Sitting of 22 February 1996

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

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords]may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered again upon Thursday 29 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Peace Process
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of recent progress towards a peace settlement. [15018]
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Irish Prime Minister on the peace process. [15023]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Since I last answered questions here, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have held discussions with the leaders of all Northern Ireland political parties and their colleagues, in some instances
    476
    more than once. My right hon. Friend and I have been in close contact with the Taoiseach and I met the Irish Deputy Prime Minister on 1 and 7 February. Preparations are in hand for an Anglo-Irish summit.
    Mr. Hain: Have British officials met Sinn Fein recently? What are the criteria by which Sinn Fein could meet Ministers in future?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Ministers will not meet Sinn Fein to discuss matters that are related to the peace process or political process unless and until a ceasefire has been credibly restored, as it should be forthwith. As for officials, to the best of my knowledge, there will be no meetings with officials.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite the action of the IRA cowards in launching their bomb in London and killing innocent people, we owe it to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and throughout Ireland to continue the peace process? All suggestions should be considered. The Secretary of State should consider seriously the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that there should be a referendum in Northern Ireland. That would make it quite clear to those dreadful rascals and cowards that the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the divide and in both parts of Ireland are absolutely in favour of the peace process and against the violence that has recurred.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree that the peace process must continue. The peace process consists of all the work that is carried out to replace conflict with the opposite of conflict. It is essential that there should be all-party and inclusive negotiation, and ways of achieving that are currently under intensive discussion with the parties and between the Governments. One of those is certainly the referendum to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Hunter: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is also the policy of the Irish Government that there should be no contact with Sinn Fein at ministerial level because Sinn Fein has not condemned outright the IRA's resumption of violence? That would be in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration, which enjoins that only parties committed to democratic principles and to peace can take part in negotiations.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is certainly right. Paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration stipulates that, in addition to what he has said,
    "parties have shown that they abide by the democratic process".
    That is exactly why the position of the two Governments is the same.
    Mr. Trimble: I appreciate the Government's desire to bring about serious talks in the near future, but should we not remember that over the past 17 months, Sinn Fein-IRA constantly refused to give any evidence that they were committed to exclusively peaceful means, and latterly have demonstrated in the clearest possible manner that they have no such commitment at all? Must that not affect our future policy? Must it not mean that

    477
    we shall require much more than merely a ceasefire before we can take seriously any protestation of peaceful intent from that quarter? Should there not be urgent representations to the Irish Government that they should observe their duty under international law not to allow their territory to be used as a base for attack on this part of the United Kingdom?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that the Irish Government need any reminder of what he has in mind. I am satisfied that the co-operation between the two police forces and the two Governments on security matters is very good.
    As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the key to participation in all-party negotiations is that all participants and all who claim to be participants should fulfil the stipulations of the Downing street declaration to which I have just referred. Plainly, to resort to violence at any time—let alone to go back to resorting to violence—is wholly incompatible with the stipulations. Any restoration of the ceasefire—that should occur straight away—must be credible.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Secretary of State agree that policing is very important to keeping the peace in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of what took place at the police authority last night, when an overwhelming vote of no confidence was passed in Mr. Cook, the chairman, and in Mr. Ryder, one of the members? It was passed because of Mr. Cook's breach of faith as chairman in revealing matters under discussion, and because Mr. Ryder said that the police authority was a performing poodle. There was an overwhelming vote of no confidence in them, but they have said that that does not matter to them and they will do what they like and stay on. Does the Secretary of State think that it would be in the best interests of the police authority that those two men leave the police authority?
    Will the Secretary of State keep in mind the fact that men and women have risked their lives in Northern Ireland for being members of the police authority, and that the majority has a legitimate case to put and should be heeded?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that policing is extremely important to the people of Northern Ireland, especially in the present circumstances. It is a thousand pities that divisions are so manifest in the police authority. I look forward to meeting the chairman of the police authority at an early date, and I shall wish to hear about what has occurred and any proposals that he may have.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that everybody in the House wants to see lasting stability in Northern Ireland; that the only way to bring that about—without threat to any section of our people—is by agreement; and that the way to do that is to get all parties to the table? Does he further agree that it should be the urgent priority of the Government to get all parties to the table as soon as possible? If anybody has to take risks to do that, they are worth taking if we are going to save human life.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have no difficulty in agreeing with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.
    478
    One can identify an objective, but it is easier to identify and to express it than it is to achieve it. As I have twice said this afternoon, it is the immediate objective of the Government—as I know it is of the parties—to achieve inclusive, all-party negotiations, but they have to take place on the basis of confidence that the requirements of the Downing street declaration are fulfilled. That is the stumbling block at the moment.
    I am grateful for the conversations that I have had with the hon. Gentleman, as with other party leaders. We must examine and continue to examine the situation. I share the same objective as the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask that attention be given to the background to the report in today's Evening Standard about the reaction in the United States to the fracture of the peace process? Would it be possible to explain, with the Irish Government, to some of the writers in American newspapers that, if they interviewed Families Against Intimidation and Terror or if they listened to the words of the family of the young man who was fatally involved in the Aldwych bomb, they would understand that the British and Irish Governments are trying to unlock the doors to all-party talks that could be held on conditions to which all parties can agree?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to the brave and moving words of the family of the young man. I think that there is an extraordinarily widely held misapprehension, not only in the United States, about the true character of the decision to return to violence. It is essential that we all explain the realities of the situation—not least that the British Government, far from dragging their feet, have had countless meetings with all concerned, including Sinn Fein, with a view to achieving the all-party negotiations that are the only route to a political settlement.
    Ms Mowlam: Will the Secretary of State outline his views on the merits of Labour's proposals earlier this week for formal and intensive talks with the Northern Ireland parties and the two Governments, where appropriate, to reach widespread agreement on the way to bring the parties to full negotiation? That could include a combined referendum and an elective process to take the parties directly into talks, and chronologically fixed stages for the possible referendums and talks to begin. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, as we believe, for Sinn Fein to take part in any negotiations in which Ministers are involved, it must be committed to a genuine ceasefire—as article 10 of the Downing street declaration states?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree, particularly with the last part of the hon. Lady's remarks. It is impossible to suppose that Ministers in this Government—the Irish Government have made exactly the same point—will discuss matters with a party inextricably associated with people who have gone back to violence to achieve their political aims and who have turned their backs on the democratic process. A restored ceasefire Is absolutely essential. We have a shared policy and objective across the House—that there shall be inclusive negotiations on an all-party basis within the three-stranded structure, because that is the only way through to the political settlement that we all seek. The means to which the hon.

    479
    Lady referred are certainly each of them relevant to that process. They are not exclusively relevant—we have an open mind on any constructive ideas that are put forward in the process that we are continuing.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the level of inward investment into Northern Ireland in 1995–96. [15019]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Since April 1995, Northern Ireland has secured eight inward investment projects promoting 2,306 jobs, representing a total investment of £179 million.
    Mr. Evans: One dividend of the ceasefire has been the ability of Northern Ireland to attract increasing levels of inward investment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a number of potential investors will be looking carefully at any progress towards not only a ceasefire but a permanent ceasefire in Northern Ireland before making any decisions about investing there? Would it not be in the best interests of all people in Northern Ireland to work together to secure the resumption of the ceasefire as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have made it clear from the Dispatch Box before that the best incentive for inward investment is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The Province has experienced troubles before but still managed during them to secure investment. The examples of Shorts, Ford and Du Pont during the troubles show that if the economic indicators in Northern Ireland are right, inward investment can be attracted. That is the case at the moment, and we look forward to continuing to promote inward investment in Northern Ireland.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister in the other place consider convening a meeting of bankers, now that three more banks are coming to Northern Ireland, for the purpose of studying how they might best assist small industries in the Province? That is not to be confused with any proximity exercise.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that distinction. I will certainly put his idea to my noble Friend, Lady Denton, who I am sure will want to discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman. We are all agreed that we must work to promote the economic prosperity of all parts of Northern Ireland. Whatever the men of violence may wish towards their communities, we want those communities to prosper, and we shall continue to work for that.
    Rev. William McCrea: I welcome the number of inward investment jobs to which the Minister referred, but is he aware that there is disappointment west of the Province at the number of jobs that have gone in that direction? The Minister will be aware of the tragic announcement of the loss of 144 jobs at Unipork. What special measures can the Government take to ensure that jobs are directed to areas such as Cookstown?
    Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have tried to attract inward investment to all parts of the Province, not just particular parts of it. We appreciate that there are difficulties in certain areas. He will be aware that there has been considerable inward investment in his constituency—for example, the new factory in Strabane that will result from the EU peace initiative. The investment of £800,000 in the factory is a good example of what we are trying to do. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall pass it on to my noble Friend.
    Mr. Illsley: Does the Minister agree that inward investment and the creation of jobs can play a part in defeating terrorism? Will the Government continue to encourage the business community, as we have done? Will the Government pledge to do all that they can to assist Bombardier in its discussions with Fokker—discussions that could not only protect existing jobs at Shorts but create extra jobs?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that inward investment, prosperity and the creation of jobs have a role to play in underpinning peace, which is why economic prosperity and the encouragement of it has always been a major part of the Government's economic and overall strategy in Northern Ireland.
    As to Shorts, my noble Friend Lady Denton was recently in Holland and met the Dutch Government. The problems facing Fokker are commercial and need to be resolved on that basis. The Industrial Development Board is maintaining close contact with Shorts and Bombardier on development.
    Mr. Atkins: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the most important sources of inward investment is tourism, and that part of the essential reason why the peace process must work is that tourists can be attracted into the Province in even greater numbers than before? Will he take note of the fact that the unceasing work that is done by him and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in trying to resolve the problems of the troubled Province goes down extremely well with all those who love that part of the United Kingdom, with an affection that is not confined just to Opposition and Conservative Members?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks. I am sure that that gratitude is shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
    I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying about the importance of tourism, but tourists are, by and large, adventurous. I was encouraged to hear that the staff on the stands of the Northern Ireland tourist board at Perth and Glasgow in recent days were inundated with support from people who came to talk to them.

    Secondary School Pupils
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of children of secondary school age are in (a) comprehensive schools (b) grant-maintained comprehensive schools (c) religious denominational voluntary aided schools (d) private schools, and (e) selective state grammar schools. [15020]
    Mr. Ancram: Because of the different educational structures at secondary level in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain, school types do not read across directly. The relevant Northern Ireland figures are that some 40 per cent. of secondary age pupils attend grammar schools, 58 per cent. secondary schools, just over 1 per cent. grant-maintained integrated schools and less than 1 per cent. independent schools.
    Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that the statistical bulletin produced by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland refers to the unacceptable number of poorly qualified or unqualified school leavers coming out of schools in Northern Ireland? What do the Government plan to do to remedy that?
    Mr. Ancram: That has been a matter of concern to me as Education Minister during the time that I have held that office. It was for that reason that I introduced the raising school standards initiative, which is directly targeted at dealing with that problem. In Northern Ireland, only 4 per cent. of pupils fail to achieve any GCSEs compared with 8 per cent. in England. Although there is still more to be done, our policies in that area are working.
    Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer and the people of Northern Ireland on their good fortune—which many in England would like to share—in having so many grammar school places. Does not the main hope for the future in Northern Ireland lie in the growth of non-denominational education, as denominational schools can merely aggravate the religious divide?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. I know that the attraction of selective education is understood not only by Conservative Members but by one or two Opposition Members, who like to take advantage of it.
    Education generally in Northern Ireland—not only the selective system—produces good results. It is worth remembering that 87 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve two A-levels as against 81 per cent. in England. In addition, 51 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve five good GCSEs as opposed to 44 per cent. in England.
    We have always made it clear that we shall promote and encourage integrated education, but it must be based on parental demand and not on coercion.
    Dr. Hendron: I would appreciate it if, at some time, the Secretary of State or the Minister would make a statement about the percentage of school children in my constituency of Belfast, West who have been able to attend a secondary school, grammar school or some school like that.
    When will the Secretary of State be in a position to make an announcement about the proposal of the University of Ulster to have a campus at Springvale? I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that there is truly massive support throughout both communities in west Belfast and north Belfast, and far beyond, for such a campus.
    Mr. Ancram: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall be happy to meet him to discuss the situation and to try to provide him with some of the information that he seeks.
    482
    As for the Springvale campus, the Government have received an economic evaluation, which we shall be examining closely before coming to a final decision.

    Planning Applications
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial resources he has allocated to fund organisations which assist community groups to make submissions on planning issues. [15021]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): Community technical aid was established in 1980 to provide advocacy and technical support to community organisations on planning issues. In 1995–96, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment provided £110,000 to CTA.
    Mr. McAvoy:I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. As he knows, however, there is a democratic deficit within the planning process in Northern Ireland, which has been the position for some years. Bearing that in mind, surely he will agree that it is essential that there is a proper balance within the decision-making planning process so that organisations such as community technical aid are fully funded to ensure that community groups are properly trained so that they are able to take on the system.
    Mr. Moss: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Department has recently had CTA's work evaluated by independent consultants. A management consultant has just finished a six-months' assignment with CTA, during which it was assisted to streamline the organisation and refocus activities in its main areas of business. I am happy to reiterate what I said to the Select Committee that examines planning issues. If the organisation feels that it needs more resources, I shall consider any approach that is made to me on that basis.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend explain why the planning process in Northern Ireland cannot be carried out by properly elected local government? Will he give to the constitutional nationalists a sense of purpose and a proper role in the community of Ulster, and to a great extent stop their aspiration for a united Ireland, if necessary by force?
    Mr. Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have some sympathy with the sentiments that lie behind it. I have visited every district council in Northern Ireland over the past year, and there is a level of frustration among elected councillors because of their lack of involvement in the planning process. However, the future reorganisation of local government in the Province is really a matter for discussion between my right hon. and hon. Friends and the elected Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, in terms of future political development.
    Mr. Dowd: If there is to be some movement away from the highly centralised development control system in Northern Ireland, will the Minister consider the scope for more local determination? To retain confidence, will he consider using his Department for appeals by both applicants and objectors?
    Mr. Moss: We are considering listening to the advice of district councils as to how we can involve them more in the process of planning procedures. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there is no procedure in Great Britain, as a whole, to make appeals on the basis for which he asks. Until such changes are made here, the process in Northern Ireland must continue as it is.

    Coronary Heart Disease
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Province. [15022]
    Mr. Moss: Over the past 10 years, premature deaths from coronary heart disease in Northern Ireland have fallen by 33 per cent.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, between 1985 and 1994, the number of deaths from premature coronary heart disease fell from 1,056 to 703? Does he agree that much of the credit for that should go to the change of heart programme, which was set up in 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)? Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend recognise that the level of heart disease in Northern Ireland remains among the highest in the world? What further plans does he have to research the reasons for that high incidence of heart disease and to promote better dietary and other habits to reduce those figures further still?
    Mr. Moss: As my hon. Friend says, that reduction is one of the great achievements of the health service in Northern Ireland over the past decade and more. The change of heart programme was established in 1986 and set a target of a 15 per cent. reduction, which we achieved within five years. We have now set more challenging targets, of about a 40 per cent. reduction by the turn of the century. As for attacking the problem of a regional health strategy for health and social services, we have set a target to increase the number of cardiac operations in Northern Ireland by about 1,200 in the coming years. We have reached that target in the past two years, and we hope to do more in the future.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that a change in diet and habits is needed—rather than the change of heart to which he referred in relation to surgical operations—which has been achieved by the Chest, Heart and Stroke Association's campaign? Is it not wrong for advertisers, particularly tobacco advertisers, to try to lure children into that habit, which has an adverse effect on children's hearts?
    Mr. Moss: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I acknowledge the work that has been done by the society that he mentioned. The change of heart programme tackled the main risk factors of smoking, raised blood pressure, cholesterol and physical inactivity. The Health Promotion Agency in Northern Ireland manages the change of heart programme and spends about one third of its £1.3 million budget on resources to tackle the risk factors associated with heart disease. The agency's efforts are complemented locally by the health
    484
    promotion work of the health and social services boards and trusts and by general practitioners. New Province-wide strategies on food, nutrition and physical activity are being developed.
    Mr. McGrady: Despite the good news about trends that the Minister has delivered to the House, is he aware of the very alarming instruction issued by the director of the Royal Victoria hospital to consultant cardiac surgeons that they should not perform any further cardiac surgery except in cases of extreme emergency or when patients are referred to them by a fundholding general practitioner in the entire area of the Eastern and Northern health board? Is that not very discriminatory, and what action does he intend to take to ensure that my constituents, particularly those with cardiac conditions, get an equal deal in health care?
    Mr. Moss: I am not aware of the details of the hon. Gentleman's question, but, if he will write to me, I shall certainly look into the matter for him. I repeat that the regional strategy sets a target for increasing the number of cardiac operations in Northern Ireland from only 700 in 1990 to 1,100 by 1993. That target has since increased. We have appointed two additional cardiac surgeons at the Royal Victoria hospital in the past three years, and we intend to tackle the problem head on in the future.
    Mr. Fabricant: Has my hon. Friend seen the research work undertaken by Professor Alan Howard of Cambridge university that states that drinking a glass of red wine a day helps to alleviate heart disease? Will he encourage all the excellent hostelries throughout Northern Ireland—in Belfast and Bangor—many of which I am personally familiar with, to sell not only the excellent stout produced in the island of Ireland but red wine?
    Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend will have to wait until the new licensing laws are announced, which I hope to do in the near future.

    Elections
    Mr. Robert McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances the Government of the United Kingdom seek the prior consent of the Republic of Ireland to execute decisions relating to elections within the United Kingdom. [15024]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: There are no such circumstances, as the execution of such decisions would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. McCartney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the pique expressed by the Government of the Republic about the alleged failure of Her Majesty's Government to consult them on the issue of elections in Northern Ireland seems to reveal a claim to a role in Northern Ireland's affairs under the 1985 agreement that goes well beyond the consultative? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in November 1985, on the day after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the then Taoiseach of the Republic told Members of the Dail Eireann that the powers granted to the Republic went far

    485
    beyond the consultative and stopped short of being full executive powers only because of the notional idea or concept of sovereignty?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that I shall follow the hon. and learned Gentleman down the paths that his question took; nor do I think it profitable to explore what was undoubtedly a period of disagreement that arose out of the Government's response to the Mitchell report. Both Governments remain united in seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland to achieve a comprehensive political settlement. They also remain united on the means by which that can be achieved: a process of inclusive all-party negotiations. I would prefer to concentrate on that rather than on the occasional ups and downs that occur in such a close relationship.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, whatever the Republic of Ireland's views, they are not important in the sense of what the House will and cannot do? What is important is that the IRA should never get the message that it can intimidate Her Majesty's Government or the House into not holding elections in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It has been a matter of great importance that the two Governments should stand side by side in their response to the evil and totally unjustified return to violence that has been carried out by people who have turned their backs on democracy.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As most people in Northern Ireland—with the exception of Sinn Fein—agree with the principle of consent, does the Secretary of State recall that the large majority of people in Northern Ireland oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that all hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches remain implacably opposed to it? Does he therefore understand clearly that any statement by the Government on the future political process in Northern Ireland that implicitly involves the Anglo-Irish Agreement cannot succeed?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that part of the purpose of the negotiations, about which we have been talking at length this afternoon, is to see whether a new and more widely accepted agreement between the two Governments can be found. That was part of the process of the three-stranded talks in 1991–92 and it remains something which, by definition, would be desirable.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that a great many people in Northern Ireland support political parties that are not represented in the House? Does he agree that elections that would lead directly to all-party talks would enable their concerns and interests to be given a voice in those all-party talks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. It is important to remember that, as was observed by Senator Mitchell in his report, a process of elections would need to be widely accepted. One of the reasons why it seems to offer a means of carrying forward
    486
    the confidence that is needed is that it would enable Northern Ireland's people to make their views known in the new circumstances.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the only parties that refused to enter all-party negotiations were the two Unionist parties and that the Prime Minister's stated reason for proposing an elective process was to get those parties directly and immediately into all-party negotiations? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that yesterday the Unionist parties made it clear that, even after an elective process, they would not go directly and immediately into all-party negotiations? Why does the Prime Minister foolishly and stubbornly pursue a policy that cannot achieve his own stated objective?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have always found that the Unionist parties, like every other party represented in the House, are well capable of speaking for themselves. On the whole, it is wiser to let them do so—that is true of all parties in the House. Rather than go down a historical road, especially one that is conditioned by the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would prefer to concentrate on what unites parties in the House, particularly those that take a close interest in Northern Ireland affairs: the need to establish an inclusive process of talks, at which are represented all the parties that fulfil the stipulations of paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration. That means in particular those that have established that they are wholly committed to democratic principles. That is what unites us all. We must now set much of the past behind us and concentrate on the means by which that objective can be achieved.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, over the past few days, Government spin doctors have been briefing the press to the effect that he and the Prime Minister do not view as mutually exclusive the proposal for an elected convention put forward by my party, the referendum proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the proximity talks proposal being put forward by the Government of the Irish Republic? Is that the direction in which the Government are leaning?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: If any spin doctors—I have never met one—have been spinning in the direction of the idea that all these proposals are put forward in good faith as offering a possible way forward and that all are relevant to achieving the objective that we share, I am glad, and I hope that they will go on spinning, because it happens to be true. In the process of the intensive talks that are going on, we must try to rough-hew an agreed way forward. There are good prospects of doing so.
    Mr. Worthington: If there is general support for elections, as the Secretary of State said, does he agree that all parties that are committed to exclusively peaceful methods should know at the time of the elections when, where and how all-party talks should take place?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is no doubt that nationalists are anxious that all-party negotiations of an inclusive type are started as soon as possible. There is nothing special about them—I think everybody is

    487
    concerned about that. We cannot identify a date as being the one with certainty on which negotiations will start. We can, however—this is useful—do what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done: set out a timetable by which it seems likely that the House would approve the necessary legislation and by which thereafter we could, in a short space of time, measured in days rather than weeks, enter the negotiations that we all seek.
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of elections on the level of violence in Northern Ireland since 1971. [15025]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): There does not appear to be any direct correlation between elections and levels of violence in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Simpson: Is the Minister aware of figures provided for me by the Library, tracing the past 25 years? They show not only that there is no correlation between election years and positive peace-building processes but that election years have invariably produced more deaths, injuries, explosions and firearms caches, which have bucked the trend of decreasing violence. Does the Minister accept that wider evidence suggests that elections follow the conclusion of all-party peace talks rather than their pre-emption? Is that not where the Government should be starting right now?
    Sir John Wheeler: I cannot comment on the detail of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman. What I can say is that, in the event of elections, the Royal Ulster Constabulary will produce a plan to protect the public who wish to participate in them.

  PRIME MINISTER

    United Nations
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 772, what proposals he has made for the abolition of United Nations bodies. [15047]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I believe in an effective United Nations. Eliminating waste must be part of that. As I advised the hon. Gentleman recently, that includes, where necessary, a long-term look at the functions and programmes that have outlived their usefulness.
    Dr. Godman: Before any such bodies can be abolished, the United Nations must contend with the election of a new Secretary-General. Why are the Government advocating the re-election of Dr. Boutros Ghali so assiduously? Should not the Prime Minister and other leaders be campaigning for a candidate of the stature of, say, President Mary Robinson of the Irish Republic, or some other stateswoman or statesman of equal standing? As for Dr. Boutros Ghali, should we not be saying cheerio to the old fellow?
    The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not indicate how they will vote on these occasions, and I do not propose to do so now. What I think most important is that the United Nations is efficient, and efficiently run. It is distressing to note that a large number of United Nations bodies have patently outlived their usefulness. They have no proper functions to perform either now or in the future, and they should be removed.

