe that we can achieve that by the end of the century.
    What a good way to celebrate the millennium—all our great national museums, such as the British museum and the Victoria and Albert, should be free and open to access. If the Minister is serious about the Bill and about our heritage, he should support that principle and work constructively with us when we are in government to ensure that it happens.
    Mr. Sproat: That was an absolutely classic Labour weaselly pledge. Labour would like to see that happen by the end of the decade, but the hon. Gentleman did not and dare not say what Labour will do, because the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not allow him to do so. All that the right hon. Gentleman allows Labour Members to do is to speak out of one side of their mouths, give a nudge here and a hint there. They say in private that of course they will do that, but when challenged at the Dispatch Box to say whether they will give another £15 million or £25 million to museums, they will not say.
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister has such a crude and unimaginative understanding of these matters. As he said, it is not within the power of Government either to compel or to prevent charges. We believe that it is wrong, and we will work with those galleries and museums to ensure that charging ends. We will not compel them, and we will
    1012
    certainly not fully fund them. The museums that do not charge have had roughly the same budget treatment, but they have deployed their resources differently to ensure that they do not have to charge. They have not received more favourable treatment than those museums that have chosen to charge. We believe that the museums that have charged could have organised their affairs in such a way that, like the Tate or the British museum, they did not need to charge.
    We hope that, in the next three years, we can work with the museums, using lottery money and their grant in aid, but we will not give them favourable treatment, and we will certainly not compensate them for giving up charges. We believe that they can reorganise their budgets by the end of the century, and we will work with them to that end. We will not compel them to do so. As the Minister said, it is a matter for the trustees. We believe that most trustees want access to their core collections to be free. They will be working over the next three years with a Government who are positive on that point.
    Mr. Sproat: That was another fudge. We still do not know whether Labour will give the museums £15 million. The hon. Gentleman is wrong: the museums that have not charged have received more in the past five years. That is not because they do not charge; it is just a matter of fact. I have given the figures.
    As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) made a much more sensible speech. He talked about the lottery's great success, and was extremely modest about the fact that he was one of the first to say that private owners needed more help. Two thirds of listed houses are in private ownership. It was ludicrous that those private owners could not be helped, but now they will be.
    My hon. Friend is an expert on tourism. Last year, 24 million tourists—a record number—visited this country. One of the main reasons why they come here is our heritage. The Bill will greatly help the tourist industry. The problem of matching funds is serious, and I look forward to returning to that issue in Committee.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland gave a general warm welcome to the Bill. He made some interesting points that we shall return to in Committee. I also look forward to discussing his major disagreement with me about charging for admission to museums.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said that English Heritage should be able to work abroad. He is right. It was partly with that ambition in mind that, earlier this year, English Heritage established its former direct labour force as an independent company, which is now able to use its considerable skills on projects beyond these shores. It is not the Bill that will allow that: it was English Heritage's wise and prescient move in setting itself up as an independent force.
    With those few and gentle words, I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    CONTRACTING OUT
    That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Allocation of Housing and Homelessness Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
    That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.
    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts for Small Hereditaments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.—[Mr. Coe.]
    Question agreed to.

  STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That Sir David Mitchell be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. John MacGregor be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Coe.]

  Standard Spending Assessment (Hounslow)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am most grateful to have this Adjournment debate, which I presume will be the last debate in 1996. It is wholly apposite that the last debate of the year should be on behalf of my constituents in Brentford, Isleworth, Hounslow and Chiswick, especially the most vulnerable and dependent who are looking to the House for help.
  I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House's attention the position on the Government's standard spending assessment for the London borough of Hounslow and the way in which the Labour-controlled council in Hounslow is wilfully ignoring the interests of its residents.
  I am sorry that neither the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose party controls Hounslow council, nor the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is the Labour party spokesman on local government, is present to participate in the debate. I am extremely sorry that no one from the Labour party is present to listen to a debate on matters relating to the borough of Hounslow and the concerns of the people who live there. I shall take note that no one from the Labour party has bothered to be present, and I shall make it known to all my constituents that Labour Members do not care.
  I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on 6 December about his party's proposals in Hounslow. All I have received 12 days later is a brief acknowledgement that my letter has been passed to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. My constituents will be interested to know that neither of them is here to defend their party's position. Perhaps they are too ashamed, or simply do not care any more about the old, the infirm, the battered or the dispossessed.
  In my letter to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, I addressed him as "Dear Tony"—it is nice to talk about "Dear Tony" letters. I wrote:
  "I am writing with some indignation and outrage that your Labour Council in Hounslow is riding roughshod over the views of local people, including two of your own Labour Councillors, Cllr Vanessa Smith and Cllr Pat Nicholas, to penalise some of the most vulnerable members of my constituency.
  I refer to the proposed closure by Hounslow Council of the Isleworth Day Care Centre, which enables hundreds of elderly and vulnerable people to receive care and support; and the proposed closure of the Chiswick Family Centre which helps disadvantaged children and their families.
  Last year, Hounslow Council had a budget of £196 million. The Government's recent SSA announcement has enabled the Council to raise its total spending by another £3,790,000. The cost of keeping the Isleworth Day Care Centre open is £235,000 and that of the Chiswick Family Centre £30,000. This represents just 0.133 per cent. of the Council's total budget and more important less than 7 per cent. of the increase in SSA that has been granted to the Council"
  by the Government
  "for next year.
  "It is outrageous that the Council should attempt to make cheap political points by attacking the most vulnerable, especially after receiving this additional assistance from the Government.

  1015
  It is simply mind-boggling that two of your own Councillors, who want the centres kept OPEN have been suspended from the Labour Party for their efforts. Is this what 'New' Labour stands for?"
  I am glad to see that a member of the Labour party has arrived to listen to what I have to say.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I was just passing through.
  Mr. Deva: I note that the hon. Gentleman has, now "passed through".
  The letter continues:
  "Your Labour Council should get its priorities right and keep the Isleworth Day Care Centre and the Chiswick Families Centre OPEN. The two Labour Councillors should be re-instated and the closure plans cancelled forthwith."
  That was nearly two weeks ago, but, as I said, I have received no reply, which speaks volumes in itself.
  Last year, the Government gave Hounslow £98.9 million in revenue support grant; next year, that will be increased to £102.7 million—a rise of £3.8 million. Each year, the Government gives every local authority a standard spending assessment, or SSA, which constitutes their assessment of how much it should cost a local authority to provide a standard level of service. That governs the distribution of revenue support grant to each council. In addition to the revenue support grant, local authorities receive money from the Government through business rates, and they also raise funds through the council tax.
  SSAs are built up from various separate elements for various services—education, social services, police, fire, highway maintenance and other services. The different geographical and social characteristics of each area are taken into account, such as the number of children, the number of elderly people and the number who need care. SSAs are a means of calculating Government grant distribution to different local authorities. They constitute neither a limit nor a target for local authorities' actual expenditure, but, all being equal, a higher SSA leads to a higher level of grant from the Government.
  It is interesting to note what the Government have been giving Hounslow council. For the past few years, the council has regularly received increases in its SSA. In 1990, the SSA was £124 million; by 1993, it was £165.6 million. That rose to £170.4 million in 1994, £178.7 million in 1995 and £185.6 million last year; and the figure will be a massive £188.9 million in 1997. Next year—after we have allowed for the increase in Government grant and the fact that the council will, as ever, increase its council tax—Hounslow will, for the first time in its history, have a budget of more than £200 million.
  I thank the Government for their fair treatment of Hounslow in allocating resources. I think it worth placing on record additional sums given through the single regeneration grant: a further £13 million has been provided for the regeneration of Brentford, which is now well under way, and a grant of another £7.3 million has been announced just this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the regeneration of Isleworth, in particular its Ivybridge estate. Both those sums are in addition to the normal annual grant from the Government. How ironic it is that, in a week when the Government announce a grant of over £7 million for Isleworth, we must have this debate.
  1016
  It is worth noting that Hounslow has done better than most local authorities in recent years. Its SSA has increased by 39.6 per cent. since 1991, in comparison with average increases of 36.3 per cent. for outer-London boroughs, and 33.6 per cent. for local government as a whole. The Government have been extremely generous to Hounslow, giving us about 6 per cent. more than they have given other local authorities.
  How appalling it is that, in the midst of that extra funding, Hounslow's Labour council proposes to close the Isleworth day care centre and the Chiswick families centre, both of which are much-used and much-needed local facilities. They provide invaluable support for vulnerable elderly people in Isleworth, and for families in Chiswick.
  The campaign to keep both centres open has been led by, among others, Mrs. Josephine Langton, a Conservative councillor in Chiswick. However, they face total closure for the sake of a mere £235,000 a year in the case of the Isleworth day care centre, and just £35,000 a year in the case of the Chiswick families centre. Given that Hounslow will have a budget of over £200 million next year, it is utterly callous of its Labour council to attack—inhumanely, cold-bloodedly and ruthlessly—the most vulnerable of my constituents.
  That is why I wanted to initiate this debate, and why I wrote to the leader of the Labour party last week asking him to exert pressure on his councillors in Hounslow. I drew attention to the SSA settlement and the huge funds available to the council, and I now wait to discover how the Labour leader will respond to my letter—a letter that asked him to intervene to protect the elderly and vulnerable in my patch.
  I place on record my admiration for two Labour councillors, Vanessa Smith and Pat Nicholas, who represent Isleworth's south ward. They want to keep the centres open—as I do—but what has been the reward for their efforts? Suspension from the Labour party.
  Suspension from the Labour party for protecting the elderly, the infirm and the vulnerable? Punishment for caring? What sort of Labour party is this? What kind of uncaring monsters appear to be running the Labour party in Hounslow? Despite the SSA settlement, the revenue support grant and the additional Government funds for social services—£190,000 more was provided this year than last year—they are not listening. They are going to shut down those two centres.
  More than 80 per cent. of my surgery cases now constitute complaints about the way in which Hounslow council spends its money: about how it cares not for its tenants, cares not for the quality of its housing stock and cares not for the homeless, given that 400 council homes are still unoccupied. We all know that the SSA is divided into a number of components. Within Hounslow's total SSA, the SSA for social services has been increased, as I have said. It is more than enough to keep those two centres open, but only if—it is a big if—Hounslow council decides that it wants to.
  That is the nub of the problem. Despite massive public pressure locally, and although some 2,500 people have signed petitions in support of keeping the centres open—despite the extra funding announced by the Government, and despite pressure from their own councillors—those who run Hounslow council still say that they must close the centres. The problem is that Hounslow's Labour

  1017
  council is wasting money hand over fist and is refusing to make sensible savings. Every pound that is saved on administration could be diverted to front-line services.
  In calculating the SSA, I am sure that the Minister has taken into account the protection of my most vulnerable constituents. I shall give two examples of how Hounslow council could have saved if it had wanted, these two centres within the SSA. First, the council accepted an in-house bid from its direct labour force for the removal of waste from the borough. That is an essential service, but, by refusing to accept the lowest bid and accepting instead the more expensive in-house higher bid, the council turned down savings of about £400,000 a year—more than enough to divert to the social services budget to keep the centres open. The council chose not to do that.
  Even now, the council could take a simple action to keep the centres open. Councillor Paul Lynch, the excellent Conservative leader on Hounslow council, and Councillor Barbara Reed, the Conservative social services spokesman on the council, proposed at a council meeting that the authority's budget be altered to keep the two centres open. They were voted down by a huge Labour majority.
  At the request of UNISON, the borough's trade union, Councillor Lynch also asked at the last council meeting for the council to institute a purchasing policy to effect savings. The council totally ignored that suggestion and swept it under the carpet. What a strange turn of events—a Conservative council group leader and a Conservative Member of this House supporting the trades unions and Labour councillors in seeking to maintain essential services for the most vulnerable people in my constituency.
  At present, each council department orders its own stationery, office furniture, computers, photocopiers and even paper clips. I have asked how much the council spends on paper clips but no one knows. What a shambles! If the council instituted an overall purchasing policy it is estimated that an annual saving of £35,000 could be made on stationery alone.
  That would be enough to keep the Chiswick families centre open, and if the same policy was followed for the council's office furniture, computers and photocopiers, it would be possible to generate savings of £235,000 a year, which would be enough to keep the Isleworth day care centre open. What is more important: office desks and chairs in the civic centre and super-duper photocopiers, or helping frail, infirm elderly people in Isleworth and young children at risk and their families in Chiswick?
  Hounslow Labour council has discretion: there is huge leeway. Local councillors could have chosen to exercise that discretion, but they have not done so. If that is so-called new Labour, give us old Labour. Better still, we should let the people know that Hounslow's Labour council is closing two valuable local centres without just reason, to try to make a political point against the Government. It will not wash.
  Just one tenth of 1 per cent. of the council's total budget would keep the centres open, and they are provided for within the SSA. They may not be important to the Labour party, but the services they provide are vital to my constituents, as the Government have demonstrated by their generosity in the SSA settlement.
  1018
  If the council has an ounce of humanity, even at this late hour it will re-examine its priorities, amend its budget proposals, and acknowledge that it can keep the Isleworth and Chiswick centres open. I urge the council to do that, and I urge the Government to make it clear that, if those centres close, it will be due to the callous intransigence of Hounslow's Labour administration. It runs counter to the generous SSA settlement, and is against all common sense and humanity.
  8.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) has raised some important issues relating to the way in which the standard spending assessment applies to the London borough of Hounslow.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents, and especially the elderly, the vulnerable and the infirm who depend on the Isleworth day care centre and the Chiswick families centre will take a great interest in what he has said. It is clear from what my hon. Friend said that those centres provide a valuable service to the community, and I am sure that those who benefit from them will have taken a special interest in his speech and in his clear plea on their behalf to Hounslow borough council.
  My hon. Friend spoke about SSAs, and I should like to show how the Hounslow SSA fits into the overall system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment outlined in a statement on 27 November our proposals for local government finance for the coming financial year. Local government accounts for about a quarter of general Government expenditure. It would be absurd to imagine that, within this large total, there is no room for greater efficiency. Therefore, I make no apology for the fact that we have pursued such efficiencies vigorously, but I can also assure the House that we have approached our assessment of what is needed to maintain key services with equal vigour.
  We have provided for an increase in total standard spending of 2.5 per cent. on a like-for-like basis. In allocating this total between services, we have given priority to education, social services, the police, and the fire service. We have proposed capping arrangements which ensure that virtually all authorities can spend the whole of any increase in SSA on those services. These proposals represent a sound balance between the need to sustain local government services, the scope for increased efficiency, and the scale of public expenditure which the country can afford.
  The mechanism by which the public expenditure proposals are translated into figures for individual authorities is the SSA. Standard spending assessments form the basis for the distribution of the revenue support grant. Standard spending assessments are the Government's assessment of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure which would allow any authority to provide a standard level of service, consistent with our view of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure for all authorities.
  The calculation of an authority's SSA follows general principles applied equally to all authorities, taking account of each authority's demographic, geographic and social characteristics. Differences in SSAs between authorities with the same service responsibilities are thus due to differences in their underlying characteristics.

  1019
  My hon. Friend and the residents of Hounslow will be interested to know where Hounslow stands within this system, which is designed to bring about overall fairness in the distribution of revenue support. My hon. Friend gave an interesting account of how Hounslow has fared in recent years. Standard spending assessments were introduced in 1990–91, since when Hounslow's SSA has gone up by 51 per cent. The SSAs for outer-London boroughs have gone up by 42 per cent. on average over the same period. For local authorities overall, SSAs are up by 39 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend will find that of great interest.
  For 1997–98, Hounslow borough's provisional SSA has been increased at about the average rate for outer-London boroughs—a 2 per cent. increase compared with 1.9 per cent. for outer london as a whole. In terms of total SSA per head, Hounslow ranked fifth out of the 20 outer-London boroughs. This increase in SSA is more than reflected in the provisional cap limit for the borough, which has risen by 2.1 per cent. Budgets can rise by £3.95 million if the authority feels that that is necessary.
  I hope that shows that increasing needs in Hounslow have been recognised by the Government and reflected in the SSA over several years and again for next year's local government finance settlement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wise words, which were founded upon his analysis of how Hounslow has fared and his judgment that it has been treated fairly with SSAs.
  We have ensured that, among other things, by developing indicators to track spending needs. For instance, Hounslow has a relatively large ethnic minority population—extra costs arising from that are reflected in the measure of additional educational needs. As a London borough, Hounslow faces high employment costs—allowance is made in the area cost adjustment from which the borough benefits.
  I drew attention to the priority that the Government were placing on education for next year. My hon. Friend will wish to underline to his authority the fact that
  1020
  Hounslow's education SSA has increased by 4.1 per cent., placing it sixth out of the 20 outer London boroughs on a per pupil basis.
  Some concerns have been expressed about funding for personal social services. The year 1997–98 will be tight for social services funding. The average outer London borough faces an SSA reduction of 0.4 per cent. However, even in a difficult year, Hounslow's social services SSA has risen by 0.5 per cent., or £190,000. Hounslow also receives an extra £1.46 million for 1997–98 from the special transitional grant for community care. Such funding is appropriate in the light of my hon. Friend's comments about people with particular needs.
  On asylum seekers, on 26 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that local authorities will be reimbursed the reasonable costs that they incur in supporting adult asylum seekers. The exact details of the funding have yet to be finalised, but I assure my hon. Friend that other local services should not suffer. Separate funding arrangements have been made for children seeking asylum.
  In the light of the important conclusions that my hon. Friend has drawn, I hope that that factual account of Hounslow's SSA, how it has risen and been dealt with this year, and how it compares with those of other authorities in this and other years, is of interest to him. I agree with him that the settlement for Hounslow is fair. The authority still has considerable discretion within a budget of more than £190 million to allocate resources on what it considers to be its priorities. If Hounslow uses its resources well and pursues efficiencies vigorously, there is no reason why it should not provide good-quality local services without excessive increases in local taxes.
  Returning to my hon. Friend's main point about how Hounslow chooses to spend its funds, I believe that its decisions are matters for Hounslow borough council, but I am sure that it and my hon. Friend's constituents and Hounslow residents will have listened with great interest to his powerful plea.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eight o 'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Workplace (Fire Precautions) Regulations
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from the British Retail Consortium concerning the proposed Workplace (Fire Precautions) Regulations; and what estimate he has made of the cost to retailers, particularly small businesses, of the proposed regulations. [9138]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer to the reply given on 11 December,Official Report, columns 263–64, by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).

  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch, Minister of State, Home Office, and I recently also had a meeting with representatives of the British Retail Consortium to discuss the possible implementation costs for the retail trade in complying with the proposed Workplace (Fire Precautions) Regulations. We visited two retail outlets with the British Retail Consortium, a fire service inspector and a fire prevention officer to assess at first hand possible implementation costs. I propose to visit further outlets in due course to gain further information for myself and colleagues. The Home Office will use the results, together with views from other businesses, in preparing a compliance cost assessment, which will accompany the proposed regulations.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what steps she has taken to ensure that submitted millennium projects which meet the Millennium Commission's published criteria are objectively assessed to determine their distinctiveness; and how she defines distinctive in relation to millennium projects; [7422]

  (2) which of the criteria for the proposal stage of the Millennium Commission's round 3 the Dreaming 2000 project failed to meet; and what differences there were between the criteria for the application stage of round 2 and the proposal stage of round 3; [7708]

  (3) how the Millennium Commission ensures that its criteria are applied consistently in decisions on bids; and if she will make a statement; [7710]

  (4) if she will make a statement on the factors underlying the Millennium Commission chief executive's rejection of the Dreaming 2000 project; [7705]
  590
  (5) what assessment she has made of the advantage of millennium proposals which involve schools taking responsibility for conservation projects; and if she will make a statement. [7707]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These are matters for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission, and place copies of my replies in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the latest date for a start on the millennium dome in order to ensure completion and fitting out before 31 December 1999. [9433]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress is being made on the restructuring of the Sports Council. [10425]

  Mr. Sproat
  Letters patent under the Great Seal granting royal charters of incorporation to the United Kingdom Sports Council and the English Sports Council were made on 19 September 1996. The United Kingdom Sports Council and the English Sports Council will become fully operational form 1 January 1997, subject to the legal transfer to the new bodies of the assets and liabilities of the Great Britain Sports Council. From that date, the United Kingdom Sports Council and the English Sports Council will receive a parliamentary grant from class X, vote I, to provide services and support for the benefit of sport and physical activities.

  The English Sports Council will become responsible from 1 January 1997 for the distribution in England of lottery proceeds for expenditure on or connected with sport.

  Television Relay Building Programme
  Sir James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the conclusions of her review of the ultra-high frequency television relay building programme; and if she will make a statement. [10295]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The announcement made on 16 April 1991 by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker),Official Report, column 131, explained that the Government had agreed with the BBC and Independent Television Commission that the programme of building 25 ultra-high frequency relay stations a year to extend UHF television coverage would be maintained until 1996 when its further continuation would be reconsidered. I have now undertaken that consideration in close consultation with the Independent Television Commission and the BBC, which have jointly administered the relay building programme to date.
  591
  I have decided, after careful consideration, in the knowledge that UHF television coverage now extends to 99.4 per cent. of the population, and in the light of plans for the introduction of digital terrestrial television that the formal programme of building 25 relay stations a year should cease. The self-help television scheme, established by the Government in 1980 to assist those communities not eligible for assistance under the relay programme, will remain. The BBC and ITC will continue to give free technical advice to those seeking to establish such schemes in the future. In addition, the BBC and Independent Television Commission will continue to promote improvements in the quality and range of television transmission. They will provide free technical advice to the public on television reception and will in exceptional circumstances consider constructing new television relays to extend terrestrial services.

  EU Culture Council
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the outcome of the Culture Council on 16 December. [10426]

  Mr. Sproat
  EU Ministers of culture met on 16 December 1996 in Brussels. Ministers agreed a resolution on the integration of cultural aspects into other Community actions. The purpose of this resolution is to give effect to article 128(4) of the treaty on European Union.

  Ministers held an exchange of views on the proposal for a directive amending the television without frontiers directive and on the proposal to establish a European guarantee fund to promote cinema and television production. The Council held an exchange of views on the development of new audiovisual services and adopted conclusions welcoming the European Commission's Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in the audiovisual and information services. Ministers held an exchange of views on the issue of violence in the media.

  Ministers noted that the conciliation process with the European Parliament on the Ariane and Raphael programmes would now be convened under the Dutch presidency. An exchange of views was held on a number of further issues, including music, book pricing and the European cities of culture. Plovdiv was selected to host the Cultural Month 1999. Ministers also touched on the issues of cultural funding, authors' rights and cross-media ownership.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the level of the television licence fee. [10478]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have decided that changes in the licence fee for the five years commencing 1 April 1997 should be:

  Year one (1997–98): RPI

  Year two (1998–99): RPI plus 3 per cent.

  Year three (1999–2000): RPI plus 0.5 per cent.

  Year four (2000–01): RPI minus 1 per cent.

  Year five (2001–02): RPI minus 2.5 per cent.

  592
  This equates to a change in the level of the licence fee over the five-year period of retail prices index minus 0.08 per cent. The non-uniform pattern of annual changes reflects the need for expenditure on new digital services in the earlier years. This will be offset in 1997–98 by receipts from the sale of the BBC's transmission system, and in later years by increased efficiency savings and commercial income.

  The annual licence fee increase takes effect from each April. It is calculated on the basis of the annual increase in RPI in the 12 months to the preceding September. The RPI figure for September 1996 was 2.1 per cent., and this implies new fees from 1 April 1997 of £91.50 for a colour licence and £30.50 for a black and white licence. The necessary regulations will be laid before the House as part of new consolidated television licence fee regulations.

  Changes in the level of the television licence fee have been linked to movements in RPI since April 1988. Changes have been set at RPI for each year since then, except in 1991 when the settlement was held at RPI minus 3 per cent.

  On 12 August this year, I announced the appointment of independent consultants, Braxton Associates, to undertake a further review of the BBC's progress in achieving greater efficiency, reducing television licence fee evasion and exploiting additional sources of revenue, and to advise me on the level of the TV licence fee for the five years commencing 1 April 1997.

  Braxton Associates reported to me on 16 October, and a management summary of the report is being published tomorrow. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The consultants concluded that, while the BBC had made significant strides in improving efficiency in the last few years, there was nevertheless scope for further efficiency savings in the next five years. Their analysis of various assumptions about future developments suggested a range for the cumulative five-year settlement from RPI minus 1.9 per cent. to RPI plus 1.4 per cent. All their illustrative models showed a profile of real increases in years two and three, and real decreases in years four and five. This profile is reflected in the Government's decision.

  The BBC will now be able to pursue its plans for digital broadcasting and enhance its programme services. Television licence fee payers will be able to benefit from the BBC's planned services, but their licence fee increases over the next five years as a whole will be held just below inflation.

  Area Museums Councils
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she plans to announce the membership of the group which will consider the area museums councils. [5668]

  Mr. Sproat
  A working party has been appointed to review the AMCs and will include the following members:Mr. David Beeton (Chief Executive, Historic Royal Palaces Agency);
  Sir Neil Cossons OBE, (Director, Science Museum);

  593
  Dr. David Flemming (Director, Tyne and Wear Museum Service);
  Mr. Timothy Mason (Director, Museums and Galleries Commission);
  Miss Barbara Woroncow (Director, Yorkshire and Humberside Museums Council, and President of the Museums Association);
  Mr. Christopher Zeuner (Director of the Weald and Downland Museum, and a member of the Association of Independent Museums);

  I have asked for the consultation report by Monday 7 April 1997. Arrangements for the chairman/secretary will be announced in the new year.

  This review will involve wide consultations, both with the AMCs themselves and with the broad range of bodies which use the AMCs' services.

  National Reading Initiative
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the membership of the committee which will advise the Government on the national reading initiative under the chairmanship of Mrs. Ian Curteis. [3998]

  Mr. Sproat
  The membership of the panel for the national reading initiative under the chairmanship of Mrs. Ian Curteis (Joanna Trollope) is:

  Professor Ray Cowell—East Midlands Art Board

  Catherine Blanshard—Children's librarian, Hertfordshire CC

  Floella Benjamin—Children's broadcaster

  Timothy West—Actor

  Frances Booker—Primary school teacher, SCAA

  Vaughan Rees—ex DNH administrator

  Alan Judd—ex FCO administrator, and author

  Sue Blanshard—Folio Society

  The panel will take evidence widely, and produce its conclusions in spring next year.

  The panel wishes to encourage any individual or body that wishes to give evidence to be in touch with Mrs. Ian Curteis through DNH.

  Departmental Buildings (Electricity)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what capacity of electricity used in her Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans she has to increase that capacity. [9966]

  Mr. Sproat
  So far as my Department and its agencies are concerned there is no electricity generated in a combined heat and power plant CAP. However, one of the royal palaces—the Banqueting house—is connected to the Whitehall district heating scheme which will connect to a new CAP from next autumn, the overall capacity being 4,500 KW.

  In respect of other buildings, opportunities for CAP are limited but would be considered as part of the evaluation process for energy efficiency, particularly when replacing plant.

  Museums and Galleries
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the current proportion of visitors to the museums and galleries supported by her Department who come from overseas. [8927]

  Mr. Sproat
  On the basis of recent surveys carried out by the museums and galleries sponsored by my Department, I estimate that one third of visits are made by overseas visitors.

  National Lottery
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultation was carried out(a) with individual football clubs and organisations representing football clubs and (b) with other bodies before the decision was taken to give approval to a second weekly national lottery. [10150]

  Mr. Sproat
  None.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to monitor the impact of the introduction of the mid-week national lottery draw on the future income(a) generated by football clubs' own lotteries and (b) raised by the Football Trust from pool betting duty and spot the ball competitions. [10149]

  Mr. Sproat
  I shall be meeting the Football Trust to discuss its funding position and related matters further, in the light of its survey of essential remaining safety work at league football clubs, when this is complete.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to introduce new outlets for the lottery, with the introduction of a mid-week lottery; and if she will make a statement. [9789]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to the hon. Member and to place copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what tenders her Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when she expects her department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9452]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage and its agencies will need to assess the impact that a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems, whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the millennium exhibition. [10477]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At its meeting on 11 December, the Millennium Commission confirmed its decision to proceed with the national exhibition at Greenwich in the year 2000. The commission is now finalising the means by which the exhibition will be delivered within an acceptable budget.

  Good progress has also been made on a number of other fronts: the planning application was submitted to the London borough of Greenwich as planned on 31 October and a decision is expected by the end of January. The Highways Agency announced on 15 November that the last two contracts for the M11-A12 link road have been awarded: the road will be completed in 1999 and will enable optimum use of the park-and-ride facilities planned for the exhibition. Work on the Jubilee line extension, which will provide easy access by underground from central London into the centre of the exhibition site, is progressing well, with the new line scheduled to open in 1998. On 22 November, English Partnerships announced that it had agreed terms with British Gas to acquire the Greenwich peninsula. Meanwhile, statutory decontamination works by British Gas are well under way.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Solicitors' Charges
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints have been made to the Law Society concerning solicitors' charges to clients between 1993 and 1996; and if he will make a statement. [9769]

  Mr. Streeter
  This is a matter for the Law Society.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many recipients of legal aid there have been; and how many applications have been refused in Darlington in each year since 1990. [9740]

  Mr. Streeter
  The total number of acts of assistance granted for civil and criminal legal aid was as follows:

  1990–91: 2,609,509

  1991–92: 3,045,456

  1992–93: 3,305,699

  1993–94: 3,500,402

  1994–95: 3,512,451

  1995–96: 3,469,368.

  It is not possible to identify separately applications for legal aid received from Darlington; these applications are dealt with by the Legal Aid Board area office in Newcastle, which covers the country from North Yorkshire to Northumberland and parts of Cumbria.
  596
  Figures for the total number of applications received and refused for civil legal aid by the Newcastle area office are available since 1992–93 only. These were as follows:

  Year

  Total applications

  Applications refused

  1992–93

  35,963

  9,042

  1993–94

  35,672

  9,563

  1994–95

  34,929

  10,578

  1995–96

  32,672

  9,821

  Total

  139,236

  39,004

  Applications for criminal legal aid are dealt with by the courts. Equivalent figures for applications made prior to 1992–93 and for criminal legal aid are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9626]

  Mr. Streeter
  The tables give details of the information requested for staff employed in the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters and associated offices, and in the executive agencies for which the Lord Chancellor is accountable to Parliament.

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  LCD Headquarters and Associated Offices1

  1992

  1,088

  5

  1993

  1,162

  22

  1994

  1,207

  39

  1995

  867

  33

  1996

  864

  81

  Public Trust Office

  1992

  585

  0

  1993

  564

  0

  1994

  548

  1

  1995

  555

  1

  1996

  557

  13

  Court Service2

  1992

  11,033

  n/a

  1993

  10,911

  n/a

  1994

  10,639

  n/a

  1995

  10,612

  n/a

  1996

  10,077

  645

  Public Record Office3

  1992

  456

  3.5

  1993

  460

  31

  1994

  486

  32

  1995

  452

  27

  1996

  470

  27

  Land Registry

  1992

  9,850

  15

  1993

  9,503

  13

  1994

  9,145

  1

  1995

  8,816

  2

  1996

  8,539

  1

  597

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  1992

  660.5

  1

  1993

  675.5

  1

  1994

  681

  26

  1995

  656

  28

  1996

  643

  27.5

  1 All the figures given for non-permanent staff in LCD Headquarters and the Associated Offices include staff on renewable and unrenewable fixed term contracts. No central record of casual staff in this area was kept prior to 1996.

  2No central record of the number of non-permanent staff for the Court Service was kept prior to 1996.

  3Permanent figures for the Public Record Office include a small proportion—not exceeding 8 per cent.—of fixed-term jobs. Separate figures are not kept and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Ombudsman Service
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment what plans he has to enhance the powers of the local government ombudsman to ensure that local authorities comply with the findings of the ombudsman; and if he will make a statement. 18916]

  Mr. Curry
  In his final report on the civil justice system in England and Wales, "Access to Justice", Lord Woolf proposed that the remedies recommended by ombudsmen should be enforceable through the courts. As I explained in the paper "Government Response to the Financial and Management and Policy Review of the Commission for Local Administration in England", which I announced in an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on 28 November 1996,Official Report, column 333, and placed in the Library, consideration of Lord Woolf's recommendations on ombudsmen is being postponed for the time being while my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor concentrates on implementing the major elements of Lord Woolf's proposals.

  Coal Mines (Accidents)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many major injuries occurred in United Kingdom coal mines during 1995–96; and if he will list the dates of the accidents and the mines they occurred in. [9297]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of major injuries reported to HM inspectorate of mines occurring in UK coal mines for 1 January 1995 to 27 November 1996 was 307.

  The information relating to the date of each injury and coal mine is as follows:

  Mine name

  Date

  Welbeck

  95.01.03

  Asfordby

  95.01.04

  Asfordby

  95.01.06

  Kellingley

  95.01.08

  New Daw Mill

  95.01.10

  Wistow

  95.01.17

  Clipstone

  95.01.17

  598

  Mine name

  Date

  Longannet

  95.01.17

  North Selby

  95.01.21

  Stillingfleet

  95.01.24

  Calverton

  95.01.24

  Prince of Wales

  95.01.25

  Riccall

  95.01.28

  Longannet

  95.02.02

  Harworth

  95.02.08

  Kellingley

  95.02.09

  Calverton

  95.02.13

  Pentreclwydau South

  95.02.13

  Prince of Wales

  95.02.14

  Maltby

  95.02.22

  Calverton

  95.02.23

  Maltby

  95.02.23

  Bilsthorpe

  95.03.03

  Markham Main

  95.03.06

  Riccall

  95.03.07

  Asfordby

  95.03.09

  Kellingley

  95.03.13

  Whittle

  95.03.14

  Dynant Fach No. 2 Mine

  95.03.14

  Longannet

  95.03.16

  Whittle

  95.03.16

  Thoresby

  95.03.20

  Harworth

  95.03.26

  Whitemoor

  95.04.02

  Clipstone

  95.04.04

  Longannett

  95.04.04

  Prince of Wales

  95.04.06

  Thoresby

  95.04.09

  Thoresby

  95.04.10

  North Selby

  95.04.12

  Kellingley

  95.04.13

  Kellingley

  95.04.14

  Longannett

  95.04.18

  Maltby

  95.04.22

  Wistow

  95.04.26

  Gascoigne Wood

  95.04.28

  Maltby

  95.04.29

  Whitemoor

  95.04.30

  New Point of Ayr

  95.05.01

  Maltby

  95.05.05

  Thoresby

  95.05.10

  Kellingley

  95.05.13

  Wistow

  95.05.17

  Clipstone

  95.05.18

  Prince of Wales

  95.05.19

  Backshot

  95.05.19

  Byrnant Varteg Mine

  95.05.19

  North Selby

  95.05.20

  Prince of Wales

  95.05.21

  Whitemoor

  95.05.22

  Markham Main

  95.05.24

  Cwmgwili Mine

  95.05.27

  Prince of Wales

  95.05.31

  Thoresby

  95.06.02

  Bilsthorpe

  95.06.05

  North Selby

  95.06.08

  New Point of Ayr

  95.06.08

  Bilsthorpe

  95.06.12

  Ellington Combine

  95.06.12

  Riccall

  95.06.13

  North Selby

  95.06.14

  Bilsthorpe

  95.06.21

  Riccall

  95.06.21

  New Point of Ayr

  95.06.21

  New Daw Mill

  95.06.23

  Riccall

  95.06.24

  Whitemoor

  95.06.25

  New Point of Ayr

  95.06.26

  Ellington Combine

  95.06.29

  New Daw Mill

  95.06.29

  Harworth

  95.07.03

  599

  Mine name

  Date

  Whittle

  95.07.03

  Hifynydd Mine

  95.07.04

  Clipstone

  95.07.07

  New Betws

  95.07.13

  Harworth

  95.07.13

  Bilsthorpe

  95.07.16

  Backshot

  95.07.24

  Stillingfleet

  95.07.24

  Whitemoor

  95.07.28

  Rossington

  95.07.30

  Blenkinsopp Castle

  95.07.31

  Gascoigne Wood

  95.08.06

  Maltby

  95.08.07

  Rossington

  95.08.18

  New Daw Mill

  95.08.19

  Wistow

  95.08.21

  Stillingfleet

  95.08.24

  Hatfield

  95.08.25

  Ellington Combine

  95.08.26

  Kellingley

  95.08.28

  Wistow

  95.08.29

  New Coventry

  95.09.01

  Ellington Combine

  95.09.05

  Thoresby

  95.09.06

  Riccall

  95.09.07

  Thoresby

  95.09.11

  Thoresby

  95.09.14

  Hatfield

  95.09.19

  Clipstone

  95.09.19

  Kellingley

  95.09.20

  Clipstone

  95.09.26

  New Point of Ayr

  95.10.01

  Whitemoor

  95.10.03

  Hatfield

  95.10.03

  New Point of Ayr

  95.10.03

  New Hem Heath

  95.10.09

  New Coventry

  95.10.11

  New Daw Mill

  95.10.13

  Harworth

  95.10.14

  New Coventry

  95.10.14

  North Selby

  95.10.17

  Stillingfleet

  95.10.17

  Harworth

  95.10.23

  Markham Main

  95.10.23

  Stillingfleet

  95.10.24

  Maltby

  95.10.24

  New Coventry

  95.10.30

  New Daw Mill

  95.11.01

  Annesley Bentinck

  95.11.03

  Prince of Wales

  95.11.09

  Maltby

  95.11.16

  Longannet

  95.11.16

  Calverton

  95.11.17

  Maltby

  95.11.17

  Maltby

  95.11.17

  Kellingley

  95.11.18

  Longannet

  95.11.20

  New Betws

  95.11.21

  North Selby

  95.11.28

  New Tower

  95.11.28

  Penllwyn Colliery

  95.11.30

  Kellingley

  95.12.03

  Clipstone

  95.12.04

  New Point of Ayr

  95.12.04

  Ellington Combine

  95.12.05

  Riccall

  95.12.09

  Ellington Combine

  95.12.18

  Markham Main

  95.12.19

  Markham Main

  95.12.19

  Asfordby

  95.12.21

  New Silverdale

  95.12.21

  Tyn Wern Mine

  95.12.22

  Riccall

  95.12.28

  New Daw Mill

  96.01.03

  600

  Mine name

  Date

  Whittle

  96.01.05

  Bilsthorpe

  96.01.05

  Markham Main

  96.01.06

  Thoresby

  96.01.06

  Bilsthorpe

  96.01.08

  New Silverdale

  96.01.11

  Prince of Wales

  96.01.12

  North Selby

  96.01.16

  Harworth

  96.01.17

  Ellington Combine

  96.01.19

  North Selby

  96.01.19

  North Selby

  96.01.23

  Longannet

  96.02.02

  New Hem Heath

  96.02.02

  Maltby

  96.02.11

  North Selby

  96.02.16

  Annesley Bentinck

  96.02.16

  New Daw Mill

  96.02.17

  North Selby

  96.02.19

  New Hem Heath

  96.02.20

  Annesley Bentinck

  96.02.21

  Stillingfleet

  96.02.22

  New Betws

  96.02.28

  Thoresby

  96.03.04

  New Daw Mill

  96.03.04

  New Coventry

  96.03.05

  Whitemoor

  96.03.09

  Calverton

  96.03.13

  Forest No. 3 Mine

  96.03.17

  Kellingley

  96.03.17

  Maltby

  96.03.18

  Maltby

  96.03.20

  Whitemoor

  96.03.21

  New Daw Mill

  96.03.21

  Wistow

  96.03.22

  Thoresby

  96.03.22

  New Silverdale

  96.03.26

  Park Drift

  96.04.01

  Thoresby

  96.04.02

  Harworth

  96.04.04

  Thoresby

  96.04.11

  North Selby

  96.04.12

  Maltby

  96.04.16

  Annesley Bentinck

  96.04.18

  Monktonhall LM

  96.04.18

  New Hem Heath

  96.04.18

  Whitemoor

  96.04.19

  Whitemoor

  96.04.21

  Wistow

  96.04.22

  North Selby

  96.04.23

  Kellingley

  96.04.24

  Stillingfleet

  96.04.26

  Clipstone

  96.04.27

  Stillingfleet

  96.05.05

  Annesley Bentinck

  96.05.07

  New Daw Mill

  96.05.07

  Tyne Wern Mine

  96.05.12

  Thoresby

  96.05.20

  Riccall/Whitemoor Co.

  96.05.21

  Welbeck

  96.05.21

  Thoresby

  96.05.22

  Wistow/Gascoigne Wood

  96.05.23

  Longannet

  96.05.24

  Monktonhall LM

  96.05.26

  Stillingfleet

  96.05.28

  North Selby

  96.05.28

  Riccall/Whitemoor Co.

  96.06.01

  Calverton

  96.06.04

  Harworth

  96.06.05

  Ellington Combine

  96.06.05

  Welbeck

  96.06.06

  Hatfield

  96.06.10

  Wistow/Gascoigne Wood

  96.06.10

  Stillingfleet

  96.06.11

  601

  Mine name

  Date

  Asfordby

  96.06.12

  Harworth

  96.06.14

  Harworth

  96.06.14

  New Hem Heath

  96.06.14

  Forest No. 3 Mine

  96.06.15

  Welbeck

  96.06.17

  Prince of Wales

  96.06.18

  New Point of Ayr

  96.06.20

  Bilsthorpe

  96.06.21

  Aberpergwm Mine

  96.06.21

  Prince of Wales

  96.06.25

  Wistow/Gascoigne Wood

  96.06.27

  Monktonhall LM

  96.06.28

  Stillingfleet

  96.07.04

  Ellington Combine

  96.07.05

  Monktonhall LM

  96.07.07

  Thoresby

  96.07.08

  Clipstone

  96.07.11

  Harworth

  96.07.12

  Harworth

  96.07.13

  New Silverdale

  96.07.15

  Welbeck

  96.07.18

  Annesley Bentinck

  96.07.20

  Eckington

  96.07.25

  Riccall/Whitemoor Co.

  96.07.25

  Thoresby

  96.07.28

  New Tower

  96.07.30

  Asfordby

  96.08.01

  Longannet

  96.08.14

  North Selby

  96.08.20

  Maltby

  96.08.25

  Ellington Combine

  96.08.27

  New Silverdale

  96.08.29

  New Daw Mill

  96.08.30

  Bilsthorpe

  96.09.03

  Rossington

  96.09.05

  Little Sheriff

  96.09.05

  New Daw Mill

  96.09.05

  Welbeck

  96.09.09

  Welbeck

  96.09.18

  Welbeck

  96.09.18

  North Selby

  96.09.18

  Riccall/Whitemoor Co.

  96.09.21

  Wistow/Gascoigne Wood

  96.09.23

  Maltby

  96.09.23

  Wistow/Gascoigne Wood

  96.09.24

  Longannet

  96.09.24

  Monktonhall LM

  96.09.27

  Thoresby

  96.09.30

  New Daw Mill

  96.10.02

  Kellingley

  96.10.10

  Clipstone

  96.10.10

  New Daw Mill

  96.10.12

  Riccall/Whitemoor Co.

  96.10.15

  Riccall/Whitemoor Co.

  96.10.16

  Monktonhall LM

  96.10.16

  Pentreclwydau South

  96.10.16

  Wistow/Gascoigne Wood

  96.10.18

  Thoresby

  96.10.22

  Longannet

  96.10.22

  North Selby

  96.10.23

  Kellingley

  96.10.26

  Prince of Wales

  96.10.31

  Rossington

  96.11.01

  Eckington

  96.11.05

  Welbeck

  96.11.07

  Pentreclwydau South

  96.11.08

  Thoresby

  96.11.10

  Maltby

  96.11.11

  Annesley Bentinck

  96.11.13

  New Tower

  96.11.14

  Longannet

  96.11.15

  North Selby

  96.11.18

  Hatfield

  96.11.20

  602

  Mine name

  Date

  Riccall/Whitemoor Co.

  96.11.20

  Wistow/Gascoigne Wood

  96.11.23

  Harworth

  96.11.27

  Thoresby

  96.11.27

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the major injuries reported under the requirements of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 for United Kingdom coal mines for the year April 1995 to March 1996. [10151]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The list of major injuries reported to HM inspectorate of mines occurring in UK coal mines for 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 is as follows:

  Mine name

  Date

  Whitemoor

  95.04.02

  Clipstone

  95.04.04

  Longannet

  95.04.04

  Prince of Wales

  95.04.06

  Thoresby

  95.04.09

  Thoresby

  95.04.10

  North Selby

  95.04.12

  Kellingley

  95.04.13

  Kellingley

  95.04.14

  Longannet

  95.04.18

  Maltby

  95.04.22

  Wistow

  95.04.26

  Gascoigne Wood

  95.04.28

  Maltby

  95.04.29

  Whitemoor

  95.04.30

  New Point of Ayr

  95.05.01

  Maltby

  95.05.05

  Thoresby

  95.05.10

  Kellingley

  95.05.13

  Wistow

  95.05.17

  Clipstone

  95.05.18

  Prince of Wales

  95.05.19

  Backshot

  95.05.19

  Byrnant Varteg Mine

  95.05.19

  North Selby

  95.05.20

  Prince of Wales

  95.05.21

  Whitemoor

  95.05.22

  Markham Main

  95.05.24

  Cwmgwili Mine

  95.05.27

  Prince of Wales

  95.05.31

  Thoresby

  95.06.02

  Bilsthorpe

  95.06.05

  North Selby

  95.06.08

  New Point of Ayr

  95.06.08

  Bilsthorpe

  95.06.12

  Ellington Combine

  95.06.12

  Ricall

  95.06.13

  North Selby

  95.06.14

  Bilsthorpe

  95.06.21

  Riccall

  95.06.21

  New Point of Ayr

  95.06.21

  New Daw Mill

  95.06.23

  Riccall

  95.06.24

  Whitemoor

  95.06.25

  New Point of Ayr

  95.06.26

  Ellington Combine

  95.06.29

  New Daw Mill

  95.06.29

  Harworth

  95.07.03

  Whittle

  05.07.03

  Hirfynydd Mine

  95.07.04

  Clipstone

  95.07.07

  New Betws

  95.07.13

  Harworth

  95.07.13

  603

  Mine name

  Date

  Bilsthorpe

  95.07.16

  Backshot

  95.07.24

  Stillingfleet

  95.07.24

  Whitemoor

  95.07.28

  Rossington

  95.07.30

  Blenkinsopp Castle

  95.07.31

  Gascoigne Wood

  95.08.06

  Maltby

  95.08.07

  Rossington

  95.08.18

  New Daw Mill

  95.08.19

  Wistow

  95.08.21

  Stillingfleet

  95.08.24

  Hatfield

  95.08.25

  Ellington Combine

  95.08.26

  Kellingley

  95.08.28

  Wistow

  95.08.29

  New Coventry

  95.09.01

  Ellington Combine

  95.09.05

  Thoresby

  95.09.06

  Riccall

  95.09.07

  Thoresby

  95.09.11

  Thoresby

  95.09.14

  Hatfield

  95.09.19

  Clipstone

  95.09.19

  Kellingley

  95.09.20

  Clipstone

  95.09.26

  New Point of Ayr

  95.10.01

  Whitemoor

  95.10.03

  Hatfield

  95.10.03

  New Point of Ayr

  95.10.03

  New Hem Heath

  95.10.09

  New Coventry

  95.10.11

  New Daw Mill

  95.10.13

  Harworth

  95.10.14

  New Coventry

  95.10.14

  North Selby

  95.10.17

  Stillingfleet

  95.10.17

  Harworth

  95.10.23

  Markham Main

  95.10.23

  Stillingfleet

  95.10.24

  Maltby

  95.10.24

  New Coventry

  95.10.30

  New Daw Mill

  95.11.01

  Annlesley Bentinck

  95.11.03

  Prince of Wales

  95.11.09

  Maltby

  95.11.16

  Longannet

  95.11.16

  Calverton

  95.11.17

  Maltby

  95.11.17

  Maltby

  95.11.17

  Kellingley

  95.11.18

  Longannet

  95.11.20

  New Betws

  95.11.21

  North Selby

  95.11.28

  New Tower

  95.11.28

  Penllwyn Colliery

  95.11.30

  Kellingley

  95.12.03

  Clipstone

  95.12.04

  New Point of Ayr

  95.12.04

  Ellington Combine

  95.12.05

  Riccall

  95.12.09

  Ellington Combine

  95.12.18

  Markham Main

  95.12.19

  Markham Main

  95.12.19

  Asfordby

  95.12.21

  New Silverdale

  95.12.21

  Tyn Wern Mine

  95.12.22

  Riccall

  95.12.28

  New Daw Mill

  96.01.03

  Whittle

  96.01.05

  Bilsthorpe

  96.01.05

  Markham Main

  96.01.06

  Thoresby

  96.01.06

  Bilsthorpe

  96.01.08

  604

  Mine name

  Date

  New Silverdale

  96.01.11

  Prince of Wales

  96.01.12

  North Selby

  96.01.16

  Harworth

  96.01.17

  Ellington Combine

  96.01.19

  North Selby

  96.01.19

  North Selby

  96.01.23

  Longannet

  96.02.02

  New Hem Heath

  96.02.02

  Maltby

  96.02.11

  North Selby

  96.02.16

  Annesley Bentinck

  96.02.16

  New Daw Mill

  96.02.17

  North Selby

  96.02.19

  New Hem Heath

  96.02.20

  Annesley Bentinck

  96.02.21

  Stillingfleet

  96.02.22

  New Betws

  96.02.28

  Thoresby

  96.03.04

  New Daw Mill

  96.03.04

  New Coventry

  96.03.05

  Whitemoor

  96.03.09

  Calverton

  96.03.13

  Forest No. 3 Mine

  96.03.14

  Kellingley

  96.03.17

  Maltby

  96.03.18

  Maltby

  96.03.20

  Whitemoor

  96.03.21

  New Daw Mill

  96.03.21

  Wistow

  96.03.22

  Thoresby

  96.03.22

  New Silverdale

  96.03.26

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions are placed on the Health and Safety Executive in respect of providing information to local authorities on accidents at THORP without the consent of British Nuclear Fuels plc. [9146]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive may release such information to an officer of a local authority authorised to receive it, where HSE has acquired the information under statutory requirements. However, HSE would normally make the information available only if there was a health and safety purpose in doing so.

  Section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 contains restrictions on the release of information obtained under statutory requirements or in the exercise of inspectors' powers. Associations of local authorities, unlike individual local authorities, do not fall within the exemptions from these restrictions.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he made of the health and safety consequences of incidents(a) during the construction of THORP at Sellafield and (b) since it commenced operational activity. [91451

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Conditions attached to the Sellafield nuclear site licence require BNFL to have arrangements in place to investigate and report incidents at THORP to HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate. These apply throughout the lifetime of the plant, including the construction stage. Additional arrangements exist to comply with other regulations, such as the Reporting of
  605
  Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 relating to non-nuclear incident reporting.

  The HSE routinely monitors BNFL's arrangements including the conduct of its investigations, and carries out separate investigations where appropriate, which take into account the health and safety consequences of the particular incident. Significant incidents are reported in the HSE's quarterly statements of nuclear incidents.

  Radiation (Sellafield)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests British Nuclear Fuels plc has made to his Department for permission to increase the levels of radiation released into the atmosphere from its plant at Sellafield. [9143]

  Mr. Clappison
  No requests have been made to this Department. However, British Nuclear Fuels has applied to the Environment Agency for a variation to its current certificates of authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to dispose of waste gases, mists and dusts from premises on its Sellafield site.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of radiation have been released into the atmosphere from the BNFL plant at Sellafield in each of the last five years; and what are the current levels. [9144]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information about air-borne discharges of radioactivity in past years from British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield site is contained in the company's "Annual Report on Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment", the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment" and the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Statistics". Copies of all these are available in the Library of the House.

  Details of current discharges are contained in public registers held by the Environment Agency and local authorities in the area. The information may be obtained from the Environment Agency at Mitre house, Church street, Lancaster, LA1 1BQ.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which appointments to the Health and Safety Commission lapse before 1 May 1997; on what dates; and if he will consult Her Majesty's Opposition before making the new appointments. [9571]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Two appointments to the commission lapse on 31 March 1997. Any new appointments will be made in accordance with the extensive consultation requirements set out in section 10(3)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; and with the guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Secretary of State has no plans to consult on the appointments beyond that.

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the
  606
  total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9492]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The figures for the Department of the Environment and its executive agencies are given in the table:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Department of the Environment

  Full-time

  2,098

  1,414

  3,512

  Part-time

  30

  280

  310

  Total

  2,128

  1,694

  3,822

  The Planning Inspectorate

  Full-time

  429

  211

  640

  Part-time

  10

  30

  40

  Total

  439

  241

  680

  Building Research Establishment

  Full-time

  435

  182

  617

  Part-time

  5

  68

  73

  Total

  440

  250

  690

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Full-time

  28

  27

  55

  Part-time

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  28

  27

  55

  Health and Safety Executive

  Full-time

  2,429

  1,599

  4,028

  Part-time

  21

  397

  418

  Total

  2,450

  1,996

  4,446

  The figures are taken from the Department of the Environment's Staff On-Line Information System (SOLIS) and the Health and Safety Executive's Personnel information database (PRIMA). Other figures were supplied by the relevant executive agencies. The figures show the actual numbers of staff-in-post for December 1996 except for Health and Safety Executive—these figures are for 1 April 1996.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9624]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I sent on 3 December 1996 in response to his previous named day question for Monday 25 November.

  The figures supplied in the annexe to that reply provide the following sub-totals:

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Department of the Environment

  Permanent

  4,244

  4,599

  4,236

  3,973

  3,632

  Non-Permanent

  237

  223

  293

  300

  268

  Building Research Establishment

  Permanent

  654

  638

  646

  670

  622

  Non-Permanent

  34

  37

  31

  68

  107

  The Planning Inspectorate

  Permanent

  613

  608

  622

  612

  596

  Non-Permanent

  13

  6

  11

  7

  37

  607

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution

  Permanent

  285

  347

  398

  403

  343

  Non-Permanent

  20

  19

  30

  25

  32

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Permanent

  61

  55

  60

  49

  143

  Non-Permanent

  6

  6

  10

  11

  12

  The figures are taken from the Department of the Environment's Staff On-Line Information System (SOLIS), and show the actual numbers of staff-in-post employed as at 1 April 1992–1996.

  1This is a correction to the figures previously supplied.

  Health and Safety Executive

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Permanent

  4,218

  4,441

  4,418

  4,233

  4,006

  Non permanent

  104

  97

  127

  158

  145

  The figures for the Health and Safety Executive were taken from their Personnel information database (PRIMA). These figures are for Full Time Equivalent Staff in Post.

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the Ministers in his Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9387]

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is as follows:

  Visits in the UK1

  Visits outside the UK

  John Gummer

  42

  17

  David Curry

  43

  4

  Robert B. Jones

  44

  5

  The Earl Ferrers

  30

  4

  Sir Paul Beresford

  52

  1

  James Clappison

  38

  3

  1A visit may incorporate travelling to more than one place.

  Housing Association Starts
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the number of new housing association starts(a) in total and (b) in the eastern region next year. [9440]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the month to 13 December we received a total of 41 letters from Members of Parliament enclosing letters from housing associations about new housing association starts, including seven from associations in the eastern region.

  Formaldehyde
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations are currently in force in respect of the protection of human health and the environment from formaldehyde fumes. [9565]
  608
  Mr. Clappison
  The following legislation relevant to the protection of human health and the environment from formaldehyde is in force:the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with respect to emissions from those industrial processes with the greatest potential for pollution, the range of pollutants controlled includes formaldehyde where appropriate;
  the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994; and
  the Building Regulations 1991, part D (toxic substances), with respect to the use of urea formaldehyde foam insulation in cavity walls.

  Housing (Single People)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many households living in accommodation matching the definition of the single room rent assessment figure for housing benefit purposes were identified in the census of 1991; [9418]

  (2) how many single people (a) aged under 25 years (b) aged 25 to 59 years and (c) aged 60 and over were identified as living in accommodation matching the definition of the single room rent assessment figure for housing benefit purposes in the census of 1991. [9416]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information available from the census is for households occupying a bedsitting room. This is a wider category than that defined as a single room by the Department of the Environment and used by the Department of Social Security for housing benefit purposes, as it includes households who shared only one of the facilities of a toilet, kitchen or bathroom.

  The relevant age breakdown in the census related to heads of households, and the "single, widowed, and divorced" category of heads of households and so included cohabiting couples and lone parents as well as people living by themselves, but excluded separated people living by themselves who were counted under the group "married heads of households".

  There were 136,498 households identified as living in bedsits in Great Britain in the 1991 census, and of these 117,120 were people living by themselves.

  The information by age available from the census was for the 121,355 single, widowed and divorced heads of household living in bedsits, as follows:

  Age

  Number

  16–29

  63,582

  30-pensionable age

  46,192

  Pensionable age and over

  11,581

  Source:

  1991 Census of population.

  More up-to-date information on those living in rented accommodation in England is available from the annual survey of English housing.

  Secondary Liquid Fuel
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the recommendations contained in the second report of the Environment Committee on the burning of secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns, HC497
  609
  of Session 1994–95 (a) have been implemented, (b) the Government have decided not to implement and (c) the Government are still considering. [8628]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Select Committee on the Environment is currently carrying out a further inquiry into the environmental impact of the cement manufacture. My Department's memorandum of evidence to the latest inquiry describes the extent to which the Committee's previous recommendations have been implemented. A copy of the memorandum has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the burning of secondary liquid fuels in kilns has been brought within the scope of the EU hazardous waste incineration directive; and if he will make a statement. [8629]

  Mr. Clappison
  The directive requires that the incineration of hazardous waste is subject to specified controls over pollution. Co-incineration plants, such as cement or lime kilns which burn hazardous waste, are within its scope.

  Cammell Laird Shipbuilding Yard
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of fatal accidents at Cammell Laird shipbuilding yard in each year from 1966 until 1995. [9614]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  One fatal accident at the Cammell Laird shipbuilding yard has been reported to the Health and Safety Executive during the period 1986 to 1995.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9460]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department and agencies will need to assess the impact which a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the specific spending pressures identified in the proposals of the local authority associations in the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance which have been recognised in his recent announcement on total spending for 1997–98. [9701]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend took into account all pressures on local government spending for 1997–98 as well as the scope for efficiencies. In forming his assessment of pressures, he had regard to the proposals which the local authority associations put to the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. The provisional total standard spending announced by my right hon. Friend represents his view of the appropriate 610
  level of local authority spending in the round. It is not possible to identify how much has been included to meet individual burdens or pressures.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the provision for 1996–97 in respect of recycling supplementary credit approvals for local authorities; and what was the equivalent figure in the current year. [9787]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planned provision for the recycling supplementary credit approval programme in 1997–98 is nearly £2.2 million, which we propose to devote to the promotion of home composting. The provision for 1996–97 is currently £10 million.

  The reduction in the resources available next year reflects the additional funding for recycling which is likely to be available from capital challenge allocations, landfill tax environment bodies, our initiatives on producer responsibility for packaging waste and newspapers, together with benefits arising from the private finance initiative.

  Air Pollution Control
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites in England and Wales are subject to local authority air pollution control under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; how many have been granted authorisation; of these how many(a) have been visited and (b) have submitted a detailed upgrading plan to the enforcing authority within the required period; and how many authorisations have been granted to industrial sites after the relevant upgrading deadline date has passed. [9832]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Lady to the report on the first five years' successful operation of the local air pollution control system, which was published on 9 December and a copy sent to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The report contains a statistical overview of the operation of the system, including the latest available information on numbers of authorised processes, and the results of a survey on upgrading. Information on process visits is to be collected for 1996–97.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each occasion in the last five years when domestic drinking water was contaminated to an extent which was assessed by his Department as constituting a threat to public health; and if he will make a statement. [9775]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is a robust regulatory regime controlling drinking water quality administered by the drinking water inspectorate. Since 1990, there have been over 2,000 enforcement actions and some £2 billion of expenditure aimed at further improvements in drinking water quality. In 1995, the water companies in England and Wales carried out approximately 3.2 million tests on drinking water of which 99.5 per cent. showed that the relevant standards had been met.
  611
  Water companies in England and Wales are required to report all incidents in which drinking water quality might be affected. All incidents are investigated by the inspectorate. Most incidents are relatively minor happenings.

  In those cases in which the drinking water was chemically contaminated and where the inspectorate has completed its investigations, there is no evidence that the magnitude or duration of the contamination was such as to endanger public health.

  Most cases in which there is bacteriological contamination are trivial and often involve the notification of advice to boil water to a small number of consumers while tests are undertaken on the quality. In most cases, the advice is found to have been unnecessary, but consumers have been given protection rather than potentially left at risk.

  The most significant risk to drinking water quality is the presence of cryptosporidium oocysts. On cryptosporidium, the notification to the inspectorate can relate to either the detection of cryptosporidium oocysts in treated water, or to an increase of the illness cryptosporidiosis in the community or both. The transmission of the illness occurs in a number of ways and often through contact with animals. One recent outbreak of cryptosporidiosis was found to be associated with a failure of a milk pasteurisation plant.

  All incidents are investigated fully by the drinking water inspectorate. As cryptosporidiosis can be transmitted in many ways, the source of any outbreak has to be established through epidemiology. A case of South West Water Services Ltd. allegedly supplying water unfit for human consumption because of cryptosporidium is currently before the courts.

  Notifications of events involving cryptosporidium are listed in the table under four headings. It should be noted that not all notifications become confirmed as incidents.

  Cryptosporidium oocysts detected in treated water but no reported increase of cryptosporidiosis

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Yorkshire Water

  19 December 1991

  Redmires

  Southern Water

  19 March 1992

  Broadfields Water Treatment Works (WTW)

  Severn Trent Water

  20 August 1992

  Fairholmes WTW

  Southern Water

  8 September 1992

  Steyning WTW

  Southern Water

  22 October 1992

  Testwood WTW

  South West Water

  29 December 1992

  Broomhill WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  5 January 1995

  Huby WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  16 March 1995

  Fixby WTW

  Essex and Suffolk

  30 March 1995

  Ormsby WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  31 August 1995

  Cottingham adit

  Yorkshire Water

  13 September 1995

  Kepwick Springs WTW (in raw water)

  South West Water

  13 September 1995

  Parracombe WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  5 January 1996

  Elvington WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  10 January 1996

  Elvington WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  15 January 1996

  Kepwick Springs WTW

  South West Water

  29 May 1996

  Littlehempston

  Cambridge Water

  30 May 1996

  Duxford/Linton

  South West Water

  27 June 1996

  Crown Hill WTW

  Mid Kent Water

  3 July 1996

  Burham WTW

  Southern Water

  612

  An increase in cryptosporidiosis in the community but oocysts not detected in treated water

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Southern Water

  28 December 1990

  Thanet area

  North West Water

  5 May 1992

  West Cumbria

  North West Water

  27 March 1992

  Barrow in Furness

  North West Water

  14 December 1992

  Warrington

  Northumbrian

  15 June 1993

  Sherbum

  North West

  April 1994

  Chorley

  Both oocysts detected in treated water and an increase of cryptosporidiosis in the community

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Yorkshire Water

  13 November 1992

  Bingley and Shipley

  South West Water

  12 August 1995

  Torbay/Littlehempston

  Incidents still under investigation

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Wessex Water

  April 1993

  Poole

  Yorkshire Water

  11 June 1993

  Gilstead

  North East

  25 January 1996

  Sunderland

  Yorkshire Water

  21 March 1996

  Tophill

  North West Water

  29 April 1996

  The Wirral

  Yorkshire Water

  17 October 1996

  Elvington WTW

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds he plans to make available to authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1 April 1995,1996,1997 or 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [10336]

  Mr. Curry
  On 10 October, I invited authorities that have or are to be reorganised on or before 1 April 1998 to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1997–98. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the maximum amounts to allocate towards such costs in 1997–98. I have given priority to authorities to be reorganised in 1997 and 1998. The majority of authorities to be reorganised in 1998 asked for allocations in respect of redundancy to be deferred until the mid-year review in October 1997. Accordingly, the allocations listed for authorities reorganising in 1998 are not intended to cover redundancy costs.

  Maximum amounts: £000 rounded

  Authority

  1997–98

  1996 reorganisations

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  1,200

  Redcar and Cleveland Council

  900

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  1,300

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  800

  Bristol City Council

  900

  North Somerset Council

  800

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  900

  South Gloucestershire Council

  1,000

  Kingston upon Hull Council

  700

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  2,500

  613

  Maximum amounts: £000 rounded

  Authority

  1997–98

  North Lincolnshire Council

  700

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  700

  York City Council

  800

  1997 reorganisations

  Bedfordshire County Council

  700

  Luton Borough Council

  3,300

  Milton Keynes Borough Council

  2,200

  Derbyshire County Council

  900

  Derby City Council

  2,600

  Dorset County Council

  400

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  2,700

  Poole Borough Council

  2,600

  Durham County Council

  400

  Darlington Borough Council

  1,660

  East Sussex County Council

  1,700

  Brighton and Hove Council

  4,000

  Hampshire County Council

  1,400

  Portsmouth City Council

  2,600

  Southampton City Council

  2,700

  Leicestershire County Council

  800

  Leicester City Council

  3,100

  Rutland District Council

  1,260

  Staffordshire County Council

  500

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  2,400

  Wiltshire County Council

  80

  Thamesdown Borough Council

  800

  1998 reorganisations

  Berkshire County Council

  1,100

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  2,100

  Newbury District Council

  2,400

  Reading Borough Council

  2,700

  Slough Borough Council

  1,900

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,200

  Wokingham District Council

  2,900

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  300

  Hereford City Council

  100

  Leominster District Council

  150

  Malvern Hills District Council

  200

  South Herefordshire District Council

  50

  Devon County Council

  1,000

  Plymouth City Council

  2,600

  Torbay Borough Council

  3,000

  Essex County Council

  500

  Southend on Sea Borough Council

  2,100

  Thurrock Borough Council

  2,400

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  400

  Nottingham City Council

  2,700

  Cheshire County Council

  500

  Halton Borough Council

  2,200

  Warrington Borough Council

  3,000

  Shropshire County Council

  300

  The Wrekin District Council

  2,400

  Kent County Council

  1,000

  Gillingham Borough Council

  200

  Rochester City Council

  400

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  400

  Peterborough City Council

  2,900

  Lancashire County Council

  800

  Blackburn Borough Council

  2,700

  Blackpool Borough Council

  2,700

  The Isle of Wight and Buckinghamshire county council did not submit bids. Initial allocations will be made to the new shadow authorities of Herefordshire, Worcester, East Malvern and Tenbury, and Rochester and Gillingham shortly after they are established in May 1997.

  Housing Allocations
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make regulations exempting further classes of people from the allocation provisions in part VI of the Housing Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [10337]

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the new allocations provisions in part VI of the 1996 Act do not compromise the present arrangements under which many local authorities accept a limited number of referrals from welfare agencies and hostels for homeless people. I have reflected carefully on whether it is necessary to make regulations in order to allow such arrangements to continue, and have concluded that it is not. There is sufficient flexibility inherent in part VI to allow local authorities to maintain such arrangements within the new allocation schemes they will be establishing, and I am issuing guidance to this effect.

  Packaging Waste Regulations
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered the responses to the consultation paper he issued in July on the Producer Responsibility (Packaging Waste) Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [10475]

  Mr. Gummer
  Together with my colleagues, the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, I published proposals in July which aim to secure an effective business-led approach to meeting the environmental goal of a more sustainable approach to packaging waste. This followed a lengthy process of consultation with a wide range of business sectors and is based on the industry agreement on the shared approach achieved on 15 December 1995.

  The system we propose is based on four guiding principles:
  using the market to reflect the cost of dealing with waste in the price the consumer pays;
  a shared approach involving all parts of the packaging chain;
  the lightest regulatory approach giving the maximum scope for obligated businesses to self-certify and self-assess their obligations and to perform those obligations through business-run schemes, or individually subject to monitoring by the environment agencies.
  continuing industry involvement in monitoring, reviewing and proposing changes to the system through the Advisory Committee on Packaging.

  We have had a wide range of responses to the consultation paper including 100 from trade associations representing 53,000 member businesses and a further 348 from individual businesses and other interested organisations. Most respondents endorsed the overall framework and the basic provisions which flow from the 15 December agreement. However, the responses did raise specific concerns on issues such as the timetable, the level of interim targets, the cut-off threshold for small businesses, the wholesaler obligation and the scope and nature of exemptions. I have considered these and have sought the views of Sir Peter Parker and the Advisory Committee on Packaging and I am grateful to have their further comments which will be published separately.
  615
  I therefore intend to make the following modifications to the draft regulations which will be subject to parliamentary debate.

  To allow businesses sufficient time to assess the implications of the regulations for them and the merits of joining a collective business scheme such as VALPAK, I propose to delay the first requirement for registration and provision of data until the summer of 1997 and I will make a further announcement shortly. The date for the renewal of registration and the provision of data will, from 1998 onwards, be 1 April.

  A further concern raised related to the proposed interim targets for recovery and recycling which could place an unnecessarily high burden on some businesses and particularly on those who handle materials which are harder to recover. Many felt that a slower build-up to the full directive targets in 2001 targets would be more realistic. I therefore propose to revise the interim targets on individual businesses as follows:

  Minimum recycling target for each material

  Overall recovery target

  Recovery of UK packaging waste

  1998–99

  7

  38

  32

  2000

  11

  43

  40

  2001

  16

  152

  50

  1 Of which a minimum of 26 per cent. must be recycling.

  These targets will enable the UK to meet the recycling and recovery targets set out in the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste, 94/62 EC.

  I have also taken account of the representations that some sectors of industry will have greater difficulty in adapting to the proposed obligations than others, particularly in the case of small firms. I also consider that the most effective means of introducing the new system will be to take a staged approach starting with the largest businesses. I therefore propose to adopt a phased approach in relation to the following aspects:
  No business with a turnover of less than £5 million, or that handled less than 50 tonnes of packaging will have an obligation in the years 1997 to 1999, but from 1 January 2000 an eligible business with a turnover of £1 million or more and that handled more than 50 tonnes of packaging will be obligated. The proposed wholesaler obligation will apply from 1 January 2000.

  I am confident that a phased approach will allow these sectors additional time to prepare and work up methods for meeting recycling and recovery objectives in a form which meets their needs.

  I have considered also issues raised by those who handle packaging which is or is associated with special or hazardous waste. Where packaging is likely to become special waste, producers will not need to include it when calculating their recovery and recycling obligations, but they will need to provide data and indicate the steps taken to promote or increase its recovery. This amendment should assist those producers that handle packaging whose hazardous or contaminated nature require special disposal arrangements.
  616
  I also propose to place an obligation on production of reusable packaging but to exempt it when it is reused. Other more detailed changes will be set out in the published regulations.

  I also recognise that for many businesses a major concern is not the recycling and recovery effort itself but the means of gathering data. Some businesses already have good data systems while many trade associations and the Industry Council on Packaging and the Environment are already working to develop sector guides and assistance with definitions and other guidance. I intend to support this work and to make available, to help to start the system, a very simple ready reckoner which businesses can use to meet the initial requirement for a best estimate expressed in tonnes per annum.

  The environment agencies that will monitor and enforce the regulations will charge a fee to individual businesses and collective schemes to cover the costs of their functions. In the light of consultation, and taking account of the changes listed I propose to set the fee for individual businesses at £750 per annum and to offer schemes a rebate of up to 87 per cent. of this according to the size of their membership.

  The advisory committee is continuing its work on implementation of the system and is currently considering matters relating to evidence of compliance and recent representations it has received on the issue of equitable participation in household waste recovery. It is also preparing for its review of the system as a whole. On these and other issues, it will publish its findings as appropriate and I am fully committed to supporting its continuing role.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9829]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9828]

  Mr. Gummer
  As a Minister I am available 365 days of the year. If the hon. Member has issues that he needs to raise with me over the Christmas break or during the coming Easter or summer recesses, he is welcome to contact me at home or my office.

  Hemp
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies the Government have(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned on the use of hemp as an alternative source for paper manufacture; and what European Union (i) studies and (ii) support schemes have been established in respect of the use of hemp for paper making. [3925]

  Mr. Boswell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Hemp grown under licence in this country may be used for paper making. The Department is funding research into the structure of hemp fibres and the industrial potential of hemp, which will be relevant to its use in paper making.
  617
  In 1994 a European Union funded study looked at the increased application of domestically produced plant fibres. The agri-industrial research programme also funded a three-year study of the processing of short fibres. Both of these studies examined the use of hemp for paper making.