    Engagements
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15048]
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Bruce: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House—and, indeed, to the public—why, when the reputation of members of his Cabinet is at stake and when the House is to debate a report that he personally commissioned, he is denying the House a substantive motion on which to vote and, moreover, is not prepared to come here and take part in the debate?
    The Prime Minister: I am here every Tuesday and Thursday to answer questions, and I do answer those questions.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Where is the right hon. Gentleman on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?
    The Prime Minister: If hon. Members wish to have Prime Minister's Questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I am not entirely sure that they will carry the whole House with them.
    The House will be able to vote on Monday's motion, and it is very likely that it will do so. If the main charges against the Government had been proved, of course it would have been entirely proper for me to be here to defend that, but they were not proved. Sir Richard has agreed that there was no conspiracy, no cover-up. It is entirely proper that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom the report was addressed, should lead for the Government, and he will do so.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is simply unacceptable that an unelected foreign court should put its judgment on British policy before that of a British Home Secretary? If ultimately we have to follow the consequences of backing British opinion and contemplate leaving the European Court of Justice at the expense of pandering to the European liberal intelligentsia, would that not be very much the lesser of two evils?
    The Prime Minister: It is of course extremely disappointing—and to many hon. Members extremely irritating—that the European Court of Human Rights has found against the Government on a procedure that has been used in this country for very many years. My right

    489
    hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking very carefully at the judgment to see precisely what effect it has. I have said before that the Government are not satisfied with some of the rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights and we are pursuing with other members of the Council of Europe precisely what might be done to improve what we believe is a flawed system.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are two questions on the Scott report: first, was Parliament misled and, secondly, were Ministers to blame? On the first, the Chancellor has been forced to issue an apology today for a Treasury press release and has admitted that Scott found that Parliament was misled. Does the Prime Minister agree with that? Can we have a clear answer? Does he accept that Scott found that Parliament was misled?
    The Prime Minister: There were two questions, of course, that Sir Richard Scott was asked to investigate, and he investigated both those and other matters as well. The two principal points that Sir Richard was asked to determine were, first, whether Saddam Hussein was illegally supplied with arms—as charged by right hon. and hon. Opposition Members—and he found that he was not; and, secondly, whether there was a conspiracy to pervert justice by an improper use of public interest immunity certificates and, again, he found that there was not.
    On whether Parliament was misled, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, none of my right hon. Friends intentionally misled Parliament. They did not. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Scott report carefully, he would know what Sir Richard had to say about that. He would know that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was cleared of duplicitous intent and that he was not accused of deliberately misleading Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knows that and I am surprised that he keeps pursuing a point that he knows is wrong.
    Mr. Blair: We will come to the question of blame, Ministers deliberately withholding information from Parliament in breach of rules of accountability, not telling the truth when they were in a position to know so—all of which Sir Richard found. Can I have it clearly on the record whether the Prime Minister, leaving aside the question of intention, to which we will come, accepts that Parliament was misled—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I answered that question on Tuesday. I have answered that question again today and I have made it absolutely clear. There was no intention whatever to mislead Parliament—nor did my right hon. Friends do that on any occasion of which I am aware.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the basic question. How has he reached the position of commissioning the report to get at the truth, and three years and millions of pounds later walking away from the findings that he does not like? Just like Nolan, just like Greenbury—it is a textbook definition of Majorism. Can the Prime Minister please tell us whether he accepts the key findings, first, that Parliament was misled and, secondly, that Ministers deliberately withheld information in breach of the rules of ministerial
    490
    accountability? If he cannot answer them, we will conclude that he is unable and his Government are unable to distinguish between what is true and what is false.
    The Prime Minister: That was not so much a sound bite as a sound nibble. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was no deceit whatever, and that was apparent from the report. I will tell the House why the right hon. Gentleman keeps moving to these points. He knows that on the substantive issues Sir Richard found in the Government's favour. He knows that on the issues that the inquiry was set up to consider, the Government were found to have behaved entirely properly. That is why the right hon. Gentleman changes the ground rules.
    On the central issues of the Scott report—the issues that have led the Opposition to blackguard the Government repeatedly over the past three years—Sir Richard found in the Government's favour. The right hon. Gentleman will scrabble on wherever he can to change what he said before and to hide what he said before, and to try to impute deceit where there was none.
    Dr. Spink: Why are non-wage labour costs in the UK half those of our major competitors? Why is our take-home pay higher than that of our major competitors and why is our unemployment lower? Is it a result of the Government's policies, which are making us the enterprise centre of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this country's favourable economic position. He is equally right to draw attention to the fact that, if we accepted the social costs, through the social chapter as it is now and the social chapter as it would be if any British Government were foolish enough to join it, we would find the same extra costs, the same lack of competitiveness and the same increase in unemployment as we have seen in so many of our competitor countries across Europe. We have no intention of making those mistakes. No party that is genuinely concerned about employment should contemplate such policies, because they will keep people out of work who are out of work at present and they will put out of work people who are in work at present.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15049]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: Returning to the Scott report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members suggest that it is boring. It is not boring in my constituency, which is just down the road from Matrix Churchill. Now let the Prime Minister try to give us a straight answer to a straight question. Does he accept the finding of the Scott report that the Attorney-General was personally at fault for failing to pass on the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that the documents for which he claimed public interest immunity should be shown to the defence?
    The Prime Minister: The Attorney-General made it clear to the House on Monday that he took specific steps to ensure, through my right hon. Friend's special PII certificate, that the judge was alerted to the need for

    491
    special care. The judge exercised his discretion, precisely as the Attorney-General had said he would, and ordered the disclosure of the relevant papers to the defence. The hon. Gentleman should stop twisting and misinterpreting what happened.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15050]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: Does the Prime Minister agree that, with high unemployment in this country and even higher unemployment in our European partner countries, we need policies that will lift the burden off industry to enable it to create jobs? Whatever the wriggling, the Labour party's support for the social chapter and the minimum wage blows apart its claim to be able to create jobs. All it would do is tax jobs.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. [Interruption.] I said "my hon. Friend". Fond though I am of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I do not regard him as my right hon. Friend in parliamentary terms—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman seeks repeatedly to interrupt Prime Minister's Question Time. He reminds me that it was he who said that, after 15 years of deregulation, he did not see much investment flooding in. He should go to Sedgefield,
    492
    Livingston and all sorts of other places throughout the country to see the inward investment that has been a result of this Government's policy. It has provided jobs for people whom the right hon. Gentleman's policies would leave on the scrap heap for ever.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15051]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Prime Minister keeps on repeating that the Scott report has cleared his Government. If that is the case, why is he so scared of allowing the House a vote on the future of the two Ministers concerned? What is he scared of?
    The Prime Minister: The House will have its opportunity to debate and to vote on the motion on Monday. I have indicated my confidence in both Ministers. I have indicated that, on the two substantive matters that caused me to set up the Scott report, Sir Richard has cleared the Government of any malpractice whatsoever. I have also said before, and I repeat it again now, that what happened did bring out shortcomings in some areas. I said that last week and I repeat it again today. We will take those shortcomings very seriously. We are examining what Sir Richard had to say and we will bring before the House speedily our proposed measures to remedy those things that need changing.

Oil Tanker (Milford Haven)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): On Monday, I made a statement to the House on the Sea Empress. In it, I referred to the difficulties of such operations and said that the resolution of the incident would take time. I stressed that the weather would remain the crucial factor in determining progress. I am now informing the House of the steps that have been taken since Monday and the further steps that the Government propose to take thoroughly to assess the incident and its consequences, and to establish what lessons should be learned and what further action needs to be taken.
Since my earlier statement, the elements have posed considerable dangers and difficulties for the salvors engaged by the ship's owners. Difficulties with wind and tide have led to the ship regrounding on a number of occasions and to the loss of additional and significant amounts of oil. Despite those difficulties, immense efforts have been made by the salvors to try to stabilise the ship to prevent further loss of oil and to remove the oil still on board.
Where oil has escaped, my Department's marine pollution control unit's aircraft have sprayed it with dispersants. At the same time, between 150 and 160 people, organised by the MCPU and supervised by qualified beachmasters, have been working to clean up oil that has been washed ashore. There has been no shortage of manpower or resources: all the equipment that could physically be brought on to the beaches has been made available. The local and harbour authorities and voluntary bodies have also been working hard to protect the environment.
As the House knows, the ship was successfully refloated last night and towed to a jetty in Milford Haven, where it is now protected by a boom. There was some further escape of oil from the vessel during those operations. It is proposed to unload the vessel into smaller tankers that would be brought aside. That operation needs to be carefully planned and prepared, and is likely to take some days. Every effort will be made to prevent any further discharges from the ship.
We are not yet in a position to confirm precisely the amount of the ship's cargo that remains on board. Indications are that up to half the cargo, some 65,000 tonnes, has been spilt. Of this light crude, around a quarter will have evaporated. However, there is considerable pollution at sea and on parts of the coastline. Much of the pollution at sea is in the form of sheens, but there are also patches of thicker oil. When it is appropriate to do so, those thicker patches are being sprayed with dispersants by aircraft.
Three oil recovery vessels are also currently operating at sea, and two further oil recovery vessels are proceeding to the area. Oil recovery operations are also continuing within Milford Haven.
There is pollution on parts of the coastline. The clean-up techniques used will vary between sites, and are decided in full consultation with environmental experts and interests, under the overall control of a joint response centre established by the MPCU and the harbour and local authorities in Milford Haven. The clean-up operations are being undertaken by local authority and oil company personnel and by specialist contractors.
494
Every assistance is being given to the voluntary organisations that are dealing with oiled sea birds. I pay tribute to those organisations for all the valuable work that they are doing.
The House will want to know what the Government will do to find out, first, the causes of the accident, secondly, the lessons that can be learned from the way in which the salvage operation was conducted, and, finally, the extent of environmental damage and the effectiveness of the response and clean-up operations.
First, as I told the House on Monday, the marine accident investigation branch has already initiated an inquiry into the causes of the grounding of the Sea Empress. MAIB inspectors have been on the scene since Friday, and have made good progress. The chief inspector of marine accidents will provide me with a full report, which will be published. I am sure that the MAIB is the right body to do that. That is the purpose for which it was set up under an Act of Parliament.
We need a thorough professional examination of what went wrong, so that we can learn whatever lessons there are to learn for the design, operation, management and pilotage of tankers. MAIB, like the parallel body for the investigation of air accidents, the air accident investigation branch, has the highest reputation for professionalism and integrity. I assure the House that, in this case, as in others, its investigation and its report will be independent.
Secondly, I shall explain the conduct of the salvage operation. Salvage operations can only be undertaken by skilled, experienced professionals, and the consortium engaged by the ship's owners includes one of the world's leading salvage firms. The responsibility for the conduct of the salvage operation rests with the salvors. Although their proposals have to be considered and agreed both by the port authority and by the marine pollution control unit, responsibility for their initiation and execution rests with them. The salvors had to determine the resources needed and to ensure that they were to hand.
I reiterate my unstinting admiration—which I am sure the whole House shares—for the tireless work that the teams of salvors, together with members of the emergency services, military and civilian helicopter crews, the ship's crew, Admiralty salvage experts, members of the MPCU and all those involved, have put into the salvage operation since the accident, often in diabolical conditions of danger, gales, freezing temperatures and acute physical discomfort. It is all too easy to criticise their efforts from the comfort of the armchair, the studio or the news room.
None the less, for all their herculean efforts, the vessel remained stranded for five days, and about 65,000 tonnes of oil has been spilt. I know that the House shares my disappointment and frustration at the repeated failures of the earlier salvage attempts, and my deep concern at the environmental consequences. We must find out why that happened, and whether anything more might be done to make a future salvage operation more likely to succeed.
To that end, I have asked the chief inspector of marine accidents to extend the scope of the current investigation to include the salvage operations. That will include consideration of the planning and execution of the operation, and examination of the contingency plans that were made and of the input and supervision of the operation by the shipowner, his insurers, the harbour authority and the marine pollution control unit.

495
The chief inspector has told me that he is appointing independent consultants to help with that part of his inquiry. I look to all those involved to co-operate fully with that aspect of the investigation. I shall publish the chief inspector's report.
Thirdly, it is also essential that we undertake rigorous scientific assessments of the damage that has been caused on land and at sea, and of the effectiveness of the clean-up operations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced yesterday that up to £250,000 is being made available for a comprehensive environmental assessment and a long-term monitoring programme in the area affected by the spill. That work will start immediately, and will be undertaken by the Countryside Council for Wales, acting in partnership with other statutory agencies and voluntary environmental groups.
It is intended to assess the impact of the spillage on both coastal and marine habitats. It is also intended to assess the effect of dispersing the oil, both naturally and by chemicals, on the concentrations of flora and fauna, including sea birds, sea ducks and marine mammals. This will include a full assessment of the damage done to the Skomer marine nature reserve and Milford Haven waterway.
The levels of oil pollution in the sea water and coastal sediments will be measured, and changes monitored, as will the long-term recovery of the biological systems in general. The immediate need is to minimise, to the extent that is possible, the environmental effects of the spill. However, we must not lose sight of the need to learn for the future.
This assessment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be complemented by work to be done by MAFF, which is arranging for diversion of the research vessel Corystes from its current research work to a new mission of fishing and environmental monitoring. The Corystes will be collecting samples of fish and shellfish for analysis of residues of oil. This will supplement the present and on-going programmes of monitoring and will enable us to determine what restrictions are necessary, and to say when fishing can safely resume. In the meantime, the voluntary action ensures that fish on the market remain safe to eat.
I also wish to express our appreciation of the work of those involved in the clean-up operation, who are often working in exposed or unpleasant conditions. None the less, we will also need to assess the pollution response and clean-up operations. At this moment, it is impossible to estimate how extensive these operations are likely to be.
Operations at sea are the responsibility of the marine pollution control unit, while operations on shore fall primarily to the local authorities, assisted by the MPCU and, in this case, by the oil industry. In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I propose to appoint an independent assessor to undertake a rigorous examination of the response, the clean-up procedures and the techniques employed following the Sea Empress incident.
As the report of the ecological steering group established after the Braer recommended, it is essential that these examinations of the environmental impact and of the clean-up operations are brought together and published in a form that will provide clear guidance for the future. This will be done. We believe that the
496
measures necessary to reduce the risk of pollution were clearly set out in Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".
When we have completed the investigation and the assessments that I have referred to in this statement, we will be in a position to assess the lessons on this particular spill and set them in the context of Lord Donaldson's findings and recommendations, the vast majority of which we have accepted. The Government are determined to find out exactly what happened, to publish the results, and to learn and apply the lessons. The House would expect no less.
Ms Clare Short: I join the Government in paying tribute to the bravery of the people involved in the salvage operation. Whatever mistakes may have been made, hon. Members will wish to know that the coastguards praised the amazing bravery of the salvors, and said that the Dutch in particular had risked life and limb to save the Sea Empress and to prevent a disaster. I am sure that we all wish to send a message of thanks to all concerned.
I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision and to accept that an inquiry by the Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch is not an adequate response to this disaster. One of the questions that has to be asked is: did Ministers fail to implement the Donaldson report recommendations to ensure that adequate tugs were available? Surely the Secretary of State for Transport can see that it is not credible that a unit of his Department could properly investigate the possible failings of its Ministers.
I also put it to the Secretary of State that the second question is, did Ministers fail to use their powers to ensure the salvage operation was properly conducted? It now seems clear that large numbers of extra tugs were offered and refused by the salvage company employed by the shipowners, on a no win, no fee basis.
The Daily Telegraph tells us:
"the disaster has exposed how little control the Government has over salvage."
It quotes the Department of Transport as saying that salvage was
"essentially the responsibility of the firm contracted by the ship's owner."
Is that true? Did Ministers have powers to intervene and to take decisions on the calling of other tugs? Did Ministers fail to use their powers, and thus are they partly responsible for the disaster? The Secretary of State must realise that a unit of his own Department cannot answer those questions properly.
I press the Secretary of State to think again, and to recall Lord Donaldson. Clearly, his expertise is such that a speedy, independent investigation is possible. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must find out the truth and learn the lessons? Can the Secretary of State see that his refusal to recall Lord Donaldson will leave many people thinking that the Government have something to hide?
I also press the Secretary of State to make urgent arrangements—I am surprised that it was not announced in his statement—to ensure that all local people who have suffered damage and threats to their livelihoods will be provided with full advice and proper compensation.

497
Lastly, I put it to the Secretary of State that the continuing decline of British shipping and the British fleet as a result of cost-cutting is part of the explanation of the disaster. Today's edition of The Independent refers to the ship as being
"Built in Spain; owned by a Norwegian; registered in Cyprus; managed from Glasgow; chartered by the French; crewed by Russians … carrying an American cargo."
I might add that its rescue was attempted by a Chinese tug, with a local Chinese chef interpreting. Does the Secretary of State agree that such a splintering of responsibility is bound to lead to problems?
I repeat my request to the Secretary of State to establish a high-level working party, chair it himself, and take action to restore the British fleet and the better standards of seafaring that we clearly need.
Sir George Young: I welcome what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said at the beginning, when she uttered some kind words about those who were involved in the exercise. I hope that she had time to read today's edition of The Independent, which contains a perceptive article by a member of the Donaldson inquiry. He writes:
"The immediate issue is too important to be turned into a tug-of-war between political parties. In my view, the salvors pursued the only course they could."
I turn now to the details of the specific questions posed by the hon. Lady. I do not agree with what she said about the inquiries that I have established. The unit to which I referred is not part of my Department. It reports directly to the Secretary of State; it does not go through my Department—nor has it shrunk from criticising my Department in the past when it has seen fit so to do. It is impartial and independent.
As to the hon. Lady's questions about the refusal of tugs and other resources that were offered to the salvage company, that will be covered by the inquiry to which I referred in my opening remarks. Yes, it is the case that Ministers have powers to intervene, but I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on whether Ministers have the resources, the experience and the skills necessary to second-guess a firm of professional salvors who have all the skills to deal with crises of that kind.
I turn to the hon. Lady's comments about Donaldson. Lord Donaldson did not institute an inquiry into the Braer incident. He provided a thorough, comprehensive and wise review on the general subject of the prevention of pollution and how to make merchant shipping safer. I have that report: the Government have accepted 86 of its 103 recommendations, and we are considering a further 13.
In this case, we have done exactly what we did with the Braer: we appointed an inquiry under the marine accident investigation branch to report on what occurred. We can then test the results of that inquiry and of the inquiry into the salvage operation against the basic parameters set out by Lord Donaldson, which the Government accept. At this stage, there is no case for reopening Lord Donaldson's comprehensive work, most of which is accepted by both sides of the House.
I repeat that the Government have launched an independent inquiry into the three aspects that most concern the House: why the accident happened, how the
498
salvage operation was conducted, and how the clean-up operations were then implemented. I think that that is the appropriate approach for Government, and that we shall learn the lessons that must be learned.
Mr. David Harris: As president of the sea safety group and sponsor of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, I consider that my right hon. Friend has done the right thing in setting up detailed and wide-ranging inquiries. Will he make sure that those inquiries cover a number of issues?
First, will the inquiries examine the use of language and the inability of some seafarers to understand English—in particular, the recommendation that the International Maritime Organisation should consider making English the recognised language of the sea? Secondly, will he look again at the stationing of tugs, which is undoubtedly a key issue, and the way in which salvage operations are conducted? Although I agree that it is wrong and ridiculous for Ministers to be countermanding people at sea, nevertheless there is a need to examine carefully the mechanism of mounting salvage operations.
Sir George Young: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. In regard to communication, shipping is an international industry, but if serious communication problems occurred in the salvage operation, they would be a matter for the inspector. As for the stationing of tugs, the Belton report—one of the follow-up reports of the Donaldson inquiry—will be published shortly. It confirmed Lord Donaldson's initial findings about the two priorities for locating the tugs. It did not identify west or north Wales as primary or secondary areas.
I should have responded to the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on compensation. People will be entitled to compensation for financial loss, and I shall ensure that they have access to the necessary information to enable them to pursue that.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Surely the remit for the inquiries announced this afternoon is too narrow. For example, I understand from reports today that the oil slick could threaten Lundy and the west country coast, making the environmental implications even greater.
Let me take the Secretary of State back to the final sentence of his statement, when he said:
"The Government are determined to find out exactly what happened, to publish the results and to learn and apply the lessons."
Surely there is a much more basic question: why did the accident happen, and could it have been prevented? In that respect, will the Secretary of State examine the role of the coastguard?
As the right hon. Gentleman will know from the debate that I initiated last week, there are real concerns about the manning of the coastguard service. I understand that, when the tanker went aground last Thursday night, the coastguard marine rescue centre responsible for the Milford Haven approaches was undermanned. There was one senior watch officer on duty and one regular, when there should have been at least three on watch. The officer monitoring channel 16 VHF had to listen to that frequency and to landlines for a 12-hour stretch instead of a maximum of two hours.
Will the Secretary of State undertake swiftly—without waiting for the inquiries—to look into whether the coastguards' role in the incident was affected by undermanning?
Sir George Young: I made it clear on Monday, and I do so again today, that efficiency gains in the two marine agencies and the MAIB have not and will not be made at the expense of safety. Safety is and will remain paramount, as has been made clear to the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency and the other agencies. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, of course we shall look at the environmental impacts, wherever they occur. If pollution spreads to the area that he mentioned, the assessment to which I referred in my statement will examine the impact on that area as well.
Mr. Nick Ainger: I, too, would like to place on record my appreciation for all the work that has been done by the crews of tugs and the clean-up crews on the beaches, sometimes in appalling conditions. However, the Secretary of State's statement was quite appallingly complacent. My constituency faces an environmental and economic disaster. The tourist industry has already received massive cancellations, in my view totally unnecessarily, as I am sure that virtually all the beaches will be clean within a month.
I waited for the word "sorry" or an apology to come from the Secretary of State's lips, and we heard neither. The Secretary of State and the Department of Transport are culpable in the disaster. We should not forget that the vessel ran aground at 8.10 on Thursday night. Until 7 o'clock on Monday night, it was under the control of the tugs operated by the salvors. The vessel bounced from rock to rock in the entrance of St. Anne's. We were told by the Donaldson report that far more powerful tugs were required. It is clear from the statements made by Lord Donaldson that the recommendations for more powerful tugs around our coast have not been fully implemented.
At lunchtime, I was engaged in a radio broadcast with Professor Maclntyre, and he concurred with the view that the recommendations were not fully implemented. There was no powerful tug in the vicinity, and there are still insufficient powerful tugs around our coasts.
Until Monday night, that vessel bounced from rock to rock. In calm conditions, at 7 o'clock on Monday night, it was put on the rocks by the salvors, at a time when there were no adverse weather conditions. As a result, 70,000 tonnes of oil spilt. Until Monday night, only 1,000 tonnes had spilt. That is the responsibility of the Department of Transport, first because the Secretary of State did not implement the Donaldson report, and, secondly, because he allowed that farce to carry on for four days.
The Secretary of State had the power to intervene, and he did not. Now, he offers us an inquiry within his Department. My constituents have no confidence whatever in that type of inquiry. The only person who should conduct that inquiry is Lord Donaldson, because he has the expertise and the background. I urge the Secretary of State to change his mind, even now, and appoint Lord Donaldson to carry out a full inquiry.
Sir George Young: I remind the hon. Member that on Monday, in The Guardian, he was reported as saying that he had no criticism of the salvage operation.
Mr. Ainger: I believed what I was told.
Sir George Young: That was three days after the incident took place.
500
I also regret that, on Tuesday, after a meeting with me, the hon. Gentleman put out a press release which attributed to me remarks that I did not make. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, reconsider what he did.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, one of the lessons that we have learnt from the Braer incident is that the reporting, in some cases in dramatic terms, of the incident does far more damage to tourist and other industries than the incident itself. That is a point that the hon. Gentleman made just now by reporting—rightly—that the beaches are likely to be cleaned in the near future. I am sure that no one would want to say anything in the House that would damage the tourist industry in Pembrokeshire.
I repeat what I have said and what my noble Friend Lord Goschen has said about the availability of tugs. My Department made available one of the two tugs that are available on standby to the salvors, and they declined it because, in their view, they had access to the tugs they needed. The independent review that I have announced will consider all the important issues that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised in his questions.
We understand, of course, the strength of feeling on the matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not imply that the inspectors I have appointed will be anything but independent and impartial. As the inspectors have done in the past, they will criticise my Department if it deserves criticism. [HON. MEMBERS: "And you."] Yes, and me.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: While I note my right hon. Friend's comment that most of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson have already been implemented, will he specifically deal with the recommendation that tugs be stationed permanently all around the coast and the likely cost implications if that were to be done?
Sir George Young: Lord Donaldson made it clear that he did not think that that would be a practical use of resources. That was clear from his report, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Secretary of State's statement that it is not always possible to overcome the forces of nature will be regarded as extraordinarily complacent. The view held locally, with every justification, is that, if resources had been properly and efficiently deployed, the forces of nature could have been overcome in this case.
The Sea Empress incident is more serious than the Braer, because it is likely to have a much more severe environmental impact. If the inquiry is any less searching, complete and open than the Braer inquiry, there will be great anger in south-west Wales—just as there is anger because, whereas heavy tugs have been deployed off Dover and the north of Scotland, they have not been deployed in south-west Wales—despite that coast being subject to extraordinarily busy tanker movements, great environmental sensitivity and importance, and one where seafaring is inherently hazardous. In those circumstances, heavy tug facilities should certainly be available there.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it absolutely clear that the cost of restoring the area and of all compensation to the local economy and to the people of the wide area affected will be fully met according to the