  A number of schemes exist under which support would be obtained to assist development of hemp for paper making and these include:

  1. the Agriculture and Fisheries (FAIR) Programme, which supports research of development projects;

  2. The EU's Fourth Framework Programme;

  3. projects in Objective 5b areas may be eligible under the Challenge for Agriculture Scheme.

  In addition, the common agriculture policy hemp regime provides for area payments to hemp growers.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the monitoring of asbestos imports. [7899]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  HM Customs and Excise is responsible for enforcing the statutory controls on imports of asbestos from third countries—the controls do not apply to intra-Community movements.

  Customs is not aware of any current circumstances which warrant an increase in the monitoring of asbestos imports. Any information indicating that there may be an enhanced risk of unauthorised imports of asbestos should be passed to customs.

PRIME MINISTER

  Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9620]
  618
  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office forms part of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the then Paymaster General on 10 December,Official Report, columns 83–84.

  Dublin Summit
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) topics and (b) documents considered at the Heads of Government meeting at Dublin on 13 and 14 December on which he placed a United Kingdom scrutiny reserve. [9731]

  The Prime Minister
  The contents of the Economic and Finance Council report to the Dublin European Council on preparations for stage 3 of economic and monetary union are subject to a United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny reserve. This point is reflected in the ECOFIN report itself and in the presidency conclusions of the European Council.

  Ministers (Severance Pay)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that the severance payment received by a Minister on resignation shall not be paid when that resignation followed criticism of the conduct of the Minister by a Select Committee of the House. [9712]

  The Prime Minister
  The terms under which a Minister is entitled to a severance payment are laid down in the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, which was approved by Parliament without any Divisions.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9823]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9822]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers are required to be available for Government business at all times. Subject to this overall requirement they may take leave as and when Government business permits.

WALES

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the Ministers in his Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9386]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:Secretary of State (Mr. William Hague): 174 visits of which 3 were abroad
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Gwilym Jones): 128 visits of which 7 were abroad
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Jonathan Evans): 89 visits of which 2 were abroad
  (Former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State) (Mr. Rod Richards): 52 visits of which 1 was abroad.

  Primary School Class Sizes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year group in maintained primary schools the class size figures as tabulated for all registered classes in maintained primary schools in table 3.6 of "Statistics of Educational Training in Wales: Schools No. 4, 1996". [9588]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on class size is not collected by year group.

  Domestic Telephones
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proportion of households in Wales in which state benefits are the main source of income do not have a telephone; [9358]

  (2) what proportion of households in Wales do not have a telephone; [9356]

  (3) what proportion of pensioner households in Wales do not have a telephone. [9357]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on telephone access in Wales is available from two different sample surveys; the Department of Social Security's family resources survey and the Office for National Statistics' family expenditure survey.

  Based on the former, 13 per cent. of households in Wales did not have a telephone in 1994–95. The corresponding figure for households where state benefits accounted for more than half of gross weekly household income was 23 per cent. For households where the head of household was over the state retirement age the figure was 12 per cent.

  From the latter, the estimate of the proportion of Welsh households without a telephone was 10 per cent. in 1995–96. This survey has a smaller sample size than the former and so these estimates are less reliable, particularly for smaller sub-groups.

  Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have
  620
  been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9617]

  Mr. Hague
  The numbers of permanent and non-permanent staff employed by my Department and its executive agency since 1992 are set out in the table:

  Welsh Office

  Cadw

  Permanent

  Non Permanent

  Permanent

  Non Permanent

  1 January 1992

  242.5

  125

  —

  —

  1 January 1993

  2159.5

  137.5

  262.5

  3

  1 January 1994

  2183

  230

  217

  9

  1 January 1995

  2070.5

  213.5

  222

  7.5

  1 December 1996

  1903.5

  177

  179.6

  7.3

  1. Cadw was established as an Executive Agency on 1 April 1992.

  2. The 1992 figures include OHMCI staff.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro-compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9458]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department and agency will need to assess the impact which a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems, whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Housing Associations
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for changing the arrangements for paying tax relief grant to Welsh housing associations; and if he will make a statement. [10460]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department received 11 responses in August following the publication of our consultation paper "Proposals for Changes to the Tax Relief Grant Arrangements for Housing Associations in Wales". Most respondents called for more time to plan for withdrawal of the grant and for greater certainty about future rates of payment and some also saw advantages in gearing transitional assistance towards smaller housing associations.

  I am pleased to respond to these concerns by setting out our intentions for future years with payments being set on a sliding scale. In 1997–98, claims will be met in full as originally proposed; in 1998–99, we plan to pay 75 per cent. of the first £50,000 of eligible claims, and 50 per cent of the rest; and in 1999–2000, we plan to pay 50 per cent. of the first £25,000 of eligible claims, and 25 per cent. of the rest.

  The Government do not believe that continued expenditure on tax relief grant represents the most

  621
  effective way of using the finite resources that are available to meet social housing need. We therefore remain committed to its abolition when an appropriate legislative opportunity arises. In the meantime, although the statutory discretion to pay tax relief grant will remain, the Government would normally expect that, following the planned reductions outlined, associations will plan to manage without tax relief grant payments.

  A list of respondents to the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House, and this contains a contact point in the Welsh Office for copies of individual responses.

  Departmental Activities
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's activities since April 1992. [214]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of the Department's activities since 1992 are set out in full in the Welsh Office departmental reports for the relevant years. The key achievements include the following.

  The Department has worked with local government to ensure a smooth transition to the new pattern of 22 unitary authorities. It is extending the influence of local government in Wales by cutting unnecessary central controls under its "redefining the relationship" initiative. It has exerted pressure on local authorities to secure value for money through the use of compulsory competitive tendering and associated financial targets. Council tax was successfully introduced on 1 April 1993.

  The Department has supported local authorities' responsibilities under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 for arranging community care services to meet individuals' needs. Through the mental handicap strategy it has helped to develop community-based support for individuals with a mental handicap and to improve the quality of care. The Department supports voluntary organisations which represent the interests of, and promote the development of services for, people with disabilities, older people, children and carers across Wales. It promotes volunteering through the "make a difference" initiative.

  The incidence of homelessness has been reduced. More people own their homes and more homes are available in the social rented sector, with over 16,000 additional dwellings provided by housing associations between 1992–93 and 1995–96. There has been substantial investment in the renovation of private sector homes, with over 64,000 grants being made to a value exceeding £709 million over the same period. Through estate partnership there has been additional expenditure of over £30 million to address the problems of the worst council estates. The publication of the housing White Paper, "Our Future Homes", in June 1995 and the subsequent legislation set the framework for the future.

  As part of the unique Welsh people and prosperity programme, "A Bright Future" is a comprehensive plan of action to raise educational standards and performance
  622
  for all pupils; the results of statutory tests, public examinations and the views of the independent office of Her Majesty's inspector of schools in Wales demonstrate that standards are now at record levels. The Government have increased parental choice and diversity of provision through continued support to voluntary-aided schools through a unique Welsh initiative which enables popular schools to expand doubling the number of children able to take up assisted places at good independent schools in Wales the option for schools to go grant-maintained and the introduction of nursery vouchers from next April. The Government have made possible record levels of participation in higher and further education. The charters for parents and students make clear their opportunities, rights and responsibilities.

  The Government have established an independent Arts Council of Wales. National lottery funding via the Arts Council of Wales and the Sports Council for Wales is providing an additional £15 million each year for the arts and for sport. Funding has been provided for new galleries in the main national museums and galleries building in Cardiff and a major extension of the national library of Wales. Support for the Welsh language has continued through record levels of grant and the implementation of the Welsh Language Act 1993.

  Since 1992, the structure of the NHS—the reforms were introduced in April 1991—has been developed by:
  completing the transfer of all hospital, community and ambulance service to NHS trust status;
  encouraging General Practitioners to become fundholders—currently 52 per cent. of patients have a fundholding GP;
  reorganising the 17 health authorities in Wales to five new health authorities with an eventual saving of £8 million per year.

  The quality of service has been greatly improved by the implementation of the patients charter for Wales. This set standards and guarantees for a wide variety of NHS activities including waiting times for hospital appointments and treatments which showed significant improvements. The results are published each year in performance tables of hospital improvements.

  The efficiency of the NHS has also greatly improved. Cumulative savings of £380 million have been achieved since 1992–93 enabling, for example, the number of in-patients treated to increase by 17 per cent.

  The Welsh Office Health Department has encouraged a wide variety of initiatives and developments to improve the service provided by the NHS, including research and development, health promotion and activities to improve the effectiveness of treatments.

  A report of the Welsh Office's chief medical officer on the health of the people of Wales has been published for each year from 1992 to 1995.

  In 1992–93, provision for the NHS in Wales was £1.877 billion. In 1996–97, the provision is £2.274 billion, which represents an increase of 21 per cent. in cash terms and 10.1 per cent. in real terms.

  Since 1992, the Welsh Office has played a full part in the development and implementation of the common agricultural and common fisheries policies, including the

  623
  introduction of the integrated administration and control system. The environmental dimension of support for agriculture in Wales has been expanded with the introduction of five environmentally sensitive areas and an agri-environment programme specific to Welsh needs has been steered through the process approved by the EU. Advice has been provided through the countryside advice information service and ADAS to help farmers take advantage of the support available to them and to encourage a cost-effective and efficient farming economy in Wales, while the new food strategy addresses the opportunities that exist for the marketing and development of Welsh food products. Between the beginning of 199293 and the end of 1996–97 the Department expects to have paid out over £1 billion in support to the agricultural and fishing industries in Wales.

  The Department completed the A55 dualling between Chester and Bangor in north Wales in October 1994. The total cost of this project, including the tunnels, was £700 million. In south Wales, completion of the M4 in December 1994 finalised a continuous motorway between London and west Wales, at a cost since 1979 of £230 million in Wales. The second Severn crossing, opened to traffic in June of this year, has more than doubled road capacity across the estuary.

  In April 1992, the Planning Inspectorate was established as an agency of the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment. In 1996, the Department issued "Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy" and "Planning Guidance (Wales: Unitary Development Plans". The former presents, for the first time, integrated planning policy guidance for Wales; the latter provides guidance to local planning authorities on the preparation of their unitary development plans.

  The Welsh Office has continued working to protect the Welsh environment and promoting sustainable development. Important wildlife and habitats throughout Wales are being conserved through environmental designations—for example, 35 candidate special areas of conservation have been submitted to the EC and 910 locations in Wales have been designated as sites of special scientific interest. The Department has established three national parks in Wales as free-standing special purpose authorities; has instigated the Tir Cymen countryside stewardship scheme; has established an air quality forum and Wales biodiversity group; and, following the major oil spillage earlier this year, has established and funded the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee.

  Over £2 billion has been committed for the economic, social and environmental development of Wales.

  The Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Wales tourist board and the Land Authority for Wales have pursued gross programmes totalling £1.29 billion over this period. Projects valued at £295.7 million have been financed under my Department's strategic development scheme with a further £24.5 million approved under the urban investment grant. European programmes for industrial south and rural Wales, and various Community initiatives, have been negotiated, providing £359 million funding across the Principality. A new £178 million three-year programme for industrial south Wales will shortly be started.
  624
  This funding has helped support the objectives of the five-year programme for the valleys launched in 1993, promising £1 billion of public sector investment, and of the rural White Paper published in March 1996.

  There have been 725 inward investment projects with a capital investment of £5.7 billion, promising 37,600 new jobs and 24,362 safeguarded jobs.

  From January 1997, the newly formed Welsh European programme executive will take over most of the Department's responsibilities for structural funds management, and the Welsh Office will succeed the Department for Education and Employment in managing the European social fund in Wales. From April 1997, SDS funding totalling £38 million per annum after three years will be progressively delegated to local authorities and a new £20 million Welsh capital challenge will take effect.

  Since December 1992, peak seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales has fallen by 38,900 or 29 per cent. to 94,800—a work force rate of 7.5 per cent. This is the lowest unemployment rate in Wales since January 1991.

  Manufacturing output in Wales in the quarters to Q2, 1996 was 18.1 per cent. higher than in the four quarters to Q1, 1992, compared with a rise of 8.3 per cent. for the UK as a whole.

  Over the period 1994–95 to 1996–97, the Welsh Office has contracted with the Welsh training and enterprise councils for 8,200 young people to start modern
  apprenticeships.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount of aid to South Africa in each of the years 1991 to 1995 from(a) the European Community and (b) the United Kingdom, bilaterally. [9323]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The information is as follows:

  Net Bilateral Aid (ODA) to South Africa (£ millions)

  European

  United Kingdom

  1991

  —

  19.33

  1992

  —

  111.56

  1993

  55.01

  12.92

  1994

  45.34

  15.61

  1995

  37.38

  15.16

  1 The UK figures for 1991 and 1992 are those for the nearest corresponding financial year. EC aid to South Africa did not commence until 1993. Before the 1994 elections, all aid was channelled through non-governmental organisations, community groups or other institutions.

  UN Aid Target
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the timetable for achieving the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product of the Overseas Development Administration budget; and what progress has been made to date in achieving the target. [10146]
  625
  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Government remain committed to meeting the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product to be devoted to development assistance, but not to a timetable for reaching it. At 0.28 per cent. of GNP, the UK ratio remains above average for all donors-0.27 per cent. UK public and private flows to the developing world stood at 1.38 per cent. of GNP in 1995, well in excess of the 1 per cent. UN target, and second only to the Netherlands.

  Regional Summit, Nairobi
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the regional summit in Nairobi on 16 December. [9757]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We welcome the decision of the Nairobi summit on 16 and 17 December that Presidents Moi, Mugabe, Mandela and Biya should take steps to assist the ending of conflict in easter Zaire, and to promote peace and security in the great lakes region.

DEFENCE

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional resources have been made availalble to the Atomic Weapons Establishment in respect of the promotion and operation of a comprehensive test ban treaty. [9635]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As there are currently no plans to involve AWE in the promotion and operation of CTBT, no additional resources have been allocated. The United Kingdom remains committed to an effective and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty. My Department has made available additional funding for the United Kingdom's share of the international monitoring system, which is to be established by the CTBT organisation.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9462]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department and agencies will need to assess the impact that a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems, whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Young Service Personnel (Fatalities)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of those under age 18 years in the United Kingdom armed forces have been killed in each of the last three years. [9298]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.
  626
  Letter from Fred Johnson to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 18 December 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on duty, I have been asked to reply to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the number of minors in the United Kingdom armed forces killed in each of the last three years, as this matter falls within the area of responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency.
  The figures are as follows:

  1993: 1

  1994: 0

  1995: 3

  1996 to date1: 1

  1 Information reported to DASA as at 12 December 1996.

  Notes:

  'Minors' comprise those aged 16 and 17.

  'Killed' has been taken to include all deaths of serving personnel either on duty or off duty.

  Extraterrestrial Phenomena
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to allocate resources to researching extraterrestrial phenomena. [9419]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 October 1996,Official Report, column 1082.

  Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9623]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 25 November 1996,Official Report, columns 27–28.

  Chilwell/Chetwynd Barracks
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which establishments his Department plans to be covered by the area policing team based at Chilwell/Chetwynd barracks; [9692]

  (2) what are the proposed authorised complements for his Department's area policing teams at (a) Dishforth, (b) Donnington and (c) Chilwell; [9696]

  (3) when the area policing team complements at (a) Dishforth, (b) Donnington and (c) Chilwell will be introduced; [9697]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the benefits of retaining an on-site Ministry of Defence Police presence at base ordnance depot Donnington and Chilwell/Chetwynd barracks until the area policing teams are fully established. [9698]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Ministry of Defence Police. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 18 December 1996:
  I am replying to your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Area Policing Teams of the Ministry of Defence as these matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive/Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police.

  627
  You asked when the APT complements for Dishforth, Donnington and Chilwell will be introduced. It is planned to introduce Area Policing Teams at Donnington and Chilwell in April 1997, and at Dishforth on a date in 1997 yet to be determined.
  You asked what assessment had been made of the benefits of retaining an on-site presence at BOD Donnington and Chetwynd Barracks until APTs are fully established. The requirement for Ministry of Defence Police is made by discussion between the Establishment, the budget holder and the Chief Constable, taking into account the views of specialist complementing teams. This procedure has been undertaken for BOD Donnington and Childwell/Chetwynd Barracks, amongst others, and considered the best and most economical means of meeting those requirements without lowering in any way the necessary security standards.
  You asked which establishments are to be covered by the APT to be based at Chilwell/Chetwynd Barracks. The Area Policing Team based there will cover those Ministry of Defence establishments within reasonable range of their base, and give assistance according to the assessed priorities on the calls on their time.
  You wished to know the authorised complements for the APTs proposed for Dishforth, Donnington and Chilwell. The APT complements at Donnington and Chilwell will each be II officers; and in addition 8 MDP officers will be retained at Donnington for policing duties. No decisions have yet been taken on Dishforth.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) from which budget holders the funding for(a) the Ministry of Defence Police area policing teams at Chilwell/Chetwynd barracks and (b) the Military Provost guard service at Chilwell/Chetwynd barracks will be provided in 1997–98; [9691]

  (2) what consent has been (i) sought and (ii) received from the chief constable of Nottinghamshire constabulary in respect of (a) armed and (b) unarmed off-base patrols by the Military Provost guard service at Chilwell/Chetwynd barracks; [9694]

  (3) what anti-terrorist patrols will be included in the off-base activities of the Military Provost guard service at Chilwell/Chetwynd barracks. [9695]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence what has been the total cost in each of the last five years of acquiring and operating nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. [9670]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The strategic nuclear deterrent is the UK's only dedicated nuclear weapon delivery system. I refer the hon. Member to the Trident procurement and Polaris and Trident operating costs for 1991–92 and 1992–93 given in answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 27 October 1993,Official Report, column 702, for 1994–95 given in answer to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 6 March 1996, Official Report, column 232, and for 1995–96 given in answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 26 November 1996, Official Report, column 193. The figure for 1993–94 is £1,082 million. The operating costs of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb and the Lance nuclear artillery system, which was withdrawn from service in 1992–93, are not recorded separately.

  Great Lakes Region
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 14 November,Official report, columns 487–89, what contribution United Kingdom forces have made to the resolution of the humanitarian crisis in the great lakes region; and if he will make a statement. [10399]

  Mr. Soames
  British forces deployed to the region have made an extremely valuable contribution to the action taken by the international community. The Canberra PR9 has flown 24 sorties, playing a pivotal role in determining the precise location and numbers of refugee groups in eastern Zaire. Our liaison personnel in Rwanda have provided unique information about the situation on the ground, and have assisted in the co-ordination of work in the area.

  Substantial numbers of refugees have returned home to Rwanda, and aid agencies now enjoy greater ease of access to eastern Zaire. In the light of the dramatic change in the humanitarian situation, the steering group overseeing the multinational mission to the region has recommended to the UN Secretary-General that the multinational force be withdrawn by 31 December. The focus now must be on efforts to obtain wider access for the aid agencies on the ground and to enable them to assess the scale and nature of humanitarian needs and how these can best be met.

  Our forces in the region will accordingly return to the UK this week. Our international partners are making similar plans for the withdrawal of their own forces.

  The UK will continue to lend full support to the humanitarian mission in the region and to regional efforts to find a lasting political solution. In that context we welcome the outcome of the Nairobi summit of 16 and 17 December.

  Convicted Soldiers (Cyprus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Army pension payments will be made to each of the three soldiers convicted of the manslaughter of the Danish tour guide in Cyprus; when such payments will commence; and what is the current value of such pensions. [8639]

  Mr. Soames
  I can confirm that the three former soldiers had accrued sufficient military service to qualify for a preserved Army pension, which will be payable from their 60th birthday. Under the code of access to Government information, it is not our policy to release information relating to an individual's financial affairs on the grounds that to do so without that person's consent could facilitate an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

  Unidentified Craft
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence if his Department will adopt a policy on the reporting of unidentified craft of releasing to the press details of (i) shape, flight pattern, colour and size of craft, (ii) where and when the craft was seen, (iii) what action his Department took and (iv) the radar profile of the craft. [9410]

  Mr. Soames
  No.
  629
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the incident on 16 October 1990 involving two unidentified craft in the vicinity of Wylfa nuclear power station on Anglesey; what estimate the intercepting helicopter pilots made of the departing speeds of the two unidentified craft; if they showed up on radar; and if he will make a statement. [9561]

  Mr. Soames
  None, so far as we can establish from existing records.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the two attempted interceptions of unidentified craft that occurred near Anglesey in September and November 1995; what other attempts have been made to intercept unidentified craft in this vicinity; and if he will make a statement [9562]

  Mr. Soames
  From records available, and from the limited information given in the question, we are unable to identify any incidents of this kind.

  Pindar Bunker
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many beds there are in the Pindar bunker; how many of these will be occupied over Christmas; and what is his Department's estimate of the cost of using the unoccupied beds to shelter the homeless; [9669]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the operating costs of the Pindar bunker in 1996–97. [9668]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Training Facilities (Bahrain)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training facilities are provided for Bahrain defence force personnel in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [9737]

  Mr. Soames
  The Bahrain defence force is provided with access to a range of military training courses in the UK. Details of military assistance remain confidential between Governments.

  Military Provost Guard Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances his Department will arm patrols by the Military Provost guard service outside an establishment. [9693]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Area Policing Teams
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the introduction of area policing teams at Chilwell and Donnington in the event of the annulment of the Army Terms of Service (Amendment) Regulations (S.I., No. 2973/96). [9699]

  Mr. Soames
  I hope that these will not be annulled. In the event that they were, the implications would be carefully considered at the time.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the cost of the anti-botulism toxin vaccine serum produced from October 1990 for use in the Gulf war, mentioned in the memorandum prepared by his Department issued in support of the ministerial statement on Gulf war illness on 10 December,Official Report, columns 119–23; [9632]

  (2) what quality control was applied to the purchase of propoxur and bendiocarb-based pesticides from suppliers in Riyadh in January 1991; [9595]

  (3) what was the cost of the anthrax vaccine ordered from the public health laboratory service in August 1990, to which reference is made in his Department's memorandum released in support of the statement made on Gulf war illness on 10 December, Official Report, columns 119–23. [9637]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces of 10 December Official Report, column 120, on Gulf war syndrome, what steps he has taken to assist Professor Nicola Cherry and Dr. Patricia Doyle to visit Iraq in order to meet Dr. Mubarrak, Minister of Health. [9429]

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will include in the investigation being conducted by his Department's permanent under-secretary into the misleading of the House on the issue of organophosphate pesticide use the conclusions of the inquiry conducted by his Department's security official Mr. A. G. Rucker into the alleged theft of Gulf war syndrome documents, as reported to him by the hon. Member for South Shields in November 1995; [9727]

  (2) how many of the Gulf war veterans examined by the medical assessment programme have been found to be suffering from (i) kidney and liver damage, (ii) lung complications, (iii) osteoporosis, and (iv) neurological damage; [9723]

  (3) pursuant to his oral statement of 10 December, Official Report, column 121, on how many occasions information was provided in background material to parliamentary answers on the possible local purchase of organophosphate pesticides between October 1995 and September 1996; [9725]

  (4) how many medical records of those in his Department serving in the Gulf war are currently missing; and if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to recover them; [9722]

  (5) if he will name the staff undertaking clinical work for his Department as part of the medical assessment programme. [9724]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Members and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the terms of reference of the investigation being conducted by his Department's permanent under-secretary into the misleading of the House on the issue of organophosphate pesticide use during the Gulf war; and who will assist the permanent under-secretary in his investigation. [9719]
  631
  Mr. Soames
  The terms of reference of the investigation being conducted by my Department are to establish why proper and timely advice on the subject of organophosphate pesticide use during the Gulf war was not provided to MOD Ministers between July 1994 and September 1996. The permanent under-secretary will be assisted principally by members of the organophosphate pesticide investigation team.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of the inquiry which is being set in hand by his Department into the misleading of the House on the issue of organophosphate pesticide use during the Gulf war. [9721]

  Mr. Soames
  The investigation within my Department into the failures in providing proper and timely advice to Ministers about organophosphate pesticide use during the Gulf war is expected to be completed by February 1997. The findings of the investigation will be made available to the House at the earliest opportunity.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many parliamentary questions his Department answered between October 1995 and September 1996 on the use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war. [9726]

  Mr. Soames
  Between October 1995 and September 1996 one parliamentary question was answered by my Department on the use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war. This question was answered on 30 October 1995.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the investigation being conducted by his Department into the misleading of the House on the issue of organophosphate pesticide use during the Gulf war has commenced; and when he expects to report its findings to the House. [9720]

  Mr. Soames
  The investigation within my Department into the failures in providing proper and timely advice to Ministers about organophosphate pesticide use during the Gulf war commenced on 16 December 1996. I expect to be able to report the findings of the investigation to the House by February 1997.

  Tornado
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific reliability and ergonomic factors have led to the requirement for improved Tornado nose landing gear cable harness assembly as advertised as future purchase number SMC 11 aR/273 in MOD "Contracts Bulletin" Vol. 11, No. 7; and if continued use of existing assemblies is affecting serviceability of the Tornado fleet. [9592]

  Mr. Soames
  The Tornado nose landing gear cable harness assembly dates back to the original aircraft design. The assembly has been found to be susceptible to water and grit ingress which can give rise to false readings on the cockpit instruments and system unserviceability. There is no significant impact on aircraft availability and no adverse effect on airworthiness.

TREASURY

  European Union (Currency Support)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has received for a regulation of the European Community in pursuit of budgetary discipline and monetary stability to secure the obligations of members or institutions to support the currency of any one of its members, being a member of the exchange rate mechanism but not that of a common currency; and under what article of the treaty of European Union such regulation could be proposed. [7693]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: The Florence European Council agreed that a new exchange rate mechanism will be established for stage 3 of economic and monetary union to link the euro with currencies of member states remaining outside the single currency. The new mechanism, like the existing one, will be an intergovernmental nature and outside the community, and EC treaty, framework. Membership will be voluntary.

  Proposals for how the mechanism may operate were set out by the European Monetary Institute in its paper of 7 October entitled "Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy Co-operation between the euro area and other EU countries", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. There are no draft legal texts at this stage.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total administration costs of non-departmental public bodies in each year between 1991–92 and 1996–97. [8276]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]: As part of the work for developing the expenditure plans published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", the Government collected information on the total administration costs of the larger executive non-departmental public bodies—those which (a) have 25 or more staff; and which (b) normally rely upon Government grant or grant in aid for 50 per cent. or more of their income or trade mainly with Government Departments. While the information was not complete, expenditure was estimated to have been about £1.9 billion in 1993–94, £2 billion in 1994–95 and £2.1 billion in 1995–96 and is expected to be £2.1 billion in 1996–97.

  Information relating to 1991–92 and 1992–93 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departments will be publishing information on the administration costs of each of their larger executive non-departmental public bodies and tribunals from 1993–94 to 1999–2000 in their annual reports in March 1997.

  Pensions (Public Sector Research Establishments)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions have been taken to finance the costs arising from the crystallisation of pensions liabilities of public sector research establishments; if he will list the establishments involved; and which Departments will bear the costs involved. [8888]
  633
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: Pension liabilities of public sector research establishments crystallise (a) when a pension entitlement becomes payable and (b) on the transfer of accrued rights out of unfunded schemes into funded schemes. The existing arrangements for financing these costs vary between Departments and between establishments—no decisions have been taken to change the current arrangements.

  Gifts in Kind
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his current policy on the tax treatment of donations of gifts in kind to charities and trusts so that employers are able to donate without tax consequences; and if he will make a statement. [9569]

  Mr. Jack
  Tax relief for donations to charity is aimed at straightforward donations of money. If relief were to be extended to gifts in kind, there would have to be special arrangements to value them, which would complicate the present system. I do not propose to extend tax relief to donations of gifts in kind.

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the Ministers in his Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9375]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My ministerial colleagues and I have made the following official ministerial visits:

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  29 December-12 January 1996: Argentina, Chile, Brazil

  19–20 January: Paris (G7)

  22 January: Brussels (ECOFIN)

  19 February: Aberdeen (Grand Committee)

  11 March: Brussels (ECOFIN)

  15–24 March: South Africa, Zimbabwe

  12–14 April: Verona (Informal ECOFIN)

  14–16 April Sofia (EBRD)

  20–23 April: Washington (IMF Spring Meetings)

  3 May: City of London (Trial of the Pyx)

  3 June: Luxembourg (ECOFIN)

  20–22 June: Florence (European Council)

  27–29 June: Lyon (G7 Summit)

  8 July Brussels (ECOFIN)

  15 July London (Inauguration of CREST)

  20–22 September: Dublin (Informal ECOFIN)

  24–26 September: Bermuda (Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting)

  27 September-3 October: IMF Autumn Meetings

  14 October: Luxembourg (ECOFIN)

  7–8 November: Bordeaux (Anglo-French Summit)

  11 November: Brussels (ECOFIN)

  2 December: Brussels (ECOFIN)

  12 December: Dublin (ECOFIN)

  13–14 December: Dublin (European Council)

  634
  Chief Secretary

  29 January: Bank of England

  1 April: France (G7 Jobs Summit)

  20 May: GCHQ visit

  10 June: London Underground

  29 July: British Library visit

  3 September. Bank of England

  24 September: Bankside Power Station visit

  27 September: Italy (Pontignano conference)

  Financial Secretary

  23 January: London (Inland Revenue office, Strand)

  15 April: Manchester (Castlefield Tax Office)

  22 April: Birmingham (Private Finance Initiative Roadshow event and Birmingham 5 Tax office)

  8 May: London (Adjudicator's Office, Haymarket)

  20 May: Wigan (Private Finance Initiative Roadshow)

  6 June: Leeds (Private Finance Initiative Roadshow and the Leeds Royal Armouries)

  25 June: Southampton (Private Finance Initiative Roadshow and a tax office)

  1 July: Telford (self assessment tax office)

  5 August: Manchester (tax office)

  12 September: Belfast (Private Finance Initiative Seminar)

  5 December: Newcastle (Private Finance Initiative Roadshow) and Longbenton (DSS office)

  6 December: Blackpool (Self Assessment Agents/Employer Programme workshop)

  Economic Secretary,

  9 January: Edinburgh (Small Firms)

  7 February: Birmingham (Small Firms)

  20 February: Nottingham (Small Firms Conference)

  15 April: Canada (British Invisibles Speech: City Issues)

  29 April: Leeds (Small Firms)

  1 May: Brighton (Small Firms)

  3 May: Durham (Visit to National Savings)

  14 May: Basingstoke and Fleet (Small Firms)

  20 May: OECD (Paris)

  3 June: Norwich (Small Firms)

  13 June: Dublin (Small Firms)

  17 June: Crewe (Small Firms)

  19 June: Plymouth (Small Firms)

  10 July: Newport (Visit to ONS)

  24 July: Edinburgh (Scottish Life Assurance Conference)

  16 September: Canada

  5 October: China

  9 December: Edinburgh (Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce)

  Exchequer Secretary
  24 October: Publicity Event at Heathrow Airport

  Paymaster General

  21 March: Brussels (Speech at CIPFA Conference)

  24 May: Greenock, Scotland (Opening Customs exhibition)

  1 July: Crawley (Paymaster Agency Presentation)

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union. [9858]
  635
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Dublin on 12 December.

  The Council agreed, subject to a parliamentary scrutiny reserve by the UK, its report on progress towards economic and monetary union, for presentation to the European Council meeting commencing the following day. The report considers the new exchange rale mechanism, the stability and growth pact and the legal framework for the introduction of the euro.

  The Council also discussed new guarantee arrangements for the European Investment bank's lending and new regional lending mandates. Agreement was not reached, so the issue will be discussed again at a future ECOFIN meeting.

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority groups were established in the review of pension mis-selling; what were the definitions of the membership of each group; what initial deadlines were established for the completion of the review of each group; how many and what percentage of each group had their review completed by the relevant initial deadline; how many and what percentage of each group have now had their review completed; and by what date he expects the process to be complete. [9349]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In the Securities and Investments Board's guidance of October 1994 to self-regulating organisations and recognised professional bodies, five priority groups of personal pension holders were identified for automatic review. Any personal pension holder who wants his or her case reviewed can have it reviewed.

  The priority groups, the characteristics of people in each group, and the targets which were set in 1994 for completion of reviews are set out in the table.

  Priority groups

  Target date by which most cases ought to be reviewed

  Pension transfers, priority group 1

  31 December 1995

  men aged 55 or over at the time of the transfer women aged 50 or over at the time of transfer people who have retired spouses and dependants of people who have died

  Pension transfers, priority group 2

  31 December 1996

  men aged between 50 and 54 at the time of transfer women aged between 45 and 49 at the time of transfer

  Pension opt-outs, priority group 1

  31 December 1996

  people who are retired/spouses or dependants of people who have died people who left an employer's scheme, were aged 35 or over at the time they took out a personal pension, and who are still with the same employer

  Pension opt-outs, priority group 2

  30 June 1996

  people who did not join an employer's pension scheme, were aged 35 or over at the time they took out a personal pension, are paying their own money into a personal pension, and who are still with the same employer

  636

  Priority groups

  Target date by which most cases ought to be reviewed

  people who left an employer's pension scheme, were aged under 35 at the time they took out a personal pension, are paying their own money into a personal pension and who are still with the same employer

  Pension opt-outs, priority group 3

  31 December 1996

  people who left an employer's pension scheme, were aged 35 or over at the time they took out a personal pension and who are no longer with the same employer

  Data on the numbers of cases in each priority group that have been completed, and when, are not held centrally.

  To speed up progress with the reviews, the SIB issued new guidance on 13 November 1996. By using the new streamlined approach in the guidance, it should be possible for investment firms to conclude case reviews more quickly and thus put matters right for investors more quickly too. At this stage, it is not clear how fast cases can now be progressed. The SIB now looks to the front-line regulators to assess what can be achieved by their members using the new guidance, and then to set and monitor challenging but appropriate targets for completing the review process.

  Where suitable, personal pensions remain an excellent way for many people to secure income for their old age.

  Land Transactions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change there have been in the guidance given by HM Treasury to Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies on the disposal of land and buildings and other land transactions since "DAO (GEN) 13/92", dated 23 July 1992; and if he will make a statement. [10296]

  Mr. Jack
  "DAO (GEN) 13/92" has been replaced by new guidance issued as "DAO (GEN) 11/96", dated 9 July 1996. The main changes and additions are the adoption of a less prescriptive approach, fuller guidance on the position of former owners and the Crichel Down rules, guidance on the definition of market value and the removal of the requirement for prior Treasury approval for certain types of disposal. Most of the new guidance is advisory rather than mandatory; market value is defined as the best price which can reasonably by obtained; and it is recognised that there may occasionally be cases where it will be reasonable to consider wider issues and accept a lower amount than the market value. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Arms Supplies (Rwanda)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of the letters of 30 November 1995, 18 December 1995 and 26 August 1996 from the chairman of the United Nations special commission on arms supplies to Rwanda to the
  637
  international liaison sector of United Kingdom Customs and Excise; and if he will include the replies to the letters. [7524]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It is not the normal practice of the commissioners of Customs and Excise to disclose publicly information provided to them in connection with their enforcement and investigation responsibilities. The letters from the United Nations special commission contain details provided in confidence to the United Kingdom's customs. Customs has, however, obtained the permission of the commission to make public this material. I am arranging for copies of these letters to be placed in the House Library.

  When customs received copies of the letters dated 30 November 1995 and 18 December 1995, in November 1996, it found them to be requests relating to customs investigations which had already been the subject of discussions between customs investigators and commission officials on 10 January 1996. The letter of 26 August 1996 recalled the two earlier ones. Customs investigators have been in contact with commission officials and no further response to the commission letters is needed. The commission has expressed complete satisfaction with the co-operation received from the UK Government.

  It would be inappropriate to discuss the material provided by customs in confidence to the UN commission. It is not customs' general practice to make public information about the existence or nature of any investigation of individuals or companies not yet accused of criminal offences, since to do so could risk prejudicing any on-going inquiries or future criminal prosecutions.

  Tax and National Insurance Contributions
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals are(a) paying tax but not national insurance contributions, (b) paying more tax than national insurance contributions and (c) paying less tax than national insurance contributions, breaking the figures down by employment category and wage bands. [8264]

  Mr. Jack
  The latest estimates for 1996–97 are given in the table. National insurance contributions include both employee and the corresponding employer contributions. The three employment categories shown in the table are based on the classification used in Inland Revenue administrative systems. Inland Revenue administrative practice is to manage a taxpayer's affairs according to the "main source" of his/her income. For nearly all taxpayers this is either employment (schedule E) or self-employment (schedule D) income. In a small number of cases, the "main source" may not reflect his/her principal source of income.

  Individuals paying income tax but not paying national insurance contributions (thousands)

  Total Income1 £ per year

  Main source2, 3 Schedule E employment income

  Main Source2 Schedule D self employment income

  Other sources4

  Total

  Under 5,000

  160

  30

  220

  410

  5,000–10,000

  320

  100

  1,890

  2,310

  10,000–15,000

  160

  50

  880

  1,090

  15,000–20,000

  70

  20

  390

  480

  638

  Individuals paying income tax but not paying national insurance contributions (thousands)

  Total Income1 £ per year

  Main source2,3 Schedule E employment income

  Main Source2 Schedule D self employment income

  Other sources4

  Total

  20,000–25,000

  30

  10

  180

  220

  25,000–30,000

  20

  10

  170

  100

  30,000–40,000

  20

  10

  70

  100

  Over 40,000

  30

  20

  60

  110

  Total

  810

  250

  3,760

  4,820

  1 Total income for tax purposes.

  2 The description 'main source income' follows Inland Revenue administrative practice and reflects the classification used in Inland Revenue Statistics.

  3 These figures include employees over the pension age (65 for men, 60 for women) who do not pay national insurance contributions. However, contributions are paid by their employers, where their earnings exceed the Class 1 lower earnings limit.

  4 Includes pensions and investment income.

  Individuals paying more income tax than national insurance contributions (thousands)

  Total income £ per year

  Main source1 Schedule E employment income

  Main source1 Schedule D self employment income

  Other sources2

  Total

  Under 5,000

  10

  —

  —

  10

  5,000–10,000

  730

  560

  30

  1,320

  10,000–15,000

  1,150

  650

  50

  1,850

  15,000–20,000

  1,820

  350

  50

  2,220

  20,000–25,000

  1,820

  190

  20

  2,030

  25,000–30,000

  1,110

  120

  20

  1,250

  30,000–40,000

  900

  130

  20

  1,050

  Over 40,000

  700

  220

  10

  930

  Total

  8,240

  2,220

  200

  10,660

  1 The description 'main source income' follows Inland Revenue administrative practice and reflects the classification used in Inland Revenue Statistics.

  2 Includes pensions and investment income.

  Individuals paying less income tax than national insurance contributions (thousands)

  Total income £ per year

  Main source1 Schedule E employment income

  Main source1 Schedule D self employment income

  Other sources2

  Total

  Under 5,000

  830

  110

  —

  940

  5,000–10,000

  3,810

  230

  10

  4,050

  10,000–15,000

  3,140

  —

  10

  3,150

  15,000–20,000

  1,440

  —

  —

  1,440

  20,000–25,000

  430

  —

  —

  430

  25,000–30,000

  70

  —

  —

  70

  30,000–40,000

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Over 40,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9,730

  340

  20

  10,090

  1 The description "main source income" follows Inland Revenue administrative practice and reflects the classification used in Inland Revenue Statistics.

  2 Includes pensions and investment income.

  Petrol Duty
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what point in the supply process the tax point arises for duty levied on petrol refined in the United Kingdom, in the case of supply to(a) independent retailers and (b) supermarket petrol outlets; if he will make a statement on the reasons for any difference of treatment in the two cases; and what plans he has to review policy in this matter. [8519]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The duty point at which the duty charge arises in respect of UK-refined petrol is the same regardless of whether it is supplied to independent retailers or supermarket forecourts. In both cases, the duty is charged at the time the product is supplied from the refinery for delivery to the UK domestic market.

  Housebuilding
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he undertook with the housebuilding industry prior to the publication of the booklet "Are Your Workers Employed or Self-employed?"; what representations he has received from housebuilders since the publication; and if he will make a statement. [8320]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 December 1996]: A wide range of bodies representing the construction industry, including housebuilders, were involved in consultations on employment status with officials from the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security. Since the publication of leaflet IR 148/CA69, "Are Your Workers Employed or Self-employed?" in October 1995 a number of representations have been received from the construction industry. Industry representatives have asked for more information about when contractors should complete their reviews of the employment status of their workers and make necessary changes. They have requested more time to implement those changes and help in explaining to their workers what a change in employment status means. The industry also sought an assurance that, by a given date, all construction firms must have made any necessary changes in the employment status of their workers and the deducting pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions so that there is a level playing field when firms compete for contracts. A new leaflet and a poster to help construction workers will be available in the new year. Details of the help provided for the industry on employment status are set out in a joint Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency press release issued on 19 November 1996, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to treat construction operatives in the housebuilding sector as self-employed for taxation purposes until such time as he has consulted(a) the Housebuilders Federation, (b) the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance and (c) other bodies representing the interests of housebuilders and their workers. [8323]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 December 1996]: No. The law on employment status applies in the housebuilding sector in the same way as it does in any other industries. A wide range of representative bodies
  640
  from the construction industry, including groups representing the housebuilding sector, have already been consulted on these issues. We shall continue to work closely with these representatives.

  Gold Reserves
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 544, what proportion of British gold reserves are held outside the United Kingdom; and what proportion of the externally located gold reserves are held in western Europe. [3830]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 544. Because the number of appropriate locations is limited, for security reasons we do not disclose the amounts held at different sites. However, less than half the UK's gold reserves are physically located outside the United Kingdom. Of this, less than 1 per cent. of the total is located in western Europe.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government will assess the advantages of the redistribution of funds to the worst affected regions and countries along the lines proposed by the McDougal report to offset the effects of monetary union. [4753]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government do not accept the case for any increase in fiscal transfers as a result of economic and monetary union. There are no implications for the EC budget, except that the euro will replace the ecu as the unit of account.

  Incontinence Products
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to make adjustments to the NHS budget to compensate for extra expenses incurred as a result of the recent change in the regulations governing VAT on incontinence products; [9160]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the revenue which will be raised from the recent changes in the regulations governing VAT on incontinence products. [9161]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: There have been no changes to the regulations governing VAT on incontinence products. VAT has always been chargeable on incontinence products supplied to the NHS. The policy was confirmed in October 1995 following evidence of contrived tax avoidance schemes; but customs set guidelines to enable recovery of tax in cases where NHS trusts truly acted as agents for suppliers or patients. It later became clear that these arrangements did not reflect the normal position in the NHS, and they were withdrawn in August 1996. Few NHS trusts are thought to have used the guidelines, but details are not held centrally and so no reliable revenue estimates can be made. However, the NHS is in any case funded on the basis that its purchases of incontinence products are taxable.

  Incontinence products supplied directly to disabled people are zero-rated.

  Earned Income
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the average earned income in the most recent year for which figures are available for(a) the fifth percentile and (b) the 95th percentile of taxpayers. [9570]

  Mr. Jack
  Based on the estimation of earned income for taxpayers in 1997–98, the fifth percentile is about £4,200 and the 95th percentile is about £36,000.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to take further action against those involved in the illegal importation of cigarettes and tobacco; and if he will make a statement. [9655]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 December 19961: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced as part of his Budget package, Customs and Excise is to deploy 70 additional front-line staff to combat single market smuggling of alcohol and tobacco. There will be increases in intelligence and investigation staff to deal with excise fraud and evasion.

  Registrations and deregistrations by calendar year

  Collection

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Registrations

  Northern Ireland

  4,226

  3,607

  3,674

  4,034

  3,652

  3,735

  Central England

  22,257

  18,239

  18,983

  17,735

  16,161

  16,216

  Anglia

  17,436

  15,347

  14,087

  14,350

  13,083

  10,744

  South-east England

  16,122

  13,562

  12,403

  12,689

  11,522

  7,019

  South England

  18,813

  15,544

  13,934

  14,295

  13,056

  13,348

  Thames Valley

  25,524

  21,723

  20,478

  20,956

  19,999

  19,362

  London Central

  15,840

  13,907

  14,194

  13,705

  12,468

  15,529

  London South and Thames

  9,303

  8,018

  7,519

  11,176

  10,171

  12,307

  East England

  22,923

  19,599

  17,559

  18,280

  16,665

  16,380

  North-west England

  20,574

  18,645

  17,326

  16,412

  15,174

  15,174

  North England

  19,180

  16,362

  15,374

  15,331

  14,081

  13,522

  Scotland

  15,350

  13,395

  12,792

  12,966

  11,985

  12,204

  Wales West and Borders

  25,381

  21,578

  20,066

  20,030

  18,621

  15,931

  Deregistrations

  Northern Ireland

  3,113

  3,783

  3,595

  3,176

  3,495

  3,099

  Central England

  16,799

  22,540

  22,082

  20,822

  17,979

  17,506

  Anglia

  13,851

  21,972

  19,977

  17,511

  16.303

  11,034

  South-east England

  11,648

  19,650

  18,342

  15,906

  14,317

  7,885

  South England

  14,782

  21,828

  20,813

  19,457

  16,422

  14,810

  Thames Valley

  17,943

  24,925

  25,509

  23,518

  21,162

  19,048

  London Central

  12,666

  15,779

  17,109

  14,818

  11,905

  12,991

  London South and Thames

  7,531

  9,247

  8,989

  10,546

  9,604

  12,187

  East England

  18,483

  24,212

  22,424

  21,145

  18,729

  17,727

  North-west England

  16,015

  21,486

  21420

  20,752

  18,600

  17,065

  North England

  16,154

  20,649

  18,904

  17,427

  16,955

  17,261

  Scotland

  12,619

  15,399

  13,790

  14,206

  12,877

  12,666

  Wales West and Borders

  20,773

  27,797

  25,691

  25,236

  23,346

  17,616

  Diesel Duty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the levels of duty and VAT on diesel in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Belgium. [9130]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Country

  Excise duty on diesel Pence per litre

  Duty plus VAT1 Pence per litre

  VAT rate on diesel Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  36.86

  43.31

  17.5

  France

  29.0

  34.97

  20.6

  Germany

  27.0

  31.05

  15

  Belgium

  24.8

  30.01

  21

  1 Because the amount of VAT depends on the retail price, the figure shown here is duty plus consequential VAT on the duty element of the price.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT (i) registrations and (ii) deregistrations there have been in each Customs and Excise area in each year since 1990–91. [9741]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Customs holds registration and deregistration information by local office and groups these offices to form collections. The information, by collection, is in the schedule.

  However, changes in collection boundaries over the years make year-on-year comparisons between them inappropriate in some cases.
  643

  Registrations and deregistrations by financial year

  Collection

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Registrations

  Northern Ireland

  4,195

  3,600

  3,759

  4,000

  3,666

  3,744

  Central England

  20,639

  17,968

  17,593

  16,685

  16,469

  16,362

  Anglia

  16,166

  12,695

  14,104

  14,230

  13,470

  10,481

  South-east England

  14,067

  10,682

  12,439

  12,405

  11,339

  6,946

  South England

  17,621

  14,956

  13,853

  13,984

  12,979

  13,485

  Thames Valley

  24,028

  21,201

  20,108

  20,899

  20,325

  19,476

  London Central

  15,197

  12,564

  13,946

  13,472

  12,456

  15,930

  London South and Thames

  8,349

  8,043

  8,328

  10,857

  9,588

  12,118

  East England

  21,492

  18,677

  17,919

  17,402

  17,028

  16,165

  North-west England

  20,752

  18,091

  17,003

  15,876

  15,064

  14,611

  North England

  18,350

  15,777

  15,382

  14,817

  13,795

  13,604

  Scotland

  15,020

  12,799

  12,891

  12,682

  12,103

  12,243

  Wales West and Borders

  23,605

  23,531

  19,993

  19,621

  17,771

  16,010

  Deregistrations

  Northern Ireland

  3,128

  3,934

  3,303

  3,417

  3,280

  3,160

  Central England

  17,007

  23,887

  21,698

  20,607

  17,593

  16,622

  Anglia

  14,443

  20,244

  19,332

  17,924

  15,283

  10,703

  South-east England

  11,544

  17,115

  17,600

  16,121

  13,193

  7,705

  South England

  15,185

  22,852

  20,675

  18,065

  16,687

  15,149

  Thames Valley

  18,641

  26,612

  24,822

  23,514

  20,130

  18,630

  London Central

  12,848

  15,905

  16,197

  14,222

  11,558

  12,767

  London South and Thames

  7,680

  9,610

  6,999

  11,151

  8,696

  11,701

  East England

  18,839

  25,010

  21,822

  21,197

  18,851

  17,651

  North-west England

  15,971

  23,017

  20,868

  21,104

  17,304

  16,750

  North England

  16,470

  21,289

  18,708

  17,030

  16,665

  16,759

  Scotland

  12,852

  15,777

  13,368

  14,458

  12,316

  12,664

  Wales West and Borders

  21,516

  29,357

  25,971

  25,396

  21,996

  17,163

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Southall Horse Market
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has in respect of the Southall horse market following the recent visit by his officials; and if he will make a statement. [8690]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry has no proposals for Southall horse market. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 25 November,Official Report, column 102.

  Livestock (Medicinal Products)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what legislation governs the use of medicinal products in farm animals, including products described as for growth promotion or performance enhancement; and if he will make a statement; [9302]

  (2) if he will list the current legislation relating to the use of antibiotics and other antimicrobial substances in the feed of adult and breeding cattle, indicating the date such legislation came into force; and if he will make a statement. [9192]

  Mrs. Browning
  The legislation governing the use of medicinal products used for growth promotion or performance enhancement in farm animals and relating to the use of antibiotics and other antimicrobial substances in the feed of adult and breeding cattle is Council directive 70/524/EEC, which came into force on 23 November 1970.
  644
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the annual consumption of(a) pharmacy and merchants' list antibiotics and (b) other antimicrobial substances for each class of livestock since 1966; and if he will make a statement; [9191]

  (2) what was the annual consumption of prescription only medicine antibiotics and other antimicrobial substances for each class of livestock since 1966; and if he will make a statement; [9198]

  (3) what statistics he collates on the annual consumption of prescription-only medicine antibiotics and other antimicrobial substances for each class of livestock; and if he will make a statement; [9197]

  (4) what statistics his Department collates on the annual consumption of (a) pharmacy and merchants' list antibiotics and (b) other antimicrobial substances for each class of livestock; and if he will make a statement. [9199]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government do not hold information on the annual consumption of antibiotics of antimicrobial substances for use with livestock.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) antibiotics and (b) other antimicrobial substances currently licensed for use in the (i) feed and (ii) water of (x) dairy cows and (y) other lactating ruminants, indicating the date of licence; and if he will make a statement. [9193]
  645
  Mrs. Browning
  Information on antibiotics and other antimicrobial substances currently licensed for use in the feed and water of dairy cows and other lactating ruminants is listed.

  Active ingredient

  Date first licence issued

  Procaine Penicillin

  22 December 1971

  Amoxycillin

  6 February 1984

  Ampicillin

  11 June 1974

  Cefquinome

  8 November 1993

  Ceftiofur

  30 December 1991

  Cephalexin

  16 July 1991

  Cefoperazone

  5 June 1985

  Cefuroxime

  7 April 1987

  Cephacetrile Sodium

  20 October 1985

  Cloxacillin

  11 June 1974

  Cephalonium

  1 January 1992

  Chlortetracycline

  29 March 1985

  Oxytetracycline

  22 December 1971

  Apramycin

  2 September 1992

  Framycetin Sulphate

  24 September 1974

  Neomycin Sulphate

  8 November 1973

  Spectinomycin

  15 October 1992

  Streptomycin Sulphate

  6 August 1973

  Erythromycin

  29 March 1985

  Tilmicosin

  14 September 1988

  Tylosin

  31 August 1972

  Florfenicol

  13 December 1994

  Sulphadimidine

  6 June 1973

  Sulphamethoxypyridazine

  6 January 1989

  Enrofloxacin

  6 February 1991

  Danofloxacin mesylate

  22 January 1993

  Marbofloxacin

  10 February 1995

  Benzathine Penicillin/Procaine Penicillin

  4 April 1985

  Amoxycillin/Clavulanic Acid

  11 December 1986 (potassium cluvulante)

  Dihydrostreptomycin/Streptomycin

  1 September 1982

  Baquiloprim/Sulphadimidine

  20 November 1991

  Trimethoprim/Sulphadiazine

  30 September 1982

  Trimethoprim/Sulfadoxine

  23 April 1990

  Trimethoprim/Sulfatroxazole

  3 July 1989

  Trimethoprim/Sulphachlorpyridazine

  13 November 1988

  Neomycin/Streptomycin

  20 October 1983

  Procaine Penicillin/Dihydrostreptomycin

  29 March 1985

  Procaine Penicillin/Neomycin

  29 March 1985

  Ampicillin/Cloxacillin

  14 August 1980

  Chloretracycline HC1/Dihydrostreptomycin

  29 March 1985

  Chlortetracycline/Dihydrostreptomycin/Neomycin Sulphate

  29 March 1985

  Dihydrostreptomycin/Procaine Penicillin

  29 March 1985

  Framycetin/Dihydrostreptomycin

  29 March 1985

  Framycetin/Procaine Penicillin

  29 March 1985

  Novobiocin/Procaine Penicillin

  23 March 1979

  Benzyl Penicillin/Neomycin/Procaine Penicillin

  27 June 1991

  Benzyl Penicillin/Dihydrostreptomycin/Nafcillin

  26 August 1976

  Neomycin/Procaine Penicillin Streptomycin

  29 March 1985

  Dihydrostreptomycin/Neomycin/Novobiocin/Procaine Penicillin

  29 March 1985

  Dihydrostreptomycin/Nafcillin/Procaine Penicillin

  26 August 1976

  Neomycin/Procaine Penicillin

  29 March 1985

  Avoparcin

  9 October 1972

  Bacitracin Zinc

  1 September 1972

  Bambermycin

  29 April 1987

  Spiramycin

  1 September 1972

  Virginiamycin

  1 February 1983

  Monensin Sodium

  16 November 1973

  Active ingredient

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Other species

  Legal category

  Procaine Penicillin

  X

  X

  POM

  Amoxycillin

  X

  X

  POM

  Ampicillin

  X

  X

  POM

  Cefquinome

  X

  POM

  Ceftiofur

  X

  POM

  Cephalexin

  X

  X

  POM

  Cefoperazone

  X

  POM

  Cefuroxime

  X

  POM

  Cephacetrile Sodium

  X

  POM

  646

  Active ingredient

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Other species

  Legal category

  Cloxacillin

  X

  X

  POM

  Cephalonium

  X

  POM

  Chlortetracycline

  X

  POM

  Oxytetracycline

  X

  X

  Deer

  POM

  Apramycin

  X

  X

  POM

  Framycetin Sulphate

  X

  POM

  Neomycin Sulphate

  X

  X

  POM

  Spectinomycin

  X

  X

  POM

  Streptomycin Sulphate

  X

  X

  Goats

  POM

  Erythormycin

  X

  POM

  Tilmicosin

  X

  POM

  Tylosin

  X

  POM

  PML

  Florfenicol

  X

  POM

  Sulphadimidine

  X

  POM

  Sulphamethoxypyridazine

  X

  X

  POM

  Enrofloxacin

  X

  POM

  Danofloxacin mesylate

  X

  POM

  Marbofloxacin

  X

  POM

  Benzathine Penicillin/Procaine Penicillin

  X

  X

  POM

  Amoxycillin/Clavulanic Acid

  X

  POM

  Dihydrostreptomycin/Streptomycin

  X

  X

  POM

  Baquiloprim/Sulphadimidine

  X

  POM

  Trimethoprim/Sulphadiazine

  X

  X

  POM

  Trimethoprim Sulfadoxine

  X

  POM

  Trimethoprim/Sulfatroxazole

  X

  X

  POM

  Trimethoprim/Sulphachlorpyridazine

  X

  POM

  Neomycin/Streptomycin

  X

  POM

  Procaine

  X

  X

  POM

  Penicillin/Dihydrostreptomycin

  Procaine Penicillin/Neomycin

  X

  X

  POM

  Ampicillin/Cloxacillin

  X

  POM

  Chloretracycline

  X

  POM

  HC1/Dihydrostreptomycin

  Chlortetracycline/Dihydrostreptomycin/Neomycin Sulphate

  X

  POM

  Dihydrostreptomycin/Procaine Penicillin

  X

  POM

  Framycetin/Dihydrostreptomycin

  X

  POM

  Framycetin/Procaine Penicillin

  X

  POM

  Novobiocin/Procaine Penicillin

  X

  POM

  Benzyl Penicillin/Neomycin/Procaine

  X

  POM

  Penicillin

  Benzyl

  X

  POM

  Penicillin/Dihydrostreptomycin/Nafcillin Neomycin/Procaine Penicillin/Streptomycin

  X

  POM

  Dihydrostreptomycin/Neomycin/Novobiocin/Procain Penicillin

  X

  POM

  Dihydrostreptomycin/NafciHin/Procain Penicillin

  X

  POM

  Neomycin/Procaine Penicillin

  X

  X

  POM

  Avoparcin

  X

  X

  PML

  Bacitracin Zinc

  X

  X

  PML

  Bambermycin

  X

  PML

  Spiramycin

  X

  X

  Goats

  PML 2/POM/4

  Virginiamycin

  X

  PML

  Monensin Sodium

  X

  PML

  Correspondence
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the reasons for the time taken to reply to the letter of 24 June sent to him by the chairman of the consumers in Europe group concerning BSE; and when he expects to be able to send a reply. [9663]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I replied to the letter of 24 June from the chairman of the consumers in Europe group on 17 December 1996. As I explained in my reply, the letter was regrettably and inadvertently mislaid among the very substantial press of other correspondence on this issue.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9463]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department and its agencies will assess the impact which a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems, whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union. Where possible, such assessment will be made when preparing information technology systems for the change of millennium.

  Baby Milk (Labelling)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the labelling of baby milks with particular reference to the health risks of bottle feeding. [9736]

  Mrs. Browning
  The labelling of baby milks is controlled by the general requirements of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 and more specifically by controls in the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995. The latter require that infant formula is labelled with a statement concerning the superiority of breast feeding, a statement recommending that the product should be used only on the advice of a health care professional, instructions for appropriate preparation and a statement warning against the hazards of inappropriate preparation.

  The Government have at present no plans to change these requirements.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to increase the acreage devoted to organic farming. [9705]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have introduced organic aid schemes throughout the United Kingdom to provide financial help to those converting to organic production. These will be kept under review. Last June, I was pleased to launch the organic conversion information service in England. The service offers a telephone "Helpline" and free advisory visits to farmers and has generated considerable interest; we hope that this will encourage more farmers to convert to organic production. Similar services are available in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Food Safety and Hygiene Prosecutions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful prosecutions have been brought since 1990 for infringements of the food safety and food hygiene regulations. [9709]
  648
  Mr. Boswell
  According to the statistical returns made to the Department by local authorities, the number of establishments convicted each year is as follows:

  1991: 1,267

  1992: 1,760

  1993: 1,278

  1994: 913

  1995: 572.

  No data are available for 1990.

  Sheep Scab
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of public consultation on control of sheep scab. [10457]

  Mrs. Browning
  I am pleased to say there was a positive reaction to the Government's proposals for new legislation to help farmers control the spread of sheep scab, which were issued for consultation in December 1995.

  Following comments, our original proposal making it a criminal offence to sell affected animals will be replaced with one to cover the movement of affected animals, except to slaughter. In addition, we propose to make the provisions to deal with sheep scab on commons more flexible. We will proceed with our plans to make failure to treat affected sheep a criminal offence.

  We will now circulate our updated proposals, and invite further comments on the draft regulations which we are currently preparing. We expect the new legislation to come into effect in late spring or early summer 1997.

  EU Agriculture Council
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 16 and 17 December. [10458]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 17 December, accompanied by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office. My permanent secretary represented the United Kingdom on 16 December.

  I reported to the Agriculture Council the decision of the Government, which I had announced to this House on 16 December, to proceed with the selective cull of cattle at most risk of BSE. I also informed the Council of our progress in implementing the other conditions laid down in the Florence agreement and our intention to submit proposals for a certified herds scheme to the Commission early in the new year.

  The Council reached agreement by qualified majority on a Commission proposal, brought forward at UK instigation, to amend the directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves. In the modified terms agreed by the Council, the amended directive will bring in significantly improved conditions for the housing of calves. Calves up to eight weeks old will have to be given enough space to turn round, and calves over eight weeks old will have to be housed in groups, with more space allowed as they grow in size. In addition, the Commission undertook to set rules requiring the inclusion

  649
  of a minimum of iron in calves' diet, and fibre for all calves over two weeks old. As to timing, the Council agreed that all new calf housing must conform with the revised rules with effect from January 1998, and that existing installations must meet the new rules by 31 December 2006. On the latter, I argued for a shorter transition period but received no support. This agreement will lead to significant improvements in the way veal calves are treated throughout the European Union. The proposals on which Italy voted against, and Spain abstained, will be formally adopted early in the new year.

  The Council reached agreement on a number of other veterinary and plant health measures, including the conclusion by qualified majority—Finland voting against—of a veterinary agreement on trade between the European Union and New Zealand in live animals and animal products. The Council considered, but failed to agree on, a proposal banning the use of specified risk materials in the manufacture of animal feed and food stuffs. The Commission undertook to consider making further proposals in this area in the light of advice from the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee.

  The United Kingdom welcomed the Commission's announcement of early proposals on the welfare of animals in transport, specifically in respect of staging points for animal journeys. The United Kingdom opposed proposals to modify the arable area payments scheme in ways which would have weakened the penalties falling on arable producers for excess production. In the beef sector, the Council held a wide-ranging discussion of the operation of the beef early marketing scheme and the calf processing scheme. The United Kingdom pressed the Commission to review the rates of aid payable under the latter so as to prevent undesirable distortion of the market.

  Rendering Industry
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will decide on the final arrangements for financial support for the rendering industry in 1996–97. [10459]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I announced in April that the Government would be providing temporary financial support to the rendering industry of up to £118 million this financial year. Since then, we have made payments of about £59 million on account pending final decisions on the form of this support. We have met our objective of ensuring through this support that the essential links in the meat supply chain are maintained.

  I am now pleased to announce that the Government have finalised support arrangements for 1996–97. These take the form of a non-statutory scheme and follow detailed consultation with representatives of the rendering industry. I am placing in the Library of the House copies of the scheme and the agreement which companies receiving support will have to sign.

  As with the payments on account support will be based on renderers' loss of income by comparison with 1995–96. However, support will be adjusted to take broad account of renderers' actual levels of throughput and costs this year. We have ensured in particular that the rendering industry does not receive support under this scheme in respect of material being processed under the over-30-month scheme. In devising the detailed
  650
  arrangements we have sought to strike a fair balance between the interests of renderers' and the taxpayer and between different renderers.

  Any differences between payments on account and entitlement under the scheme will be made up through adjustments to payments under the scheme. Depending on the level of sales income and throughput in the remainder of the year the final scheme is expected to cost the taxpayer in the region of £100 million to £110 million.

  As a condition of receiving support rendering companies will continue to be required to maintain their prices and charges to their suppliers at the levels applying before 20 March 1996.

  In order to assist them in devising support arrangements for the rendering industry, the Government engaged the services of Coopers and Lybrand. Its report to the Government on the rendering industry is being published and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  We have announced that up to a further £59 million support to the disposal chain will be available in 1997–98, as slaughterers and renderers adjust to the changed value of animal by-products. We are now opening discussions with the industries about what form this support should take.

  Intervention Board
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the corporate plan 1996–97 to 2000–01 for the Intervention Board executive agency. [10455]

  Mr. Baldry
  I am pleased to advise that the corporate plan 1996 to 2000–01 has been published and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Common Fisheries Policy Review Group
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government will respond to the report of the common fisheries policy review group. [10456]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have carried out consultations on the report issued by the common fisheries policy review group in July. The results of the consultation have been taken into account in preparing the Government response, which is being placed in the Library today.

  I am very grateful to the members of the group for all the work they put into preparing a thorough and wide-ranging document.

  The group's overall conclusion was that the common fisheries policy has failings but that UK withdrawal would not address the fundamental problems facing the fishing industry. Where changes are needed, the CFP should therefore be improved from within. The Government agree with this approach as representing the only practicable way forward.

  Forty specific recommendations are included in the group's report. The Government's response covers each of these in turn.

  ADAS
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that the benefits of his Department's future research and development carried out by ADAS continue to be made available to the industry as a whole following privatisation. [10464]

  Mr. Boswell
  We are well aware of the need to ensure that Department-funded research results continue to be properly exploited to the benefit of the industry as a whole. Where existing intellectual property rights are sold with ADAS business, we will attach appropriate conditions which may include a requirement on the purchaser to grant non-exclusive licences to third parties to exploit the intellectual property. Future contracts with the privatised company will specify the arrangements for ownership of the intellectual property rights and the conditions attached to such ownership.

  Mammalian Meat and Bonemeal (Transport)
  Mr. Martin Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received concerning potential cross-contamination from the transport of mammalian meat and bonemeal in vehicles that are also used to transport grain; and if he will make a statement. [7946]

  Mrs. Browning
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 December 1996, c. 106]: I have been further advised by my officials that we are aware of two letters on this issue which have been received.

  "New Labour's Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what costs quoted in the document "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department and to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6353]

  Mr. Hogg
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared the factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 4, 5 and 6. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the right hon. Gentleman on 17 December 1996. It is not normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Frozen Meat
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the health risks from meat sold as fresh which has previously been frozen; [7361]
  652
  (2) how he ensures that the public are informed of health risks from meat sold as fresh which had previously been frozen. [7364]

  Mrs. Browning
  The law currently requires the name of a food to include reference to its physical condition or treatment—for example, frozen—if omission of such information would mislead the consumer.

  The health risks associated with meat which has been previously frozen are no greater than those from meat which has not been previously frozen. Provided the meat is cooked thoroughly and kept free from cross-contamination after cooking, it will be safe to eat. The long-standing Government advice has been widely disseminated in Government publicity on food safety for many years.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received to restore the requirement that meat sold as fresh which had previously been frozen should be clearly so labelled; [7365]

  (2) what are the legal requirements on meat retailers concerning the specific labelling of meat sold as fresh which had previously been frozen; [7363]

  (3) what guidance he has issued to meat retailers concerning the labelling of meat sold as fresh which had previously been frozen. [7366]

  Mrs. Browning
  Specific labelling requirements for meat and offal previously frozen were removed at the behest of the EC Commission as being at variance with harmonised EC labelling rules. No representations have been received seeking their restoration. None the less, the law currently requires the name of a food to include reference to its physical condition or treatment—for example, previously frozen—if omission of such information would mislead the purchaser. We shall be adding to the guidance notes on the food labelling regulations further advice on the way food processes and treatments should be indicated.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current estimate of the number of animals remaining to be culled in the over-30-month cull scheme; and if he will make a statement. [7913]

  Mr. Baldry
  The backlog of animals waiting to be slaughtered under the over-30-month scheme has now been eliminated in Great Britain and will very shortly be cleared in Northern Ireland. Cattle will therefore be able to be presented for the scheme at their normal point of slaughter, as originally intended.

  Animals (Identification)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what percentage of(a) farm and (b) domestic animals were (i) identified and (ii) newly identified by (1) a microchip and (2) a tattoo in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9654]
  653
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: This information for farm animals is not collected centrally. Questions relating to domestic animals are a matter for the Home Department.

  Beef Exports (South Africa)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much UK beef was exported to

  Beef exports to South Africa 1991–95

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  11995

  (a) Frozen beef

  tonnes

  1,722

  755

  3,123

  10,263

  27,011

  value (£'000s)

  1,617

  787

  3,929

  9,364

  23,744

  (b) + (c) Fresh and chiled beef2

  tonnes

  0

  21

  47

  61

  46

  value (£'000s)

  0

  28

  27

  75

  90

  (d) Beef prepared and preserved

  tonnes

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  value (£000s)

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Total Volume

  tonnes

  1,722

  776

  3,171

  10,324

  27,057

  Total Value

  value (£'000s)

  1,617

  815

  3,960

  9,439

  23,834

  1 Date provisional and subject to amendment.

  2 Exports of fresh and chilled beef are not separately available.

  Beef exports to South Africa 1996

  January1

  February1

  March1

  1996 Total1

  (a) Frozen beef

  tonnes

  879

  2,212

  1,893

  4,985

  value (£000s)

  965

  1,883

  1,513

  4,361

  (b) + (c) Fresh and chilled beef2

  tonnes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  value (£000s)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (d) Beef prepared and preserved

  tonnes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  value (£000s)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total Volume

  tonnes

  879

  2,212

  1,893

  4,985

  Total Value

  value (£000s)

  965

  1,883

  1,513

  4,361

  1 Data provisional and subject to amendment.

  2 Exports of fresh and chilled beef are not separately available.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of the EC export refund given on beef exports to South Africa currently; and what it was in each of the years 1991 to 1995. [9226]

  Mr. Baldry
  There are 92 separate rates of export refund covering the export of beef and beef products from the EC to South Africa. However, when beef was exported from the UK to South Africa it tended to be in two categories: fresh chilled boneless cuts from the hindquarters of adult male bovines—special export refund beef; and other fresh chilled or frozen boneless cuts. These are set out with their current rate of export refund:SER beef: 274 ECU/100 kg
  Other fresh chilled or frozen boneless cuts: 145.5 ECU/100 kg.

  During the years 1991 to 1995 different rates applied at different times. A list of these is in the table, together with the agricultural conversion—green—rates which convert these into sterling.
  654
  South Africa in each of the years 1991 to 1995 and for each month in 1996 until the imposition of the EU export ban; and how much of this in each period was (a) frozen, (b) chilled, (c) fresh and (d) preserved or prepared. [9225]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not possible separately to identify exports of beef of UK origin from those of non-UK origin. However, exports of beef from the UK to South Africa, as recorded in the overseas trade statistics, were as follows:

  ECU/100 kg

  Date

  Special export refund

  Other fresh/chilled and frozen

  16 July 1991

  312.00

  165.00

  31 July 1993

  296.00

  157.00

  27 November 1993

  281.50

  149.00

  29 January 1994

  267.50

  141.50

  4 August 1994

  267.50

  141.50

  26 November 1994

  254.00

  134.50

  1 February 1995

  306.71

  162.41

  17 February 1995

  306.50

  162.50

  21 September 1995

  296.00

  157.00

  14 October 1995

  281.00

  149.00

  11 November 1995

  267.00

  141.50

  18 November 1995

  200.00

  106.00

  13 December 1995

  227.00

  120.50

  11 February 1996

  244.00

  129.50

  1 May 1996

  274.00

  145.50

  655

  Green rate

  Ref wef date

  Value

  14 May 1990

  0.795232

  17 June 1991

  0.795423

  17 September 1992

  0.808227

  22 September 1992

  0.818896

  19 November 1992

  0.880533

  26 November 1992

  0.897525

  1 January 1993

  0.939052

  1 February 1993

  0.951031

  3 February 1993

  0.968391

  1 March 1993

  0.980715

  11 April 1993

  0.978559

  21 April 1993

  0.970726

  27 April 1993

  0.964017

  28 May 1993

  0.959111

  1 July 1993

  0.948645

  21 July 1993

  0.937041

  24 July 1993

  0.930787

  1 August 1993

  0.920969

  1 July 1994

  0.932453

  14 July 1994

  0.946550

  21 August 1994

  0.953575

  11 September 1994

  0.953575

  1 February 1995

  0.789704

  17 February 1995

  0.799794

  21 February 1995

  0.805837

  6 March 1995

  0.807419

  16 March 1995

  0.821220

  26 March 1995

  0.829882

  15 April 1995

  0.833125

  25 April 1995

  0.836385

  15 May 1995

  0.840997

  4 July 1995

  0.843954

  18 November 1995

  0.854276

  21 November 1995

  0.856563

  17 June 1996

  0.833821

  1 November 1996

  0.809915

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the quantity of beef exports to South Africa which has been re-exported to the EU from(a) Botswana, (b) Namibia, (c) Swaziland or (d) Lesotho since 1991. [9227]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not available.

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9482]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of men and women employed on a full-time and part-time basis in the Department on 1 October 1996 was as follows:

  Number

  Full time

  Male

  3,518

  Female

  2,795

  Part time

  Male

  43

  Female

  516

  656

  Number

  Total

  Male

  5,561

  Female

  3,311

  Staff

  6,872

  The table does not include figures for the Department's executive agencies.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9621]

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on the numbers of permanent and casual staff in the Department and its executive agencies in each year since 1992 can be found in the civil service staff in post summary tables, copies of which can be found in the Library of the House.

  Fishing Rights
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what classes of French fishing vessels are prohibited from fishing within the French 12-mile limit. [9573]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  In those areas where French vessels are permitted to fish within 12 miles of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, no distinction is made between classes of vessel.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the area agreement for French fishing vessels to fish inside the British fisheries limit of 12 miles around Guernsey and for British vessels to fish within the French 12-mile limit was not ratified by France. [9572]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  A temporary agreement with France covering these waters was recently terminated by the United Kingdom at the request of the Guernsey authorities, who did not think it operated in a way which was fair to the Bailiwick.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rights French fisherman currently have to fish within the Sark box. [9574]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The position in international law is disputed, and the matter is currently the subject of discussion with France.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Council
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 12 and 13 December. [10339]

  Sir George Young
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 12 and 13 December. My noble Friend the minister for Aviation and Shipping represented the United Kingdom.
  657
  The Council agreed a common position on the Commission's proposals for a directive on road passenger cabotage—replacing directive 2454/92 which was annulled for technical reasons by the European Court of Justice. The UK said that it would vote against the text when formally adopted, because much of the original proposals for further liberalisation had been removed from the text. This was the only item on which the question of a vote arose.

  The Council also agreed a common position on a proposed amendment to Council regulation 684/92, on further liberalisation of international bus and coach services.

  The Council held orientation debates on the Commission's White Paper on the future of the Community's railways, and on proposals for the introduction of new digital tachograph technology to replace the mechanical recording devices currently required for buses and lorries.

  The Council agreed conclusions endorsing the Commission's proposals to take forward negotiations on a land transport agreement with Switzerland. It also discussed proposals for a replacement to directive 93/89—also annulled by the European Court of Justice on technical grounds—on taxation and road user charges for heavy goods vehicles. It was agreed that this issue would be taken forward under the Netherlands presidency of the EU in parallel with discussions on fuel excise duties.

  The Council held an orientation debate on air traffic management in the EU, and agreed conclusions noting the urgent need to adopt the new Eurocontrol convention. The Council agreed a common position on a proposed regulation increasing and harmonising the liability of Community air carriers in case of accident to passengers.

  The Commission reported to the Council on its negotiations on air transport relations with the United States, and gave a presentation on proposals for a mandate to negotiate Community membership of a new European Aviation Safety Authority.

  The Council reached political agreement on a proposed directive on safety standards for fishing vessels and on a proposed amendment to directive 93/75 on reporting requirements for ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods.

  The Council agreed a resolution promoting a maritime strategy for the Community. The UK opposed two elements of the strategy—on employment-related operating subsidies, and on restrictive manning practices—which were therefore excluded from the resolution itself and were covered separately by presidency conclusions supported by the Commission and the other delegations.

  The Council discussed the recent lorry blockades in France and Greece and the question of compensation.

  The Council discussed summer time, and received progress reports from the Commission on a number of other issues, which were not debated.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has undertaken an accident study of the pilot priority red route in north London since its introduction. [10471]

  Mr. Bowis
  The report "A Pilot Red Route Accident Study", commissioned by the Traffic Director for London, has been prepared by the consultants TecnEcon. The report analyses casualty data covering the three years since the pilot scheme was implemented and draws comparisons with the three yeas before the pilot scheme began. It covers the pilot scheme "rat runs" and other roads in the immediate area which were likely to be affected as a result of improvements in traffic flow on the pilot scheme and traffic calming measures. It concludes that the number of people injured in road accidents on or near London's pilot red route has fallen by 15.4 per cent. since the scheme became operational in 1993, and shows impressive reductions in the number of severe casualties—down 32.8 per cent.—and in the number of pedestrians injured—down 29.9 per cent. I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Bus Working Group
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the members of the bus working group, (b) its terms of reference, (c) the number of meetings it has held and (d) the reports it has produced; and if he will place copies of its reports in the Library. [10271]

  Mr. Watts
  Under my chairmanship, the bus working group comprises representatives from the Confederation of Passenger Transport, the Joint Local Authority Associations and the National Federation of Bus Users. In addition to the senior traffic commissioner and officials from the Department of Transport and the Scottish and Welsh Offices, who also attend meetings of the group, the following attended the most recent meetings, held on 19 September:

  Local authority representatives

  Councillor M. Dowd

  Councillor J. Lingard

  Mr. D. Bannerman

  Mr. R. Bristowe

  Mr. J. Carr

  Mr. V. Christie

  Mr. B. Dobbs

  Ms A. Livesey

  Mr. K. Manton

  Mr. P. Morgan.

  Confederation of Passenger Transport

  Mr. T. Smallwood

  Mrs. V. Palmer

  Mr. D. Flower.

  National Federation of Bus Users

  Dr. C. Cahm

  Mr. J. Cartledge.

  The group has no formal terms of reference. Its remit is to examine ways of improving the provision of bus services within the privatised and deregulated framework.
  659
  The group has met five times since it was re-established in its present form last year. In addition, there have been a number of meetings of four sub-groups.

  My predecessor as chairman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), reported on the group's work in a press statement on 8 January. More recently, the group has worked up a guide to good practice in the provision of passenger information, which was published by the Department in September. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library.

  Private Pilots' Licences
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many holders of (i) a United Kingdom private pilot's licence for(a) helicopters PPL (h) and (b) fixed-wing aeroplanes, (ii) an airline transport licence and (iii) a commercial pilot's licence for (A) helicopters and (B) gyroplanes have been prosecuted for exceeding the privileges of their licence since 24 July 1990; [8833]

  (2) how many alleged incidents of holders of (i) a private pilot's licence for (a) helicopters and (b) aeroplanes (ii) an airline transport licence and (iii) a commercial pilot's licence for (A) helicopters and (B) gyroplanes, exceeding the privileges of their licence have been investigated by investigating officers of the air safety enforcement section of the legal branch of the UK CAA since 24 July 1990. [8834]

  Mr. Bowis
  Records of prosecutions of pilots for exceeding the privileges of their licences do not specify what licences and/or ratings were held at the time, although they do distinguish between fixed-wing and helicopter incidents.

  Since 1 January 1991, there have been 22 successful prosecutions of pilots for exceeding the privileges of their licences, 16 involving pilots of fixed-wing aircraft and six involving helicopter pilots. All earlier records have been archived and the information from these could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Records relating to investigations which do not lead to prosecutions are not retained.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many holders of a UK private pilot's licence and a UK private pilot's licence (helicopter) have been convicted for conducting public transport operations. [8835]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since 1 January 1991, there have been 18 successful prosecutions for illegal public transport operations, 12 involving fixed-wing aircraft and six involving helicopters. The records do no show the category of licence held by the pilots.

  A5 (Weeford to Fazeley)
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when and for what reasons the decision was taken to withdraw the scheme to improve the A5 from Weeford to Fazeley from the trunk road programme. [8821]

  Mr. Watts
  The A5 from Weeford to Fazeley was one of a number of longer—term schemes withdrawn from the programme following the Chancellor's Budget statement last November. These schemes had little chance of 660
  coming to fruition within a reasonable time scale and were withdrawn to remove uncertainty and the damaging effects of blight on individuals and neighbourhoods.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have occurred in each of the last five years on the A5 between Weeford and Fazeley. [8820]

  Mr. Watts
  It is our policy to record only those accidents involving personal injury. The number of such accidents for the section of the A5 between Weeford and Fazeley, including the A5/A38 junction, for the last five years is as follows:

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1991

  0

  0

  9

  9

  1992

  1

  3

  12

  16

  1993

  0

  0

  3

  3

  1994

  1

  1

  6

  8

  1995

  1

  1

  7

  9

  1996 (to June)

  0

  1

  4

  5

  Total

  3

  6

  41

  50

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received(a) in support and (b) against the A5 Weeford to Fazeley improvement scheme; and if he will list them. [8824]

  Mr. Watts
  Some 90 per cent. of those members of the public who responded to the 1993 public consultation exercise supported an improvement to the A5 between Weeford and Fazeley.

  Twelve official bodies were also consulted. The results were as follows:

  Full support:

  Staffordshire County Council

  Borough of Tamworth

  Countryside Commission

  Cyclists Touring Club

  RAC Motoring Services

  Road Haulage Association

  Weeford Parish Council

  No objection in principle:

  Linchfield City Council

  National Rivers Authority

  Staffordshire Police

  Agreement in Principle:
  Hints with Canwell Parish Council

  Objection to the Scheme:
  Council for the Protection of Rural England.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To the Secretary of State for Transport what is the traffic capacity of the A5 from Weeford to Fazeley; and what is the current volume. [8819]

  Mr. Watts
  The congestion reference flow, which shows the level at which the road would be in the peak periods on an average day, is approximately 20,000 vehicles per day for the A5 between Weeford and Fazeley.

  The current traffic flow—1996—is some 16,000 vehicles per day, of which 20 per cent. are heavy goods vehicles.
  661
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to deal with the existing traffic problems on the A5 between the A38 junction and Fazeley. [8823]

  Mr. Watts
  Following the 1995 "Managing the Roads Programme" review, Staffordshire county council was commissioned to investigate what interim measures could be undertaken on that section of trunk road. Its report is expected the end of the year. With the scheme now withdrawn from the programme, we shall consider what measures, within current resources limitations, we can undertake to deal with existing traffic problems.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total expenditure in(a) design costs, (b) legal costs, (c) land and property acquisition and (d) other preparatory work for the A5 Weeford to Fazeley improvement scheme. [8822]

  Mr. Watts
  Total expenditure incurred to date amounts to £473,445. This comprises:

  £

  (a) Design costs

  349,562

  (b) Legal costs

  nil

  (c) Land and Property acquisition

  90,000

  (d) Other preparatory work

  33,883

  Civilian Pilots
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what training is provided to pilots of civilian aircraft on what to do in the event of encountering unidentified craft which do not show up on radar. [9563]

  Mr. Bowis
  Matters relating to the training of civil aircrew are the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I have asked the chairman of that authority to write to the hon. Member.

  Ringway Airport
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the incident that occurred at 6.48 pm to flight 5061 on its descent into Ringway airport, Manchester on the night of 6 January 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9581]

  Mr. Bowis
  This incident was assessed by the joint airmiss working group, consisting of representatives from both civil and military aviation. The group found that both the degree of risk and the cause of the incident were unassessable. Full details are contained in joint airmiss working group report No. 1/95—January 1995 to April 1995, which is available from the Library.

  Flight Operations Inspectors
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the minimum professional qualifications for a person to be employed as a flight operations inspector (helicopters) in the flight operations inspectorate of the safety regulation group of the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority; [8829]

  (2) what are the professional qualifications and total helicopter and fixed-wing flying hours, of the most experienced flight operations inspector (helicopters) currently employed on flight operations inspectorate duties in the specialist helicopter section, FOI2, in the flight operations safety regulation group in the UK Civil Aviation Authority; and what were the equivalent data on 30 June 1990; [8830]

  (3) what are the professional qualifications, and total helicopter and fixed-wing flying hours, of the least experienced flight operations inspector (helicopters) currently employed on flight operations inspector (helicopters) duties in FOI2; and what were the equivalent data on 30 June 1990; [8831]

  (4) what are the average total flying hours, helicopter and fixed wing, of the flight operations inspector (helicopters) employed as flight operations inspectors in FOI2 in the safety regulation group of the UK Civil Aviation Authority. [8832]

  Mr. Bowis
  The minimum professional qualifications for a person to be employed as a flight operations inspector (helicopters) in the flight operations inspectorate of the Civil Aviation Authority is five years' experience in command of an appropriate helicopter and relevant experience in the UK industry. Inspectors are expected to retain a current airline transport pilot's licence (helicopters and gyroplanes).

  While individual inspectors keep a record of their flying hours in their personal flying log book, a record is not kept by the CAA. The CAA could require such information from its inspectors under article 68(4) of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995 but there is a statutory prohibition on the disclosure of information obtained in this way.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the timetable for, and funding of, the proposed Birmingham northern relief road. [9771]

  Mr. Watts
  The 16-month public inquiry ended in October last year. Many complex issues were raised and it is necessarily taking time for the inspector to complete his report. Once it is received, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will consider it and issue a decision as soon as possible.

  The Birmingham northern relief road is the subject of a concession agreement with a private sector concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd., which is responsible for designing, building, financing and operating the road.

  Channel Tunnel (Safety)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the quantity of(a) polystyrene products and (b) packaging currently being transported via the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement. [9867]

  Mr. Watts
  No estimates of this kind have been made.

  Road Closures (Commercial Vehicles)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents during the past 12 months involving commercial vehicles which resulted in(a) total and (b) partial closures of (i) tunnels, (ii) bridges and (iii) motorways in England and Wales were notified to his Department; and how many prosecutions resulted. [9311]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about how many incidents during the past 12 months involving commercial vehicles which resulted in (a) total and (b) partial closures of (i) tunnels, (ii) bridges and (iii) motorways in England were notified to this Department; and how many prosecutions resulted.
  The Highways Agency is responsible for the management and operation of the motorway and trunk road network in England. There are occasions when the police will independently use their own powers to close a length of road because of an emergency. Where no damage to the road or roadside equipment is involved, and their impact is not great, these are unlikely to be reported to the Highways Agency. In view of this, I am unable to provide figures to cover all such incidents.
  At the Blackwall Tunnel we have over recent years kept statistics of total closures and partial or short term (approximately 15 minutes) closures and prosecutions. In the last 12 months we have recorded 1 total closure (southbound 10/12/96), 430 partial/short term closures and 260 prosecutions. Most of these closures relate to over-height vehicles attempting to enter the northbound tunnel. On the rest of the trunk road network the Agency is aware of 20 total closures, and 86 partial closures involving commercial vehicles. No prosecutions have been recorded.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of his Department's vulnerability to claims by highway authorities for damages if his allocations of transport supplementary grant were insufficient to enable highway authorities to meet their existing contractual financial commitments in relation to highway schemes approved for transport supplementary grant; [9448]

  (2) if it is his policy that the transport supplementary grant allocations to highway authorities should be sufficient to meet authorities' existing contractual financial commitments in relation to highway schemes approved for transport supplementary grant. [9449]

  Mr. Watts
  When local highway authorities submit their annual transport policies and programme proposals, the Department looks scrupulously at the bids for support for schemes accepted for transport supplementary grant in past rounds. The aim is to determine the extent to which estimated expenditure is eligible for grant, is consistent 664
  with published guidance, and is in line with previous advice to the bidding authority on affordability. The Department makes it clear that TSG is not necessarily intended to cover the entire costs of an accepted scheme. There may be elements of expenditure in a contract that are not eligible for the grant. The Department is therefore under no obligation to provide sufficient resources for an authority to meet its contractual commitments. Subject to those qualifications, the Department none the less aims in making its allocations to avoid the authority having artificially to delay schemes that have already started construction. No case has been recorded in which an authority has pursued a claim against the Department because of alleged failure to provide sufficient resources.

  Leaded Petrol Ban
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding exemptions to the European leaded petrol ban; [9738]

  (2) what discussions he has had with his European partners regarding the exemption for classic car owners from the leaded petrol ban. [9739]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government endorse the need to sustain the continuing decline in leaded petrol sales but believe a total ban to be unnecessary. At the Environment Council on 15 October, my noble Friend the Lord Lindsay urged our European partners to adopt the UK approach of reducing sales through fiscal rather than regulatory means, thus allowing the owners of older or historic or classic vehicles to buy leaded petrol for as long as there is a market demand. Discussions are still at an early stage but there are signs that some of our European partners would share our approach.

  Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9619]

  Mr. Bowis
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information can be assembled and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Road Tax)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road tax charges for heavy goods vehicles in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Belgium. [9129]

  Mr. Bowis
  In the United Kingdom, goods vehicles pay vehicle excise duty according to their revenue weight and their axle configuration. The following table summarises the main features of current rates after the Budget of 26 November 1996. In the Budget, the Chancellor also announced his intention to offer concessions to heavy goods vehicles with low emission levels meeting targets from 1988. Full details of rates are published by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on form V149 "Rates of Vehicle Excise Duty" available at post offices.
  665

  Goods vehicle type

  Revenue weight details

  Current annual fee £

  All types

  Over 3,500 kgs not over 7,500 kgs

  150

  All types

  Over 7,500 kgs not over 12,000 kgs

  290

  Rigid vehicles:

  2 axle

  Minimum: Over 12,000 kgs not over 13,000 kgs

  450

  Maximum: Over 1,500 kgs not over 17,000 kgs

  1,280

  3 axle

  Minimum: Over 1,2000 kgs not over 17,000 kgs

  470

  Maximum: Over 25,000 kgs not over 27,000 kgs

  2,260

  4 or more axle

  Minimum: Over 12,000 kgs not over 21,000 kgs

  340

  Maximum: Over 31,000 kgs not over 32,000 kgs

  4,250

  Articulated vehicles

  2 axle tractor

  Minimum: Over 12,000 kgs not over 16,000 kgs

  440

  1 (or more) axle trailer

  Maximum: Over 33,000 kgs not over 38,000 kgs

  5,000

  2 axle tractor

  Minimum: Over 12,000 kgs not over 28,000 kgs

  440

  3 axle trailer

  Maximum: Over 36,000 kgs not over 38,000 kgs

  3,100

  3 axle tractor

  Minimum: Over 12,000 kgs not over 23,000 kgs

  440

  1 (or more) axle trailer

  Maximum: Over 36,000 kgs not over 38,000 kgs

  2,730

  3 axle tractor

  Minimum: Over 12,000 kgs not over 33,000 kgs

  440

  3 axle trailer

  Maximum: Over 36,000 kgs not over 38,000 kgs

  1,240

  In France, goods vehicles not over 16 tonnes pay road tax as part of the graduated system that applies to ordinary motorcars. The tariff depends upon the power of the vehicle, its age and the area of the country or departement. Typically, vehicles in the lowest power bands pay FF200 to FF300, those in the highest power bands FF12,000 to FF14,000.

  Vehicles with a total permissible weight in excess of 16 tonnes are exempted from this graduated tax, but instead pay axle tax. The tariff is based upon both axle configuration and gross weight, and ranges from FF200 to FF14,400 per year, although vehicles may qualify for certain reductions in these rates depending upon how they are used and operated. An articulated vehicle with two-axle tractor, two-axle trailer and weighing between 37,501 kg to 38,000 kg would pay FF5,200.

  In Germany, taxes are based upon total permissible weight in kilogrammes. Standard rates for 1995 range from DM22 per 200 kg, for vehicles not over 2,000 kg, to DM124 per 200 kg for vehicles over 15,000 kg, up to a maximum of DM3,500. Vehicles meeting specified noise and pollution standards qualify for lower rates, which for the most environmentally friendly vehicles range from DM12.55 per 200 kg, for vehicles not over 2,000 kg, to DM30.85 per 200 kg for vehicles over 15,000 kg, up to a maximum of DM1,300. Trailers are surcharged according to total maximum weight, ranging from DM730 for those not exceeding 10 tonnes, to DM1,750 to those over 18 tonnes. Under those arrangements, a 38,000 kg articulated vehicle without environmental improvements would pay DM3,500.
  666
  In Belgium, vans, trucks, lorries and articulated goods vehicles pay road tax based upon the deadweight of the vehicle. The following rates were applicable between July 1995 and June 1996. Up to 1,000 kg deadweight, the basic charge is 150 Belgian francs per 100 kg, subject to a minimum tax of 888 Belgian francs. Over 1,000 kg deadweight, vehicles pay at a rate per 100 kg of 150 Belgian francs plus seven francs for every 100 kg over 1,000 kg, subject to a maximum rate of 346 francs per 100 kg.

  At deadweight 4,650 kg tax payable is 15,916 Belgium francs. Over 4,640 kg, a supplement of 346 francs is payable for each additional 100 kg. Some vehicles may be subject to additional municipal taxes. A reduction of 25 per cent. is permitted to vehicles over five years of age. A 38-tonne articulated vehicle, assumed to have deadweight of approximately 13 tonnes, would pay roughly 46,500 francs.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro-compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to he fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9455]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department and agencies will need to assess the impact that a single currency would have on their information systems, whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what will be the proposed staffing arrangements at(a) Lerwick coastguard station and (b) Pentland coastguard station following the introduction of coastguard watch assistants; [8469]

  (2) what were the recommended levels of staffing at (a) Lerwick coastguard station and (b) Pentland coastguard station on 1 December 1996; [8468]

  (3) how many full-time and part-time coastguard officers, at each grade, were employed by HM Coastguard at (a) Lerwick and (b) Pentland on (i) 1 December 1990, (ii) 1 December 1995 and (iii) 1 December 1996. [8467]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 11 December 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. James Wallace, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on staffing levels within the Coastguard Agency. The answers are as follows:

  PQ 636/96/97
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many full-time and part-time coastguard officers, at each grade, were employed by HM Coastguard at (a) Lerwick and (b) Pentland on (i) 1 December 1990, (ii) 1 December 1995 and (iii) 1 December 1996.

  667

  District controller

  Station officer

  Senior watch officer

  Watch officer

  Sector officer

  Totals

  1 December 1990 Shetland

  1

  2

  4

  6

  2

  15

  1 December 1990 Pentland

  1

  2

  15

  5

  3

  16

  1 December 1995 Shetland

  1

  2

  4

  8

  2

  17

  1 December 1995 Pentland

  1

  1

  4

  7

  4

  17

  1 December 1996 Shetland

  1

  2

  4

  6

  2

  15

  1 December 1996 Pentland

  1

  1

  3

  7

  4

  16

  1One over complement due to overlapping transfer.

  District controller

  Deputy district controller

  Watch manager

  Watch officer

  Coastguard watch assistant

  Sector manager

  Totals

  Shetland (Lerwick)

  1

  1

  4

  5

  6

  2

  19

  Pentland (Kirkwall)

  1

  1

  4

  5

  6

  3

  20

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to pay a gratuity to those coastguard auxiliaries informed this year that their services were no longer required; and if he will list the numbers involved and lengths of service. [9577]

  Mr. Bowis
  The "focus for change" review recommended the replacement by permanent employees of the volunteer auxiliary service which supported Her Majesty's Coastguard's operations. There were approximately 360 auxiliary coastguards in the operations rooms with service varying between one and 20 years.

  As volunteers they are not eligible to receive severance payments but we would like to put on record our appreciation of the valuable service given by operations rooms auxiliaries over many years. More than 3,000 auxiliaries will continue to form the coast rescue companies around the coast, preserving the long tradition of voluntary service to the seagoing community within Her Majesty's Coastguard.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the privatisation of the Coastguard agency. [9764]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has drawn from the Transport Research Laboratory's study of accidents involving bull bars; and if he will make a statement. [10279]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Transport Research Laboratory published yesterday a study of accident data which suggests that the number of additional deaths and injuries caused by bull bars is significantly lower than had previously been assumed. Nevertheless, we cannot accept
  668
  PQ 643/96/97
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what were the recommended levels of staffing at (a) Lerwick coastguard station and (b) Pentland coastguard station on 1 December 1996.

  District controller

  Station officer

  Senior watch officer

  Watch officer

  Sector officer

  Totals

  Shetland (Lerwick)

  1

  2

  4

  8

  2

  17

  Pentland (Kirkwall)

  1

  2

  4

  8

  4

  19

  PQ 637/96/97:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what will be the proposed staffing arrangements at (a) Lerwick Coastguard station and (b) Pentland Coastguard station following the introduction of Coastguard watch assistants. [8469]

  unnecessary deaths on the road, even if in single figures. We are still very much opposed to the fitting of aggressive bull bars and strongly support current European efforts to control their use. We shall also be studying the TRL report carefully to assess what further action is appropriate.

  A copy of the TRL study has been placed in the Library.

  Vehicle Fuel Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the impact of a 5 per cent. annual increase in tax on vehicular fuel on road traffic. [10205]

  Mr. Bowis
  The impact depends on the price charged at the pump and the number of years over which the increase is imposed.

  North Sea Pollution
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many oil or chemical pollution incidents have been reported by each member state party to the Bonn agreement on pollution in the North sea in each year since it came into force; and if he will place in the Library copies of each submission made by the United Kingdom under the Bonn agreement. [8366]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Bonn agreement secretariat has informed the Department's marine pollution control unit that, between 1984 and 1996 to date, it received 36 pollution reports from contracting parties as in the table.
  669

  1984

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1995

  1996

  Total

  Belgium

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  6

  Denmark

  1

  2

  3

  France

  1

  1

  2

  Germany

  1

  1

  2

  Netherlands

  2

  2

  3

  2

  3

  1

  13

  Norway

  1

  1

  2

  Sweden

  1

  1

  2

  United

  Kingdom

  3

  1

  1

  5

  The secretariat has said that the Bonn agreement 1983, as amended by the decision of contracting parties of 22 September 1989, does not impose a formal duty on contracting parties to send copies of all pollution reports to the secretariat. In practice, all contracting parties resort to instant operational contacts with neighbouring parties from the start of an incident, often under the umbrella of bilateral arrangements.

  Since 1989, the marine pollution control unit has notified the Bonn agreement secretariat on five occasions of oil pollution or threatened oil pollution in the UK as shown in the table. The Bonn agreement does not require members to make submissions. Of the five UK incidents listed, reports of two—the Philips Oklahoma and the Braer—are available in the Library.

  Airline Ramp Checks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those airlines identified by the Civil Aviation Authority as a cause for concern in relation to safety which has resulted in additional ramp checks being undertaken. [8441]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since January's announcement of a package of measures to increase the safety surveillance of foreign aircraft operating to the UK, the Department has asked the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out a number of ramp checks. Additional ramp checks have been necessary only in the case of Turkmenistan Airlines and Transarabian Air Transport. In neither case has there been evidence of on-going problems which suggest that these airlines are not operating in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's minimum standards.

  Motorways and Trunk Roads
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each motorway and trunk road, in which parliamentary constituency each junction is located, based on(a) the present boundaries and (b) the new boundaries which come into effect from 1997. [9158]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: The information in its entirety could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I can provide a list of the motorway junctions in England based on the current parliamentary boundaries. As the list is extensive, l will send it separately to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy in the Library.

  Iwade Queenborough Improvement Scheme
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the draft orders for 670
  the Iwade to Queenborough improvement scheme, including the second crossing of the Swale; and what arrangements are being made for a public exhibition. [9587]

  Mr. Watts
  We intend to publish the draft orders for this scheme on 23 January 1997. This will be followed as soon as possible by a local public exhibition of the proposals. At the exhibition, officials will be in attendance to explain the proposals and to answer any questions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each of the Ministers in his Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9377]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Ministers carry out many visits in the course of their official duties. During the period in question, the number of official visits overseas by Ministers of this Department were as follows:my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made 46 overseas visits, visiting 44 countries;
  the Minister for Overseas Development made 21 visits, visiting 26 countries;
  the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made 12 overseas visits, visiting 28 countries;
  the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), made 29 overseas visits, visiting 17 countries;
  the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), made four overseas visits, visiting seven countries;
  and I made 18 overseas visits, visiting 18 countries.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support within the intergovernmental conference the presidency's proposal for a new article 3d in respect of environmental protection and sustainable development. [9404]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government support the objectives of environmental protection and sustainable development. There is already a treaty basis for EC environmental action. The Government are considering how this might be developed without extending Community competence or majority voting.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the Irish proposal to strengthen the nuclear safety provisions of the Euratom treaty at the intergovernmental conference. [9406]
  671
  Mr. Davis
  No. The proposal can be more appropriately dealt with in the context of wider international agreements in the nuclear area.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what environmental proposals the United Kingdom Government plan to put forward at the intergovernmental conference. [9408]

  Mr. Davis
  The Government are still considering what, if any, environmental proposals to put to the intergovernmental conference.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support within the intergovernmental conference the proposal that the Committee of the Regions should be allowed to bring actions before the Court of Justice for the purpose of protecting its own prerogatives. [9402]

  Mr. Davis
  The Committee of the Regions has a valuable role to play, but the Government do not agree that giving an advisory body of this kind direct access to the European Court of Justice would be appropriate.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the environmental issues in respect of which the United Kingdom Government will be supporting an extension of qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference. [9405]

  Mr. Davis
  None. As explained in the "Partnership of Nations" White Paper, at a time when there is serious public concern about the centralisation of decision making, the case has not been made for making it easier to override the objections of member states in matters of particular sensitivity. The Government therefore oppose the further extension of qualified majority voting.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Danish proposals of 6 September to the intergovernmental conference concerning the environment. [9407]

  Mr. Davis
  The Government support effective environmental action at the European level which takes full account of the principle of subsidiarity. The Government do not, however, support the Danish suggestion that qualified majority voting should be used for decisions on environmental taxes.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support within the intergovernmental conference the proposal to amend article 3b in respect of the application of the principle of subsidiarity to regional and local levels. [9409]

  Mr. Davis
  No. As Heads of Government agreed in 1992 at the Birmingham European Council,"It is for each Member State to decide how its powers should be exercised domestically".

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed,
  672
  (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9488]

  Mr. Hanley
  As of 1 April 1996, the Department was employing the following:

  Number

  Total employees

  7,200

  Male

  4,571

  Female

  2,629

  Male full time

  4,545

  Female full time

  2,483

  Male part time

  26

  Female part time

  146

  These figures are for permanent staff only.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9625]

  Mr. Hanley
  The answer is as follows:

  FCO (DIP. WING + ODA)

  Wilton Park(agency) (since 1991)

  Natural Resources Institute (agency)

  1996

  Permanent

  6,863

  30

  307

  Non-permanent

  97

  0

  16

  1995

  Permanent

  7,106

  32

  386

  Non-permanent

  99

  0

  27

  1994

  Permanent

  7,511

  32

  421

  Non-permanent

  81

  0

  14

  1993

  Permanent

  7,798

  28

  441

  Non-permanent

  61

  0

  38

  1992

  Permanent

  7,933

  28

  469

  Non-permanent

  54

  0

  29

  EU Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support an extension of the list of areas about which the EU Committee of the Regions should be consulted. [9403]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Committee of the Regions is already consulted on a wide range of issues and is able to produce opinions on its own initiative on any other matters it considers appropriate. The Government do not believe that there is a need to expand its present role.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed
  673
  since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were (a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9361]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, Official Report, column 492.

  European Council (Business)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for January; and if he will list the major EU events for the next six months. [9865]

  Mr. David Davis

  Monthly Forecast of Business for January 1997
  The following Councils are scheduled:

  January 7: Fisheries Council

  January 20: General Affairs Council

  January 20: Agriculture Council

  January 21: General Affairs Council

  January 21 Agriculture Council

  January 27: ECOFIN Council

  January 31: Transport Council (Informal)

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  January 7: Fisheries Council
  This Council will take place only if the December Council fails to agree on the following item:
  Total allowable catches and quotas.

  January 20–21: General Affairs Council
  Agenda not yet available.

  January 20–21: Agriculture Council

  Identification and registration of bovine animals (possible item).

  Durum wheat (possible item).

  Honey (possible item).

  Flax (possible item).

  BSE (possible item).

  Veterinary and phytosanitary equivalence agreement (possible item).

  January 27: ECOFIN Council

  Presentation of the Dutch presidency programme work

  Programme of the Commission.

  Structured dialogue with Ministers from central and eastern European countries and the Baltics.

  Follow-up to the Dublin European Council:

  Preparation of stage 3 of economic and monetary union; Employment.

  Sound and efficient Management-2000 (possible item).

  Macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine (possible item).

  Georgia, Armenia and Tadjikstan (possible item).

  Renewal of European Investment bank lending envelopes (possible item).

  Taxation (possible item).

  Appointment of EC Jury for coin competition (possible item).

  Other Business:

  Lunch: With Minister of Finance of the CEECs and the Baltics;

  Coffee: Briefing on intergovernmental conference

  January 31: Transport Council (informal)
  No formal agenda.
  674
  EUROPEAN CALENDAR: DECEMBER 1996—MAY 1997

  THIS CALENDAR IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH EUROPEAN UNION MATTERS, BUT CERTAIN OTHER RELEVANT EVENTS ARE ALSO INCLUDED. EVENTS AND DATES QUOTED ARE BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF ISSUE.

  Venue

  Event

  January 1997

  1

  Dutch presidency begins

  7

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  9–10

  The Hague

  Political Committee

  13–17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  20–21

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23–25

  Amsterdam

  Conference on Social Policy

  27

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council (t.b.c.)

  29–30

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  30–31

  The Hague

  Opening of "European Year Against Racism"

  31

  Amsterdam

  Transport Council (Informal)

  February 1997

  1

  Amsterdam

  Transport Council (Informal)

  1–2

  The Hague

  Economic Affairs Council (Informal)

  5–6

  Noordwijk

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  6

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  17

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  17

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  17

  Qatar

  EU/GCC Conference

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17–21

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  26

  Brussels

  EU/San Jose Conference

  28

  Amsterdam

  Development Council (Informal)

  March 1997

  1–2

  Amsterdam

  Development Council (Informal)

  3

  Amsterdam

  Education Council (Informal)

  3–4

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  6

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  10

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  10–14

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  11–12

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  13

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  14–15

  Rotterdam

  Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  15–16

  Apeldoorn

  Gymnich (Informal)

  17

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  17–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25

  Rome

  Informal IGC Ministerial

  April 1997

  4–6

  Noordwijk

  ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  6–8

  Maastricht

  Culture Council (Informal)

  7–8

  Noordwijk

  EU/Rio Group

  7–10

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  9–11

  The Hague

  Social Integration Conference

  10

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  10

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Council

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  17–18

  Maastricht

  Ministerial Conference on EC aid to African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries post-Lomé IV

  18–20

  Amsterdam

  Environment Council (Informal)

  21–22

  The Netherlands

  Political Committee

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  24

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries/EU Ministerial Conference

  675

  Venue

  Event

  25

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  May 1997

  5

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  6–7

  Strasbourg

  Council of Europe Ministerial

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  12–13

  Paris

  WEU Ministerial

  12–16

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  14–15

  Brussels

  Research Council

  15

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  20

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  25–27

  Middelburg

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  26

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  29

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  June 1997

  2–3

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  Development Council

  8–10

  Noordwijk

  Environmental Planning Conference

  9

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  9–10

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  9–13

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  10

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  12

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  16–17

  Amsterdam

  European Council

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  19

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  19

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council (t.b.c.)

  23–24

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  26

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  30

  Luxembourg

  Culture Council

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9459]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. This Department's information systems already handle transactions in many currencies. Whether or not the United Kingdom participates in the third stage of EMU, we will modify them accordingly, within the appropriate time frame. The costs cannot yet be determined.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will offer a financial contribution to the United Nations working group on arbitrary detentions to enable it to visit Bahrain to undertake investigations. [9734]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The working group on arbitrary detention has not requested a visit to Bahrain, but if such a request were made, we would expect it to be financed from within the working group's existing resources.
  676
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Bahrain concerning human rights; and if he will make a statement. [9713]

  Mr. Jeremy Hanley
  The Government deplore all abuses of human rights, wherever they take place. We have discussed human rights issues with the Government of Bahrain at ministerial and official levels on numerous occasions. During my visit to Bahrain in June 1996, I discussed human rights with the Amir, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Interior and Foreign Affairs.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will make representations to the Government of Bahrain on the need to bring the Bahrain legal code into line with international judicial norms, with special reference to adding the right to appeal against death sentences. [9717]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government of Bahrain are aware of our concern that, in accordance with international standards, those facing the death penalty should be guaranteed protection of certain rights, including the right of appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction. This is separate from any plea for clemency to the Amir which defendants may make.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Bahrain concerning the
  detention of women and children and the need to observe the UN convention on the rights of children. [9716]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer to my previous answer. Such discussions on human rights cover men, women and children.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Bahrain regarding the death sentences passed by the Bahrain state security court on Ali Ahmad Abed Al-Usfur, Yusif Hussein Abd Al-Baqi and Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Al-Katiab. [9718]

  Mr. Hanley
  Ali Ahmad Abed Al-Usfur, Yusif Hussein Abd Al-Baqi and Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Al-Katiab have been convicted of burning to death seven Bangladeshi nationals. Provided international standards are complied with, the decision whether to maintain and implement the death penalty is a matter for each state. I refer the hon. Member to my previous reply.

  Caribbean Dependent Territories
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the future constitutional relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the five remaining Caribbean dependent territories; and if he will make a statement. [10297]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  In the light of recent experience, the Government have examined actual or potential problems in the five Caribbean dependent territories. Considerable improvements are being made in the administration of the territories and their good government. However, it has become clear that some extension of those powers which may be exercised by Her Majesty's Government may be needed. We will take this into account in our continuing discussions with each of
  677
  the five Governments concerned and make any changes if and when necessary. We attach importance to our continuing friendship and close co-operation with the territories in the interests of their well-being and future prosperity.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent adoption by the European Union of a common position on the supply of arms to Afghanistan. [10338]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  On 17 December, following a British initiative in support of the UN's efforts to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan, the EU adopted a common position concerning the imposition of an embargo on arms, munitions and military equipment on Afghanistan. The embargo covers contracts entered into prior to the adoption of the embargo. The EU will also make efforts to encourage other countries to adopt a similar policy of restraint. In accordance with the EU embargo, Her Majesty's Government will not normally issue a licence for the export of any item listed in part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended—military, security and para-military goods and arms, ammunition and related material—often described as the military list. We will continue to consider on a case-by-case basis all export licence applications. From time to time, the contents of the military list may change, for example, to reflect technological advances or continuing international efforts to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

SCOTLAND

  Budget Balance
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of Scotland's budget balance over the planning period. [8145]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Health Board Finance
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of the health boards in Scotland to discuss finance; and if he will make a statement. [8150]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I meet chairmen of health boards regularly to discuss matters of current interest, including finance.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children gained entrance to higher education courses in(a) the current year, (b) 1987 and (c) 1979; and if he will make a statement. [8151]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The number of young Scots entering higher education has more than doubled since 1979. The age participation index, a measure of the number of under-2l-year-old entrants as a proportion of 678
  the 17-year-old population, stood at 17.8 per cent in 1980–81, 20.5 per cent. in 1987–88 and 42.7 per cent. in 1994–95. Figures for later years are not yet available.

  Ministerial Visit (Hawick)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Hawick to discuss the economic and social regeneration of the town; and if he will make a statement. [8152]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to make such a visit.

  Acute Hospitals (Glasgow)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional resources he plans to make available to Greater Glasgow health board to meet the demands faced by acute hospitals during the winter period. [8155]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend announced on 9 December that an extra £15 million is being distributed to health boards this year in part to help reduce pressures likely to arise over the winter. Of this total, Greater Glasgow health board will receive £2,863,000.

  Minister for Glasgow
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a Minister for Glasgow with responsibilities for regeneration policies. [8156]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I am responsible to my right hon. Friend for regeneration policies in Scotland.

  Bellwin Scheme
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to triggering of the Bellwin scheme for exceptional weather conditions in the borders region during the winter of 1995–96; and if payments will be forthcoming from the scheme relating to the claims submitted by Scottish Borders council. [8157]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Bellwin scheme was triggered for severe weather during December 1995 and January 1996 on 4 August. Claims from councils throughout Scotland, including those submitted by the Scottish Borders council on behalf of the former councils, are currently being assessed for eligibility under the scheme and, where appropriate, payments under the scheme will be made as soon as possible.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance. [8160]

  Mr. Kynoch
  On 17 January.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the 1997–98 grant-aided expenditure figures for each Scottish local authority. [10454]
  679
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The 1997–98 grant-aided expenditure figure for each local authority is set out in the table. Each authority's allocation of the GAE total has been determined having regard to the client group methodology which is agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance. The allocation also takes account of the phasing out of the self-financed transitional mismatch scheme which COSLA proposed and I agreed to last year in the light of local government reorganisation.

  The table excludes figures for the urban programme GAE which is not allocated to individual authorities. The addition of this amount—£56,894 million—brings the GAE total to the sum of £5,421 million which I announced on 26 November.

  In addition to each authority's 1997–98 GAE, the table shows the change as compared with the 1996–97 assessment in both cash and percentage terms after adjusting for the phasing out of local government reorganisation costs and the transfer of responsibility for funding nursery education—and also relative 1997–98 GAEs per head of population.

  Total GAE 1997–98 £000s

  Increase from £000s

  1996–97 Percentage

  GAE per head (indexed: 100 = lowest)

  Aberdeen City

  196,479

  -329

  -0.17

  100

  Aberdeenshire

  217,238

  9,019

  4.32

  107

  Angus

  110,602

  5,069

  4.79

  110

  Argyll and Bute

  104,691

  897

  0.86

  128

  Clackmannanshire

  48,958

  896

  1.86

  112

  Dumfries and Galloway

  155,190

  3,132

  2.06

  117

  Dundee City

  164,884

  631

  0.38

  122

  East Ayrshire

  128,665

  3,103

  2.47

  117

  East Dunbartonshire

  106,022

  4,266

  4.18

  106

  East Lothian

  82,715

  3,576

  4.51

  105

  East Renfrewshire

  84,735

  5,198

  6.52

  107

  Edinburgh

  416,537

  20,594

  5.19

  104

  Falkirk

  136,550

  4,348

  3.28

  107

  Fife

  346,740

  8,108

  2.39

  110

  Glasgow

  767,967

  -2,972

  -0.38

  138

  Highland

  234,363

  4457

  1.94

  125

  lnverclyde

  99,605

  869

  0.88

  125

  Midlothian

  79,656

  1,012

  1.28

  111

  Moray

  87,808

  1,210

  1.39

  112

  North Ayrshire

  145,461

  5,566

  3.97

  116

  North Lanarkshire

  337,924

  5,647

  1.70

  115

  Orkney Islands

  28,870

  -287

  -0.98

  162

  Perthshire and Kinross

  128,962

  4,608

  3.70

  108

  Renfrewshire

  184,227

  4,278

  2.37

  115

  Borders, Scottish

  110,986

  3,476

  3.23

  117

  Shetland Islands

  37,643

  7,815

  26.20

  182

  South Ayrshire

  115,976

  3,934

  3.50

  113

  South Lanarkshire

  311,049

  7,643

  2.51

  113

  Stirling

  86,670

  2,105

  2.48

  117

  West Dunbartonshire

  112,348

  -411

  -0.36

  130

  West Lothian

  151,343

  3,157

  2.13

  113

  Western Isles

  43,650

  399

  0.92

  168

  Scotland

  5,364,513

  Forestry Commission Exports
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland what is the value of Forestry Commission exports; and what are its principal markets. [8161]
  680
  Mr. Kynoch
  The Forestry Commission is not currently exporting any timber. It is the principal supplier to an expanding and world-competitive domestic wood processing industry.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives his Department has taken this year to promote energy efficiency in housing in Scotland. [8162]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and the Energy Conservation Act 1996 were brought into effect in Scotland on 1 December 1996. Guidance on the legislation has been issued to all local authorities. In addition, the Scottish Office has published research reports on energy conservation and planning and the evaluation of energy efficiency initiatives.

  Economic Co-operation (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for closer economic o-operation between Scotland and Northern Ireland. [8163]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There are no specific measures to encourage economic co-operation between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom will continue to prosper as a result of the success of the Government's economic policies.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the impact of his decision on the proposed overland electricity transmission line in Ayrshire which forms part of the Northern Ireland—Scotland interconnector. [8164]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has had no request for a meeting from STUC on this matter.

  Social Work
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the financing of social work in Scotland. [8165]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provision and financing of most social work is for local authorities to determine. Local authorities will have £1,010 million in grant-aided expenditure in 1997–98 for social work. This compares with £950 million in 1996–97 and £658 million in 1992–93.

  Government Expenditure and Tax Revenues
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the central estimate of the extent by which total government expenditure in Scotland exceeded tax revenues raised in Scotland in 1994–95. [8166]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Excluding North sea revenues and privatisation proceeds, in 1994–5 Government expenditure in Scotland was estimated to be £8.2 billion higher than tax revenues raised in Scotland.

  Structural Budget Deficit
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the extent to which Scotland has a structural budget deficit in the Government finances. [8167]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have received very few representations.

  Trunk Road Improvements
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for trunk road improvements in the next three years for Dumfries and Galloway. [8168]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In addition to the final phase of the upgrading of the A74 to motorway standard, we will undertake a major project on the A75 at the Glen. A route action plan will be carried out on the A75 to identify and prepare a programme of further improvements along the route. On the A77, traffic management and calming measures are currently being prepared for Maybole, Kirkoswald, Lendalfoot, Ballantrae and Stranraer. On the A76, a variety of schemes to improve visibility, junctions and access will be carried out over the next three years, including further improvements at Enterkinfoot, and traffic-calming measures in Thornhill and Sanquhar.

  Local Authority Borrowing
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of local authority borrowing in Scotland; and what is the equivalent borrowing in English local authorities. [8169]

  Mr. Kynoch
  At 31 March 1996, the total local authority loan debt outstanding was £9.7 billion. The comparable estimated figure for English local authorities was £37 billion.

  Governance
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from business regarding the future governance of Scotland. [8170]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposed tax-raising parliament has been denounced by the Scottish chambers of commerce, by the Institute of Directors, by the CBI Scotland and by 78 per cent. of Scotland's major companies surveyed by Scottish Business Insider magazine.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning a tax-raising Parliament for Scotland. [8158]

  Mr. Forsyth
  I have received many representation from throughout Scotland and England supporting the Government's commitment to the Union and expressing concern about the cost of a tartan tax-raising Scottish Parliament.

  Geriatric Patients
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the transfer of geriatric patients from hospitals to residential or nursing homes in the community. [8153]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is a matter of clinical judgment whether or not an elderly in-patient should be discharged to a nursing or residential care home.

  Drift Netting
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the subject of drift netting. [8154]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss this matter. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is no drift netting for salmon in Scottish waters.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has carried out to identify the reasons for changes in the number of food poisoning cases in Scotland over the last 10 years; and what the results of this research have been. [7430]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Food poisoning is caused by a number of different agents including bacteria and a wide range of research projects have been funded by the Scottish Office over the last 10 years into specific causes of food poisoning such as E. coli 0157, campylobacter and listeria.

  Details of projects funded are listed in the Scottish Office Department of Health's health bulletin and Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department's programme of commissioned research and development publication. Research grant holders are encouraged to disseminate research findings as appropriate.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he collates on the number of in-patients by health board of residence on waiting lists of(a) under one year and (b) one year and over, as at 30 September in each year from 1992 to 1996. [7997]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: Information on the number of patients with patients charter guarantees on in-patient waiting lists at 30 September 1994 to 1996 is set out in the following table. Information prior to 1994 was not collected in the form requested.
  683

  Patients with guarantees on in-patient waiting lists as at 30 September1

  1994

  1995

  19962

  Number waiting less than one year

  Number waiting one year or over

  Number waiting less than one year

  Number waiting one year or over

  Number waiting less than one year

  Number waiting one year or over

  Argyll and Clyde

  4,655

  405

  4,020

  201

  4,027

  28

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3,489

  98

  3,268

  35

  3,301

  8

  Borders

  1,000

  4

  1,005

  2

  958

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,962

  68

  1,351

  29

  1,137

  —

  Fife

  3,403

  130

  3,024

  7

  3,034

  14

  Forth Valley

  2,276

  159

  1,857

  52

  1,643

  —

  Grampian

  4,122

  158

  4,243

  33

  4,418

  —

  Greater Glasgow

  9,408

  301

  9,369

  382

  8,818

  294

  Highland

  1,959

  64

  2,032

  38

  1,828

  26

  Lanarkshire

  5,275

  127

  5,975

  61

  5,174

  —

  Lothian

  7,327

  29

  6,591

  117

  —

  Orkney

  105

  2

  111

  —

  296

  —

  Shetland

  161

  1

  189

  —

  296

  —

  Tayside

  3,175

  120

  3,264

  16

  3,420

  —

  Western Isles

  299

  5

  299

  7

  319

  3

  All areas

  48,808

  1,679

  46,755

  868

  44,336

  374

  1 Patients on in-patient waiting list, with guarantees as outlined in the Patient's Charter. All figures exclude patients waiting for treatment outwith Scotland. The all areas figures include patients resident outwith Scotland and those whose area of residence was not recorded.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he collates on the numbers of out-patients by health board of residence on waiting lists of(a) less than nine weeks and (b) nine weeks and over, as at 30 September in each year from 1992 to 1996. [7998]

  Number of outpatient referrals who waited less than 9 weeks/more than 9 weeks as at 30 September

  Health Board

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996 (Provisional)

  Waited less than nine weeks

  Waited more than nine weeks

  Waited less than nine weeks

  Waited more than nine weeks

  Waited less than nine weeks

  Waited more than nine weeks

  Waited less than nine weeks

  Waited more than nine weeks

  Argyll and Clyde

  20,325

  7,574

  19,485

  7,995

  19,303

  9,116

  16,701

  7,454

  Ayrshire and Arran

  15,013

  6,811

  16,918

  6,394

  15,851

  4,712

  13,236

  4,262

  Borders

  4,403

  1,301

  4,786

  1,061

  4,528

  1,214

  4,664

  1,610

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,947

  2,191

  5,280

  2,152

  5,014

  2,323

  207

  78

  Fife

  14,217

  7,469

  14,940

  7,405

  15,998

  7,714

  15,436

  7,850

  Forth Valley

  11,002

  3,763

  10,965

  4,241

  11,148

  4,141

  8,919

  3,097

  Grampian

  19,010

  8,513

  17,900

  8,964

  16,880

  9,077

  7,488

  3,522

  Greater Glasgow

  44,528

  19,866

  39,930

  17,381

  42,242

  22,271

  40,170

  20,858

  Highland

  7,923

  2,957

  8,455

  2,780

  8,928

  2,523

  8,795

  3,114

  Lanarkshire

  24,539

  9,885

  24,006

  9,796

  24,822

  10,770

  22,746

  9,751

  Lothian

  33,613

  10,290

  33,836

  11,778

  34,181

  11,224

  20,446

  6,699

  Orkney

  688

  48

  666

  41

  611

  59

  8

  8

  Shetland

  1,001

  171

  901

  253

  972

  239

  841

  357

  Tayside

  21,300

  5,420

  21,401

  7,140

  22,850

  7,559

  21,721

  8,494

  Western Isles

  1,190

  251

  1,259

  508

  1,410

  301

  1,009

  455

  Scotland

  223,699

  86,510

  220,728

  87,889

  224,738

  93,243

  182,387

  77,609

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for his department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9486]
  684
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: There is no centrally held list of patients waiting for out-patient appointments. Information on the number of referrals where a patient waited less than nine weeks, or nine weeks or more, from the initial referral date by health board of residence is set out in the table.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of male and female full-time and part-time staff employed in the Scottish Office and it executive agencies at 1 April 1996 are shown in the table.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9618]
  685
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of full-time and part-time permanent and casual staff employed each year since 1992 are shown in the tables.

  All permanent staff employed in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies at 1 April 1996

  Department

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Scottish Office core

  2,128

  13

  1,525

  270

  3,936

  Historic Scotland

  423

  6

  135

  21

  585

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  212

  1

  24

  6

  243

  All permanent staff in post in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies at 1 April

  Department

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Scottish Office core

  5,012

  271

  4,779

  288

  4,691

  289

  4,054

  292

  3,653

  283

  Historic Scotland

  619

  23

  631

  22

  622

  28

  605

  37

  558

  27

  Scottish Fisheries

  Protection Agency

  215

  1

  226

  1

  246

  8

  235

  6

  236

  7

  Scottish Agricultural

  Science Agency

  135

  7

  137

  10

  132

  12

  136

  11

  125

  15

  Scottish Office

  Pensions Agency1

  2—

  2—

  161

  7

  171

  9

  156

  10

  164

  11

  Student Awards

  Agency for Scotland1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  133

  4

  121

  4

  Scottish Office total (excl SPS)

  5,981

  302

  5,934

  328

  5,862

  346

  5,319

  360

  4857

  347

  Scottish Prison Service

  4,208

  41

  4,596

  58

  4,464

  141

  4,166

  139

  4,381

  158

  1These agencies were only established during the period shown. Prior to their creation date their staffing was counted under the SO Core.

  2Information not available.

  All casual staff in post in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies at 1 April

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Department

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Scottish Office core

  204

  38

  274

  48

  132

  22

  134

  19

  163

  26

  Historic Scotland

  64

  29

  52

  59

  21

  10

  33

  13

  95

  65

  Scottish Fisheries

  Protection Agency

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  18

  19

  20

  22

  12

  Scottish Agricultural

  Science Agency

  7

  2—

  12

  2—

  8

  2—

  10

  2—

  2

  1

  Scottish Office

  Pensions Agency

  3—

  3—

  6

  2—

  11

  2—

  23

  2—

  14

  2—

  Student Awards

  Agency for Scotland

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  1

  5

  2—

  Scottish Office total (excl. SPS)

  275

  67

  344

  107

  179

  50

  229

  53

  301

  104

  Scottish Prison Service1

  8

  2—

  19

  2—

  14

  2—

  41

  2—

  2—

  46

  1 1992 data for the Scottish Prison Service is on a full-time equivalent basis. Thereafter it is on a headcount basis.

  2Information not available.

  3Nil return.

  Shared Parenting
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many divorce settlements have made use of the provision for shared parenting in Scotland since 1 November. [9414]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on the number of divorce settlements involving shared parenting since 1 November are not available. Courts
  686

  All permanent staff employed in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies at 1 April 1996

  Department

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  73

  —

  52

  15

  140

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  93

  —

  71

  11

  175

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  55

  —

  66

  4

  125

  Scottish Office total (excl SPS)

  2,984

  20

  1,873

  327

  5,204

  Scottish Prison Service

  3,797

  114

  584

  44

  4,539

  will make no order under part I of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 unless it is essential to do so, and what orders are made will be particular to the needs of each case. Raw data from the courts will therefore be of limited value. The Scottish Office will, however, evaluate the impact of the provisions of part I as part of a comprehensive research programme on the operation of the provisions of the whole Act.
  687
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines have been produced on the use of shared parenting in divorce in Scotland in relation to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. [9415]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No guidelines as such on the use of shared parenting on divorce in Scotland have been produced by the Scottish Office. The interpretation of part I of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is for the courts.

  Divorce Settlements
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what mechanism he has set up to monitor the effect of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 on divorce settlements in Scotland. [9411]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office is planning to evaluate the effect of part I of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I intend to announce details of a research programme on the impact of the Act on children and their families early in the new year.

  Hospital Admissions (Complications)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate(a) how many people and (b) the percentage of people who have been admitted to hospital as a direct result of complications after (i) surgery and (ii) medicinal treatment in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9641]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Discharges of patients from Scottish hospitals with any diagnosis of (a) complications following surgery or (b) adverse effects of drugs, medicaments or biological substances 1991–95

  Diagnosis

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Complications following surgery1

  Number

  10,304

  11,559

  12,516

  14,149

  16,526

  Percentage of all discharges

  1.1

  1.2

  1.2

  1.3

  1.5

  Adverse effects of drugs, medicaments or biological substances.2

  Number

  2,631

  2,601

  2,678

  3,032

  3,634

  Percentage of all discharges

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  1Surgical operation and other surgical procedures as the cause of abnormal reaction of patient, or of later complication, without mention of misadventure at the time of operation.

  2Drugs, medicaments and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use. This includes the "correct drug properly administered" and excludes accidents in dosage or administration. The figures include cases where the initial treatment was not in hospital.

  Electors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of electors in each local authority area when the current electoral register was published on 16 February. [9399]
  688
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: The information is set out in the table.

  Parliamentary electorate

  Local Government electorate

  Scotland

  3,963,072

  3,971,203

  Aberdeen City

  171,619

  172,841

  Aberdeenshire

  170,725

  171,080

  Angus

  86,456

  86,532

  Argyll and Bute

  69,462

  69,594

  Clackmannanshire

  37,058

  37,087

  Dumfries and Galloway

  116,639

  116,815

  Dundee City

  116,054

  116,290

  East Ayrshire

  94,936

  94,983

  East Dunbartonshire

  84,194

  84,268

  East Lothian

  69,171

  69,242

  East Renfrewshire

  66,884

  66,923

  Edinburgh, City of

  356,439

  358,737

  Falkirk

  110,544

  110,584

  Fife

  274,585

  274,967

  Glasgow, City of

  469,791

  470,878

  Highland

  162,890

  163,154

  Inverclyde

  68,666

  68,694

  Midlothian

  61,131

  61,180

  Moray

  65,216

  65,351

  North Ayrshire

  106,098

  106,164

  North Lanarkshire

  246,114

  246,223

  Orkney Islands

  15,652

  15,678

  Perth and Kinross

  103,259

  103,442

  Renfrewshire

  138,178

  138,245

  Scottish Borders

  85,281

  85,386

  Shetland Islands

  16,983

  17,003

  South Ayrshire

  90,312

  90,417

  South Lanarkshire

  234,593

  234,800

  Stirling

  64,871

  65,255

  West Dunbartonshire

  72,449

  72,459

  West Lothian

  113,614

  113,705

  Western Isles

  23,208

  23,226

  Prednisolone
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people(a) have been prescribed and (b) took the steroid Prednisolone in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9640]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: This information is not available in the form requested. It is not possible to identify the number of people who were prescribed or took Prednisolone. Data collected cover the number of prescription items dispensed in Scotland.

  Non-custodial Penalties
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the introduction of stronger non-custodial penalties for convicted offenders. [8136]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill introduces electronic tagging so that hooligans can be confined to their homes, or within a very restricted area, and disqualification from driving will be available for all offences.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of those who have been appointed to serve on the Criminal Cases Review Commission, indicating those from Northern Ireland. [8707]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in response to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).

  The member of the commission with knowledge and experience of the Northern Ireland criminal justice system is Mr. John Leckey, coroner for Belfast since 1992.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage change in the number of vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland between 1993–94 and 1994–95. [8713]

  Mr. Ancram
  Between 1993–94 and 1994–95, there was a decline of 15 per cent. in the number of all types of vocational awards—national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications—made by the main awarding bodies to candidates in Northern Ireland.

  As regards GNVQs only, however, there was an increase in the number of students in schools and colleges in Northern Ireland gaining full qualifications. The percentage increases from 1993–94 to 1994–95 were as follows:

  Foundation level: 200

  Intermediate level: 28

  Advanced level: 316.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Equal Opportunities)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that the RUC includes sexual orientation within the scope of its equal opportunities policy. [8914]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There is currently a working party within the RUC considering the concept of sexual orientation and its implications for the force, in terms both of service delivery and human resource management.

  Dundonald Training Centre
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the annual saving from the closure of Dundonald training centre; how many staff are employed at the centre; how many persons were trained in the centre in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [9276]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  690
  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training & Employment Agency (T&EA), to reply to your question about the proposed closure of Dundonald Training Centre.
  The closure of Dundonald Training Centre will result in estimated programme expenditure savings of £1.2 million in a full financial year. This saving will be offset by the cost of providing Jobskills training for young people at other training organisations which will be in the region of £500,000 per year.
  At present, 40 staff are employed at Dundonald Training Centre. We will seek to avoid compulsory redundancies through re-deployment to other Agency Training Centres, voluntary premature retirement and natural wastage.
  In each of the past three years the number of people who enrolled for training at Dundonald Training Centre was as follows:

  Year

  Numbers of trainees

  1996–97

  1328

  1995–96

  327

  1994–95

  304

  1At 13 December 1996.

  The Agency will ensure that all trainees currently at Dundonald Training Centre are allowed to complete their agreed period of training at the Centre. Following the closure of the Centre, trainees who, in accordance with their training programme, are placed with employers for their further training will be supervised by staff from other parts of the Agency's Training Centre network.

  I hope you find this information useful.

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the Ministers in his Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9384]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Ministers have spent the following numbers of days out of the office, each of which may have involved more than one visit:

  Ministerial visits (days)

  Visits abroad (days)

  Sir P. Mayhew

  45

  5

  Mr. M. Ancram

  50

  9

  Sir J. Wheeler

  55

  9

  Baroness Denton

  156

  43

  Mr. M. Moss

  101

  4

  Prednisolone
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have(a) become crippled and (b) died from taking the steroid Prednisolone in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9603]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]:

  (a) The information requested is not available;

  (b) There have been no deaths recorded in Northern Ireland from the use of the steroid Prednisolone during the last five years 1991 to 1995.

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9510]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Total number of staff

  27,264

  (b)(i) Total number of male staff

  14,816

  (b)(ii) Total number of female staff

  12,448

  (c)(I)(1) Full-time male staff

  14,744

  (c)(I)(2) Part-time male staff

  72

  (c)(II)(1) Full-time female staff

  10,414

  (c)(I1)(2) Part-time female staff

  2,034

  Notes

  1. These figures show the position as at 29 October 1996.

  2. Part-time and job-sharing staff count as full units.

  3. Figures include information on the Northern Ireland Office, the six Departments of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) and staff in the Police Authority for Northern Ireland (PANI) who are civil servants on secondment from the NICS.

  4. Casual staff are not included.

  5. Except for NICS staff seconded to PANI, staff currently on secondment outside the NICS are not included. The numbers involved, however, are small.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9622]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is to be found in the following table:

  NI Departments and NIO Non-permanent

  Executive agencies Non-permanent

  Permanent

  (casuals)

  Permanent

  (casuals)

  1996

  26,084

  2,068

  15,656

  1,513

  1995

  26,504

  1,531

  8,646

  890

  1994

  27,605

  1,056

  8,437

  1,089

  1993

  28,926

  968

  8,785

  461

  1992

  28,802

  1,144

  7,736

  1. The figures show the position at I October in each year.

  2. The figures in (i) include the figures in (ii).

  3. In (i), part-timers and job sharers count as half units. In (ii), part-timers and job sharers are counted as either half units or whole units, depending upon the source. Figures will differ depending upon the method of calculation.

  4. Disaggregated figures for staff in executive agencies in 1992 are not available.

  5. The figures include staff in the Northern Ireland Office and the six departments of the Northern Ireland civil service. Also included are staff on secondment from NICS to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

  6. Except for NICS staff seconded to PANI, staff on secondment outside the NICS are not included. The numbers, however, are small.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Suicides)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) RUC personnel and (b) RUC reservists have committed suicide in the last 25 years; and how many used legally held weapons. [9578]
  692
  Sir John Wheeler
  During the period 1970 to 1996, 39 regular RUC officers and 16 full-time reserves committed suicide. A personal protection firearm was used as a means of committing suicide in 47 cases.

  Civil Disturbances (Housing Vacated)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many houses have been vacated as a result of civil disturbances this year; how many Housing Executive dwellings so vacated are still empty; and if he will make a statement. [9579]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and its chief executive has advised me that information on vacant houses is not desegregated down to the level of reasons for vacancies. The number vacated due to civil disturbances is, therefore, not available. The chief executive has also advised me that approximately 100 Housing Executive dwellings are still vacant, as a result of civil disturbances.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what tenders his Department as put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro-compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9457]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My Department and agencies will need to assess the impact which a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy (i) to revise death certificate forms to include a space for national insurance number and (ii) for dates of death to be entered on birth certificates. [9615]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are no plans to revise death and birth certificates in the manner described. Provision currently exists for information on deaths to be provided by the general register office to the Department of Social Security for the purpose of recording national insurance numbers. The inclusion of date of death on a birth certificate would be inconsistent with the statutory position of a birth certificate as an official extract of an original entry in the register book.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  The House Party (Board Game)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment his Department has made of the new board game The House Party; and what consideration it has given to prosecuting the manufacturers, distributors and financiers for incitement to experiment with illegal drugs and of minors to participate in homosexual acts. [9868]
  693
  The Attorney-General
  I understand that the hon. Member is asking the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to investigate whether the distribution of the board game to which he refers discloses any criminal offence. It will be open to the police to request legal advice from the Crown Prosecution Service during the course of their inquiries. The question of prosecution cannot be considered until there has been a criminal investigation.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Relaunch Strategy
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the planned expenditure on the relaunch strategy in each of the next three years; and how many partnership projects run by local consortiums this will support. [8842]

  Mr. Paice
  The relaunch strategy will concentrate all relevant funding on tackling disaffection among young people. That includes mainstream education and training budgets, which have been increased over future years: the Government have allocated an extra £128 million over the next three years for work-based training for young people delivered by training and enterprise councils and further education funding has been increased by £40 million next year.

  Partnership projects will make an important contribution to the formulation of the relaunch strategy and the Government are setting aside £10 million over the next three years to support them. Bids will be invited from local consortiums in spring 1997.

  The number and pattern of projects to be funded will depend on the nature of the bids received but the aim is to support at least one in each of the 10 Government regions.

  Construction Industry
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about the impact of the Budget on job levels in the construction industry. [9441]

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to ensure that newly qualified teachers are able to identify and give appropriate teaching to children at risk of (i) specific learning difficulties and (ii) dyslexia. [9497]

  Mr. Forth
  There will be wide consultation on revised requirements for initial teacher training in the new year.

  The existing criteria for courses of initial teacher training require that newly qualified teachers should have acquired the necessary foundation to develop the ability to identify and provide for special educational needs and specific learning difficulties.

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for her 694
  Department (a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9494]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are 5,022 people employed in the Department, including those employed in Government Offices. The numbers of male and female staff working full-time or part-time hours are shown in the table.

  Number

  Men

  Full-time

  2,310

  Part-time

  36

  Total

  2,346

  Women

  Full-time

  2,232

  Part-time

  444

  Total

  2,676

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) her Department and (ii) executive agencies of her Department in each year since 1992. [9629]

  Mr. Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 25 November 1996,Official Report, column 15.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people after leaving the (1) action credit, (2) adult employment subsidy, (3) access to information technology, (4) adult training strategy, (5) business enterprise programme, (6) business enterprise training, (7) business growth training, (8) business start-up scheme, (9) back to work bonus, (10) community action, (11) career development loans, (12) compacts/education business partnerships/education initiatives/careers service partnerships, (13) community enterprise programme, (14) careers guidance review implementation, (15) community industry, (16) community programme, (17) careers service, (18) careers service strengthening, (19) direct training service, (20) employment action, (21) enterprise allowance scheme, (22) enterprise awareness in teacher education, (23) enterprise in higher education and (24) employer investment in people scheme,(a) went into employment and (b) went on to further schemes and became unemployed; how many started and how many finished each scheme, including those who left before completion of the scheme, in each year of each scheme's operation and what type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, for each year of the scheme's operation up to the latest available year for which data are available. [8630]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people after attending (1) training and enterprise council—TEC—schemes, (2) TEC challenge schemes, (3) temporary employment
  695
  subsidy, (4) training and education support, (5) training for enterprise, (6) training for work, (7) the travel to interview scheme, (8) the training opportunities programme, (9) the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, (10) the technical and vocational education initiative, (11) the voluntary projects programme, (12) the working experience programme, (13) workstart pilots, (14) the wider opportunities training programme, (15) work trial, (16) work wise, (17) the youth enterprise initiative, (18) the youth employment service, (19) youth employment subsidy, (20) the youth opportunities programme, (21) youth credits, (22) modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships, (23) the youth training scheme and (24) the young workers scheme, (a) went into employment and (b) went on to further schemes including those who left before completion of the scheme, in each year of each scheme's operation; and what type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, for each year of the scheme's operation up to the latest available year for which data are available. [9131]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what tenders her Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when she expects her Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9461]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department and agencies will need to assess the impact which a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems, whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Career Development Loans (Fraud)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what police investigations are presently being conducted into cases of fraud concerning the granting of career development loans; what sums of money are involved; and if she will make a statement. [9706]

  Mr. Paice
  The police have been asked to investigate eight individual applications for career development loans which are suspected of being fraudulent. The total amount loaned by the banks on these eight cases is £103,204.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will introduce new safeguards to protect the career development loan scheme from fraudulent applications. [9707]

  Mr. Paice
  The career development loan scheme has stringent and effective fraud prevention measures built in. Currently, I have no plans to add to them.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of students in full-time higher education 696
  (a) received full maintenance grants and (b) received no maintenance grants at the latest date for which figures are available. [9749]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has figures available for holders of mandatory awards only. In the academic year 1994–95, of 761,000 mandatory award holders, excluding placement year sandwich students, 344,300–45 per cent.—received full maintenance grants and 175,400–23 per cent.—received a nil maintenance grant.

  European Union Programmes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what European Union programmes are covered in the Europes adjustments to her Department's budget; what is the total amount involved in such adjustments; how that total is distributed between the Department's programmes; and how the individual programme adjustments are calculated for both 1996–97 and 1997–98. [9708]

  Mr. Paice
  Europes adjustments are made to the Department's budget in respect of European Union programmes in which the Department has a policy interest. These programmes are listed.

  Total adjustments made to departmental budgets in 1996 were £53 million, £3 million and £4 million for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 respectively. Reductions are distributed between departmental programmes broadly in proportion to their shares of the Department's total programme budget, taking into account specific circumstances which apply to particular programmes. This method was followed by the former Department for Education and the former Employment Department in 1996–97, and by the Department for Education and Employment in 1997–98.

  European Community Programmes covered in DfEE Europes adjustments

  General Education Measures

  Socrates

  Co-operation with 3rd Countries: USA etc.

  European Year of Lifelong Learning

  Youth for Europe

  European Volunteer Service

  General Measures for Vocational training and Guidance

  Leonardo

  CEDEFOP European Centre for Development of Vocational Training

  CEDEFOP relocation expenses

  Integration in Universities (Jean Monnet)

  Labour Market

  Third System and Employment

  EURES: European Employment Services

  Measures—Equality between women and men

  Customs Agents

  Measures to assist the elderly

  HELIOS: Integration of Disabled Persons

  Measures to combat poverty

  Measures to Assist Families

  Free Movement and Migrants, including Immigrants

  Refugees

  Combating Racism

  697

  Dublin Foundation: European Foundation for Improvement Living and Working Conditions

  Public Health

  Health Aspects of Drug Abuse

  Combating Drug Abuse

  European Monitoring Centre—Drugs/Drug Addiction

  Business Promotion (SMEs)

  Telecoms Trans-European Network (TENs)

  IDA Interchange of Data between Administrations

  Joint Research Centre (JRC)

  3rd Research and Development Framework

  Telematics

  Targeted Socio-Economic Research

  Training and Mobility of Researchers.

  Note:

  In the majority of cases DfEE shares responsibility with other Government Departments in proportion to the scale of policy interest in each programme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Utilities (Transport Schemes)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations his Department has had concerning the regulations making utilities liable for 18 per cent. of the costs of diversionary works for major transport schemes. [9294]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has been in discussions with the Department of Transport, which has the main responsibility for the regulations in question, and these continue. Consultations have also taken place with the national joint utilities group.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9454]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department and agencies will need to assess the impact a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems irrespective of whether the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union. The Department's finance and pay systems have been outsourced, and changes to them will be the responsibility of the service providers. Other systems for the most part use commercial packages, and vendors can be expected to offer appropriate enhancements when market requirements become clear.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received for export licences in respect of weapons which will be prohibited under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [8017]
  698
  Mr. Nelson
  Firearms covered by the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill are included in headings ML I and PL5018 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994. To disaggregate licences including firearms covered by the Bill from other export licences issued under these headings could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost. I can say, however, that 303 export licences rated under those headings were issued between 1 November and 6 December. Coincidentally, a further 303 export licence applications rated under those headings were under consideration at close of business on 6 December. There were no new open individual export licences covering such goods issued during the period. However, six dealer-to-dealer licences, valid for a period of three years, were issued to registered firearms dealers enabling them to trade with counterparts in EU countries.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those categories of weapon which will be prohibited under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill which(a) may and (b) may not be exported without a licence. [8018]

  Mr. Nelson
  All categories of weapons covered by the Firearms (Amendment) Bill are controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order and may not be exported without a valid export licence.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been granted for the export of firearms since the Firearms (Amendment) Bill was published; how many licence applications are currently under consideration; and what is his policy in respect of issuing such export licences. [5583]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 25 November 1996]: Firearms covered by the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill are included in headings ML I and PL5018 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994; 303 export licences rated under those headings were issued between 1 November and 6 December. Coincidentally, a further 303 export licence applications rated under those headings were under consideration at close of business on 6 December. There were no new open individual export licences covering such goods issued during the period. However, six dealer-to-dealer licences, valid for a period of three years, were issued to registered firearms dealers enabling them to trade with counterparts in EU countries.