501
"polluter pays" principle—just as the oil industry and the shippers should meet the cost of deploying heavy tugs, so that such an incident does not happen again.
Sir George Young: I confirm that the polluter will pay. Up to the first £10 million is borne by the ship's insurers. Any sum over that is borne by the international oil petroleum compensation fund, as with the Braer.
Lord Donaldson did not indicate that the area around Milford Haven should have the same priority in respect of heavy tugs as Dover and the Minches. The inquiry that I have announced will be the same type as that initiated for the Braer incident—it will have the same powers, and be conducted every bit as rigorously.
Sir Hector Monro: Following the Braer incident, many conservation bodies, scientists and the Scottish Office gained a great deal of practical first-hand information. Will my right hon. Friend consider applying some of that knowledge in the weeks ahead, while Pembrokeshire is being cleared up? As a crumb of comfort to the people in Pembrokeshire who have been so grievously hurt, I can confirm that the insurers and the oil industry paid up the compensation that was expected of them after the Braer disaster, without too much difficulty.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that assurance, and I will certainly pass on his generous offer of assistance in the recovery operation.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: My hon. Friends have made clear the anger felt by the people of Wales at an incident in an area of tremendous marine importance that is part of the national heritage of Wales.
Commercial shipping throughout the world is an unregulated industry relative to others. Donaldson makes it clear, in the report that is at the right hon. Gentleman's side, that the United Kingdom has excellent facilities for cleaning up oil spills. In view of that, what will the Secretary of State do to guarantee that the beaches of Gower and the shellfish industry of north Gower will not suffer as a result of the Sea Empress incident?
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made clear his concerns. I am surprised that the Government still need to be taught lessons. I hope that the Government have good teachers—as good as Lord Donaldson, because their response is the same every time that a disaster occurs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House what new lessons he will learn this time.
Sir George Young: It would be advisable to await the result of the inquiries before I say what new lessons can be learned. Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's anger. I visited the area on Friday, and I understand the concern of those who live there. He is not quite right to say that the industry is unregulated. For example, we detain ships when they are sub-standard, and publish the names of the countries that are offending. We take safety very seriously. We take action against ships that are unsafe, and detain them until appropriate precautions are taken.
502
The hon. Gentleman rightly reminded the House that we have good facilities to deal with these incidents. We are one of the few countries with aircraft on standby that are dedicated to the spraying of dispersants in such incidents. A total of seven Dakotas and Cessnas are available solely for that purpose. We set up the marine pollution control unit, which has the highest technology available to plot the impact of tides on pollution. It was in place in Milford Haven within four hours of the ship going aground.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to give an assurance that parts of his constituency will not be affected. Of course, I cannot give the categorical assurance that they will not, but if they are, they will be cleaned up and restored as quickly as possible.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend has the sympathy of the House, inasmuch as no one seems to take into account the fact that it was one of the worst hurricanes to strike the coast for many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] One of the queries in the Donaldson report was about the lack of oceangoing tugs of sufficient quality and quantity to be able to bring a tanker of that size off the rocks. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to investigate whether money can be spent on essential stationing for oceangoing tugs around our coastline?
Sir George Young: On the last point of my hon. Friend's question, we have already taken action on the priorities that Lord Donaldson identified, and have placed two tugs in strategic places at the Minches and at Dover. We shall shortly publish the Belton report, which outlines where resources should be placed next. The availability of tugs will be examined by the inquiry, but, as has been clear from some initial comments, it is not just the availability of the tugs that is important but their manoeuvrability and their ability to work as a team in the narrow straits of the channel into Milford Haven.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the rescue operation was not assisted by the weather. There was a real risk to life and limb in undertaking the operation at certain times of the week, and one cannot totally discount the impact of the weather, the tide and other factors on the safety of this particular salvage operation.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Minister referred to the use of planes, but does he realise that that happens only after the event? We are talking about the prevention of such tragedies. I believe that the Government have been culpably negligent as far as taking the advice of Donaldson and the situation around our coastal waters are concerned.
The Government have sat back and watched a reduction over the years in the standards of coastal lights in estuarial and coastal waters. That ship should never have been allowed to enter estuarial waters in the conditions that prevailed at the time. If the maritime organisation had been as efficient as it should be, that vessel should not have been allowed to come in until the risk had passed.
Regardless of whether a pilot is on board or not, the vessel should not have been allowed to enter estuarial waters with the danger of suffering damage to its hull. How long must we wait before we impose the standards of double skins on these tankers to avoid what is

503
happening? It is a disgrace that the Government sit back after what Donaldson had said. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). The marine accident investigation branch covered up what happened to the MV Derbyshire for years before it conceded that the matter should be referred to another body.
When will the Government act on these matters?
Sir George Young: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government established the Donaldson report. We commissioned it, we published it, and we accepted 86 of the 103 recommendations. The United Kingdom has set and implemented higher standards of sea safety than most other countries. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, to say that these accidents should not occur. That is why I have set up an inquiry to ascertain what went wrong in this instance, so that we can learn the lessons and take steps to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
The Milford Haven port authority has all the powers it needs to exclude vessels if it thinks that they are unsafe.
The issue of double hulls was taken up on Monday. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read what the Donaldson report says about double hulls. The report urges caution before they are advocated as a panacea to the difficulties that have detained us this afternoon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to tolerate further statements from Back-Bench Members. I want brisk questions. If they are not forthcoming, the statement will have to be closed down.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the possible conclusions that might be drawn from this incident is that it would be better if more British cargoes were carried in British-registered vessels crewed by British nationals? When P and O and the Shell tanker group are flagging out more of their vessels, will my right hon. Friend give the House the assurance that he will speak urgently to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in discussing the recommendations currently in front of him from the Chamber of Shipping?
Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend says, the course he advocates is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will know that, in last year's Finance Bill, as it then was, when I happened to be Financial Secretary to the Treasury, we introduced an element of fiscal roll-over relief for British ships, which was welcomed. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State recall that I asked him on Monday how many sea birds were affected by the oil pollution? He said that six had died. How many sea birds have now been affected—not only those that are dead—by the oil pollution? How many people are working on rescuing wildlife? What is being done to save the roosting sites, which are among the most important in the world?
504
Perhaps we should be grateful that a Chinese tug turned up. Given the Government's incompetence, I am surprised that it was not three tonnes of chicken chow mein.
Sir George Young: I do not have exact information now about the number of birds that have been affected. If I am able to procure that information, or if my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping is, it will be passed on.
There is some limited oil on Skomer, but there is not a large population of birds there at present. They are expected to return in about four to six weeks. The species most affected has been gulls, with a number reported as being stained. My latest information is that relatively few birds have been found dead or are being cleaned.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry ascertains whether a satellite navigation system was available to both the master and the pilot of the vessel, and whether it was the pilot or the master who was giving instructions when the vessel grounded?
Will he consider the inquiry ascertaining also when the vessel last docked in the United Kingdom and whether she was inspected, and publishing the report, if there was one, of that inspection? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry considers the role that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has to play in liaising in disasters of this sort, bearing in mind that it has a useful input in trying to save some of the sea birds?
Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Department of Education and Employment to ascertain whether the Natural Environment Research Council might undertake a long-term study of the implications of oil pollution in the area affected, so that we might gain some scientific knowledge?
As I was a Member of this place following a marine accident in my constituency, single-handedly, with no support from any Member on either side of the House, my efforts led to the publication of maritime accident reports, to bring them into line with the air accident reports produced by my right hon. Friend's Department, will he utterly reject the slur that has been cast on the marine accident investigation branch?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, and especially for his final comments. One of his questions concerned the Department of Education and Employment. I think that the Countryside Council for Wales may be doing part of the work to which he alluded. I shall certainly take up his other points on that theme.
My hon. Friend's question about responsibility for the initial accident and where it should fall goes to the heart of the matter. I hope that that will become clear when the MAIB report, following the inquiry into the accident, is published.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I accept that double hulls are not a panacea, but vessels of that size, which carry such enormous cargoes, are by definition extremely unstable and extremely vulnerable. I should remind the House that, four months ago, there was an incident in those very same waters, when the Borga ran aground, and that the hon. Member for Pembroke

505
(Mr. Ainger) warned that a major accident could happen at any time. The Borga was double-hulled, and there was no major leakage. Will the Secretary of State re-examine the use of double-skinned ships, especially in areas such as the Pembrokeshire coast, which have such high value for nature conservation?
Sir George Young: Yes, I shall consider that. It is important not to draw too many conclusions when contrasting the Borga incident with this one, because the speed of impact may have been different, and the ships may have come aground at different parts of the coast.
In relation to double hulls, I should remind the House that Lord Donaldson said:
"We have some doubts on the merits of double hulls and consider that there is scope for discussion".
He also makes the point that, in certain circumstances, double-hulled tankers can be more dangerous than those that are single-hulled. One must approach that issue with some caution.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, throughout this disaster, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Lord Goschen, appears to have been camped out on a promontory, providing information not only to the nation but to the Government? Does my right hon. Friend wish to divorce himself from the racist and snobbish remarks about the Chinese gentleman, who chipped in his translation skills in addition to his culinary skills to help out in a very difficult situation?
Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend's final remark. I also pay tribute to my noble Friend, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who went up to Milford Haven on Tuesday and returned only this morning. He took a personal interest in the responsibilities that my Department have with the marine pollution control unit. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's kind words to him.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody:: Does the Secretary of State agree that the removal of air-sea rescue from Brawdy, cuts to the coastguard and changes in the marine accident investigation branch have had any affect on what has happened? Does he seriously suggest that this incident should be investigated by a branch of his own Department, which is also suffering considerable cuts?
Sir George Young: I am satisfied that the MAIB has all the necessary resources to produce the type of report that I announced at the beginning of my statement. I have made it quite clear—I shall do so again—that safety is our paramount concern, and that it will remain so. The chief executives of the agencies have that message from Ministers clearly in their minds.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Why is it that everything that goes right is a result of the work of Ministers, while anything that goes wrong is the fault of someone else? The Secretary of State has blamed the weather, the press and the judgment of the salvors.
506
Has not this accident turned into a catastrophe because the tugs did not have enough pulling power, and because they were not pulling the vessel, but the vessel was pulling the tugs—back on to the rocks? Is not that the Government's responsibility, because they failed to carry out the Donaldson report recommendation that big tugs should be located at five centres, and that three of those tugs should have been set in place as an interim measure? The tug at the western approaches has not been set in place, and that was the Government's responsibility. Why does not the Secretary of State say the word that the whole country is asking him to say: sorry?
Sir George Young: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I did not attribute blame in my opening statement. I said that I was setting up inquiries and reviews to find out exactly what happened. That is the right way to approach the matter. It may be that the MAIB apportions blame differently from the way in which the hon. Gentleman has, but I do not know. We must await the report.
In relation to the tugs, I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the article in The Independent, because the matter is not necessarily as simple as many people might think. The author of that article makes the point that, at a key stage, more tugs and more pulling power might have done more damage to the hull when it was impaled on a pinnacle.
Mr. Tony Marlow: To what extent has the environment recovered—and how long did it take to do so—from the Braer disaster? Did my right hon. Friend read the article by Matt Ridley in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week, in which he said that, mercifully, things recover from such incidents in a shorter period than most people fear?
Sir George Young: I read that article, as well as several other articles that have made the same point. There is a robustness in the marine ecology, to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention. One must, of course, take all the necessary steps to minimise such accidents, but one should not over-dramatise the long-term consequences.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas" has a hollow ring about it today. Those of us who know and love that part of south-west Wales care very much about the environment that has been severely damaged—we cannot underestimate the damage to the environment. How many such disasters is the Minister willing to put up with—one a year as an annual event, one every two years, or one every three years? Is he aware that the oil industry itself believes that tougher regulation of the industry is the only answer, and that will only come from the Government's initiative?
Sir George Young: One accident is one accident too many. This country takes the lead in driving through the International Maritime Organisation higher standards, not least on ferry safety. There is a meeting on the subject this week designed to achieve higher standards of safety.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Bearing in mind the fact that people's livelihoods are at stake, will the Secretary of State give the House some idea of the criteria for compensation? Will it embrace fishing interests,

507
tourism and other interested parties? How far along the south Wales coast will the compensation provisions apply?
Sir George Young: Compensation is available for property damage, economic loss and reasonable preventive measures. Claimants should initially discuss the matter with their solicitors or with the fund I mentioned to assess whether their claim will be eligible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, so far claims have been met promptly by those involved.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the hon. Member who represents Hound point in the closed waters of the Forth, may I ask what the time scale is for the discussions on double skins?
Sir George Young: The IMO has decided that single skins should be phased out over a period. That period varies from country to country—for America, I think that it is about the year 2013. Discussions are continuing, not least in the light of evidence about whether or not double-skinned hulls are the only answer. It is important to aim at improved safety. Double hulls may be an answer, but there may be other ways of achieving the same safety.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Lord Donaldson was wrong when he suggested that, in exceptionally heavy weather, very large crude carriers and other big vessels should use the Minches. The dreadful event in Wales has caused serious concern to fishermen who fish the Minches. I shall tell the Secretary of State, as I told his predecessor, that, in heavy weather, such big vessels should stand well to the west of the Western Isles. I urge the Secretary of State to take advice from our fishermen.
Sir George Young: I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point. He asks me to bring his comments to Lord Donaldson's attention, and I shall of course do so.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, on the night of this tragic accident, he was not personally on the bridge of the Sea Empress, as, listening to Opposition Members, one would think that my right hon. Friend drove the ship on to the rocks himself?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that the Government did not own the ship and were not on board the ship. The Government's responsibility is to set the parameters, which we are happy to do. But ultimately, the responsibility for many such accidents rests with the individuals involved.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that we must not
508
lose sight of the need to learn lessons for the future. What is the oceangoing tug cover in the north and west of Scotland? Does he consider that adequate in terms of the Donaldson report? Does he—yes or no—believe that tug cover in Milford Haven was adequate following that report's recommendations?
Sir George Young: On the first question, I can answer for the tug cover provided by my Department, but Donaldson's point is that other tugs are available and must be taken into account. I will send the hon. Lady a reply to that question. On Milford Haven, the salvors' reaction was that they had enough tugs available to turn down the Government's offer of one of their tugs, either from Dover or from the Minches.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Tug availability is central to this matter. Was the Secretary of State aware by the weekend that the only powerful tug available was crewed by Chinese—none of whom could speak English—and could not be used effectively? If his office was not aware, why not? If it was aware, why did it not intervene to send a powerful vessel with an English-speaking crew from Dover to Milford Haven, or an even closer vessel in Brest, which had a French-speaking crew but presumably someone on it could speak English? He had the power to intervene. He should have known. Why did he not?
Sir George Young: I am not in the business of second-guessing professional salvage firms. The Chinese tug was in Falmouth. Initially, it looked like a valuable resource, but, when it was used, it was found that it was not a salvage but a towing tug, that the crew lacked expertise, and that the tug was not suited to complex salvage work in confined but highly tidal waters.
Mr. Graham Allen: It appears not only that the Secretary of State was not on the Sea Empress's bridge on Thursday night, but that he has not been at the Department's bridge in the subsequent five days. The heart of the matter is that the salvage company offered advice about adequate tugging power which has proved, at best, to be grossly optimistic—but, above all, it was advice. Who accepted that advice, who failed to question it, who was responsible, and who took the decision not to send adequate tug power to the disaster scene?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman simply has not been listening to what I have said. I have set up an inquiry that will find the answers to the questions that he poses. I invite him to have some patience and to wait for the independent inquiries, the results of which we will publish as soon as they are available.

Business of the House
4.27 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the business for next week, which will be as follows:

MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Scott report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Motions on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order and the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.

Money resolution relating to the Noise Bill.

Ways and Means resolution relating to the Prisoners' Earnings Bill.

THURSDAY 29 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 1 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 4 MARCH—Second Reading of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords], probably followed by other Government business.

On Tuesday 5 March and Wednesday 6 March, I expect to take Government legislation and to provide Opposition time. On Thursday 7 March, I hope to have a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. On Friday 8 March, the business will be private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 February to consider the Official Journal No. OJ C303 of 14 November 1995, relating to the European Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1994, together with the replies from the institutions, and the Official Journal No. OJ C352 of 30 December 1995, relating to the European Court of Auditors' statements of assurance for the financial year 1994.
[Wednesday 28 February:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant Community Documents: (a) OJ C303, Court of Auditors' Report for 1994; (b) OJ C352, Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance 1994. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 51-vi (1995–96); (b) HC 51-x (1995–96).
Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Reports—Relevant documents: Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order; Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order; Local Government Finance (Scotland) Notional Amounts Report.]
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am the first to admit that it is possible for the House to engage in momentous debates on motions for the Adjournment. Indeed, it is on record that the Chamberlain Government were brought down on such a motion. Adjournment motions are not to be dismissed out of hand. Why,
510
however, are the Government not inviting the House to agree with their view on the Scott report? Without a motion of that kind, they will be unable to claim at any time in the future that the House of Commons made a decision to agree with the report. It is almost the equivalent of parliamentary cowardice not to table a motion on which the House could divide.
Given the seriousness of the matter, it would be useful to know on Monday whether the Prime Minister has issued a writ against last Sunday's edition of The Observer, which accused him of lying in respect of the Scott report.
It would also be useful to hear a statement next week from the Minister for Industry and Energy about the Government's intentions in respect of nuclear privatisation—preferably with a view to its being scrapped. Yesterday, the Minister told the world that the Government had received an "indirect approach" from the American company Duke Power, whose safety record on nuclear reactors is being questioned in the United States. The Minister should make a statement explaining how United Kingdom nuclear regulators with no experience of regulating safety in a profit-motivated nuclear industry can protect the safety of United Kingdom citizens and communities.
May we also have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the special rules that govern the tax treatment of foreign nationals? Why should members of middle eastern royal families, companies that front for overseas Governments—such as the Kuwait Investment Office—and now the chair of British Gas be treated differently from millions of United Kingdom citizens who are prepared to put their shoulders to the British wheel and pay their fair share?
It has been widely reported that the Millennium Commission, chaired by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, has already decided in principle to award the millennium exhibition to London rather than the west midlands. Given that the award will represent the largest tranche of lottery cash, and that the Secretary of State is on record as referring to "committing public funds", should not the decision be announced in the House rather than at a press conference? It was made behind closed doors, with all the usual hurrying and scurrying; none of the participants could put their case to the public.
I give due notice that we shall be asking my next question until we receive an answer. Will the Government be moving the writ for the by-election in South-East Staffordshire next week? The delay is unacceptable. I do not want to hear about conventions relating to a certain number of weeks; we are ready to go. The people of South-East Staffordshire deserve a voice to put their case in the House of Commons, wherever that voice may come from.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has spoken with characteristic vigour. [Interruption.] I did not think that he was aggressive; he merely spoke with characteristic vigour. I shall reply with—I hope—characteristic emollience to his questions, although in many instances I have little to add to what I have said before. That certainly applies to the South-East Staffordshire by-election writ, and, indeed, to Monday's debate, on which I shall not seek to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only about an hour and a quarter ago.

511
On nuclear privatisation, safety is and will remain paramount in any arrangements. The Health and Safety Executive has confirmed that there will be no reduction in nuclear safety as a result of privatisation. On the points that I took to be principally related to British Gas, rather than the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Mr. Giordano' s pay package is, of course, a matter for the shareholders.
I shall bring the point about the Millennium Commission to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who will be answering questions on Monday 4 March.
Mr. John Biffen: On Monday's business, has my right hon. Friend been approached by the official Opposition about the offer of an Opposition day to match the Adjournment debate, the motion for which would be amendable, which would consequently enable a two-day debate on Scott and therefore validate the sincerity of their protestations?
Mr. Newton: No, I regret that I have not.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Given that only this afternoon Sir Richard Scott wrote to the President of the Board of Trade to say that he considered that Ministers were wrongly and selectivity misquoting what he has said at press conferences about his report, and that also this afternoon the Prime Minister said that the Government would be bringing forward substantive changes as a result of the report's conclusions, is it not slightly ludicrous that the Government are hiding behind the procedural device of an Adjournment motion, rather than arranging a substantive motion that could be amended and on which the House could vote on Monday?
Mr. Newton: No, I do not think that it is ludicrous that the Government have thought it right to have a debate on the motion for the Adjournment, partly because although various different individual aspects of the Scott report have been focused on, it is a hugely wide-ranging report and contains many recommendations on issues such as export licensing control, the future use of public interest immunity certificates and other matters. Such a wide-ranging report demands the wide-ranging debate for which we have provided.
Sir Norman Fowler: On the millennium exhibition, which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no doubt that the announcement on its location will be made next week? Is he also aware of the concern, especially in the midlands, about the decision-making process that appears to be behind that decision? At the very least, we expect that a statement will be made at the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State for National Heritage on the day of the decision.
Mr. Newton: Of course, I understand that there is concern in both the areas that have been the subject of speculation. I shall draw the representations of my right hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as I will those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
Mr. David Winnick: Following the previous question, is the Leader of the House aware that
512
many people in the west midlands consider that they have been treated shabbily in the past? If my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is right that a decision has been made and that it is not in favour of the west midlands, dissatisfaction in the region will only increase. Will there be a statement? If—as I understand it—no decision has yet been taken, will the Leader of the House ensure that the feelings of west midlands people and all hon. Members who have the honour to represent west midlands constituencies are fully taken into account?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot add to what I have said twice. I shall ensure that his comments are also brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Sir Michael Spicer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of interest across the country in the Government's review of Government research establishments? Could we have a debate on the subject before the Government take a final decision on what could be very important for a number of hon. Members?
Mr. Newton: I am aware that there is a great deal of interest in the matter and I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know that, in the House's lottery, my question dealing with the further democratisation of Northern Ireland and the use of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee was not called in Northern Ireland questions. Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland share his thoughts with us on the matter or at least follow the practice of the Secretary of State for Wales, who I understand has been inviting Members who represent Welsh constituencies to meet him to discuss how they might go down the road with such matters in Wales?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has made representations on those matters in recent weeks; I do not think that I can add in general terms to what I have said. Two or three weeks ago, he asked me about the possibility of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting to discuss hospital provision in Northern Ireland. We would be willing for the Committee to hold a debate on the draft "Regional Strategy for Health and Social Well-Being", which the Department of Health and Social Services published for consultation last year. If that happens, it may be best if the debate takes place in the next few weeks, so that any comments can be considered before the strategy is published in final form.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Government make time available so that we can debate the growing powers of the European Courts and how parliamentary sovereignty could be reasserted?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to make time available for such a debate in the near future. However, my right hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's Question Time in respect of the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that if he does not get on with moving the