  Firearms and most military equipment require an export licence before export, and all applications for such licences are considered case by case. Careful consideration is given to the political and military implications of allowing individual consignments overseas. The Government pay particular attention to proposed exports of military goods to countries with poor human rights record, where such goods might be used for internal repression, and to countries or regions where the export of arms might contribute to destabilisation of the area. In all, eight strict criteria for allowing arms sales were agreed by Ministers at Luxembourg and Lisbon European Councils in June 1991 and June 1992.

  Defence Exports (Bahrain)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all export licences that have been(a) granted and (b) refused for defence-related equipment bound for Bahrain. [9735]
  699
  Mr. Nelson
  No. My Department has placed in the Library of the House statistics of export licences issued for military, security and paramilitary goods and arms, ammunition and related material to all destinations. These statistics cover 1993, 1994 1995 and the first half of 1996. Statistics for the second half of 1996 will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they are prepared early in 1997.

  Also placed in the Library of the House are similar statistics for such licences refused in the first half of 1996. Statistics for the second half of 1996 will be placed in the Library of the House early in 1997.

  The annual reports of the Export Control Organisation for 1993 and 1994, copies of which are in the Library of the House, contain details of licences refused in those years.

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each of the Ministers in his Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9383]

  Mr. Lang
  Official ministerial visits undertaken by my Ministers and me since 1 January 1996 are shown in the table, which also shows the number undertaken abroad.

  Total visits

  Visits abroad

  President of the Board of Trade

  37

  8

  Lord Fraser

  38

  12

  Mr. Nelson

  26

  24

  Mr. Knight

  14

  0

  Mr. Tim Eggar

  15

  3

  Mr. J. Taylor

  55

  4

  Mr. I. Taylor

  67

  17

  Mr. Page

  54

  2

  Mr. Oppenheim

  6

  3

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to his answers of 10 December,Official Report, columns 87–89, on what occasions his Department used the services of Dellcourts Ltd. (Totnes); and in relation to which applications for RSA; [9121]

  (2) pursuant to his answers of 10 December, Official Report, columns 87–89, if the contract for Mr. A's retention as an adviser to his Department was made through his companies. [9120]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answers 16 December 1996]: Dellcourts Ltd., a company owned and controlled by Mr. A, was contracted to provide accountancy advice to the Department's south-west regional office, later the Government Office for the south-west, from 1 February

  (a) Inward investment £ million

  (b) Outward investment £ million

  (c) Acquisitions in the UK £ million

  (d) Acquisitions overseas £ million

  (e) Percentage acquisitions in inward investment

  1979

  3,030

  5,889

  166

  1,384

  5.5

  1980

  4,355

  4,867

  797

  1,772

  18.3

  1981

  2,932

  6,005

  875

  2,403

  29.8

  1982

  3,027

  4,091

  249

  915

  8.2

  1983

  3,386

  5,417

  556

  1,919

  16.4

  700
  1993 to 15 April 1995. During that time, it assisted in the appraisal of 71 regional selective assistance cases, as well as advising on applications under SMART—small firms merit award for research and technology—and SPUR—support for products under research—technology services and on business links.

  Mr. A also advised on a further 49 regional selective assistance cases between 5 February 1991 and 31 January 1993 under the terms of a contract made directly with him which included provision for all remuneration to be paid to Dellcourts Ltd.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 10 December,Official Report, columns 87–89, if it was acceptable practice within the terms of his contract for Mr. A to make direct written contact with applicants for RSA while he was retained as an adviser to his Department. [9122]

  Mr. Knight
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: External advisers assisting in regional assistance cases are free to correspond or otherwise communicate with applicants to clarify aspects of their appraisal.

  Business Links
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business links have set up help desks and practice boards in each region, since October; and at what cost to his Department. [8936]

  Mr. Page
  Every business link partnership is required to provide an effective inquiry and information point as part of its service to its customers. The costs are met by contributions from a variety of sources, including local partners and the Department of Trade and Industry. Two business links have opened since October, bringing the total to 236.

  Investment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for each year since 1979, what was the value of(a) inward investment, (b) outward investment, (c) acquisitions in the United Kingdom by overseas companies, (d) acquisitions overseas by United Kingdom companies and (e) the proportion of inward investment that is accounted for by acquisitions in the United Kingdom by overseas companies. [7829]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: The table shows the flows of direct investment in each year. Their volatility reflects the economic cycle and the peaks and troughs of acquisitions. They are, therefore, not a good indicator of the general trend of direct foreign investment.

  Since 1979, the total stock of inward investment into the UK has more than tripled, and the UK continues to be the number one location for Japanese, US and Korean investment in the EU.
  701

  (a) Inward investment £ million

  (b) Outward investment £ million

  (c) Acquisitions in the UK £ million

  (d) Acquisitions overseas £ million

  (e) Percentage acquisitions in inward investment

  1984

  -181

  6,042

  659

  2,685

  n/a

  1985

  4,504

  8,430

  677

  3,094

  15.0

  1986

  5,837

  11,649

  1,355

  6,521

  23.2

  1987

  9,449

  19,147

  2,999

  6,985

  31.7

  1988

  12,006

  20,863

  3,147

  7,665

  26.2

  1989

  18,567

  21,503

  5,889

  9,513

  31.7

  1990

  18,514

  10,490

  9,952

  7,198

  53.8

  1991

  9,058

  9,056

  4,781

  4,754

  52.8

  1992

  9,184

  10,850

  6,272

  5,037

  68.3

  1993

  10,298

  17,026

  5,309

  3,681

  51.6

  1994

  6,823

  18,363

  2,960

  6,667

  43.4

  1995

  20,480

  25,546

  12,304

  6,213

  60.1

  Note:

  Figures represent the flows of direct net investment. Investment includes investors' shares of the unremitted profits, their net acquisition of share and loan capital, changes in inter-company accounts and changes in branch/head office indebtedness. Inward investment includes property investments by overseas companies and investments made by individuals. Outward investment includes real estate transactions by non-bank financial institutions and persons. It also includes non-bank financial institutions' loans and mortgages to overseas residents.

  Source:

  "United Kingdom Balance of Payments, The Pink Book" 1990, 1994, 1996.

  Office for National Statistics.

  Road Haulage Firms (Liquidations)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many road haulage firms have gone into liquidation in each year from 1990 to 1995. [9128]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows company compulsory liquidations and individual bankruptcies for the road transport industry in England and Wales 1992 to 1995–1992 is the first complete year for which data are available.

  Insolvencies: road haulage industry

  (England and Wales)

  Year

  Company compulsory liquidations

  Individual bankruptcy orders

  1992

  397

  1,736

  1993

  294

  1,481

  1994

  235

  1,149

  1995

  204

  924

  Source:

  DTI.

  Confidential Payments to Individuals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the grants and other financial assistance within his responsibility which are paid to private individuals whose identity is kept confidential. 19710]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  Unless information falls under one of the exemptions in the code of practice on access to Government information, the identity of recipients for grants and financial assistance paid to individuals is made publicly available.

  EU Third Framework Programme Grants
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of each United Kingdom company
  702
  and institution which received grants under the European Union third framework programme between 1991 and 1994. [9048]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Full information on research projects funded in individual member states by the third framework programme is held only by the European Commission, and is not distributed to member states. UK researchers have, however, participated vigorously in the EU's framework programmes. Commission statistics show that 2,337 UK research teams participated in projects funded under the third framework—more than in any other member state.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the total spending on research and development in the United Kingdom was under the European Union third framework programme between 1991 and 1994. [9047]

  Mr. Taylor
  The UK's notional contribution to the European Community research and development budget for the period of the third framework programme was:

  Financial year

  National UK contribution to EC budget £ million

  1990–91

  207.3

  1991–92

  189.3

  1992–93

  252.9

  1993–94

  285.0

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last discussed the sale of British Coal Enterprise with the chairman of British Coal; and what receipts have been achieved from the sale of British Coal Enterprise(a) outplacing and career counselling, (b) finance and business loan and (c) workshop activities. [9700]
  703
  Mr. Page
  My ministerial colleagues and I meet the chairman of British Coal as necessary to discuss a range of issues. Officials in my Department remain in close touch with British Coal about the sale of British Coal Enterprise, which is a matter for British Coal.

  Telephones
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on households' access to a telephone for access to emergency services; and if he will make a statement. [8448]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Access to emergency services for all those on the telephone is guaranteed by licence conditions. The number of households with a telephone has risen substantially from 78 per cent. in 1984 to 92.4 per cent. in 1995–96. Conditions in licences authorising the provision of payphones require the provision of free access from payphones to the emergency services.

  Riot Control Equipment
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what export licences have been granted for the export of(a) water cannons and (b) electro-shock batons to Indonesia in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [2482]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: Since 1991, when computerised records became readily available in respect of Indonesia, four individual export licences have been issued for water cannons. In addition to the export licence that was referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 9 December 1996, Official Report, column 30, a licence for three water cannons was issued in 1994, and two further export licences, including three water cannons on each licence, were issued in 1995. In the same period, no individual export licences were issued in respect of electro-shock batons for Indonesia. To respond in respect of the earlier five years could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what trans-shipment licences the Government have granted for electro-shock batons since 1990; if he will list(a) the originating and (b) the recipient countries; and if he will make a statement. [2483]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: I apologise for not yet replying to the hon. Member. I will give a substantive answer in the new year.

  Delphi Packard
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government office for the west midlands plans to reply to the letter sent by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East regarding an inquiry into grants made to Delphi Packard on 8 November. [8453]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: I wrote to the hon. Member on Monday 16 December.

HEALTH

  Consultancies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the consultancies awarded by(a) his Department, (b) the national health service executive and (c) the executive's regional offices in the last year. [8864]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the national health service in 1995 of providing hospital treatment to patients suffering from food poisoning resulting from(a) salmonella, (b) campylobacter, (c) listeria, (d) E. coli 0157 and (e) other causes; and if he will make a statement. [9140]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many E. coli 0157 outbreaks there were in each year since 1990. [9437]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is as follows:

  E. Coli 0157 outbreaks in England and Wales

  Year

  Number of outbreaks

  1990

  2

  1991

  5

  1992

  5

  1993

  8

  1994

  5

  19951

  11

  19961

  10

  Source:

  Public health laboratory service.

  1Provisional.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from food poisoning in each year since 1990; and, in each case, what was the source of the infection. [9711]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of people who have died from food poisoning is provided in the following table:

  Deaths from food poisoning for England and Wales

  Year

  Number of outbreaks

  1990

  94

  1991

  82

  1992

  118

  1993

  109

  1994

  154

  1995

  203

  Notes:

  1. The data for 1990–92 represent registrations during the year.

  2. The data for 1993 onwards represent occurrences during the year.

  3. The introduction of a national case definition for food poisoning in 1992 may also have had the effect of increasing the range of infectious intestinal disease reported as food poisoning.

  Information on the source of the infection for each case is not available.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics—analysis of causes of death on death certificates.

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each of the Ministers in her Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9379]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Total number of visits in UK

  Total number of visits abroad

  Secretary of State for Health

  23

  nil

  Minister of State for Health Mr. Malone

  58

  3

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Mr. Horam

  28

  nil

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Mr. Bowis OBE/ Mr. Burns

  51

  nil

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Baroness Cumberlege CBE

  64

  1

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9490]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is in the table.

  1 December 1996

  Total: 4,799

  Male: 2,119

  Female: 2,680

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  2,094

  25

  2,415

  265

  On 1 April 1996 the national health service regional office staff became part of the Department of Health.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9616]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Non-casual

  Casuals1

  1 April 1992

  Total DH

  4,649

  159

  Executive agencies

  412

  30

  1 April 1993

  Total DH

  4,716

  228

  Executive agencies

  889

  68

  1 April 1994

  Total DH

  4,525

  244

  Executive agencies

  954

  65

  1 April 1995

  Total DH

  4,282

  271

  Executive agencies

  985

  66

  706

  Non-casual

  Casuals1

  1 April 19962

  Total DH

  4,588

  271

  Executive agencies

  1,002

  56

  1Includes inward secondees and staff on fixed term appointments which can last up to a maximum of five years.

  2 On 1 April 1996 some 800 national health service regional office staff became part of the Department of Health.

  Peanut Allergy
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the expert group he is commissioning to report on peanut allergy. [9412]

  Mr. Horam
  Current membership of the peanut allergy working group, a sub-group of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, is as follows:

  Members:
  Professor H. F. Woods (Chair): Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
  Professor J. 0 Warner: School of Medicine, Child Health, University of Southampton
  Professor S. Strobel: Institute of Child Health, London
  Dr. I Kimber: Zeneca Central Toxicology Laboratory, Cheshire
  Professor S. T. Holgate: School of Medicine, University of Southampton
  Ms V. Shaw: Dietetics Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London.

  Professor Caines
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the value for money provided by his Department's funding of Professor Caines' post at Nottingham. [9590]

  Mr. Horam
  The former Trent regional health authority and, from April 1996, the Trent regional office of the national health service executive have undertaken regular reviews with the centre for health services management at the university of Nottingham to ensure value for money from their funding.

  People with Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring has been conducted by or on behalf of his Department on, the implementation of the provisions of the guidance issued in 1992 to health and local authorities on the provision of residential accommodation and support for people with learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement on its effectiveness. [9498]

  Mr. Burns
  Implementation of the guidance is being monitored in the usual way including through the work of the social services inspectorate, and statistical returns. As envisaged in the guidance, services for people with learning disabilities are becoming increasingly responsive to individual needs. There is to be an SSI inspection of learning disability services in 1997.

  Mental Health Green Paper
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his Green Paper on mental health. [9878]

  Mr. Burns
  We intend to publish the Green Paper in the new year.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are contributing towards the cost of domiciliary care as a result of local authority means tests; and how many liability orders have been issued by local authorities on properties owned by those receiving residential care. [9348]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Partnership Insurance Legislation
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the draft Bill on partnership insurance and long-term care. [9346]

  Mr. Burns
  My. right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 24 October 1996 that the Government would publish a draft Bill for consultation in the new year.

  Care Service Charges
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions he made about the income which social service departments would recover from charges for care services in the current year and in each of the past five years; and what estimate he has made of the number of people in receipt of such services in each year. [9347]

  Mr. Burns
  No such assumptions or estimates are made.

  Free Eye Examinations
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of restoring free eye examinations to all those over the age of(a) 65, (b) 60 and (c) 55 years. [9664]

  Mr. Malone
  Our estimates of the cost per annum are:

  (a) £24 million

  (b) £32 million

  (c) £40 million.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9451]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department and its agencies will need to assess the impact which a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have 708
  on their information systems whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the secretary of State for Health how many cases of MRSA have been recorded in England and Wales for each year since 1990. [9512]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the total number of cases of infection or colonisation with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus is not collected centrally. Information on the numbers of people affected by MRSA incidents since 1992 is set out in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 3 December,Official Report, column 634.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds have been closed because of MRSA for each year since 1990. [9513]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Political Activity
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the political affiliation of those candidates appointed to public positions in the health service after July whose appointments fall within the guidance on declaration of political activity from the Commission for Public Appointments. [9511]

  Mr. Malone
  Work is currently under way on compiling the Department's second annual report of public appointments which will include information on the political activity of those appointed to serve on health bodies since April 1996.

  Refugees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total expenditure by his Department on refugee children by each local authority since April 1994 within the terms of the Children Act 1989. [9715]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department has established special grants for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and children in families for 1996–97. Under the conditions of both grants, allocations and payments will be made in 1997 to individual authorities who qualify for support. In previous years the Department has not made separate financial provision to local authorities for asylum-seeking children.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings have been held with organisations representing refugees concerning the health needs of children and vulnerable adults. [9714]

  Mr. Burns
  Officials have held two meetings during 1996 with representatives of the Refugee Council to discuss the progress of a project which the department has funded with section 64 grants.

  A third meeting was held this month to discuss the aims of a potential new bid from the Refugee Council for more section 64 money that will address the health needs of refugees.

  Formaldehyde
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the carcinogenic properties of formaldehyde. [9567]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission reviewed the health effects and occupational exposure of formaldehyde for the purpose of setting an occupational exposure limit in 1984.

  In 1993, a study carried out for HSE by the Medical Research Council toxicology unit concluded that formaldehyde was not a carcinogen.

  There are no on-going research projects into the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the risk to human health from the inhalation of formaldehyde fumes. [9564]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission reviewed the health effects and occupational exposure of formaldehyde in 1984. HSC'S advisory committee on toxic substances agreed that the inhalation of formaldehyde fumes causes severe irritation of the eyes and upper respiratory tract. However, there was no evidence that the inhalation of formaldehyde fumes causes occupational asthma and the evidence for causing nasal tumours was considered equivocal.

  The Department commissioned the Medical Research Council institute for environment and health to review the available data on exposure to formaldehyde in typical UK homes and assess the likely impacts on the health of occupants. This assessment was published by the institute in May 1996; the conclusions on health effects of formaldehyde were:

  1. The irritant effects reported in some of the US studies from the 1980s related to mobile homes and relatively high levels of formaldehyde exposure, and are not relevant to the current situation in the UK.

  2. Chamber studies with normal adults or those with pre-existing asthma have not demonstrated any dysfunction to mean formaldehyde levels currently found in UK homes by the Building Research Establishment study (0.020–0.025 mg/m3, 0.017–0.021 ppm) or even at levels several times higher.

  3. Epidemiological studies have not demonstrated any increase in respiratory symptoms or lung function at estimated current levels of formaldehyde in UK homes. However, there is a suggestion of an increase in asthma and chronic bronchitis among children living in homes with formaldehyde levels above 0.07 mg/m3 (0.06 ppm).

  4. There is no evidence to suggest that current domestic exposures to formaldehyde in the UK pose a carcinogenic risk.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department has collated on the incidence of accidents involving the release of formaldehyde into the environment from industrial premises. [9566]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.
  710
  The Environment Agency regulates a number of companies which emit formaldehyde to the environment under the integrated pollution control regime. The agency's chemical release inventory, which is available for public access, provides details of formaldehyde emissions. I have placed in the House Library a copy of relevant extracts from the inventory. These show total recorded releases—in tonnes—as follows:

  England

  Wales

  1994

  194.700

  93.880

  1995

  215.200

  37.230

  I understand from the Environment Agency that none of the recorded releases was the result of an accident.

  Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Disorder
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from the charity Miracles in relation to recognition of multiple chemical sensitivity disorder in the United Kingdom and other issues; what response he is making; what action he plans to take; and if he will make a statement. [9425]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: One letter has been received from the charity Miracles regarding multiple chemical sensitivity disorder in the United Kingdom. We will be responding in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Rights Extremists
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter of 2 December, Ref. POD/96 2/1/85 PO 13428/96, when he plans to announce his response to the recommendation made by Lord Lloyd that actions of animal rights extremists should be treated as terrorism. [8369]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government intend to respond in the new year to Lord Lloyd's report of his inquiry into legislation against terrorism, including his recommendation concerning the actions of animal rights extremists.

  Tagged Offenders
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of the 48 offenders who have been sentenced to a curfew order and tagged after conviction for theft, how many were persistent shoplifters and how many were first offenders. [8631]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not yet available about the previous convictions of offenders who have only recently been given curfew orders. In the first full year of the trials, nobody sentenced to a curfew order for theft was a first offender.

  Central records do not allow shoplifting to be distinguished from other offences of theft. As a result, it is not possible to say how many of those receiving curfew orders have been persistent shoplifters.

  Television Licence Defaulters
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the correlation between statistics collected by his Department and those of the Lord Chancellor's Department concerning the number of people imprisoned for failure to pay fines imposed for the non-payment of television licences in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [8890]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: The statistics on the number of people imprisoned for failure to pay fines imposed for the non-payment of television licences are taken from the Prison Service receptions data. The latest figures were given in a reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), Official Report, columns 385–86.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not have a separate source for this information and has written correcting information previously supplied to certain hon. Members.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many television licence fine defaulters were imprisoned in 1995; what was the average sentence they served; and what are the equivalent figures for 1996. [9325]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 16 December 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. Nick Ainger, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many television licence fine defaulters were imprisoned in 1995, what was the average sentence they served and what are the equivalent figures for 1996.
  Provisional information for January to October 1996 shows that 293 people were received into prison for defaulting on a fine after conviction for using a television without a licence. Information for 1995 is published in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (table 7.2 of the 1995 edition, Cm 3355, a copy of which is available in the library) and shows that 735 (500 males and 235 females) were received for this offence over the year. The average time served by fine defaulters is about one week.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily cost of imprisoning television licence fine defaulters in(a) 1996 and (b) 1995. [9324]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 16 December 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. Nick Ainger, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to respond to your recent Question about the average daily cost of imprisoning television licence fine defaulters in 1996 and 1995.
  We do not calculate the cost of imprisonment for television licence defaulters separately from other offenders. The average cost
  712
  per prisoner for the financial year 1995–96 was £24,233 (£66.4 per day). The average per prisoner for April to September 1996 was £63.5 per day, or £23,190 for a full year.

  Prisons (Disabled Visitor Access)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons have been adapted to enable visitors to have access with(a) a wheelchair and (b) physical disabilities not requiring a wheelchair; what adaptations have been made to the prisons; and if he will make a statement. [9125]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about which prisons have been adapted to enable visitors to have access with wheelchairs and other physical disabilities.
  Facilities for disabled visitors have generally been provided as a result of local minor work and we do not therefore have comprehensive central records of modifications made to buildings for this purpose. A survey carried out in 1995, however, revealed that the attached list of establishments have facilities for disabled visitors.
  Examples of the type of facilities provided include ramps, lifts, wide doors and specially adapted toilets. The establishments listed may have all or any of these.
  Our standard briefing guides for new buildings provide for access ramps, lifts, toilets, and for circulation routes to be made suitable for the passage of wheelchairs. Wherever practical these guides are also taken into account when existing facilities are refurbished.

  Acklington

  Albany

  Aldington

  Ashwell

  Askham Grange

  Aylesbury

  Bedford

  Belmarsh

  Birmingham

  Blakenhurst

  Blundeston

  Bristol

  Brixton

  Brockhill

  Bullingdon

  Camp Hill

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Channings Wood

  Coldingley

  Dartmoor

  Deerbolt

  Doncaster

  Dorchester

  Dover

  Downview

  Durham

  713

  East Sutton Park

  Eastwood Park

  Elmley

  Erlestoke

  Everthorpe

  Featherstone

  Feltham

  Ford

  Frankland

  Full Sutton

  Garth

  Gloucester

  Guys Marsh

  Haslar

  Haverigg

  Hewell Grange

  High Down

  Hollesley Bay

  Holloway

  Hull

  Huntercombe

  Kingston

  Kirkham

  Kirklevington

  Lancaster Farms

  Latchmere House

  Leeds

  Lewes

  Leyhill

  Lindholme

  Littlehey

  Low Newton

  Maidstone

  Manchester

  Moorland

  Morton Hall

  The Mount

  New Hall

  North Sea Camp

  Norwich

  Onley

  Pentonville

  Portland

  Preston

  Ranby

  Reading

  Send

  Shepton Mallet

  Shrewsbury

  Stafford

  Standford Hill

  Stocken

  Styal

  Sudbury

  Swaleside

  Swansea

  Thorn Cross

  714

  Usk and Prescoed

  Whitemoor

  Wakefield

  Wandsworth

  Wayland

  Wealstun

  Wellingborough

  Werrington

  Wetherby

  Whatton

  Whitemoor

  Winchester

  Woodhill

  Wormwood Scrubs.

  Prisoners (Learning Disabilities)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the current Prison Service policy with regard to prisoners identified as having learning disabilities and dyslexia; and if he will make a statement; [9127]

  (2) how many prisoners have been identified as having (a) a learning disability and (b) dyslexia on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9126]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your two recent Questions about prisoners with learning disabilities and dyslexia.
  The policy of the Prisons Board towards prisoners who have any learning disabilities, including dyslexia, is that those who need to improve basic literacy and are prepared to attend education classes will be given every opportunity to do so. Contractors providing education to prisons are required to offer a basic skills screening test in numeracy and literacy to all prisoners. Basic literacy is included in the Prison Service's core education curriculum. A number of prisons are also trying to find better ways of giving basic skills training as part of vocational training and in the course of daily work in prison workshops. This work is being supported by the Basic Skills Agency, with whom the Prison Service works closely. The Unit has contracted Amersham and Wycombe College to provide a national support project to this end.
  The number of prisoners identified by the Basic Skills Screening test as having a learning disability is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Crime Victims (Young People)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the number of young people who were victims of crime in each of the last 17 years and of that number relative to the number of adult victims for each category of crime; and if he will make a statement; [9100]
  715
  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of young people who have been victims of violent crime; and if he will make a statement. [9095]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]Information on the age of victims of crime recorded by the police is not routinely collected by the Home Office. However, information from an ad hoc survey on violent crime shows the rates of recorded offences per 100,000 population by age and sex of victims for each of the violent crime offence categories. This information is published in table 2 of the Home Office statistical findings 1/96 "Victims of Violent Crime Recorded by the Police, 1990–94". A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  No estimate has been made of the percentage of young people who have been victims of overall violent crime. However, information from the youth life styles survey carried out by the Home Office in 1993, based on a sample of around 1,700 young people aged between 14 and 25, found that 17 per cent. of young people in this age group reported being a victim of a "violent act" in the previous 12 months. The term "violent act" is not the same as "violent crime". The youth life styles survey defined a "violent act" as being where the victim was
  "deliberately hit or kicked or had force used against them".

  Sexual offences are not included.

  Police (Secure Transport)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cost to public funds of(a) arrested but unconvicted persons by the Metropolitan police in relation to court proceedings, (b) costs incurred by (i) the Metropolitan police and (ii) the Home Office for secure transport of those convicted and (c) the total costs of transport for the years (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96, indicating the number of specialist vehicles and persons used by the providers in each year. [8808]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: The cost to public funds of arrested but unconvicted persons by the Metropolitan police in relation to court proceedings is not available in the form requested.

  Costs incurred by (i) the Metropolitan police and (ii) the Home Office for secure transport of those convicted are as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total cost to the Metropolitan police

  £3.9 million

  £1.4 million

  Recovery from the Home Office

  £1.5 million

  £0.8 million

  Net cost to Metropolitan police

  £2.4 million

  £0.6 million

  Cost to the Metropolitan police of vehicles (included in costs above)

  £505 thousand

  £127 thousand

  Costs to Home Office of vehicles (included in costs above)

  £426 thousand

  £235 thousand

  Number of vehicles

  52

  30

  Number of staff

  77

  26

  716
  The costs do not include the costs of special escort duties provided by the Metropolitan police or the Home Office in the conveyance of prisoners between Crown court and prison.

  In the years 1994–95 and 1995–96 the responsibility for the escort of prisoners in London, other than those in the highest security category, to and from court was in the process of being transferred from the police and the Prison Service to Securicor Custodial Services. This exercise was only completed in July 1995.

  The contract covers the full escort service, together with the responsibility for the custody of prisoners while at court. It is on a fixed-price basis and the component elements, such as transportation, are not costed separately. The requested information is not, therefore, available.

  In 1995–96, Securicor employed approximately 900 staff and 150 specialist vehicles on the contract. The total value is approximately £96 million over five years.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-year-olds were being held in each young offender institution and remand centre, on the latest date for which figures are available; what percentage were held on (i) remand and (ii) under sentence; and if he will make a statement. [9124]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many 15 year olds were being held in each young offender institution and remand centre, on the latest date for which figures are available and what percentage were held on remand and under sentence.
  The information requested for 31 October 1996 is shown in the attached table. 31 per cent. of the 15 year olds were on remand, with 69 per cent held under sentence.

  15 year olds held in prison in England and Wales on 31 October 1996 by establishment

  Establishment

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Aylesbury

  —

  2

  Brinsford

  14

  5

  Bullwood Hall

  —

  2

  Cardiff

  2

  —

  Deerbolt

  1

  20

  Doncaster

  7

  4

  Exeter

  1

  —

  Feltham

  16

  42

  Glen Parva

  20

  3

  Hindley

  1

  6

  Hollesley Bay

  —

  1

  Hull

  4

  —

  Huntercombe

  —

  1

  Lancaster Farms

  —

  2

  Low Newton

  9

  2

  Moorland

  —

  1

  New Hall

  —

  1

  Northallerton

  3

  —

  Onley

  —

  16

  Portland

  —

  14

  Stoke Heath

  —

  15

  Styal

  —

  2

  717

  15 year olds held in prison in England and Wales on 31 October 1996 by establishment

  Establishment

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Swansea

  —

  1

  Thorn Cross

  4

  Weatherby

  —

  11

  Warrington

  —

  17

  Total

  78

  172

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales were holding girl's aged(a) 16, (b) 17 and (c) 18 years old on the latest date for which figures are available broken down by institution and age; and if he will make a statement. [9084]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, which prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales were holding girls aged 16, 17 and 18 years of age.
  The information requested for 31 October 1996 is given in the attached table.

  Institution

  Aged 16

  Aged 17

  Aged 18

  Askham Grange

  —

  2

  5

  Brockhill

  —

  1

  2

  Bullwood Hall

  5

  6

  10

  Drake Hall

  2

  3

  9

  East Sutton Park

  —

  —

  1

  Holloway

  2

  9

  7

  Low Newton

  —

  3

  2

  Newhall

  1

  7

  18

  Risky

  —

  4

  8

  Styal

  3

  9

  9

  Total

  13

  44

  71

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women aged(a) 16, (b) 17 and (c) 18 years were received into Prison Service custody in each year from 1990 and in 1996 to date; and if he will make a statement. [9085]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many women aged 16, 17 and 18 years were received into Prison Service custody in each year from 1990 and in 1996 to date.
  The available information is published in successive volumes of "Prison statistics, England and Wales". Table 3.10 of the 1995 edition, Cm 3355 and tables 3.9 for years 1992 and 1993. Information for years 1990 and 1991 only relates to sentenced inmates. Copies of these publications are available in the library. Provisional information for 1996 is given in the attached table.
  718

  Receptions of females aged 16, 17 and 18 years into prisons in England and Wales, January to October 19961 2

  Age

  Custody type

  16

  17

  18

  Untried

  2

  124

  133

  Convicted unsentenced

  4

  58

  73

  Sentenced

  52

  83

  124

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Total receptions cannot be calculated by adding together receptions in each category because there is double counting.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile offenders were imprisoned in each of the last five years; and what was the average length of juvenile sentence for each year; and if he will make a statement. [9090]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about juvenile offenders.
  The information requested is given in Tables 3.1 and 3.16 of the annual publication 'Prison statistics England and Wales'; the latest edition for 1995 has the reference CM3355. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.
  The information for prisoners aged under 18 is set out in the attached table.

  Sentenced receptions

  Prisoners aged under 18

  Males

  Females

  Year

  Number

  Average sentence length (months)

  Number

  Average sentence length (months)

  1991

  3,621

  6.5

  97

  7.5

  1992

  3,344

  9.2

  79

  8.1

  1993

  3,564

  8.6

  102

  6.9

  1994

  3,971

  8.5

  149

  8.2

  1995

  4,505

  9.6

  166

  10.0

  Includes some 14 year olds until 1992.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates of young offender institutions have(a) committed suicide, (b) attempted suicide and (c) been victims of violence, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9093]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about incidents involving young offenders.
  The information on self inflicted deaths, attempted suicides and assaults is given in the attached table. Information held centrally on assaults relates to the number of adjudications where an inmate has been found guilty of an assault upon another inmate.
  719

  Incidents occurring in young offender institutions: 1991–1996

  Self inflicted deaths

  Attempted suicide

  Assaults (proved at adjudication)

  1991

  4

  111

  642

  1992

  5

  119

  691

  1993

  2

  123

  651

  1994

  7

  102

  711

  1995

  5

  87

  801

  1996 (to 13 December 1996)

  3

  108

  879

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young men aged under 21 years have committed suicide or attempted suicide while awaiting trail on remand in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [9094]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about young men under the age of 21 on remand who have committed or attempted suicide in the last ten years.
  The information routinely collected from establishments about attempted suicides is not categorised by age and status of the prisoner and the details requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Further work is planned which will improve the level of detail available in coming years. The attached table lists the numbers of self-inflicted deaths amongst men under 21 during the last ten years whilst awaiting trail on remand.

  Year

  Number of self inflicted deaths

  1987

  4

  1988

  9

  1989

  11

  1990

  10

  1991

  5

  1992

  6

  1993

  3

  1994

  10

  1995

  9

  1996 (to 13 December 1996)

  6

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people under the age of 21 years were in prison or other custody in(a) London and (b) England and Wales on 1 November in each of the last 17 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9097]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many young people under the age of 21 years were in prison or other custody in (a) London and (b) England and Wales on 1 November in each of the last 17 years for which figures are available.
  720
  The information for persons under the age of 21 held in Prison Service establishments, including all young offender institutions is given in the attached table.

  Population of persons aged under 21 years1 in prisons in London and England and Wales on 31 October 1980 to 1996.

  On 31 October

  London prisons

  England and Wales

  Total prison population aged under 21

  1980

  405

  11,140

  11,545

  1981

  233

  12,956

  13,189

  1982

  225

  12,872

  13,097

  1983

  263

  12,527

  12,790

  1984

  291

  12,054

  12,345

  1985

  246

  12,426

  12,672

  1986

  351

  12,039

  12,390

  1987

  458

  11,334

  11,792

  1988

  932

  10,091

  11,023

  1989

  788

  9,374

  10,162

  1990

  903

  8,134

  9,037

  1991

  865

  7,862

  8,727

  1992

  680

  6,782

  7,462

  1993

  837

  7,590

  8,427

  1994

  887

  7,594

  8,481

  1995

  911

  7,876

  8,787

  1996

  977

  9,384

  10,361

  1 Includes some young offenders aged 21 years.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people aged between 10 and 17 years were sent to adult prisons or remand centres to await trial in(a) London and (b) England and Wales during each of the past 17 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9098]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question, asking, how many young people aged between 10 and 17 years were sent to adult prisons or remand centres to await trial in (a) London and (b) England and Wales during each of the last 17 years for which figures are available.
  The available information on the number of untried prisoners aged between 14 and 17 years is given in the attached table.

  Receptions of untried prisoners aged under 18 years into Prison Service establishments in London and England and Wales, 1992 to 1996

  Year

  London prisons

  England and Wales

  Adult prisons and remand centres

  1992

  775

  3,699

  1993

  740

  4,049

  1994

  842

  4,353

  1995

  933

  4,413

  January to October 19961

  836

  4,059

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were reoffending rates for young people leaving custody in each of the last 17 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9099]
  721
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: The available information relates to reconviction rates within two years for standard list offences and is given in the table.

  Reconviction rates are affected by differences in the age, sex, previous convictions and other characteristics of offenders receiving the sentences, as described in Home Office research study No. 136, "Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis".

  The rates prior to 1984 discharges have been derived from information contained in "Prison Statistics England and Wales, 1986", Cm 210. The information from 1984 onwards on rates for male young offenders is contained in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1994", Cm 3087.

  Percentage of sentenced young offenders discharged from custody who are reconvicted within two years of discharge by year of discharge

  Males

  Females

  Total

  19761

  67

  49

  67

  19771

  69

  48

  68

  19781

  65

  54

  65

  19791

  66

  47

  65

  1980

  69

  45

  68

  1981

  66

  46

  66

  1982

  68

  47

  67

  1983

  67

  44

  67

  1984

  65

  42

  65

  1985

  64

  44

  64

  1986

  63

  46

  62

  19872

  72

  52

  71

  19882

  70

  55

  70

  19892

  71

  57

  71

  19902

  72

  59

  72

  19912

  72

  52

  72

  Police officer and civilian strength 1992 to 1996

  Force

  31 October 19921

  31 October 19931

  31 October 19941

  30 September 19951

  30 September 19961

  Police

  Civilians

  Police

  Civilians

  Police

  Civilians

  Police

  Civilians

  Police

  Civilians

  Avon and Somerset

  3,068

  1,254

  3,048

  1,338

  3,025

  1,325

  2,986

  1,294

  3,004

  1,315

  Bedfordshire

  1,129

  420

  1,157

  439

  1,123

  477

  1,116

  519

  1,118

  528

  Cambridgeshire

  1,262

  491

  1,278

  488

  1,270

  488

  1,254

  546

  1,253

  597

  Cheshire

  1,888

  581

  1,858

  615

  1,913

  641

  1,951

  730

  2,016

  791

  City of London

  801

  378

  878

  384

  889

  332

  869

  338

  868

  335

  Cleveland

  1,490

  491

  1,430

  521

  1,442

  525

  1,430

  575

  1,444

  623

  Cumbria

  1,192

  446

  1,205

  459

  1,179

  484

  1,144

  462

  1,124

  457

  Derbyshire

  1,803

  635

  1,786

  657

  1,803

  670

  1,762

  751

  1,795

  737

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,918

  1,182

  2,917

  1,213

  2,885

  1,224

  2,872

  1,237

  2,876

  1,283

  Dorset

  1,317

  630

  1,302

  625

  1,287

  665

  1,272

  671

  1,262

  678

  Durham

  1,390

  563

  1,379

  560

  1,357

  508

  1,377

  526

  1,426

  563

  Dyfed Powys

  966

  287

  968

  304

  980

  311

  977

  335

  998

  354

  Essex

  2,963

  1,200

  2,964

  1,279

  2,909

  1,329

  2,897

  1,270

  2,927

  1,400

  Gloucestershire

  1,154

  411

  1,144

  420

  1,171

  425

  1,142

  464

  1,139

  460

  Greater Manchester

  7,084

  2,693

  7,075

  2,815

  6,980

  2,880

  7,026

  2,904

  6,961

  2,922

  Gwent

  1,008

  346

  996

  350

  1,004

  350

  1,006

  380

  1,231

  497

  Hampshire

  3,269

  1,169

  3,272

  1,212

  3,259

  1,317

  3,307

  1,409

  3,362

  1,429

  Hertfordshire

  1,690

  665

  1,693

  669

  1,691

  699

  1,704

  921

  1,721

  863

  Humberside

  2,027

  760

  2,029

  733

  2,038

  708

  2,025

  670

  2,042

  772

  Kent

  3,099

  1,230

  3,183

  1,228

  3,137

  1,181

  3,100

  1,290

  3,227

  1,332

  Lancashire

  3,203

  1,190

  3,149

  1,164

  3,196

  1,243

  3,195

  1,419

  3,203

  1,320

  Leicestershire

  1,846

  758

  1,829

  724

  1,835

  755

  1,860

  747

  1,933

  776

  Lincolnshire

  1,188

  509

  1,212

  516

  1,214

  528

  1,164

  452

  1,157

  513

  Merseyside

  4,687

  1,757

  4,690

  1,781

  4,688

  1,773

  4,536

  1,797

  4,271

  1,825

  Metropolitan

  27,804

  16,205

  27,695

  16.324

  27.627

  15.767

  27.395

  16.762

  27.049

  15,353

  Norfolk

  1,419

  499

  1,437

  531

  1,419

  548

  1,392

  553

  1,399

  616

  Northamptonshire

  1,197

  467

  1,190

  518

  1,171

  500

  1,161

  492

  1,186

  583

  Northumbria

  3,578

  1,381

  3,595

  1,330

  3,593

  1,397

  3,611

  1,402

  3,693

  1,332

  North Wales

  1,369

  491

  1,359

  507

  1,369

  484

  1,352

  472

  1,381

  554

  North Yorkshire

  1,411

  483

  1,349

  464

  1,323

  522

  1,311

  537

  1,334

  623

  Nottinghamshire

  2,343

  802

  2,360

  871

  2,345

  934

  2,314

  1,022

  2,339

  1,058

  722

  Percentage of sentenced young offenders discharged from custody who are reconvicted within two years of discharge by year of discharge

  Males

  Females

  Total

  19922

  72

  51

  71

  1 Rates for those discharged from custody only relate to those released from Detention Centres or Borstal Training.

  2 Figures for 1987 and after are not directly comparable with those for earlier years due to a change in methodology. If the old methodology had been followed it is estimated that the reconviction rates would be about 7 to 8 percentage points lower for the males and 5 to 6 percentage points for the females. This change is described in paragraphs 21 and 22 on page 6 of Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1994 (Cm 3087).

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the manpower of each police force in respect of(a) number of police officers and (b) number of civilian support staff on 1 November for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [8809]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: Information on police strength was collected at the end of each month until April 1995. Data on police service strength are now collected twice a year, March and September. Information for the last five years is in the table.

  Between October 1992 and September 1996, the total number of constables in England and Wales increased by 1,692 to 98,017. This is a record high number of constables.
  723

  Police officer and civilian strength 1992 to 1996

  Force

  31 October 19921

  31 October 19931

  31 October 19941

  30 September 19951

  30 September 19961

  Police

  Civilians

  Police

  Civilians

  Police

  Civilians

  Police

  Civilians

  Police

  Civilians

  South Wales

  3,182

  1,180

  3,159

  1,279

  3,048

  1,215

  2,954

  1,240

  2,913

  1,233

  South Yorkshire

  3,013

  986

  3,022

  1,211

  3,030

  1,283

  3,041

  1,292

  3,128

  1,398

  Staffordshire

  2,196

  781

  2,194

  773

  2,207

  763

  2,190

  800

  2,220

  794

  Suffolk

  1,240

  556

  1,224

  543

  1,209

  544

  1,158

  520

  1,159

  532

  Surrey

  1,684

  650

  1,663

  709

  1,673

  721

  1,656

  796

  1,652

  793

  Sussex

  3,007

  1,131

  2,977

  1,153

  2,949

  1,182

  3,020

  1,219

  3,097

  1,310

  Thames Valley

  3,843

  1,603

  3,886

  1,647

  3,887

  1,767

  3,760

  1,913

  3,682

  1,972

  Warwickshire

  1,007

  356

  1,031

  364

  1,038

  363

  983

  412

  948

  406

  West Mercia

  2,061

  967

  2,057

  969

  2,042

  995

  2,008

  1,038

  2,011

  1,002

  West Midlands

  6,935

  2,717

  6,961

  2,729

  6,991

  2,859

  7,078

  2,957

  7,203

  2,611

  West Yorkshire

  5,095

  2,034

  5,005

  2,032

  5,036

  2,092

  5,122

  2,149

  5,154

  2,224

  Wiltshire

  1,257

  523

  1,272

  516

  1,260

  501

  1,236

  521

  1,166

  514

  Total

  126,043

  53,858

  125,878

  54,953

  125,492

  55,275

  124,710

  57,790

  125,050

  57,278

  1 Strength information is collected on the last day of the month. Civilian strength includes traffic wardens.

  2 Since April 1995 information on police numbers is collected only twice a year (March and September).

  Disabled Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many registered disabled prisoners were in each of Her Majesty's prisons on the last date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [9086]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy concerning disabled prisoners; [9087]

  (3) how many registered disabled offenders were received into custody during each year since 1990 and to date in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [9089]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the Prison Service's policy concerning disabled prisoners, the number of registered disabled offenders who were received into custody during each year since 1990 and to date in 1996, and the number of registered disabled prisoners who were in each of Her Majesty's prisons on the last day for which figures are available.
  On 20 November 1996 the Prison Service issued Instruction to Governors 79/1996, entitled "Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Disabled Prisoners and Visitors". This instruction outlines the Prison Service's policy with regard to the provision of goods, facilities and services for disabled prisoners and visitors to establishments. A copy of the instruction is enclosed and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.
  The Prison Service has not, historically, kept records of the number of prisoners who are registered disabled and could therefore only be provided at disproportionate cost. We have recently put in hand a survey of the number of disabled prisoners in our custody, whether registered disabled or not. I shall be pleased to write to you again when we have analysed the results.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons have been adapted to hold(a) disabled prisoners who require wheelchair access and (b) other physically disabled prisoners; what adaptations have been made to the prisons; and if he will make a statement. [9088]
  724
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Alex Carlile, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about which prisons have been adapted to hold (a) disabled prisoners who require wheelchair access and (b) other physically disabled prisoners.
  The practice of the Prison Service is for staff to ensure that the needs of prisoners with disabilities are met on an individual basis, from reception throughout their time in custody. Staff assess their requirements and seek to provide particular facilities depending on the nature of their disability. The construction of facilities for disabled prisoners is part of this process and local minor work e.g. cell modification, will cover most individual needs. For this reason we do not have comprehensive central records of all modifications made to buildings and it is not therefore possible to categorise prisons into those that do or do not have provision for disabled prisoners.
  Our standard briefing guides for new buildings provide for access ramps, lifts, toilets, and for circulation routes to be made suitable for the passage of wheelchairs. Wherever practical these guides are also taken into account when existing facilities are refurbished.

  Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9666]

  Mr. Howard
  The tables set out available information for the Home Office and its executive agencies. The information for the agencies has been provided by the chief executives of the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Fire Service College, the Director General of the Forensic Science Service and the Director General of the Prison Service. The information for the non-Prison Service Home Office gives the position as at 20 November and that for the Prison Service gives the position as at 2 December. Non-permanent staff include casuals, certain industrial staff and those staff having neither an established nor a fixed-term employment status.
  725
  For the purpose of producing statistics on civil service staff, fixed-term appointees are regarded as permanent staff, and are, therefore, included in the figures for permanent staff given. Information under (b) for the years prior to 1996 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1: Home Office excluding agencies

  (a) Permanent staff

  (b) Non-permanent staff

  1996

  9,280

  373

  1995

  9,252

  —

  1994

  10,367

  —

  1993

  9,378

  —

  1992

  12,069

  —

  The 1992 figures predate the formation of the Forensic Science Service as an executive agency: staff who formed the agency on the 1 April 1992 are therefore included in these figures.

  Table 2: Forensic Science Service

  (a) Permanent staff

  (b) Non-permanent staff

  1996

  1,197

  8

  1995

  725

  —

  1994

  706

  —

  1993

  646

  —

  The 1996 figure includes staff joining the FSS from the Metropolitan Police Laboratory. Figures for 1993–95 are taken from MANDATE returns to Cabinet Office.

  Table 3: Fire Service College

  (a) Permanent staff

  (b) Non-permanent staff

  1996

  179

  9

  1995

  189

  5

  1994

  181

  5

  1993

  152

  —

  Figures for 1993 are taken from MANDATE returns to Cabinet Office.

  Area

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Home Office Main

  4,476

  43

  4,519

  3,616

  679

  4,295

  8,814

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  30,219

  1,052

  31,271

  7,058

  1,425

  8,483

  39,754

  Forensic Science Service

  596

  3

  599

  516

  141

  657

  1,256

  Fire Service College

  109

  1

  110

  79

  8

  87

  197

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  520

  24

  544

  782

  234

  1,106

  1,560

  Total

  35,920

  1,123

  37,043

  12,051

  2,487

  14,628

  51,581

  Home Office figures are for permanent non-industrial staff.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9451]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department and agencies will need to assess the impact which a single currency, assumed
  726

  Table 4: United Kingdom Passport Agency

  (a) Permanent staff

  (b) Non-permanent staff

  1996

  1,525

  465

  1995

  1,411

  315

  1994

  1,352

  201

  1993

  1,474

  116

  1992

  1,304

  92

  Table 5: Her Majesty's Prison Service

  (a) Permanent staff

  (b) Non-permanent staff

  1996

  140,505

  900

  1995

  39,275

  —

  1994

  38,964

  —

  1993

  38,008

  —

  1992

  33,606

  —

  1 The information has been taken from the Prison Service personnel information system which is currently being updated using a new computer system.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [7487]

  Mr. Howard
  The table sets out the available information for the Home Office and the executive agencies. The information for the agencies has been provided by the chief executives of the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Fire Service College, the Director General of the Forensic Science Service, and the Director General of the Prison Service. This information gives the position as at 16 December. The Prison Service is in the process of transferring to a new establishment-based computer system for the provision of personnel information.

  to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems, whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what medical provision and supervision is available to pregnant category A women in Holloway prison. [9274]
  727
  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. Peter Bottomley, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on medical provision and supervision available to pregnant category A women in Holloway prison.
  Holloway prison has a dedicated wing with specialist expertise and interest in caring for pregnant women. Admission to the unit is on a voluntary basis. Holloway, along with all prisons has the back up of the National Health Service, for both in-patient and out-patient facilities. In addition, consultants are contracted by the Prison Service to carry out clinics in the prisons themselves. Where necessary, prisoners are taken under escort to outside hospitals.

  Prisoners (Drug Dependency)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rights prisoners detained in England and Wales have to secure a second medical opinion and appropriate treatment, with particular reference to drug dependent prisoners. [9164]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 16 December 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. Max Madden, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to respond to your recent Question about the rights of prisoners, detained in England and Wales prisons, to secure a second medical opinion and appropriate treatment, with particular reference to drug dependant prisoners.
  Neither unconvicted or convicted prisoners have an automatic right to seek a second medical opinion from NHS or private health care services. Where however, a second opinion is thought necessary by the prison medical officer, arrangements are made for the prisoner to be examined by a visiting NHS clinician, or transferred to a NHS hospital for examination or treatment.
  Notwithstanding the above, if an unconvicted prisoner wishes to secure a second medical opinion, he or she may be visited and treated in prison by a nominated doctor if the following conditions are met:

  The inmate is able and willing to pay the expenses incurred.

  The Governor is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for such a request.

  A convicted prisoner does not have this automatic right.

  In exceptional circumstances a prisoner, whether convicted or unconvicted, may receive in-patient treatment in a private hospital or clinic, or a private room in a National Health Service Hospital. For this to occur the medical officer must be satisfied that the following conditions are met:

  Hospital inpatient treatment is necessary.

  It is clinically advisable that the treatment is carried out during the period that the prisoner is in custody.

  The treatment cannot be carried out in a prison service health care centre and

  that the prisoner could be treated significantly earlier, privately in a hospital within reasonable distance of the prison than under NHS arrangements or

  They had an appointment for private in-patient treatment before they came into prison.

  The governor must also satisfy himself that:

  The inmate has sufficient funds or adequate private insurance to meet all costs, including the bedwatch.

  728

  These conditions apply to all medical and dental conditions, including the treatment of drug dependency.

  Prisons (Strip Cells)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many strip cells are currently in use in prisons in England and Wales. [9165]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 16 December 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. Max Madden, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many special cells are currently in use in prisons in England and Wales.
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Medical Service
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison medical officers are currently in post in prisons in England and Wales; how many posts are currently vacant; and what were the equivalent figures in each of the last five years. [9168]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 16 December 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. Max Madden, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of medical officers currently in post in prisons in England and Wales; the number of posts currently vacant; and the equivalent figures in each of the last five years.
  Information on vacancies is not currently held centrally. I will write to you again when the figures become available. Data on the number of medical officers in post in prisons is only available centrally for the current and previous years.
  The numbers of full-time and part-time doctors working in the Service at the end of March for the last two years are given in the attached table.

  Doctors employed in the Prison Service: 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Full time doctors

  Part time doctors

  Year

  Medical officer

  Senior Medical officer

  Total

  Medical officer

  Senior Medical officer

  Total

  1994–95

  96

  49

  145

  136

  0

  136

  1995–96

  91

  42

  133

  89

  3

  92

  The figures include doctors employed in privately managed prisons except Blakenhurst which did not submit any staffing information.

  Prisoners (Damages Claims)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of successful claims for damages by, and the amount of compensation that has been given to, prisoners who have sued the Home Office for being kept in prison too long, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9501]
  729
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 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. Archy Kirkwood, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of successful claims for damages by, and the amount of compensation that has been given to, prisoners who have sued the Home Office for being kept in prison too long, in each of the last five years.
  Information on individual compensation claim payments made by or on behalf of prison governors to prisoners is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total expenditure on compensation payments to prisoners for detention beyond the due date of release is:

  1991–92: £25,982

  1992–93: £13,510

  1993–94: £18,351

  1994–95: £53,009

  1995–96: £31,941

  Ms Alison Halford
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public money(a) has been spent and (b) he estimates will be spent in respect of proceedings concerning Ms Alison Halford before (i) the Merseyside police authority, (ii) the industrial tribunal, (iii) the European Commission and (iv) the European Court of Human Rights, distinguishing in each case (1) solicitors' fees, (2) banisters' fees, (3) the cost of the time of other public officials and (4) the costs of the courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [8862]

  Mr. Howard
  Part of the information requested is not available, and the rest is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are kept(a) by the Government and (b) by each individual police force concerning authorisations by senior police officers for the interception of telephone calls; how many such authorisations there have been by (i) Merseyside police and (ii) police forces in general in each year since 1984; what safeguards exist to prevent abuse; and how much manpower and cost they involve. [8853]

  Mr. Howard
  The interception of a communication in the course of its transmission by a public telecommunications system requires a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. A decision by a chief constable to monitor calls on a private telephone system operated by the police is not covered by the 1985 Act. Such a decision is an operational matter for the chief constable concerned, who is also responsible for ensuring that monitoring is appropriate in the circumstances and is not misused.

  There is no central record of such authorisations by chief constables and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Costs
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average cost of a place in prison during the first six months of the current financial year; [9111]

  (2) what was the average cost of a place in each prison during the first six months of the current financial year. [9110]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the cost of prison places during the first six months of the current financial year.
  The annualised costs of a place in each establishment are set out in the attached table.
  The annualised average cost of a prison place in the first six months of the current financial year was £23,190. Spending, however, is not spread evenly across the year, and the additional funds provided this year to meet the rise in the population is not yet reflected in these half year figures.

  Establishment

  Cost per place

  Acklington

  14,703

  Albany

  19,182

  Aldington

  14,349

  Ashwell

  14,772

  Askham Grange

  18,362

  Aylesbury

  21,884

  Bedford

  22,358

  Belmarsh

  25,570

  Birmingham

  22,769

  Blakenhurst

  17,714

  Blantyre House

  18,257

  Blundeston

  19,526

  Brinsford

  18,703

  Bristol

  25,447

  Brixton

  24,207

  Brockhill

  22,279

  Buckley Hall

  15,631

  Bullingdon

  18,791

  Bullwood Hall

  28,525

  Camp Hill

  17,508

  Canterbury

  33,257

  Cardiff

  23,846

  Castington

  19,207

  Channings Wood

  14,753

  Chelmsford

  34,475

  Coldingley

  23,152

  Cookham Wood

  23,290

  Dartmoor

  19,679

  Deerbolt

  16,521

  Doncaster

  16,309

  Dorchester

  29,042

  Dover

  17,085

  Downview

  17,898

  Drake Hall

  12,909

  Durham

  25,991

  East Sutton Park

  15,986

  Eastwood Park

  26,320

  Elmley

  16,700

  Erlestoke

  18,594

  Everthorpe

  16,396

  Exeter

  33,040

  731

  Establishment

  Cost per place

  Featherstone

  17,354

  Feltham

  16,942

  Ford

  10,906

  Frankland

  39,262

  Full Sutton

  33,718

  Garth

  18,944

  Gartree

  22,560

  Glen Parva

  15,480

  Glocuester

  28,509

  Grendon

  18,274

  Guys Marsh

  17,632

  Haslar

  15,152

  Hatfield

  21,906

  Havering

  16,492

  Hewell Grange

  13,955

  Highdown

  18,342

  Highpoint

  14,486

  Hindley

  18,879

  Hollesley Bay

  21,978

  Holloway

  30,986

  Holme House

  17,078

  Hull

  28,502

  Huntercombe

  14,518

  Kingston

  20,718

  Kirkham

  13,581

  Kirklevington

  18,622

  Lancaster

  19,696

  Lancaster Farms

  22,085

  Latchmere House

  12,053

  Leeds

  17,207

  Leicester

  39,640

  Lewes

  19,224

  Leyhill

  16,120

  Lincoln

  24,130

  Lindholme

  17,587

  Littlehey

  14,685

  Liverpool

  17,915

  Long Lartin

  35,143

  Low Newton

  27,049

  Maidstone

  18,051

  Manchester

  20,496

  Moorland

  17,724

  Morton Hall

  12,427

  Mount

  12,704

  New Hall

  26,513

  North Sea Camp

  14,816

  Northallerton

  29,754

  Norwich

  35,505

  Nottingham

  26,462

  Onley

  14,310

  Parkhurst

  28,628

  Pentonville

  17,203

  Portland

  15,634

  Preston

  27,069

  Ranby

  17,181

  Reading

  25,026

  Risley

  16,639

  Rochester

  18,398

  Send

  15,782

  Shepton Mallet

  23,796

  Shrewsbury

  31,858

  Stafford

  22,001

  Standford Hill

  14,824

  Stocken

  16,544

  Stoke Heath

  16,963

  Styal

  22,418

  Sudbury

  15,053

  Swaleside

  17,682

  Swansea

  28,037

  Swinfen Hall

  22,899

  732

  Establishment

  Cost per place

  Thorn Cross

  17,017

  Usk

  20,479

  Verne

  15,213

  Wakefield

  23,785

  Wandsworth

  16,300

  Wayland

  13,588

  Wealstun Closed

  15,621

  Wellingborough

  15,900

  Werrington

  20,619

  Wetherby

  28,144

  Whatton

  17,709

  Whitemoor

  34,772

  Winchester

  25,042

  Wolds

  21,960

  Woodhill

  20,618

  Wormwood Scrubs

  17,163

  Wymott

  14,148

  Prison Population
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the overall(a) average base line certified normal accommodation, (b) average in use CNA and (c) average population for the Prison Service for each month this year; [9108]

  (2) if he will list the (a) average baseline certified normal accommodation, (b) average in use CNA and (c) average population by prison type for each month this year. [9107]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the total baseline CNA, average baseline CNA, average in use CNA and average population by prison type each month this year.
  Prison type is defined as the role of the prison, for example local prison, closed or open training prison, closed or open young offender institutions or juvenile institutions. Most prisons perform more than one role, which is recorded within the relevant prison type.
  Baseline CNA is the total number of uncrowded places in the prison estate, including those which are out of use due to refurbishment. Information on baseline CNA is not available in the form requested as it is not recorded by prison type. In use CNA represents the total number of uncrowded places estimated to be available in the estate.
  With the exception of baseline CNA the information contained in the attached tables is available monthly in a publication called "Occupation of prisons, remand centres, young offender institutions and police cells", which is available in the Library.
  733

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  October 1996

  IN USE CNA

  Female—female closed training prisons

  559

  559

  559

  559

  559

  564

  566

  566

  683

  683

  Female—female closed young offender institutions

  123

  123

  123

  123

  123

  123

  123

  123

  123

  123

  Female—local prisons

  926

  928

  1,007

  1,007

  1,007

  1,007

  1,005

  1,005

  1,005

  1,005

  Female—open prisons

  452

  452

  452

  452

  452

  452

  456

  456

  456

  452

  Female—open young offender institutions

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  53

  Female—remand centres

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Male—dispersal prisons

  —

  —

  —

  3,297

  3,297

  3,297

  3,297

  3,297

  3,109

  3,250

  Male—closed training prisons

  21,064

  21,024

  21,294

  18,857

  18,850

  19,293

  19,297

  19,336

  19,095

  19,191

  Male—other young offender institutions (closed)

  3,988

  3,988

  3,988

  3,995

  3,995

  4,145

  4,186

  4,114

  4,119

  4,116

  Male—juvenile institutions

  1,088

  1,088

  1,088

  1,088

  1,088

  1,088

  1,032

  1,032

  1,032

  1,077

  Male—local prisons

  15,989

  15,698

  15,657

  15,039

  15,039

  15,698

  15,931

  15,717

  15,818

  16,040

  Male open prisons

  3,816

  3,822

  3,822

  3,822

  3,846

  3,834

  3,884

  3,884

  3,791

  3,944

  Male—other young offender institutions (open)

  476

  476

  476

  476

  476

  552

  552

  552

  496

  496

  Male remand centres

  2,921

  2,915

  2,915

  2,915

  2,915

  3,041

  3,070

  3,070

  3,065

  3,065

  Total

  51,460

  51,131

  51,439

  51,688

  51,705

  53,152

  53,457

  53,210

  52,850

  53,500

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  October 1996

  Population

  Female—female closed training prisons

  549

  553

  548

  550

  554

  580

  610

  645

  663

  667

  Female—female closed young offender institutions

  104

  111

  127

  126

  134

  137

  135

  141

  139

  156

  Female—local prisons

  995

  997

  1,038

  1,076

  1,052

  1,098

  1,089

  1,056

  1,070

  1,113

  Female—open prisons

  355

  391

  386

  396

  452

  457

  461

  427

  412

  446

  Female—open young offender institutions

  22

  25

  24

  31

  29

  33

  32

  30

  33

  38

  Female—remand centres

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Male—dispersal prisons

  3,173

  3,165

  3,142

  3,282

  3,278

  3,287

  3,388

  Male—closed training prisons

  20,082

  20,334

  20,747

  18,290

  18,417

  18,551

  18,685

  18,469

  18,577

  18,705

  Male—other young offender institutions (closed)

  3,738

  3,850

  3,898

  3,944

  3,972

  3,943

  3,976

  3,921

  4,003

  4,045

  Male—juvenile institutions

  1,222

  1,289

  1,308

  1,295

  1,365

  1,417

  1,383

  1,367

  1,432

  1,446

  Male—local prisons

  18,548

  18,881

  18,817

  18,439

  18,540

  18,895

  19,179

  18,987

  19,621

  20,196

  Male open prisons

  3,186

  3,481

  3,583

  3,554

  3,576

  3,650

  3,749

  3,639

  3,677

  3,696

  Male—other young offender institutions (open)

  370

  377

  366

  357

  369

  354

  394

  389

  384

  408

  Male remand centres

  2,776

  2,889

  2,898

  2,971

  2,888

  2,999

  3,166

  3,188

  3,323

  3,460

  Total

  51,947

  53,178

  53,740

  54,202

  54,513

  55,256

  56,141

  55,537

  56,621

  57,764

  Total baseline CNA, in use CNA and population

  Baseline CNA

  In use CNA

  Population

  January 1996

  54,949

  51,460

  51,947

  February 1996

  54,979

  51,131

  53,178

  March 1996

  55,164

  51,439

  53,740

  April 1996

  51,688

  51,688

  54,202

  May 1996

  51,705

  51,705

  54,513

  June 1996

  53,152

  53,152

  55,256

  July 1996

  53,457

  53,457

  56,141

  August 1996

  53,210

  53,210

  55,537

  September 1996

  52,850

  52,850

  56,621

  October 1996

  56,835

  53,500

  57,764

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) average base line
  734
  certified normal accommodation, (b) average in use CNA and (c) average population of each prison for the first six months of the current financial year. [9106]

  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. George Howarth, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average baseline CNA, in use CNA and population for each prison for the first six months of the current financial year.
  The information requested is given in the accompanying tables and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.
  735

  Baseline CNA

  Prison

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Acklington

  662

  662

  662

  662

  662

  662

  Albany

  436

  436

  436

  436

  436

  436

  Aldington

  146

  146

  146

  146

  146

  146

  Ashwell

  404

  404

  404

  404

  404

  404

  Askham Grange

  126

  126

  126

  130

  130

  130

  Aylesbury

  297

  297

  297

  297

  297

  297

  Bedford

  309

  309

  309

  309

  309

  309

  Belmarsh

  841

  841

  841

  841

  841

  841

  Birmingham

  696

  696

  696

  696

  696

  717

  Blakenhurst

  649

  649

  649

  647

  647

  647

  Blantyre House

  106

  106

  106

  120

  120

  120

  Blundeston

  408

  408

  408

  408

  408

  408

  Brinsford

  473

  473

  473

  477

  477

  477

  Bristol

  493

  493

  493

  493

  493

  493

  Brixton

  720

  720

  720

  720

  720

  720

  Brockhill

  159

  159

  159

  159

  159

  159

  Buckley Hall

  350

  350

  350

  350

  350

  350

  Bullingdon

  644

  644

  644

  644

  644

  644

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  125

  125

  125

  125

  125

  Camp Hill

  470

  470

  470

  470

  470

  470

  Canterbury

  184

  184

  184

  184

  184

  184

  Cardiff

  327

  327

  327

  534

  534

  534

  Castington

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  Channings Wood

  594

  594

  594

  594

  594

  594

  Chelmsford

  248

  248

  248

  248

  248

  248

  Coldingley

  296

  296

  296

  296

  296

  296

  Cookham Wood

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  Dartmoor

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  Deerbolt

  450

  450

  450

  450

  450

  450

  Doncaster

  771

  771

  771

  771

  771

  771

  Dorchester

  147

  147

  147

  147

  147

  147

  Dover

  316

  316

  316

  316

  316

  316

  Downview

  287

  287

  291

  291

  291

  291

  Drake Hall

  285

  285

  285

  285

  285

  285

  Durham

  651

  651

  646

  646

  646

  646

  East Sutton Park

  94

  94

  94

  94

  94

  94

  Eastwood Park

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  Elmley

  637

  637

  637

  637

  640

  640

  Erlestoke

  270

  270

  270

  270

  270

  270

  Everthorpe

  438

  438

  438

  438

  438

  438

  Exeter

  261

  261

  261

  261

  261

  260

  Featherstone

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  Feltham

  876

  876

  876

  876

  876

  876

  Finnamore Wood

  106

  106

  106

  106

  106

  0

  Ford

  533

  533

  533

  533

  533

  533

  Frankland

  447

  447

  447

  447

  447

  447

  Full Sutton

  602

  602

  602

  602

  602

  602

  Garth

  513

  513

  513

  513

  513

  513

  Gartree

  360

  360

  360

  360

  360

  360

  Glen Parva

  852

  852

  852

  852

  852

  852

  Gloucester

  211

  211

  211

  211

  211

  211

  Grendon

  455

  455

  455

  455

  455

  455

  Guy's Marsh

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  Haslar

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  Hatfield

  180

  180

  180

  180

  180

  180

  Haverigg

  454

  454

  450

  450

  450

  450

  Hewell Grange

  174

  174

  174

  200

  200

  200

  High Down

  649

  649

  649

  649

  649

  649

  Highpoint

  679

  679

  679

  679

  679

  679

  Hindley

  339

  339

  531

  531

  531

  531

  Hollesley Bay

  458

  458

  458

  458

  458

  458

  Holloway

  517

  517

  517

  517

  517

  517

  Holme House

  649

  649

  751

  751

  783

  783

  Hull

  362

  362

  404

  418

  438

  438

  Huntercombe

  240

  240

  240

  256

  256

  256

  Kingston

  155

  155

  155

  185

  185

  185

  Kirkham

  644

  644

  644

  644

  644

  644

  Kirklevington

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Lancaster Farms

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  Lancaster House

  378

  378

  438

  438

  438

  438

  Latchmere

  177

  177

  177

  177

  177

  177

  Leeds

  995

  995

  995

  995

  995

  1,141

  Leicester

  207

  207

  207

  207

  207

  207

  736 737

  Baseline CNA

  Prison

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Lewes

  443

  443

  443

  444

  444

  444

  Leyhill

  410

  410

  410

  410

  410

  410

  Lincoln

  434

  434

  434

  434

  434

  434

  Lindholme

  670

  670

  670

  670

  670

  670

  Littlehey

  584

  584

  584

  584

  584

  584

  Liverpool

  1,158

  1,158

  1,158

  1,216

  1,216

  1,216

  Long Lartin

  446

  446

  446

  446

  446

  446

  Low Newton

  198

  198

  198

  198

  198

  198

  Maidstone

  539

  539

  539

  539

  539

  539

  Manchester

  967

  967

  967

  967

  967

  967

  Moorland

  620

  620

  620

  620

  620

  620

  Morton Hall

  168

  192

  192

  192

  192

  192

  Mount

  588

  588

  588

  588

  588

  588

  New Hall

  207

  207

  207

  207

  207

  207

  North Sea Camp

  203

  203

  213

  213

  213

  213

  Northallerton

  152

  152

  152

  152

  152

  152

  Norwich

  319

  319

  319

  319

  319

  319

  Nottingham

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  Onley

  520

  520

  520

  520

  520

  520

  Oxford

  122

  122

  122

  122

  122

  0

  Parkhurst

  431

  431

  431

  430

  430

  430

  Pentonville

  924

  924

  924

  882

  882

  882

  Portland

  526

  526

  526

  526

  526

  526

  Preston

  407

  407

  407

  407

  407

  407

  Ranby

  516

  516

  517

  517

  517

  517

  Reading

  183

  183

  203

  203

  203

  203

  Risley

  826

  826

  826

  957

  957

  957

  Rochester

  424

  424

  424

  424

  424

  424

  Send

  151

  151

  151

  151

  151

  151

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  Shrewsbury

  176

  176

  176

  176

  176

  176

  Stafford

  434

  434

  434

  434

  434

  434

  Standford Hill

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  Stocken

  396

  396

  396

  396

  396

  396

  Stoke Heath

  372

  372

  382

  382

  382

  382

  Styal

  253

  253

  255

  257

  257

  257

  Sudbury

  517

  517

  517

  517

  517

  424

  Swaleside

  512

  512

  512

  512

  512

  512

  Swansea

  208

  208

  208

  208

  208

  208

  Swinfen Hall

  191

  191

  191

  191

  191

  196

  Thorn Cross

  300

  300

  316

  316

  316

  316

  Usk

  246

  246

  246

  246

  246

  246

  Verne

  552

  552

  552

  552

  552

  552

  Wakefield

  727

  727

  727

  727

  727

  715

  Wandsworth

  1,219

  1,219

  1,219

  1,219

  1,219

  1,219

  Wayland

  580

  580

  580

  580

  580

  580

  Wealstun

  573

  573

  573

  578

  578

  578

  Wellingborough

  352

  352

  352

  352

  352

  352

  Werrington

  114

  114

  114

  114

  114

  114

  Wetherby

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  Whatton

  217

  216

  216

  216

  216

  216

  Whitemoor

  534

  534

  534

  534

  534

  534

  Winchester

  462

  462

  462

  462

  462

  462

  Wolds

  320

  320

  320

  320

  320

  320

  Woodhill

  566

  566

  669

  669

  669

  669

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,158

  1,158

  1,176

  1,176

  1,168

  1,168

  Wymott

  816

  816

  816

  816

  826

  826

  In use CAN

  Prison

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Acklington

  662

  662

  662

  662

  662

  662

  Albany

  436

  436

  436

  436

  436

  436

  Aldington

  146

  146

  146

  146

  146

  146

  Ashwell

  404

  404

  404

  404

  404

  404

  Askham Grange

  126

  126

  126

  130

  130

  130

  Aylesbury

  230

  230

  230

  230

  230

  230

  Bedford

  309

  309

  309

  309

  309

  309

  Belmarsh

  661

  661

  661

  661

  661

  661

  Birmingham

  653

  653

  653

  653

  653

  694

  738 739

  In use CAN

  Prison

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Blakenhurst

  649

  649

  649

  647

  647

  647

  Blantyre House

  106

  106

  106

  120

  120

  120

  Blundeston

  408

  408

  408

  408

  408

  408

  Brinsford

  473

  473

  473

  477

  477

  477

  Bristol

  474

  474

  474

  474

  474

  474

  Brixton

  480

  480

  480

  480

  480

  480

  Brockhill

  159

  159

  159

  159

  159

  159

  Buckley Hall

  350

  350

  350

  350

  350

  350

  Bullingdon

  644

  644

  644

  644

  644

  644

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  125

  125

  125

  125

  125

  Camp Hill

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  Canterbury

  184

  184

  184

  184

  184

  184

  Cardiff

  322

  322

  322

  534

  534

  534

  Castington

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  Channings Wood

  594

  594

  594

  594

  594

  594

  Chelmsford

  248

  248

  248

  248

  248

  248

  Coldingley

  288

  288

  288

  288

  288

  288

  Cookham Wood

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  Dartmoor

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  Deerbolt

  420

  420

  420

  420

  420

  420

  Doncaster

  771

  771

  771

  771

  771

  771

  Dorchester

  147

  147

  147

  147

  147

  147

  Dover

  316

  316

  316

  316

  316

  316

  Downview

  287

  287

  291

  291

  291

  291

  Drake Hall

  285

  285

  285

  285

  285

  285

  Durham

  499

  499

  598

  598

  598

  598

  East Sutton Park

  94

  94

  94

  94

  94

  94

  Eastwood Park

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  Elmley

  637

  637

  637

  637

  640

  640

  Erlestoke

  270

  270

  270

  270

  270

  270

  Everthorpe

  435

  435

  435

  435

  435

  433

  Exeter

  253

  253

  253

  253

  253

  260

  Featherstone

  564

  564

  564

  564

  564

  564

  Feltham

  845

  845

  845

  839

  839

  839

  Finnamore Wood

  56

  56

  56

  56

  56

  0

  Ford

  498

  498

  498

  498

  498

  498

  Frankland

  447

  447

  447

  447

  447

  447

  Full Sutton

  572

  572

  572

  572

  572

  572

  Garth

  513

  513

  513

  513

  513

  513

  Gartree

  350

  350

  360

  360

  360

  360

  Glen Parva

  792

  792

  792

  792

  720

  720

  Gloucester

  211

  211

  211

  211

  211

  211

  Grendon

  455

  455

  455

  455

  455

  455

  Guy's Marsh

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  Haslar

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  Hatfield

  180

  180

  180

  180

  180

  180

  Haverigg

  454

  454

  450

  450

  450

  450

  Hewell Grange

  174

  174

  174

  200

  200

  200

  High Down

  649

  649

  649

  649

  649

  649

  Highpoint

  679

  679

  679

  679

  679

  679

  Hindley

  339

  339

  531

  531

  531

  531

  Hollesley Bay

  397

  397

  397

  397

  397

  397

  Holloway

  517

  517

  517

  517

  517

  517

  Holme House

  649

  649

  714

  714

  764

  764

  Hull

  349

  349

  395

  395

  395

  395

  Huntercombe

  240

  240

  240

  256

  256

  256

  Kingston

  106

  106

  106

  129

  129

  129

  Kirkham

  644

  644

  622

  622

  622

  622

  Kirklevington

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Lancaster

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  Lancaster Farms

  378

  378

  438

  438

  438

  438

  Latchmere House

  177

  177

  177

  177

  177

  177

  Leeds

  824

  824

  824

  824

  824

  872

  Leicester

  207

  207

  207

  207

  207

  207

  Lewes

  312

  312

  312

  303

  303

  303

  Leyhill

  386

  386

  386

  410

  410

  410

  Lincoln

  434

  434

  434

  434

  434

  434

  Lindholme

  670

  670

  670

  670

  670

  670

  Littlehey

  584

  584

  584

  584

  584

  584

  Liverpool

  1,073

  1,073

  1,073

  1,105

  1,105

  1,105

  Long Lartin

  372

  372

  372

  372

  372

  372

  Low Newton

  198

  198

  192

  192

  192

  192

  Maidstone

  484

  484

  484

  539

  539

  539

  740 741

  In use can

  Prison

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Manchester

  967

  967

  967

  967

  967

  967

  Moorland

  620

  620

  620

  620

  620

  620

  Morton Hall

  168

  192

  192

  192

  192

  192

  Mount

  588

  588

  588

  588

  588

  588

  New Hall

  207

  207

  207

  207

  207

  207

  North Sea Camp

  203

  203

  213

  213

  213

  213

  Northallerton

  152

  152

  152

  152

  152

  152

  Norwich

  319

  319

  319

  319

  319

  319

  Nottingham

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  Onley

  520

  520

  520

  520

  520

  520

  Oxford

  122

  122

  122

  122

  122

  0

  Parkhurst

  378

  378

  378

  288

  288

  288

  Pentonville

  726

  726

  726

  726

  726

  726

  Portland

  526

  526

  526

  526

  526

  526

  Preston

  311

  311

  311

  311

  311

  311

  Ranby

  516

  516

  517

  517

  517

  517

  Reading

  183

  183

  203

  203

  203

  203

  Risley

  790

  790

  790

  785

  785

  785

  Rochester

  424

  424

  424

  424

  424

  424

  Send

  137

  137

  137

  137

  137

  137

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  Shrewsbury

  172

  172

  172

  172

  176

  176

  Stafford

  434

  434

  434

  434

  434

  434

  Standford Hill

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  Stocken

  396

  396

  396

  396

  396

  396

  Stoke Heath

  312

  312

  322

  322

  322

  322

  Styal

  239

  239

  241

  243

  243

  243

  Sudbury

  488

  488

  488

  488

  488

  395

  Swaleside

  512

  512

  512

  512

  512

  512

  Swansea

  151

  151

  151

  151

  151

  151

  Swinfen Hall

  191

  191

  191

  191

  191

  196

  Thorn Cross

  240

  240

  316

  316

  316

  316

  Usk

  246

  246

  246

  246

  246

  246

  Verne

  552

  552

  552

  552

  552

  552

  Wakefield

  727

  727

  727

  727

  727

  539

  Wandsworth

  804

  804

  804

  804

  804

  804

  Wayland

  580

  574

  547

  574

  574

  574

  Wealstun

  573

  573

  573

  578

  578

  578

  Wellingborough

  352

  352

  352

  352

  352

  352

  Werrington

  114

  114

  114

  114

  114

  114

  Wetherby

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  Whatton

  217

  216

  216

  216

  216

  216

  Whitemoor

  518

  518

  518

  518

  518

  518

  Winchester

  462

  462

  462

  462

  462

  462

  Wolds

  320

  320

  320

  320

  320

  320

  Woodhill

  566

  566

  669

  669

  669

  669

  Wormwood Scrubs

  715

  715

  1,129

  1,129

  948

  948

  Wymott

  432

  432

  799

  799

  748

  748

  Population

  Prison

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Acklington

  656

  643

  644

  660

  629

  642

  Albany

  430

  421

  435

  427

  430

  432

  Aldington

  142

  141

  141

  143

  138

  139

  Ashwell

  389

  402

  395

  408

  399

  412

  Askham Grange

  119

  121

  127

  122

  124

  120

  Aylesbury

  229

  224

  226

  229

  226

  231

  Bedford

  346

  327

  352

  347

  339

  350

  Belmarsh

  588

  600

  615

  774

  790

  801

  Birmingham

  971

  974

  1,006

  994

  994

  1,007

  Blakenhurst

  619

  702

  721

  697

  717

  717

  Blantyre House

  105

  100

  113

  109

  116

  119

  Blundeston

  385

  396

  404

  401

  394

  399

  Brinsford

  466

  474

  469

  465

  481

  491

  Bristol

  521

  518

  515

  536

  515

  556

  Brixton

  581

  601

  588

  595

  580

  596

  Brockhill

  152

  123

  59

  70

  106

  129

  Buckley Hall

  342

  349

  343

  340

  342

  350

  Bullingdon

  642

  641

  635

  651

  632

  647

  742 743

  Population

  Prison

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Bullwood Hall

  123

  122

  126

  121

  120

  121

  Camp Hill

  402

  402

  409

  422

  405

  413

  Canterbury

  285

  282

  262

  286

  271

  276

  Cardiff

  477

  452

  541

  630

  636

  702

  Castington

  292

  291

  287

  295

  296

  288

  Channings Wood

  575

  582

  579

  586

  573

  589

  Chelmsford

  402

  390

  411

  404

  404

  451

  Coldingley

  283

  285

  286

  282

  286

  287

  Cookham Wood

  129

  130

  134

  141

  148

  146

  Dartmoor

  585

  586

  579

  574

  571

  573

  Deerbolt

  401

  411

  410

  412

  399

  415

  Doncaster

  861

  866

  896

  893

  889

  924

  Dorchester

  211

  211

  226

  226

  209

  229

  Dover

  290

  310

  298

  307

  306

  307

  Downview

  284

  285

  283

  282

  284

  291

  Drake Hall

  218

  266

  268

  276

  240

  235

  Durham

  702

  726

  869

  895

  871

  874

  East Sutton Park

  90

  94

  95

  95

  93

  90

  Eastwood Park

  104

  122

  121

  129

  121

  122

  Elmley

  600

  621

  625

  620

  619

  624

  Erlestoke

  263

  269

  270

  265

  269

  269

  Everthorpe

  429

  418

  411

  440

  448

  456

  Exeter

  439

  434

  464

  453

  424

  453

  Featherstone

  559

  557

  549

  548

  557

  549

  Feltham

  835

  831

  860

  853

  823

  859

  Finnamore Wood

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ford

  440

  449

  443

  479

  459

  442

  Frankland

  422

  417

  410

  427

  427

  425

  Full Sutton

  560

  554

  547

  553

  547

  556

  Garth

  506

  513

  510

  517

  511

  518

  Gartree

  350

  352

  357

  362

  360

  357

  Glen Parva

  883

  815

  863

  872

  859

  878

  Gloucester

  256

  250

  246

  250

  219

  250

  Grendon

  416

  410

  418

  410

  420

  429

  Guy's Marsh

  298

  300

  299

  297

  298

  303

  Haslar

  152

  151

  154

  150

  146

  156

  Hatfield

  155

  175

  171

  177

  163

  167

  Haverigg

  429

  443

  430

  465

  453

  462

  Hewell Grange

  188

  193

  191

  192

  177

  184

  High Down

  625

  645

  639

  642

  624

  649

  Highpoint

  670

  665

  662

  672

  632

  567

  Hindley

  349

  408

  440

  504

  515

  536

  Hollesley Bay

  338

  347

  347

  378

  367

  388

  Holloway

  580

  573

  595

  590

  574

  572

  Holme House

  644

  679

  663

  706

  706

  756

  Hull

  399

  378

  365

  407

  402

  431

  Huntercombe

  234

  233

  235

  235

  234

  252

  Kingston

  99

  102

  103

  103

  106

  105

  Kirkham

  601

  616

  612

  615

  610

  597

  Kirklevington

  99

  99

  99

  99

  99

  98

  Lancaster

  215

  216

  217

  217

  203

  216

  Lancaster Farms

  378

  360

  428

  444

  446

  491

  Latchmere House

  153

  150

  154

  140

  151

  141

  Leeds

  893

  878

  888

  880

  879

  886

  Leicester

  345

  324

  345

  342

  336

  344

  Lewes

  297

  305

  305

  309

  292

  312

  Leyhill

  381

  369

  388

  386

  368

  383

  Lincoln

  648

  645

  645

  651

  651

  660

  Lindholme

  641

  647

  642

  654

  641

  646

  Littlehey

  563

  566

  559

  573

  577

  576

  Liverpool

  1,241

  1,268

  1,250

  1,249

  1,210

  1,213

  Long Lartin

  358

  357

  357

  362

  372

  374

  Low Newton

  297

  284

  277

  267

  266

  267

  Maidstone

  522

  530

  523

  529

  531

  528

  Manchester

  1,100

  1,081

  1,116

  1,099

  1,121

  1,086

  Moorland

  620

  622

  614

  644

  642

  651

  Morton Hall

  164

  188

  186

  184

  189

  187

  Mount

  578

  581

  577

  583

  584

  600

  New Hall

  220

  209

  208

  212

  208

  214

  North Sea Camp

  164

  149

  169

  209

  193

  197

  Northallerton

  212

  208

  215

  208

  216

  215

  Norwich

  380

  395

  393

  513

  562

  608

  Nottingham

  209

  212

  214

  206

  200

  201

  744 745

  Population

  Prison

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Onley

  492

  516

  509

  515

  515

  520

  Oxford

  95

  77

  71

  51

  3

  0

  Parkhurst

  276

  275

  279

  282

  284

  283

  Pentonville

  850

  864

  857

  863

  852

  887

  Portland

  521

  531

  516

  514

  524

  515

  Preston

  451

  431

  452

  441

  442

  453

  Ranby

  499

  500

  512

  522

  515

  522

  Reading

  195

  196

  224

  225

  230

  223

  Risley

  749

  737

  739

  743

  726

  745

  Rochester

  355

  356

  351

  355

  359

  385

  Send

  133

  136

  134

  139

  144

  145

  Shepton Mallet

  206

  205

  202

  200

  203

  208

  Shrewsbury

  300

  292

  306

  294

  307

  311

  Stafford

  585

  596

  590

  600

  604

  601

  Standford Hill

  369

  333

  379

  383

  364

  367

  Stocken

  399

  401

  393

  415

  405

  408

  Stoke Heath

  312

  311

  317

  308

  316

  322

  Styal

  245

  248

  249

  249

  249

  254

  Studbury

  464

  487

  474

  481

  451

  474

  Swaleside

  508

  516

  516

  513

  509

  509

  Swansea

  215

  231

  219

  211

  202

  224

  Swinfen Hall

  190

  189

  191

  191

  189

  195

  Thorn Cross

  220

  200

  186

  239

  241

  222

  Usk

  248

  265

  256

  258

  265

  259

  Verne

  545

  538

  546

  549

  543

  549

  Wakefield

  711

  703

  673

  630

  601

  596

  Wandsworth

  861

  861

  855

  877

  874

  880

  Wayland

  530

  559

  560

  554

  554

  563

  Wealstun

  535

  541

  551

  552

  554

  572

  Wellingborough

  314

  314

  316

  317

  315

  315

  Werrington

  111

  115

  114

  112

  113

  116

  Wetherby

  120

  114

  120

  120

  120

  120

  Whatton

  214

  216

  216

  216

  216

  222

  Whitemoor

  534

  534

  540

  536

  541

  535

  Winchester

  530

  519

  542

  553

  535

  552

  Wolds

  333

  323

  334

  346

  322

  357

  Woodhill

  605

  592

  585

  596

  606

  625

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,046

  1,051

  1,131

  1,084

  1,052

  1,095

  Wymott

  534

  629

  735

  741

  732

  737

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one in each month this year. [9104]

  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. George Howarth, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one this year.
  No prisoners have been required to share three to a cell designed for one this year. There have been no prisoners held three to a cell designed for one since March 1994.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one in each month this year. [9102]
  746
  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. George Howarth, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one in each month this year.
  The information is given in the attached table.

  Months

  Number of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one

  January 1996

  8,448

  February 1996

  9,256

  March 1996

  8,626

  April 1996

  8,324

  May 1996

  8,430

  June 1996

  9,202

  July 1996

  9,236

  August 1996

  8,726

  September 1996

  8,938

  October 1996

  10,120

  Shooting Clubs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he plans to publish guidance concerning the criteria which shooting clubs must meet to obtain licences under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill; [8907]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a draft of the criteria for the granting of licences to shooting clubs under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill; and if he will provide all shooting clubs with a copy of the draft criteria; [8917]

  (3) what period of time he intends to allow to shooting clubs to comply with section 16 of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill; and what estimate he has made of the average period required to obtain planning and building regulation approvals for changes to club premises. [8918]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The requirements for the licensed pistol clubs envisaged by the Bill are being drafted. I will seek the views of the Firearms Consultative Committee and the British Shooting Sports Council on them, and will place the draft in the Library. My Department will publish the new requirements when they have been finalised and will also ensure that all existing shooting clubs that are approved under section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 are informed of them.

  A shooting club that wishes to have a licence under clause 16 of the Bill will be able to apply for that at any time after the Bill has come into force. The time it will take for clubs to obtain any necessary building consents will depend on individual circumstances.

  Prison Assaults
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average assault rate in each prison during the first six months of the current financial year. [9109]

  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. George Howarth, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average assault rate in each prison during the first six months of the current financial year.
  Annualised assault rates for each prison for the period April to September 1996 are given in the attached table. The number of assaults has been annualised and then expressed as a proportion of the average population for that period.

  Establishment

  Assault rate Percentage

  Acklington

  3

  Albany

  1

  Aldington

  3

  Ashwell

  5

  Askham Grange

  2

  Aylesbury

  28

  Bedford

  6

  Belmarsh

  23

  Birmingham

  8

  Blakenhurst

  11

  Blantyre House

  0

  748

  Establishment

  Assault rate Percentage

  Blundeston

  9

  Brinsford

  23

  Bristol

  9

  Brixton

  12

  Brockhill

  0

  Buckley Hall

  4

  Bullingdon

  13

  Bullwood Hall

  49

  Camp Hill

  2

  Canterbury

  4

  Cardiff

  10

  Castington

  23

  Channings Wood

  2

  Chelmsford

  9

  Coldingley

  2

  Cookham Wood

  23

  Dartmoor

  6

  Deerbolt

  19

  Doncaster

  21

  Dorchester

  11

  Dover

  24

  Downview

  1

  Drake Hall

  1

  Durham

  6

  East Sutton Park

  0

  Eastwood Park

  39

  Elmley

  10

  Erlestoke

  4

  Everthorpe

  1

  Exeter

  9

  Featherstone

  5

  Feltham

  42

  Ford

  0

  Frankland

  11

  Full Sutton

  8

  Garth

  6

  Gartree

  2

  Glen Parva

  27

  Gloucester

  30

  Grendon

  1

  Guy's Marsh

  6

  Haslar

  1

  Hatfield

  5

  Haverigg

  0

  Hewell Grange

  0

  Highdown

  9

  Highpoint

  5

  Hindley

  26

  Hollesley Bay

  13

  Holloway

  25

  Holme House

  6

  Hull

  24

  Huntercombe

  15

  Kingston

  0

  Kirkham

  1

  Kirklevington

  0

  Lancaster

  3

  Lancaster Farms

  20

  Latchmere House

  0

  Leeds

  10

  Leicester

  14

  Lewes

  15

  Leyhill

  0

  Lincoln

  6

  Lindholme

  1

  Littlehey

  5

  Liverpool

  5

  Long Lartin

  9

  Low Newton

  28

  Maidstone

  0

  Manchester

  8

  Moorland

  17

  Morton Hall

  1

  749

  Establishment

  Assault rate Percentage

  Mount

  3

  New Hall

  25

  North Sea Camp

  0

  Northallerton

  15

  Norwich

  14

  Nottingham

  6

  Onley

  19

  Parkhurst

  9

  Pentonville

  10

  Portland

  10

  Preston

  9

  Ranby

  2

  Reading

  24

  Risley

  6

  Rochester

  11

  Send

  1

  Shepton Mallet

  5

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Stafford

  8

  Standford Hill

  1

  Stocken

  3

  Stoke Heath

  19

  Styal

  7

  Sudbury

  5

  Swaleside

  5

  Swansea

  10

  Swinfen Hall

  19

  Thorn Cross

  20

  Usk

  0

  Verne

  1

  Wakefield

  3

  Wandsworth

  6

  Wayland

  0

  Wealstun (Closed)

  2

  Wellingborough

  3

  Werrington

  88

  Wetherby

  13

  Whatton

  1

  Whitemoor

  18

  Winchester

  6

  Wolds

  14

  Woodhill

  9

  Wormwood Scrubs

  9

  Wymott

  1

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department what is his policy for depositing in the Library documents concerning the contracting out of services; how many documents have been deposited in the Library since 1992 in the categories(a) invitation to tender, (b) draft contracts and (c) binding contracts signed by both parties; how many draft contracts contain performance targets for the contractor; and in how many cases a draft contract has been altered as a result of representations from hon. Members following deposition in the Library. [8915]

  Mr. Howard
  It is not general policy to deposit documents concerning the contracting out of services in the Library, but invitations to tender and contracts for both design, construction, management and finance schemes and the operation of prisons are placed in the Library, subject to the removal of pricing and other commercially sensitive details.

  Since 1992, four invitations to tender, relating to Her Majesty's prisons Wolds, Blakenhurst, Buckley Hall and Doncaster, and six contracts, relating to Her Majesty's
  750
  prisons Wolds, Blakenhurst, Buckley Hall, Doncaster, Bridgend and Fazakerley, have been deposited in the Library.

  All Home Office contracts specify the level of service required and, in appropriate cases, performance targets.

  No draft contracts have been deposited, or altered as a result of representation from hon. Members.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implementation of the recommendations of the interdepartmental working group chaired by Lord Ferrers in respect of the transfer of prisoners from prisons in Great Britain to similar institutions in Northern Ireland. [9688]

  Miss Widdecombe
  In his statement of 23 November 1992, the then Minister of State indicated that the Government had accepted in full the recommendations of the interdepartmental working group, and set out the arrangements which would apply to the transfer of prisoners between jurisdictions. These have worked satisfactorily and have been upheld in judicial review hearings. There is regular contact between officials in Great Britain and Northern Ireland about the implementation of the transfer arrangements, about which Ministers are kept fully informed. My right hon. and learned Friend has reviewed the current legal provisions relating to transfers and has made provision in the Crime (Sentences) Bill, currently before Parliament, for changes to these, as recommended by the interdepartmental working group.

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the Ministers in his Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9376]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total visits

  Visits abroad

  Mr. Michael Howard

  103

  10

  Baroness Blatch

  42

  1

  Ann Widdecombe

  123

  4

  Mr. David Maclean

  40

  0

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope

  37

  6

  Mr. Tom Sackville

  39

  3

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Cases Review Commission will be established; if he will list the names of the people who will be appointed as members; and when the commission will start work. [10396]

  Mr. Howard
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission will be established on 1 January 1997. Its members will be:Sir Frederick Crawford (Chairman)

  751

  Miss Fiona King

  Mr. Laurence Elks

  Mr. David Kyle

  Mr. John Leckey

  Miss Jill Gort

  Mr. Baden Skitt

  Mr. John Knox

  Dr. James MacKeith

  Mr. Karamjit Singh

  Professor Leonard Leigh

  Mr. Edward Weiss

  Mr. Anthony Foster

  Mr. Barry Capon.

  The commission will need a period of time to appoint and train its staff, and to develop its working methods, before it takes on its caseworking responsibilities. It will take on responsibility for considering cases on 31 March 1997.

  Members of Parliament (Bribery)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in its first report, that the law relating to bribery of hon. Members of Parliament should be clarified. [10397]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today published a paper on this subject, and have placed copies in the Library. I have also sent copies to the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the House of Lords Committee for Privileges.

  Criminal Investigations Code
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to lay before Parliament the code of practice prepared under part II of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; and when it will come into effect. [10398]

  Mr. Maclean
  In view of the interest in the code of practice among criminal justice practitioners, I am laying it before Parliament today. This is to assist them in preparing for the implementation of parts I and II of the Act next year.

  Before the code can take effect, Parliament must approve an order bringing it into operation. I will lay an order seeking approval before Parliament as soon as
  752
  possible next year. I am not yet able to do so, because the disclosure scheme in part I, which the code supports, depends on a number of sets of rules of court. These are currently the subject of consultation with criminal justice practitioners, and it is too early to say exactly when they will be ready to be implemented.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reviewing the system of asylum and immigration appeals. [10474]

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I intend to review the current system of asylum and immigration appeals, so as to establish, among other things, whether it provides adequate rights of appeal consistent with the costs to public funds and the impact upon the operation of the immigration control. We shall publish our conclusions in due course as a basis for consultation with interested parties.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Home Visits
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with the chief executive of the Benefits Agency concerning the ending of agency home visits; and if he will make a statement. [5905]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency has not stopped home visits to people claiming or in receipt of benefits. In July 1995, the agency introduced new criteria for determining when income support new claim visits and review visits should be made. This has improved customer service, accuracy, verification and validation of income support claims.

  The agency is undertaking a wide-ranging review of its activities, as part of the overall departmental change programme designed to make efficient use of public funds while maintaining high standards of customer service. As part of this review, from 1 April 1996, visits are made only to customers with particular difficulties of access and under the security control programme.

  Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many contracts have been made between his Department and(a) Andersens, (b) BMI, (c) Capita, (d) EDS and (e) Sema; and what is the nature of each service provided. [6734]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available is as follows.EDS—Four projects with contracts with the Child Support Agency placed between 1992 and 1995; Operational accounting system; maintenance assessment; support to the live running of the system; a technical services agreement to

  753
  provide resources to develop the system. One project with the Information Technology Services Agency to outsource the Department's data centre services. This contract involves taking over the complete data centre services provision for the Department. A framework for computer and related services.
  ANDERSENS—Replacement of the national insurance recording system (NIRSI) with a new system (NIRS2). A framework for computer and related services. Framework for management consultancy. A framework for accountancy consultancy.
  BMI—Audiology services.
  SEMA—Small systems support. A framework for computer and related services. A framework for management consultancy.
  CAPITA—framework for management consultancy.

  Benefit Appeals Procedure
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to speed up the benefits appeals procedure. [7980]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have done so. The benefits appeals procedure is constantly under review and l hold regular meetings with officials.

  The Independent Tribunal Service, through its change programme, continues to look for ways to improve clearance times.

  We introduced regulations, which came into force on 21 October, amending the appeals process which should help to reduce the time it takes to clear appeals. Among other changes they
  aim to reduce confusion by requiring a specified form to be used when appealing and specifying the information which has to be given by the appellant;
  streamline the administration of appeals by providing for oral hearings only at the request of an interested party or the chairman of a tribunal, otherwise paper hearings, and reducing the minimum notice of an oral hearing to seven days for all jurisdictions except child support;
  relieve the burden on tribunal chairman by allowing the clerk to the tribunal to make certain decisions, such as postponements, amend the circumstances in which an appeal may be struck

  Number of additional pensioners in receipt of income support, as a result of the basic retirement pension not being increased annually in accordance with earnings since 1980

  2000–01

  2010–11

  Additional pensioners in receipt of IS

  Additional cost to IS £ million

  Additional pensioners in receipt of IS

  Additional cost to IS £ million

  Basic retirement pension increasing in line with average earnings

  900,000

  600

  600,000

  400

  Basic retirement pension increasing in line with higher of average earnings and prices

  900,000

  600

  600,000

  400

  Estimated administration cost to nearest £1 million

  —

  32

  —

  21

  1. Pensioners are defined as those single aged at state pension age or above, or couples in which the husband is aged at state pension age or above.

  2.Caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest 100,000. Cost figures have been rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  3.Costs are at 1995–96 prices.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 316, what estimate he has made of the average weekly charge above preserved rights to income
  754
  out for want of prosecution and the circumstances in which these appeals may be reinstated, and allow for the issue of a summary decision, with a full decision available on request.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 November,Official Report, column 451, for the years (a) 2000–1 and (b) 2010–11, what is his estimate (i) of the number of additional pensioners eligible to claim income support as a result of the retirement pension not being increased annually in accordance with earnings, (ii) of the additional cost, at 1995–96 prices and (iii) of the additional cost of administration, assuming that the difference between the per capita costs of administering the basic retirement pension and income support in 1995–96 were applied to subsequent years, that the basic retirement pension continued to be price-indexed and that the number and amount of other sources of income remained as now. [8248]

  Mr. Heald
  Estimated numbers of additional pensioners in receipt of income support and the additional cost to income support as a result of the basic retirement pension not being uprated in accordance with earnings are given in the table. The table also contains estimates as a result of the basic retirement pension not being increased in accordance with the higher of prices and average earnings. Estimates have been made using Pensim, a dynamic simulation model that projects pensioners' incomes into the next century. Pensim estimates are based on a number of economic and behavioral assumptions, and in particular that average earnings increase by 1.5 per cent. per year above prices. Due to the reliance on assumptions and the time period covered, caseload estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100,000 and cost estimates to the nearest £100 million, and should be treated with caution. Further details of the methodology and assumptions used by Pensim are outlined in GES working paper No. 129 "Pensim: A Dynamic Simulation Model of Pensioner Incomes". Copies are available in the Library.

  support for (a) men and (b) women in (i) residential care and (ii) nursing homes. [9352]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:
  755

  Income support (IS) recipients aged 65 and over with preserved rights to IS and with care charges above IS limits: average weekly amount above limit

  Residential care £

  Nursing homes £

  Male claimants

  36.80

  27.26

  Female claimants

  28.81

  23.94

  All claimants

  30.48

  24.54

  Notes:

  1. Amounts shown represent the average charge made in excess of the income support preserved rights limits.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry November 1995.

  Pensions (Cohabitees)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the pension rights of unmarried co-habitating individuals whose partners have died, with particular reference to occupational pensions. [8181]

  Mr. Heald
  There is no legal obstacle to the payment of survivors' pensions to unmarried partners who are financially dependent on ex-members.

  Under Inland Revenue rules, payments on a member's death may be made by a scheme to a surviving spouse or someone who was financially dependent on the member. Any question as to whether or not a person is financially dependent and/or entitled to a survivor's benefit is a matter for schemes to decide for themselves and will depend on the provisions made by the rules of the scheme.

  Benefits (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Durham benefit area are currently in receipt of(a) family credit and (b) income support; and what is the total sum received. [8076]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. The family credit and income support computer systems record details of the total amount of benefit administered. It is not possible to give a breakdown to show the amount paid by individual benefit areas.

  Statistics are available which give the number of families in receipt of family credit and income support by Benefits Agency district. The Durham area is dealt with

  Programme savings (£ million cash prices)

  A minus sign indicates a cost

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  War pensions mobility supplement 40 per cent. disablement gateway

  1

  3

  4

  Allowance for lowered standard 40 per cent. disablement gateway

  1

  3

  5

  Unemployability Supplement 80 per cent. disablement gateway

  Combined for all four options

  Allowance for lowered standard no claims from over age 65

  Unemployability Supplement no claims from over age 65

  Widows rent allowance—no new claims

  negligible saving

  Cease reminders to return claim forms

  2

  3

  4

  No copy decisions to third parties

  not costed

  Abandon long-term assessment (LTA)

  0

  0

  0

  Require evidence to justify review

  +.neg

  0.5

  1

  Backdating—new rules

  3

  3

  3

  Align payment start dates

  negligible cost

  756
  by Durham North district which includes offices at Durham, Stanley, Chester-le-Street, Peterlee and Seaham and Durham South district which includes offices at Darlington and Bishop Auckland.

  The most recent details available are for August 1996 and are as follows:

  Number of families in receipt of family credit

  Number of families in receipt of income support

  North Durham

  6,213

  28,547

  South Durham

  4,254

  21,228

  Total

  10,467

  49,775

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total cost of(a) income support and (b) family credit payments has been in each year since 1990 in Darlington. [9733]

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

  War Pensions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many veterans have a disability assessed at more than 40 per cent. [8663]

  Mr. Heald
  Under the war pension scheme, awards may be made in respect of disablement due to service and in respect of disablement suffered by certain other groups, for example, by merchant seamen injured as a result of enemy action during the second world war. At the end of September 1996, the disablement of 106,572 war pensioners was assessed at 40 per cent. or more; 102,425 of these awards were in respect of disablement due to service in the armed forces.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are the projected expenditure consequences arising from the implementation of each of the changes to war pensions outlined in the Budget; [8667]

  (2) what savings will be made by ending the sending out of reminders to veterans to return claim forms or to seek an increase in entitlement. [8669]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.
  757

  Programme savings (£ million cash prices)

  A minus sign indicates a cost

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Automatic War widow's pension for 80 per cent. and Unemployability supplement cases

  -1

  -1

  -1

  War widow's pension restoration for cohabitees

  negligible cost

  Abolition of gratuities on remarriage/cohabitation

  not yet costed

  Clothing allowance one rate (the higher)

  0.5

  0.5

  -0.5

  Funeral grants for 80 per cent. and Unemployability supplement cases

  negligible cost

  Remove rank differentials for gratuities

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  Total

  5

  10

  15

  1. Estimates rounded to the nearest £0.5 million. Estimates of less than £0.25 million are given as negligible.

  2. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  3. All figures are estimates of savings and costs of the proposed changes designed to simplify and rationalise the war pensions scheme and which are subject to consultation with the Central Advisory Committee.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultation he held with(a) the Chief Medical Officer and (b) the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the medical evidence in relation to hearing loss of war pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [8720]

  Mr. Heald
  A copy of the texts of the medical advisor's address to the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions which describes the consultation that has been held on this issue and gives the medical references on which the change in medical opinion has been based have been placed in the Library.

  Child Maintenance Bonus
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the cost and (b) the numbers expected to gain from the introduction of the child maintenance bonus. [8867]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  It is estimated that in the first year—1997–98—some 40,000 parents with care will qualify for a bonus at a cost of around £5 million.

  Benefit Changes
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of(a) the changes in Government expenditure and (b) the number of people who will be affected by the proposals to change (i) rules on backdating claims, (ii) waiting days for the jobseeker's allowance, (iii) rules for war pensioners, (iv) disability living allowance claims from people between 65 and 66 years, (v) housing benefit, (vi) council tax benefit, (vii) lone parents' benefits and (viii) increases to non-dependant deductions. [8868]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables:

  Changes to central Government expenditure

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  (i) Rules on back-dating claims

  -90

  -120

  -135

  (ii) Waiting days for jobseeker's allowance

  0

  0

  -65

  (iii) Rules for war pensioners

  -5

  -10

  -15

  (iv) Disability Living Allowance

  0

  -20

  -45

  (v) Housing benefit

  -10

  -60

  -90

  (vi) Council tax benefit

  0

  -15

  -15

  (vii) Lone parents' benefits

  0

  -60

  -135

  758

  Changes to central Government expenditure

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  (viii) Increases to non-dependent deductions

  -45

  -45

  -50

  1. Figures shown are net savings to social security expenditure.

  2. Savings are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  3. Savings from these measures included in Departmental plan.

  Numbers of people affected by the changes

  Thousand

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  (i) Rules on back-dating claims

  390

  435

  465

  (ii) Waiting days for jobseeker's allowance

  0

  0

  1,900

  (iii) Rules for war pensioners

  20

  20

  20

  (iv) Disability living allowance

  0

  10

  25

  (v) Housing benefit

  90

  275

  370

  (vii) Council tax benefit

  0

  65

  65

  (vii) Lone parents' benefits

  One parent benefit

  0

  80

  150

  Income support

  0

  270

  450

  Housing benefit

  0

  55

  105

  Council tax benefit

  0

  45

  85

  (viii) Increases to non-dependent deductions

  495

  495

  495

  Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5,000, except for jobseeker's allowance, where they are rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of recent benefit changes on the workload of the Benefits Agency. [9308]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will make a statement on the impact of recent benefit changes on the workload of the Benefits Agency (BA).
  There have been three main priorities for the BA in 1996/97, the delivery of Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) and Incapacity Benefit (IB), continuing our main business of calculating and paying benefits to safeguard benefit spending, and beginning the process of restructuring our business for the future to meet the challenge of the Department's Change Programme.

  759
  The introduction of JSA and IB have been massive and complex undertakings requiring a great deal of planning and effort. The new benefits bring with them new computer systems, procedures, forms and regulations that have inevitably added to the Agency's workload. Since the introduction of JSA on 7 October 1996 the continued effort and commitment of my staff and those of our colleagues in Employment Services in bedding-in the changes and stabilising the benefit delivery processes has been considerable. Where it has proved necessary to ensure the successful delivery of these projects, additional resources have been made available.
  The BA vision still remains to pay the right benefit, to the right person, at the right time, every time. Service to the public and the delivery of all other benefits has been and will be maintained.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis the figures for cases and savings projected in his press release on proposed housing benefit and council tax benefit changes 96/265 were calculated; and what estimate he has made of the geographical distribution of(a) the single people under 60 years who are private sector housing benefit claimants and (b) the band F or higher council tax claimants. [8512]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Geographical distribution of single housing benefit recipients aged under 60 without children

  Region

  Caseload (000s)

  North

  14

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25

  East Midlands

  19

  East Anglia

  11

  South East

  150

  Greater London

  93

  Rest of South East

  57

  South West

  38

  West Midlands

  19

  North West

  46

  Wales

  20

  Scotland

  25

  Total

  366

  Source:

  HBMIS annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries with and without income support taken at the end of May 1995.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, therefore component parts may not sum.

  2. Information refers to deregulated tenants only.

  3. Estimates for Housing Benefit are based upon the May 1994 HBMIS and Rent Officer data for the first quarter of 1996.

  4. All figures have been uprated to the Public Expenditure Survey (PES) years using the Departmental Forecasting Report.

  Geographical distribution of band F or higher council tax claimants

  Region

  Caseloads (000s)

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  All

  North

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  0

  0

  1

  East Midlands

  1

  1

  0

  2

  East Anglia

  1

  0

  0

  2

  South East outside London

  10

  4

  0

  14

  Greater London

  16

  9

  1

  26

  South West

  4

  1

  0

  5

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  0

  2

  North West

  1

  1

  0

  2

  760

  Geographical distribution of band F or higher council tax claimants

  Region

  Caseloads (000s)

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  All

  Wales

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Scotland

  5

  2

  0

  7

  Total

  42

  20

  0

  63

  Source:

  HBMIS annual 1 per cent. enquiries with and without income support taken at the end of May 1995.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, therefore component parts may not sum.

  2. A "O" does not necessarily indicate that there are no cases, merely that the rounding is to zero.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the(a) number and (b) value of cold weather payments paid out in each region of Scotland in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [9072]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is contained in the social fund statistical series "Cold Weather Payments by District Offices", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Benefit Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of calls to the national benefit fraud hotline are not pursued any further. [8922]

  Mr. Heald
  It is too early to give the number of successful or unsuccessful referrals generated by calls from the public to the hotline.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on advertising the freeline service in each year since 1992. [8925]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Kevin Hughes, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much was spent on advertising the Freeline Service in each year since 1992.
  Since its introduction in 1984 the Benefits Agency Freeline has not had a budget allocation for advertisement costs. The service and details of the telephone numbers were included in appropriate BA leaflets, claim packs and forms. The Benefits Agency Freeline closed in July of this year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of removing the disability living allowance from those in hospital for more than four weeks; and how many representations he received in support of the changes. [9014]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Government's policy is set out in Cm 3233, a copy of which is in the Library.
  761
  We have received a number of representations. It is not possible to identify separately the number which were supportive of the changes; however, the majority either expressed concern or sought clarification.

  National Disability Council
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the members of the National Disability Council and the terms of their appointments. [9147]

  Mr. Burt
  The members of the National Disability Council and the dates to which their appointments run are as follows:

  David Grayson: 31 December 1999

  Harry McConnell: 31 January 1998

  Alan Smith: 1 June 1997

  Doug Alker: 22 January 1998

  Ann Foster: 22 January 1998

  Colin Low: 22 January 1998

  David Mills: 22 January 1998

  David Roberts: 22 January 1998

  Christopher Brocksom: 22 January 1999

  Tanni Grey: 22 January 1999

  Jim McAllister: 22 January 1999

  Martin Reavley: 22 January 1999

  Kevin Shinkwin: 22 January 1999

  Alan Dickson: 22 January 2000

  David Jenkins: 22 January 2000

  Bert Massie: 22 January 2000

  Philippa Russell: 22 January 2000

  Jenny White: 22 January 2000

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of the total budget of the National Disability Council is accounted for by administrative costs and the remuneration of members; [9149]

  (2) what is the total annual budget for the National Disability Council. [9150]

  Mr. Burt
  The sum of £350,000 has been allocated to meet the expenditure associated with the National Disability Council during 1996–97. It is estimated that 48 per cent. of this amount will be spent on members' remuneration, travel and subsistence, meetings and the provision of the council's secretariat. The remaining 51 per cent. includes amounts for research and other non-administrative expenditure such as advisory and consultancy fees.

  Disabled Investors (Building Society Payments)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what meetings he has had with Ministers outside his Department to ensure that investors with severe disabilities, whose account is managed by a third party, will benefit from payments to long-standing members by building societies planning to convert to listed companies next year. [9196]

  Mr. Burt
  I have been in contact with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary about this complex and difficult issue. In addition, departmental officials have had a762
  number of meetings with representatives of the various building societies that have announced their intention to convert to banks.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People expects to reply to the letter from the chairman of the National Disability Council concerning the council's meeting of 21 November on bonus shares and cash payments from building societies; and if he will place a copy of his reply in the Library. [9322]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter sent to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People by the chairman of the National Disability Council following the meeting of the council on 21 November; and what reply he sent to the letter. [9195]

  Mr. Burt
  Yes. I will respond in due course to the letter and will arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

  Following is the information:

  BUILDING SOCIFTIES
  The Council considered the issue of discrimination against disabled people in the distribution of bonus shares and cash payments on the floatation of building societies at its meeting on 21 November.
  It is of the view that the current proposals for the flotations would leave many disabled people, who are not first named on their accounts, at a considerable disadvantage over their first named counterparts. Notwithstanding the technical legal arguments, it considers these arrangements to be discriminatory and totally unacceptable.
  It believes that the Alliance and Leicester and Halifax Building Societies should be urged to reconsider their position and to put forward proposals which would have the effect that disabled people would not be worse off than other members of the building societies. If necessary, the Government should bring forward legislation to facilitate these changes and ensure that similar problems do not arise again.
  The Council is prepared to continue discussion with the societies concerned in order to identify a solution.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make all payments of housing benefit payable directly to the landlord of the property concerned. [9190]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to housing benefit in the Budget on(a) single unemployed people who have inherited a tenancy from their parents and (b) unemployed people who are widowed or divorced and left with the tenancy of the house. [8571]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 11 December 1996]: The proposed changes to the housing benefit scheme would apply only to tenants in the deregulated private rented sector. Generally, under such tenancies children do not have the right to succeed to an assured tenancy if the parent dies. We have no data to enable us to identify the status of the person who becomes responsible for the tenancy.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will consult on his proposals to let business pay national insurance contributions for minor expenses in a lump sum. [10461]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today published a consultation document containing draft clauses on the alignment of national insurance contributions with tax under Inland Revenue PAYE settlement agreements. More than 200 organisations and individuals will receive a copy. The consultation period ends on 7 March 1997.

  My proposal is to introduce a simple employer-only charge for national insurance to work alongside the Inland Revenue's single lump sum tax charge on minor expense payments and benefits in kind. This will mean that employers can enjoy a reduced administrative burden for contributions similar to that provided by the new tax arrangements. This is part of our continuing commitment to ensure that the administration costs of national insurance for employers are kept to the minimum consistent with the overall objectives of the contributory system.

  I intend to include these changes in a Bill containing measures to simplify the national insurance system and improving compliance and administration of national insurance contributions for early introduction in the next Parliament.

  Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library.

  Pensions Levy
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the proposed(a) rates of the general pensions levy and (b) maximum amounts of the pensions compensation levy payable in respect of occupational and personal pension schemes from April 1997. [10462]

  Mr. Heald
  The proposed rates of the general pensions levy are set out in the table. The proposed statutory maximum of the pensions compensation levy will be £0.23 for each scheme member. The general levy rates and the maximum compensation levy will be specified in the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Levy) Regulations 1997 which we intend to lay before the House by March 1997.

  General levy

  Proposed rate

  For occupational pension schemes with up to 11 members

  £8.75 per scheme

  For occupational pension schemes with 12 to 99 members

  £1.05 per member

  For occupational pension schemes with 100 to 999 member

  £0.75 per member, subject to a minimum of £105.00 per scheme

  For occupational pension schemes with 1,000 to 4,999 members

  £0.60 per member, subject to a minimum of £730.00 per scheme

  For occupational pension schemes with 5,000 to 9,999 members

  £0.45 per member, subject to a minimum of £3,000.00 per scheme

  For occupational pension schemes with 10,000 or more

  £0.30 per member, subject to a minimum of £4,500.00 per

  764

  General levy

  Proposed rate

  members

  scheme

  For personal pension schemes with up to 11 members

  £3.60 per scheme

  For personal pension schemes with 12 to 99 members

  £0.30 per member

  For personal pension schemes with 100 to 999 members

  £0.21 per member, subject to a minimum of £30.00 per scheme

  For personal pension schemes with 1,000 to 4,999 members

  £0.17 per member, subject to a minimum of £210.00 per scheme

  For personal pension schemes with 5,000 to 9,999 members

  £0.12 per member, subject to a minimum of £850.00 per scheme

  For personal pension schemes with 10,000 or more members

  £0.08 per member, subject to a minimum of £1,200.00 per scheme

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of(a) basic state pension or equivalent and (b) second state pension paid to (i) a single person and (ii) a couple in (1) the United Kingdom and (2) each other European Union country, expressed (A) in cash, and (B) as a percentage of average earnings. [9350]

  Mr. Heald
  The standard rate of retirement pension for a single pensioner in Great Britain is £61.15 per week, representing 17.4 per cent. of average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees. A couple, where the wife receives a standard rate pension based on her husband's contributions, currently receive £97.75 per week or 27.8 per cent. of average earnings. At 31 March 1996 it is estimated that the average gross weekly additional pension in payment was £18.14 per week or 5.2 per cent. of average earnings.

  Information on retirement pensions in EU member states is contained in MISSOC 1995, "Social protection in the Member States of the European Union", published by the European Commission, a copy of which is in the Library. Some details of levels of state pensions as a percentage of earnings are included in this publication; however, because of the diverse nature of state pension schemes in member states, many of which are based on earnings-related calculations, straightforward comparisons of benefit amounts are not possible.

  Source:

  Earnings figures obtained from the New Earnings Survey, April 1995 and April 1996.

  Average weekly net additional pension is obtained from the Retirement Pension Bi-Annual Enquiry, 31 March 1996.

  Notes:

  1. The 1996 Abstract of Statistics, published in October, shows a different figure for standard rate retirement pension as a percentage of average earnings. This is because the figure published in the 1996 edition of the Abstract of Statistics is based on the provisional level of earnings in April 1996, while this reply uses the final figure.

  2. The gross weekly additional pension is the notional amount before the deduction of a contracted out deduction (COD). A COD is deducted when a person has been contracted out of SERPS, the state earnings-related pension scheme, into a contracted-out pension scheme or an appropriate personal pension used in place of SERPS.
  765
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the income Df each quintile of the pensioner population, expressed in current values and as a percentage of the average earnings of the equivalent quintile of the working age population in(a) 1994 and (b) 2025. [9351]

  Mr. Heald
  Information is not available in the format requested. Estimated mean incomes for quintiles of the single pension and pensioner couple populations are given in the table for 1994 and 2025, at 1996 prices. Also shown in the table are estimates of the growth in mean income in each quintile between 1994 and 2025. All estimates have been made using Pensim, a dynamic simulation model that projects pensioners' incomes into the next century.

  Mean net before housing cost income by population quintile: single and couple pensioners 1994–2025, (1996 prices)

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  Mean

  Single pensioners

  1994

  £60

  £76

  £91

  £108

  £181

  £103

  2025

  £68

  £99

  £120

  £158

  £350

  £159

  Growth

  15 per cent.

  30 per cent.

  30 per cent.

  45 per cent.

  95 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  Pensioner couples

  1994

  £121

  £150

  £183

  £235

  £390

  £216

  2025

  £151

  £205

  £260

  £338

  £606

  £312

  Growth

  15 per cent.

  30 per cent.

  35 per cent.

  45 per cent.

  65 per cent.

  45 per cent.

  1. Estimates are based on uprated data from the 1988 Family Expenditure Survey, 1988 Retirement Survey and 1987 Social Change and Economic Life Initiative, in order to provide consistent estimates for 1994 and 2025. These estimates are not consistent with the 1994–95 Pensioners' Incomes Series, which is mainly based on data drawn from the 1994–95 Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. Pensioners are defined as those single aged at state pension age or above, or couples in which the husband is aged at state pension age or above.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £1 and 5 per cent.

  4. Quintiles for single pensioners and pensioner couples have been calculated separately—i.e. the bottom quintile of single pensioners represents those pensioners in the bottom 20 per cent. of the income distribution of single pensioners.

  Social Fund (Flood Damage Payments)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help is available from the social fund to people on income support who have suffered loss and damage as a result of the recent flooding in the Folkestone area; and if he will make a statement. [10298]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Disaster relief following any such crisis is essentially a matter for the relevant local authority. However, help is available through the social fund in the form of community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans. The particular circumstances of each application will determine which type of payment may be made. Access to crisis loans is not restricted to people on income support. Applications to the social fund are dealt with, as speedily as possible, by specially trained social fund officers who look carefully at the individual circumstances surrounding each application and use discretion and flexibility when forming their decisions.

  On 22 November, Channel district reported a total of 28 community care grant awards had been made to people most affected by the flooding, at a cost of £13,392. I have therefore agreed that an additional allocation of 13,392, should be made immediately to reimburse Channel's community care grant budget.
  766
  Although it is not possible to provide the estimates as a percentage of average earnings, Pensim estimates are based on a number of economic and behavioural assumptions, in particular that average earnings increase by 1.5 per cent. per year above prices. Real average earnings are therefore assumed to increase by almost 60 per cent. between 1994 and 2025. It is important to note, however, that earnings growth is likely to vary widely between quintiles of the working age population.

  Due to the reliance on assumptions and the time period covered, estimates should be treated with caution, and have been heavily rounded. Further details of the methodology and assumptions used by Pensim are outlined in GES working paper No. 129 "Pensim: A Dynamic Simulation Model of Pensioner Incomes". Copies are available in the Library.

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Independent Tribunal Service expects to respond to the letter of 14 June from the hon. Member for Aylesbury about appeal Ref. 2/01/95/12694, N1 ZY11 0634A. [8947]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]: This is a matter for the President of the Independent Tribunal Service, Judge Bassingthwaighte, who will arrange for a written reply to be sent directly to the hon. Member.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro-compliant; what are the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9456]

  Mr. Burt
  This Department and its agencies will need to assess the impact which a single currency, assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems, whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Staff
  Mr. Ham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies of his Department in each year since 1992. [9627]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  Benefits agency

  Contributions agency

  Child support agency

  Information technology services agency

  Resettlement agency

  War pensions agency

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  1 April 1992

  62,764

  2,453

  8,307

  195

  —

  —

  4,072

  219

  462

  22

  —

  —

  1 April 1993

  64.056

  3,562

  9,370

  331

  2,937

  42

  4,069

  501

  359

  23

  —

  —

  1 April 1994

  63,897

  3,922

  9,821

  209

  4,752

  495

  3,998

  611

  276

  48

  1,495

  146

  1 April 1995

  66,687

  3,473

  8,889

  491

  5,974

  205

  3,540

  387

  133

  5

  1,295

  263

  1 April 1996

  71,627

  3,097

  7,463

  569

  6,528

  277

  1,954

  361

  —

  —

  1,226

  72

  1. Staff on a fixed term appointment are included as permanent staff.

  2. Numbers of staff are expressed as full-time equivalents.

  3. Child Support Agency was launched on 1 April 1993.

  4. War Pensions Agency was launched on 1 April 1994.

  5. Resettlement Agency ceased to exist on 31 March 1996.

  Benefits Inquiry Line
  Mr. Steinberg
  To as the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to reinstate the benefits inquiry line. [8074]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what proposals he as to re-instate the Benefits Enquiry Line.
  I assume your question refers to the Benefits Agency Freeline which closed in July of this year. There are currently no plans to re-instate this service. However, the Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL) for people with disabilities remains open and continues to operate as normal.
  BEL is a confidential advice line providing general information about all Social Security benefits to people with disabilities, their carers and representatives. Help can also be given to complete some disability benefit claim forms.
  Customers who require help or advice can contact BEL by telephoning 0800 882200. Deaf or hearing impaired customers who have access to a textphone can call on 0800 243355.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 501, how many new awards there were in each year since 1980 for (a) child benefit and (b) one-parent benefit; and what data are kept by his Department on the number of claims for these benefits which do not result in an award of benefit. [8192]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  768

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  1 April 1992

  78,277

  2,985

  1 April 1993

  84,825

  4,782

  1 April 1994

  87,134

  5,536

  1 April 1995

  89,496

  4,929

  1 April 1996

  91,536

  4,501

  New awards of CHB 1980–1995: number of children

  Thousands

  1980

  1,093

  1981

  968

  1982

  1,020

  1983

  1,009

  1985

  1,003

  1986

  1,022

  1987

  1,033

  1988

  1,041

  1989

  997

  1990

  1,062

  1991

  1,063

  1992

  1,025

  1993

  1,000

  1994

  992

  1995

  981

  1. Data is not available for 1984 due to industrial action in that year.

  2. The figures include claims made on the birth of a child, claims from families entering Great Britain and repeat claims following a period of disentitlement.

  3. Figures based on a 4 per cent. sample to and including March 1994, thereafter a 1 per cent. sample.

  4. There are no reliable data on the numbers of claims which do not result in award, and no information on the reasons for such disallowances.

  New awards of OPB 1988–1995: number of families

  Thousands

  1988

  136

  1989

  139

  1990

  155

  1991

  153

  1992

  156

  1993

  152

  1994

  146

  1995

  176

  1. Figures based on a 4 per cent. sample to and including March 1994, thereafter a 1 per cent. sample.

  2. Data on one-parent benefit awards is not available before 1988.
  769
  3. There are no reliable data on the numbers of claims which do not result in an award, and no information on the reasons for such disallowances.

  Income Support Computer System
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what information is conveyed to claimants about their claim by the income support computer system used by the Benefits Agency; [9036]

  (2) what information is provided to claimants who are notified of a mortgage interest direct overpayment in respect of (i) why the overpayment occurred, (ii) how much was overpaid and (iii) when and how recovery will be effected; [9038]

  (3) on whose responsibility changes are made to the income support computer system; what plans there are for such changes; and, in each case, what is then-priority. [9037]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew Smith, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what information is conveyed to claimants about their claim by the Income Support Computer System (ISCS) used by the BA; what information is provided to claimants who are notified of a mortgage interest direct overpayment in respect of (i) why the overpayment occurred, (ii) how much was overpaid and (iii) when and how recovery will be effected; on whose responsibility changes are made to the ISCS; what plans there are for such changes; and in each case, what is their priority.
  The ISCS issues award notifications following an initial claim for benefit and on relevant changes of circumstances. These notifications inform the customer of the Adjudication Officer's decision, explain how the award has been calculated, the method of payment and their right of appeal.

  Income Support Appeals

  March 1995

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  Total number heard and decided

  11,674

  9,583

  10,720

  8,620

  Total number decided in appellants favour and percentage

  6,033

  3,777

  3,841

  3,057

  (51 percent.)

  (39 per cent.)

  (35 per cent.)

  (35 per cent.)

  Decision in appellants favour:

  Number decided

  1,159

  1,328

  1,424

  1,170

  appellant only attended

  Percentage success

  43

  45

  43

  43

  Decision in appellants favour:

  Number decided

  1,983

  480

  257

  209

  representative only attended

  Percentage success

  78

  66

  49

  48

  Decision in appellants favour:

  Number decided

  1,456

  1,473

  1,533

  1,156

  appellant and representative attended

  Percentage success

  68

  65

  65

  63

  Decision in appellants favour:

  Number decided

  1,435

  496

  627

  522

  no attendance

  Percentage success

  32

  12

  13

  14

  Source: "Quarterly Social Scurity Appeal Tribunal Statistics" published by Analytical Services Division.
  770
  The ISCS also notifies a customer when, on behalf of the Secretary of State, Income Support housing costs are to be deducted from the award, for direct payment to the mortgage lender, mortgage interest direct (MID).
  In the event of a MID overpayment of £25.00 or less the amount is recovered from the Lender by adjusting the subsequent MID payments. The ISCS automatically issues notifications to the customer and the lender. The customer notification details how the overpayment has occurred, the amount overpaid and how recovery will be made, example at Annex A. Procedural guidance is available in the Income Support Guide for Housing Costs. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.
  Overpayments of more than £25.00 are repaid by the lender in a lump sum. In these circumstances clerical notifications are issued to both the customer and the lender. Again, the customer notification details how the overpayment has occurred, the amount overpaid and how recovery will be made, example at Annex B.
  Decisions on whether to commission changes to the BA computer systems are my responsibility and that of my management team. These decisions are based on the business requirement and analysis of alternative solutions within the capacity available. Priority is normally given to enhancements in respect of legislative changes and other unavoidable and essential work.
  The ISCS work programme to the end of 1997 includes enhancements to allow payments of the new Child Maintenance Bonus; to transfer records of unemployed customers to the Jobseeker's Allowance Payment System; to introduce a payment card facility; to improve accounting data and to implement changes to One Parent Benefit and the Lone Parent Premium announced in the recent Budget. All these changes are regarded as essential.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support appeals were heard by social security appeal tribunals in each of the last four quarters for which information is available; how many and what percentage were decided in the appellant's favour where the appellant(a) attended the hearing but was not represented, (b) was represented but did not attend, (c) attended and was represented and (d) did not attend and was not represented. [4801]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 November 1996, c. 523–26.]: The information that I gave regarding the figure and percentage of heard and decided appeals for the December 1995 quarter was incorrect. The information is set out in the table. The correct information is as follows:

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELL2OR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Re6ad by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act,
Theft (Amendment) Act,
Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act,
City of Edinburgh Council Order Confirmation Act,
Edinburgh Merchant Company Order Confirmation Act,
Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Act,
Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Act.

Disabled Driving Instructors
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What rules govern the eligibility and approval of people with disabilities qualifying to become driving instructors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, any disabled driver who can demonstrate to a professionally competent assessor that he can take control of a motor car from the passenger seat in the event of an emergency may apply to become an approved driving instructor, subject to the same eligibility rules as an able-bodied person.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that welcome reply, which represents progress from the previous position. Will he confirm that records show that disabled drivers tend to be more careful and have fewer accidents than able-bodied people? While safety must come first, is there any reason why skilled disabled people should not become proficient instructors in appropriate vehicles and, in due course, official examiners for driving tests?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly feel that this change in the rules represents progress. It allows disabled people quite properly to become driving instructors. Unfortunately, record6s are not held in a form which shows whether or not a driver has been disabled. However, it
1498
seems that disabled drivers particularly value the independence and mobility that a car gives them and therefore exercise very considerable care. As to my noble friend's latter question, provided that the procedures I described have been met there is no reason whatever why such a person should not be a good driving instructor and go on to a successful career.
As regards testing, there is unfortunately less possibility that a disabled person could conduct driving tests. People taking a driving test use their own vehicle or a driving school car. Those will nearly always be fitted with manual transmission and will not be adapted for use by the disabled. With those provisos, there has been real progress.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the encouragement that he gives to disabled drivers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is a very skilled operator of his vehicle. I have never seen him come into collision or near collision with anything. Whether he wishes to become an instructor, I know not.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly the skills of my noble friend, not only in the driving arena but in many other fields, are without question. My noble friend is right to draw attention to the abilities of disabled people in this respect. It is clear that they can go on to provide valuable service in the area of driving instruction.

Working Time Directive
2.40 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making toward exemption from the 48-hour week (the "working time" directive) imposed by the Treaty of Rome, and whether such exemption can be agreed by qualified majority rule.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government have tabled proposals in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the working time directive no longer affects the United Kingdom and to prevent any other "social engineering" directives from being imposed on the United Kingdom. The outcome of the intergovernmental conference must be agreed unanimously and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that he will insist that the changes we have proposed form part of that outcome.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to M. Santer on 12th November to say that he had only agreed to the opt-out on social policy because the other countries agreed that the social chapter could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. He s6aid:
"The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement. without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht".

1499
Does this saga not show two things—first, that we cannot trust arrangements made with our partners and, secondly, that we should begin to think of renegotiating our relationship with the European Communities?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That's a job for the Whips!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can congratulate the noble Lord on asking the most unpredictable question, as we move towards the end of the month. No, what it does reveal is that my right honourable friend was insistent, at the time of Maastricht, that those matters should be excluded. Now that it has been determined by the courts that they are included, if we are to go forward with success in the intergovernmental conference, he will demand and continue to demand that those matters are properly, once and for all, excluded.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, rather than threatening to impede future developments in Europe unless there are treaty changes, would not the Government gain more by taking the advice of the director general of the CBI and adopting a constructive attitude towards the directive, taking advantage of the considerable amount of flexibility that lies within it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. There is a degree of flexibility within the directive. Whether it is helpful flexibility is more open to question. My noble friend was right. The Prime Minister clearly understood—as did everyone else, including parties opposite, at the time of the Maastricht Treaty—that the social chapter and anything that might be passed under it were excluded from imposition on the United Kingdom. It seems to me that my right honourable friend is absolutely right to insist on those matters being resolved. It is not only the issue of the working time directive that is involved. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the European Commission has in preparation a White Paper on those areas which are exempted from the working time directive. If they were to be imposed upon the United Kingdom, most prominently in the offshore working area, far from there being an improvement in the safety and health of those who work there, there might be much greater risks.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that the 48-hour restriction is not in force and will never be in force?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, the United Kingdom has obeyed and always will obey the law. As we have failed to get the directive and its application to the United Kingdom removed, we will set about the process of consultation with a view to implementation. The objective of the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, is that before the intergovernmental
1500
conference is resolved—and it is hoped that that may be achieved some time next year—we shall insist that the directive is disapplied in the United Kingdom.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a pity that this important issue should have become a political shuttlecock? Does he further agree that on the grounds of safety and of maintaining a level playing field between ourselves and other countries in Europe and on the grounds of the possible advantages in generating employment, on merit the reduction of working hours is desirable? To that end, is the Minister prepared to commission an independent and objective inquiry into the merits of reducing working hours in this country in the near future?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord examines working hours in the United Kingdom, he will find that at a certain point on average the number of hours worked is less than the average for the European Union. It is not as though we were still using some kind of Victorian factory approach. People are working less. It is critical to understand that those matters are best left to employers and employees to resolve. As I have said previously and now repeat, if we take an area of activity such as the offshore industry, it would not only be extremely undesirable but would positively add to the risks for those who work in that industry if the directive were imposed on them.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell the House why he equates success at the IGC with agreement? Further, can he tell us why the Prime Minister did not simply say to his European colleagues in Dublin, "I will not agree to the stability pact until you have all agreed here and now to the solution not only of the 48-hour week problem but of the fisheries problem and the beef problem"? It would be better than making another show of defiance since, in the past, as the beef crisis shows, that has not been successful.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the reason my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has kept to his position is that that was what he believed he had successfully negotiated at Maastricht. That is what everyone else understood he had successfully negotiated. It seems to me that the position he adopted is both consistent and reasonable: that if there is to be an outcome to the intergovernmental conference next year or thereafter he is right to insist that those matters which everyone believed had been excluded from the Maastricht Treaty should once and for all be put beyond any question and that Article 118a should not allow those types of social engineering provisions to be imposed upon the United Kingdom. As to the other points, the noble Lord goes much wider than the issue of the working time directive.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister a aware that the 48-hour week is based on the five-day working week which is now the accepted norm and that

1501
that represents a nine-and-a-half hour shift? Does the Minister agree that that is far too long and the sooner we do away with it and cast it into history the better?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is not the only feature of the working time directive. The number of ways in which it would have to be implemented would seriously damage our competitiveness, not least our ability to attract inward investment through being able to put up large factories much more quickly than is possible anywhere else in Europe. As I indicated in my previous answer, the issue of 48 hours is not the kernel of the matter because in real terms we work something like 371/2 hours here. What is critical is that it should not be imposed upon us. It should be left to those who negotiate such matters—employees and employers. It is a matter for them and not for imposition in the form of a directive.
Lord Monson: My Lords, one could reasonably argue that a maximum 48-hour working work is desirable on health grounds for a number of stressful occupations, but can anybody seriously claim that a minimum four-week holiday, agreeable as the idea may be, has anything whatever to do with health? That argument does not stand up intellectually at all. Does the Minister agree that the European Court of Justice does not do itself a great service by pretending otherwise?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as this Question goes on, the idea of a four-week holiday becomes more and more desirable. The noble Lord is correct. It is impossible to say that someone who works a 48-hour week must have four weeks holiday for reasons of his health, desirable as it may be and attractive as it may be to many of us. It is extremely difficult to see how a four-week holiday is intrinsically bound up with an individual's health.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some 2.5 million British employees do not have a paid holiday? Is he further aware that until this directive arrived on the scene there was no obligation for people to be paid on public holidays? Bearing in mind that it is Christmas, the period of goodwill, will the Minister join me in welcoming the directive so that those people can have a paid holiday over Christmas?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords, I regret that I cannot say even at this festive season that I agree with the noble Lord. If employers and employees wish to come to agreements to extend the amount of time given over to holidays, the shortening of the week and the like, far it be from me to interfere. If they can achieve that and maintain their business in a competitive fashion, that is a matter for them. It is not a matter for this directive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is my noble friend aware that many of us believe that the Government are to be richly congratulated on not
1502
listening too carefully to a biased minority view within the CBI and instead paying much more attention to the views of the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is the first time I have ever been complimented for not listening. Certainly, there is a wide diversity of view on this matter. As my noble friend indicated, some very prominent people in management and among those who run small businesses are all too aware of the very real danger for our economy as a whole of any imposition of the directive.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, from the trend of the noble Lord's replies, am I to understand that the Government have no interest whatsoever in the working conditions of the people in this country?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords. I cannot imagine anything further removed from what I said. Perhaps I may demonstrate. The noble Lord may remember from a previous Answer that I gave that most of those who work within the public service, for whom I suppose the Government have to take a responsibility, have terms and conditions which meet with compliance under the directive.

Nuclear Arms Control: Canberra Report
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will make the statement on the Canberra Report promised by the Lord Chesham on 2nd December (HL Deb., col. 463).
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we welcome both the report's acknowledgement that it is for the nuclear weapons states to negotiate nuclear arms control measures among themselves and its call for further reductions in the US and Russian arsenals. The report also acknowledges the unilateral reductions that we have already undertaken in our nuclear forces. We support the report's emphasis on the crucial importance of effective verification and its call for a fissile material cut-off treaty. But we disagree fundamentally with the report's assertion that nuclear deterrence has no role. I am writing to the noble Lord, setting that out more fully. A copy of that letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the comprehensive nature of the noble Lord's reply. But I regret the exception that he made, especially as at this time, I am sure he will agree, there is a very considerable movement against nuclear weapons. Does he agree that that is to be found not only in the Canberra Report but also in the meeting of top brass from all over the world, including a score of American generals and a similar number from Russia, making it clear that they regard the weapon as an enemy

1503
of mankind and to be got rid of as soon as possible? Will the Government have another look at this issue from that point of view, particularly as we were represented at the meeting of what I described as "top brass" by the noble and gallant Lord, Field Marshal Lord Carver?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we agree very much with parts of the statement on nuclear weapons by the International Generals and Admirals, as I believe it is now generally called. However, the views of many of those signing the statement are well known to us. We have already said that we support some of the points made in the statement, but we judge that nuclear deterrence remains an important element in ensuring security and stability in Europe.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government recognise that there is a slight flaw in their argument that only the nuclear weapons states should determine whether they get rid of nuclear weapons? Does the noble Lord agree that, if that logic were extended in this country, effectively the Government would be saying that it should be up to those people in this country who own handguns to determine whether they should get rid of handguns?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I have absolutely no intention of going into the area of handguns at this moment. It is fairly ridiculous to suggest that one should. So far as concerns nuclear weapons states deciding this issue, that is exactly what has been recommended by both the Canberra Report and the International Generals and Admirals.
Lord Carver: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government will support the report when it is presented by the Australian Government to the United Nations disarmament conference in January? If not, why not?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I have already explained that we cannot support the report totally because we do not believe that the role of deterrence has disappeared. Disarmament measures cannot be divorced from the broader global security context. Deterrence continues to make an essential contribution to European security.
Lord Clinton—Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the vital element is to ensure that non-proliferation is implemented as soon as possible so far as concerns such weapons and that verification is an essential component of it?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the element which is lacking in this country and which is now becoming evident throughout the world is the element of urgency? I do not make any distinction between one side of the House and the other on this point. Will the noble Lord take further
1504
cognisance of the feeling that is spreading throughout the world that we must take the matter of getting rid of the nuclear weapon more urgently than has been the case hitherto?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the record of this Government stands very well so far as the urgency that has been achieved and what we have achieved in relation to other countries. I do not believe that we can be criticised for it.

Hearing Aids
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to provide improved hearing aids on the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, NHS hearing aid centres may purchase and supply to a patient free of charge any type of hearing aid that they consider medically appropriate.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, first, let me say that I have no interest to declare. I use a cochlea implant and do not use a hearing aid. I am very surprised at the Minister's response. She should know that, although that is the theory, in practice very few deaf people can obtain that kind of private aid through the National Health Service—and good luck to those who can get them.
Is she aware that the present National Health Service aids are very old-fashioned? A recent report by Hearing Concern said that, while they are helpful in quiet surroundings, they are of very little help under most circumstances. That is quite a condemnation. The poor performance is because there is no provision in this aid for cutting background noise, nor for the automatic boost of sound, nor for multidirectional microphones. I am told by some experts that also the specifications are inadequate. Cannot the Government help those millions of people who depend on that second-class technology?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is quite right that the noble Lord should say that he does not have an interest to declare in this subject. However, many of us feel that he has shown enormous courage and determination in overcoming his disability. More than half a million hearing aids are allocated each year to those who need them. The department is looking carefully at the advanced digital hearing aid to which the noble Lord referred. It is still at the developmental stage. It is up to those involved in audiology to decide what is the best type of hearing aid for an individual. But none is excluded from the National Health Service.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am a very lucky chap? I asked for a hearing aid, and I received one of a high specification very quickly. It is better than the very expensive privately

1505
supplied ones that I had before. Furthermore, it cuts out noise and takes in the ring, or whatever it is, that goes around the House.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am delighted that we have one satisfied customer of the NHS here today.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite the views of my noble friend Lord Gisborough there is some sympathy for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, which I recall from my own experience in the department? Is she satisfied that the manufacturers of hearing aids are sufficiently subject to the spur of competition in order that they may bring forward continuous improvements to their products rather than relying on the enormous captive market of the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, six manufacturers supply hearing aids to the National Health Service. Trusts which supply these appliances go out to competitive tender every year for them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has a semi-satisfied customer, in that I am on the way, I hope, to getting a more satisfactory hearing aid from the National Health Service than I have had hitherto?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am delighted.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the Minister comment further on the discussions a few weeks ago, which were somewhat heated, about the entitlement of war pensioners to enhanced hearing aids? At that time the Government said that there was no need for additional private help because medical evidence suggested that NHS hearing aids were satisfactory, although I understand that many doctors who are experts in this field have since come forward to say that that is not so. Can the Government now publish the evidence on which they made that decision?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a matter for the War Pensions Agency and the Department of Social Security to decide what type of hearing aid individuals who are war pensioners receive. The hearing aid service is free to anyone through the National Health Service and, as we have heard this afternoon, many people are very satisfied with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister was answering as if she were not responsible for the War Pensions Agency and the Department of Social Security. Does she not recognise that on these occasions she answers for the Government as a whole?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I was just clarifying where the responsibility lies within the ministerial team.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the war pensions issue is a very important one
1506
which we will be raising shortly? But for the moment will she address her mind to the question I am raising of an improved National Health Service hearing aid for the many millions of people, especially older people, who rely upon it? Will she take my word for it that she is misinformed when she says that this hearing aid is at the developmental stage? I know that it has now been developed. An advanced hearing aid is available now. I am not suggesting that the health service can afford it overnight, but will she try to push it forward a little? Because so many issues are involved and because this affects many millions of people, will she see a deputation consisting of myself, Members from both sides of the House and perhaps Members of another place and experts in the field just to discuss the better use of resources?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that I am always delighted to see him. There have been several occasions when he has come to my office and we have discussed these issues. My door is always open to him.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have a very expensive hearing aid which fits into my ear? It costs around £1,000. Surely, with the advances now taking place, if the ministry were to place an order with firms which produce small computerised hearing aids to improve the hearing and the lives of deaf people enormously they could be bought extraordinarily cheaply. Surely this is a case where the ministry should use its buying power to bring down the price.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is up to trusts to decide where to buy hearing aids. There is the NHS Purchasing Centre. Many of the trusts go to the centre but others prefer to place their contracts individually. That is a matter for them. We believe that we get good value for money. It is competitive. Six firms are involved. Every year the contracts are put out to competition. Hearing aids are a very personal thing. We recognise that individual aids are needed by individual people. That assessment is best made through those involved in audiology—the consultants, technicians and others involved.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I note the competitive nature of the manufacture and supply of hearing aids to those who need them. However, does the noble Baroness agree that it is advisable for individuals who think they may need a hearing aid to rely not solely on the advertisements of the manufacturers or the representations that they or their agents make but that at all times it should be kept under the clinical control, first, under the general practitioner, and then, if necessary, the ear, nose and throat specialists?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would not want to restrict choice. If people prefer to go directly through an advertisement, that is up to them. However, the noble Lord makes a good point, in that we have comprehensive services to support the supply of these devices. It is important that people make use of those services because clearly they are beneficial to them.