513
writ for the by-election in South-East Staffordshire, somebody from the Opposition Back Benches might well do it? I have had some practice because I have moved two writs already. It is high time that the people in the area had a chance to take part in that democratic test.
It was announced yesterday that Coalite would have to pay a fine of £150,000 plus £200,000 costs. In view of the fact that Ministers have said for six years that the polluter must pay, will Coalite ensure that everyone in the Bolsover area who has been affected gets due compensation? Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is, at long last, a public inquiry, initiated by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the relevant Minister? Will he tell the Tory quango, Derbyshire health authority, to conduct a comprehensive review into the effects of dioxin in the Bolsover area and into the direct connection with all forms of cancer, so that the people in the area can feel safer, now that Coalite has pleaded guilty after six years?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that those responsible will have noted the first half of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. On the second half, I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would commend Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for the diligent way in which it investigated and pursued the case. Leaving that aside for the moment, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of both Environment and Agriculture Ministers, who are here to answer questions next week.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on proposals for a British academy of sport? Is he aware that last year, I asked the university of Sussex and the university of Brighton to take the lead on a proposal to develop such an academy in Sussex, where there is ideal potential? A preliminary paper has now been submitted to the Department of National Heritage. Is it not a project of which not only Sussex, but the whole nation could be proud?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the project is worth while and will be studied with proper care by the Department of National Heritage. Sport is always a good subject for a debate and I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, although my recollection is that we had a day's debate on sport on a Friday at the back end of last year.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Given that our proceedings are broadcast and that we all have a responsibility—perhaps the responsibility of the Leader of the House has a special one—to ensure that our proceedings are intelligible and understood by millions of people across the country, can the right hon. Gentleman explain in two simple sentences the relationship between a debate on arms sales to Iraq and a motion, tabled by the Government, That this House do now adjourn?
Mr. Newton: I have already explained that the report is wide ranging and goes into some very important issues, which the Government have undertaken to consider, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed earlier this afternoon. A debate on the Adjournment seems the best way in which to provide for a debate on such a wide-ranging report.
Mr. David Porter: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the severe battering that the coast of Suffolk and Norfolk received this week. We have seen lives at risk, houses at risk and the Broads at risk. Will he arrange for a debate next week on coastal protection, sea defences and flood prevention? Although the worst of the winter may be over, we still face the risk of surge tides in the North sea in the spring.
Mr. Newton: I have already made the point that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have particular responsibility for those matters, are here to answer questions next week. I will, of course, bear in mind the request for a debate. I come from an east coast town that was significantly flooded, during my boyhood, in the North sea disaster of 1952 so I am, of course, aware of the concerns about those matters on the east coast.
Mr. David Hanson: May we have an early debate next week on open access to televising major sporting events, especially given the recent announcement by Sky television of a pay-as-you-view scheme for the Bruno-Tyson fight on 17 March? Many of us view that as the thin end of the wedge, which will ultimately allow major sporting events to be seen only by those who can afford to pay for them directly.
Mr. Newton: It will be within the hon. Gentleman's observation that there has already been some debate on those matters in another place. I anticipate that the Broadcasting Bill will arrive here in due course and it will provide ample opportunity for debate.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 436, which has been signed by 35 Labour Members, including two Lancashire Labour Members?
[That this House deplores the continuing oppression of the people of East Timor by the Government of Indonesia; recalls that one-third of the people of East Timor have been killed in the twenty years since its illegal annexation; is appalled at the fact that the United Kingdom Government has sanctioned the sale of British Aerospace Hawk aircraft to the Indonesian Government despite the fact that such aircraft have been used to attack the people of East Timor; and demands that the delivery of Hawk jets and other weapons to Indonesia be cancelled until a full enquiry on the lines of that conducted by Lord Justice Scott into the Arms to Iraq affair has investigated the role of the British Government in allowing such sales.]
The motion calls for a new Scott inquiry into the sale of British Aerospace Hawk aircraft to Indonesia.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no evidence that British Aerospace Hawk aircraft have been used in attacks on civilians in East Timor? However, there is plenty of evidence that British Aerospace employs thousands of people in Lancashire. Is not it now clear that the original Scott inquiry and what we are now seeing are just the tip of the iceberg, and that Labour's real agenda is to attack the defence industry and defence exports? Can we have a debate on the matter, so that we can expose the threat that the Labour party poses to defence industry jobs in Lancashire?
Mr. Newton: It may be that my hon. Friend, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker, will find it possible to

515
make such a point in Monday's debate. I simply confirm that the export licence for Hawk was granted only after assurances from the Indonesian Government that the aircraft would not be used for internal security and a rigorous examination of the application against the usual criteria.
Mr. Roy Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 423?
[That this House notes the EU Driving Licence Directive which comes into force on 1st July 1996 and provides new more rigorous eyesight regulations for LGV drivers, which the Department of Transport estimates will fail to be met by about 3000 current drivers; while accepting that road safety is paramount, is concerned that the employment of these drivers will be threatened; and calls on the Government to consult with employers and unions with a view to helping with re-training or where necessary a compensation package.]
The motion deals with the new regulations on eyesight tests for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is considerable concern about the issue throughout the country and that the regulations could result in many of our most experienced and safest drivers being put off the road? Can we have an early debate on the matter?
Mr. Newton: My understanding is that the new regulations are, in almost all respects, very similar to those already applied in the United Kingdom, although a small number of existing drivers may lose their entitlement to drive lorries and buses when their current licences expire. Although I do not dismiss that point, I think that some press reports have given an exaggerated picture of the impact of the changes and have caused unnecessary alarm.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: May I urge my right hon. Friend to allow an early debate on the operation of the European convention on human rights? Now that the Prime Minister has said that there are defects in the way in which it works, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government explain to the House what, if any, disadvantage would be suffered by the United Kingdom if we were no longer a signatory to that convention?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is joining my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in his request. Although I cannot add to what I said in response to the earlier question, I shall ensure that attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and I suspect that the Scottish Office are as surprised and dismayed as we are about the pay-off of 700 men at the highly technologically advanced Cummins factory at Shotts, could there none the less be a statement about what the British Government and the Scottish Office have said to the American owners about the decision, which will create havoc among a highly skilled and very loyal work force?
Mr. Newton: I well understand how disappointing the news has been for the work force in Shotts, which has,
516
I know, been well regarded by the company. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Scottish Office Ministers tried to persuade the company to change its mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the local Member, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), this morning. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know, if he does not know already, that Ministers have arranged to meet the company management tomorrow.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the call for a debate on the European Court of Human Rights, because it seems that that institution is losing sight of the high ideals that led to its establishment soon after the last war, not least by this country? It seems intent on producing rulings that let loose young murderers and pay the expenses of IRA bombers.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend can manifestly add, and has added, his voice to the representations that have already been made. I shall draw his comments to the attention of those concerned.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House been moved, as I have, by the search of Chief Gcaleka from the Transkei, who is seeking the head of the last Xhosa king, Hintsa, which, I understand, was blown off by a British Army officer in 1835? That is a whole new concept of head hunting. There are several such macabre relics in British museums and institutions. We should have a debate on the matter, because they are sad tokens. It is barbaric for us to retain them when a country wants them to be repatriated.
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman went from a light-hearted mode to a more serious one, I shall make sure that those points are drawn to the appropriate Minister's attention. Until he became more serious, I had been tempted to say that if he would offer me his head on a plate, I would allow a debate.
Mr. Barry Field: May we have an early debate on the future of the local government ombudsman service? I believe that only two hon. Members, of whom I was one, submitted evidence to the recent inquiry. I am horrified by the suggestion that the service might be done away with or reconstituted so that local people have to go via a councillor. Many hon. Members believe that such an arrangement would be much too cosy with council officers. We regard the local ombudsman service as an independent arbiter in matters that can generate considerable heat locally.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that there will be much sympathy with that. In the first half of his question, my hon. Friend confirmed—not to my surprise—what an assiduous Member he is.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is not it urgent that we discuss the perverse results of the habitual residence test, which was approved by the House on the basis that it was designed to stop abuses by foreign nationals of our social security system? Now, 8,000 British citizens have been denied all benefits, even on the basis of hardship, because of the operation of the rule. Four of them are my

517
constituents, who have paid into national insurance and tax schemes for many years. That was not what the House intended.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous attender at business questions, will probably recall that I was asked about that very matter by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) last week. I refer him to the answer that I gave her.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the calls for a debate on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights? I have already had strong objections from my constituents to the possibility of decisions on the future of, say, the murderers of Jamie Bulger and Myra Hindley being taken somewhere other than where they should be taken—that is, in this country and by our Home Office.
Mr. Newton: I shall pass on those comments, but cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the road programme, with particular reference to the western orbital route, a much-criticised road proposal that adversely affects my constituency? That would be an opportunity both to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on postponing the road proposal and to encourage him to take the further step of striking it out from the programme completely.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring those representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Marshall: May I add my voice to the calls for an early statement on the siting of the millennium exhibition? Many people believe that it
518
should, like the Festival of Britain, be in London, which has by far the best tourist infrastructure, transport, theatres and hotels and, as the capital city, is the obvious site.
Mr. Newton: It is just as well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was sitting immediately in front of my hon. Friend, has had to leave the Chamber, but I shall add those representations to the others that I need to pass on.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May we have a debate on the repercussions for the economy of the north-west, especially in Lancashire, which would follow if we were to carry out the recommendations of early-day motions 436 and 413 relating to the export of arms to Indonesia?
[That this House condemns the continued denial of the rights of the people of East Timor by the Indonesian government; notes with concern the fact that, in spite of 10 UN resolutions over the past 20 years, Her Majesty's Government continues to support the genocidal actions of the Suharto regime including by the morally and legally reprehensible provision of export licences allowing British Aerospace to sell Hawk jets to Indonesia; believes that the Scott Inquiry team should be asked to investigate the role of the British Government in allowing sales which are contrary to international and national guidelines; and finally calls for the immediate cancellation of the delivery of the Hawk jets and all other weapons to Indonesia until such inquiry has taken place.]
I refer not only to the jobs of people who work at British Aerospace at Warton and Samlesbury in my constituency, a highly skilled work force of which I am proud, but to those at several smaller contractors that supply British Aerospace. The only people who would rub their hands if we were to cancel the Hawk order and other defence contracts with Indonesia would be the manufacturing industries of France, Germany, Italy and other countries that would benefit.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), makes an important point, which I hope will be reflected upon by the Opposition.

Points of Order
4.57 pm
Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a gross breach of the conventions of the House and of the way in which we seek to represent our constituents. I have told the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) that I would raise the matter. I am sorry that he is not in his place.
I have received several complaints from my constituents that personalised letters have been sent to many of them above the signature of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth. In addition to containing tendentious Liberal Democrat propaganda, they include a leaflet entitled, "For Help and Advice". Underneath is a photograph and the words, "Chris Davies MP". There was also a questionnaire on local and national matters. A freepost envelope is enclosed with the address "Chris Davies MP", in which the questionnaire can be returned. If the questionnaire is returned, the hon. Gentleman writes to the individual, my constituent, who has corresponded with him. I consider that to be the grossest interference with the rights of my constituents and with my rights as their elected representative.
My constituents are clearly being misled, because the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is not their representative and cannot carry out actions in the House on their behalf, as suggested by the material. I ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker, on how I may make progress in ensuring that that activity ceases and that the conventions of the House are upheld.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Several hon. Members will be suffering from that problem because of the redistribution of constituency boundaries. I am in a similar position, because my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) represents an area that is due to become part of the constituency for which I expect to stand. I have been scrupulous in not contacting his constituents and have referred letters to him because he is the Member of Parliament. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) did not pursue the same course.
Mr. Barry Field: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman could have such a problem with his constituency.
Mr. Field: That is why I rise to make a point of order. I am sure that you would be amazed to know, Madam Speaker, as keeper of good order and discipline in the
520
House, that the Isle of Wight is not subject to boundary redistributions, yet a Liberal Democrat spokesman regularly describes himself as the parliamentary spokesman to the people of the Isle of Wight and sends out questionnaires in that way. That is a total misrepresentation. I very much support the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies). The Liberal Democrats are a bunch of poltroons and you should send them out.
Madam Speaker: The House will know that I have often given guidance on these matters. Of course, I deprecate the activities of any Member who interferes in such a way in another's constituency. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) is a relatively new Member. Hon. Members should be mature and sensible enough to resolve such matters among themselves. I see that the Liberal Democrat Whip is in his place and has heard the exchanges. I am sure that he will use his good offices to ensure that there is no recurrence.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to ask you a question, arising from what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said, about Monday's business and vote.
It is important that people outside understand what we mean and how we vote. As I understand it, Madam Speaker—you will correct me if I am wrong—if a vote is on a Government motion for the Adjournment, the usual practice, although it may not be followed on Monday, is that the Government vote against that motion, in order to protect their business, so presumably on Monday we shall vote for the motion.
To many people, that is an almost Alice-in-Wonderland position, which they do not understand, and one can hardly blame them. I wonder whether many Members of the House, who may not be present, understand the technicalities.
Of course you are not, and cannot be, responsible for which motions are tabled, Madam Speaker, but the fact that there will not be a proper Government motion regarding the Scott report, and that there will be a technical motion, will cause difficulties and confusion, not necessarily in the House—with the Whips about and so on—but to millions of people outside. Such people have a duty, which they carry out, to want to know about important public business. Surely they cannot be criticised, and it will certainly look like Alice in Wonderland when the Government move a motion and then vote against it.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct, in that on Monday, if the Opposition wish to oppose the Government, they will vote aye, and the Government will vote no, but I think that the hon. Gentleman, with respect, underestimates our electorate. I think that they know precisely what goes on here. According to my mailbag, I can tell him that that is absolutely correct.

Points of Order

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: 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
    INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

    CONTRACTING OUT
    That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the provision of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers Panels) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]
    Question agreed to.

  ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131(2),
  That this House agrees with the Report [20th February] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Asylum and Immigration Bill
    Clause 8

      RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT
      5.1 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 5, line 22, after 'that', insert '(a)'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
      Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 27, at end insert—
      Provided that no order made pursuant to this subsection shall specify a birth certificate as a relevant document for the purposes of a defence under this section until statutory provision has been made requiring applicants seeking the issue of a birth certificate—

      (a) to complete a comprehensive application form,

      (b) to state their relationship to the subject of the required certificate, and

      (c) to state the purpose for which the certificate is to be used.'.

      Mr. Kirkhope: A key argument made by many respondents to our consultation document was that it was important for employers to know exactly what they needed to do to establish a defence. The three Government amendments to clause 8 are designed to ensure that employers can be clear in their minds about two key points.
      The first point was raised in Committee, and we promised to consider it. We now propose that the wording in subsection (3) be amended as set out in amendment No. 45. Our consultation document referred clearly to employers seeing documents which appear, prima facie, to belong to the person offering himself or herself for employment. Subsection (3), however, simply refers to documents relating to the person concerned. It was suggested that that formulation would require employers to make more elaborate efforts to establish the true identity of potential employees.
      Amendment No. 45 will ensure that no more is expected of employers than is outlined in the consultation document. They will be able to assume that a document belongs to and relates to the person proffering it unless there is a good reason that would suggest that that is not the case.
      Amendment No. 46 will amend subsection (3) to allow us to give employers the clearest possible indication of what they will need to do, when they have seen a document, to provide themselves with a defence. The current draft simply allows us to specify documents that would establish a defence, but does not allow us to be specific about other important details. In some cases, as our consultation document said, we would expect employers to take a copy of a document to establish a defence. In the case of the P45 defence, an employer

      523
      would simply need to have retained—as he is required to at present in any event—part of the form. Obviously, it would be inappropriate to include in the Bill detailed points about the taking of photocopies or the scanning of documents using information technology equipment. Nevertheless, amendment No. 46 will enable us to leave employers and the courts in no doubt about what is required.
      Amendment No. 44 is a minor drafting amendment to subsection (3) which is desirable because of the introduction of amendment No. 46.
      Before I leave amendments Nos. 44 to 46, I should tell the House that we have been giving further consideration to an argument that was made in Committee about the possibility that racketeers would abuse the statutory defences. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) yesterday recognised the need to deal with such people.
      We certainly do not want unscrupulous employers to have a defence when they know that the person employed is not entitled to work or when they have been actively involved in producing false documentation for that employee. We need to ensure that racketeers are guilty of an offence in those circumstances. We shall examine the matter carefully. If we consider that clause 8 needs strengthening, we shall table an amendment to that effect in the other place, but legitimate employers will have nothing to fear and no additional burdens will be placed on them. I commend those minor but important amendments to the House.
      I should like to give my reaction to amendment No. 57, which has not yet been moved. It would prevent an order made under subsection (3) from including a birth certificate as a specified document until the Government have implemented certain proposals contained in the White Paper "Registration: Proposals for Change", relating to controls on the issuing of certified and uncertified birth certificates.
      The amendment reflects anxieties, which the Government share, about the comparative ease with which certified copies of birth certificates can be obtained and the fact that such certificates can be used to establish false identities. Several hon. Members mentioned the issue in Committee.
      The procedure for obtaining certified copies of birth certificates is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health because he is responsible for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, whose White Paper discussed the problem and possible ways of solving it. We are discussing the issue.
      The Government understand and share the fundamental concern that lies behind the amendment, and we shall bear that concern in mind when we draft the final version of an order under the clause. We do not believe, however, that the significant but fairly small-scale abuse that can and does take place will necessarily justify excluding birth certificates from the list of specified documents. We do not consider it appropriate for such an exclusion to be contained in the Bill.
      I hope, therefore, that Opposition Members will agree to withdraw that amendment.
      Mr. Max Madden: I beg leave to move amendment No. 57, standing in my name and that of a number of right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to move the
      524
      amendment at this moment. If it were to be moved, it would be done separately after the others have been considered.
      Mr. Madden: As the Minister said, the amendment is designed to block an important loophole that was first revealed in the book "The Day of the Jackal", whereby it is lawful and extremely easy for any person to obtain the birth certificate of any other person, living or dead, and to assume that person's identity.
      The Government have expressed concern about the loophole—and expressed the intention to legislate to block the loophole—since 1990 and the publication of the White Paper "Registration: Proposals for Change", in which the idea of making personation more preventable was suggested. The White Paper made several recommendations to regularise procedures for obtaining birth certificates, which are contained in amendment No. 57; sadly, the Government have failed since 1990 to provide time for appropriate legislation to be brought before the House.
      Action to make personation more difficult has become tangled up in the controversy concerning identity cards. The amendment gives the Government the opportunity to take the action that they say they wish to take to stop the ease with which people may acquire a birth certificate—and the identity—of someone else, either alive or dead. This matter has been of long-standing concern to hon. Members, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has been campaigning on this issue for several years, and to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who has brought this matter to our attention in the past.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), reconsiders the Government's attitude to amendment No. 57. Birth certificates are specified in orders relating to the Bill as providing employers accused of employing illegal entrants with a defence. The amendment has three aims: first, in applying for a birth certificate, a person would have to complete a comprehensive application form; secondly, a person would have to state his or her relationship to the subject of the required certificate; and, thirdly, a person would have to state the purpose for which the certificate would be used.
      These seem to be perfectly reasonable requests to be made of someone applying for a copy of a birth certificate. We have been waiting a long time for such legislation. I strongly urge the Minister—if he is unable to accept the amendment—to consider, in another place, coming forward with an appropriate vehicle to realise the intentions of amendment No. 57.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I have already stated that the Government are considering the position. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires, but I acknowledge that there is a problem with birth certificates for these proceedings, as well as for agencies and organisations that rely on birth certificates as evidence, such as building societies, passport agencies and insurance companies. It is a problem of a general nature and the Government are examining it and are concerned to deal with it as soon as possible.
      Mr. Madden: The Minister is clearly reinforcing the case that urgent legislation must be introduced. He should

      525
      come forward, in another place, with a suitable way of introducing the intentions that lie behind the amendment, and that clearly are of concern to all hon. Members. I hope that a way can be found to introduce these long-awaited reforms during the passage of the Bill.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I identify with the hon. Gentleman's points because I have had a most distressing case in my constituency. People who are personated believe that their lives have been wrecked—as is the case for one of my constituents and, no doubt, for the constituents of other hon. Members. One of my constituents had the experience of someone going to St. Catherine's house, getting access to her birth certificate, assuming her identity and undertaking all sorts of fraudulent activity.
      My constituent had no legal means of addressing the situation. The person who committed the offence was taken to court, found guilty of gross and serious impersonation—and much worse—and sentenced to imprisonment for three months. She was released after six weeks and has continued to use the name of my constituent, who has since been through a pregnancy, which was not easy for her and which added to her distress. She is at the end of her tether and feels that nothing can be done.
      I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), to give some ground. There is a great need, even if only for a small number of people—that is what a democracy is all about—to address this problem. The amendment is one way of addressing it. I look to my hon. Friend to offer some way forward—in another place, if it cannot be done now, or by some formula that has a measurable time span, which will not kick the issue into the long grass for ever. That would cause my constituent, and the constituents of other hon. Members, distress that I could not live with.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: I have read about the situation affecting the constituent of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), and I feel for him. It is unbelievable that something like that can happen in this modern day. I support amendment No. 57. I have in my hand the birth certificate of a young girl named Jennifer, who was born in Birmingham at 6 am on 3 October 1967. I also have in my hand the death certificate of Jennifer, which is dated 4 October 1967. Jennifer and her twin did not survive more than 24 hours.
      Hon. Members may not be surprised to learn that on 6 May 1988 a national insurance number was issued to Jennifer; on 5 December 1992 a British visitors passport was issued; and on 25 November 1993 a full British passport was issued. All the details were the same—the names of the parents, the name of the hospital of birth and the date of birth. For all intents and purposes, this person was Jennifer—who survived for less than 24 hours.
      It is difficult to describe the distress suffered by the parents of Jennifer—who died almost 30 years ago—when a Home Office investigator knocked on their door, having tracked them down, to explain what had happened. I do not criticise the Home Office investigation unit. It
      526
      discovered this fraud as a result of a random check of one year's British visitor passport applications at one post office. The death certificate was discovered. It took quite a while to track down the now elderly couple, who were pensioners and who had had several more children. Thirty years after the twins had died, someone decided to impersonate Jennifer—someone claimed that she was Jennifer. She could not possibly claim to be the birth child of the couple, but she stuck it out for months before her true identity was discovered.
      As a result of looking into this case, of contact with the Home Office and of parliamentary questions, I became aware of the White Paper. I had not been aware of the proposals; but when I looked at the detail, I was reminded that there had been a proposal to change the marriage laws so that people could get married in a submarine or somewhere. In answer to parliamentary questions, I was referred to the proposals in Command Paper 939. However, none of the parliamentary answers in 1995 said that the White Paper was dated 1990. Only when I examined it did I realise that it was six years old.
      The Government have a problem: the White Paper, which followed a Green Paper, made it clear that they had taken on board the criticisms in the Green Paper. Paragraph 6.10 of the document states:
      "In essence, the right to buy certified copies of events will be more tightly controlled".
      Paragraph 6.11 states:
      "Statutory provision will be made for the issue of non-certified copies of entries in the recent records and, instead of the present entitlement to a certified copy, all applicants will be entitled to non-certified copies … However, those requiring certified copies will have to complete a more comprehensive application form resembling that for a passport. Applicants will be required to identify themselves, state their relationship to the subject … and the purpose … for which it is required. They will also be asked to give their address".
      It does not deny access to people wishing to check their historical family records. However, the procedures were tightened.
      St. Catherine's house issues almost 250,000 certified birth certificates per year. In answer to a parliamentary question from me, the then Under-Secretary for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), replied:
      "In 1994 the Registrar General issued 245,961 full birth certificates".—[Official Report, 13 March 1995: Vol. 256, c. 399.]
      I received another answer from the Department of Health on 31 March 1995. The then Under-Secretary said that the forms would be redesigned and that people applying at St. Catherine's house would
      "also be required to state their relationship to the subject of the required certificate and the purpose for which the certificate was to be used … the application forms now in use by the Registrar General ask for this additional information, but applicants cannot. at present, be obliged to provide the answers".—[Official Report, 31 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 814.]
      It is possible—as I have proved more than once—to walk into St. Catherine's house, not fill in the form properly and still be given a certificate. I visited St. Catherine's house to check out the procedure a year ago and I went again yesterday and today. The application form currently in use does not conform with what the Under-Secretary told me on 31 March. The form does not require applicants to state their relationship to the person whose