Public Interest Immunity
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I should like to make a Statement on the future of public interest immunity in relation to government documents as it operates in England and Wales, in the light of the consultation following publication of the Scott Report. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General is making a similar Statement in another place.
The Government are committed to the principle that there should be the maximum disclosure consistent with protecting essential public interests. Your Lordships will recall that the law which prevailed at the time of the Matrix Churchill case was further developed by the House of Lords case of ex parte Wiley in July 1994. Since that case, Ministers have had a general discretion to disclose documents without the prior approval of the court, if they consider that to be in the overall public interest. Against this background, it is the view of Sir Richard Scott that legislation on public interest immunity is neither necessary nor desirable, and the Government agree.
Public interest immunity is needed because of the potential conflict between two important public interests: the clear public interest in the administration of justice, in a criminal case the fair trial of an accused, and what is sometimes also the clear public interest in the confidentiality of certain documents or information. But your Lordships will bear in mind that the so-called immunity is subject to the ruling of the court, and that in a criminal case where government documents are in issue, the judge himself examines any such document and makes the actual decision on disclosure in the light of the facts of the case.
In their proposals for the future, the Government have had particular regard both to the recommendations of Sir Richard Scott and to the many responses received during the consultation process. The Government's conclusions represent a new approach, which is set out in a paper today being placed in the Library of both Houses.
Under this new approach, Ministers will focus directly on the damage that disclosure would cause. The former division into class and contents claims will no longer be applied. Ministers will only claim public interest immunity when it is believed that disclosure of a document would cause real damage or harm to the public interest. This new approach constitutes a change in the practice to be adopted by Ministers but fully respects existing legal principles, as developed by the courts, and is subject to the supervision of the courts. It also accords with the view expressed by the present Lord Chief Justice that,
"public interest immunity should only be claimed for the bare minimum of documents for which the claim of serious harm can be seen to be clearly justified".
The Government intend that this test shall be rigorously applied before any public interest immunity claim is made for any government documents.
1508
It is impossible in advance to describe such damage exhaustively. It may relate to the safety of an individual, such as an informant, or to a regulatory process; or it may be damage to international relations caused by the disclosure of confidential diplomatic communications. Normally it will be in the form of direct and immediate harm to, for example, the nation's economic interests or our relations with a foreign state; in some cases it may be indirect or longer-term damage, to which the disclosure of the material would contribute, as in the case of damage to a regulatory process. In any event, the nature of the harm will be clearly explained.
This new, restrictive approach will require, so far as possible, the way in which disclosure could cause real damage to the public interest to be clearly identified. Public interest immunity certificates will in future set out in greater detail than before both what the document is and what damage its disclosure would be likely to do, unless to do so would itself cause the damage which the certificate aims to prevent. This will allow even closer scrutiny of claims by the court, which is always the final arbiter.
The new emphasis on the test of serious harm means that Ministers will not, for example, claim public interest immunity to protect either internal advice or national security material merely by pointing to the general nature of the document. The only basis for claiming public interest immunity will be a belief that disclosure will cause real harm.
In relation to national security, the Government's approach takes into account the types of information which Parliament defined as sensitive in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, although as I have said a document will not attract public interest immunity simply because it falls into a pre-defined category.
Many public interest immunity claims are not the responsibility of government. Although the Government believe that their approach can be applied more widely, the paper placed in the Library only restricts government claims.
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate and taken the trouble to respond to the consultation exercise in this complex area. A combination of the revised regime laid down by the House of Lords in ex parte Wiley and the Government's new approach should ensure that public interest immunity claims will be significantly less frequent in future. And I repeat that any claim in a criminal case will always in the end be subject to review by the court itself.
I believe that these factors, combined with the new test based on serious damage which I have described and which is set out more fully in the paper today being placed in each Library, provide what should prove a sensible, balanced and effective regime for the future, and I commend it to your Lordships.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, at the fag end of this Administration, the Government's late conversion (after 17 years of restrictiveness) is a little hard to take. It really is a little rich. The beneficiaries of 17 years of

1509
restrictiveness herald a new openness, but one that can only be delivered by an incoming government. If there had been this spirit of openness 10 years ago, the events leading to the Scott Report would never have occurred. There would have been no issue of concealment by Ministers of information favourable to the defendants in the Matrix Churchill trial. I need not remind your Lordships that the Scott Report was about government attempts to conceal from Parliament changes of policy in relation to arms to Iraq and to conceal from the courts documents which, in the event, led to the acquittal of the defendants—defendants who would never have been brought to trial if the documents had been disclosed up front in the first place.
But I must not allow myself to be sour. If a late, although limited, belief in openness has taken over, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be the first to agree that,
"Joy shall he in heaven over one sinner that repenteth",
even when the sinner is a government whose opportunities to continue sinning will be abbreviated in any event by the judgment of the people which is to be delivered on their stewardship.
Your Lordships will know that public interest immunity protection can be claimed on a contents basis or a class basis. That is the distinction that underlies the Statement that we have just heard. A contents claim is that the content of the document, if disclosed, would probably damage the public interest. A class-based claim need not allege that. There are decisions of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, which, of course, still stand, upholding many class-based claims; for example, Cabinet minutes or papers, documents concerning the security of the state, high-level interdepartmental minutes and documents concerning the administration of the armed services, to give only a few examples. I take it from the Statement that so far as this Government are concerned, class-based claims will never be made again. That is what I understand. The Statement reads:
"The former division into class and contents claims will no longer be applied".
I understand the Statement therefore to be that in future Ministers will claim public interest immunity only where they actually believe that the disclosure of particular documents would cause real damage to the public interest and that no class claims as such will be made in the future. I invite that understanding to be confirmed. I assume that that means that application for immunity for documents which formerly would have been covered by class claims—I have cited examples—will still be made but on the basis of a belief by the Minister that to reveal them would cause real harm to the public interest. I ask for that too to be confirmed. I also ask for confirmation that the new policy which the Statement announces will apply equally to civil as to criminal litigation.
Perhaps I may ask one further question. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that Ministers will be free under the new policy to make up their own minds in applying the test—what damage would disclosure of this particular document (or of these particular documents)
1510
cause?—so that there will be no repetition of an instruction to Ministers by the Attorney-General that they must sign? Will the noble and learned Lord therefore confirm that hereafter decisions to claim public interest immunity will be free, uninfluenced decisions by Ministers themselves applying the new test explained in the Statement?
I note, but dispute, the Government's view that legislation on public interest immunity is neither necessary nor desirable. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that after the decision of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity ex parte Wiley in July 1994, to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred in the Statement, the Court of Appeal in the case of Taylor v. Anderton has upheld a class-based claim by a police force—that is, a public interest immunity claim in respect of the class of reports of officers investigating complaints against the police? The reason put forward and upheld by the Court of Appeal was the old "candour" one—that frank reports would be inhibited unless there was a class protection. I found that a depressing decision. I agree with Sir Richard Scott, who has expressed the hope:
"that class claims will never be made if they cannot be based on something more substantial than the 'candour' argument".
My question, therefore, is this: in the context of the Government's announced decision to rule out legislation, if it is thought wrong (as the Statement tells us that it now is) for the Government themselves to advance a class-based claim, why is it right for the police to be able to advance class-based claims? Why should not such class-based claims be ruled out generally in favour of the new test which the Government say that they will apply for themselves? Is there any reason, for example, why a local authority might not argue, just as the police argued in Taylor v. Anderton, for a class-based immunity in relation to some sensitive internal investigation? I suggest that there is need for legislation, and that, however welcome this Statement may be within its own limits, it does not comprehensively address the problem of public interest immunity certificates, nor does the greater flexibility that it heralds on the part of the Government in that limited area in any way meet the point that what this country urgently requires is a comprehensive freedom of information Act.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I echo much of what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said. This is a cautious step forward, but dealing with a matter of such public concern on the last full day before Christmas will not encourage great public confidence that the Government are treating this matter with the responsibility that it deserves.
The issue of public interest immunity is raised by the Statement, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify where the ministerial buck lies, because one of the points that emerged most clearly in Matrix Churchill was the claim by Ministers that they were bullied and brow-beaten by Law Officers into signing the certificates and that only the now Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Heseltine, held out against that. Does the new guideline mean that that behaviour by Law Officers and that defence by Ministers will be at an end?

1511
There is also the question upon which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, touched and upon which I should like the noble and learned Lord to expand. It is the part of the Statement which states:
"Many public interest immunity claims are not the responsibility of government".
That is so, but that makes this a partial measure only. How do the Government intend to encourage other bodies which can claim public interest to adopt the new standards that the Government have set for themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the Statement which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, gave, which I take to be supported also by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. So far as concerns the time that the Government have to put the procedure into practice, I, of course, do not share the prophecy of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I believe that this practice will prevail for a long time to come.
To answer the questions so far as I recollect them: of course this applies to the civil and criminal jurisdictions. In the criminal jurisdiction, in particular, of course, the court will always itself look at any document which is not to be disclosed on the ground of public interest immunity. With regard to the practice of Ministers in relation to both civil and criminal jurisdiction, this Statement applies.
Secondly, the intention is that the document should be looked at from the point of view of serious harm in respect of that document, taken, of course depending on the circumstances, in conjunction with other documents.
It is of course correct, as has been said, that a distinction between class and contents claims has been recogInised by the courts as they developed this law. However, the fundamental point in both those cases is damage by disclosure to a relevant public interest. What this Statement is dealing with is the risk that too much concentration on the form, in relation to the class of document, damages the real focusing on the fundamental test, which is damage by disclosure. That is what the Statement says.
Members of the Government in future will look at the documents from that point of view rather than merely considering whether they fall within a class or are already recognised by the courts as constituting a damage to the public interest by disclosure.
It is of course for the courts to develop the law in that area, subject to the authority of Parliament. The courts have developed the law. Ex parte Wiley is a considerable development of the law since the Attorney-General advised in relation to the matters upon which he did advise. There are certainly clear statements in authority that in certain circumstances Ministers would have a duty to claim public interest immunity.
The situation has been developed as a result of the case ex parte Wiley. So far as my researches go, the important matter for the courts now and in the future is to consider how the test is applied. It does not
1512
necessarily mean that the courts will not also examine class claims in a more particular way perhaps and from a slightly different point of view than hitherto.
In relation to the last full day before Christmas, I am not sure how lacking in fullness tomorrow's day will be. It is an important day and an important debate. Surely this is a good day upon which to make an important announcement of this kind. It will give those of your Lordships who are not coming tomorrow, if there are any such, the opportunity fully to consider this Statement in the kind of relaxed atmosphere that, with most of your Lordships, will apply in the days before Christmas.
With regard to ministerial responsibility for claiming public interest immunity, it is clear, and always has been clear, that ultimate ministerial responsibility for a certificate signed by a Minister is on the Minister signing the certificate, whether that be the Secretary of State for Home Affairs as in Conway and Rimmer, or any other Minister. It depends of course upon the circumstances which Minister it is that signs the certificate, but it is plain that it is the person who signs the certificate who is responsible for it.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, at the beginning of his Statement, my noble and learned friend said that it referred to England and Wales. I should be grateful for clarification because, while cases in Scotland are likely to be rare, I am aware that highly confidential documents can exist or originate in Scotland; for example, connected with the Security Service or operations by the police against serious crime. Courts in Scotland might well be involved in such cases. Is a similar change intended to be made in Scotland, or is Scots law, felicitously, already satisfactory in this area?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorely tempted by the last part of my noble friend's question. The difficulties that have arisen in recent times have arisen in relation to the operation of the legal system of England and Wales. The consultations which preceded this Statement focused principally upon England and Wales. It is for that reason that the Statement, following the consultation, focused on England and Wales. The law and practice in Scotland are, as my noble friend knows well, not identical to those in England and Wales. Since no problems have been thrown up by the operation of the system in Scotland, we felt it unnecessary to make any statement in relation to that important jurisdiction.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, as far as I understood the Statement, it appears to be an improvement on the past situation. I shall read the debate tomorrow with great interest at my leisure. I welcome very much what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about documents signed by Ministers. I was surprised to hear of the dispute that arose out of the case to which this matter gave rise. The noble and learned Lord was quite unequivocal about it. On the last occasion Mr. Heseltine had objections to signing a document and was told by the

1513
Attorney-General that he must sign it. If that situation arises in future can the Minister refer back to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon and say that he takes responsibility for the matter and is not ready to sign the document? How is the matter to be resolved in future?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not want to go into the detail of the previous case, but it is clear that ultimately a certificate was signed in terms different from those originally proposed to, for example, Mr. Heseltine. The certificate was altered to take account of his difficulties in relation to it before it was signed. Ultimately the matter went to the court.
One other matter that arises is that a Minister is entitled to receive advice in relation to what he does, but it is ultimately his decision whether or not he accepts that advice. In my judgment, plainly he has responsibility for that. As far as concerns the Matrix Churchill case, it is clear that the documents in question were available to the defence a considerable time before the case collapsed. It is not accurate to say that the case collapsed on the disclosure of the documents. It collapsed at a later stage in regard to the oral evidence that was given.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, referring to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I seek clarification about the practice of government in Scotland. Is it the same as that in England and Wales?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I explained a moment ago that law and practice in Scotland are somewhat different from England and Wales. I am not conscious—I do not know whether the noble Lord, with his considerable experience of Scotland, is—of any difficulties in Scotland such as those that have arisen in England in recent times in connection with this matter. In broad terms, the principles are very much the same in Scotland and England, but the development of law and practice is not the same. The basic system of law in the administration of justice, civil and criminal, is different. I believe that it is wise to concentrate on those areas in which difficulties have arisen and to try to take an important step forward in the light of experience. I do not regard this altogether as repentance but more as learning from experience how to make improvements to the system of public administration.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was almost but not wholly clear and satisfactory in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Surely, if responsibility rests with the relevant Secretary of State or Minister he must have the option of refusing to give his signature if he does not believe it is right to give it. It was that point in the Matrix Churchill case that was extremely obscure. It would be a great advantage if the noble and learned Lord could confirm that where responsibility lay with the Minister the Minister's signature could not be automatic.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it may be that one detail of the background is being slightly overlooked in
1514
the question of the noble Lord, who has considerable experience in this area of practice. In decisions before this time the courts said that in certain circumstances there would be a duty on the relevant Minister to claim public interest immunity. Therefore, it is right that the Minister should be advised that if he is satisfied that these circumstances have arisen, then that duty does arise and he has a legal obligation to sign the statement. However, whatever advice the Minister receives, ultimately the responsibility for the certificate that he signs is his.
The discussion that has taken place in relation to this matter may not give full effect to the fact that in decided cases there was a statement to the effect that this was not a privilege. In the old days this was referred to as Crown privilege. The courts modified that and pointed out that it was not a privilege but an important aspect of the safeguarding of the proper function of the public service. Therefore, where such damage by disclosure would arise the Minister would not be exercising a privilege but discharging a duty in making the claim. That is the basis of the matter. Ultimately, it is the Minister's responsibility to form a judgment on the facts, apply the relevant law as he is advised, and take a decision.
Lord Merlyn—Rees: My Lords, questions have been raised about the relationship between a Secretary of State and the legal adviser to the Government. I was surprised to read in the Scott Report that so many junior Ministers had signed a public interest immunity certificate. I had always understood—indeed, in a similar case I was so advised—that only the Secretary of State could sign and that junior Ministers should not and could not sign. Is that still the case?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should have thought that that would be a matter of good practice where the senior Minister was in a position to deal with the documents and form a judgment. That may be quite a large task. As the noble Lord knows only too well, the Secretary of State may have many heavy responsibilities upon him. This is a heavy and important responsibility. Where the Secretary of State is able to undertake the matter and sign the certificate, for my part I should think it appropriate that he should do so. But there is nothing to prevent a junior Minister from making a claim. There may be all kinds of reasons—involvement and other matters—why the Secretary of State cannot do so. From time to time claims have been made by officials, for example in relation to documents which relate to a previous administration which it would be inappropriate for the current Secretary of State to see. I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's question that, this being a matter of considerable responsibility, the most senior Minister available to discharge that responsibility should do so as long as he is able to discharge it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in justice to the Attorney-General should it not be said that it is now overwhelmingly accepted that the legal advice he gave at the time as to the law as it then stood was, contrary to the opinion of Sir Richard Scott, entirely correct?

1515
Was not the advice that the document in question fell within a class that had been previously recognised by the law as to be withheld and there was no ministerial discretion in the matter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am happy to endorse that. It is appropriate that that statement should come from such an eminent authority on the Cross Benches. I entirely agree and I sought to explain that in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It is because there was a duty to make a claim in the circumstances that applied that that was the situation.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am sorry to pose this question, but I am now totally confused. I do not understand how there can be ministerial responsibility if there is no ministerial discretion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is an extraordinary statement. For example, Ministers of the Crown are under an obligation to obey the law and to act lawfully. That cannot imply that they have a discretion not to do so. The mere fact that one has responsibility does not mean that one has a discretion not to do what one is advised it is right to do, for example, in relation to taking a decision or signing a document.
If one has a statutory obligation to do something, it does not imply that one has an option not to do so. If one signs the document, of course, one has a responsibility for it. The reason one has discharged one's duty in that way is because, in my specific example, of the obligation imposed by law.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, what I am a little worried about is the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, phrased his comments. I have the greatest respect for him on all these matters. But Ministers derive such authority as they have from statute and from Parliament. Those are the only two bodies to which they are responsible—to the statute and to Parliament.
Can the Lord Chancellor make it absolutely clear that if the opinion of the Attorney-General on a matter of law differs from that of the Minister and the Minister does not agree with that interpretation, he is perfectly free to decline to sign a document. If that is so, I assume that he may be challenged in the courts at some stage. But it is his responsibility and his alone and no Attorney-General can require a Minister to sign a document with which he disagrees.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is surely plain that, where a Minister seeks legal advice, it is right that he should have regard to that advice, for instance, from the Attorney-General.
There is possibly a misunderstanding lying behind this confusion. The Attorney-General's advice is given on the basis of the Minister being satisfied in relation to a specific matter. The legal advice may be, "If that is your position, this is what you must do". Unless the
1516
Minister has reason to suppose that the legal advice is wrong, the Minister, not being a lawyer, is unlikely to have grounds on which to refuse the advice or refuse to follow it.
A responsible Minister obtaining legal advice with which he has no reason to disagree will surely wish to follow it. Of course, he may have reason to doubt the legal advice and, if so, to challenge it, explore it and see on what it is based. That in no way detracts from his responsibility to take legal advice. He, not being a lawyer, if that be his position—some of us do not have that particular route—it would surely be rational for him to follow that advice unless he has reason to doubt it. In that case he should raise those doubts and seek to have them resolved before deciding on his course of action.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the point in the Matrix Churchill case was that the Minister saw perfectly clearly that if the document was not released there would be a miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General told the Minister that he had to sign the document. Not only was that the situation, but counsel for the Crown at the trial was instructed to ask the judge to keep those documents from the jury. In the end it was only because the judge refused to do that that there was not a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, surely what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is saying is true. The Minister saw perfectly clearly that if he refused to sign the document there would not be a miscarriage of justice, and that is what the whole matter was about.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is not the occasion on which to seek to reopen the details concerning that case. I am prepared to do so, but this is not the right use of your Lordships' time when we are discussing this Statement.
The position was accurately put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I can well see that situations could develop—that is the reason for the policy set out in the Statement—where concentration on class claims as such, without perhaps focusing sufficiently on the reason that the courts have admitted those class claims, may sometimes damage the real exercise which the Minister is seeking to carry out. It is in order to try to remove that kind of mechanical reliance on class claims that this change of practice is to take place; that is, in order to try to alleviate for the future any problems of the kind advanced in the past.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this time is for Back Benchers and I do not wish to intervene and would not do so if it were not absolutely necessary. But is it not clear that the Lord Chancellor has been the subject of high level and profound interrogation? Would

1517
it not be to the benefit of the House if the usual channels were to find time for a debate on these important matters which was not time-limited?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the important matter is the Statement of what the position is for the future. I hope that I have made that absolutely clear.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, not to me.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord says that it is not plain to him. Let me have one more go. In the light of this practice as presently stated the Minister will be responsible for the signature if he signs a certificate. If he takes legal advice in that regard, he still retains responsibility for it. That remains the position, as it has always been.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been speaking on this matter now for half an hour. May I suggest to my noble friend the Leader of the House that we now get on with the main business?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that his Statement today adds a second safeguard in that it emphasises the role of the trial judge in determining what is or what is not in the public interest? Is it not the case that in the Matrix Churchill trial the step forward taken by the judge, Sir Brian Smedley, was that he, for the first time, demanded to see the documents; having seen them, he came to his conclusion. No previous judge in a criminal trial had demanded to see the documents for which public interest immunity was claimed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding of the law in England and Wales—at least since Conway v. Rimmer—has been that the court is the ultimate tribunal to decide whether a public interest immunity claim should prevail. It has the responsibility of weighing interests other than those which in former times were thought to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The court has that responsibility and it is important that the court should adequately and fully discharge that responsibility, as I believe it has done and will continue to do.

Business of the House: Debate, 19th December
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Hayman set down for Thursday, 19th December shall be limited to three hours.— ( Viscount Cranborne)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Media
3.51 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to call attention to the role of the media in a democratic society; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there has probably never been a time when the standards and behaviour of the media have been of so much concern to the people of this country. Your Lordships may agree that, as we come close to a general election, it is timely that we should discuss the role of newspapers, radio and television in the governance and preservation of the democratic society in which we live. Of course, we have not even begun to take in the implications of a world in which communications—telecommunications, television, personal computers and the Internet—have all been integrated into one interactive global system. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, makes his maiden speech he will have something to say about that.
My concern today is with the conventional media. It is through radio, television and newsprint that the vast majority of people in this country will continue to receive their news, information and entertainment well into the next century. During the brief time at my disposal, I wish to discuss one or two ideas about the role of the media as seen from both inside and outside and to ask how the performance of the media measures up against those perceptions.
It would be fair to say that within the media there is a degree of uncertainty, to say the least, about the function of the journalist. There was an interesting example of that in the strange episode of John Birt' s lecture at Trinity College, Dublin, a year or so ago. Some of your Lordships may recall that Mr. Birt, the Director General of the BBC, delivered a fairly blunt criticism of the rudeness and discourtesy which disfigure a good deal of contemporary radio and television interviewing. During the course of his speech Mr. Birt made the following comment, which seems to me to be eminently reasonable. He said:
"journalism is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end … we need to reassert that journalism's highest purpose is to inform the citizenry".
He was immediately set upon by his fellow journalists. One correspondent wrote:
"Journalism is simply the exercise of free speech … it has no hierarchy of purposes".
Another attacked his comments on politeness and said:
"deference to established power is not now, and never has been, the function of a free press".
One columnist took up most of a page in the Evening Standard rubbishing the director general and placing the blame for hostile interviewing on the fact that the persons being interviewed, usually politicians, are slippery liars well practised in the art of evading the issue. Finally, perhaps encapsulating the whole issue neatly, another columnist offered the following definitive pronouncement on her trade. She wrote authoritatively
"John Birt was wrong. Disrespect is the first best quality of ajournalist".
It is clear from all that, and from other examples which one could enumerate, that some people, although not all, involved in the media are reluctant to accept any responsibility or loyalty higher than that which is summed up in phrases such as, "the public have a right to know", and, "our only business is to publish the news". They seem unable or unwilling to comprehend that the public interest means something more than just what interests the public.
It is perhaps relevant and proper, therefore, that those outside the media should ask what are the proper functions of a free press in a free society. Does the almost total freedom which our press enjoys carry with it any collateral responsibilities?
I believe that most thoughtful people would agree that within certain limits the media should be free to examine the activities and behaviour of public institutions and public individuals. Responsible investigative journalism is essential if we are to safeguard against the kind of corruption and malpractice which, if not detected and uprooted, can poison the system of liberal democracy.
However, there are certain limits and it would be a statement of the obvious to say that those limits are frequently ignored or brushed aside. One of those limits concerns the right of individuals, including those in public life, to a degree of privacy and freedom from harassment. Another concerns the limits of what is known in the code as taste and decency; that is the shorthand for gratuitous displays of sex and violence on television, often in an unpleasantly perverted form, and the use of obscene and offensive language.
However, as disturbing as some of those issues may be, and I am sure that other noble Lords will deal with them at some length, I believe that the most important function of the media has to do with what I regard as the clear obligation of a journalist to contribute to the preservation of the political institutions which guarantee all our basic freedoms, including the freedom of the press itself. In that context, it is a matter of some concern that television journalism today is an especially acute example of a modern tendency which is sometimes described as adversary journalism. That is a concept of journalism in which all established institutions and authorities are regarded as alien and threatening, and traditional values and standards as archaic and irrelevant. It has, to a large extent, taken the place of serious journalism, even in some of our quality newspapers. In television it is rampant.
The distinguishing characteristic of serious journalism of the traditional kind was that it examined political and social problems almost from the point of view of an alternative government; in other words, as though searching for measures and solutions for which the journalist himself might in other circumstances be responsible. The less responsible approach now taken by the modern adversary journalist is especially striking in the relationship between the media on the one hand and terrorism and other forms of political violence on the other.
I suggest that in a free society, where democratic processes exist for the redress of genuine political grievances, a free press should have no difficulty whatever in establishing its moral position as between the society in which it exists and anyone who threatens to undermine and destroy it by violent means. Yet in some sections of the media there seems to be an instinctive tendency, when faced with a conflict between parliamentary democracy and the rule of law on the one hand, and on the other hand extra-parliamentary activity, lawlessness, violence and even terrorism, to adopt at best a position of moral equivalence between the two positions and at worst to give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorist, the protest movement, the radical activist or disaffected minorities.
That brings me to an issue which has been debated inordinately without any great result, but I beg leave to raise it again. It is the issue of balance, bias or impartiality—whatever one likes to call it. For obvious reasons, that is much more a matter for television and radio than the newspapers. Of course, it is legislated for in both the Charter of the BBC and the Broadcasting Act. It is not—and I hope that no one will believe it is—a matter of bias to the Right or to the Left, to use those old fashioned and somewhat irrelevant political terms. The merits of that argument are often in the eye of the beholder. My real concern is the adversarial journalist's bias against the standards, values and institutions of a civilised society.
As long ago as 1983 in a speech which he made to the Institute of Journalists, the late Stuart Young, who had recently become chairman of the BBC's Board of Governors, reminded his audience that:
"the BBC is required under its Royal Charter and Licence to refrain from expressing itself on matters of public policy. Above all, our viewers and listeners expect our journalism to be balanced, fair and impartial'.
But I believe that I shall be saying nothing of startling surprise to your Lordships if I say that the BBC manifestly does not always provide balanced, fair and impartial journalism.
Indeed, viewers and listeners have a right to expect even more than that. And it was another BBC mandarin, Huw Wheldon, a man whose professional integrity was beyond question, who pointed out that the concept of balance in media reporting is sometimes assumed to mean a naive and over-simplified requirement to present two sides to every problem. On the contrary, Huw Wheldon said, it is more a matter of truth than of balance. He said that what was needed was:
"an intelligent effort to make sense of all the facts, however difficult, and not just some of them".
I believe that it is because the media have failed to accept standards of that kind, put forward from within the media, that they are probably lower now in the public esteem than they have ever been, certainly in my memory. Of course, there is an argument advanced by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book entitled Democracy in America that,
"in order to enjoy the inestimable benefits which the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable ills which it engenders".
That is very persuasive, but of course it can be pointed out also that that calculus, that proposition, loses its validity if the inevitable ills to which he referred become part of a losing gamble with freedom, democracy and hastening the disintegration of the civic order.
As I have tried to suggest, what is at issue here is the role of the media in a free society and in preserving a free society. Clearly there is a very delicate balance to be preserved. Even in free societies or, perhaps I should say, especially in free societies, most governments would prefer a press that was not too critical or inquisitive. When the media become too importunate and inquisitive even the most tolerant and flexible government of any political complexion begin to look for ways in which to prevent them from standing in the way of the policies which they wish to apply and which they have been elected to pursue. When the media behave arrogantly or unwisely, as they do sometimes, a government's desire for regulation attracts increasing popular support, as is happening today.
I know that other noble Lords will address the problems of proper regulation. I merely make the point that if proper sensible and intelligent regulation is not effective, it will lead—and it has already led—to demands for some form of censorship of the media. In my view, that would be a major step towards the erosion of a free society. But if it is to be avoided, the media must recognise that while they need hold no loyalty to any government, they have a clear responsibility to democratic society. That includes a proper regard for the conventions and institutions which are necessary to preserve a democratic system.
It is not too extreme to say that at present there is a real danger of the weakening of the foundations on which our democratic society rests—for example, Parliament, which is to a certain extent ignored by some of our quality newspapers, an independent judiciary and a secure system of law and civil order. Some people accuse the media roundly of being largely responsible for that decline. While that accusation may be going rather too far, it is possible to argue that even if they are not helping to undermine the values of a liberal democracy, some sections of the media are not exerting themselves unduly to ensure its preservation. It is time that the role of the media in a modern democratic society became the subject of more serious debate.
We now have not public discourse but a public brawl. Newspapers mount vicious and often unjustified attacks on the private lives of public figures. Politicians are harassed and patronised by radio and television interviewers who seem to believe that they are more important than the person being interviewed. There is widespread concern among viewers, listeners and readers about distorted news values; deplorable standards of written and spoken English; the deliberate blurring of the line between fact and fiction, especially in the making of what are sometimes called "docu-dramas"; and, most seriously, of occasional blatantly inaccurate reporting based on unreliable sources. In other words, as Huw Wheldon put it, there is a lack of respect not just for the facts but for the truth. It is no exaggeration to say that some, although not all, sections of the tabloid press, radio and television are seen by most people to be debasing the standards of
1522
behaviour and cultural values on which any enduring civilised society must be based.
I conclude by saying that it is of course inevitable that proprietors, editors, presenters, writers and interviewers and all the other practitioners of the media will be sensitive to threats of outside control of their activities. But they should never forget that if, as a result of their attitudes and activities and as a result of what they do and do not do, civilised values are debased, free political institutions are weakened and undermined, intelligent debate and rational discourse ceases and democratic society eventually goes into decline, it is the freedom of the press which would be the first freedom to disappear. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it is a very great honour to address your Lordships' House for the first time. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate on the media which he has initiated. My remarks touch upon just one aspect of the matter; that is, the question of how best to communicate with the public at a time when the media are such a dominant force in our society.
It could be said that in the Garden of Eden, in approaching the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, humans felt a need to know for the first time. Six thousand years after the Garden of Eden, the need to know has been replaced by the right to know and the media have inherited the role of asserting mankind's democratic right to know.
The media have brought into being a new form of democracy, a democracy of information where information is knowledge and knowledge is power; where information is for the benefit not only of the elite but is properly to be shared among all the people. Indeed, today there is very little that we do not know. We know the income of Her Majesty the Queen; we know the pension of the chairman of ICI; we know which schools produce the best A-level results; we know which hospital has the best record in hip replacements; we know how much tar and nicotine there is in a cigarette; and we know the precise contents of a packet of cornflakes.
That is well and good but perhaps one of the unintended consequences may be that people have so much information that they no longer have time to listen to a long detailed argument. How then should the public be addressed in this "mediaocracy"? Winston Churchill once quoted Mark Twain's letter to a friend which began:
"I wanted to write you a short letter but I didn't have time".
Churchill understood that simplicity is all; but he knew also that to achieve simplicity is very difficult. It requires what Bertrand Russell called the painful necessity of thought. That is why it took longer.
We should remember that the earlier forms of mass communication were not complicated; they were extremely simple. That is why they worked. When President Roosevelt wanted to persuade a profoundly

1523
isolationist America to help our country in its darkest hour, he invented one phrase of two words to help him to do that. He called his policy "lend lease". He explained it very simply too;
"Your neighbour's house is on fire. He comes to you, and asks if he can have your hose. You say, 'I will not give you my hose. But I will lend it to you. You can borrow it to put out your fire. And when the fire is out, you will return it to me".
A simple image of a fire and a hose.
The history of the world is built on such simple and precise use of language. Let us think of the most effective messages over the years. There was nothing long-winded about "Libertë, egalité fraternityé, nor about "Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains." No one had to explain what it meant when they heard John Kennedy say:
"A torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans";
or when they read on the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!"
When they said, "Go west, young man", they did so in their millions. No one needed further elucidation when Jesus said:
"Do unto others as you would be done by",
or when Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream".
The great communicators in history have always made things simple: "Your country needs you", "No taxation without representation" or, "One man, one vote". These are not just slogans; they encapsulate whole philosophies, aspirations and political systems. In this media-driven world, which is the subject of today's debate, the public expect and demand that those who come before them to express a view have, before they speak, eliminated vagueness from what they say and distilled their argument down to its essence. It is, in fact, a mark of respect for the listener—a modern form of good manners.
This search for simple language actually has an excellent effect upon the idea being advanced. Its action is that of the threshing machine. It sorts the intellectual wheat from the chaff. It is more than a discipline, it is a test. It forces exactitude or it annihilates. It accelerates failure when a cause is weak, and it clarifies and strengthens a cause that is strong. And that is the best argument I know in favour of its use in all forms of public communication today.
I shall always endeavour to apply that test, with what success your Lordships may judge, to my own contribution in this House. I am grateful to your Lordships' House for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I look forward greatly to the comments and ideas that we may hear during the rest of today's debate.
4.12 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, first, for giving us the opportunity of debating today,
"the role of the media in a democratic society";
and, secondly, for the fact that it gave the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, the opportunity to make his maiden speech among us. On behalf of your Lordships'
1524
House, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on actually putting into practice the skills in advertising—the simplicity of the message and the directness of it. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord's further contributions in this House. If they are sharp and to the point, they will be even more appreciated.
Bishops sometimes receive invitations to speak to conferences. I treasure one: a conference of the editors of provincial newspapers when I was invited to speak about a free and responsible press in a democratic society. No Bishop could have been given a task which he took to more readily. I should like to focus on those two issues—a free and responsible press in a democratic society.
Freedom is not just about the right to communicate that which you believe you wish to communicate; it is much more subtle than that. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already indicated to us something of the subtleties involved in the term "freedom". Perhaps I may share with your Lordships' House the warning given by the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales in their recent report entitled The Common Good. They made the point:
"Moral responsibility does not always sell newspapers. We are concerned about the dangerous consequences for the common good when market forces in the mass media are pushed to their logical conclusion, a process of which we see some evidence. Contrary to the optimistic expectations of the beneficial fruits of competition that were made by Adam Smith, there are signs that it is a characteristic principle of newspaper economics that had journalism will drive out the good".
The concern that we speak easily about a "free press" needs to be balanced by that freedom which is quite clearly undermined by the economics of the newspaper industry. What the Roman Catholic Bishops say together I would also want to support.
I want to believe that self-regulation through the machinery of the Press Complaints Commission, and so on, will work better in the future than it has in the present and in the past. There are some who would say that the jury is still out: a free press, but a responsible press as well.
It is part of the Jewish/Christian tradition that we say:
"Thou shall not bear false witness",
against your neighbour; nor perhaps be economical with the truth. The truth is at the centre of a free and responsible press in our democratic society.
I should like to raise with your Lordships' House two issues about truth and about responsible reporting. Perhaps I may take the issue of the world of Islam. What picture do your Lordships have when we use that term about Moslems, Islam, Iran or Iraq? Most of the images that we have come to us through television and most of the knowledge that we have has, for many of us, come from newspapers. Yet the world of Islam is a complicated, quite divided at times, world religious community and one which requires subtlety and balance in communicating how it acts and how it responds.
The pictures of the martyrdom to be seen in Iran and the pictures of fundamentalism gone rampant are not balanced reporting about the world of Islam. If you travel to Tanzania, you will find quite a different picture

1525
of Christians and Moslems living peacefully together in a co-existence in which they help each other. Such pictures are not provided for us by and large by our press. The press has a responsibility to educate us so that the world may be a safer place and a place in which there can be true peace.
In my own city of Bristol at the end of the second riots in St. Paul's, the press reporting did not help us bring about a reconciliation afterwards. It was the use of adverbs and adjectives which inflamed the situation and did not help that second stage move on where we wanted to have the possibility of bringing peace, order and justice. A free and responsible press is not just about educating us and not just about providing us with new information; as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, it is something about an alternative government that provides us with a just society. We have much to thank the press for but we need also to be vigilant. It is too important just to let it lie like that.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, it is a very great honour to address this noble House for the first time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for encouraging me to make my maiden speech in this important debate which he has initiated. I should first declare a general interest in that, as chairman of Shandwick, I spend much of my time working with the media. I should also declare a specific interest as I shall be mentioning the work of Bill Gates who, as chairman of Microsoft, is a client of ours.
The impact of technology on the whole world of communications is having, to my mind—and will have—an extraordinary effect on the media as a whole. This will not be a change of degree but rather a change of kind. I believe that it will ultimately render the media unlike anything that has gone before. It may even result in these laws and voluntary codes of conduct, which we often debate, being unable to constrain them.
The key to understanding this is the fact that the control of information is already moving away from the media to the consumer—a consumer who is not constrained by advertising, scheduling or time. Anyone who has access to a PC and a phone line can already tap into unlimited information and opinion—without having to purchase a newspaper or magazine, switch on a television set or a radio station. These sources of information will escalate dramatically.
I give your Lordships one example. I read that just after the year 2000, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and Craig McCaw, who have together established the Teledesic Corporation, will launch 840 communications satellites, at a cost of 9 billion dollars, in effect to wire the world. These satellites will carry interactive voice, data and video services. As a result, every corner of the world will be able to obtain instant information from anywhere else on the planet. The impact of these technologies is multiplied still further when we remember that, according to one estimate, some 50 per cent. of the world's population has neither made nor received a telephone call.
1526
There will be instant information, instantly available, globally, in real time. And you will not need a computer to access it. A television, telephone or some other affordable, hand-held device will do.
We already have a medium in use today which illustrates how difficult it will be to protect the interests of the majority in a democratic society in this very near future. Consider the growth and control of the Internet. Currently the Internet links more than 32,000 computer networks to connect at least 2 million computers and over 30 million users via modems and phone lines in 135 countries. Within three years the Financial Times estimates that that will rise by between 30 and 40 per cent. For the first time in mankind's history, we have today a single-language—English—global, completely interactive medium which can pinpoint one person or a group of people with specialist interests as easily as reaching tens of millions.
The Internet and all the other burgeoning technological media provide a new way of thinking, of getting news, of being entertained, usually in an interactive way. However, they all provide real opportunities and threats to our democratic society because, with all this power, they have no gatekeepers. Anyone can access them, anytime and anywhere in the world. There are no rules regarding truth and falsity. Carefully presente0d lies can receive global currency. Unfounded rumour can appear of international importance. They provide worldwide public platforms for literally anyone—pressure groups, political extremists—endowin0g their views with an authority and a currency no traditional news media would allow and indeed it would probably be caught in the legal and voluntary codes which we all know about.
I believe we face a world of information overload, without constraint, without gatekeepers and without editors. These news and information systems can either be used for globalising what is true and balanced about our society or, if they go unchecked, may become a prime source of information and entertainment reflecting the views of the ill-informed, the extreme and those with an interest in undermining our democratic society, not in protecting and promoting it.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I must first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, on a really admirable maiden speech. It was beautifully delivered and marvellously lucid about exceedingly complicated matters. We very much hope we shall hear him time and time again in the years to come.
I have two things to say. The first is to lament the state of the quality press in our country. Apart from the Financial Times, where do we find the equivalent of Le Monde, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or the Neue Zurcher Zeitung? Serious reporting of news has almost vanished. Our top newspapers fill their space with columnists who discuss the issues in terms of the personalities of the day. Not content with employing dozens of gossip columnists whose task is to dig up dirt on people in public life, serious news is trivialised by treating it as gossip instead of setting out the issues and analysing them.

1527
The excuse the press offer is that readers today are interested in people, particularly those in public life whether they are "pols" or pop stars. I trace the decline of the press back to Private Eye. Private Eye did real service to this country in uncovering crooks, scams and the seedier side of business. But it also was unscrupulous and despicable in the way that it hounded people by printing often untruthful accounts of their private lives. Many of those it libelled could not afford to bring an action—as the prurient, puritanical editor well knew.
That brings me to my second point. We need a law of privacy. Alas, neither of the main parties has the guts to bring one in. They prefer to talk about drinking in the last bar. The consistent exposure of the sexual peccadilloes of politicians has rotted confidence in Parliament. That is what happened in France in the 1930s with Le Canard Enchaine. That is what happened in the Weimar Republic. What was the result? Both France and Germany today have laws that govern the privacy of the individual and their private lives and protect them from exposure. Why cannot we do that here?
It is not only the great and the not so good who suffer. Ordinary people suddenly find themselves door-stepped, hounded, harassed, threatened and offered bribes by the weevils of those sanctimonious editors who talk of the public's right to know and declare "It is all in the public interest". What will happen in a few years' time when Prince William and Prince Henry are out in the world? Shall we allow every single item of their private lives to be scrutinised by the press? We all have private lives that should be inviolate from intrusion.
Moralists may be shocked by this assertion but I shall spare them the lists of Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers who are or were adulterers. What worries me is the alacrity with which present Prime Ministers accept the resignation of some of the lowliest of their placemen if a breath of suspicion is aired. Every time one of them resigns, the tabloids and the quality press rub their hands and gloat that they have brought down another man who aspired to exercise power. Bring in a Bill of privacy and that will break their power.
Until then, could we see someone in public life take heart and when challenged say what the Duke of Wellington said to Harriet Wilson when she threatened to reveal their liaison in her memoirs? He said "Publish and be damned". Or would the soapy moralists argue that Wellington should have been sacked from his command in the Peninsular War because he went to bed with a courtesan?
4.29 p.m.
Lord Wrottesley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for introducing this debate and therefore giving me the opportunity for the somewhat daunting task of making my maiden speech. I suppose I should also thank the noble Lord for the chance to speak on a matter I know little about. Listening to the noble Lords who have already spoken on the subject, and looking at
1528
the list of noble Lords who will speak after me, I am reminded of my inadequacy in years as well as experience. Unlike my noble friends Lord Saatchi and Lord Chadlington, who also made their maiden speeches, I have not been blessed with a career in the media. I shall therefore, in the best traditions of this House, be making an amateur judgment. If my youthful impetuosity should lead me to make any controversial statements, I beg your Lordships' indulgence. In keeping with the rather flawed logic behind making a maiden speech on a subject of which I have scant knowledge, I propose to tackle the thorny issue of regulation of the press.
Of all the media, of all the ways in which we choose to inform ourselves, the press is the most anarchic, the most sensationalist, the most controversial, some might even say the most insensitive. For those reasons alone, it can surely be argued that the press needs to be bound by statutory regulation. Resorting once more to the flawed logic for which I am fast becoming renowned, I believe strongly that the press should be self-regulated by a collective sense of responsibility and professional integrity. To deny to the poet or painter expression of what he or she feels is to impose a form of imprisonment. However, I concede that the articles written by many tabloid journalists can hardly be called prose, let alone poetry.
As a medium the press has had a long and chequered history. It has been responsible for sustaining democracies, for maintaining totalitarian regimes and for obtaining scandal. The diversity and variety of publications and newspapers add to the rich and colourful reputation of a medium that informs, investigates and educates. It is a very different beast to other media, with a specific agenda: to sell newspapers. Circulation is its god. The press must appeal to its readers. It has to be partisan, opinionated and sensationalist to survive in a world that is characterised by stiff competition and shifting allegiances.
In such an environment excesses will occur. The argument for regulation is unquestionable. The issue is whether statute law should be used to curb the excesses of an irresponsible press, or whether responsible editors should use the existing framework of guidelines to regulate themselves. The press has been at the forefront of public discussion for centuries. A code of conduct has evolved, avoiding the ugly spectre of statutory regulation, which has not existed since Magna Carta.
The role of adjudicator falls to the Press Complaints Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. He is the headmaster nobody wants to see. Colleagues and pupils alike respect his even-handed approach, as I am sure we all do. A barometer of the success of the Press Complaints Commission is the number of complaints that are considered: 2,508 in 1995—up 28 per cent. on the previous year. Eight out of every 10 complaints successfully brought to the commission were settled by editors themselves. The figures show that the Press Complaints Commission is winning the confidence of the public and is an effective tool of self-regulation.

1529
In 1927 Judge Brandeis of the Supreme Court of America wrote that,
"public discussion is a political duty. The great menace to freedom is an inert people".
Informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon government. To quote, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did, Alexis de Tocqueville,
"the press is not characterised by the good it does, but by the evil it prevents".
4.33 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, it is a considerable pleasure to congratulate the third of our maiden speakers today. The noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, made a distinguished contribution to the debate. I notice that, apart from the media, he lists as one of his interests parliamentary reform. So he may have come to the right place at the right time. He is also, I note, a tobogganist. On the evidence of his speech today, I assure him that in this place it will not be downhill all the way for him. We greatly look forward to hearing more from him in the months to come.
Since time is in such short supply, perhaps I may concentrate on one different aspect of this important topic which we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Chalfont for bringing before us today. I should like to refer briefly to this House's relationship with the media. It is a relationship which has in the past been chequered and, dare one say, largely unsuccessful. It is true that, on the positive side, the televising of this Chamber's proceedings some years ago did much to create any favourable image that your Lordships may enjoy today.
But what of the so-called "factual" programmes about this place? I am trying to choose my words with care. They have been unfortunate, to say the very least. I think that is largely due to a certain naivety in this House in regard to the media. We may in all innocence, for example, assume that all a TV company wants to do is present a strictly factual picture of the Lords at work; and we have almost certainly been flattered by such an interest. Anyone who knows anything about the media, however, is aware that a director starts with a preconceived idea of what he wants out of the finished programme and all filming and interviewing is accordingly ruthlessly tuned to that masterplan.
To that must be added the regrettable fact, already referred to, that our proceedings are seldom reported adequately, if at all, by even the broadsheet press, although that fact is of course an extremely worrying development affecting Parliament as a whole and must carry serious implications for any parliamentary democracy.
So far as this House is concerned, a major cause of this sorry state of affairs may lie in the imprecise and diffuse arrangements in place for dealing with requests from programme makers and feature writers. There is, very properly, the administrative and security side, most ably represented by Black Rod; and then there is what I may describe as the political side, where it may sometimes be difficult to share a common view or compose a speedy response to any media approach, even allowing for the good will inherent in the usual channels.
1530
It would be a pity if, for example, perceived flaws in the composition of this House in the eyes of some should result in anything less than a robust desire to present its work in a favourable light to the outside world. Likewise, we do the image process no favours by always accepting with some self-satisfaction the favourable views of others about us. This House is good at what it does. But in our heart of hearts we all know that it could be even better.
However, all is not doom and gloom, and I welcome unreservedly recent steps taken towards a more professional approach, and in particular the appointment of a highly experienced Senior Information Officer to be responsible for developments in this area. I respectfully suggest that her most immediate task must be to gather these disparate, at times even conflicting, threads together and, with others, to get agreed a suitable chain of command and areas of responsibility which are unambiguous and therefore effective. That is a matter of urgency.
I suppose that the irony of the present situation lies in the fact that we as a House repeatedly boast, quite rightly, about having experts within our ranks on every subject under the sun. That includes the public relations industry. Indeed, we have had conspicuous examples of that today. We probably have a greater concentration of experience and expertise within this industry than almost any other that one can think of. However, I suggest that we have failed to take advantage of that bonus. Can we not begin now to make amends by at least establishing an advisory group, call it what you will, to advise those who must often take difficult decisions in these matters? The stakes are now too high for well-intentioned amateurism or conflicting objectives governed by sectional interests.
I believe this to be an important issue. I would accordingly be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister, with his usual kindness, would convey the gist of his remarks to his noble friend the Leader of the House. What the media have to say about us is important. Let us be sure that it will also be as accurate as we can make it.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount said about the part played by your Lordships' House in this important matter, is it not rather significant that in this debate the Cross Benches are well filled and so are the Government Benches? But the Opposition Benches are almost empty and there are only two members of the Opposition speaking in the debate, the Front-Bench speakers who will wind up.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, broadcasting now influences people's lives so much that it is essential that Parliament should, without interfering with the views expressed, try to ensure that the highest standards are observed. Technically, as was said by the two maiden speakers, we have reason to be proud of the progress made in recent years by the television authorities. Most programmes are presented with great skill and deserve praise. Those on music and opera, history, literature, sport, nature and wildlife are

1531
excellent. One cannot say the same about drama programmes, alas, to which I shall come in a minute, nor programmes about politics, economics, social life and social services. There is an overwhelming tendency in presenting those programmes to concentrate on bad news, even sometimes to the exclusion of good news. If the broadcasters or producers cannot find enough bad news, they inflate some trivial incident so as to turn it into a serious item of bad news.
The broadcasters also ignore or play down the good news about the economy which has done increasingly well in recent years. We do not hear enough about it; people are not told enough. We have done better than other countries in the European Union. That is a deplorable omission and I hope that it will be put right. Economic success must not remain untold.
Another problem to which some of us, including the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, have often drawn attention in past years is the showing in drama programmes of enormous amounts of criminal and sexual behaviour and the use of bad language which undoubtedly has a bad influence. I suggest that it is obviously one of the causes of the great amount of crime and sexual misbehaviour that goes on. The television authorities have been complacent about it. If I may say so with regret, the Broadcasting Standards Commission has so far been much too tolerant.
I am thankful that our splendid Secretary of State for National Heritage recently spoke out against the tolerance of crime and misbehaviour. She deserves all the support we can give her. Broadcasters try to defend some of it by saying that the nine o'clock watershed gives enough protection for children and young people. That is sheer nonsense. It is nonsense partly because some awful programmes are shown before nine o'clock. I am glad to say that I complained of one and the Broadcasting Standards Commission upheld my complaint. It has also been estimated that 53 per cent. of young people have their own television sets which they can turn on when they wish and that 80 per cent. of young people under 16 sit up and watch television.
I conclude with something better. I am glad to say that the financing of the World Service will be £5 million higher than at first intended by the Government. The service does great work for our country. Let us be thankful that it is being given enough money to do so. Long may that last.
English has almost become the international language, the lingua franca of the world. So we must make sure that we give the world, in the display of our own language, customs and behaviour, examples of which we can be proud and not ashamed.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for this debate. Although I pay warm tribute to the cultural and wildlife programmes and many others, I wish to concentrate on presentation of news and current affairs in television and radio. Radio 4 in particular is so highly regarded by its audience that it has a great responsibility
1532
both to get its facts right and to remember, when interviewing political figures in the entirely proper endeavour to inform the public, that the intrusive arrogance of the presenters only too often frustrates that. It may be good drama or even, in a perverse way, entertainment, but it is not informing the public objectively.
That usually admirable programme, "The Moral Maze", erred recently. I heard asserted last week by one of the participants—not one of the team—that Sinn Fein candidates could get elected but were not allowed by the British Government to take their seats at Westminster. Gerry Adams was indeed elected and became Provisional Sinn Fein MP for West Belfast in 1983. He lists himself in Who's Who as an MP. He did not sit at Westminster for the reason that he himself refused to take the oath. That is a point of fact and not challenged.
Too often Martin McGuinness has been allowed by interviewers to get away with lies and evasions which would never have been tolerated from Ministers or any public figure. There is a double standard here which is disturbing in an organisation normally both well informed and aggressive. In the past it has had an honourable reputation in reporting on Northern Ireland. Now, I fear, it seems ill-informed and ill-briefed. If the World Service is indeed expected—as I believe is proposed—to take some of its news from the domestic services, which will be an important issue. The country must watch it.
I deplore, too, the increasing tendency to use documentaries on eminent people to denigrate them on the pretext of taking a more "objective" look at their lives. The Channel 4 programme on Douglas Bader was an example. It elicited two admirable letters in The Times testifying to his courage, humanity and greatness. This was a man. It is demeaning for little men to try to destroy great ones through the media.
However, our chief concern must be to consider what we should do to prevent the media from making policy for the country according to their own agenda, which is usually a short-term agenda. Increasingly, Ministers seem more concerned to survive an interview with Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys than to speak to the country through the House of Commons. Too many civil servants from the MoD to the NHS have to spend more time satisfying often wholly unrealistic commitments under the Citizen's Charter—mission statements, market forces and so forth—which now proliferate throughout the country. It is not right that every public body from Royal Commissions to hospitals should be judged by whether they answer the telephone on the fourth ring or whether they have succeeded in achieving a telling sound-bite on television. It is also disturbing, reading the two Civil Service White Papers, to find how much concern is shown there about the presentational skills of civil servants rather than their ability and duty to provide wise advice.
But that is not the fault of the media; it is the fault of government and of political leaders on both sides and, indeed, our fault too. Until they have the courage—as some, like my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, do—to do their jobs without allowing the

1533
media to dictate the agenda, the media will continue to perform the wrong role in a democratic society. It should illuminate events, not seek to influence them.
Everyone knows the definition of those who exercise power without responsibility. I say that with regret because I know many admirable journalists. But it is up to us all to defend the truth by rebutting inaccurate and biased reporting whenever it occurs. Too often we shrug and let it pass. Democracy is worth a little hard work.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, there are too many regulators and ombudsman-like bodies dealing with radio and television. The result is clear: the public interest is not represented in so powerful a way as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and many other speakers would desire.
In the past, when the BBC enjoyed a monopoly position, the governors were more able to fulfil their role as guardians of the public interest. The creation of commercial television meant that both the governors and the IBA were inevitably committed to the success of their organisation as against the other. The inevitable result was that the public interest was diluted. The governors were in a sense directors of the BBC.
In 1977 the Annan Commission noted that neither the governors nor the IBA were making satisfactory responses to public complaints. As a result of that commission the Broadcasting Complaints Commission was set up to deal with complaints of unfairness and infringement of privacy. I was chairman of that commission until two months ago. It is interesting that the Annan Commission in 1977 said that matters of taste and decency could be left entirely to the broadcasters. Yet, within a decade, as a result of public complaint, the Broadcasting Standards Council was set up. It is now to be combined—I supported the combination—with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Worthy though those bodies are, they are small and lack teeth and resources.
While I was chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, it made a severe adjudication against a Carlton true-life film called "Beyond Reason". What did Carlton do? It immediately showed the film abroad and made a tidy profit out of it. The fact is that those bodies—the standards council and the complaints commission, even combined, are too weak to influence broadcasters. The governors of the BBC are too closely tied to the interests of the corporation, both its broadcasters and administrators, to best be guardians of the public interest. I suggest that the recent problems over the World Service give certain evidence for that. It is interesting that the Independent Television Commission, the successor of the IBA, as a result of a previous Broadcasting Act now no longer the broadcaster, illustrates the advantages of independence and detachment.
I suggest that the only way in which we can attempt to solve the problems we are discussing today is to set up a national broadcasting commission such as exists in Canada. It would deal with both public and commercial broadcasting and, unlike the Canadian model, could
1534
include an ombudsman role with regard to fairness and privacy as well as deal with taste and decency. It would be both independent and detached. It would not fulfil the role of a director of a broadcasting organisation and it would be very well placed to make some effort to regulate broadcasting in the new and complex digital age.
The picture that was described to us in a maiden speech demands a powerful independent and detached authority. I suggest that in so combining the governors, the ITC the Radio Authority and the complaints commission and standards council in one body, we might at least make a start at solving these problems. Otherwise this debate will go on year after year and we shall make the same complaints and get nowhere.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a very good opportunity to air what are extremely important, extremely complex and extremely delicate matters. First, let me say that I have not heard a better clutch of maiden speeches in your Lordships' House than we have enjoyed today. I also say quickly that I believe it is much too easy to say that the media have power when what they have is influence. There is a world of difference between the two words.
I am sorry that the debate is limited for time. Undoubtedly we could go on discussing this matter for much longer. Partly because of that and partly because I rarely watch television, I shall not attempt to address any of the issues that that occasionally frightening medium raises. Visual images are terrifyingly influential. I just say that Matthew Parris, in the Spectator of 20th April this year, focused with considerable wit on the implications of the way programmes are made. I commend his article to your Lordships. In fact, if I did not think that I might infringe copyright, I should have brought copies with me. The article was entitled "Those who work in television lie to each other, lie to the people who go on it and lie to the viewer". I would also recommend, but for the fact that I have mislaid it and cannot remember the author's name, a book by an American, entitled "Amusing ourselves to death". It is a polemical attack on the way in which mass visual communications have inevitably played a large part in reducing the level of comment and discussion of important matters to strings of entertaining sound bites.
The book reminded me forcefully of the time when a number of us in the City wished to try to get rather better comment and took television training. I remember sitting down with half a dozen others and our trainer saying, "I expect you'll be surprised to know that you've got it all wrong. Television is not a way of getting across your opinions. It is a way of entertaining people. Unless you entertain, you will not be on again and, indeed, if you don't entertain collectively, the producer of your programme will find his programme is off the air."
I shall not address the issue of concentration of ownership. Nor shall I comment on the issues raised by commerciality. All the press and most of TV have to reward their owners. It seems to me a waste of time

1535
to hanker after a system in which high minded, disinterested people run newspapers and television stations with the principal aim of improving society. I am convinced that within the present imperfect media set-up an acceptable degree of high minded, responsible reporting and comment is by no means out of reach of at least the press and the printed word. Nor shall I address the questions of taste and personal privacy, which we all feel are scandalously abused.
I should like to focus on the issues of accuracy and the separation of comment and news reporting. I believe that we are often—not always—not very well served on those two issues. I say this despite being a great fan of the printed press and as one who gets by far the greater part of his news and comment from it.
I know that it is easy as one gets older to look back and see better times. I know also, as we all do, how difficult it is to be objective in matters of this kind. But we must not be deterred by that difficulty from arriving at our own judgments. I myself have had plenty of personal experience of inaccuracy. If we had more time, I could quote examples at length. The debate about Europe is a clear and lamentable example going on right at this moment. Certainly, I get the impression from former journalists of my acquaintance that my views are definitely not confined to those outside their profession.
Do accuracy and the separation of news and comment really matter? I believe that they are vital because what is written and what is shown on TV definitely influence people. If it did not do so, advertising would be increasingly ineffective. It is not good enough for the press to shrug off criticism of inaccuracy by saying, "It will all be forgotten tomorrow". No doubt a lot of it is; but there is an awful lot that is not. One only has to listen to people talking to each other about something they have read or seen to realise that the press and TV have a legitimacy that they all too often do not deserve.
The fact is that those who remember things are the most important; they are the ones who are interested in the subject being covered and who are concerned with what is going on. For them to be misled is inexcusable. Nor is it good enough to say that journalists have to meet deadlines and that this precludes proper research or verification. If there is any doubt, then they should not publish. I know it is hard and may affect the success of one organ, in commercial terms, as against another. But it is right that they should not publish.
The adulteration of news with opinion is not new, but if the dissemination of facts is a pre-requisite for sensible discussion of the implications of those facts, then news and opinion have to be separated. The debate on Europe at the moment demonstrates that yet again. I know it is difficult; I know it is often caused by lack of time; but it is not good enough. The least we can do is draw attention to it and hope for improvement. Journalism is too important for it to become a series of ego trips for young people on the make.
The licence to publish, which is the tacit agreement between society and the news media, demands that the highest standards of accuracy are observed. I am disinclined to blame the owners of newspapers and
1536
inclined to believe that the responsibility must lie with the editors. Wherever responsibility lies, the press and TV are a vital part of the democratic society we know and they owe it to us always to act in a way that shows they deserve their position.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Cromer: My Lords, perhaps I may join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for so trenchantly initiating a debate which raises issues that go to the heart of government in an open society. First, I should declare a family interest for my kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Rothermere, presides genially over Associated Newspapers.
It was exactly 30 years ago that I left these shores to live in the Far East. There I was gainfully employed as a journalist covering several Asian countries. It did not take me long to discover that in many countries in that part of the world both free reporting and real democracy are either banished or emasculated. Democracy and a free press are as inseparable as tyranny and censorship. Here a free press is part of the air we breathe, so much so that we are in danger of taking it for granted.
In the Far East I found mass circulation newspapers in totalitarian countries that purported to be the voice of the people but in fact permitted no breath of criticism of the ruling regime and no genuine freedom of expression to their readers.
In Britain we have real people's dailies; "tabloids" they are called. How often that word trips with a sneer off the tongue of the powerful and the privileged. To be sure, the tabloids are no respecters of personages. They can be brash, unruly and raucous. They have an insatiable appetite for scandal. They probe; they pry; they print things about important or notorious men and women which important or notorious men and women would rather they did not print.
But there are, these days, those who are not amused by the tabloid press. In recent years there have been growing demands from among the great and good for newspapers to be curbed. Their preference is for some sort of privacy law. Reports have been commissioned; Green Papers produced. An array of possible instruments of potential legal torture has been brandished with intended deterrent effect before the eyes of editors and journalists. But the Government—wisely, in my view—have refrained from committing themselves to statutory action.
I could be mistaken but I have not sensed any strong public demand for a privacy law. There is no evidence which I have seen to indicate a rising incidence of unwarrantable intrusion by newspapers in recent years into the private lives of ordinary people. If anything, the reverse. My guess is that one running story above all others generated a political head of steam for the enactment of a privacy law. I refer to press coverage—some of it undoubtedly deplorable—of the circumstances that led to the break-up of a royal marriage. With that in mind, I do understand why, in this Palace of Westminster, a privacy law has its proponents.
But we should be wary, very wary, of passing general laws which may derive emotive force from so special a circumstance. Disclosure is the life blood of a robust

1537
press. There is all the difference in the world between a press release and a newspaper story. Press releases are what those who write them want publicised; newspaper stories offer their readers a revealing glimpse of what those in charge of official information would rather keep confidential, secret, or (dare I say it?) private.
Powerful establishments—elected or not—will use every means at their disposal to manage the news. They love to brief—and loath leaks. Give those in positions of authority or power a choke chain to discipline the hounds of the press and as fast as they can find a judge to issue an injunction they will use it.
Enthusiasts for a privacy law seek to make it more palatable by pointing out that it would contain a public interest defence for newspapers. What a gold mine for lawyers that would be as they argue interminably over just where the line should be drawn in each case between the individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know. I am not persuaded that we should go down that statutory route. Newspapers are not above the law. But nor should they be subject to special laws. Self-regulation is still the best way for the British press, and for democracy.
With a more sharply focused code of conduct and under the shrewd and firm guidance of my noble friend Lord Wakeham I believe that the Press Complaints Commission is doing a good job. The more mindful editors are of censure from the PCC, the more confidence the general public can have in the regulatory value of that body.
There has been much talk of journalists "drinking in the last chance saloon". As one of our number who can hear the constitutional tumbrel rumbling outside this very Chamber, I must say, in conclusion, that I have very considerable feeling for them.
5.7 p.m
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the media are keen to accuse politicians and others of telling lies, yet many members of the media are themselves masters of inaccuracy and often totally mislead their readers with complete disregard for the truth.
Whenever one goes to an event and reads about it afterwards, one cannot recognise it as being the same event. Film makers are happy to distort history to tell a good tale; interviewers will create the picture that they want and not what they find. For example, one lady was interviewed, Iwas told, due to her prowess in the field of cooking and asked to give a dinner party for the BBC to film. After dinner the guests were inveigled out of the house and the TV crew then upset all the bottles and glasses over the table in order to pretend that the party had been an orgy. That was totally dishonest reporting and luckily it was not allowed to show the film.
Another example nearer home was the presentation by "Cutting Edge" of the House of Lords. The director set out to prove her prejudice and, by careful selection, she succeeded; she quite deliberately and blatantly misled her audience.
The media picture themselves as the upholders of rectitude, but many members of the media have neither principles nor scruples. Many programmes seem to revel
1538
in how many four-letter words can be used in a fixed time. Can one wonder that the standard of morals, of manners and of speech have so deteriorated? Film and video have revelled in the presentation of sadistic violence, and there is a claim by TV that it does not influence people's actions. I can give two examples. "Money Train" pictured an inflammable liquid being sprayed into a ticket clerk's booth and set afire. The following day an identical incident took place in Brooklyn, resulting in the horrific death of a ticket clerk. In July 1996 it was reported in The Times that a 14 year-old schoolboy tried to cut off a woman's head with a nine-inch carving knife in Lincoln, consequent to watching a horror film, "The Predator", while under the effect of LSD.
There is not the slightest doubt that some people have their fantasies fuelled by violence and pornography and cease to be in control of themselves. They have to be punished for the subsequent crimes they commit, but the blame lies with the subversive media and the purveyors of violence who temporarily turn those people into zombie-monsters. Famous actors are now speaking out against Hollywood's obsession with the glorification of anti-heroes, with their greed, vulgarity and violence.
Then there is the whole question of intrusion into privacy. The private lives of public people are constantly exposed, even what they did 30 years ago. What on earth has it to do with anyone else what people have done in the past with their private lives as long as it does not affect or have a direct bearing on their official position? I hope we will not become like America where good men are deterred from standing for office because they fear the exposure of some indiscretion many years back in their lives.
Media intrusion destroys lives without any scruple, condemning as guilty without trial men who are left with their lives wrecked for the sake of increased circulation. It is sad that heroes are constantly debunked. It is a natural instinct of man to want to look up to a leader, whether it is dad at the head of the table or royalty at the head of the country. Every leader is human and has his faults, but the media do us no service by constantly trying to identify them. Let us be allowed to keep people in our minds as heroes for us to try to emulate. Perhaps we would then find it easier to behave better ourselves to our neighbours.
Of course the media have their good programmes and their good reporters, but there is a lot of scope for them to clean up their own act before they criticise others. The media have power without responsibility. They must exercise that power with care.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chalfont for his persistence in keeping this important subject on the Order Paper for so long.
Having been the victim of media hounding—indeed, international media hounding—for a week, I just wish to make one point and give several examples to back up my plea for a greater degree of accuracy in the media. But before doing so I would like to expand on one of the points of my noble friend Lord Annan. I feel certain

1539
that the fear of media exposure is what keeps many intelligent and gifted people out of politics. That must be to the detriment of our country. I also completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The nine o'clock watershed, particularly in the age of video recorders, is a complete and utter farce, and I would urge the Minister to look once again at this most important aspect. It is also interesting to note during a debate in your Lordships' House on the media how remarkably empty the press box has been.
We are often told never to believe what we read in the papers but sadly I fear that the vast majority of people do believe exactly what they read. That is why I believe we must aim for a higher degree of accuracy and truth within the media. The examples I wish to give are as follows. Last week in the press an elderly Labour Peer who has served his country with distinction was criticised for having a 100 per cent. attendance record in your Lordships' House and yet had only voted in 33 per cent. of the Divisions. The public are unaware that Divisions often take place at night when, if he has any sense, the noble Lord in question is safely tucked up in his bed. But that was not made clear or implied in the article.
Secondly, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in another article last week, was reported as being the heir to Lord Burleigh. It really should be simple for reporters to check their facts. Last Saturday, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, had been raised to the rank of a Duke in a broadsheet magazine. Surely these simple mistakes ought not to occur. But perhaps what I minded most of all about recently was a newspaper article on the Dukes of the United Kingdom. I feel certain that most of what was written was irrelevant, uninteresting and prefabricated. I know for sure that in one particular case an article about one Duke was simply not true and it could certainly have caused a great deal of undeserved distress. It is for these reasons that I believe we must all strive to have a much greater degree of accuracy in our media.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing this debate to the attention of your Lordships today. Let me say from the outset that I believe strongly in free, democratic and responsible media. That is one of the great freedoms of our country.
The Press Complaints Commission was set up in 1991 and after 18 months Sir David Calcutt in his report concluded that press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission had not been effective.
I shall make three points. First, the code of practice, ratified by the Press Complaints Commission on 30th October this year, states in clause 1 that newspapers and periodicals should take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material. Clause 3 states that newspapers, while free to be partisan, should distinguish clearly between comment, opinion and conjecture. While these are welcome codes
1540
of practice, it has to be emphasised that inaccurate reporting can mislead and undermine the perception of the public, which is a most serious matter.
If a more responsible attitude from the media is to be established, it will require a strengthening of the disciplinary powers of the Press Complaints Commission chairman, which should include the authority of dismissal of those responsible for frequent breaches of the code. In addition, a statutory press ombudsman should be appointed to whom the public can appeal. He should be given statutory powers to deal with the wording and prominence of apologies and authority to order payment of compensation and the imposition of fines. But are compensation and fines any real deterrent to the media? In cases of frequent and persistent breaches of the agreed code the ombudsman should have the power to impose limited bans on the publishing and broadcasting of the media.
My second point concerns clause 4 of the code of practice, which covers intrusion and inquiries into an individual's private life without his or her consent, including the use of long-lens photography. This clause is only justified when the facts show that the public interest is served. I cannot agree that the interests of the public take precedence over a right to privacy; and if the interests of the public are so significant, then the recognised agencies of the police, Customs and Security Service should be involved and not journalists.
I disagree with the Government's conclusion that there is not sufficient public consensus on which to base statutory intervention. There is little doubt in my mind that there is a strong feeling within the general public that the media abuse the rights of privacy. May I ask my noble friend from what evidence and on what basis the Government came to this conclusion? They have stated that, in principle, there is a case for the introduction of offences in relation to the intrusion on privacy. In this respect I believe that Her Majesty's Government should try harder to construct legislation which in practice would be sufficiently workable to be responsibly brought to the statute book.
I now come to my third and last point, the protection of military information in time of war and conflict. It is a most important subject, as without great care it can put at risk the lives of our servicemen and impose unnecessary stress on military commanders. To illustrate this point, during the Falklands campaign copy was filed through a ship's captain which read, "We are sailing in thick fog in the South Atlantic". The words "in thick fog" had to be deleted because there was only one area of fog in the whole of the South Atlantic and this would therefore have pinpointed the position of the fleet to the enemy. Likewise, there is a requirement to ensure that reporters on their own initiative do not use their satellite dishes reporting in real time to the media systems back in the United Kingdom. As General Cordingley said in the Gulf War, journalists should allow their copy to be seen by the military before transmission to correct factual errors and to stop security breaches.
In time of conflict and war, some form of censorship will be necessary and I should like to ask the Ministry of Defence, through my noble friend, what action has

1541
been taken to implement the recommendations contained in General Sir Hugh Beach's report in Command Paper 9112.
Overall, I am left with the feeling that press self-regulation will work only if a statutory ombudsman is appointed with the appropriate sanctions and strong deterrents to deal with the failure of the media to report accurately. Even tighter codes of practice need to be established for intrusions into privacy; and sensitive censorship will have to be agreed for times of war and tension. This will have to be carefully balanced with the important need for the public to be fully informed of the conduct of war operations.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am extremely displeased with my noble friend Lord Cromer, who said everything that 1 wanted to say but a great deal better. However, I shall go on to lament that among the many noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate we do not see the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevens, Lord Rothermere, and Lord Hollick, nor those of the past editors of The Times and the Daily Telegraph, the noble Lords, Lord Rees-Mogg, and Lord Deedes, all gentlemen who may be expected to have the most particular interest and expertise in this subject. Nor, but for different reasons, do we see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey. I fully understand his case: within the confines of the time allowed he would not have been able to give the subject the attention which he could undoubtedly give it.
The proprietors have never been good at explaining the vital importance of newspapers and television to the life of the country or at defending their products against the powerful attacks which are made upon them. It is thus left to lesser mortals, such as the old hack and noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to whom we must be most grateful for today's debate, to do it for them. Indeed, 1 must declare an interest as a pensioner of the Daily Telegraph.
It is impossible to deny the excesses and aberrations of the media, particularly of the newspapers—excesses which are fostered to some extent by the journalists themselves. Nobody who has joined in the schools of journalistic excellence which gather, or rather used to gather, in such establishments as the Mucky Duck, the Stab in the Back or the Kings and Keys can doubt the delight with which they expose the activities of those who would rather not have their activities exposed.
It is only too easy to show how newspapers have printed items for which there can be little possible excuse for exposure in terms of morality, propriety or, for many people, interest. It has to be said, however, that the majority of the British public have not the sophistication of Members of your Lordships' House. The tabloid papers print what their readers want to see. The phrase "lowest common denominator" comes easily to mind. If the readers did not want to read what is printed, they would not buy such papers.
Throughout the debate on Monday on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill ran the thread of the media coverage of Dunblane, with particular reference to, the
1542
disgracefully hysterical attacks in the Sun and Daily Mirror on my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. But sadly—this is not intended as a pun—the regulation of newspapers is a matter of black and white and it is not, and should not be allowed to be, a question of allowing those sins that we have a mind to and banning those that we are not inclined to.
The code of conduct of the Press Complaints Commission, whose chairman, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, is also absent from the list of today's speakers—although he may still be recovering from being attacked by my wife in another forum yesterday—covers all that could be required. The code is, however, a fantasy unless the newspapers are prepared to accept the principle of effective self-regulation; and that, in the opinion of those who disapprove of the activities of the press, they have not shown themselves prepared adequately to do in spite of their affirmation to the contrary.
It is a matter of balance. Either newspapers may publish within the bounds of libel or they may not. The emasculation of the press in France and Belgium and in all countries where it is controlled and censored by government is the reason why corruption is able to flourish. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, delights in the privacy laws in France. Does he also delight in the crookeries that go on in such countries because of the inability of their media to expose them? Unless the press has the legal right and the will to expose the ills of our society, it must fail. Its duty is "to inform, to instruct, and to entertain" and of these "to inform" is the most important—to inform about all that is going on, not just what a certain body of society or the Government think that it should. It is ironic, however, that the most regrettable of the undesirable effects of censorship should have come from the newspapers themselves in the shape of Robert Maxwell who stopped anything appearing in his newspaper or, by threats of libel, in others. I hope that that was just one aberration.
I once wept on the shoulder of my right honourable friend Edward Heath when I was done up in Private Eye, to which reference has also been made. Mr. Heath just looked at me and said, "Once?". We all have to grin and bear it for the greater good.
5.26 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, this debate started with a very authoritative and knowledgeable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as one would expect. Since then we have had three fascinating maiden speeches and many varied contributions from all parts of the House.
Newspapers have always criticised the Government—'twas ever thus, and I hope that it will continue. We need a free press. Censorship would be fatal, except in time of war, as my noble friend Lord Vivian pointed out. However, in recent years one has sometimes wondered whether the newspapers have not accrued unto themselves an excessive amount of authority. Whole campaigns are conducted; politicians and public figures are hounded and private lives are invaded. I sometimes wonder who is governing the country, Parliament or the

1543
press. The press seems to be setting the agenda and Parliament seems to be completely mesmerised, if not paralysed, by it. I am afraid that it sometimes seems as if Parliament connives with the press.
If the press is to claim the moral high ground, it must realise that it has taken on a very great responsibility. I like to think that it will act accordingly, but I rather fear that that may represent a triumph of hope over expectation.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I intervene very briefly to call your Lordships' attention to one influence on the destructive role of the media in our democratic society. This is the influence of our cultural and media studies courses in higher education and perhaps elsewhere in our education system. Many of the graduates from those courses go on to work in our media. As far as I know, the vast majority of those courses are still in the grip of bias from the gender, race and class brigade who teach them.
I am not suggesting any attack on academic freedom, but your Lordships will be aware that there is no system of quality control as such in higher education, merely a system of quality assurance. So I feel sure that an unbiased public examination of the content of these courses would lead to their becoming more balanced academically. That, in turn, would lead to a gradual but valuable improvement in the quality and the views of those who work in our media.
5.28 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on having a former Times journalist's eye for a good story. If all noble Lords who had originally put down their names to speak in today's debate had done so and if we had all been given somewhat longer in which to speak—say, 10 minutes—the debate would have lasted six or eight hours.
We have heard three outstanding maiden speeches. I can advise the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, that he should not worry about describing himself as "an amateur" because he will quickly find that that is a badge of honour in this House.
I have three reasons for congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington. The first is the natural courtesy of this House. The second is that it really was a very good speech. Thirdly, congratulating the noble Lord is a good career move for me because he is the chairman of the company that employs me.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, was modest in not mentioning among his list of the world's great slogans "Labour isn't working". I was in the opposite bunker when that campaign was launched. It was like discovering that the other side had a new secret weapon. It changed in a qualitative way the relationship between politics and the media for others to follow, in much the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, my noble friend Lord Mayhew and Mr. Wedgwood Benn changed
1544
television politics in the late 1950s on behalf of the Labour Party. The 1979 Saatchi campaign was a quantum leap.
One matter that has not emerged in today's debate is that politicians are not entirely passive creatures in their relationship with the media. Over the past 40 years the relationship between politics and the media is one in which politicians have become technically more sophisticated. Politicians have become media trained and groomed. Expressions such as "spin doctor", "negative campaigning", "rapid rebuttle units" and "soundbites" have entered our language as politicians try to influence the media. Political parties devote massive resources to press relations. To understand that one has only to look at the new Labour Party media centre on Millbank.
The two main political parties in this country will probably spend about £50 million in the coming General Election campaign. A great part of that money will be spent in trying to influence and shape the media. We have come a long way since the time that Francis Williams sought to persuade Lord Attlee to put a news tape machine in 10 Downing Street on the grounds that it would give him the cricket scores. Twenty years later when I worked at Downing Street it was still referred to as the cricket machine.
Today, political leaders are obsessed with the media. At the same time, the media have become more intrusive into the private lives of great men. One wonders which Prime Ministers would have survived under today's media spotlight—certainly not Lloyd George or Churchill.
The media seek not just to report news but to shape it. The headline "It was the Sun that won it" is disturbing, not least because subsequent academic studies showed that indeed the Sun might have won it last time for the Conservatives. It is worrying that this time there are all the signs that other newspapers want to compete with the Sun, not in reporting and analysing the election campaign, but in influencing it. Will it be the Mirror that wins it as well as the Sun or whatever? Even the broadsheets have stopped reporting parliamentary speeches. True analysis is being increasingly replaced by polemics. This is true not just of the General Election. Others have referred to the reporting of European matters in the same vein.
It is not only in print that the responsibility to educate and inform has slipped into a backwater. Peak time television makes no attempt to report the parliamentary day other than in terms of soundbites and knockabout. There is pressure not only on commercial channels to move news and current affairs to the sidelines. One is told that viewers cannot concentrate on any issue for more than three minutes. Great problems are reduced to cartoon form. Every interview has to be a demonstration of interviewer machismo.
The result of all this manipulation by politicians and aggression by the media is that the public is both cynical and apathetic about the parliamentary and democratic process. Of course, the media have a duty to rake for muck and expose sleaze and to probe and to question. But it is no accident that at a time when politics and

1545
politicians are held in such low esteem by the public the public's view of the media is not much higher. I believe that there is a need for both politicians and the media to put their respective houses in order. There is a need for a freedom of information Act to open up our over-secretive government. There is also a need for stronger self-regulation to protect the individual from invasions of privacy. My party, like others, draws back from advocating a privacy law, but there are signs of a need to strengthen self-regulation. We look to the media to do that.
There is a need to protect both the print and broadcast media from the over-concentration of power and ownership. In that regard, one looks closely at the decision to be made by the Government about digital access and the growing power of Mr. Murdoch. I know very well that Mr. Murdoch has shown entrepreneurial courage in attaining his present position, but I believe that he has been amply rewarded for that already. There is now a need for control and responsibility.
That brings me to the role of the BBC. As the communications revolution gathers pace, it becomes more and more important that the BBC is retained as an iron pole of quality in our broadcasting system. I do not agree with many of the criticisms that have been made tonight of the BBC or the broadcasters. However, if one is spending £1.5 billion of public money, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his colleagues have every right to question it and the BBC has every responsibility to answer their criticisms. But there is danger that there will be a Gresham's Law of broadcasting under which the trivial will force out the serious and the mission to entertain will swamp that to educate and inform. In those circumstances, it is essential to retain the BBC's capacity to fulfil its charter responsibilities.
I recently wrote to the Minister about the impending rise in the BBC licence fee. The Government have been reticent in this matter. I hope that that is because a great and successful battle is being waged within government to guarantee that, having given the BBC a charter to carry out its public service responsibilities, it is to be given the revenue and means to carry them out.
Relations between politicians and the media should never be comfortable and cosy. Both of us are essential to the workings of a democratic society but we fulfil different roles. To fulfil our respective roles requires mutual respect. That respect must be earned by both politicians and journalists. Perhaps I may quote the late Lord Bancroft. He said,
"Conviction politicians, yes. Conviction Civil Servants, no".
One may equally say, "Conviction journalists, no", when conviction gets in the way of truth and objectivity.
We must not get the situation out of balance. There were no good old days. It is 60 years since Baldwin spoke about the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages—power without responsibility. It was just over 40 years ago that Aneurin Bevan said that this country had the most prostituted press in the world. The idea that things have become worse may be somewhat erroneous. It is important to remember when discussing the tension between the media and politicians that recently in Serbia when people wanted to
1546
demonstrate their desire for freedom they lit candles outside the television station; and the last message from the radio station in Hungary in 1956 as the Soviet tanks rolled in was, "Don't forget us". We need good democrats to make democracy work, and it is the responsibility of both the politicians and the media to make sure that they are in good supply in our society.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for putting down this debate for today. It is an issue that he has followed assiduously. We shared many a late night earlier this year on the Broadcasting Bill. It is said that timing is everything. This week the House Magazine has a major article on the media. That article, this debate and the announcement of the regulation of digital broadcasting which was made yesterday by the Government are all timely.
Members of this House are greatly obliged to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity of today's debate. My noble friend Lord Donoughue very much regrets that he is not here today standing in the place in which I am standing. That is because the dreaded "lergy", the flu, has knocked him down. I extend his apologies to the House.
We have heard three maiden speeches, all from the same Benches. Two of the new noble Lords come from a similar discipline. I hope I am following the urging of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in saying that the three speeches were on the button; they touched the spot. I look forward to hearing the contributions that all three noble Lords will make in this House in the coming years, particularly on the challenging issues of the convergence of the media, the super highway, the Internet, and all the global issues which are very much the issues of today.
The role of the print and broadcast media is central to any democracy. We are unanimous on that. The quality of that media can influence the workings of democracy in either a positive or a negative way. For the media to influence positively they have to be free, independent and carry responsibilities—the responsibility to inform, to explain, to report the fact and, yes, to entertain. Some noble Lords, as we have heard during the debate, do not feel that those responsibilities have been honoured fully by the media.
In this House, I am reminded almost every day that our nation is a hotch-potch of contradictions, of checks and balances, and of many imperfections. That was brought into sharp focus for me on Monday this week when I came to the House and tried to pick my way through a car park jammed with limousines bringing in speakers I had neither seen nor heard before in this Chamber, most of whom were here to oppose a Bill which the public so clearly want on the statute book. So no one is perfect. No one reflects perfectly the views of the wider world.
Do we really kid ourselves that we wish to return to the so-called golden age of reporting? If I had been born at the time of the abdication and had been a British

1547
citizen, I should have taken great exception to the fact that the rest of the world knew what was happening with the monarch while we in Britain did not know. That was the media of those days.
In his interesting contribution the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that he was surprised that there was no one here from the proprietors. I agree with him. It took me back to the old days when I knew the noble Lord—if he will forgive me—as Hugh Lawson, when he was on one side of the table as the employer and I was on the other as the trade unionist. With due respect to the noble Lord, in the debate we will get on with it, and I am sure that the outcome will be a good one.
We must acknowledge that the media do a good job. They do a good job more often than they do a bad job. The problem is that when they do a bad job they are extremely destructive. I accept—as a member of the Press Complaints Commission I am only too well aware of this—that often the press goes over the top, so to speak, with its reporting. Only 8 per cent. of the over 2,000 complaints that the PCC receives each year are about invasions of privacy.
What must also be worrying is that some people say that they do not complain because they are afraid that due to complaining they will be further harassed and will become even greater victims. None of us can condone that. I, like many others in the Chamber, have been a victim of media harassment and media misreporting. It is hurtful, but it is not sufficient reason to have statutory regulation of the press. It seems that when the dogs are in full cry anything goes—editors and press lords excepted of course, because they are in their own magic circle, unlike the rest of us.
It is wrong but it still happens that facts and comment are mixed up by the media. It is wrong but it still happens that what is in the public interest is too often mixed with what is of public interest. There I agree with the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the PCC—I know that he regrets that he cannot be here today—and the seven questions that he has put to the press for editors when they are dealing with issues which all too often they say are in the public interest.
Perhaps we should make this an annual event, because on 20th December last year there was a debate on cheque book journalism. One of the points made in that debate was that if witnesses are paid, court cases may be affected, and that the prosecution and the defence should know about it. That point is now part of the code of practice for any journalist in Britain who works under that code.
I believe that a democratic society needs a highly competitive press, warts and all, free of party or government domination, which uncovers those things which many people may be more comfortable not reading. Yet in recent times the worlds of the City, politics, local government, the police, and royalty and, yes, the Church, have had an uncomfortable spotlight put upon them. In most cases our indignant response has been that the media have gone too far. However, on further probing we found that the great merchant bank
1548
of Barings had been managed appallingly, to the loss of many ordinary people; we found that a Member of another place had managed to persuade that place and this place to amend a 300 year-old Act of Parliament to bring a libel action. Then he did not proceed because the Guardian had the guts to stand its ground. We then found that a Government Whip had lied—sorry, dissembled—to his colleagues in another place. We found that royalty had been briefing the media against one another, and, yes, there was to be a divorce, so the tabloids were, regretfully, right. We even found that inside that splendid cathedral at Lincoln, peace and harmony were not the rule. Against that background, it is important that we have a free but responsible press.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to Belgium. Would we in this country have had the situation they had in Belgium? Would not a paedophile ring and the murder of young children have been exposed sooner in this country? I believe that they would. Those press reports on the children's homes, which have rightly caused a great deal of discomfort, have been pursued by the media. We need to have a free media who are not necessarily covered by statutory regulation.
Many noble Lords have, rightly, covered broadcasting. It is an area of which I feel we can be proud. Yes, there are lapses, but the lapses are far fewer than the occasions on which the broadcasters get it right. I greatly regret that the Government refused to accept the amendments from this side of the Chamber to give the ITC the right to establish a quality threshold when granting licences. I believe that we shall live to regret that.
I welcome the two major BBC initiatives—the statement of promises to viewers and listeners (over 200 of them) and the new producers' guidelines. That does not mean that I welcome everything that the broadcast media do. But it does mean that we have a balance. It is the checks and balances which are important in any democracy.
There has been a long established tradition in Britain of high standards because of the regulation that we have. There needs to be continuing and improving regulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has said, it must improve because the alternative for the press is a compensation scheme, fines and the judiciary interfering with the press. None of us in this Chamber wants that.
I conclude with one point. A fair, balanced, impartial media are never more important than at the time of a general election. We are coming up to that soon—sooner than later, I hope. The media in Britain will be on trial, whether they are the press or the broadcast media. They have the responsibility to match the very best of standards and to ensure that they report fact and not fact mixed with comment, that they report the facts as they are and deal with the whole issue impartially. I finish by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for this debate.
5.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I must begin my remarks by echoing the

1549
concluding remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who has triggered a wide-ranging and stimulating debate which I am sure will reverberate beyond the walls of this Chamber. Before responding to the comments that he and other noble Lords have made—I cannot respond verbally to everything that has been said but I shall write to those whose comments I do not touch upon! should like to underscore the remarks made by a number of your Lordships about our maiden speakers. First, my noble friend Lord Saatchi, the distinguished founder of the well-known advertising agency and patron of the arts, enjoined us all to keep it simple and did so himself. My noble friend Lord Chadlington pointed out the implications of the technological changes which are taking place and gave us the benefit of his experience, distinguished career and first-hand knowledge. My noble friend Lord Wrottesley showed us that there is no such thing as an amateur member of the public. We look forward to hearing more from each and all of them in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, although they do not have a distinct collective legal personality, the press, as they were known before the advent of broadcasting, or the media, as they are now called, have a central role in the healthy functioning of a modern, western society, whose essential characteristics are freedom under the law, democracy, accountability, and transparency. The Fourth Estate is an integral element of such a society, lubricating the proper relationships between the citizen and the legislature, executive and judiciary. Indeed without it, these four could not interact properly.
It is, of course, the characteristic, par excellence, of the British constitution that there is a sensitive interrelationship between its essential components, maintained by a carefully crafted web of checks and balances. And of course these checks and balances—both statutory and administrative—apply in respect of the media and always have done. Since the earliest days it has been recognised that the press and broadcasters are different from the rest of the commercial world of which they are part. Not merely can the media be used as an instrument of political power or influence either by those within or without the formal political process, it is also in a democratic society an essential tool to provide information be it factual, opinion, or investigative, without which democracy itself breaks down. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, it needs to be identifiably distinct.
But if the media behave in a manner so they damage rather than contribute to the healthy working of our constitution and society then the rest of the system is entitled, indeed not merely entitled but compelled, to act to restore the balance.
It is also characteristic of a free society that even within these areas where under the general law there, is no general constraint on the exercise of freedom,
1550
that freedom must not be exercised in a way which unjustifiably hurts others. And this, of course, is as true for the media as for everyone else.
The media are indeed a remarkable sector because they have a unique place and status in contemporary Britain underscored by our accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Their status accords the press and broadcasters great privileges, power and influence and in turn is dependent upon the exercise of great responsibility. As Kipling put it:
"The Pope may launch his Interdict,
The Union its decree,
But the bubble is blown and the bubble is pricked
by Us and such as We.
Remember the battle and stand aside
While Thrones and Powers confess
That King over all the children of pride
is the Press-the Press-the Press!".
We must not overlook one important distinction between the printed and broadcast forms of the media. Technologically, these distinctions will soon blur, but for now they are still clear and are reflected in the framework in which they operate. The print media have always, and rightly, valued their freedom to editorialise—to take a view on the issues of the day and to promote that view. The broadcast media, on the other hand, are required by statute to be impartial. Some noble Lords have questioned their performance in that regard but the obligation placed on them in this respect is unambiguous.
The reason for this is that broadcasters have a particular power to influence our opinions; their message comes into all our homes in a way in which print never did. For that reason, they are subject to a layer of regulation beyond the usual protection afforded the public by our general laws on libel, defamation, obscenity, confidence, fair trade and so forth. Programme makers are under an obligation to meet a series of programming requirements—for example, to be accurate and impartial and to "do no harm"—while the free-to-air public service broadcasters, which are the heart of our system and are part of the information infrastructure of contemporary society, are subject to even more rigorous positive programming requirements.
Undoubtedly, despite some of the problems we experience from time to time, the UK enjoys across the whole media a range and quality of information, entertainment and opinion admired all over the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has drawn attention to the contrast between the ideal and the actual role of the journalist in our society. Certainly, I agree with John Birt, quoted by the noble Lord, that:
"journalism is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end … we need to assert that journalism's highest purpose is to inform the citizenry."
Like the noble Lord, my noble friend Lady Park and others, I too find some examples of journalism—in its techniques too often cocksure and hectoring and in its content too often underinformed and researched—pretty depressing and degrading. There can be no doubt that too often journalism fails to achieve John Birt's aspiration, but as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said in his book On the Constitution:

1551
"It is not a pretty picture … Perhaps bad taste is the price we pay for freedom. If so, it may be worth paying. But it is, by any standards, a price which is disagreeably high".
In this country the press has not been subject to executive control in peacetime for three centuries. The print media enjoy freedom of expression, which means the freedom to cover or not to cover any aspect of life. They are subject to the general law in the same way as any other citizen. On top of this there is a voluntary code of practice which has been agreed by the newspaper industry and is interpreted by the Press Complaints Commission. It is an integral, albeit a self-regulating element of the framework society has set for the press, which regulates the means by which journalists obtain stories which they choose to follow, while simultaneously calling for high journalistic and professional standards, inherent in the behaviour demanded by the code of conduct.
My noble friend Lord Vivian raised the issue of the reporting of military activity and the possible consequences of so doing. I shall pass on his request to my noble friend Lord Howe in order to ensure that he receives the reply he seeks.
The responsibilities of the press as a whole are exercised via the actions and activities of proprietors, editors and journalists. They are responsible both jointly and severally for whether the press actually plays its proper part in society, as I have already mentioned. Certainly there is a wide divergence in the quality of its performance which cannot merely be explained away by subjective differences of taste.
As I have already mentioned, broadcasters are subject to much tighter rules than the press in respect of news reporting and impartiality. The BBC's responsibilities for impartiality and accuracy are now at the heart of its new Charter and Agreement, which noble Lords debated earlier this year. The revised Producer's Guidelines reflect this, and the Statement of Promises makes clear the corporation's commitment to its viewers. All commercial broadcasters—terrestrial, satellite and cable—have similar conditions written into their licences.
There are well-established rights of complaint and redress, whether through the BBC governors, the Independent Television Commission or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I believe that we have a well balanced structure in place, enabling this powerful medium to be properly regulated independent of government in the wider public interest with due respect for journalistic, editorial and artistic freedom.
I turn now to the treatment of violence. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, this is an issue of particular concern to the Heritage Secretary and she has recently agreed an initiative with the BBC, ITC and BSC to give the public a more informed choice about what they view and assistance to parents in exercising proper parental control over their children's viewing. She will also, I know, be paying close attention to research which is being conducted on a number of fronts into television violence, its effects and the options for protecting vulnerable viewers.
1552
We must rationally examine the nature and extent of the problem, which is by no means clear at present. For example, the increase in general concern about violence coincides with a measured fall in the amount of violence actually shown on terrestrial television. We must look at the kinds of violence portrayed, the context in which it is shown and the different ends to which it is portrayed. For example, how should one compare the "Duchess of Malfi" or "Titus Andronicus" with the Bruno v. Tyson fight or "Cracker"? At the same time we must also look at public opinion: at how many and what sort of people view television violence; at how critically and in what context they view; at their reactions; at whether people complain about what they actually see themselves or merely about what they have read is to be shown. It is interesting, for example, that the European Commission in its recently published Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual services specifically comments:
"There is a wide gap between the Nordic countries which are tough on violent material, but easy going where sexually explicit material is concerned, and the Latin countries which are tough on sex but less so on violence".
Only when we examine the evidence fully, and analyse it properly, should we consider taking fundamental decisions of principle. It may be that there is a need for some other safeguard, whether technological like the V-chip, on which we have recently published a paper, or by some other means. I simply ask that we sift the evidence and give thought to the best way to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to perverted forms of sex and obscene and offensive language on television. Although that topic was not mentioned specifically by many noble Lords, the principles underlying the noble Lord's concern about that issue were not far under the surface. I know that his concerns are shared by many viewers.
While violence is the issue named by viewers generally as that which causes most concern, it is on matters of taste and decency that most complaints to broadcasters are received. Self-evidently it is not possible for every programme fully to accommodate every viewers' personal preferences, but again there are guidance codes for broadcasters on the standards to be observed and these are enforced by the regulators. The regulator acted, for example, against "Brookside" for its portrayal of an incestuous relationship—not because this issue should not be dealt with, but because it was not handled responsibly. In particular, "family viewing" provisions are intended to ensure that programmes likely to be seen by children are acceptable, and I know that the regulators intend shortly to publicise and explain this policy.
That is clearly an area in which better advance information would allow viewers to avoid programmes which are likely to offend them, and to protect children from viewing unsuitable material, although one has to be aware, as my teenage nephew and niece reminded me recently, that the identification of unsuitability may be one of the greatest attractions to viewing and that on the whole they are more adept

1553
at unlocking the electronic key than their parents. Nevertheless, I look forward to seeing proposals for providing such information in the coming year.
I have already mentioned that the place of self-regulation in the framework of the arrangements within which the media function, and perhaps one of the most obvious areas where that applies, is in the area of privacy, a topic which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Vivian and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his sparkling and Olympian intervention. He expressed a different point of view from that expressed by my noble friend Lord Cromer.
We considered that in great detail over a considerable time and concluded, in July 1995, that a statutory commission or tribunal would be a disproportionate response to such abuses as had occurred; secondly, that intrusion offences, though right in principle, would be impossible to frame in a way that caught the mischief while allowing responsible investigative journalism to flourish; and, thirdly, that there was insufficient public consensus for a privacy tort. My noble friend Lord Vivian asked what evidence we had for that. That view was formed on the basis of the responses received to the consultation document of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We welcomed improvements to self-regulation which had been agreed by the newspaper industry and the Press Complaints Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham. At the same time, we seek further improvements in the performance of the press. It is undeniably a difficult area, compounded by the problems of those who court publicity in one area of their lives only to complain about its unwelcome consequences in another.
I do not deny that abuses still occur. Nonetheless, we believe potentially the best, but not necessarily the only, way of securing proper behaviour in this area is through a self-regulatory system which works. After all the capacity to run a successful newspaper must imply the ability to adhere to the code of practice.
The passing of the new Broadcasting Act earlier this year was a most significant development for the broadcast media. It is especially pleasing that many in the industry tell me without my asking that they are very glad that it began in this House, because they believe the debate here set a high standard and treated these issues in a matter and with the seriousness they properly merited. The changes the Act has made to our system of media ownership regulation were perhaps one of its most important aspects in the context of today's debate.
The balance we believe we have struck as regards media ownership is between the need to liberalise ownership regulations to meet the business requirements of a rapidly developing industry and the need to provide safeguards to maintain pluralism and diversity of voice on the other. I believe that we achieved that balance. It is interesting that a number of new alliances are being formed by various media firms.
1554
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, expressed a concern which has been expressed by a number of your Lordships on a number of occasions about the threat to the plurality and diversity of the new digital services made possible by the Broadcasting Act 1996 from one corporate entity, controlled by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, controlling the key technology for access to the encryption and delivery of services. As your Lordships' House is aware, the Minister for Science and Technology tabled regulations yesterday to implement the EC Advanced Television Standards Directive which will prevent any holder of the proprietary technology from acting as a monopoly gatekeeper to the digital age. Those regulations represent a fair balance between the return on investment for a first mover in digital conditional access technology and the wider interests of fair and effective competition in the digital broadcasting medium. The detail involved is extremely complicated and there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to have a full debate on the regulations in the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the BBC's licence fee. He may be interested to know that in another place this afternoon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage made an announcement about the level of the TV licence fee. The annual licence fees from next April will be linked directly to the movement in the RPI and will be £91.50 for a colour licence, a £2 increase, and £30.50 for a black-and-white licence, which is a 50p increase.
The Government have decided also that cumulative changes in the licence fee for the five years commencing 1st April 1997 should continue to equate broadly with the RPI. However, the pattern of annual changes will not be uniform. Throughout the period the BBC needs to fund expenditure on new digital services. That will be offset in 1997-98 by receipts from the sale of the BBC's transmission system and in later years by increased efficiency savings and commercial income. Therefore, in 1998-99 there will be a real increase in the licence fees but in the years 2000 and 2001 there will be a real decrease. The five-year settlement will enable the BBC to pursue its plans for digital broadcasting and enhance its programme services.
We are living in revolutionary times for the media. The traditional distinction between newspapers and the broadcasters is breaking down thanks to new technology, and there is more to come shortly as my noble friend Lord Chadlington pointed out. Nevertheless, the importance of the media to our society and to our constitutional arrangements to which I referred in my opening remarks is unaffected.
What must we do? First we must recognise that further changes will occur. Secondly, we must not waste time and effort regretting them; they are I believe inevitable. We have in place a system of checks and balances, a combination of legislation and self-regulation which together provide a proper framework for this unique part of our constitutional and administrative arrangements, so important to the health of our government and public life. For this special

1555
framework to survive, both regulators and the regulated must exercise responsibility in the public interest on behalf of society as a whole.
As the revolution gathers momentum it is inevitable the mechanics necessary to achieve this balance will alter, while the fundamental principles underlying them will not. To get it right depends on us, the politicians, and the media thinking carefully, behaving responsibly, and acting decisively and with probity and wisdom, otherwise we shall find we are living in a world described by W.B. Yeats when:
"A Statesman is an easy man
He tells his lies by rote
A journalist makes up his lies
and takes you by the throat
So stay at home and drink your beer
and let the neighbours vote".
The British people and our great country will be the losers if that were to happen.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it remains only for me to thank all speakers who took part in today's most interesting debate. I should also like to express my admiration for the way that all speakers, without exception, compressed interesting and stimulating ideas into the very limited time at their disposal. I congratulate them all in that respect. I must also thank the Minister for his characteristically thoughtful and courteous reply to the debate; indeed, it is a style and content that we have come to expect from him. I warmly thank him for his contribution.
It is worth saying that there were 16 speakers in today's debate, other than the three outstanding maiden speakers. I believe that there was a consensus, to put it in the form of words used by one of my noble friends, that it was the best clutch of maiden speeches that any of us can remember in this House. Finally, I should like to make one further point. From those 16 speakers there was, almost without exception, some degree of unease and criticism about the performance of the media. There was also a widespread view that regulation needs strengthening. Of course, not everyone agreed with that but most speakers seemed to have that thought in the back of their minds.
In that context, I hope that everyone will think very hard about the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for some kind of overarching regulatory body which might be able to use its teeth in a way that some of the regulators seem reluctant to do at present. It has been suggested that this is largely a question of regulation, while others have said that it is a matter of self-regulation. I believe that it is probably a matter of a word which was not mentioned in today's debate—namely, leadership. If there were some leaders in the press with the highest of standards, I believe that we would perhaps go a long way towards solving the problem. However, that is not a matter for today. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Rights in China and Tibet
6.12 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to call attention to the human rights situation in China and Tibet; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Chinese had a flourishing civilisation more than 4,000 years ago. They have produced some of the world's most brilliant scientists, artists, craftsmen, poets and philosophers. Everyone recognises and admires their genius, and, in addition to all their other achievements, China may become the biggest economy in the world some time during the 21st century. Yet, at the same time, China holds the record for the degree of control that she exercises over her people's lives, the harshness of their repression and the hostility to the slightest breath of criticism at home, or even abroad, as we see from the attempted blackmail of Disney, Murdoch and the BBC.
Beijing is ostensibly committed to the universality of human rights, but argues that a people's culture, history and political system determine the application of those individual rights in each country. That inconsistency was exposed when China hosted the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing last year. Sixteen people were executed in August to ensure order at the conference; visas were refused to a number of participants; the UN accreditation of some organisations was challenged; NGO workshops were monitored and disrupted; journalists were restricted; and some well-known Chinese dissidents were removed from Beijing to stop them contacting the delegates.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in his thoughtful address to an Amnesty seminar in September, said that it was not helpful to dismiss the quarter-full glass. That China hosted the conference in Beijing at all was a good sign, and perhaps an indication of differences in the regime; but the hope that relatively liberal forces will prevail in the end is no reason for muting criticism of the deliberate and systematic violations of human rights today. One does not persuade a Communist dictatorship to adopt the principles of liberal democracy by minimising the case for reform.
The use of slave labour in the prisons; the unfair criminal justice system; the extensive use of capital punishment for relatively minor offences; violations of ILO conventions; arbitrary detention and imprisonment; the absence of freedom of speech and assembly; disregard of the elementary rights of women and children; and the non-existence of pluralism or of any form of democracy above the village level are all very serious grounds for complaint. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that Britain will continue to raise all those matters both bilaterally and at international meetings.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, will be dealing with freedom of religion. I shall say just a word or two of welcome for the visit made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to China in September, even though he was invited by the China Christian Council, an organ of the so-called Patriotic Church controlled by the state. He did speak about

1557
Chinese Christians who had been persecuted and gaoled, but he did not ask that free religious institutions, whether Christian or Moslem, be allowed to operate in China. I shall also leave the question of labour conditions to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, except to say that 60 per cent. of the world's toys are made in south Chinese factories, so that violations of the rights of workers there cannot be a matter of indifference to the millions of shoppers now buying their output to fill children's stockings.
We discussed the question of slave labour in prisons in April. It is clear that we cannot act alone, when there is now free movement of goods throughout the European Union; any new measures to prohibit the entry of goods made in the inhuman conditions of the Laogai would have to be taken by the EU. The Government declined to discuss the matter with our partners, on the grounds that European legislation would also fail because of the difficulty of proof, as in Britain. They rejected the proposal that the EU should explore a common approach with the Americans, based on the US Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese, forbidding trade in goods made in the laogai, and the Statement of Co-operation which granted access by monitors to the prisons and labour camps where goods were being made. Inspections were halted in April 1995, but would not a joint approach by the Americans and the EU stand some chance of at least reviving them?
The policies of Europe and the US on slave labour ought, at any rate, to be harmonised. The Government turned down even that proposal on the grounds that China's application to join the World Trade Organisation would, in time, erode the basis for such action. Does that mean that China is to be admitted without qualification? Alternatively, could we not ask for inspection rights as a condition of her membership?
Amnesty International has identified 3,000 political prisoners since 1989—and that is the tip of the iceberg. Of course, China claims that there are none and challenges the work of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Beijing says that the group goes beyond its mandate in objecting to internal legislation and giving opinions on cases where sentences have been passed. The working group's mandate is coming up for renewal. Will it continue to evaluate the consistency of internal legislation with international standards? I know that we have taken up the cases of Wang Dan and Liu Ziaobo, two of the most prominent cases which arose during 1996. But will Ministers support and help to fund a comprehensive study by the working group of those cases and of the more general problem of how to bring the law into conformity with international standards?
China claims to accept the presumption of innocence, the limitation of detention without charge, and the right of defendants to be represented by a lawyer of their choice. The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code on these matters come into effect at the beginning of 1997. The new code will refer to "the criminal suspect" instead of "the offender" and no person will be considered a criminal until he has been convicted by a People's Court. It remains to be seen whether those changes will make any difference to the 99 per cent. conviction rate. The defence lawyer still has the duty to bring forward evidence to prove the innocence of the
1558
accused, so the mind set of the prosecution culture has not changed. In cases where the defendant is acquitted, the court has a new power of adding a rider to the verdict that insufficient evidence was presented to establish guilt. One can imagine how damaging an entry of that kind would be in the dossier of a citizen in such a rigidly controlled state.
The period of detention without charge is increased from 10 to 14 days, or to a month plus a week in cases where the identity of the suspect cannot be determined. The justification for this provision is that administrative detention, which had been operated by the police outside the ordinary court system, is now brought within the criminal procedures. The new rules still permit the police to interrogate a suspect without the presence of a lawyer and when, after the first interrogation, the defendant is allowed to see a lawyer, the police sit in on the consultation.
Mark Baber, a British citizen who spent three years in Shanghai Municipal Prison, says that Chinese rhetoric about adherence to the rule of law is designed for outside consumption, and they have no intention of giving up the absolute power to deal with political and criminal offenders as they see fit. Mr. Baber was arrested in March 1991 and was not allowed to see the British consul for 10 days. In that time he was interrogated continuously for 40 hours, and at the end of that ordeal, after cutting his wrist to avert the threats of the police, he was blindfolded and interrogated still further, while having the wound stitched without anaesthetic. He was tied hand and foot to his hospital bed, and went on a hunger strike for 13 days. He was also threatened with death and underwent a mock execution to get him to co-operate. Mr. Baber said that his treatment was infinitely better than that accorded to the Chinese prisoners in Shanghai.
As Harry Wu says in his foreword to Kate Saunders' remarkable account of the Laogai Eighteen Layers of Hell,
"No totalitarian system can exist without a machinery of suppression to maintain its order".
Ms. Saunders estimates that 6 million to 8 million people are forced to undertake hard labour in camps throughout China, and millions more are held in detention centres, prisons and "re-education through labour" institutions. The intended deterrent effect of the system is reinforced by the large number of public executions, which the Communists use to intimidate people and to consolidate the perception of strong government. In 1995, Amnesty International documented 2,190 executions in China, compared with 3,000 for the whole world; and this is probably only a fraction of the actual total. This year there were over 1,000 executions in May and June alone, as part of the "Strike Hard" campaign.
The UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions has expressed concern about unfair trials and particularly the lack of safeguards for the protection of those facing capital punishment. He is dismayed at the increasing number of executions, including those carried out in public, and in view of what he calls the "alarming allegations" received, he reiterates his request to visit

1559
China, made in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995, to none of which the Chinese authorities have replied. In fact none of the UN rapporteurs or working groups have received invitations to visit China, and nor has any human rights NGO, including Amnesty International. There are no independent human rights bodies in China itself, and when Yang Zhou and others tried to start a China human rights association, he was promptly imprisoned. Will the Government press China to accept monitoring, and will they suggest to Presidents Clinton and Chirac that when they visit China early next year they should ask China to co-operate with the UN rapporteurs and working groups? Will the European Union press for a resolution on China at the Human Rights Commission in April?
The Foreign Office says it continues to receive reports about Tibet, including the suppression of religious freedom, migration to the territory of Han people, arbitrary security measures and environmental damage. Mr. Hanley raised Tibet during his talks with Vice Premier Li Lanqing in November, although here again one has no idea what was said. One would hope that Ministers would tell the Chinese—as they do in correspondence with us—that Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs, and that the best way of achieving that is through dialogue between the government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions.
When the Dalai Lama was here in July, that was exactly what he asked for, and he repeated to the European Parliament in October,
"his willingness to enter into negotiations with the government of the PRC on an agenda that does not call for the separation and independence of Tibet".
When officials from the Chinese Embassy met the parliamentary Tibet group on 3rd December, they said that unless the Dalai Lama dropped his claim to independence, the authorities would not meet him. However, the Chinese must be perfectly well aware that he had indeed dropped the claim, to the annoyance of some people in Tibet. Will the Government ask the Chinese to clarify their policy, and to explain why they still refuse to meet the Dalai Lama now that he has satisfied these conditions? Will they ask the new Secretary General of the UN to see whether he can get the two parties together?
The human rights situation in Tibet is diabolical. Monks are being gaoled for refusing to toe the line in a "re-education drive" being conducted by Chinese propaganda teams. The seven year-old Panchen Lama—the world's youngest political prisoner—is still missing, and about 50 other people are still detained for their involvement in his selection. The authorities have admitted detaining the Fulbright scholar and musician, Ngawang Choepel, who disappeared in July 1995 when he visited Tibet to record the folk music of his people. The culture, religion and language of the Tibetan people are being marginalised, and the authorities are setting the seal on this process by encouraging Han immigration, as they have also done in Mongolia and East Turkistan. They want to homogenise China, leaving
1560
no cultural or political space for minority peoples, in a process for which Leo Kuper coined the term "ethnocide".
China wants to insulate herself from human rights values that have won universal acceptance, and at the same time to become a great economic power. These two aims may be compatible, and, conversely, taking the lid off a repressive system is not necessarily a recipe for improved performance. Yet every dictatorship ultimately collapses, and only societies that are based on the will of the people endure for ever. The rulers of China have always taken a long-term view, and the present incumbents may ponder on the direction their country must take, if it is to be stable, prosperous and united in the middle of the 21st century. In making that assessment, they will no doubt consider also whether it is wise to establish a new brand of authoritarianism with only a fossilised ideological basis. I believe that would be a disaster for the people of China and Tibet, and for the wider stability and harmony of the world order, and I believe it is our duty to say so. I beg to move for Papers.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on choosing such an important subject. The need to keep people fearful of government power has been constant in China since 1949. One way the practice of "education through killing" is done is by conducting public executions, often following grossly unfair and summary trials and as a result of political interference. Prisoners sentenced to death are frequently paraded in front of large crowds at "mass sentencing rallies". Chinese people put it another way, "Killing the chicken to scare the monkey".
Thanks to Amnesty International, we know there are three times as many executions in China as in the rest of the world. We know that the death penalty is used for 69 different offences, even, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, for relatively minor, non-violent ones, despite international human rights standards which state that the death penalty should be used only for the most serious offences. Judicial errors can occur in any legal system. However, the chance of error is much greater when there is no protection for the rights of the accused; when there is a heavy reliance on confessions; when the outcome of a trial is decided in advance; and when the appeal procedure is a mere formality.
We also know that executed prisoners' organs, usually kidneys, but also corneas and hearts, have been removed for transplants since 1979. A government document, first made public in 1990, permitted the removal of prisoners' organs and stipulated in detail that ambulances must not display hospital logos, that surgeons must not wear white uniforms when removing organs at the execution site, that guards must not be present until removal was completed, and that corpses should be promptly cremated following the removal of organs. It is believed that the organs of 9,000 of the estimated 10,000 prisoners executed in China every year are used in transplants.
It was against this background that Harry Wu, the American human rights campaigner, himself imprisoned in China for 19 years, returned secretly to visit some of

1561
the hospitals engaged in transplants. He was accompanied by Sue Lloyd-Roberts, a BBC reporter, under the guise of seeking help for a relative in need of a kidney transplant. Wu first met Professor Yang, director of urology at West China University of Medical Sciences. All conversations during the investigation were either video-taped or audio-taped. Asked how long it takes to get a kidney, Yang replied,
"One to two months, because of the need for a match",
adding,
"the sooner kidneys are removed, the greater the chance of a successful operation … here we are close to donors … they come from brain dead people".
Prisoners selected to provide organs are given medical examinations. Blood samples are taken, without the prisoner being told why. Mrs. Jingping, head of the hospital's department of foreign affairs, said:
"We guarantee our donors are young and healthy, and that the organs are of excellent quality".
She made the offer that,
"in two to three weeks we can get a living kidney, a team of surgeons will be sent for removal and delivery at a fee of about £7,000 … We receive customers from all over the world".
A Mr. Li, who works at the People's Hospital, Zhengzhou City, had been involved in handling executed prisoners' organs for years. Li stated that in May 1994 he had been dispatched to nearby Anyang City to pick up a kidney from an executed prisoner. He cautioned that information about organ transplants,
"should be kept secret from foreigners … they all come from death row prisoners … we buy the corpses, everything is approved by the Government".
He explained how prisoners were executed as soon as their organs were needed.
"We arrange with executioners to shoot in the head so the prisoner dies instantly. Survival rate of organs is much higher … we drive the ambulance to the execution site. Once the prisoner is dead, legally, he no longer exists as a human being. Upon completion of necessary procedures by the police and the court, the body is ours. People at the court and the police are given gifts, such as taking them to dinner, giving them cigarettes, and special holidays. We need their help in lifting the corpse into the ambulance, and to guard the execution site longer than usual, so the ambulance is not in public view".
Mr. Gao, from south China, tells a similar story:
"Usually, in a large prison, there are 20 to 30 death row criminals. As soon as organs are needed, some prisoners will be escorted to the execution site. While carrying out an execution, the local police will keep the prisoner's family in their home. They are not allowed to pick up the bodies, which are immediately cremated. The family can only receive the ashes".
One can argue that executed prisoners and their families have no human rights. I disagree, particularly when they are shot specifically to provide organs "on demand" for a hard currency trade—and more particularly as China has signed seven United Nations human rights treaties.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I shall address two topics in this debate, so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, was very
1562
moving, as I am sure we all agree. I want to cover employment, and the reporting of what goes on in China and Tibet.
The World Development Movement, the Trades Union Congress, the Catholic Institute for International Relations and the Hong Kong Toy Coalition came together to urge companies to accept a safety code to be applied in toy factories. That initiative took place after 189 workers lost their lives in a factory fire and 469 were severely injured. There are very many examples of working conditions and safety standards that we should find horrific and totally unacceptable. Yet those factories provide the toys that will be given to many of our children this Christmas.
For example, a young girl of 17, a child herself, whom I shall call Sunata, went sick. The reason was that she had worked overnight for three days and nights and had only two hours' break each day. Normally this 17 year-old girl worked 11 hours a day, seven days a week. She slept in a small room with 11 others without any private toilet facilities. I said, "she did". I do not know what has happened to Sunata. But certainly there are many other young children like her who are in that situation. It needs to be brought to the attention of the British public, especially at this time of year.
The International Toy Association has agreed a safety code with the organisations I named on conditions in China. Some companies follow it assiduously. For example, the Early Learning Centre and Woolworths say that they regularly check working conditions in the factories in China that produce the toys that they are selling across their counters now to people who are buying them for Christmas presents. Unfortunately, they have not published the outcome of the monitoring that they have carried out. I urge them to do so.
Sainsbury's runs a number of pilot schemes to demonstrate the feasibility of the verification and monitoring of standards. We look forward to the outcome of that work, too. It is against that background that I regret to report to the House that the British Toy & Hobby Association states:
"It is simply not feasible to conduct independent monitoring".
I reject that view. I hope that it will change its ways and accept that it has a responsibility to ensure that the international code that has been agreed must be carried through—especially when we hear that every hour Mattel Toys, the company that produces the Barbie doll, which young girls go mad over, earned as much from UK sales of Barbie, that one type of doll, as it pays 27,000 toy workers in China.
Hasbro is a name that means nothing to me. However the Sindy doll and Action Man certainly do mean a lot to me; I see them lying around the house when I visit grandchildren. Hasbro spends more on advertising than all the wages of 7,000 Thai toy workers put together.
This issue is worth attention, not just because of human rights and the way that we treat children. It is big business: £1,640 million a year is spent on toys in Britain, half of that at Christmas. So this debate is timely.

1563
In a factory in China where the code is accepted, the manager was interviewed by one of the employees from the World Development Movement. He said quite openly of his workers: "You've got to whip them like donkeys to make them understand what we are telling them". I reject that. Companies bypass standards. After 120 days with a company, a worker qualifies to receive benefits. Thousands of young people, and mature people, are dismissed after working for 119 days and start back at work the day after. That does not represent compliance with an international standard.
The other issue I wish to touch upon is reporting. For the public to understand the situation, we must have impartial, free reporting. I am concerned that it appears that the BBC has downgraded the reporting that it brings to us from Tibet and China. Tibet is not open to the press. However, that did not stop the BBC reporting from its Hong Kong base, and hopefully from its Beijing base.
I would like to have something refuted by the BBC. It crosses my mind to ask whether it has downgraded its reporting because of the change in control in Hong Kong that faces us shortly. Is it because the BBC wants to sell its products in China and is afraid that the Chinese Government will intervene if it highlights the human rights atrocities which are taking place? We have just heard of them in the two previous contributions. Is it because the BBC wants to sell its own products in those countries? I have that concern. The Minister may not be able to answer the point in the debate this evening, but I hope that he will follow it up with the BBC. I look forward to the answer and to the comments from the British Toy & Hobby Association. If it reads the debate, as I hope it will, perhaps it will answer, as I believe it should.
6.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us the opportunity for this debate on what is an important, difficult and sensitive issue. We have already heard two important contributions which show how complex and sensitive the issues are. I should like to share with your Lordships' House a concentration on religious freedom, especially in China.
The Church of England, along with other Churches in Britain and Ireland, maintains a continuous watching brief on the situation in China through the China Study Department of the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, the visit of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to China in September 1994 was of considerable importance. The purpose of the visit was to encourage the China Christian Council and especially Bishop Ting, its president. The visit afforded the opportunity for private meetings with state officials to discuss policy issues and also, importantly for this debate, to raise human rights issues. Amnesty International provided briefing material and specific advice for the archbishop before his visit. I wish to take this opportunity of commending the work of Amnesty
1564
International, not least the publication No one is safe, which is an important and interesting contribution to our understanding of a complex issue.
The most reverend Primate used the opportunity of the visit to raise cases with the authorities on a face-to-face basis. One of them had something to do with an organisation called "The Jesus Family" which was not provided with recognition as a religious group. It was a policy of dialogue and raising issues face to face.
More recently, the World Council of Churches—I am a member of the central committee—made a high level visit to China, the report of which has just appeared. In spite of the difficulties, the Churches continue to make remarkable progress. The term was "an exponential rise" in membership. The delegation returned with a strong impression of dynamic development in which the possibilities for Christian worship—in spite of the mistrust and fears of foreign influence—are expanding.
An issue which has aroused comment and concern is the registration of places of worship. According to Bishop Ting, one of the reasons for the promulgation of Decree 144 entitled "Administration of Religious Activities of Aliens"—that gives the flavour—and Decree 145 on "Administration of Sites for Religious Activities" was the Chinese Government's,
"fear of domestic and foreign enemies".
That is a quotation from the report of the World Council of Churches. There was a fear of domestic and foreign enemies' clandestine use of religion to subvert the national interest. In Bishop Ting's opinion, the problem is not with the legislation but rather in the way it will be implemented at a local level.
The legislation centres around six criteria for eligibility to register as a place of worship. People need to show that it is a place of worship, that there is a trained leader and that it has a certain number of believers, a governing committee, a legal source of income and a name for the meeting place. Two years after its entry into force, there are indeed grounds for concern—more in some areas than others. For example, in the province of Zhejiang there appears to have been a positive way in which the implementation of the two decrees has taken place. There are good relationships with the Religious Affairs Bureau. In Henan, the situation is quite different. There the Churches feel vulnerable. They believe that the World Council of Churches' visit was state-managed by the Religious Affairs Bureau. There is a high level of mistrust.
In Beijing, the process has not yet even begun. There are still distressing reports of the arrest, mistreatment and imprisonment of both Roman Catholics and Protestants, not only among those who reject the registration and recognition of the official Church bodies allowed by the government.
The general human rights situation must be seen against the traditional fears that the Chinese people have of chaos and the collapse of dynasties. This is a great civilisation with deeply held traditions and a long memory. What we see happening in China is a massive economic transformation and a gradual expansion of the space for a civil society. The treatment of prisoners,

1565
the severity of sentences—which we have heard about—and the shortcomings in the justice system have been comprehensively documented by Amnesty International's report on China published this year. Our concern for human rights must be motivated by the desire to see the most positive development for the society as a whole as well as seeking the most effective methods for alleviation of the suffering of the prisoners of conscience. The issue of the right methods to achieve that is of great sensitivity.
What more can be said? At the time of the visit of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the concerns was the issue of registration, to which I referred. At the end of his visit, as he was preparing to leave China, he said:
"This is an exciting country and we can expect further changes in the days ahead, not least in the growing contribution of the Church to the life of the nation. Although the Christian Church is still relatively small, it is for many people a sign of hope. The shadows exist, but the general picture is most encouraging. Without wishing to interfere with the internal affairs of China"
That may be the Archbishop's problem, as people have been concerned about it
"but reminding her of her international obligations"
And that surely is important
"Christians from abroad will wish to encourage a policy of tolerance which will allow the Christian faith and other faiths to be practised without restraint in every part of this great country".
It is clearly necessary to keep raising the issues of religious tolerance and to take up cases with government officials, as the Archbishop did. It is a policy of dialogue with the raising of issues. There will be continuing opportunities after the handover of Hong Kong which the Churches in Britain and Ireland affirm they will undertake. They will, in fact, ensure that they are undertaken.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing this important debate. China is very much on our minds at the moment because of the imminent handing back of Hong Kong. In the light of this, our concerns about human rights in China have a significance beyond its own borders.
I have chosen to focus on religious persecution in China, in particular that of Christians. Official reports state that there are about 10 million Christians in China, although an internal Communist Party document published in February this year put the figure at over 25 million. According to other sources, the true figure could be up to as many as 95 million. If the present revival continues, it is estimated that by the year 2030 35 per cent. of China will be Christian. This is an enormous number of people who remain on the fringes of society because the state seems to conceive of religion as a competing force with Communism and reiterates the need for patriotism in all religious activities.
The tentacles of the state have wrapped themselves firmly around the Church through a number of recent regulations. These have built upon the 1951 decision to establish the Three Self Patriotic Church, which aimed to
1566
get rid of the denominations and missionaries and establish state control over the Christian Church. In 1994 two new regulations were introduced which required every Church to register and effectively forbade foreign control of Churches and financial support from outside the country. In effect, religious activities that take place in unregistered buildings are considered illegal and those involved may be detained and punished. The fines for such activity are often over 900 yuan, which represent about three months' wages. In northern China, in March this year, five women belonging to house churches were arrested and severely beaten. Police officers used boiling water to force a confession.
On Christmas day, as I walk to church free and unmonitored, and as I sing not fearful that our voices may carry, I shall be thinking of the Christians in China as they attend their Christmas services, closely monitored by plainclothes security officers. That will occur not in the unofficial churches but the official Three Self Patriotic Church, where Christians will have had to buy tickets in advance, giving their names, addresses and other personal details knowing that recriminations may follow.
In the growing unregistered church, no services can officially be held and believers meet in fields, apartments and even caves to escape state control. When they are caught, they are often detained and heavily fined. The more unlucky ones have been beaten and even imprisoned. Some groups have watched as their places of worship were bulldozed before their very eyes.
I am particularly concerned to hear recent reports of a renewed crackdown on Christians under the auspices of three campaigns. As part of the "Anti-Criminal" campaign, Christians have been chosen as soft targets to fill the crime quotas required of local party cadres. Already susceptible to arrest on the thin grounds of counter-revolutionary activities, it is estimated that over 300 were arrested during the three-month period this year. Many have been beaten, three fatally. As part of the "Anti-Western" campaign, the Churches have been targeted, as Christianity is believed to be a Western religion that would not survive without the support of the West. Why else should the restrictions of 1994 aim to end foreign financial support, unless their ultimate aim was to break the Church? Finally, the Church has suffered under the "Spiritual Civilisation" campaign, in which Christianity is deemed to be at least an unhelpful superstitious influence.
I could give numerous accounts of detentions, beatings and human rights abuses of Christians, let alone those of other faiths of whom I have not had time to speak. When we remember the stories we have heard, we are reminded of the thousands more that we do not hear because China is so closed to the world. Registration is simply another gag on the Church and the freedom of all those in China whose right to religious freedom has been consistently and blatantly abused by the regime. I urge the international community to continue to speak out for those who have no voice in China and to keep up the pressure for access for human rights monitors to the whole of China.
6.52 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for this opportunity for debate. Anyone in this House who has heard the Dalai Lama speak of his country, as I did earlier this year, will have been impressed by his courage and integrity. Very few national leaders in this century have had his experience of continuous exile yet have been able to display such tolerance, and especially this year, when China has stepped up its vicious campaign against the monasteries. On the front page of Le Monde last week was a story from the reliable Tibet Information Network of a young nun, Ngawang Sangdrol, from Garu nunnery near Lhasa, whose sentence was doubled to 18 years for shouting "Free Tibet", having been in solitary confinement following other so-called offences, one of which was singing nationalist songs in prison. What we learn haphazardly in our media is multiplied a hundredfold by the stories of oppression which come daily over the Himalayas with the refugees.
Whatever the Chinese people themselves think—we must give them the benefit of the doubt, because they are gradually becoming more aware of the immorality of many of their Government's actions—we are witnessing in Tibet a form of gradual ethnic cleansing—the persecution of a race, a religion and a culture—which at times recalls some of the atrocities of the Cultural Revolution. In the face of that, the Dalai Lama's plea for dialogue and self-rule—not for independence, as the noble Lord pointed out—seems almost too modest to those of us who are lucky enough to live in a free society.
But, of course, it is the people not the governments who will make a difference in the long run. We cannot expect our Government, for example, to rock the boat in the run-up to the handover of Hong Kong, or even after that, while China's trade is becoming so important to our economy. We all know that it is primarily individuals and not governments who create moral codes and persuade governments to keep to them. Governments behave like governments. They do not possess the feelings or the powers of individuals. It is up to the British people to support the range of organisations which follow affairs in Tibet and to continue to keep up the pressure.
The same is true of the entry of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) into the child labour debate, which was greeted with squawks from our trade Minister and from governments in Asia. But the WTO was right to raise the issue and to publicise it. However, no one can expect member governments to do very much about it. They have already retreated behind the ILO.
The ILO has enough difficulty coaxing child labour legislation through those governments who have already ratified human rights and child rights conventions. In the end, it is a matter for individual companies and their clients, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, pointed out—the producers and consumers of toys, clothing and other products—to decide what people will buy and sell. Thanks to a responsible media coverage—which does exist, despite many comments in the previous debate—consumers are now becoming much more aware of the
1568
origins of goods and the conditions under which children, women and prisoners in China and other countries have to work. It is they who will change companies' attitudes, not governments.
Of course, I also well understand the fears that western countries such as the United States will use labour laws as an excuse for protection and that any legislation is bound to hit the trade of developing countries and poor families who depend on extra income. It is a dilemma. But, equally, when people are exploited, we cannot allow those arguments to become excuses for inaction. A lot can be done by NGOs to influence the public here and in the producing countries. Even in a closed society like China, there is a growing movement of independent non-governmental organisations linked to political opposition which will pick up ideas and challenge their own government's policies. I also believe that in the long run trade can be a great ambassador of human rights, better than most diplomacy. Although it seems hard, we have to persist in telling the truth about the conditions in China and Tibet and persuading the people that we are on their side.
There is, of course, an equally important human rights campaign in one of the world's poorest regions—the right to basic necessities, such as food, water, health and education. One British organisation in particular has managed to hold the line between human rights on the one hand and practical development on the other. For many years, Save the Children Fund has supported a programme in the Lhasa Valley which works alongside the local health, education and water authorities to bring improved drinking water supplies, health education and teacher training which benefit hundreds of primary school children in up to 80 schools. More than that, SCF, alongside Medecins sans Frontiêres and the Swiss Red Cross, have demonstrated how a voluntary organisation can become a vital channel of international aid. The British, Canadian and Australian Governments have all contributed to it.
Many of the large-scale government projects in Tibet have been held up because they clearly benefit the Chinese Government and the new Han Chinese settlers and entrepreneurs at the expense of Tibetans. That is why the work of non-governmental organisations is so essential. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, particularly in the light of the European Union's recent difficulties in getting a project off the ground in Tibet.
Such practical assistance is more than material aid. it is a token of the affection which Britain holds for Tibetan children and the Tibetan people. It is an invaluable link between two nations which, despite the problems going back to 1904 when we in Britain, with the help of the Ghurkas and Sikhs, entered and pillaged Tibet, have long enjoyed a strong friendship.
7 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on initiating this debate. One does not always have to agree with the noble Lord to recognise that he

1569
is a tireless campaigner for oppressed people of all nationalities, and in the case for which he has spoken today, I agree with him entirely.
I shall speak mainly on Tibet. The Chinese Government make a claim on Tibet based on history and the supposed fact that the present communist revolutionary government of China is the successor of the empire. The claim is dubious. The Foreign Office uses the term "suzerainty"—a medieval concept which in my view has no validity in the 20th century—as does the Chinese Embassy. One thing which the term does not imply is government by consent. It never did imply that. If we applied the Chinese claim to the government of Tibet—that is, that it has essentially been the sovereign power of Tibet since the 12th century—to our own country, that would entitle England to rule southern Ireland. I wonder what the Irish would think of that!
In 1950 the wholly peaceful country of Tibet was subjected to an unprovoked invasion by the People's Republic of China. It should be remembered that Tibet at that time threatened nobody; it had no aggressive designs on any of its neighbours. The only wish of the people of that country was to be left alone to enjoy their ancient religion and culture. Their religion is deep, complex and held by most Tibetans with total conviction.
Notwithstanding the fact that that ancient country had been in every real sense independent for the whole of the 20th century, the Chinese Government proceeded to enforce on the Tibetan people the wholly alien communist creed. With a violence and cruelty that has characterised communism in all its dealings with ordinary people, the culture and religion of Tibet has been subject to vicious persecution. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever showed us something of how the Chinese people have to live. In Tibet monasteries have been destroyed and monks, nuns and people who are neither Tibetan in religion nor outlook have been imprisoned, tortured and murdered. The situation continues and the tyranny is unabated.
Added to all that and what has been mentioned by other noble Lords today is the attack on the person and integrity of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Those of your Lordships who have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama on his periodic visits to this country must wonder whether the Chinese authorities are speaking of the man they met. In the past few years I have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama and the Pope and I would say without any doubt that those two men—so different in appearance, temperament and in their beliefs—are the greatest men alive today. One should be extremely careful before one attacks either of them and I have not the least desire to do so.
But the Chinese authorities have no such inhibitions. Backed as they are by the power of a heavily armed and totalitarian state there is little need for them to argue with anybody. The source of power in Chairman Mao's belief was the "barrel of a gun". That is a simple creed which does not invite reasoned argument. Added to that, they are using the newly acquired commercial power of China to block any favourable mention of the Dalai Lama, even in this country and in the free world as a whole, as we have already heard.
1570
I understand that Disney may be having second thoughts about a film that it was making about the Dalai Lama. It was threatened by the Chinese authorities that, if it distributed the film, its business interests would be boycotted in China. I hope that it will not give in. But commercial companies are, of their nature, cowardly and I fear the worst. So the decree of the Government of China is effective even here, in that we may not be allowed to see anything of which they disapprove.
Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister one question which has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; that is, what has become of the Panchen Lama? That little boy was nominated in proper form by the Dalai Lama, since when he has been kidnapped by the Chinese authorities. They refuse to say where they are holding him. I believe the world has a right to know what has become of that unfortunate child. For all we know he has been murdered, and until the Chinese Government come up with a clear and provable statement of where he is and what they are doing with him we shall suspect the worst—we know they are capable of the worst.
We know that the Chinese authorities have found another Panchen Lama. How a self-proclaimed atheist state can pretend to have found the reincarnation of the previous Panchen Lama boggles the imagination. Incidentally, one hopes that they will not treat this boy as badly as they treated the previous Panchen Lama. I saw the enthronement on television, a ceremony at which there seemed to be more Chinese generals than lamas present. All the generals clapped at the end, which was very peculiar. That communist-approved reincarnation is a grim farce which no one should take seriously. I just hope and pray that both boys will eventually be happy, one as the truly appointed Panchen Lama and the other as the ordinary boy he obviously is.
I would say that if China ever had a right to rule Tibet it forfeited that right by the cold-blooded cruelty and violence with which they have treated the Tibetan people over the past 46 years. Nothing can excuse what they have done. In my view Tibet has a right to independence and I hope that one day Her Majesty's Government will live up to the great traditions of this country and at least concede that. To do less is cowardice.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I feel a little diffident talking about China and Tibet since I have visited neither country. But I declare an interest in that I have a daughter deeply interested in Tibetan Buddhism who spent most of the past year in Dharamsala living among the exiled Tibetan community.
For many years I had a positive attitude towards the People's Republic of China and respected its achievements. But that attitude, like that of many others, became much more critical after the events of Tiananmen Square in June 1989. My understanding of the traumatic shifts in policy—the Great Leap Forward; the Cultural Revolution—was greatly helped by reading Jung Chang's triple biography/autobiography Wild Swans, and the harrowing accounts of life in the laogai

1571
by Zhang Xianling and Harry Wu filled out pictures for me. I should say at this point that Harry Wu has been the guest of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, as have other human rights workers from China, including Dr. Zhang Xianling, about whom I shall say more later.
A good summary account of the whole range of human rights abuses in China is given by Amnesty International's recent well-written book, No One Is Safe, mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. The extent and nature of torture in China and other countries is also described by Amnesty International in its other publication this year, suitably entitled A Glimpse of Hell. There is plenty of evidence in both publications testifying to the widespread systematic abuse of human rights to which all noble Lords who have so far spoken have alluded. That should certainly not be tolerated in a permanent member of the Security Council; a signatory, by the fact that it is a member of the United Nations, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, several other United Nations human rights treaties and the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights in 1993.
A fundamental fault—this wholly backs up what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—is that the judiciary is not independent and so the law can be used as a tool of repression. There is no presumption of innocence, as he said, and at present no guaranteed access to lawyers or defending counsel. We wait to see whether the change next year makes any difference. Arrest is arbitrary and trials are often unfair, with extensive use of the death penalty, which is carried out very quickly after a verdict has been reached. "Re-education through labour" in the laogai can be ordered even without a trial.
Two particular abuses, one of which has and one of which has not been mentioned by noble Lords, are, first, violations resulting from the one-child family policy and, secondly, the use, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, described, of organs from executed prisoners for transplants. Unmarried women can be put under enormous pressure, sometimes amounting to physical threats and intimidation, to have an abortion if they become pregnant, as are married women if they have already achieved their "quota". Many pregnancies are concealed. Infanticide of girl babies still occurs. A large but unknown number of babies are abandoned and then taken to orphanages.
It is possible that conditions in those institutions have improved since Dr. Zhang Xianling's exposure last year of the very high mortality rates in those orphanages. I very much hope that things have improved but we do not know for certain because the statistics which were available are no longer published. Couples are not allowed to adopt abandoned children unless it can be proved that both parents are dead. If it was allowed the need for those institutions would greatly diminish. I do not want to imply that a population policy in China was not necessary—of course it was—and, in keeping numbers down, it has worked, except in certain ethnic minority areas. But I feel that an equal success—perhaps an even greater success—could have been achieved with
1572
a more humane approach. However, there are some welcome signs that the rigid application of the one-child family policy is now being relaxed.
To add a little to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, it could be held that, in a country with a high rate of executions of relatively young and fit people it would be a waste not to use their organs for transplantation if the prisoner or a relative agrees. However, Amnesty International says that organs rarely come from executed prisoners after consultation with their families, although that is the law in China. In some cases it is felt that the imposition and timing of the death penalty may be influenced by the need for organs for transplantation, a point which was much more fully demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. Those noble Lords who watched the recent television drama "A Fragile Heart" will know what a bitterly resented practice that is in China and that at least a large part of the medical profession in China are aware of it. That is one of many reasons why Amnesty International advocates the early ending of the death penalty in China.
I have left very little time to talk about Tibet. It has been well covered by other speakers but I should like to point out that the Dalai Lama has said that he no longer insists on complete independence for Tibet. He is prepared to enter negotiations with a free agenda on the basis of a suitable degree of autonomy and the restoration of religious, political and cultural freedom. Incidentally, that is refused by the Chinese Government.
Many might feel that because China is so vast and economically so important, especially now that most favoured nation status has been granted, it can ignore criticism of its human rights record. However, China is sensitive to criticism despite its denials and bluster. Chinese human rights workers plead for maximum publicity in the Western media of the true situation in China. That, I suggest, and a possible change of attitude by the Chinese Government after Deng Xiaoping's departure, is the best guarantee of progress in the future. I hope that in diplomatic contacts and at the United Nations the Government will challenge China whenever there is evidence that it is violating the principles to which it is a signatory.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing this debate. Since we last debated the subject two things have happened. The Dalai Lama has indeed visited us—he visited us last July—and a delegation from the Chinese Embassy also visited us on 3rd December. The purpose of that visit was to correct the information supplied to us by the Dalai Lama. The Chinese wished to tell us of the true state of affairs of Tibet in their eyes. That visit persuaded me that the Tibetan relationship is more complicated than I had earlier supposed. I can only address it now with clarity if I look at history as well as human rights.
People who say that Tibet has always been independent of China are misinformed. If I may put a gloss on what my noble friend Lord Belhaven has just said, Tibet was independent until about 850 AD. It was

1573
then overrun, as was everywhere else, by Genghis Khan and the Mongol hoards. Then, as the Mongol power declined, Chinese power grew. By the 13th century Tibet was a part of China. And that dependence lasted for 600 years, until the 19th century. Then the Chinese Empire collapsed, and other nations circled vulture-like over the rotting corpse of it and we each picked up a part of its territory. The Russians got some, as did the Japanese, the French, the Germans and the British.
We gained a sphere of influence stretching westward from Shanghai 1,000 miles up the Yangtze Valley and we gained also Tibet which we declared autonomous. In 1904 we invaded Tibet, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, under Younghusband, and the Dalai Lama fled. Interestingly enough, he fled to China. Then there followed the famous treaty between ourselves and the Tibetans, recognising its independence. That is the treaty the Tibetans quote when they talk of our special relationship and our responsibility to them. However, in 1906 we made another clandestine treaty with China recognising its suzerainty over Tibet. That we made without Tibetan agreement, which is a shameful piece of British history.
In 1911 we attempted tripartite talks with both China and Tibet, recognising Tibet as autonomous but under Chinese suzerainty. The Chinese would not ratify this, so we just brushed that aside and said that Tibet was independent. So it was to remain for the next 40 years. Tibet did have her own culture, her own language, her own religion and her own troops. There were border skirmishes between those troops and the Chinese troops and she banished all Chinese from her territory. But now we come to the awful events of the 1950s, and it is no longer possible to separate history out from human rights because that is the start, in my mind, of the true rape of Tibet.
The Chinese, when they saw us, claimed to have liberated Tibet from a brutal regime of slavery and torture. But of course the slavery and torture that they themselves inflicted was far worse, particularly from 1959 onwards when they imposed their own military dictatorship and set about destroying monasteries, religion and the entire civilisation.
Just two weeks back, when the First Secretary of the Chinese Embassy addressed the all-party parliamentary Tibet group, he told us how the Chinese had modernised Tibet: they had built schools and hospitals; there was no imprisonment except for criminals; and there was positively no torture. He gave us books which illustrated the brutality of the old regime. There is a page illustrating the old instruments of torture. Strangely, they are pretty well exactly the same as the modern Chinese instruments of torture which have been demonstrated to us by Tibetan monks.
Just suppose that we give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt and concede that the old regime was worse than the present one, how do we explain, for instance, the mass exodus of Tibetans to India in the 1950s? Why, for instance, did they find it necessary to form an entire government in exile? Why, indeed, did the Dalai Lama flee to Dharamsala in 1959? Surely that happened
1574
because the whole Tibetan religion and culture had been to such an extent that no one in Tibet was even allowed to own a picture of the Dalai Lama.
Chinese atrocities against Tibetans have been mentioned many times in this House and again this evening, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Regarding the Dalai Lama's position as spiritual head, the First Secretary, to my surprise, told us that he is the spiritual head and that he can visit Tibet at any time. Indeed, he was rather surprised that he had not been there. However, the First Secretary told us also that Dalai Lamas in general were no more than Chinese placemen, chosen by drawing lots from a golden urn in Beijing. Actually, it is conceded that the present Dalai Lama was not so chosen. Instead, China sent a delegate, Mr. Wu Zhonxin, to Tibet in 1940 when the Dalai Lama was only six years old. The delegate exempted him from the lottery process, but all other Lamas—both Dalai and Panchen—are chosen by the Chinese. They have been for hundreds of years, so the Chinese assure us, and so they also assured my noble friend Lord Belhaven.
That flies in the face of all that we have learnt regarding holy men having visions and studying reflections in a sacred lake; of the old Dalai Lama dreaming of the physical appearance of the new one; and of searches throughout the land for the child that is the reincarnation of the true Tibetan God. It is an awesome and mystical process. It is far removed from the Chinese golden urn which more resembles, I submit, a glorified tombola.
So how do we progress? I suggest that we must clear the muddy waters by disregarding everything that happened before 1951. It is complicated; it is open to several interpretations; and the British are not blameless. If we can limit our arguments to human rights issues of the past 40 years, we will at least see the wood for the trees. We may achieve that measure of cultural independence for Tibet that we all seek. We may end the persecution and torture of monks. We may even tear away the mask of Chinese liberation to reveal the true face of Chinese subjugation.
The Chinese First Secretary gave me a book called The Social History of Tibet. In it, I found the following:
"In 1954 the 14th Dalai Lama presented Chairman Mao with the Wheel of Dharma inscribed with this message:
'When attending the First National Peoples' Congress as Tibetan delegate I, the Dalai Lama, offered respectfully, according to the Tibetan Politico Religious Convention, this golden wheel of Dharma to Chairman Mao, great leader of all nationalities of China, to express our best wishes"'.
What a load of nonsense. May it please the Chinese never to inflict such an indignity on his Holiness again.
We must continue to press the Chinese on every occasion to recognise simply that the Tibetans are as different from the Chinese as chalk is from cheese. We must press them to respect their culture and we must press them to give Tibet autonomy and to grant Tibetans their freedom.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, we all agree that the only leverage that well intentioned governments have in