      527
      birth certificate it is: they are simply asked whether they are applying for their own certificates. Applicants are not asked whether it is a family birth certificate.
      I took up the matter with the Prime Minister last May. The Government have identified the problem: they know about "The Day of the Jackal" loophole. They commissioned a Green Paper, followed by a White Paper, to examine an issue that cannot be contentious in this place. Yet, six years later, there is no legislation. The Prime Minister wrote to me on 23 May last year to say that some of the measures to which I had alluded had been implemented. He continued:
      "It remains the Government's intention to introduce the necessary legislation to implement the remaining White Paper proposals, when Parliamentary time permits".
      I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 22 years—it has been a privilege every day—but the last two parliamentary Sessions have been the lightest in legislative terms that I can recall. A short Bill—a private Member's Bill or a Government Bill—could deal with the matter. We could dispense with it in a few days. There is no problem: the snags have been ironed out already in the Green and the White Papers.
      I cannot see why we do not send a signal to organised crime. It is not a case of one or two people playing around—although the hon. Member for Ealing, North has highlighted a particular difficulty. Organised crime is clearly involved. Procuring a birth certificate is only the beginning of creating a personality—I understand that it is described as creating a "legend". Although the birth certificate states that it cannot be used as proof of identity, no one takes any notice of that. If one offers a birth certificate along with other documents, one can get a national insurance number, open bank accounts and get one's name on the electoral register. People can create false personalities and cause mayhem. I cannot understand why the loophole has not been closed.
      I shall give another example of a constituency case that was drawn to my attention only a few weeks ago. I made inquiries about a constituent who had been involved in some illegal activities and had been caught. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), which is pertinent to the thrust of the debate. I shall refer to my constituent as "Mr. A". The letter states:
      "Furthermore, Mr. A. was convicted on 28 March 1994 of three counts of theft and forgery and was sentenced to nine months in prison on each count to be served concurrently. He was arrested by police on 7 May 1993, having produced a British birth certificate that was not his in order to secure employment with the Department of Employment since 1990. Whilst so employed, he had obtained approximately £13,000."
      That person was found guilty of fraud against the Department of Employment, and he got his job by offering a false birth certificate.
      There is clearly a problem with false birth certificates. Although it may not be possible to close the loophole in the Bill in the other place, I do not believe that, six years after the publication of the White Paper, it is impossible to put before the House the clauses necessary to close that loophole. Such legislation could be debated fully—it is proper that that should occur—receive Royal Assent, and be on the statute book before the close of play in summer. The Government intend to clear all legislation by that time—for reasons that I will not go into, but will be obvious to everyone with a passing interest in politics in this country.
      528
      I do not believe that it is not possible to do that. The Minister will have to give me a better reason than the statement, "The Government are still considering it." The White Paper proposed such legislation six years ago. I am aggrieved about the matter because some of my constituents are affected by people who are misusing the system and obtaining birth certificates to create false personalities. My constituents and I demand action.
      Mr. David Alton: I support the amendments. I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that his persistent campaign on the issue has not gone unnoticed. His efforts, and those of the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), should commend themselves to the Government and command all-party support.
      It is ironic that only yesterday we were told that a heavy hand should be raised against the 10,000 people who were supposedly working illegally in this country and using false documents to secure those jobs. Today we have an opportunity to do something about those who are culpable of working illegally and using the most unacceptable methods. As has been said, they are causing grievous distress to the people whom they have impersonated or to their families.
      It seems bizarre that in amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46, tabled by the Under-Secretary, we are now saying that if a document looks official in some way, we will not prosecute. That shows that the Government are willing to be more reasonable than they were even yesterday. However, the Government are not prepared to do anything about the one document—a false birth certificate—that we know might be falsely held and used illegally.
      As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, a statement was made to the House about that problem as long ago as February 1990. In answer to a question from the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the Government replied:
      "Nearly all of the changes envisaged will require legislation for their implementation, and the Government hope to introduce this at an early date".—[Official Report, 1 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 353.]
      I hope that the Government Whip's office is a little more efficient about other matters than it has been in implementing the reply that the hon. Gentleman received in 1990. In 1995, the Prime Minister said that the need for legislation:
      "has not been lost between the Home Office and the Department of Health".
      In an article in the Evening Standard on 13 December 1995,
      "A Home Office spokeswoman said she was aware that procedures had been tightened. She said: 'There have been some occasions when people applied for replacement birth certificates and other certificates which haven't necessarily been replacements for their own. We have picked up 10,000 people working illegally last year. Primarily it is birth certificates that are used.'"
      The legislation proposes every possible way of tackling refugees and asylum seekers, but it does not tackle the problem that the Government say is primarily to blame. Something should be done about it and amendment No. 57 provides an opportunity to do so. If the Government cannot give that assurance today, I hope that they will have the sense to do so in another place.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Jack Straw: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on their persistent campaign to bring the matter to public attention and to the attention of the House.
      Reliable and secure certification of identity is fundamental to the operation of a democracy such as ours. Without it, people cannot claim their rights. Moreover, there is an open encouragement to the fraudulent access to rights to which people are not entitled. Having examined its background, I am quite astonished by the Government's complacency on the issue. They accept that there is a problem, but they sit on their hands when sensible proposals are made—not by us, but by Ministers—to deal with it.
      It is not a controversial issue between the parties. We have said before and I say again that we shall co-operate fully with the Government in putting legislation on the statute book, either within the Bill or separately, before the summer. If Ministers are wondering why their motives in bringing forward employer checks are open to question, they need look no further than the gaping hole in the regime. On one hand, they impose criminal sanctions on decent, hard-working small business people; on the other hand, they are faced with a complete scandal by which people can evade those controls to obtain jobs and other benefits, and although proposals have been ready and waiting in a White Paper for five years, following a Green Paper two years previously, they take absolutely no action.
      Action is required. Without it, the continuing scandal of people gaining access to rights, including benefits and jobs, will continue. We want it stopped and we want the Government to accept our offer to have it stopped.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I am grateful to everybody for their contributions in the short debate. There was certainly a general feeling of sympathy, and I shall undertake to draw our exchanges to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who is aware of the matter, as I explained earlier.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I should like briefly to point out to my hon. Friend that the cases about which we have heard have largely been resolved, but the person who impersonated my constituent was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, served only three weeks and is now impersonating her again. She ought to be deported, but no one knows from which country she comes and she says that she does not know either. Those extra difficulties make the matter even more urgent.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I said, I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the details of this evening's debate.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 45, in page 5, line 25, leave out 'related' and insert
      'appeared to him to relate'.
      No. 46, in page 5, line 27, at end insert 'and
      (b) either the document was retained by the employer, or a copy or other record of it was made by the employer in a manner specified in the order in relation to documents of that description.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

    Clause 9

      ENTITLEMENT TO HOUSING ACCOMMODATION AND ASSISTANCE
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 6, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'immigrant' in line 3 and insert
      'no tenancy of, or licence to occupy, housing accommodation provided under the accommodation Part is granted to an'.
      No. 48, in page 6, line 32, at end insert—
      ' "licence to occupy", in relation to Scotland, means a permission or right to occupy;
      "tenancy", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as it has in the Housing Act 1985.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

    Clause 10

      ENTITLEMENT TO CHILD BENEFIT
      Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 6, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert—
      "(1) No person to whom subsection (2) below applies shall be entitled to child benefit for any week unless she satisfies prescribed conditions.
      (2) This subsection applies to a person who under the Immigration Act 1971 requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who—

      (a) is not a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

      (b) is not a person who has been recognised as a refugee, or

      (c) is not a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

      (d) is not a dependant of a person falling within the exceptions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above;

      whether or not such leave has been given.".'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 10, in clause 12, page 7, line 9, leave out from 'means' to end of line 11 and insert—

      '(a) for the purposes of section 8, a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given) and who has not been recognised as a refugee; and

      (b) for the purposes of section 9, a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who—

      (i) is not a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

      (ii) is not a person who has been recognised as a refugee, or

      (iii) is not a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

      (iv) is not a dependant of a person falling within the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) above;

      whether or not such leave has been given.'.
      Mr. Henderson: When clause 12 was discussed in Committee, there was much concern about the definition of an immigrant and who would be caught under the provision. Clause 12 gives the Secretary of State power to make that definition by order. There was considerable anxiety that, some persons, who are effectively British citizens—having lived here for most of their lives, having paid taxes for 20 or 30 years, having sometimes served with British forces and having made a major contribution

      531
      to the economy—could suddenly be classified as immigrants under the new definition and, in some circumstances, no longer be entitled to housing assistance or child benefit. There was a lengthy discussion about just what circumstances would apply in relation to clauses 10 and 12.
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would introduce minimum definitions of those who would not be excluded. The three categories would be:
      "a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom … a person who has been recognised as a refugee … a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom"
      and the dependants of persons in those categories.
      I do not know whether the Government are yet able to issue a precise definition of an immigrant for the purposes of the Bill, covering all circumstances. Perhaps the Minister has something up her sleeve. If not, and there is still the confusion that there was in Committee, there is a case for providing at least a minimal classification of who would not be covered by the definition of an immigrant in clause 12.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): If there was any confusion in Committee, it could only have been in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. There was a very full debate in Committee, the substance of which I repeat now. The purpose of clause 10 is to bring child benefit into line with the other social security benefits for people from abroad, as set out in the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995.
      Amendment No. 9, would subvert that purpose. It would fix the entitlements of some immigrants in primary legislation, whereas regulations would continue to be needed to prescribe entitlement for others.
      I do not see why Opposition Members are so intent on removing consistency from the legislation. We made very clear in Committee how we intend to use the powers under clause 10 and we have given the House details of the groups who will retain entitlement to child benefit. I am prepared to run through them again but, to save time, the Opposition probably do not want me to do that.
      Mr. Henderson: Can the hon. Lady confirm that the categories mentioned in the amendments are covered one way or another by her intentions?
      Miss Widdecombe: I was about to do just that—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will hold on. I take it that he does not want me to read out the list of those who would be entitled and those who would not.
      Mr. Henderson: If the hon. Lady can answer yes to my question, I shall excuse her from that onerous task.
      Miss Widdecombe: We have given the House details of the groups who will retain entitlement to child benefit. The hon. Gentleman should now listen very carefully. They will include all the people from abroad specified in amendment No. 9 and more besides. The additional groups are all those—as I explained in Committee—covered by reciprocal and EC agreements.
      It seems to us logical and consistent to have all the conditions for entitlement to child benefit for people from abroad set down in one place in regulations. We oppose
      532
      amendment No. 10 for precisely the same reason. We made clear, on Second Reading and in Committee, the categories of persons subject to immigration control that we intend to exclude from housing entitlement under clause 9. The main ones are those who are at present without leave and those with limited leave granted on the basis that they will have no recourse to public funds. Asylum seekers will not have access to council housing because that is a long-term resource which should be used for people entitled to live here. Asylum seekers will also be ineligible for assistance under the homelessness legislation, unless they have claimed asylum on arrival, are awaiting a decision from the Home Office and are in priority need.
      I regret to have to tell the Opposition that, anyway, their amendments are defective. Amendment No. 10 would merely insert a superfluous list of categories into the definition of the term "immigrant" without substantially restricting the scope of clause 9. The same defect is also present in amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Henderson: I find it strange that the hon. Lady is describing our amendments as defective. The Government have had to make dozens of changes to the original draft of the Bill. Had the Government proposed a more cogent Bill and given more explanation, it would have been possible to identify the category of immigrant referred to in clause 12 in primary legislation and not to have had to leave it to an order that the Secretary of State may issue from time to time.
      On the basis of the hon. Lady's commitment that the categories intended to be covered by amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are included in her list, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 1
      AMENDMENTS OF THE 1971 ACT
      Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
      AMENDMENTS OF THE 1971 ACT

        'Dependants
        1A. In subsection (4) of section 1 of the 1971 Act (general principles), after the word "dependants", there shall be inserted the words "(including the spouses or interdependent partners)".'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 19, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—'Domestic workers
        1A. In subsection (4) of section 1 of the 1971 Act (general principles), after the word "visitors," there shall be inserted the words "or as accompanying domestic workers,".'.
        No. 2, in page 8, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—Interpretation—
        4.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), there shall be inserted, in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the words—

        " 'interdependent partner' means a person in a genuine and continuing relationship of interdependency with one other person which involves living together and a mutual commitment to a shared life;".

        (2) In subsection (4), after the'.
        No. 20, in page 8, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—'Interpretation—
        4.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), there shall be inserted, in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the words—

        " 'accompanying domestic worker' means a person who prior to his entry into the United Kingdom is employed as a domestic worker and who accompanies or joins his employer in the United Kingdom;".

        (2) In subsection (4), after the'.
        Government amendment No. 49.
        No. 58, in schedule 2, page 10, line 21, at end insert—'Persecution on grounds of sexual orientation—
        A1. In subsection 2 of the 1993 Act (primacy of Convention), after the word "Convention" there shall be added the words"; and in interpreting the Convention, for the purposes of the immigration rules, persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group shall be taken to include persecution by reason of sexual orientation.".'.
        Mr. Gerrard: I tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 with the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is unfortunately unable to be present.
        The amendments would deal with the discrimination that currently exists in the immigration rules against gay and lesbian couples, which make no provision for any unmarried—or non-marital, to be more accurate—relationship, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Spouses and fiances are recognised, but no other non-marital relationships are explicitly recognised. Some 10 or more years ago, the Home Office recognised reality and issued policy guidelines that covered unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals. It is, therefore, possible for an unmarried, cohabiting couple—if they are heterosexual—to obtain entry clearance as partners. Obviously, they have to produce evidence of the relationships.
        In 1993, some 400 unmarried heterosexuals applied and were allowed to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of the relationships, but similar applications from gay and lesbian couples are routinely refused, despite the fact that there have been one or two immigration tribunal decisions that suggested that it would be appropriate to deal with such an application as a relationship between two people as partners. The numbers involved are quite small—in 1995, the Home Office received 60 applications from gay and lesbian people who wished to remain on the basis of a relationship. In those cases, the average length of the relationship was approximately five years and, therefore, significant and of some length.
        The present official policy is to consider each application from interdependent homosexual partners on their individual merits, but permission to stay is granted only in exceptional and very compelling circumstances. The only examples of which I am aware in which permission has been granted are one or two cases in which the British partner was suffering from a terminal AIDS-related disease and the other partner was the carer. People have been allowed to stay on that basis, but even then the Home Office seems to have taken a rather tighter attitude recently and refused leave.
        5.45 pm
        The arguments for the amendments are fairly straightforward, and include the effects of the present policy on what are, by any standards, stable, long-standing
        534
        and interdependent relationships between people who have every intention of staying together. One example is the case of a 34-year-old man, Mark, who is a chartered accountant and senior consultant with a well-known consultancy firm, earning a good salary. In 1991, he met a 37-year-old Brazilian called Paulo who was completing his PhD in London. They lived together from 1992 and, at the time, Paulo had a work permit. When the work permit ran out, he applied to stay on the basis of the relationship, but was refused. In similar circumstances, an application by a heterosexual couple would almost certainly have been accepted. The couple had been together for four years and had a stable, interdependent relationship. Paulo is now back in Brazil.
        People in such circumstances are faced with two options. One is simply to separate; the other—as undoubtedly sometimes happens—is for the foreign partner to make a marriage of convenience to stay in the United Kingdom. Nobody wants that to happen.
        I see no reason why relationships of the type that I have mentioned should not be recognised. I am sure that there are a few hon. Members—fortunately, a diminishing number—who believe that no homosexual relationships should be recognised and who regard such relationships with complete distaste, but even they should acknowledge that stable homosexual relationships occur.
        The amendments would provide only equality with heterosexual relationships; that is all that is required. I would expect partners to be able to produce evidence to back up their claims that they were in a relationship that they intended to be long-standing and permanent. The change would cause no great difficulty. Some other countries have already recognised same-sex relationships for immigration purposes; Australia, New Zealand and Canada have, as have a number of European countries—Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway. Partnership rights will probably be introduced soon in Spain. South Africa grants equal rights under the 1994 constitution to same-sex relationships. It would not be difficult or unusual if this country were to change the rules.
        The amendments would clarify the immigration rules, which ought to refer to an interdependent partner, meaning
        "a person in a genuine and continuing relationship of interdependency with one other person which involves living together and a mutual commitment to a shared life".
        As I said earlier, all non-marital relationships technically contravene the present immigration rules, which use the terms "spouse" and
        "fiance(e) with a view to marriage".
        They do not refer anywhere to cohabitees. The amendments would tidy up the immigration rules by stipulating that long-term relationships other than marital ones ought to be recognised.
        Amendment No. 58, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), acknowledges that individuals are persecuted for their sexual orientation, by proposing that, included in schedule 2, should be the words,
        "and in interpreting the Convention, for the purposes of the immigration rules, persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group shall be taken to include persecution by reason of sexual orientation."

        535
        That was discussed briefly in Committee. There are European countries in which to be homosexual is to invite persecution, so I commend my hon. Friend's amendment.
        Mr. Alan Howarth: I support the powerful plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) because it is plainly right—as a matter of recognising modern realities and of justice—that the immigration rules should not discriminate against unmarried but truly interdependent partners, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. I echo my hon. Friend's point that the Government should address the question of individuals from countries in which they are liable to be persecuted for their homosexuality. It may be that amendment No. 1 covers that concern. If neither it nor any other amendment does so adequately, I hope that the Government will think carefully and constructively about tabling an amendment in the other place.
        A number of countries on the Government's white list actively persecute people who engage in consenting homosexual acts. An Amnesty International report on Romania published last year stated that people there are imprisoned and treated with great severity solely for their homosexuality. In Pakistan, prison sentences of between two years and life are imposed on homosexuals, who are also flogged for the offence. India has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Bill fails to recognise the fear and reality of such persecution.
        Last year, in the case of Ioan Vraciu—a Romanian soldier whose partner was arrested and tortured for his homosexuality—a UK immigration appeal tribunal ruled that gay people could be seen as a distinct social group for the purposes of interpreting the 1951 UN convention on the status of refugees. Hitherto, the Home Office has refused to accept that proposition. Mr. Vraciu's application for asylum did not succeed, although the immigration adjudicator declared that it was
        "unnatural and contrary to human rights"
        to criminalise private gay sex.
        The Government should be willing to amend the Bill, by accepting the amendments before the House or tabling amendments in the other place, to establish that serious and justified fears of persecution on the ground of homosexuality or the committal of homosexual acts are legitimate reasons for seeking asylum in the UK. The United Nations convention offers protection to people who have
        "a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."
        Gay men and women are plainly members of a particular social group, and they should be seen as such in the sense that the convention means when they have a justified fear of persecution. Such persons ought to have the protection of the law, the administration of which should be regulated by Home Office guidelines requiring sensitive and non-discriminatory handling of lesbian and gay asylum applications. People should not be discriminated against for their sexuality, any more than for their sex, race, religion or disability. The Republic of Ireland—not hitherto in the van of liberal social policy—has already legislated sensibly and humanely along those lines. In justice, we should do no less.
        Mr. Henderson: I have sympathy with amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and I support amendments Nos. 19
        536
        and 20. As to the former, my hon. Friends have identified the difference of treatment of persons who are married and those who live together, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. In today's world, we should recognise social realities. Many couples around the world are not formally married but have a stable, sound and loving relationship—which the law of this country and others should recognise.
        If two persons who are not formally married want to enter the UK, it is at the Home Secretary's discretion whether an application for both persons in the relationship is permitted. Often, separate applications will be made, although in some circumstances that is not possible. I understand that far more cases of heterosexual couples than homosexual couples go before the Secretary of State. I am not saying that, in the circumstances of statutory provision for entry, those statistics would necessarily be mirrored. Homosexual couples might be deterred from making an application because they do not believe that they would be successful. I cannot say that that is the case, but I would not be surprised.
        There would clearly be scope for circumvention of our intention to allow genuinely interdependent couples to be treated in the same way as a married couple, so there is a need for considerable investigation by the Government, Opposition parties and individual hon. Members, in determining practical regulations to meet the concerns and sympathies that have been expressed for the search for a solution.
        I am not sure that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would provide the solution, and I have reservations about them. I certainly want further investigation. However, I sympathise with those who want to find a solution to the problem.
        Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 fringe the main purpose of the Bill but are still important. They relate to persons who are employed in virtually a slave relationship by foreign citizens who are allowed entry to the UK, often as visitors. Such persons are in some circumstances permitted to bring their domestic servants, who are often closely tied to the original applicant. I have been told of domestic servants who have been physically, verbally and sexually abused, but who have been unable to do anything about their predicament—unless the person by whom they are employed agrees to return them to their country of origin. Often, servants' passports are held by their employers. Sometimes, they do not even have independent passports. That makes it extremely difficult for them to end the relationship.
        The amendments do not seek regulations to govern the position of those poor people but to categorise them separately in immigration law, so that the Secretary of State can lay regulations that apply to them. If the Secretary of State is prepared to allow it, I hope that those workers will be allowed to transfer from one employer to another on exactly the same conditions as applied when they entered the country. I do not ask that they be allowed to come in as a domestic servant to someone who has made an application on a visitor's passport and be able to leave that employment to seek normal employment with another person in the United Kingdom. If they wanted to apply for employment on the normal basis, they would be free to do that; the amendments do not attempt to deal with that situation.

        537
        I hope that the Government will recognise that, in some cases, abuses that occur in this country arise from the "special circumstance". I hope that the Government will feel able to meet the concerns that have been expressed in the House.
        6 pm
        Mr. Harry Cohen: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being here at the start of the debate, as I was held up in my office.
        I tabled amendment No. 58. I shall be brief, as I know that hon. Members have referred to it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). My amendment refers to the persecution of a particular social group on the grounds of sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians are regarded as a particular social group, and that should be taken into account in the Bill. Persecution because of membership of that particular social group should be a reason to allow people to stay.
        I tabled my amendment on behalf of the organisation Outrage! It makes a good case, which I have passed on to the Minister. It expressed great concern that three of the countries included in the Government's so-called white list actively persecute and severely punish people who are convicted of engaging in consensual homosexual activity.
        Romania was condemned in an Amnesty International report in 1995 for its human rights record of imprisoning homosexuals and for torturing detainees. In Pakistan, people who engage in consensual homosexual acts are punished with prison sentences of between two years and life, and flogging. India continues to punish people who engage in consensual gay sex with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. There is no recognition whatever of the fear of persecution on the grounds of homosexuality in the United Kingdom's present political asylum legislation. Indeed, applications made on those grounds are invariably turned down.
        Last year, Ioan Vraciu, a Romanian soldier—I think all of this has been mentioned, so I shall be brief—won his case. An immigration appeal tribunal ruled that gay people could be seen as a distinct social group for the purposes of interpreting the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees. The Home Office refused to accept that argument and appealed against the decision. The Home Office lawyer, Alexandra Pond, cast doubt on Mr. Vraciu's claims and requested that doctors should test him to see whether he was really gay, which was amazing.
        Mr. Gerrard: It is astonishing to think what the test might have been.
        Mr. Cohen: Yes. Incredibly, her argument was accepted by the subsequent hearing and Mr. Vraciu lost his case, and so the special category for homosexuals is not currently accepted in law. It should be. Through my amendment, I hope that the Home Office will accept that. There are countries that persecute gays and lesbians, who might be seeking refugee status in this country to protect themselves from the harsh penalties that they might face there. Those countries include countries that are on the white list.
        538
        I urge the Minister to accept my amendment, or at least say that he can see that there is an argument for accepting such applications when these cases arise.
        Mr. Kirkhope: We all appreciate the sincerity with which supporters of the amendments have spoken this evening, particularly the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), but frankly it is simply not a sensible or practical approach to set out the interpretation of the United Nations convention in domestic primary legislation.
        With reference to amendment No. 58, it is ultimately for the courts to determine the interpretation of the convention rather than the Government. Sexual orientation is taken into account in the assessment of individual asylum claims where relevant, but our approach is not to make an abstract judgment as to whether homosexuals or any other set of people might or might not be regarded as a social group. Claims are considered on their individual merits in the light of all the circumstances of a particular case, and in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on a number of points, including on the question of homosexuals in relation to convention criteria. She set out the Government's position fully. The correspondence was made available to all members of the Standing Committee, and copies were placed in the Vote Office before Report began.
        Mr. Alton: I had hoped that the Minister would refer to that letter. As he said, many of the issues, including the cases that, quite properly, were raised today, were referred to in Committee, and the letter was sent by the Minister of State on 31 January. It might be helpful to hon. Members if the letter were published so that they can see it properly. Members of the Committee found it helpful.
        Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that there would be no problem about having the letter placed in the Library, if that is the hon. Gentleman's wish.
        I shall deal first with the drafting of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and then set out some of the policy issues that they raise.
        The acceptance of these amendments would result in common-law and homosexual relationships, which involve two people living together with a mutual commitment to a shared life, being accorded the same status as those who are married, for the purpose of immigration. The only objective test for the strength of a relationship in an immigration context is marriage. The concept of an interdependent partner is vague and ill-defined. These amendments would allow any person to claim that he or she was involved in a genuine and lasting relationship and consequently qualified for leave to remain in the United Kingdom without making the commitment to the relationship that is implicit in marriage. The introduction of the concept of an interdependent partner to the Immigration Act and immigration rules would cause difficulties of interpretation, would result in an increase in contested cases and would make the administration of immigration control more difficult than at present.
        Several hon. Members rose—
        Mr. Kirkhope: I shall continue for a moment.

        539
        I said that the amendments raise policy issues. Therefore, for the convenience of the House, I shall set out details of a change in policy that we intend to make to the way in which applications for leave to enter or remain as a partner in a heterosexual common-law relationship are considered. This point arises directly from the amendments, and it seems right for us to bring it before the House on the suitable occasion of the debate on these amendments.
        The number of foreign nationals seeking to remain here on the basis of a common-law relationship has increased from about 400 in 1991 to about 900 now. There is evidence that some foreign nationals are seeking to prolong their stay here by claiming to be partners in common-law relationships. The immigration rules provide for the admission of married couples and fiances who are expected to marry within a reasonable period. The rules do not provide for the admission of foreign nationals who are partners in common-law relationships. In the light of the figures to which I have referred, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has decided that the requirements of the immigration rules should be henceforth strictly applied.
        A foreign national who wishes to join or remain here with a person settled here must be married to that person, except for those who qualify under the immigration rules as fiancés or fiancées. Foreign nationals who apply to enter or remain on the basis of a common law relationship can, with immediate effect, expect to have their applications refused.
        It is not our intention to apply these new requirements retrospectively. But any foreign national refused leave to remain on the basis of a common-law relationship who does not leave the United Kingdom voluntarily may normally expect deportation action to be taken against him. In deciding whether deportation is the appropriate course, consideration will be given to any compassionate factors that may be present.
        I shall give the House some examples of the sorts of case which have caused us concern. An applicant who was admitted as a working holidaymaker sought leave to remain as a common-law spouse. Checks of the evidence provided in support of the application revealed that the applicant was simply sharing a house with a British citizen and that no relationship existed.
        In another case, a visitor sought leave to remain as a common-law spouse. Inquiries into the evidence produced suggested that what was intended was a prolonged visit so as to enable the applicant to earn sufficient money to marry in her own country.
        Mr. Alan Howarth: No Opposition Member is arguing that the forms of abuse that the Minister has so recently illustrated should be condoned or that the law should be amended to enable such practices to occur.
        I take up the Minister's argument that he cannot accept the amendments because they are unrealistic and impracticable. Will he comment on the fact that Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and South Africa all include provision for lesbian and gay relationships in their immigration rules and accept the concept of the
        540
        interdependent partner, in whatever language those countries choose to use? If they find it feasible, what is the Minister's objection in principle?
        Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman must realise that we use as the basis for our immigration rules in these cases the institution of marriage—in other words, the fact that there is a marriage. It does not necessarily have always to be a United Kingdom marriage, but a marriage that is legitimate in all respects in the country where it was celebrated. We see no reason to change that position.
        It was argued throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee that in our immigration rules and regulations we should look for clarity. Our proposals and my remarks this evening underline our commitment to clarity and to avoidance of doubt and misunderstanding.
        Mr. Straw: I take up a separate but important issue. The Minister has said that the rules allow for settlement in appropriate circumstances of people who are already married or who are coming here to be married as fiancés or fiancées. Will he make it clear that nothing in the changes that he has announced is intended to discriminate against people who are fiancés or fiancées with the intention of marriage?
        In my constituency there is a view—I try constantly to disabuse my constituents of it—that it is necessary to marry before application for settlement has been accepted so as to facilitate that application. That often leads to an application for good reasons being rejected and the woman having to remain married.
        Mr. Kirkhope: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to continue the arrangement that couples should be married or that there should be a fiancé or fiancée involved, with an intention to marry in the near future.
        6.15 pm
        Mrs. Maria Fyfe: If a woman is seeking entry into the United Kingdom and she says, "I have proof that I have had a common-law relationship with Mr. X for several years", it seems that no attention will be paid to her assertion. If, however, she says, "I am engaged to Mr. X and here is my engagement ring", it seems that that will be all right. That does not make sense to me.
        Mr. Kirkhope: We have made it clear that we accept the status of a fiancé or a fiancée if that is what she or he is shown to be. As I have said, marriage is the institution which we recognise in these circumstances. It provides the only safe way, and international way, in which we can deal fairly with these matters.
        Amendment No. 19 provides for the inclusion in the Immigration Act 1971 of one of several concessions, which exist outside the immigration rules, allowing people to come to the United Kingdom for various types of employment. As such, the concession sought is already covered by the reference in section 1(4) of the 1971 Act to
        "persons coming for the purpose of taking employment".
        It would be impractical to itemise all the existing concessions in section 1(4) as many are already covered by the categories listed—for example academic visitors, voluntary workers and the lawyers' concession all come under the heading of "taking employment". It would be

        541
        illogical to mention one concession, such as domestic workers, without referring to all the others. The inclusion of existing concessions in the rules, such as domestic workers, is a separate matter and one that is still under consideration. Therefore, amendments Nos. 19 and 29 are unnecessary.
        Mr. Gerrard: I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's remarks and I much regret what he appears to be doing. We shall need to read the official record carefully. My impression is that he is making things considerably worse for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. He has talked of cases where evidence was found to show that there was not a relationship and that people were not genuinely living together. That would apply equally to marriages of convenience, which we all know occur. If evidence turns up that a marriage is not genuine or that a couple who are supposedly living together are not, those situations can be dealt with. It does not matter whether it is a common law relationship.
        I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that there is a need to consider the detail of the amendments and whether technically they would work, especially having heard the Minister's remarks. We might need to think about alternative amendments to be tabled and introduced in another place. Having said that, I do not wish to press amendment No. 1 to a Division.
        I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment made: No. 49, in page 8, line 30, leave out
        'In subsection (4) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (pending appeals),'
        and insert
        (1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), for the definitions of "entrant" and "illegal entrant" there shall be substituted the following definitions—

        "'entrant' means a person entering or seeking to enter the United Kingdom and 'illegal entrant' means a person—

        (a) unlawfully entering or seeking to enter in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws, or

        (b) entering or seeking to enter by means which include deception by another person,

        and includes also a person who has entered as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above;".

        (2) In subsection (4) of that section,'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

      Schedule 3

        REPEALS
        Amendment made: No. 50, in page 12, line 8, column 3, at end insert—
        'In Schedule 2, in paragraph 5(1), the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,".'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
        Order for Third Reading read.
        6.18 pm
        The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        542
        The Government are committed to maintaining an open and tolerant society that is free from the blight of racial discrimination. We want a society that fosters respect for and understanding of the diverse cultures and backgrounds of all people lawfully present in this country. Firm but fair immigration control is a necessary pre-condition for such a society.
        The Government are determined to maintain the United Kingdom's honourable tradition in providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. We shall continue to meet in full our international obligations, including those under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees.
        The Bill aims to improve our asylum and immigration procedures in three ways: first, by strengthening our ability to deal rapidly with bogus claims; secondly, by countering the economic incentives to illegal immigration; thirdly, by combating the despicable crime of immigration racketeering.
        The Bill received its Second Reading on 11 December. Since then, the need for its asylum provisions has become even more pronounced. The number of asylum claims in the last quarter of 1995 was a record, bringing the total for the year to nearly 44,000, which is nearly double the level of claims in 1993. The number of asylum seekers awaiting a decision or appeal has risen to 84,000, and the average time for completing a new asylum claim now stands at 19 months. Queues and delays of that magnitude represent a threat to the integrity of our immigration control. The measures that we are proposing in the Bill are essential to prevent abuse and to allow us to give help speedily to genuine refugees.
        To enable us to deal quickly with unfounded claims, the Bill provides for designation of countries of origin, wider criteria for certifying claims as without foundation and a more robust application of the safe third country rule. We have also amended the Bill to deal with the growing number of asylum claims in which the applicant has destroyed his documents or persists in maintaining that forged documents are genuine.
        Mr. Madden: Can the Home Secretary tell the House when the Foreign Secretary expressed his satisfaction at the inclusion of India and Pakistan in the list of designated countries?
        Mr. Howard: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, not least because no final decisions have been taken, and will not be taken, as it is necessary to follow the procedures set out in the Bill. In consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary, I have listed the countries that we are currently minded to designate. It is right that we should have done so for the convenience of Parliament as it considered the Bill.
        Other western European countries have strengthened their legislation since Parliament last enacted an asylum Bill in 1993. It would be very unwise for us to allow this country to be seen as a soft target. Asylum claims have been falling across Europe for the past two years but rising sharply in this country. We now receive the highest number of asylum claims of any country in Western Europe, apart from Germany. The key proposals in the Bill are already in place elsewhere in Europe. Designation of countries where there is no serious risk of persecution, fast-tracking manifestly unfounded cases, making appeals against removal to a safe third country non-suspensive

        543
        and making it an offence to employ someone who is not entitled to work are measures which have already been introduced by many of our continental neighbours.
        It has been suggested that the solution to the backlogs and delays in the asylum system lies in greater resources and efficiency rather than in legislation and stricter procedures. The truth is that we must do both, and we are doing both.
        Mr. Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary was not in the Chamber yesterday when I raised the important point about the way in which Ministers respond to hon. Members, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has written to him and I have spoken to him myself about the letter that I received from his junior Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). Will he, please, look into the issue of the way in which Ministers respond to hon. Members? Does he agree that it is important that Members should be told of the outcome of cases which they have raised with Ministers? If he cannot give me an assurance today, will he at least meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further?
        Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred that she would write to him about the matter. I shall certainly discuss the matter with my hon. Friend. I understand and acknowledge the point made by the hon. Gentleman, whose company I look forward to later this evening at the Asian "Who's Who" dinner and the presentation of the Asian of the Year award.
        Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope it is for the Chair?
        Mr. Vaz: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that I am not accompanying the Home Secretary; we are on different tables.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Chair asks a question of an hon. Member, a proper response is expected.
        Mr. Howard: We have increased the number of asylum caseworkers eightfold, from fewer than 100 in 1988 to almost 800 now, and we are investing £37 million more over three years to provide even more caseworkers and adjudicators. The new short procedure in the Home Office, which does not require legislation, enables straightforward cases to be decided in three to four weeks. We are using that procedure in a growing number of cases. Overall, we have increased the number of decisions taken from 21,000 in 1994, to 27,000 in 1995, which is a 29 per cent. rise. This year, we expect to take at least 37,000 decisions, which is a further rise of 37 per cent. In January, for the first time ever, we took more than 3,000 decisions in a month.
        Our major programme to introduce new information technology will reduce bureaucracy and further streamline all caseworking procedures.
        Miss Emma Nicholson: The Home Secretary is speaking about the system. Does
        544
        he agree that a two-year wait when an in-country application is submitted is far too long? Does he agree that it generally takes two years before an interview opportunity is given once an in-country application has been made? Does he also agree that, once the interview is concluded, the file is put on hold for another caseworker to consider—which may take another two years—and that the second caseworker does not have the benefit of the knowledge of the first caseworker, who will have had the applicant face to face? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, look into the possibility of ensuring that the caseworker who has conducted the interview and heard the evidence first hand makes the proposal about granting asylum or otherwise? That is currently not the practice. Does he not believe that the practice that I have suggested would be fairer in terms of time and justice—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady can make a speech of her own on Third Reading. Interventions should be short.
        Mr. Howard: I am told that the relevant period referred to by the hon. Lady is nine months, not two years. If she had been paying a modicum of attention, she would have heard what measures we are taking to deal precisely with the problem to which she referred in her intervention.
        The output of the appeal system is also increasing dramatically. The number of appeals determined has risen from 2,500 in 1994 to 7,000 last year; but even those substantial improvements are not enough. The number of asylum applications is rising faster still; backlogs are still growing; and we are still having to deal with far too many bogus applications that should never have been made in the first place. That is why we need the asylum and employment provisions in the Bill.
        The measures that we are introducing on entitlement to housing assistance are also important. Social housing is a valuable and costly resource. People whose leave to enter the United Kingdom was given on the understanding that they would make no recourse to public funds should not have access to assistance provided by local housing authorities at the taxpayers' expense, nor should those without valid leave. Those groups do not now have entitlement to social security benefits, except if they have claimed asylum on arrival and are awaiting a decision.
        The Bill will enable entitlement under homelessness legislation to be brought into line with those changes. It will also enable us to ensure that people in this country with limited leave will not be entitled to council housing, which is intended to meet the long-term needs of people who are entitled to live here. It is also essential that entitlement to child benefit should be brought into line with the new policy. That will reduce public expenditure by £45 million over the next three years.
        The Bill also contains substantial new measures to combat the growing problem of immigration racketeers and facilitators. Their pernicious trade undermines the integrity of our immigration control and feeds on often needy and desperate people in pursuit of misbegotten personal profit.
        All the proposals in the Bill are grounded in the Government's long-standing commitment to maintaining this country's good race relations. We have consistently taken the view that that requires effective immigration control and a readiness to intervene to deal with abuses.

        545
        The Bill is fair. It is compatible with our international obligations. It involves no change in the status of those persons who are currently entitled to come here to live. It is a balanced, sensible and timely measure, and I commend it to the House.
        6.28 pm
        Mr. Straw: No one doubts the need to tackle the problem of bogus asylum seekers. That has never been an issue in any of our debates; what is at issue is how we should tackle the problem. The measure is unbalanced and disproportionate to the problem. It will harm race relations. It has already led to the prospect of refugee families being left without any effective support, and it could lead to a number of applicants whose applications are well founded being denied their rights under the United Nations convention on refugees, which this country voluntarily signed.
        That is exactly the anxiety of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who said:
        "UNHCR is concerned that the proposals currently before Parliament focus on restricting access to asylum procedures in a way that may make it just as difficult for genuine refugees to enter the process as it would for fraudulent applicants."
        Throughout the debate on the Bill, Ministers and Conservative Members have sought to insinuate that only a tiny minority of applicants are genuine and that all the rest are bogus, but the facts tell a different story. Four per cent. of applications are accepted as within the convention and another 19 per cent. are accepted as within the stringent tests for the granting of exceptional leave.
        That leaves 77 per cent., but it does not follow for a moment that all those applications are bogus. Many are genuine and fit the Government's test of genuineness on the Scott report—the test by which Ministers who deceive the House may be exempted from responsibility. After all, that test involves a "sincere self-belief' in the genuineness of an application. Many asylum applicants, however, would meet an objective test of the genuineness of their application, as their fear of persecution is high—as I know from a constituency case with which I am dealing—even though it may not fall within the strict tests imposed by Ministers in their interpretation of the convention or in their granting of exceptional leave.
        After the Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech, we said that it should be thoroughly examined under Special Standing Committee procedure. No Bill has been more in need of such scrutiny. The motives behind the Bill are open to question, the policy has not been properly settled and the Bill has been poorly drafted—much of it is simply a skeletal enabling measure, which will rely on subordinate regulations for its practical effect.
        Ms Jean Corston: Is my hon. Friend interested to know that last night I lodged with the House a petition with more than 1,000 signatures, from people who attend churches in the Greater Bristol region? They believe that the Bill
        "will lead to refusals and deportations of legitimate asylum seekers and that the introduction of sanctions on employers will increase race discrimination in employment and lead to a worsening of race relations in this country."
        546
        Does my hon. Friend agree that the most amazing thing about the Bill is that the Churches have been unanimous in their hostility and opposition to it?
        Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Another remarkable thing about the Bill is that, as the debates have progressed, the opposition to it among decent, non-political people has mounted.
        Within the limits of the existing Standing Committee procedure, my hon. Friends have done an excellent job in exposing the Bill's inadequacy. Ministers have had to back down on some of its least defensible parts, but much of it remains offensive. There will still be a white list, from which it will be assumed that applications are unfounded. In addition, there will still be the whitewash of so-called "country assessments". Such an assessment gave the Nigerian Government a clean bill of health even as that odious regime was preparing judicially to murder Ken Saro-Wiwa.
        The Secretary of State and Ministers say that race relations will not be damaged by the Bill. They should reflect on why no one with any knowledge of race relations shares their complacency. For the first time, under the Bill, some people who happen to have black or brown skin, who do not have a United Kingdom passport, but who have made this country their home with the full approval of the Home Office, and who may have been here for years paying taxes, are to be classified as "immigrants". Ministers are taking a power to withdraw their child benefit. Ministers say that they will not use the power in that way, so why put it in such an offensive way in the Bill in the first place? In many circumstances, benefits for genuine applicants and housing assistance are to be withdrawn, placing those people at risk of destitution and increasing the burden on local authorities.
        As we heard in the debate on amendment No. 57, because of the lack of security on birth certificates and national insurance documents, employee checks are unlikely to be effective in stopping the employment of workers here illegally, but they will almost certainly be effective in limiting further the employment of Asian or black people who are lawfully here, and in damaging race relations. In September, that was the view of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who said:
        "There is a danger that employers will concentrate checks on prospective employees whom they see as a risk, if not simply exclude them from consideration for the job. Either way there could be racial discrimination".
        Her hostility to the Bill has been echoed by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Federation of Small Businesses.
        The Government and the Secretary of State never cease to complain about burdening small firms and the labour market
        "with bureaucratic and inflexible rules, regulations, and practices"—
        to quote from a little-noticed 1993 speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department—but, against the wishes of many representative business organisations, the Government are doing just that: regulating ineffectively where they should not, but refusing to regulate where they should.
        Everyone knows that many bogus applications for asylum and for settlement generally are manufactured by unofficial profit-making immigration advisers operating at the margin of criminality. At every stage, we have pushed

        547
        the case for effective regulation—with criminal sanctions—of those so-called advisers. We did so again last night, but received the usual complacent "do nothing for the moment" response from the Minister. What a bizarre spectacle the Government's position is. Ministers refuse to regulate the crooked advisers, to stop their rackets and to end the burden that those advisers place on the Home Office, but the Bill imposes a new burden of regulation on decent, hard-working small business people and the threat of criminal sanctions.
        No wonder so many people have doubted the motives behind the Bill. After all, it was introduced less than three years after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. On that occasion, Ministers not only predicted that applications would rise—that was one of their reasons for introducing that measure—but promised that the Act would cut delays to three months and increase efficiency. As the Secretary of State has just admitted and as we predicted, far from increasing efficiency and cutting delays, the Act has increased delays and decreased efficiency.
        Although Ministers have always been coy about their motives, we have never had to look far for a motive, not least as the present Conservative candidate for South Cambridgeshire let the cat out of the bag in his notorious article in The Observer last September. We know that Conservatives wish to keep their motives quiet. They may be ungrateful to Mr. Andrew Lansley. On this occasion, Labour Members are grateful to him and we shall continue to repeat what he said in that article, because nothing has more graphically illustrated the real motives behind the Bill. He said:
        "Immigration, an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 Euro-elections campaign. played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt."
        Few measures have received such excoriation as the Bill from people who, whatever their wider political beliefs, care about justice and decent race relations in this country. For example, The Economist said that
        "by promoting anti-immigrant policies the government risks encouraging racism and undermining liberty. It deserves contempt, not votes, for proposing this nasty little bill."
        Most damning of all, however, has been the condemnation of Mr. John Taylor, the Conservative candidate for Cheltenham, who last week complained that his party was
        "pandering to xenophobic voters with promises of crack-downs on immigration".
        That is the truth about the Bill, which is gratuitously harmful to race relations and much of which is unworkable. We shall oppose it in the Lobby tonight.
        6.38 pm
        Mr. James Couchman: I have followed the Bill since its Second Reading some months ago. I accept entirely my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's emphasis of the need for the Bill. He has given hon. Members figures for 1995, which show what a problem bogus asylum seekers present to the Home Office and to its machinery.
        During the Bill's consideration, I had a constituency case that underlined just what the problem is. An Albanian wanted to stay here. When all the processes of applying for legitimate permission to stay had been exhausted, what did he do? He applied for political asylum. The
        548
        application was entirely bogus; he knew that, as did those who had advised him to submit it. Although the application has now been withdrawn, the case underlines the reasons for which my right hon. and learned Friend felt it necessary to introduce the Bill.
        I remain concerned about clause 8, however. The burden on small businesses could indeed be difficult for them to bear: that is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Since the Committee stage, further possible problems have been brought to my attention. It has been suggested, for instance, that people running a country pub who wanted to take on staff at short notice might have to make a 20-mile round trip in order to obtain photocopies of relevant documents. Moreover, a publican who employed someone who turned out to be an illegal immigrant could subsequently be prosecuted and receive a criminal conviction under the Bill. He could lose not just his good name, but his livelihood and his home. That should have been taken into account in Committee.
        I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, whose replies in Committee and on Report were always good humoured, courteous and careful. I believe that we need the Bill: as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, we need measures to surmount the huge problem of bogus asylum seekers. I for one will have no difficulty in supporting it.
        6.41 pm
        Mr. Alton: I gladly associate myself with what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said about the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, who always dealt courteously with matters raised by hon. Members of all parties in Committee. I do not agree with him about the Bill, however. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was right to remind us of what that dispassionate commentator The Economist said about this "nasty Bill" in December. It was The Times that said:
        "Britain is anything but a 'soft touch' for would-be refugees…the way to cut these costs is not to pauperise innocent refugees, and their children, along with illegal immigrants; it is to speed up Britain's sluggish asylum procedures."
        That is the one thing that the Committee stage failed to achieve. We are doing nothing to speed up the procedures, but we are introducing more punitive, penalising measures against immigrants and asylum seekers.
        The adversarial tone was set on Second Reading. On 11 December, by 314 votes to 287, we refused to set up a Special Standing Committee. Calls for such a Committee, which would have led to a more informed debate and might have helped to remedy significant flaws in the Bill, were rejected by the Government. That has resulted in inadequate pre-legislative scrutiny, and the problem is increased by the absence of the systematic post-legislative review that should have taken place. Only three years after passing the previous asylum Bill, here we are having to introduce more legislation. In the absence of any procedural rules—which the Committee was promised at the outset—how could hon. Members discharge their responsibilities properly?
        This is a thoroughly bad Bill. It sacrifices the rights and freedoms of highly vulnerable individuals to administrative convenience and political expediency. It contravenes many of our obligations under international human rights law. It compromises the already fragile

        549
        balance between individual freedom and the ever-increasing arbitrary powers of the state, and it encourages racial discrimination and social division. It is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
        This is a bad Bill because clauses 1 to 3 make it more difficult for genuine refugees to enter the asylum process, by compromising the fairness and effectiveness of the asylum appeals procedure, including the right to due process. The proposals will erode important safeguards against mistaken refusal of refugee status, and will abandon many more people to the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to which they may be subject in their home countries. It is a thoroughly bad Bill because it creates a designated list, and extends the fast-track appeals. It has serious implications for the right to due process, compromising supposedly independent adjudications by placing certain asylum applicants within a category that prejudices their chances of a fair hearing. That violates one of the key principles of the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees—that each asylum claim should be examined on its merits.
        The Bill will almost certainly deter genuine asylum seekers from designated countries from trying to enter the United Kingdom and applying for asylum. Instead, they may decide to remain in hiding in their home countries, facing prosecution, torture and even death. The alternative is to attempt to enter this country illegally, which will simply exacerbate one of the problems that the Government said that they wished to address. Full appeal rights are essential for all those categories of asylum seeker, providing vital safeguards against miscarriages of justice.
        This is a bad Bill because it ushers in a new era of internal immigration controls. Clauses 4 to 8 mark a dangerous intensification of such controls, without establishing corresponding safeguards against the potential for abuses of public power that those controls will foster. It is a bad Bill because it sours race relations, and erects a sophisticated system of snooping and snitching in the workplace. As well as increasing race discrimination in employment, the Bill threatens to turn all employers into yet another arm of the state, involving them in the policing of fellow members of the community and undermining the delicate balance between the freedom of the individual and the power of the big state.
        This is a bad Bill for parliamentary democracy and public accountability. The Home Secretary had the effrontery to tell the House earlier that there would be parliamentary control over matters such as the designated list, but anyone who knows anything about the negative procedures in the House knows that all that will happen is that a Committee will consider the matter, and that all that the Committee will be able to do is dissent from the decision. That will place no binding power on the Home Secretary, and there will be no debate on the Floor of the House.
        We have adopted all the worst features of the systems of other countries such as Germany, without introducing any of the safeguards that apply in those countries. Elected politicians are becoming increasingly irrelevant to our law-making process. One of the most dangerous trends in recent years has been the growth, and the increasing scope, of insufficiently defined delegated powers, which are often arbitrary and not subject to
        550
        adequate parliamentary scrutiny. There are three glaring examples of that in the Bill. Clause 1 leaves membership of the white list to the discretion of the Home Secretary, who is empowered to designate whatever countries he likes as posing no general or serious risk of persecution. Clause 8 empowers him arbitrarily to add to the categories of people who may not be specifically prohibited from working. Clauses 9 and 10 empower him to withdraw entitlement to housing assistance and child benefit from unspecified categories of immigrant with the wave of an executive wand.
        The Bill is an arbitrary and—in places—deliberately unintelligible and inaccessible piece of legislation. It gives one Minister far too much power. The Bill and the new social security regulations are symptomatic of the inherent dangers of written rules from above. We can never hope for a fair and just asylum and immigration policy until we address the fundamental flaws of a system of government in which basic human rights are not deemed worthy of special protection in law; in which power is concentrated in the hands of the Executive; in which Parliament has become little more than a sideshow; in which checks and balances against the abuse of public power are entirely dependent on the good will of the ruling party of the day; and in which outdated notions of national sovereignty automatically take precedence over our wider obligations to the international community.
        Human rights, a love of justice, a willingness to show mercy and a passion for the dispossessed are the hallmarks of a civilised society. They are not the hallmarks of this thoroughly bad Bill. I hope that it will be given a very rough ride in the other place; tonight, we should decline to give it a Third Reading.
        6.48 pm
        Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Bill is a deeply obnoxious piece of legislation and yet another nail in the coffin of any reputation that this country has ever had for being a haven for the civil liberties or safety of people fleeing from oppression and danger. It is rooted in xenophobia and the sort of populist jargon that successive Home Secretaries have thought necessary to use at successive Tory party conferences.
        The Bill is based on a deliberate misuse of the figures for people seeking asylum. Europe has far fewer asylum seekers than any other continent in the world. This country has the fewest asylum application acceptances per head of population of any country in Europe. The problem is the creation of the Home Secretary and his cohorts in the Daily Mail and other newspapers. The Bill is yet another example of the Tory Government blaming the victim rather than looking at the causes of people seeking asylum. It represents a refusal to look at the destruction of democracy in so many places. Indeed, it involves taking part in a hunt against individuals such as Dr. al-Masari, who will be disgracefully thrown out of this country if the Home Secretary has his way.
        We are coming up, by the way, to the first anniversary of the incarceration of Ademole Onibiyo in Campshill detention centre. He is there because he is unwilling to join his father—who has been missing for more than four months—in Nigeria for an unknown fate. So much for the Government's concern for the safety of individuals—either while they are in this country or when they are evicted.

        551
        The Bill makes employers into agents of the Home Office, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) pointed out. It denies housing rights to people who seek asylum. In fact, it will create a new underclass of people, who will be forced to live on charity, handouts and begging. Total deprivation beckons such people as a result of the combination of the Bill and the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995 that go with it.
        The Home Secretary has misjudged the opposition to the Bill—not only in the House, but outside. I have never known a piece of immigration legislation to generate such opposition. That opposition will be apparent on Saturday when—I hope—thousands of people will demonstrate against the Bill by marching through London to a rally in Trafalgar square. That will show that there are people in this country who care about asylum, refugees and human rights—something in which the Home Secretary clearly has no interest whatever.
        6.51 pm
        Ms Diane Abbott: Ever since the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, debates on immigration have been code for a debate on race. This Bill is no different. Ministers expressed concern in Committee about the millions of refugees criss-crossing the globe. If the Government are seriously concerned about the refugee problem, they ought to look to their own policies on economic relations with the third world, their policies that quietly prop up military regimes such as that in Nigeria, and above all, their policies relating to arms sales. Those policies are at the root of the refugee problem in 1996.
        One of the most unpleasant aspects of the Bill has been Conservative Members' recurrent use of the term "bogus refugees", which tends to stigmatise and criminalise all refugees. The truth is that most refugees genuinely believe that they have something to flee—even if it is the threat of starvation. The majority of refugees are no more bogus than the Home Secretary's parents were when they came here so many years ago. We might wish that this country offered the same mercy to refugees fleeing their home countries in 1996 as it did to his parents.
        The Bill is a misconceived attempt to catch a very small minority of people who might be abusing the regime. It is unfair, unjust and—probably—unworkable. I have found that the more that ordinary people—black and white—know about the Bill, the more they are opposed to it. Opposition Members look to the other place to improve further the Bill and make it more just. My hon. Friends and I will be proud to vote against it.
        6.53 pm
        Mr. Madden: The Bill will inevitably stir racial tension and incite racial hatred, which is why my hon. Friends and I claim that it represents the playing of the race card by the Conservative Government. It is an effort to deter people from seeking asylum in this country—even those who bear the scars of torture. It will make the lives of those who seek asylum so intolerable that they will be coerced into leaving the country.
        We all know that if the Government really wanted to deal fairly and justly with those who seek asylum, they would agree that we need people and resources to ensure
        552
        that claims are examined properly and quickly, and adjudicators and accommodation, so that appeals can be heard promptly and fairly.
        The Bill is flawed, nasty, bad and unnecessary. I trust that the House will deny it a Third Reading on those grounds, which the Opposition have contested throughout its stages. I hope very much that if it reaches the statute book, the next Labour Government will repeal it and replace it with fair and effective measures that accord with natural justice.
        6.55 pm
        Miss Widdecombe: I shall not be long in answering the debate. I do not need to be because not one argument advanced by Opposition Members provides any good reason for opposing the Bill.
        In quoting the much-maligned and much-misquoted Andrew Lansley, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that the Bill was designed to hurt. It is and it will. It will hurt the bogus claimant who clogs up the system and makes life difficult for the genuine claimant. It will hurt the racketeer who lives off those who are vulnerable and too easily exploited. It will hurt the exploitative employer who makes a living by undercutting and exploiting people to the detriment of the genuine employer. It will hurt those who have imposed on the British taxpayer needlessly, fraudulently, frivolously, maliciously and unfoundedly.
        The Bill will also hurt the Opposition, because it exposes their real attitude towards fair immigration measures. The Opposition opposed immigration measures solidly in 1981, 1988 and 1993, and they are opposing the Bill because they cannot bear firm and fair immigration measures that underpin good race relations in this country. The Bill is firm and fair. It is to the detriment of the bogus claimant—and it should be—but to the great benefit of the genuine asylum seeker. I commend it to the House.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 250.

        Division No. 60]

        [18.56 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Booth, Hartley

        Alexander, Richard

        Boswell, Tim

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Amess, David

        Bowden, Sir Andrew

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Bowis, John

        Arbuthnot, James

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Brazier, Julian

        Ashby, David

        Bright, Sir Graham

        Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

        Burt, Alistair

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Butterfill, John

        Baldry, Tony

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Bates, Michael

        Carttiss, Michael

        Batiste, Spencer

        Cash, William

        Bendall, Vivian

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Churchill, Mr

        553

        Clappison, James

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

        Horam, John

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Colvin, Michael

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Congdon, David

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Conway, Derek

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Hunter, Andrew

        Couchman, James

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Cran, James

        Jack, Michael

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Day, Stephen

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Devlin, Tim

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Dover, Den

        Key, Robert

        Duncan, Alan

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Dunn, Bob

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

        Dykes, Hugh

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

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Knox, Sir David

        Elletson, Harold

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Legg, Barry

        Evennett, David

        Leigh, Edward

        Faber, David

        Lidington, David

        Fabricant, Michael

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lord, Michael

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Luff, Peter

        Forman, Nigel

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Forth, Eric

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        MacKay, Andrew

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Madel, Sir David

        French, Douglas

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Gale, Roger

        Malone, Gerald

        Gallie, Phil

        Mans, Keith

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Marland, Paul

        Garnier, Edward

        Marlow, Tony

        Gill, Christopher

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Mates, Michael

        Gorst, Sir John

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Merchant, Piers

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mills, Iain

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Hannam, Sir John

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Harris, David

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Haselhurst, Sir Alan

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Hawkins, Nick

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hawksley, Warren

        Ottaway, Richard

        Hayes, Jerry

        Page, Richard

        Heald, Oliver

        Patnick, Sir Irvine

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Hendry, Charles

        Pawsey, James

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

        Pickles, Eric

        554

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Sumberg, David

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Sweeney, Walter

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Sykes, John

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Rathbone, Tim

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Richards, Rod

        Thomason, Roy

        Riddick, Graham

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Robathan, Andrew

        Thornton, Sir Malcolm

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Thurnham, Peter

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Tracey, Richard

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Tredinnick, David

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Trend, Michael

        Sackville, Tom

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Viggers, Peter

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Walden, George

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

        Ward, John

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Sims, Roger

        Waterson, Nigel

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Wells, Bowen

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Whitney, Ray

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Whittingdale, John

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

        Wilkinson, John

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Willetts, David

        Spring, Richard

        Wilshire, David

        Sproat, Iain

        Wolfson, Mark

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Wood, Timothy

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Yeo, Tim

        Steen, Anthony

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Stephen, Michael

        Stem, Michael

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Stewart, Allan

        Mr. Simon Burns and

        Streeter, Gary

        Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Campbell-Savours, D N

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Canavan, Dennis

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Cann, Jamie

        Allen, Graham

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

        Alton, David

        Chidgey, David

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Church, Judith

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Clapham, Michael

        Ashton, Joe

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Austin-Walker, John

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Clelland, David

        Barnes, Harry

        Coffey, Ann

        Barron, Kevin

        Cohen, Harry

        Battle, John

        Connarty, Michael

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Corbett, Robin

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Corston, Jean

        Betts, Clive

        Cousins, Jim

        Blair, Rt Hon Tony

        Cox, Tom

        Blunkett, David

        Cummings, John

        Boateng, Paul

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Cunningham, Roseanna

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

        Dafis, Cynog

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Burden, Richard

        Darling, Alistair

        Byers, Stephen

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Caborn, Richard

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

        Callaghan, Jim

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

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

        555

        Denham, John

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Dewar, Donald

        Janner, Greville

        Dixon, Don

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

        Dobson, Frank

        Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Dowd, Jim

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Eastham, Ken

        Jowell, Tessa

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Keen, Alan

        Fatchett, Derek

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Khabra, Piara S

        Flynn, Paul

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Litherland, Robert

        Foulkes, George

        Livingstone, Ken

        Fyfe, Maria

        Lloyd, Tony (Siretford)

        Galbraith, Sam

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Galloway, George

        Loyden, Eddie

        Gapes, Mike

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Garrett, John

        McAllion, John

        George, Bruce

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Gerrard, Neil

        Macdonald, Calum

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Madden, Max

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        McFall, John

        Godsiff, Roger

        McKelvey, William

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        McLeish, Henry

        Gordon, Mildred

        Maclennan, Robert

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        McMaster, Gordon

        Grocott, Bruce

        McNamara, Kevin

        Gunnell, John

        MacShane, Denis

        Hain, Peter

        McWilliam, John

        Hall, Mike

        Maddock, Diana

        Hanson, David

        Mahon, Alice

        Hardy, Peter

        Mandelson, Peter

        Harvey, Nick

        Marek, Dr John

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Henderson, Doug

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        Heppell, John

        Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Martlew, Eric

        Hinchliffe, David

        Maxton, John

        Hodge, Margaret

        Meacher, Michael

        Hoey, Kate

        Meale, Alan

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Michael, Alun

        Home Robertson, John

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Milburn, Alan

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

        Miller, Andrew

        Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Hoyle, Doug

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Morley, Elliot

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Hutton, John

        Mudie, George

        Illsley, Eric

        Mullin, Chris

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Murphy, Paul

        556

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Snape, Peter

        O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

        Soley, Clive

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Olner, Bill

        Spellar, John

        O'Neill, Martin

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Parry, Robert

        Stevenson, George

        Pearson, Ian

        Stott, Roger

        Pike, Peter L

        Strang, Dr. Gavin

        Pope, Greg

        Straw, Jack

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Suteliffe, Gerry

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Timms, Stephen

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Tipping, Paddy

        Purchase, Ken

        Touhig, Don

        Randall, Stuart

        Trickett, Jon

        Raynsford, Nick

        Turner, Dennis

        Reid, Dr John

        Tyler, Paul

        Rendel, David

        Vaz, Keith

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Walker, Rt Hon Sr Harold

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Walley, Joan

        Rogers, Allan

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Wareing, Robert N

        Rooney, Terry

        Watson, Mike

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Welsh, Andrew

        Rowlands, Ted

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Ruddock, Joan

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Salmond, Alex

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wilson, Brian

        Sheerman, Barry

        Winnick, David

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Wise, Audrey

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Wray, Jimmy

        Short, Clare

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Simpson, Alan

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Tellers for the Noes:

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

        Mr. Joe Benton and

        Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 28th February, the Speaker shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Forsyth—

    (i) relating to Local Government Finance (Scotland) not later than Seven o'clock, and

    (ii) relating to Housing (Scotland) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Libel Cases (Costs)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
7.12 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for attending the debate on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department. I note the presence, among others, of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who I am sure will be able to help me if I go wrong.
"Live pure, speak true, right wrong".
Those are some of the words used by Charles Kinglsey's pupil John Martineau, and they apply as well to journalists and Members of Parliament as to lawyers and others.
We need to respect the law and the role of newspapers and journalists. I know that libel does not apply only to words published by journalists, for which editors take responsibility. The press has a responsibility to make available to all what is known to a few.
There is much in common among lawyers, journalists and Members of Parliament. We each have to take up causes that may be unpopular, and make judgments that may turn out to be wrong. We have to take up unpopular causes for unpopular people, and be prepared to suffer for it. An independent judiciary and legal system, the press and the freedom of Back-Bench Members to raise issues in the Chamber are important parts of democracy.
I do not want to make the debate one on the hourly rates of solicitors or barristers, or give much attention to the pay of journalists or the earnings of star columnists. I want to discover whether we can help, not only through the law but by changing the culture, to reduce the number of times that people make allegations of libel, by removing many of the causes. I do not expect that we can remove them all, but we can reduce their number.
The debate is also about resolving claims of libel, and reducing the impact of cheque books on justice. To find an example of cheque books in justice, we may consider the reasons that newspapers gave for not having pursued Anthony Blunt, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International or Robert Maxwell. If my right hon. and noble Friend Margaret Thatcher had not named Blunt as a spy in the Chamber, thus gaining privilege, he could have sued anybody who wrote about him in a newspaper or book.
Subject to the guidance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, we may assume that libel is saying something that is untrue and damaging about someone that is not protected by privilege. The BCCI case involved a most corrupt bank being defended from exposure because newspapers did not dare print what they thought they knew, because BCCI used the law and plenty of other people's money to impose its will on others.
For many of the final years of Robert Maxwell's life, he kept out of court by using the legal process and threatening to make that process too expensive for other people. Most people cannot do that. I must declare an interest, in that I have been involved in a small number of libel cases with the media. I do not claim any merit or advertise any vices and I do not want to go into my cases that have gone to the High Court.
558
I accept the advice in this week's UK Press Gazette that people who want to make a claim against editors should go to court. That referred to freelance journalists who were not paid. If a journalist who has not been paid £200, £50 or £7.50 is advised to go to court if he has a legitimate claim, someone who thinks that they have been wronged by a libel should be able to do the same.
The problem is with what newspapers decide to print, what they do with complaints and what happens after that. I would like proprietors, editors and journalists to print, as does the BBC, their guidance to themselves. What standards do they themselves want to uphold? I am not talking about the codes of the National Union of Journalists or the Press Complaints Commission, but about the standards by which each paper wishes to be judged. Each newspaper should, as do some local newspapers, say to people, "If you have a complaint, let us know, and if we think you are right, we will put it right."
When I was a junior Minister, one of the things in which I took the greatest pride was answering a parliamentary question with two sentences that fitted into one line of one column of Hansard—"I am sorry. I made a mistake." That is not frightfully difficult to say, but it can get a lot people out of an awful lot of trouble.
I have an example. I rang up a journalist about an unimportant story that appeared in a newspaper a couple of days ago. I asked him whether he had checked the story. He said that he had, and I asked him with whom he had checked it. He said that he wanted to protect his sources. I said, "I am not asking who gave you the story in the first place, but who you checked it with?"
He admitted that he had not checked it, and started to make a bit of a fuss. He said that the story had an unimpeachable source that he had always relied on, and that if it turned out to be a duff story, he would never trust that person again. He did not say in the newspaper next day that he was sorry that he had not checked it and had made a mistake, but went on with his own flannel. That is one reason why people do not bother to take things up with the press. On important issues, how such complaints are treated can matter.
We all know that we must be prepared do risky things. If we are accused—and I do not mean only MPs but members of the public, too—of things can stop us from doing the work to which we have dedicated our lives, there needs to be some redress.
Editors should declare, "When something has been written that is plainly wrong, or so ambiguous that it is wrong in some of its meanings, we are prepared to make it plain on the day of publication, or as soon as we are told that there is a complaint. If we accept that the complaint is right in part, we shall make an announcement to the Press Association, and we shall put it right in our next publication."
There should be no need to wait a week for a Sunday newspaper, or to wait three or four days for a daily. if it turns out that something has been said that is plainly wrong, editors should say so, and admit that it does not meet their standards and apologise. Most people would accept that, even after serious defamation had occurred. If there were also a minor cash settlement, that would be nice, but instant acknowledgment that something was either seriously ambiguous or plain wrong would greatly reduce the fuss, bother, stress and strain.

559
I should have acknowledged earlier that, in my experience, most lawyers, when consulted on such cases, try to reach a settlement as fast as possible. Lawyers do not set out to run cases on, whether they are consulted by newspapers or by individuals who may want to initiate a case against a newspaper or an individual.
There will always be threats to press freedom. As I have said in the House, the press need to have the right to be wrong. They should not always be able to prove something in court. Nevertheless, they should be able to decide when it is right to say something that they cannot prove but believe to be in the public interest, or their commercial interest, to say.
In an article in the Sunday Times on 18 June 1995, in an article headed "Method in the madness of the great libel lottery", Andrew Neil wrote:
"Such are the competitive pressures—and the financial rewards for scooping the opposition—that editors would more often be inclined to publish and take the risk of having to pay the libel cost, which would be factored into the calculation."
We should not hide the fact that running a newspaper is a great commercial enterprise. I do not want to take away from newspapers either that calculation or what they consider to be their duty, in which I support them, to alert the public to potential dangers from crooks and other types of wrongdoing. There will be times when newspapers feel that they must settle although they believe that they have been right—and there have been examples that have shown them to be right.
My prejudice is to try to avoid laws that apply specifically to journalists or to newspapers. The law should apply generally. One may sometimes want to give a newspaper a public interest defence, but one should not try to introduce a "corrupt practices for journalists" Bill that does not apply to private detectives or commercial concerns, or a "right to privacy" Bill that applies only to what journalists do and not to what private detectives do, or a "right to reply" Bill that applies specifically to journalists—although I am slightly dubious about my interpretation of part of the Defamation Bill in another place, which may appear to take from judges a power that was probably implicit in the draft Bill. One should not impose on newspapers the duty of balance that is applied to broadcasters.
I do not say that journalists and editors should not have to face criticism. We have unlimited privilege in the Chamber. Members of Parliament are limited in what they say and do by the opinion of those around them—social pressure, exposure, argument, criticism, debate—rather than by Mr. Deputy Speaker putting his hand up and saying, "You are not allowed to say that, because it is illegal." Editors are like Back Benchers, but obviously with greater access to the media.
There is room for argument, debate and criticism. We need to ask whether broadcasters should consider more often what the press do. I am not saying that most of what the press do or say is wrong. Considering that a newspaper may contain 700,000 words in a day or a week, it is surprising how few facts newspapers get wrong. I find it surprising how seldom they make unfair comment in a general sense, let alone unfair comment in a legal sense.
There are times, however, when newspapers slip into bad habits. They must make judgments.
Let me take some examples that did not go to law. I was once the subject of allegations by broadcasters and the press that I was involved in drug smuggling. I thought
560
that that was laughable, but they did not at the time. It was only when Private Eye obtained the information that it turned out that a hoaxer had got half the British press staking out a motel in Basingstoke for a week or two, waiting for me to come along with the money to swap for the drugs.
More recently, there was a time when some of the media had seriously considered that there was a story that I had accepted free flights in America from a commercial concern, and I had to say that the only time I remembered accepting a free flight was in Richard Branson's helicopter getting away from Silverstone when there was a traffic jam after the British grand prix.
Stories can grow up and develop a momentum of their own. In 1989, a fair part of the press had become involved in swallowing a story about me that, if they had bothered to check, they would have known to be untrue.
In general, people should not sue, and we should continue to emphasise that, but costs are a factor. Having acknowledged that the press may be intimidated by BCCI or Robert Maxwell, one must consider the impact that their resources can have on other people. If a newspaper group budgets to spend £200,000 or £1 million a year in legal costs and damages in libel cases, or if it has taken out libel insurance above a certain level, does that create a lack of balance?
Does that not start to deal with the present tendency to ask why, if personal injury compensation is at a certain level, someone's reputation is worth more or less? The answer is that most people are able to sue on personal injury and are not confronted with the probability of incurring the massive costs of the insurance company or the person defending the claim.
In libel cases, even if the plaintiff wins, wounded pride or some other feeling—assuming that excessive damages are not awarded by the jury—may lead to an appeal, which would reach the Court of Appeal a year later. If that succeeds—it may be on the judge's summing-up or some other issue—the plaintiff must go to the High Court again, with not the slightest prospect of obtaining anything extra, and the possibility of having to carry the costs for others.
When the House considers the Defamation Bill, we should try to discover whether there is some way to cap the costs of a successful private plaintiff, even if, on a point of law, for some reason a defendant wants to go off and establish some other precedent.
The last subject that I shall mention is slightly beside the main subject of the debate. That is what I call printmail.
At the moment, if someone thought that they knew something about me, and came to me and said, "Unless you give me £20,000 I shall tell a newspaper," I could take that person to the police, and they would probably be charged with blackmail; and, regardless of whether they were convicted, I would retain my anonymity.
However, suppose that a person cuts out the middle stage and answers the type of advertisement that one reads in some newspapers saying, "If you have any information about a Member of Parliament, please ring 0171–782" and so on, that person cuts out the blackmail stage and proceeds straight to publication. If the journalists pay £20,000, rather than the victim paying £20,000, the position is different. I have no answer to that, but it needs open debate. I say to the Minister and to the House, we should try to find out what is going on.

561
I recommend to the newspaper proprietors or the Press Complaints Commission or one of the media studies units in universities, before the Defamation Bill reaches the House, to try to conduct a study—I hope that the newspaper proprietors and editors will help—to discover how many complaints they receive in a specified time, how many are resolved, how many go to court, and how much they spend on libel insurance.
Libel is usually avoidable. If newspapers adopt a system of instantly putting right things that are wrong, or clearing up ambiguities that should not have got through the editorial process, the costs to newspapers will fall, the number of times that people have their reputation damaged will drop, and newspapers will be left free to say what they like that is true or privileged or a matter of fair comment, whether in a popular or a legal sense.
7.30 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am a practitioner in defamation at the Bar, and therefore have an interest in the subject under discussion.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on introducing the debate, which has been most valuable. He has come up with a number of interesting and thoughtful ideas, which I hope will be developed when we debate the Defamation Bill when it arrives from another place. There are good things about the Bill—but a number of things need careful attention. I am sure that the Bill is getting that attention in the other place, but I hope that, when it comes into this place, we will be able to make further improvements to it.
I corroborate what my hon. Friend has said about what most libel complainants want. In my 20 years' experience at the Bar, I have found that most people do not want huge damages in a year's time or in two years' time—they want a speedy apology and correction, preferably in the next day's paper. My hon. Friend is quite right to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that people do not necessarily want money but a quick solution.
I draw hon. Members's attention to an anomaly: newspaper defendants, predominantly large corporations, have a tremendous advantage over private litigants. Hon. Members know that legal aid is not available for defamation cases—nor should it be, as the Government spend quite enough money on legal aid on other matters. The costs and the damages that newspapers pay are allowable against corporation tax, which gives them an inbuilt financial advantage over private litigants. However, a number of private litigants are supported by trade associations, trade unions and other such organisations. There is not always an imbalance. Trade unions do not have the same tax advantages as newspapers.
The cost of libel actions is exaggerated by newspapers because they want to discourage people from bringing libel actions against them. I refer to the libel case in which my hon. Friend was most successful before Christmas, and I congratulate him on that result.
After a high-profile case, newspapers like to say that the cost of the action was X, but they add on lots of noughts. By and large, the figures are highly inaccurate—
562
they are plucked out of the air—and designed to deter people from bringing libel complaints against big corporations. That ought to be looked at. Greater accuracy by newspapers—not only in what they print in the first place, but in the way in which they report the size of costs in actions—should be encouraged.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The main coverage of the result of my case contained the spurious accusation that someone who is now working in central office is the person that I had taken the action against. It seems to me that cases run for a week, the newspapers ignore them, and then print inaccuracies. That strikes me as rather odd.
Mr. Garnier: A lot of things are odd about libel actions—and that is obviously one of them. My hon. Friend was successful in his case, and greater currency should be given to his success and to the repair of his reputation as a consequence.
As I was saying, costs in libel actions are no greater than they would be in any big High Court litigation, such as a personal injury action. However, the difference is that legal aid does not cover defamation law, but insurance companies or legal aid cover most personal injury actions. The public or the individual are not made aware of the cost of litigation, but it has to be paid for one way or the other.
I have already mentioned the Defamation Bill—which is currently before the other House—but now is not the time to discuss it in detail. However, under the summary jurisdiction of the Bill, there is a proposed limit of £10,000 for damages when the judge alone hears a case in particular circumstances. I believe that, to most newspapers, £10,000 is petty cash. Perhaps we should consider increasing that figure to something more significant. I appreciate that damages are there to compensate and not to punish, but they must be of such a size that the newspaper is compensating—and knows that it is compensating—and not simply adjusting its petty cash book.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend and I have said, and will bear it in mind when we deal with the Defamation Bill.
7.34 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on securing a debate on what I believe to be an important subject. I am particularly grateful to him for his timing, because earlier this month the Government introduced a Bill that brings forward reforms to defamation law and procedure that are designed to meet some of the concerns that he has expressed.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the balanced and well-argued way in which he dealt with the issues he raised. I also express my gratitude to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), whose views have to be seen within the context of his great personal expertise and reputation in defamation law.
It is widely believed that the costs of defamation proceedings are disproportionately high. Despite many attempts over the years to put things right, there is an

563
undoubted need to make further improvements in all civil proceedings, especially in proceedings for defamation. It must be significant that, when the outcome of a libel claim is reported, the estimated cost to the parties is almost always featured as prominently as—if not more prominently than—the result of the case.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough gave us an insight into why that might be so. Even allowing for that, where a claim has succeeded, the amount of costs which it is estimated the loser will have to pay not infrequently exceeds the amount of damages that were awarded against him. In other words, the loser's financial position may be precarious simply as a result of the expense of the proceedings.
Mr. Denis MacShane: As a former journalist who has been both a defendant and a litigant in libel cases, I welcome the Defamation Bill, which is long overdue. Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote a book some 10 years ago along the lines of the ideas that the Government are putting forward. With all due respect to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I lost the profits on one book because the publisher left me to defend a libel case that I thought was worth defending.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) urged me not to defend the case, and I thought that he was being quite pusillanimous, but he proved to be right. Another case, in which I was the defendant, dragged on for five years. I was being protected by a trade union, a point that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made. It went on for five years, we got to the court, we blinked, and each side was left with about £20,000 in costs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention—it is a long intervention.
Mr. Evans: I was aware that my hon. Friends the learned Member for Harborough and the Member for Eltham were speaking from personal experience. Although I had noted that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was present for the debate, I was unaware of his personal experience in this area. As I develop my response, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that the Government are proposing in the Defamation Bill some measures that will be, in my judgment, helpful. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a moment, I will be able to outline those measures.
In the context of the cost of proceedings, we are talking not only about rich, large companies which can absorb expenses, but, as the hon. Member for Rotherham has said, about ordinary people who can face ruin as a result of court costs. There must be times when people who have been defamed—perhaps very seriously—choose not to take any steps to restore their reputations, because they are not willing to run the risk of losing not just the case, but everything they have. That is clearly wrong.
The Government examined the current issues and complaints relating to the law of defamation and found that there were many justified criticisms—particularly concerning the way in which the law of defamation operates in practice. There has been a series of reforming measures, the first of which was to give the Court of Appeal power to substitute its own award when it considers that an amount awarded by a jury is either excessive or inadequate.
564
Before that power was conferred, the court's powers of review were inadequate. If the jury awarded an unreasonable amount, the court could set aside that award, but it could not substitute a reasonable sum unless both parties were content for the court to do so. It could also order a retrial, but we have heard during the debate that that is particularly unhelpful: if the first trial is expensive, it is clear that a second trial would be doubly so.
The existence, and the court's exercise, of that power goes much further than eliminating the cost of an unnecessary second trial when an appeal is allowed. Its effect will be that fewer cases go to appeal. Judges directing juries refer to awards which have been approved or made in earlier cases by the Court of Appeal. A corpus of such awards will provide guidance, which should enable judges to help juries by indicating what level of award might be in proportion to the wrong inflicted by the libel or slander. More of those cases are now coming forward.
Another justified criticism was that the rules and practice for pleadings in defamation cases are unnecessarily complex, adding to the difficulty and the cost of preparing and conducting litigation. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor invited the Supreme Court procedure committee to review the rules relating to pleadings in actions for libel and slander, with a view to proposing changes for the purpose of reducing the complexity of the procedure without having an adverse effect on the interests of justice. The committee established a working group under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill, and its report and recommendations were published in 1991.
Some of those recommendations have already been implemented through changes in the rules of court, and others are included in the Defamation Bill. This evening, I shall refer to two changes which are designed to provide swift and less costly disposal of defamation claims.
In those cases where the defendant concedes that he has published a defamatory statement which is not true, he will be able to offer to make amends for the wrong that has been done to the plaintiff. If the offer is accepted, there will be no need for a trial. The parties will negotiate the exact form which the amends should take and, if they cannot agree on the details, they may apply to the judge. He will assess what money compensation, if any, should be paid and settle the terms of a suitable correction and apology by the defendant.
The judge will assess the compensation using the same principles as assessment of damages for defamation, taking account of the other steps which the defendant has taken—or will take—to make amends, as well as any aggravating features. There will be no fixed upper limit on the amount that can be awarded.
As we heard during the debate, the court will also have powers of summary disposal similar to those which are available already in all civil claims other than defamation. However, in defamation cases, the court will always consider at an early stage whether the case is suitable for summary disposal. The judge will consider whether the claim has any realistic prospect of success and, if it has not, he may dismiss it. He will consider whether any defence has been put forward that has a realistic prospect of success. If not—and there is no other special reason why there should be a trial—he may grant summary relief if he considers that the relief which he has power to grant will compensate the plaintiff adequately for the wrong suffered.

565
The plaintiff can ask the judge to grant summary relief. That relief may include damages of up to £10,000, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, but no more. Again, the parties may negotiate a suitable correction and apology which the defendant will publish, but, if they cannot do so, the judge will order publication of an approved summary of his judgment.
The problem of excessive and disproportionate legal costs is not limited to defamation proceedings. The Lord Chancellor's Department is well aware that such costs can apply across a wide range of civil litigation. Against that background, Lord Woolf is presently undertaking a review of civil justice. He has advanced a raft of new proposals in order to ensure that there is swifter access to
566
justice in future. That will be of assistance not only in the area which is the focus of the debate this evening, but across a wide range of civil justice, as I have said.
Finally, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham for bringing this important issue before the House. The Defamation Bill is presently in the other place, and, after consideration, it will come to the House. My hon. Friend has drawn attention, at an early stage and at an appropriate time in view of the fact that the Bill was published only a month or so ago, to the important issues which the House must consider in due course when the legislation comes before it. In that regard, I am deeply grateful to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Harrods
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the items that have been purchased by his Department from Harrods store, Knightsbridge, London and the cost price of each item since the establishment of his office. [16153]

  Mr. Willetts
  There have been no purchases by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's office and the Office of Public Service and its executive agencies, from Harrods since the establishment of the Deputy Prime Minister's office.

  Policy Promotion Costs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the total annual cost of the Government's promotion of each of the policies in each Department. [15315]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  East Timor
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consideration was given to the issue of human rights in East Timor during his meeting in January with the Indonesian Foreign Minister. [15444]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The issue did not arise at this meeting. However the Government's concerns over human rights and East Timor were raised with Mr. Alatas at ministerial level during the course of his visit.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily; [16182]

  (2) if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner,(b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [16018]

  Mr. Willetts
  There are no executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by the Office of Public Service.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16642]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give their number or grades.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16576]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedure agreed with the Scott Inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give the cost of the work.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16592]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I first saw the report on 10 February 1996. Such access was in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16635]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade today.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister at what hour and minute of what day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16544]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I was not one of the recipients of an advance copy of Sir Richard Scott's report. I first saw the report on 10 February 1996. Such access was in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of the letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16552]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I and my officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru, for example, about my evidence to the inquiry in February 1994. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document
  211
  he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16525]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  A small number of civil servants in each of the main Departments concerned had access to the report prior to publication for the purpose of preparing the Government's response. Such access was in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Scott inquiry.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16565]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultations he had with non-ministerial right hon. and hon. Members before the publication of the Scott report. [16467]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I had no such consultations after the receipt of the Scott report or on the Government's response to it.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16481]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Parliamentary Secretary.

DEFENCE

  NAAFI
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further progress has been made on the independent review of the NAAFI. [15284]

  Mr. Soames
  The independent review has been concluded and a copy of Mr. Dart's report has been made available in the Library of the House. We will now carefully consider Mr. Dart's recommendations with a view to formulating an implementation plan in the near future.

  Mr. Dart's stated aim was to ensure that NAAFI continue to provide a first-class service to our armed forces and the framework he provides in his report should ensure that NAAFI has every opportunity to do so.

  Buy American Act
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 13 February,Official Report, column 493, if he will describe the nature of the new restrictions. [16145]
  212
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The new US restrictions require a range of naval engineering and navigation equipment to be procured from domestic sources only, subject to certain limited waiver provisions. The new restrictions include the procurement of marine unique gyrocompasses, electronic navigation chart systems, steering controls, pumps, propulsion and machinery control systems. In addition, for a period of one year, new restrictions will apply to procurement of the main propulsion engines for the LPD-17 class of vessels and the emergency generator set for the new Attack submarine. These restrictions are renewable in future legislation.

  Sir Derek Boorman
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Sir Derek Boorman sought permission to make public the information he disclosed on a television programme broadcast on 11 February. [15968]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None of the views expressed by Sir Derek in his interview would have required prior permission from my Department and he did not seek it.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guarantees are being offered by his Department in respect of future rental income for the properties forming part of the married quarters estate which are currently being offered for sale. [16392]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As explained in the "Preliminary Information Memorandum", a copy of which was placed in the Library, the terms of the sale will include"a government backed minimum cashflow in the form of a Guaranteed Payment providing a floor to rental income from the portfolio".

  The guaranteed payment will be set by reference to the rent on the minimum number of properties MOD expects to occupy.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from(a) hon. Members, (b) local authorities and (c) trade unions concerning the proposed collocation of ATSA at Chertsey; and if he will make a statement. [16650]

  Mr. Soames
  In addition to those from a number of right hon. and hon. Members, my Department has received representations from the following local authorities and trade unions:

  London borough of Greenwich

  Broxtowe borough council

  Malvern Hills district council

  Melton borough council

  Hereford and Worcester county council

  Council of Civil Service Unions.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the overall cost(a) to his Department and (b) to the exchequer in the financial appraisal of the options concerning the future location of ATSA. [16652]
  213
  Mr. Soames
  Various options are being considered for the future location of ATSA, including a "do minimum" option collocation at a number of different single sites and a joint site option. The building works and other relevant costs were incorporated into an investment appraisal of all the options considered over a projected 25-year period. This appraisal listed the options in order of cost, with the Malvern-Chertsey twin site the most expensive, and the Chertsey single site the least expensive over the 25-year period. We are now considering the results of the consultative process which ended on 19 February.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what appraisal he has made of the possible location of ATSA on(a) the Royal Arsenal east site and (b) the Royal Arsenal west site; and if he will make a statement. [16651]

  Mr. Soames
  The possibility of ATSA collocation in Woolwich was considered at an early stage in the study. The costs of providing the agency's office, technical, messing, and married quarters accommodation, however, were assessed to be higher than that for collocation at either Chertsey or Malvern. With this in mind, as well as the additional heritage and planning implications associated with many of the MOD's sites in Woolwich, and the fact that collocation there would not best satisfy the agency's business needs, it was decided not to subject a Woolwich collocation option to detailed scrutiny.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with English Partnerships regarding the future location of the ATSA based in Woolwich. [16653]

  Mr. Soames
  In view of the decision not to subject a Woolwich collocation option to detailed scrutiny, we did not specifically discuss with English Partnerships, the potential owners of the Royal Arsenal west site, the opportunities for ATSA's collocation in Woolwich. Nevertheless, our discussions with them and the London borough of Greenwich as to the future of the Royal Arsenal west site continue, with the aim of achieving a comprehensive solution for the transfer of the site into civilian use so as to maximise local employment prospects.

  Naval Support Command Headquarters
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to paragraph 3.15 of the June 1995 consultation document, what is his latest estimate of the upfront capital costs for the additional building at Abbey Wood and the refurbishment of Ensleigh on the collocation of the naval support command headquarters at Abbey Wood/Ensleigh (Bath); at what cost opportunity costs for spare capacity at Abbey Wood were included in this estimate; and if he will make a statement. [16419]

  Mr. Soames
  Our estimate for the upfront capital cost for the additional building at Abbey Wood and the refurbishment of Ensleigh remains at about£40 million at 1995 prices and inclusive of VAT. The allowance for the opportunity cost of spare space at Abbey Wood separately included in the investment appraisal was based on the capital cost of the buildings concerned.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his current plans for the refurbishment of Ensleigh; what is his latest estimate of the cost of the 214
  refurbishment; what was the estimated cost in June 1995; and if he will make a statement. [16341]

  Mr. Soames
  Further work is being undertaken on the scope of the Ensleigh refurbishment programme following the decisions announced last September. Some refurbishment work is already under way. The estimate for the costs of the work is commercially confidential, but the estimate for the overall upfront capital costs of Ensleigh refurbishment and the new building at Abbey Wood remains about£40 million.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of(a) the number of staff who will seek household removal and (b) the cost of excess daily fares in respect of the collocation of the naval support command headquarters at Abbey Wood-Ensleigh (Bath); and if he will make a statement. [16342]

  Mr. Soames
  The consultation document on the NSC headquarters accommodation options assumed, in the appraisal of the Abbey Wood-Ensleigh option, about 100 house moves by Bath-based staff. The transport study which informed this assessment has recently been updated and the results will soon be available. No significant change is expected in the number of staff who may elect to move home. The latest estimate of the total cost of excess fares for the Abbey Wood-Ensleigh option is£5.8 million.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest estimates of the costs of the collocation of the naval support command headquarters at Abbey Wood-Ensleigh (Bath); what are the significant changes from the cost estimates presented in the June 1995 consultation document; and if he will make a statement. [16343]

  Mr. Soames
  The net present value—NPV—figure for the costs of NSC relocation is£132 million at the latest price base. Other than the price base uplift, from 1994 to 1995 prices, there are no significant changes from the NPV figure presented in the consultation document.

  Artillery Shells, Iran
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission an inquiry into the underwriting of the export of artillery shells from British companies to Iran since 1985. [15625]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  Export licences for export of weapons to Iran have not been available since 1980, and therefore the ECGD would not have underwritten applications for export of artillery shells to Iran during the period since 1985.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16551]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any documents he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.
  215
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16634]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer given to him by right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade earlier today.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16524]

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16575]

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16557]

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16566]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Permits

  Category

  Permit holders

  1988

  1993

  1996

  1

  Right hon. and hon. Members (first, second and third floors)

  606

  638

  633

  2

  Officers of the House (fifth floor)

  112

  118

  123

  3

  Staff of the House with over 15 years service (certain spaces on the fourth and fifth floors)

  25

  63

  61

  4

  Late night staff (certain spaces on the fourth and fifth floors)

  280

  279

  284

  4

  Named members of the Press Gallery (certain spaces on the fourth and fifth floors)

  18

  18

  16

  5

  Members' secretaries with over 15 years service (certain spaces on the third floor)

  44

  20

  20

  6

  Permanent photo-identity pass holders on Fridays and non-sitting days only (fourth and fifth floors)

  474

  600

  594

  The number of places in the underground car park for the use of right hon. and hon. Members only has remained at 260 throughout this period.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16487]

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16490]

  Mr. Newton
  After 3.30 pm on Thursday 15 February.
  216
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what hour and minute of what day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16541]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  During the afternoon of Wednesday 7 February 1996.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16593]

  Mr. Portillo
  It was delivered to me on Wednesday 7 February 1996.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16482]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parking Passes
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many current passes for the House of Commons car park have been issued to each category of persons entitled to such parking passes; how many places are for the use only of hon. and right hon. Members; and what were the equivalent figures in(a) 1988 and (b) 1993. [16093]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16555]

  Mr. Newton
  I have had no communications from Mr. Muttukumaru.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry, Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru, concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16546]
  217
  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the President of the Board of Trade today.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16579]

  Mr. Newton
  After 3.30 pm on Thursday 15 February.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Disturbances
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 183, what information is available regarding payments for compensation and damages following disturbances in prisons in England and Wales over the past 10 years. [14963]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 February 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jim Dowd, dated 22 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your further Question about payments of compensation and damages to individuals following prison disturbances in the last ten years.
  Compensation claims are dealt with either at local level or centrally depending on the size and nature of the claim. Information is available, from the financial year 1990/91, on the Prison Service's annual spend on compensation as a whole. It is not possible to identify the amount paid as a result of prison disturbances. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Party Conferences, Blackpool
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reimburse the Lancashire police authority for the cost of policing political party conferences held in Blackpool. [16154]

  Mr. Maclean
  None at present, but Lancashire police authority has been told that we would be prepared to consider the special payment of police grant under section 31 B of the Police Act 1964 for exceptional expenditure incurred in connection with safeguarding national security for the 1997 party conference. We would assess the case for a special grant in the context of the relative financial burden that the party political conferences impose on the force and in the light of the security situation prevailing at the time.

  Mr. Mervyn Ritter
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list cases in which Mr. Mervyn Ritter has given evidence on behalf of the Crown against other prisoners while he was in prison. [16077]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  218
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 22 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question in which you asked him to list cases in which Mr. Mervyn Ritter has given evidence on behalf of the Crown against other prisoners while he was in prison.
  There is no record of Mr. Ritter giving evidence on behalf of the Crown against other prisoners while he was in prison.

  Arson
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arson attacks were reported to each police authority area in the last three complete years. [16147]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to offences of arson recorded by the police and is published annually in table 3.1 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary tables, Volume 3", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Prison Service (Security Budget)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the Prison Service budget was spent on security for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; what is the projected percentage for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [15903]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 February 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 22 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the percentage of Prison Service budget spent on security.
  Estimates of current expenditure on security are not available. Staff in prison establishments are multi-functional and all are responsible for ensuring that security is maintained.
  In most capital projects it is not possible to identify integral security costs.
  expenditure on overt security devices, for example perimeter walls and closed circuit television is recorded in the table below.

  Percentage

  1993–94 Outturn

  1994–95 Outturn

  1995–96 Supply Provision

  1996–97 Planned

  Percentage of total capital expenditure

  6.9

  6.5

  17.5

  18.4

  Prison Service (Market Testing)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce further market testing in the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [15904]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 February 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  219
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 22 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about market testing in the Prison Service.
  The Prison Service remains committed to market testing as a means of improving quality and value for money in the provision of custodial services. We will shortly finalise our plans for the market testing of Prison Service establishments and of particular functions within establishments for the financial year 1996–97.

  Emergency Plans
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding funding for dealing with the aftermath of disasters; and if he will make a statement on the responsibilities exercised by his Department in this area. [15615]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The Home Office provides some funding to local authorities in England and Wales to assist them in their planning for major disasters—including peacetime disasters—however caused. But representations about the availability of funding to assist those authorities to deal with a disaster after it has happened should be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all emergency plans sponsored by local authorities during the last five years; and if he will make a statement on what plans he has to assist councils to retain emergency teams following the reorganisation of local government. [15616]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Home Office encourages local authorities to develop flexible emergency management arrangements which are capable of responding to any incident; but we do not require them to submit copies of the plans which they have made.

  We have issued guidance to the new authorities suggesting how they might wish to approach planning for emergencies in the new situation created by the reorganisation of local government. Members of the Department's emergency planning division have also visited them to discuss the new arrangements.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16184]

  Mr. Howard
  (a) The following executive non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs—have a statutory base:

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Data Protection Registrar

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  220

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Police Complaints Authority.

  (b) None of executive NDPBs for which I am responsible admits members of the public to all board or committee meetings either under a statutory requirement or voluntarily.

  (c) The Commission for Racial Equality holds conferences and seminars on race relations issues and the Data Protection Registrar holds meetings to discuss the operation of the Data Protection Act, but neither they nor any of the executive NDPBs for which I am responsible are under a statutory requirement to hold open meetings.

  Kani Yilmaz
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Woolwich dated 18 December 1995, regarding the application for extradition in respect of Kani Yilmaz; and if he will make a statement. [16466]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I replied to the hon. Member on 21 February.

  Mohammed Akhtar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the document referred to by the Home Office presenting officer at the appeal in Leeds by Mohammed Akhtar, Ref. A47642/3 (s); PO1 736/95. [16425]

  Miss Widdecombe
  It would not be practicable to place in the Library all the information on countries of origin available to presenting officers, since this is drawn from a wide range of sources. Where country reports summarising such information are prepared, they will be placed in the Library when finalised.

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report from Mr. J. J. Rowe QC on the operation in 1995 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989; and what conclusions he has reached on the future of the Act. [17300]

  Mr. Howard
  I have now considered Mr. Rowe's report which I have today placed in the Library and have decided to accept his recommendation that the legislation should be renewed in its entirety for a further 12 months. A draft order to give effect to that is today being laid before the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15165]
  221
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15166]

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

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to ensure that each Government Department lists in its annual report(a) what action it has taken in the past 12 months and (b) what it plans to do in the next 12 months to reduce the regulatory burdens on businesses. [15614]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have agreed as part of their response to the deregulation task force's 1995 annual report, published in September 1995, that all governmental Departments will provide this information in their annual reports. It is for each Secretary of State to ensure that this happens.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his written answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 592, from what sources of information he assesses the record of Government against their targets for repealing or amending regulations. [16185]

  The Prime Minister
  I receive regular reports from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on progress under the deregulation initiative. These incorporate information from individual Departments on their progress in repealing and amending regulations.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16553]

  The Prime Minister
  I and my officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru, for example, about my evidence to the inquiry in January 1994. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16564]

  The Prime Minister
  I do not envisage making such changes. Where officials criticised in the Scott report had acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy, it would not normally be appropriate to take disciplinary action against them. If there are cases where disciplinary action is considered appropriate this would be carried out under normal departmental disciplinary procedure.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16556]
  222
  The Prime Minister
  Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report It is not therefore possible to give their number or grades.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he had with non-ministerial right hon. and hon. Members before the publication of the Scott inquiry. [16465]

  The Prime Minister
  I had no such consultations on the contents of the Scott report or on the Government's response to it.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will revise "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" following the report of the Scott inquiry. [16469]

  The Prime Minister
  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" is updated from time to time as the need arises. That will continue to be the case.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister from which civil servants he took advice before making his decision not to permit members of opposition parties to see the report of the Scott inquiry until three hours before it was presented to the House. [16609]

  The Prime Minister
  Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Scott report was made available to the head of research at Conservative central office. [16422]

  The Prime Minister
  At 15.30 pm on 15 February 1996.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16595]

  The Prime Minister
  Wednesday 7 February 1996.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultation he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16605]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular consultations with the Secretary of the Cabinet on current issues affecting the Government. These generally take place in 10 Downing street. Details of these consultations are private.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first consulted other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom. [16517]

  The Prime Minister
  I have frequent meetings with Ministers at which we discuss Government business. These meetings usually take place in No. 10 Downing street. The details of such meetings are private.
  223
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16577]

  The Prime Minister
  Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedure agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give the cost of the work.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry, concerning the time needed by the opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16636]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer given to him by the President of the Board of Trade today.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister at what hour and minute of what day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16542]

  The Prime Minister
  During the afternoon of Wednesday 7 February 1996.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16522]

  The Prime Minister
  A small number of civil servants in each of the main Departments concerned had access to the report prior to publication for the purpose of preparing the Government's response. Such access was in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister on whose authority it was decided not to permit members of opposition parties to see the report of the Scott inquiry until three hours before the report was presented to the House. [16512]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government decided, in the light of precedents, that it was appropriate to allow access to Opposition spokesmen three and a half hours before the publication of the report.

  Name of body

  Parliamentary commissioner

  Audit commission

  National audit office

  Open government

  Performance indicators

  Citizen's charter

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Education Assets Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  224
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all locations where a full set of the transcripts from the Scott inquiry are lodged. [15970]

  The Prime Minister
  Transcripts of oral evidence to the Scott inquiry