1575
relation to China at present is in the realm of public relations. It is vital to continue to keep the facts in front of the eyes of the world. We owe a great debt to those organisations which are committed to that and which are doing the job extremely well.
I should like, with your Lordships' indulgence, to limit my remarks to the rather specialised question of the confusion in the minds of not only peoples, but also of governments, about the status of Tibet in relation to China. It may sound a very dry-as-dust aspect—perhaps it is—but it is important because in international fora the policies of governments and what governments say is to a great extent determined by their view on status. Perhaps I should apologise now because I shall probably be unable to remain until the end of the debate due to a long-standing engagement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, told us, we put the word "suzerainty" into international circulation. It places on us a certain responsibility to make it quite clear in all fora that we can, such as the United Nations Assembly or Human Rights Commission, that the use of that word in the past has in no way qualified the British Government's continuously held view that the Tibetan people have the right, and have always had the right, of self-government and self-determination, as demanded by successive United Nations resolutions. With respect to the useful survey which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, gave us—he did not come to this point in the chapter—the British position on the status of Tibet was defined by Anthony Eden as Foreign Secretary in 1943 when he said that Britain was prepared—I emphasise the word "prepared"—to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet provided—again, I emphasise the word "provided"—that Tibet was treated as autonomous. The accepted meaning of "autonomy" is total internal self-government. The Chinese Government never accepted that proviso.
It has remained, of course, the view of successive British Governments that the Tibetan people have the right to govern themselves, as they always did until the Chinese invasion of 1950. That invasion is etched in my mind with particular force because I happened to have the responsibility in New Delhi on the day or so after the invasion of trying to find out from the Government of India what position they were going to take over that invasion.
Other western governments have tended to regard the United Kingdom as having the deepest and most authoritative knowledge of the issue of Tibet's status because of our close ties and responsibilities in the past. They did not question our use of the word "suzerainty"—to which, however, we have never been committed—as applying to Tibet because of the Chinese failure to accept our proviso. I need hardly say to your Lordships that the Chinese interpretation under the communist government of the meaning of the word "autonomy" is very different from that of any free government.
1576
In conclusion, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the view that Sir Algernon Rumbold put on record in The Times in 1993. He was acknowledged as the best informed senior official on Tibetan affairs in Whitehall for many years. He wrote:
"Confusion remains about the history of Tibet's status. The Foreign Office appear to base their policy on China's claim that 'Tibet has always been part of China'. This is geographically, racially, culturally and politically false. Historically Chinese Governments exercised some influence in Tibet only occasionally and for brief periods.
There is also continuing muddle about suzerainty. We regarded Tibet as de facto independent. But we were ready to recognise China's suzerainty on the understanding that the Chinese accepted Tibet's autonomy …
As no Chinese Government accepted Tibet's autonomy … the British Government never accepted China's 'special position—.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing this interesting debate from which I have already learned a great deal. For clarification, I assume that we are not talking about the 15,000 bears held in small cages quite inhumanely and without any rights, as I read in this morning's papers, but about man's inhumanity to man.
I make three points. The first relates to a topic that I do not believe has been mentioned: birth control policy. It is right and proper that a country like China should have such a policy, and I heartily approve of it. But one must remember that there is no method of birth control that is completely successful. Breaches of that policy when extra children are born should not make the parents subject to sanctions and heavy fines. In China, if a couple are unable to pay the fine, their home may be demolished. If they are state employees they may be dismissed from their jobs. Family planning groups are likely to visit such couples in the middle of the night to increase the intimidation.
I give an example from Amnesty International. A single woman who adopted her brother's child because he had too many children was detained several times. On one occasion she was held for seven days in an attempt to force her brother and his wife to pay more fines. She was taken to the county government office and locked in a basement room with 12 or 13 other people, both women and men. She was reportedly blindfolded, stripped naked and, with her hands tied behind her back, beaten with an electric baton. Several of those detained with her were suspended above the ground and beaten; some were detained for several weeks. That is a breach of human rights, and the method by which birth control policy is administered is a matter of international concern.
One old Chinese practice I have not read about recently is that whereby, if the one child that is permitted is a female, it can be left outside the home either to die or to be picked up by someone else. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can say whether that practice continues.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne spoke about the persecution of Christians. In the second half of November of this year approximately 80 underground

1577
Roman Catholics around the city of Linchuan were arrested without warrant, beaten and gaoled. Their crime was their loyalty and obedience to the Pope and their refusal to join the official church created by the communist government to replace the previous official Roman Catholic Church. An enormous number of other Christians suffer the same persecution because of their loyalty and obedience to the person of Jesus Christ himself.
There are many other examples of suffering caused to the underground Roman Catholic Church. Near Hebei, eight Roman Catholic nuns were recently arrested and gaoled while on a religious retreat. Hundreds of other Catholics have been arrested and fined. Frequently, they are told in no uncertain terms that unless their children renounce Catholicism they will be dismissed from schools. That is an intolerable situation.
I refer to the unease of the Chinese Government. This goes right to the top. A high party official in Beijing recently muttered,
"If God had the face of a 70 year-old man, we wouldn't care if he was back: hut he has the face of millions of 20 year-olds, so we are very worried".
The Chinese Government worry about the enormous spread of Christianity throughout China. The point was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne. This is a cause of great worry. Local party cadres are often given arrest quotas for their areas. Christians are soft targets if the quota needs to be filled. Police have dished out rough justice, believing that they have carte blanche in their methods so long as they get results. Consequently, many arrested Christians have been severely beaten. One Bible distributor in Hunan province was hung upside down and beaten with iron pipes. A local Christian leader said,
"Right now the police think they can do whatever they like, and many of them are giving in to bloodlust and abusing prisoners".
These are breaches of human rights of which the world needs to take note. I hope that the Government will continue to press for a cessation of breaches of human rights and for monitors to be admitted. It is very important that that is done while at the same time we aim to improve our relations with China. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will provide us with comfort on those points.
7.36 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should like to speak about one particular facet of the very wide area covered by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I refer to the aspects of population and reproductive health. I do not aim to give a rounded view on human rights generally in China. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the way in which he introduced the debate. I believe that he has given the Minister who is to reply an extremely difficult task in covering a very wide range of subjects, in spite of the latter's prodigious skills at the Dispatch Box.
For over 10 years I have been vice-chairman of the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health. Over the years I have been aware of the enormous issues, problems and dilemmas raised
1578
by the very size of China's population. The figure of 1.2 billion is almost incomprehensible. We should be aware not only of the size of the population but the potential for future increase.
We have all heard about cases of coercion and abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, have touched on this matter this evening. Part of the matter to be assessed is the prevalence and extent of the practices that we criticise. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, quite properly gave an example quoted by Amnesty International, but it must be put into the context of an extraordinary population of 1.2 billion. We must try to understand what is and what is not officially allowed and assess what is happening.
No one I have met in the population field in this country supports coercion. In her absence today, perhaps I may say that I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the ODA have been scrupulous in reiterating their opposition to coercion. Both I and the all-party group on population have condemned instances of coercion, forced abortion and abuses within China and I am no apologist for that country. Those actions can never be justified. However, I am aware of the huge and almost unimaginable size of the population, the massive inertia in social conditioning and traditions of the past, for example relating to the status of women.
I was glad to hear the right reverend Prelate taking a more historical perspective in his speech. At one point he talked about long traditions. We can and, in my opinion, should attempt to have a continuing dialogue, but should also acknowledge the scale and difficulty of what we are trying to contribute to.
One of the main points that I am addressing today is the support that we give to two organisations that work in China: the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The UNFPA organised the highly successful international Cairo conference in 1994 on population and development. China was a party to and influenced the final communiqué from that conference, containing principles and a programme of action for the future.
I understand that the UNFPA is currently negotiating a new programme of support for China, based on the principles of human rights upheld in the Cairo declaration; in other words, the UNFPA is not just throwing money into China but is considering fully the basis upon which its, in my opinion valuable, support is to be given.
The IPPF has also been working in China for many years. Again, we are right to examine what is being done on our behalf and with our financial support. Recently we have been fortunate to have an up-to-date, independent report, which was commissioned by the ODA, on the China Family Planning Association. Because I agree largely with its analysis, perhaps I may quote at some length the Written Answer of Dr. LI am Fox, in another place, to the chairman of our all-party population group, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton Brown on 21st November. The Written Answer states:
"The China Family Planning Association is one of the many affiliates with whom IPPF works and we have been keen to know more about the difference IPPF, and CFPA, have been able to make to reproductive choice in China. The Overseas Development

1579
Administration therefore recently commissioned a review of the role of IPPF in China and its work with the CFPA. A copy of the consultants' report has been placed in the Library".
That is, the Library of another place. The Written Answer continues:
"We regard this examination, led on ODA's behalf by a highly respected and authoritative expert in the population field, as an informed, balanced and realistic assessment. It concludes that IPPF has been able to play an effective and invaluable role in influencing CFPA in the development of the kind of activities and role that we would expect of a non-governmental organisation. However, we should recognise that there is still clearly a long way to go".
That last sentence shows how balanced the report is. It acknowledges that progress is slow and painstaking. It does not lead us to expect some sudden transformation.
My final sentence is:
"We accept the review's conclusion that the influence of IPPF has been a force for positive change, and that the continued involvement of IPPF in China will be beneficial in helping CFPA further. These conclusions support our long-held view that it is better that organisations such as IPPF should be engaged and working to influence from within, and is the course that we believe most likely to produce the outcomes that we all seek".— [Official Report, Commons, 21/11/96; col.671.]
That final sentence sums up the position of many of us in the field. That recommendation of continuing to work and influence the Chinese from within and by dialogue, applies equally to the UNFPA. I hope that the Government will continue to support that process by those two organisations.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we cannot conclude this debate without considering the defence that is put forward by the People's Republic of China of its human rights record. It says that it has climbed three big mountains of its history: aggressive imperialism of the nature touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey; oppressive feudalism from its past; and bureaucrat-capitalism. It argues that the rights to life and liberty and security of person, which are outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are meaningless without the prime right—the right to subsistence.
In a paper published in November 1991, Human Rights in China, the Chinese Government contended that, although standards of living were rising, China was still a developing country with limited resources and a huge population, where social turmoil could threaten that right to subsistence. To assert the primacy of the right to subsistence to which all other rights are subordinate, is for it an expression of the sovereignty of the Chinese people.
There is a temptation for many people to ask whether it may be right: whether we have anything to do with China; why should we interfere? Do we not have enough on our plate? To people who have that self-doubt are added the mercantile voices, "Don't do anything to upset China; don't do anything to affect our competitive position in that country; don't make the position of Hong Kong even more vulnerable than it is". I hope that we hear nothing of that sort from the Minister tonight.
1580
I am wholly persuaded to the contrary. China must understand that we shall publicise and continue to criticise violations of human rights wherever they may take place. Torture, as an instrument of oppression, is no less objectionable when it is practised in an undeveloped country than it is in an advanced democracy. Political views, political systems, are meaningless and immaterial. What matters is that torture takes place.
China must be called to account for a number of reasons. First, as some noble Lords have already said, it seeks to play a leading role in the affairs of the UN as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council; secondly, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, pointed out, China is a state party to seven UN treaties, it has crucially failed to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is the very instrument upon which the Hong Kong Bill of Rights is based.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of some of the provisions: Article 14 guarantees the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, established by law; Article 17 protects privacy, family and home; Article 18 declares the right of every person to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to which so many noble Lords have referred tonight; Article 6 protects the right to life; and Article 7 forbids torture. Why does not China ratify that convention?
Beyond that, China blocks criticism in the UN by procedural methods. Where a state seeks to strut the stage of world affairs, it cannot pick and choose those standards of international behaviour which it will obey and those which it will not. It cannot cloak itself in the robe of sovereignty to avoid international responsibilities. It cannot moan about past imperialism when it practises a tyrannical imperium over Tibet.
Human rights are universal. They do not depend upon race, creed, the state of economic development, or the number of citizens who are involved. But our right to intervene derives, above all, from the fact that it is a state that denies to its own citizens the right to criticise its institutions and its legal system. It cannot complain if others step in and speak for them. My noble friend Lord Avebury referred to Wang Dan, the history student who was arrested in June 1989 and spent three and a half years in prison for counter revolutionary propaganda and incitement after the Tiananmen Square incident. He was released early in 1993, just as President Clinton was considering the renewal of the most favoured nation status. He was rearrested in May 1995. What was his offence? It was obtaining a scholarship for a correspondence course at Berkeley, publishing anti-government criticism abroad and raising money for dissidents. He was held incommunicado for 17 months and sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. On 11 th November, only last month, his appeal was dismissed at a hearing from which foreign observers and journalists were excluded. Neither he nor his counsel were permitted to address the court during a 10-minute hearing. We have a responsibility to speak for him now because he can no longer speak for himself. These are

1581
our days; these are our times; these are people of our generation who are in China. Today we are the bearers of that torch.
Perhaps I may focus in particular upon the horror of public executions in China. I have already referred to Article 6 of the ICCPR, which provides that sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes. When the Cultural Revolution abolished law there were only some 750 lawyers left for a population of 1.2 billion. The first five statutes of criminal law that were reintroduced in 1979 and 1980 were reintroduced in order to deal with the Gang of Four. They have increased to 200-odd. The death penalty was originally enacted for 21 offences but that has now increased to an estimated 68 offences.
During the first half of 1995 Amnesty International monitored executions for crimes from murder and manslaughter to prostitution, pornography, hooliganism, corruption, fraud, profiteering, tax evasion and dealing in antique relics. In 1995 it recorded more than 2,000 executions. Whether the death penalty is imposed for less serious crimes is quite arbitrary. If the petty criminal is there at the wrong time the bullet bears his name.
On 28th April this year a nationwide anti-crime campaign was launched. It was termed the "Yan-da", or "strike hard", campaign. Between then and 27th June, Amnesty recorded 1,014 confirmed death sentences, over 800 of which were immediately executed. In all probability there were many more than that.
The 1983 legislation, which has been introduced as part of this particular campaign, provides for summary trials and executions. Prisoners can be tried without warning, without being given a copy of the charges and without notification to their lawyers. Instead of the Supreme Court deciding to ratify a death penalty, it can now be confirmed by that summary procedure in a provincial court. Jilian Radio, monitored by the BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, described a case in May of this year when a man was executed by a firing squad only seven days after the commission of the offence. That is trial, appeal and so on within that period of time.
On 17th June, the President of Beijing High People's Court was reported in the Beijing Legal Daily as stating that those to be sentenced to death in the campaign were not only those guilty of the most serious crimes but also those whose crimes "seriously endanger public order", such as repeat offenders. No doubt in this House we shall be considering that matter at some later time. The Chief Justice in Beijing referred with pride specifically to a petty thief executed for stealing the equivalent of £120 because his gang had committed 14 such crimes in public places over a period of three months. What is the quality of the evidence upon which those convictions are based? The culture in China is of torture to obtain a confession. Practitioners in Hong Kong are only too wearily familiar with the allegations which are made of misbehaviour and which are investigated at length.
It is hard to believe that just across the border from Hong Kong, in Shenzen and in two other cities in Guangdong province, 62 people were executed six weeks ago on 30th October at mass public rallies. The
1582
noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to them. They were exhibited on stages with boards around their necks stating the nature of their crimes, harangued and then shot.
We cannot simply wring our hands in despair. China is anxious for trade, for investment and for assistance in development. The British Government have a duty, together with other UN member states, to pressurise China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and abide by it; to grant UN human rights officials unrestricted access to monitor trials and prisons; to end confessions extracted by torture; and to cease the obscenity of public executions for less than serious crime.
As for ourselves, we should ensure that asylum seekers are not returned to China and that their claims are fairly and justly assessed. We have an expectation that our Government should demonstrate to the international community that they will retain for Britain in a way consistent with its traditions their approach to the granting of asylum. We cannot hide behind sovereignty a mean-spirited avoidance of our own obligations. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Avebury for bringing this fascinating and important topic to your Lordships' attention.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is some time since we debated the topic and I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing it. Unfortunately, I do not believe that we can record a great deal of progress since our last discussion despite the fact that there have been some positive changes to the law in China. The problem is that legal change is no guarantee of respect for human rights. Political intervention by the Chinese Government when it suits happens from time to time. There have been what used to be called "show trials" designed to deter dissent, as in the recent case of Wang Dan, to whom other speakers have referred, the former student leader who was both arbitrarily and illegally detained for 17 months without charge and recently sentenced to 11 years for doing what would be allowed in any civilised country; that is, standing up and criticising his government.
We should be concerned about human rights in China more than in any other country simply because one-fifth of the world's population lives there. But we should also be concerned about it because of the growing importance of China as a world power. Other speakers have mentioned its permanent membership of the Security Council. Of course, China wants recognition as a key member of the international community and because of that it is acutely sensitive about human rights. It attempts to block both criticism and scrutiny of its record. It has from time to time tried to silence Amnesty International and other critics. It is important that all countries, including the UK, wishing to increase trade with China, should not see that as a reason for backing down from continuing to exert pressure on its human rights record. We must remember that it is also in China's interests that it should increase its trade with us and other members of the European Union.

1583
We should also remind ourselves that the abuse of laws by officials, the manipulation of courts by politicians and widespread corruption are not conducive to a business environment in which trade will flourish. Nor in the long run will political repression do very much for the maintenance of a successful market economy.
Before saying something about the rather awful catalogue of human rights violations in China, perhaps I may ask the Minister when the Government last criticised China's human rights record. Moreover, does the Minister believe that quiet diplomacy has achieved any significant improvements?
A number of aspects of human rights have been raised in the debate which are a cause for concern: the denial of basic political freedom to criticise the government; religious repression and the repression of ethnic minorities; the use of barbaric treatment of offenders, including torture and detention without trial; excessive use of capital punishment; the maltreatment of children in orphanages; the use of organ transplants; and the use of child labour. I do not have time to cover all those matters but I wish to pick out one or two of them.
Sadly, it is not possible in China today to call for democratic reform without risking arrest or being held without charge and eventually being sentenced to terms in prison or labour camps. And yet formally the Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association. Regrettably, in practice, the position is rather different.
From time to time the Chinese Government seem to suffer from what I can only describe as paranoia which leads them to ignore their own laws and to lock up people simply for signing letters which call for political and social reform. Amnesty International has documented many such cases although I do not have time to deal with them. Regrettably, as other noble Lords have said, there are still many political prisoners in China today.
The right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, have said something about religious persecution. There is meant to be tolerance towards religious minorities in China. There are, I believe, five officially recognised religions and there has been a quite significant religious revival over the past 15 or so years. However, members of groups which are not officially recognised by the authorities are often harassed and sometimes even detained. From time to time crackdowns take place against people who are simply trying peacefully to exercise their right of freedom of religion.
Ethnic minorities have been badly treated in China. In a recent case, ethnic Mongol intellectuals tried to set up groups to promote human rights in their region. They were charged with forming counter-revolutionary organisations and of leaking state secrets. It all has a rather nasty Stalinist ring about it.
1584
Similar treatment has been handed out to young ethnic Uigurmen. Young people of only 18 or 19 in that minority group have been sent to prison for as long as 10 or 15 years accused of setting up what the authorities call counter-revolutionary organisations.
All three groups—political dissenters and ethnic and religious minorities—have also been subjected to very harsh treatment which would be intolerable in any system that paid more than lip service to freedom of expression. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, torture is apparently not uncommon. There was the recent example of Chen Longde, a prisoner of conscience, who, having been tortured, kicked, and hit with an electric baton, attempted to commit suicide.
I understand that as long ago as 1988 China ratified the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. Too many trials take place without proper charges being put and without an opportunity for a proper defence to be conducted.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the excessive use of capital punishment in China—capital punishment for crimes which in most other countries would be dealt with by terms of imprisonment. An Amnesty International report not only indicated that more than 2,000 people were executed in 1995 but also referred to the fact that on what the Chinese Government called anti-drugs day last June as many as 679 people were sentenced to death on one day alone.
No other country comes anywhere near that statistic. I believe that Saudi Arabia and Nigeria which, with China, account for 85 per cent. of executions in the world today, carried out only approximately 100 and 200 executions respectively in 1995.
As my noble friend Lord Rea said, it is not only convicted criminals who die at the hands of the state in China. Handicapped children and orphaned and abandoned girls are also dying in unacceptable numbers as a result of maltreatment in orphanages. The rather grim catalogue of human rights violations does not seem to have led to sufficient condemnation of China by the international community. Does the Minister accept that that is the case?
I began with China because it perhaps makes it easier to understand the situation in Tibet. But having described the Chinese situation, I do not in any way wish to give the impression that that excuses the treatment meted out to Tibet by the Chinese Government. We have seen countless examples of religious and cultural repression there. There are frequent petty denials of Tibetan autonomy; for example, the fairly recent refusal by the Chinese authorities to allow the Tibetans to display pictures of the Dalai Lama. Other noble Lords have referred to the extraordinary way in which the Chinese have behaved in relation to the Panchen Lama.
It is rather perplexing that the Chinese resort to such crude tactics. I cannot believe that they are so unsophisticated that they believe that such tactics will work in Tibet. Indeed, hostility towards China remains

1585
undiminished there after the destruction of more than 1,000 monasteries over the past 40 years and the killing of, it is estimated, more than one million Tibetans during that period.
I do not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, who called for the independence of Tibet. Nor do I wish to become involved in arguments about the definition of suzerainty. However, there is surely a need to remind the Chinese that repression of that proud people is not consistent with their autonomy. Again, perhaps I may ask the Minister to tell the House when the UK Government last took up the matter with the Chinese. Perhaps the Minister will comment on why the President of the Board of Trade failed to raise the matter with the Chinese authorities when he was in Beijing earlier this year.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will indicate that the Government and the international community intend to press the Chinese Government not just for improvements in their human rights record but also for a greater willingness to allow them to be monitored. Of course we want to trade with China and, of course, we accept that China is an important and powerful member of the international community. However, what the Chinese Government must understand is that, if they wish to take their full place as a respected and accepted member of that community, they must stop violating the human rights of their citizens.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed by other speakers to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising the question of the human rights situation in China, particularly in Tibet, and providing us with the opportunity to debate the matter. It has enabled me to set out our policies and allows the wider world to know the view of your Lordships' House on the matter.
I should like to start with some general comments. Obviously we are deeply concerened about reports of human rights violations wherever they may occur. We believe that human rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. They are not just western standards; they apply to all countries and regions. All governments have a moral and legal obligation to their citizens to protect these rights. That concept is enshrined in the United Nations Charter under Articles 55 and 56. At the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, China accepted the universality of human rights and the legitimacy of international debate.
The subject of human rights is no longer viewed as it was by some in the past as a form of interference in a country's domestic affairs. The United Kingdom has rightly taken a leading role in the promotion of international standards in this area. We believe that the best way to do so is through a process of constructive engagement at every level. We pursue that approach bilaterally with countries whose human rights performance concern us, and also in international fora, such as the United Nations, where we work closely with European Union partners and other like-minded governments.
1586
I should now like to concentrate on the specific area under focus in this debate. I shall divide my comments into two parts: first, I shall deal with China; and, secondly, I shall deal with Tibet. Recent events in China have once again focused international attention on the human rights situation in the country. We have followed these events with concern, in particular the continuing arrest and imprisonment of dissidents and increased regulation over religious practice.
We believe that the best way to approach the question of human rights in China is through a process of constructive engagement with the Chinese authorities, along the lines that I mentioned earlier. On the basis of our experience, we believe that that is in fact the most effective way of getting results. We regularly raise the issue of human rights in China, both at bilateral and at multilateral levels.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this question in depth in meetings with senior Chinese leaders during his visit to China in January. The Foreign Secretary also raised the issue with Foreign Minister Qian Qichen during their meeting in The Hague in April. Most recently my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Hanley, discussed the human rights situation in China with Vice-Foreign Minister Wang Yingfan during his visit to China in September and with Vice-Premier Li Lanqing in London last month, on 5th November.
Mr. Hanley raised the specific issues of freedom of speech and the detention of individuals on the basis of their political and religious views. In that context, he referred specifically to the case of Wang Dan and the situation in Tibet. He urged the Chinese authorities to make progress on such issues and encouraged China to accede to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We were particularly deeply concerned to hear about Wang Dan's imprisonment and the failure of his appeal on 18th November. We have made statements both bilaterally and with the European Union calling on the Chinese to show clemency and to allow Wang Dan's early release.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon led a human rights mission to China in late 1992. As well as presenting a list of cases of concern to the Chinese authorities, the delegation held meetings with officials from legal, security, Communist Party, religious and academic organisations and met representatives of national minority groups. The delegation's report made a number of practical recommendations concerning such issues as safeguards on the use of compulsory labour in prisons, more sparing use of the death penalty, the early abolition of all forms of administrative detention and clarification of regulations on registration of religious sites. It is with regret that the Chinese authorities have failed to take forward exchanges within the framework of my noble and learned friend's mission, but we are continuing to urge them to make progress on the issues raised by it.

1587
We also work with European Union partners and other countries to raise the issue of human rights in China. The EU and the United States have in recent years jointly sponsored a resolution on the situation of human rights in China at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. We also support EU human rights exchanges with China and participate in EU representations to the Chinese authorities on such issues as the imprisonment of dissidents, as we did most recently in the case of Wang Dan.
In our exchanges with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and with our EU partners, we have urged the Chinese Government to take real steps to improve the human rights situation in China, including Tibet. As I mentioned, we have encouraged China to accede to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. China is already a party to a number of international human rights instruments such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ratified by them in 1988) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have encouraged China to open further its system to the outside world. In November/December 1994 the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance visited China at the invitation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs International Organisations Department. The UN Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution have also reported on China, although it is a matter of real regret that they have not been invited to visit the country. We continue to encourage China to take measures to improve human rights related legislation in accordance with international standards and to adopt measures to ensure the right to freedom of expression and association.
While the human rights situation in China remains an issue of deep concern, China has made progress in a number of fields. As has been mentioned, in the legal sphere there has been progress in the introduction of new criminal legislation. On 1st January 1997, a revision of the "Criminal Procedure Law" will come into force which should offer defendants improved protection. Measures include earlier access to legal representation; an expanded role for lawyers during a trial; and an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Other new legislation includes a lawyer's law, a law on prisons and a judge's law. While we recognise that there are shortcomings with these new laws—some significant—and there is still more to be done in this area, we welcome these developments as a step in the right direction.
The new legislation comes at a time when the Chinese leadership is placing a greater emphasis on the importance of the "rule of law" and it should have the effect of more clearly codifying legal practice in China. We have encouraged exchanges which promote co-operation in this field: one important example is the Young Lawyers Training Scheme, supported by the Bar Council and the Law Society, which gives Chinese lawyers the opportunity to come to Britain to study and to gain practical experience of our legal system.
1588
Participants in the scheme have expressed their enthusiasm at being given this chance. The Great Britain-China Centre is promoting similar programmes, including one in relation to prison management. Among our EU partners we understand that the Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden has signed an agreement with the Judicial Research Institute of China to promote co-operation in the field of human rights and humanitarian law. However, we recognise that Chinese practice still needs considerable improvement and we shall be watching carefully to see how the new rules are applied in practice.
We also welcome and encourage co-operation to improve the care of orphans and disabled children in China. We have welcomed an announcement by UNICEF that it had reached an agreement with the Chinese Government to start a programme to assist the orphanages most at risk and to help improve rehabilitation programmes for physically disabled children. As well as contributing to UNICEF, the Overseas Development Administration has also given assistance to British non-governmental organisations working in China. One is run by the Save the Children Fund for refurbishing a kindergarten in Anhui Province which supports both able and mentally and physically disabled children. We have also provided support to Health Unlimited for a training programme for mother and child health workers.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the question of torture. Reports of the use of torture are a cause of particular concern. We condemn the practice wherever it takes place and raise our concerns with the Chinese bilaterally through the European Union and at multilateral fora. At the 52nd United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the EU called on China to co-operate with the Special Rapporteur on Torture. We shall continue to look to China to fulfil its obligations as a party to the UN Convention Against Torture.
The question of religion and freedom of worship was raised. Again, this is a basic human right. Reports of the harassment and detention of individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs in China, including Tibet, are a cause of concern. We continue to urge the Chinese authorities to look upon religious freedom as fulfilling a basic human need and not as a threat. Equally, cases of the ill-treatment of minority groups, including religious believers in ethnic communities, are also of concern to us. We have stressed to the authorities the need to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identity of minority groups, obviously including the Tibetans.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we shall urge Presidents Clinton and Chirac to pay greater attention to human rights in China. As the noble Lord will know, we maintain regular contact with the United States and France on a range of international issues. They and other countries within the European Union and elsewhere share our concern about the human rights situation. A number of noble Lords—I think particularly of my noble friend Lord Brentford, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea—spoke about population policies. We recognise the Chinese Government's concern about the spiralling Chinese

1589
population. However, we consider that family planning should be based on voluntary and informed choice. We are deeply concerned about reports of the use of coercive Chinese family planning practices.
The two international bodies involved in family planning in China are the International Planned Parent Federation and the United Nations Population Fund, as has been described. Both those organisations strongly hack the principle, reaffirmed by the International Conference on Population in Cairo in 1994, that coercion has no place in family planning programmes and that all couples should be able to plan their families on the basis of free and informed choice. In recent years they have been among the most outspoken international critics of coercion.
We provide no direct assistance on family planning in China, but as part of this country's multilateral assistance we give core contributions to the IPPF and UNFPA. We know that these organisations have a positive impact on reproductive health policy and practices in China. To withdraw support would serve no useful purpose. Indeed, it might reduce the pressure on China to adopt more enlightened policies. Both the IPPF and the UNFPA strongly oppose all forms of coercion in this area. The UNFPA's assistance to China has included the introduction of safer contraceptives and projects to improve mother and child healthcare. The IPPF provides technical and financial assistance to the family planning association of China, especially for information and educational work. Both organisations use their involvement in China and their international status to encourage China to adopt more enlightened family planning policies.
My noble friend Lord Brentford talked about the possible exposure of baby girls. There is clear evidence of imbalance in numbers between male and female babies. However, I understand that sentiment in China's big cities is beginning to change. Baby girls are sometimes preferred to boys because they are thought to cause less trouble. Traditional attitudes are more prevalent in the countryside where people place more emphasis on the need for strong arms to guide the plough. International non-governmental organisations in China are running programmes to promote respect for girl children. We welcome this and will continue to encourage them.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to conditions in prisons in China. We are still deeply concerned about conditions in prisons, particularly for those detained for political or religious beliefs. Estimates of the number of prisoners concerned vary by a factor of 10 and reliable data are hard to obtain. However, legal procedures and prison conditions were studied in depth by the delegation led by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe which visited China in 1992. We continue to urge Chinese authorities to take action of the sort recommended by the delegation.
A number of noble Lords—I think particularly of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—referred to imports of prison-made goods and the exploitation of labour in the manufacture of toys. The United Kingdom is firmly committed to
1590
international action to combat exploitative and abusive labour practices. The United Kingdom supports the work of the International Labour Organisation which tackles these issues.
Reference was made to Operation Strikehard. I believe that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. We and our European Union partners have made very clear to the Chinese authorities our concern about the widespread use of the death penalty in China and the disregard of international legal safeguards. Under China's current anti-crime campaign, Operation Strikehard, the number of executions is growing, as is the list of crimes punishable by death. The Irish Presidency made a statement to the United Nations General Assembly on 18th November which again raised our concerns about this and other human rights issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, made some chilling remarks about prison organ transplants. Reports of the use of prisoners for organ transplants are a matter of deep concern. The report of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, following his mission in 1992, recommended the formulation of a code of conduct prohibiting the use of organs from executed prisoners for transplant surgery. We have repeatedly urged the Chinese authorities to take up the recommendations of my noble and learned friend, and we shall continue to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne also raised the question of religious freedom. Freedom of worship is a basic human right and reports of the harassment and detention of individuals on the basis of their religious belief in China, including Tibet, is a cause of great worry. We continue to urge the Chinese authorities to look on religious freedom as fulfilling a basic human need, and not as a threat. As I have already mentioned, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance visited China in 1994, and in his report he raised a number of concerns, including restrictions on Christians and Buddhists to practise their religion openly. We look to the Chinese authorities to address the concerns expressed in the special rapporteur's report.
I now wish to turn to the matters raised in connection with Tibet. The question of Tibet is one of great importance. We certainly share the concerns of the House, expressed this evening and on other occasions, over reports of human rights abuses in that region. The importance of status was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He elaborated points made by my noble friends Lord Mersey and Lord Belhaven about that matter. Successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of China there. That continues to be the Government's view. Tibet has never been internationally recognised as independent. But we believe that the Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs in Tibet, and have urged the Chinese authorities to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identity of the Tibetans. In our view the best way forward for Tibet is through dialogue

1591
between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without any preconditions imposed. When the Secretary of State met the Dalai Lama in July, he expressed the hope that this dialogue could be established.
We shall continue to use every appropriate opportunity to raise Tibetan concerns with the Chinese authorities. This includes our concern for the safety of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the boy selected by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, and for the former abbot of Tashilunpho Monastery, Chadrel Rinpoche, who led the search committee for the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama.
A recent statement by the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, during a meeting of the United Nations committee on the rights of the child, gave limited information about Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, but we are anxious to know more than we do now and we have since raised our concerns with the Chinese authorities in Peking and London, and are considering with our European Union partners what further action to take.
The question of religious freedom in Tibet was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. We are deeply concerned about reports of destruction of religious buildings and limits set on numbers of Tibetan Buddhist monks. Religion is central to Tibetan culture and ethnic identity and we shall continue to urge the Chinese authorities to respect that identity.
In conclusion, the human rights situation in China, including Tibet, will remain an important issue for us and in our relations with the Chinese authorities. China, as a geographically vast, developing nation of over 1.2 billion people, is undergoing major social and economic change. These changes will lead to increased domestic pressures for human rights reforms, such as we are seeing in the legal sphere. We do not believe that a policy of isolating China, particularly at this time of change, would help to achieve the sort of progress that I am sure all noble Lords here this evening would wish to see. On the contrary, we believe that isolation could lead to further human rights violations.
Having said that, it is important that China recognises continuing international anxieties, particularly in respect of fundamental political, ethnic and religious freedoms. We shall continue to urge the Chinese authorities and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, to enter into a dialogue without preconditions at the earliest opportunity. The best way to achieve progress is through constructive dialogue and through support programmes, both governmental and non-governmental, of the kinds I described earlier. We will continue to use such contacts to urge the Chinese authorities to take steps to improve the human rights situation in the country, including China's early accession to the international covenants. But we shall not shirk the need to criticise Chinese policies and actions if and when events warrant it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I extend warmest thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part but particularly
1592
to the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who sat through the previous proceedings and who have had rather a long stint on the Bench. I also extend thanks to the right reverend Prelate.
The debate has been useful. It has exposed the wide variety of concerns about human rights that noble Lords feel in relation to the situation in China and Tibet. I hope that the Chinese authorities will take note of the views expressed by so many noble Lords on public executions, excessive use of capital punishment, religious intolerance, compulsory population control, repression in Tibet, and a vast number of other issues such as that of the orphanages. What struck me most forcibly was that the Minister referred a number of times to the recommendations made by his noble and learned friend Lord Howe following his mission to China in 1992, which I re-read shortly before the debate. It hit me that many of the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord had not been acted upon, and the Minister reinforced that impression.
I wonder whether we can give further consideration to the question of access which is, after all, vitally important. As the Minister said, the one rapporteur who has been there is the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance. I do not believe that any of the recommendations he made in 1994 have been acted upon either. When so many pressures have been brought to bear on China to do what it is committed to do by its international obligations and there has been no result from all those contacts and the repeated raising of such matters by Ministers at every level, then we have to do something else.
A number of useful and constructive suggestions were made this evening. There should of course be better reporting. Consumer power, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, could be important, especially in the case of the goods that are made using labour subjected to intolerable conditions. The countering of threats against Disney, the BBC and other agents who report on what is said in China is vitally important. The Minister did not deal with the question that arose in relation to the BBC during the debate. I hope that he may see fit to write to those who mentioned it and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
If the Chinese read this debate, they can be under no illusion that your Lordships and the British people as a whole take the question of human rights in China and Tibet immensely seriously. They want to see China take her rightful place in the world community and assume the role of leadership to which it is fully entitled by its distinguished history and its size in terms of geography and population. China can do that only if it conforms to international rules which guide the rest of the world. I hope that the House will have made a small contribution towards ensuring that that takes place. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Obscenity Bill [H.L.]
8.34 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is concerned with one issue only: how to define the word "obscenity", which reads across to no less than 10 other statutes, possibly more. The word "obscene" has its origins in Latin and literally means "off stage". It was applied, for instance, to the murder of Agamemnon by his wife Clytemnestra in Aeschylus, and to the blinding of Gloucester in Shakespeare's play "King Lear". It was thought that those acts were too violent for an audience to watch in any sort of detail. The word has slightly changed its meaning in modern times. It now stands for almost anything of a rather questionable character. I am concerned tonight with its definition in the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, which give the word its latest and most obscure definition.
I preface my remarks by explaining how I became involved in this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, whom I am sorry not to see in her place, was approached by a working group seeking some kind of parliamentary status. Owing to her many activities she was unable to take that on, but she asked me to stand in for her on this occasion. The working group included some good names: Mr. Charles Colchester, the chief executive of Christian Action Research and Education (CARE), and the Reverend Dr. Clifford Hill for the Centre for Contemporary Ministry. Their names will recur from time to time. They were both known to me. However, I had to remember that I am a member of the all-party committee of both Houses, the Family and Child Protection Group. I therefore approached its chairman, Dame Jill Knight, MP, and asked if I might act for her in responding to the request by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She was agreeable.
I therefore set about providing what might be termed ammunition and rations for the working party: providing it with a secretariat, a room in which to meet and so on. In due course it came up with the report, Violence and Pornography in the Media, which was the subject of a press conference on 25th July. It was accepted on behalf of the all-party committee. I have placed several copies in the Library and given a number of copies to my friends. So much for the history of the matter.
During the course of its sittings, the working party attended an exposition by Superintendent Michael Hoskins of the Metropolitan Police service, I Area Clubs and Vice Unit. We were given a sighting of the sort of pornography we are talking about and for which we need to legislate. I was frankly horrified at the disgusting character of what we saw. I shall not offend your Lordships' imagination by describing it in poetic detail, but it convinced me of the need for a change in the law.
I accordingly sought words with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who very kindly put me in touch with those at the Home Office who deal with the matter. I acquainted them with the fact that, unless the Government took some action, I should take action on
1594
my own. I said that they must include it in the Queen's Speech or I should introduce a Bill myself. In the debate on the loyal Address I told the House that since the matter was not included I should do the job myself. I have been working on it ever since.
The report of the working party showed, through an opinion poll, that the public is increasingly disturbed by the amount of violence and pornography on television. Only a week ago, after the Secretary of State for National Heritage talked to broadcasters about the portrayal of violence in the media, the Prime Minister raised the difficult question that faces all of us when in another place he said:
"There is a difficult balance to keep in ensuring that we have free and open media and that they maintain the standards that are appropriate for society generally and for children".
That is what we are talking about tonight. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on his earlier debate today on the role of the media. I am concerned about the media and the need to maintain standards for society generally. I believe that the current law on obscenity fails to do that.
I come now to the crux of the matter: definitions. Those who study linguistics recognise various classes of definition. There are lexical definitions in which we explain words by means of other words, as in a dictionary. Obviously the process of defining words by means of other words cannot go on indefinitely, so we come to the next set of definitions which are known as "ostensive" definitions, from the Latin word ostendere, to show. "This is a walking stick". That is how we teach children their mother tongue. "That is a pussycat", and so on. There are other contextual methods of defining words, but the lexical and ostensive kinds are all that I shall refer to this evening.
The current law defines obscenity lexically by linking it to two other words: namely, "corruption" and "depravity". This is a gift to defence counsel. He only has to turn to the jury and say: "Well, members of the Jury, you have read the material. Do you feel corrupted and depraved by it? I am not asking whether you feel disgusted and revolted. That is another matter altogether. But does it make you feel you want to go on seeing more of it?" Without leaving the box, the jury say, "No, of course not. It is disgusting and revolting. But that is not the same as corrupting and depraving", so there is an acquittal.
In the course of a debate in January 1980, 16 years ago, I was persuaded by my very old and dear friend the late Lord Nugent of Guildford to take part in a debate. I suggested that we should try an ostensive definition of obscenity by listing all sexual activities and perversions thereof. The items on the list would be the definition of obscenity.
In drafting a Bill of this kind, one has to be careful not to fall foul of a principle of construction which goes by the name of a Latin tag: citatio unius exclusio alterius. If you cite one action you exclude another. If you include one named action, you exclude any others that are not in the list. For example, if, when referring to a list of animals, they are all members of one species, you can name the species and thereby cover all its

1595
members. But if, to give emphasis to one particular breed within the species you cite just one member, then you exclude all the others.
My preliminary drafts accordingly ran into the difficulty of citing all the sexual perversions there could possibly be and ran into difficulties with the length of the list. I could, of course, have quoted the index of Krafft-Ebbings' Psycopathologia Sexualis, but that is no way to draft a statute. So I ask your Lordships to agree to a small number of independent groups of sexual activity, without giving examples.
I turn to Clause 1(2) of my Bill which lists them:
"(a) human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated with such activity;
"(b) human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions".
I did not think those words up, they come from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which permitted the setting up of sex shops and sex cinemas. So for the purpose of the Bill I am merely borrowing words from another Act. There can be nothing very wrong about that. The same local government Act specifies that a licence under the sex shop act is not a defence for any other offence for which a person might be prosecuted. By citing the words in the present Obscene Publications (Amendment) Act, I exclude all the products of all sex shops because they can no longer be used in a defence. So this is not invention by me, I am exploiting words in another Act.
Clause 1(2) of my Bill continues the list:
"(c) any act which would be a sexual offence if carried out in practice".
That is most important. Noble Lords will find a list of sexual offences in another statute, the criminal proceedings Act 1991, in which the words "sexual offences" are included. Again, I am using another Act of Parliament to define obscenity in the context of this Bill. Lastly, Clause 1(2) lists:
"(d) mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals".
Perhaps I may say a few words about "sexual activity". It would be for the jury to decide whether a particular act was a sexual activity. For example, with kissing, a cheek to cheek kissing between parents and children would obviously not be a sexual activity. With a prolonged open-mouthed kiss as a prelude to copulation, it would be for the jury to decide yes or no. I shall not try to put it into an Act of Parliament.
But deciding on whether an activity falls into the list is not the end of the matter. For the material to be deemed to be obscene, it must be portrayed,
"in a manner which a reasonable person would regard as grossly offensive".
So the jury would have to consider that too. The words I have chosen for the test of obscenity are not arbitrary.
Turning to the qualification,
"In a manner which a reasonable person would regard as grossly offensive",
I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that it is a piece of legal formalism which occurs in Act after Act. A student would know that the eminent Member of the
1596
other place, Mr. A. P. Herbert, wrote some highly amusing articles in Punch on the characteristics of the reasonable person. Of course, that must be left to the jury.
That concludes what I have to say about the Bill. I wish to thank all those who have supported and helped me in its drafting and who are here tonight. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
8.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, first I wish to offer strong support to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It would be an impertinence to refer to the intellectual quality of the Bill, bearing in mind that the noble Earl has been for many years the chancellor of a famous university. I was going to say that he had been chancellor of a university longer than anyone alive. However, he tells me in all modesty that the Duke of Edinburgh surpasses him, which is hardly fair competition. In any ordinary sense he must be thought to hold the record for being chancellor of a university.
The noble Earl's great-grandfather was Lord Chancellor for longer than anyone else. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, may have been Lord Chancellor for longer in this century, but the record overall still belongs to the noble Earl's great-grandfather. So he is just the kind of eminent man who ought to lead the renewed struggle against obscenity.
I know that the noble Earl agrees with me that there is one name which should never be forgotten in this connection: Mary Whitehouse, the Boadicea of the whole effort over the past 30 years. I spoke to her tonight. She has not been in good health lately; I am afraid that she is laid up at home. However, she is as indomitable as ever and wants a message to come to us that no more effective step could be taken to help to halt what she calls the moral decay and to find an effective law against pornography. I do not know that she has studied the details of the noble Earl's proposals, but she is with him, heart and soul.
I have a rather senile record in this field. In 1971 I opened the first debate on pornography in this House with words which still seem to me to sum up the matter. A diet of filth, I said, corrupts a nation. I set up a committee which included eminent people such as the noble Lord, Lord Coggan, who was then Archbishop of York but later became Archbishop of Canterbury, Malcolm Muggeridge, Peregrine Worsthorne, Kingsley Amis, Cliff Richard and all kinds of wonderful people. Some of us at least investigated and poked our noises into the most horrible places: the dirty shows in Soho, and worse. Some of us, including myself, went to Copenhagen and the centre of pornography. I at least walked out of two sex shows—the kind of shows to which the noble Earl referred in his speech. I remember that at the end of that period a taxi driver asked me, "Excuse me, sir, I can never remember your name. I know you are "Lord Porn" but have you got another name?" That was the kind of reputation I achieved in that period.

1597
In later years I am afraid that I come under the description referred to by Lloyd George who said that the best introduction to a speech he could remember was made by Senator Bryan of America:
"Some will say that I have run my course; some will say that I have not fought the fight; but no one can say that I have not kept the faith."
In my humble way I can say that that is true, and I have the pleasure of being an acolyte of the noble Earl this evening.
In those days, it was quite difficult. Mary Whitehouse and I, for example, went to the Cambridge Union. A dead cat was lowered on top of Mary. She had a bad time in various parts of the world. She was, of course, indomitable as ever. Although, as I said, things are much better now, not so long ago her life was threatened. She was pinned down in her house under guard because of some terrible threats. So it has not been all fun and games for opponents of pornography.
It is much easier these days. In recent years Mary Whitehouse has won many debates at universities; I too have won several. On the whole, the enlightened young people of today are much more intelligent than they were 25 years ago, in particular young women. The feminists of today are anti-pornography. They see it as the horrifying exploitation of women. Today at university one can win a debate with only the support of young ladies.
There has been another big change over the years; namely, the emergence of violence. Violence is vastly more severe in this country today. Violent crime has much increased. When we produced our report in 1972, only one chapter was given to violence. Producing a similar volume today one would have to devote half of it to violence. That has turned many people against pornography who were quite ready to snigger at a bit of sexual licence.
On the other hand, as the noble Earl indicated and as, no doubt, others will mention at much greater length, technological developments have given pornographers a new opportunity of which they are making use. We have to try to cope with that. Mary Whitehouse agrees that new and much more stringent measures must be taken to cope with pornography. I agree entirely and I support the noble Earl.
It is, of course, difficult to know exactly what to do. It will always be difficult to find exactly the right course. It is perfectly true that it is very hard to prove before a jury—certainly a jury that is not biased in one's favour—that any particular piece of pornography can deprave or corrupt. Therefore, one has to find something else. The noble Earl selected certain aspects of pornography which can be tackled so long as they are found objectionable to a reasonable person. That will always remain a difficult area. What is a reasonable person?
I have brought with me to the House a newspaper which I am sure most noble Lords have never heard of. It is called the Sport. I should not like to ask for it in the Library; my motives might be misunderstood. There is, however, a daily paper on sale called the Sport. It is what I call a pornographic rag. It may well come under
1598
the particular classification indicated by the noble Earl Certainly, as a paper, I would regard it as highly objectionable. But all sorts of things are highly objectionable. I find much of the tabloid press—and some of the rest of the press too—highly objectionable. Much of it is very unpleasant. It is cruel and inaccurate about prominent people: the Royal Family, politicians of various parties and well-known prisoners. One can find many things objectionable and one cannot ban them all by law. However, the noble Earl has selected certain forms of activity which could be tackled in that way. I, for one, strongly support him.
8.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his introduction. The issues with which he is concerned in this Bill are shared by many people certainly within the Church of England. In the General Synod, which will meet in York in July this coming year, Mrs. Margaret Brown has a private member's Motion, which will certainly be debated, under the heading of "Sex, Violence and Blasphemy in the Media". I believe that other people share that growing concern.
The Board of Social Responsibility in the Church of England would agree with the Pornography and Violence Research Trust that there is a worrying level of violence and sadism as well as sexual pornography in videos, computer material and late night satellite television. That material is largely promoted by, as my brief says, greed—but to begin with I should like to use the word "profit" and allow the word "greed" to follow, for a video costing 97p to make sells for £12 or more. One can see there the profit levels. The Pornography and Violence Research Trust is also correct to argue that it is impossible to prove causal links between watching certain depictions and the commission of imitative acts. That simply cannot be proved. What can be discussed is that some elements of popular culture are heavily saturated with images of sadism and cruelty. Violence becomes acceptable. At the same time, it is easy to forget that it is fantasy. It is neither literature nor paintings nor drawings but acting by real people, who then extend the limits of what is acceptable into everyday life.
The strategy used by novelists—or even a painting by Turner—is that those acts are placed in a moral context. There is comment by the character involved, by the author or by the depiction of other characters showing emotion—for example, women searching for their dead and weeping on the battlefield of Waterloo, which is Turner's picture in the Tate. But a film depicting a violent rape ultimately enjoyed by a woman crosses the boundaries for it portrays it as something of an acceptable action, though it is one which I believe we would all want to condemn.
The main religious communities of our world—especially in this, our own country—of Islam, Judaism and Christianity would all agree that obscenity is defined by it being an assault upon human values. It is the deliberate attempt to distort human dignity and personality, which we believe are God-given gifts. For Christians, the value of relationship and reason

1599
constitute the image of God in humanity and the Christian tradition has always emphasised the importance of moral freedom if people are to grow toward maturity: moral freedom—growth toward maturity. However, there are times when that freedom needs to be restricted by legislation.
The crucial questions are how to control that and how to draw the line between artistic creativity and pornography. At the present time, the 1959 Act is in place. There are many—I include myself among them—who would argue that it is perhaps not sufficient. It defines obscenity as material which has a "tendency to deprave and corrupt" those likely to see, hear or read it.
That legislation is not used by the Crown Prosecution Service. We have checked that with a recently retired senior solicitor in the Metropolitan Police. It is believed to be too subjective and there are therefore declining numbers of prosecutions and an unwillingness to convict. However, despite the way I would wish to commend the issue, I wonder whether the proposed Bill takes us any further. The definition,
"Sexual activity … which a reasonable person would regard as grossly offensive",
many believe to be a lawyer's paradise. Who defines what or who is reasonable or offensive? We are back where the problem really resides; that is, facing the issue of answering a subjective question.
It gives me great pain to say that. I believe, along with many other noble Lords in this House, that pornography is a serious matter. It corrupts nations and is not something of which we can be proud. Perhaps therefore we should try to find some other ways forward. One may be to encourage the Government to proscribe further late night television programmes beamed in from the Continent by satellite. I was surprised to discover that the 1990 Broadcasting Act, Sections 177 and 178, proscribes publication of pornography by satellite or Internet, but only where they originate in the United Kingdom. The receiving of satellite or computer pornography is not an offence, except for child pornography. If it can be an offence to publish child pornography, why cannot that provision be further extended, used and implemented? There are elements which the Government are able to initiate and take further which will help to deal with the problem. They may not solve it, but they may take the situation one stage further.
The second way forward is to define specifically certain actions as pornographic, and the noble Earl pointed out to us the difficulties of trying to do that. It will indeed be extremely tricky. It will require concrete illustrations of torture and sexual violence.
The third way forward is industry self-regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in the first debate we had this afternoon, indicated that within terms of the media that was perhaps the best way forward. Whether or not we can rely on that self-regulation is another matter. But if knives can be proscribed—with again the problems of definition—cannot the industry try to police itself better?
1600
Let me come to one of the problems we face in any legislation; that is, the balance between retaining creativity and artistic self-expression as a vital part of human activity and community life and deciding where the line is drawn in regard to pornography. There have been great artistic portrayals of violence, cruelty and sexual relationships—Goya's "Disasters of War"—Lawrence's novels and, on stage, as has been indicated already, the blinding of Gloucester in "King Lear". All elicit either pity, in the case of violence, or deep emotion in the case of sexuality. They appeal to our shared humanity. They enlarge our sympathy and show that what happened to those people may happen to others, including ourselves. We need that in order to be a civilised society, for it holds up a mirror to our own activities and our own perceptions of what is happening. Furthermore, the Holocaust shows the dangers of totalitarianism and censorship of the press. Trying to draw the line that does not destroy artistic self-expression and creativity and yet rightly deals with pornography and obscenity is still an issue to which we have not yet found an answer.
What do we commend? I regret to say that I do not believe the present Bill will do. We need a wider debate on these issues. In the short term, the Government could use the legislation that is already in place in such a way that we could limit the way in which pornography is disseminated, and the development of obscenity could at least be curbed. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example.
Eutel satellite channels make pornography available to the United Kingdom viewers between the hours of 1 1pm and 3am. It is interesting to note the time—in the dark of the night. Three hard-core porn channels can be accessed on two Eutel satellites. Non-subscribers can receive 15 minutes unencrypted viewing. Sometimes the further material is also unencrypted. Two of the channels sell decoders and cards widely through shops and advertise them as well.
In the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 12(a) stipulates that television advertising shall not prejudice respect for human dignity; and Article 16 states that television advertising shall not cause moral or physical detriment to minors. Nowhere does it say that the advertising channel is exempt from commercial advertising and there are therefore already in place certain elements which will allow us to take steps if we are willing to apply the law as it already stands and the conventions to which we have committed ourselves.
There is no doubt that obscenity is a serious matter and one which we must address. I hope your Lordships are under no illusion that there is any acceptance, weak or otherwise, of the growing cancer of obscenity which is to be found in parts of the media, and certainly through satellites and the Internet. We do not believe that this Bill is the right way forward. We need a better way, but in the meantime we need to apply the law which is already in place.
9.6 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for introducing this Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his reminder of the history behind this long-running subject; and the right reverend Prelate gave us a great deal to think about in all that he said. I go a long way with him on a number of points but not on everything.
Pornography is a subject which some people wish to encourage and others to discourage. My belief is that it should be discouraged. Psychotherapists suggest that it affects a number of people in four different ongoing stages. First, an individual may become addicted to pornography; secondly, the addiction may escalate so that the person needs harder material; thirdly, the individual becomes desensitised, which appears to mean that he can no longer tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong in his actions; and, finally, he needs to act out his fantasies—it is usually men—on real women, possibly passing over the barrier into criminal practice.
Perhaps I may illustrate this with the example of a certain Mr. Ted Bundy, an American serial killer, who admitted murdering more than two dozen women. He was put to death in America in January 1989. He explained how repeated exposure to pornographic and violent material led to desensitisation to the point where he could brutally murder women and children. He explained how he had started off using soft pornography as a young teenager, moved on to harder material, and then more extreme pornography until that could not satisfy his sexual desires. He then started to act out what he saw in pornography in real life and committed a serious sexual assault. In a final interview just before his execution he said:
"Listen, I'm no social scientist and I haven't done a survey … but I have lived in prison for a long time now. And I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception every one of them was deeply involved in pornography—without question, without exception—deeply influenced and consumed by an addiction to pornography".
The current test under the present law is, as several noble Lords have said, whether it tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read it. Over the years I have heard a number of people say that a smart defence lawyer will butter up the jury, tell them what mature and sensible people they are and then ask them, "Were you depraved and corrupted by what you have seen or what you have read? Of course you were not". It takes a very brave and bold juryman to say, "Yes, sir, I was depraved and corrupted by what I saw", because that will be seen as a sign of weakness. The test has not worked for years. Prosecutors are finding themselves in more and more difficult situations and prosecutions are becoming fewer.
I believe that the present law is bad and ineffective. Therefore, there are only two options left. One is to abolish it and the other is to change it. I am certain that the country does not want to see the Obscene Publications Act abolished. Therefore, the only option is to change it. The right reverend Prelate has asked for discussion. This has been discussed up and down the country for years. I fully agree that a change in the law is extremely difficult. What is the right course to adopt?
1602
The present Bill gives a twofold test, which is one way to tackle the problem. First, there is the content of the material and, secondly, whether it is grossly offensive to a reasonable man. I can certainly envisage quite a number of acts which fall foul of the content test but which the reasonable man would not consider to be grossly offensive. I do not believe it would be grossly offensive to see someone taking a shower or to watch a person painting someone who was wearing no clothes. I do not see any problem in that. When I first heard a discussion of the topic the police were arguing for a list of items that should be proscribed. While I accept the view that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, gave that that would be bound to lead to exceptions, I personally would probably prefer that. However, the important thing is for us to attempt some change in this extremely difficult field and see whether it works. I would greatly prefer the Bill, and therefore support it, rather than continue with the law as it stands.
I conclude by referring to the 1990 Home Office study on this subject. It is the duty of Parliament to protect the public from the risks and dangers of obscenity just as parliament is taking action currently to protect people under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. I shall not pass any judgment on that or discuss it at the moment, but it illustrates the fact that Parliament has a duty to act. Perhaps I may read the final paragraph of the Home Office study on pornography. It states:
"At the end of the day, it is difficult to believe that a society can really afford to embrace pornography with welcoming arms since this may serve to legitimise those attitudes which pornography itself may reinforce. The question must be considered to be wider than just prohibition or other forms of control alone, but how to promote those attitudes and values which undermine pornography's potential influence".
The first step in dealing with the problem is for Parliament to pass legislation that will be effective in endorsing what the public requires and in prohibiting what the public considers to be grossly offensive. The second stage is the promotion of positive attitudes and values around the country. We discussed that issue last week in our debate on the role of the family. I believe that there is a job here for the media. If I had had the fortitude of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who has spoken in all three debates this afternoon, I should have mentioned that point earlier. Turning to the two right reverend Prelates who are present, perhaps I may say that there is a role here for the Church also, as well as for educators and the media, in promoting those positive attitudes and values which can undermine the potential influence of pornography.
Having said that, I believe that the ball must start here in Parliament, which must provide a law that is enforceable. For that reason, I support the Bill, even if we decide to amend it in Committee.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, but I wish to start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for introducing this Bill. We have known for many years that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 has been causing concern among law enforcement agencies, so I pay tribute to the noble Earl for introducing this Bill to amend the current outdated test

1603
of a tendency "to deprave and corrupt" with a more readily understandable and objective test. This should make it easier to convict those producing or distributing some of the worst types of pornography, which are not being judged obscene under the current law. I also commend the work that he did over the summer by chairing the working group of the All-Party Parliamentary Family and Child Protection Group.
I am concerned about the media portrayal of children, women and men and the sexual relationship. I believe that the sexual relationship between a man and a woman was given by God for pleasure and for strengthening that relationship. So often the portrayal of sexual relationships in pornography seems to have the opposite effect. I feel concerned about the sort of relationships and treatment of women, in particular, that we are promoting by allowing some of the more extreme material to be judged as legally available.
I am sure that those members of the general public questioned earlier in the year in the survey commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Family and Child Protection Group will also be supporting the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, tonight. When asked if they believed that the use of pornography is harmless and has no serious effect on those who have a taste for it, 60 per cent. disagreed. This House has the privilege tonight of sending a signal to society that this sort of material is not acceptable.
I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on ensuring that the important subject of violence is not left out of this Bill by its inclusion in the list and I am sure that that will be appreciated by many people around the country. It surely follows logically from all the initiatives that are going on to tackle violence on the screen that the most extreme,
"mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals",
should be regarded as obscene, if the violence is portrayed,
"in a manner which a reasonable person would regard as grossly offensive".
Last week, the Director of the British Board of Film Classification said that the board is doing all that it can to deal with violence and that the current content of films stems from the Hollywood culture of violence. I hope this House will say tonight that enough is enough.
We have heard too much recently about child pornography and the Internet. In strengthening the law on obscenity in this Bill, it will be easier to convict in cases where violent and/or pornographic material is available on the Internet. I am pleased to note that this Bill will deal with child pornography when it is in the form of sexually explicit stories, which, I understand, can be obtained on the Internet also.
This Bill comes at a very important time, and I urge Members of this House from all sides to support the noble Earl in bringing in a much-needed reform.
9.18 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when speaking about a Private Member's Bill, as always I preface my remarks by saying that in this matter I speak for myself, not for my party. Indeed, I expect that there will be as wide a range of views on this issue in my party as there is in all parties and among those with no party affiliation. I have immediate evidence of that from the views of my noble friend Lord Longford, with whose views, like, I am afraid, the views of a number of noble Lords who have already spoken, I disagree. However, I assure your Lordships that the fact that I come to a different conclusion from some of those who have spoken does not mean that I treat the matter any less seriously than they do. It is incumbent on all of us to look at the present state of the law and to consider seriously whether it is defective in any way either because it is too restrictive or not sufficiently restrictive, to consider the alternative solutions proposed by the noble Earl in his Bill and to look at a realistic way forward to achieve the objectives that all of us believe are desirable.
I am at one with a number of noble Lords who have spoken in agreeing that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 does not work as originally intended. Many of those who have to implement that Act have come to that conclusion, and it is difficult to dissent from it. The particular phrase used in the 1959 Act, which was extended in the 1964 Act, is "a tendency to deprave and corrupt". That phrase was not new in 1959. It first featured in our law in 1868. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made the important point that there was a difference between that and being shocked and disgusted. I believe that Mr. Justice Stable in the Philanderer case in 1956 was the first to make that point strongly to the jury.
One can agree that it is very difficult to persuade juries that they themselves have been depraved and corrupted by the material that is before the courts. In 1962 in Clayton v. Halsey it was ruled, and became law, that no amount of exposure to pornography could corrupt a policeman. When the chairman of the Arts Council established a working party on the operation of the Act in 1968-69—which, incidentally, came to the unanimous view that the law was too restrictive—one of the people questioned was the then Suffragan Bishop of Woolwich, now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. He was the only person that the working party could find who said that he had been depraved by reading or seeing pornography. Quite rightly, they did not believe him. All of us who know him know that that is not true.
The difficulty about the 1959 law is that it makes it a punishable offence to induce things that are not in themselves criminal. There is an alternative to the obscenity rule and that is the indecency rule. That is important for the transmission under the Post Offices Act of material which the noble Earl might well consider to be obscene. The point of raising the question of indecency is not because that matter features in the Bill but that it raises criteria that are important in understanding the issue with which we are dealing. The quality of indecency is readily inferred from the

1605
defendant's motive of sexual gratification. When looking at issues of indecency the two matters that must be taken into account are the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged indecent act and the setting in which it takes place. Clearly, some physical actions that are entirely appropriate in a doctor's surgery would not be appropriate on a London bus. That applies much more widely. Unless the definition of obscenity or indecency that we use takes into account intention or setting, it will be a defective definition.
It is a myth to believe that there can be a recognised standard of public opinion to which we can appeal. Public opinion has changed greatly over the years. One of the problems faced by supporters of the 1959 Act is that juries have increasingly been unwilling to convict not only because of the difficulties of definition in the Act but perhaps also because public opinion itself has changed over the years. Those who have conducted research into violent and sexual material on television, films and videos have found increasingly over the years that people are becoming—in my view, rightly—more intolerant of violence but less intolerant of the depiction of sexual activity. That, whether we like it or not, is a fact of public opinion, and such things change.
I come now to my second point, which is the wording of the Bill. I am afraid that the noble Earl's attempt to use an ostensive definition, instead of the definition used in the 1959 Act, is doomed to failure, but it is not doomed to failure just because of any defect in the ostensive definition itself. I would say on that point only that the definition includes acts which are themselves legal, and, indeed, in terms of human sexual activity some of us would say desirable, and lump them together with acts which are illegal acts of violence or torture. Because the Act is concerned with articles, which includes words as well as pictures, it is difficult to apply those ostensive definitions equally to words and to pictures. They are clearly designed for pictures rather than words, and it would be a matter of opinion whether they applied to words.
Then of course the attempt to rely upon ostensive definitions falls because the noble Earl is forced to use words such as "reasonable person". Who is a reasonable person? The 1959 Act says that it is someone who is likely to see the material or read it. Surely that is much more likely to be an effective definition than a "reasonable person", which could be anyone. And then "grossly offensive": what is "grossly offensive"? That will change over the years. Juries will be required to make judgments which it is inappropriate for them to make.
Again, in Clause 2, the noble Earl uses the phrase:
"fully justified as being for the good of the public as a whole".
One thing we know about the public on these matters is that there is no "public as a whole". There are lots of different publics with different views and different levels of sensitivity. I am sorry: I appreciate the sincerity of the noble Earl and those who have spoken in support of the Bill, but it will not work.
Perhaps I may for one minute turn to what I think is valuable and what I think should be preserved. In saying that these proposed changes are undesirable,
1606
we should not lose sight of the desirability—indeed, the essential availability—of classification and, in certain circumstances, censorship, particularly in the broadcasting of film, video and computer-generated material. Our criteria for those should be the protection of the vulnerable—in particular, of women and children—both in the audience and as participants in the acts which are displayed. If we concentrate upon those matters, I believe that that is a more effective way forward.
I am afraid that it is not enough to rely upon illegal acts, because illegal acts, after all, have changed in the law. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 did for the first time legalise heterosexual anal intercourse. Are we going to change our views on censorship entirely as a result of that change in the law? No, let us stick to what we know works—the protection of the vulnerable. Let us not be diverted into the issues unfortunately but well meaningly raised in the Bill.
9.29 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl for bringing this subject before your Lordships this evening. The opportunity this Bill provides to debate this important issue is welcome. The debate has been most interesting. The issue of obscenity, and the extent of the controls which it is appropriate for society to exercise over the availability of certain sorts of material, is clearly a difficult and a sensitive one. The subject raises issues of morality and public decency; it touches on the relationship between the interests of the individual and those of society at large; and it involves complex questions of the role and effectiveness of the criminal law in a changing society.
The noble Earl has brought all these issues before your Lordships by virtue of the Bill which he has introduced. With characteristic clarity and conviction he has explained his concerns about the present situation and why he believes that changes to the law are needed.
Many of us in our private capacities may lament that anyone in our society should want to have available some of the material that is now regularly sold in our local newsagents and generally available in other ways; for example, by mail order. But that is not necessarily the same as concluding that the law should prohibit the availability of such material. The criminal law exists to prevent harm, to protect individual citizens and society itself from damaging behaviour and influences. Its function is not to impose the preferences of one section of society upon others unless there is clear evidence that damage may otherwise be caused.
The law relevant to this issue is the Obscene Publications Act 1959. At its heart is the proposition that material is obscene if it causes harm—that is to say, if its effect, if taken as a whole, is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt those persons who are likely to see, read or hear it. This test has been with us for a considerable time. Indeed, it was first formulated as common law in the 19th century and it has been the subject of debate whenever concerns have been

1607
expressed in this area. The fact that it has remained unchanged may testify to its strength: it certainly reflects the difficulty in finding anything better.
It is a flexible test, pointing the court to the balance which must be struck between penalising material which may have harmful effects on its audience and avoiding prohibition of genuinely artistic or scholarly material. There have been repeated attempts to find a different approach and the Government have kept the issue under continuing review. The fact that we have done so is an acknowledgement that the present position is not wholly satisfactory, and this is an issue which we ourselves are also concerned to address. This Bill provides opportunity to further that debate. Nevertheless, we have not yet been able to find a better alternative.
The Act is not moribund. In 1995 there were 356 prosecutions and 259 convictions, although there is concern that the nature of the material which falls below the threshold for prosecution has been growing steadily worse. And we have kept the law up to date with subsequent changes, particularly in regard to child pornography where our controls are among the toughest in the world. Nevertheless, the noble Earl has argued this evening that the law is ineffective. He believes that it has become impossible for the courts to apply the test in the 1959 Act and he argues that it is impossible to say with any certainty what will fall foul of its provisions.
We shall be listening extremely carefully to the debate in the hope that it will signal the way forward. Nevertheless, I have to tell your Lordships that we are not convinced that this Bill is right, for the following reasons. It would introduce a new general test of obscenity, supplemented by a widely drawn list of activities to be deemed, subject to the test, prima facie "obscene". This general test focuses on what is grossly offensive to reasonable people. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that that is where the difficulty lies. The term "gross offensiveness", for example, is no clearer in meaning than the "deprave and corrupt" test, and the Government's view is that juries would fall back upon their own judgment in deciding what was or was not obscene.
The test of gross offensiveness is not based on any consideration of harm to society and, as such, could leave the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. "Harm" may be a justification for restricting freedom of speech; "offensive" may well not be. People may find many things "grossly offensive", including political opinions or even revisionist views of history.
The noble Earl has suggested that the test of the "reasonable person" is the key to resolving this problem. He has drawn attention to the frequent use of that test in the criminal law, not least in the Protection from Harassment Bill. But I believe that we are dealing with two very different situations. In his or her usual guise in the criminal law, the reasonable person could be anyone. We invite the courts to consider what any rational person would think in the circumstances. Whoever we chose,
1608
whether conservative or radical in their political or moral views, would come to the same conclusion. But it is a very different "reasonable person" whom we are asking to solve our problems in this case. The personal moral code of the individual concerned could fundamentally affect the judgment reached. I do not believe that this key test at the heart of the noble Earl's Bill would provide the courts with the certainty which they must have for the proposed legislation to work.
The Bill would also amend the current "public good" defence. Under Section 4 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, it is a defence to the charge of publishing an obscene article if it is proved in court that its publication is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of general concern.
The noble Earl's Bill would amend this defence by substituting the words,
"fully justified as being for the good of the public as a whole"
for,
"justified as being for the public good".
This may not appear a major change, but it could have very significant effects. There is a possibility, for example, that it could make illegal some articles that are aimed at a minority group such as the safe sex leaflets aimed at young homosexuals. Those leaflets are explicit and expressed in a way which no doubt many people would find shocking. However, there is a clear need for public health reasons to provide this group with a safe sex message in a manner likely to attract their attention. The Bill might put that in jeopardy.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the need for greater control to be exercised over pornographic TV and satellite broadcasts. The Government have used their powers in regard to three such foreign channels by making proscription orders against them. It is a criminal offence to supply smartcards, to advertise and to promote such channels.
I have outlined a number of reasons why the Government cannot support the terms of the Bill although, in keeping with the traditions of the House, we shall not oppose its Second Reading this evening. However, we welcome the opportunity which the noble Earl's Bill has provided to address a real problem about which we are concerned. We are open-minded and open to suggestions as to the way forward and hope that the Bill will act as a catalyst in bringing wise counsel to bear on this difficult issue. We shall certainly follow up any possible ways forward which may emerge from the debate.
9.36 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, first, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate had to leave but he had a train to catch. I shall reply by letter to his remarks after I have studied them in Hansard.

1609
I thank the noble Viscount, the noble Earl, and the noble Lord for their contributions. I remind your Lordships that there will be a Committee stage. If the Government do not actively oppose the Bill, I shall try to arrange a Committee stage where we can flog out those matters by means of amendments.
I am a trifle disappointed by the Government's reaction. They agree that the present situation is unsatisfactory but—I quote a familiar phrase—they seem eager to wound but afraid to strike. I wonder what it is they are afraid of. Do they think that the Bill in its present form would make matters worse?
1610
Are they concerned about the load on the criminal courts which will occur if pornography is prosecuted more intensively? Do I detect a sort of vague numinous presence of what I might call the Great Whore of Grub Street as specified by my noble friend in the previous debate this evening, brooding over our proceedings and threatening everyone with her disapproval? I do not know about that, but I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before ten o'clock.

  Afghanistan: EU Arms Embargo
  Afghanistan: EU Arms Embargo
  Caribbean Dependent Territories
  Caribbean Dependent Territories
  European Union: Six-monthly Business Forecast
  European Union: Six-monthly Business Forecast
  Privatisations: Market Stabilisation Operations
  Privatisations: Market Stabilisation Operations
  Culture Council, 16th December
  Culture Council, 16th December
  UHF Relay Station Building Programme
  UHF Relay Station Building Programme
  The Scarman Trust, formerly Charter 88 Trust
  The Scarman Trust, formerly Charter 88 Trust
  Charity Commission Investigations
  Charity Commission Investigations
  Charity Commission: Orders
  Charity Commission: Orders
  Horse Guards Road: Temporary Closure
  Horse Guards Road: Temporary Closure
  Commonhold Legislation
  Commonhold Legislation
  Legal Aid: R v Kevin Maxwell & Others
  Legal Aid: R v Kevin Maxwell & Others
  Organophosphates: Enzyme Paraoxynase Research Proposal
  Organophosphates: Enzyme Paraoxynase Research Proposal
  Surrendered Handguns: Compensation Valuations
  Surrendered Handguns: Compensation Valuations
  Asylum Seekers: Detentions
  Asylum Seekers: Detentions
  Asylum Seekers: Access to Legal Advice
  Asylum Seekers: Access to Legal Advice
  Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996: Code of Practice
  Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996: Code of Practice
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals System: Review
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals System: Review
  Bribery of Members of Parliament
  Bribery of Members of Parliament
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Asylum Seekers: Fair Determination of Applications
  Asylum Seekers: Fair Determination of Applications
  Veterinary Investigation Centre, Omagh
  Veterinary Investigation Centre, Omagh
  Longer Term Road Schemes: Withdrawals
  Longer Term Road Schemes: Withdrawals
  St. Pancras Station
  St. Pancras Station
  London Underground Costs
  London Underground Costs
  Transport Council, 12th and 13th December
  Transport Council, 12th and 13th December
  Bull Bars
  Bull Bars
  Motor Vehicle Export Controls
  Motor Vehicle Export Controls
  British Energy plc Privatisation: Market Stabilisation
  British Energy plc Privatisation: Market Stabilisation
  Plutonium Cargo: Container
  Plutonium Cargo: Container
  Common Fisheries Policy Review Group Report: Response
  Common Fisheries Policy Review Group Report: Response
  Intervention Board Executive Agency: Corporate Plan
  Intervention Board Executive Agency: Corporate Plan
  Rendering Industry: Support Arrangements
  Rendering Industry: Support Arrangements
  Sheep Scab Control: Consultation
  Sheep Scab Control: Consultation
  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme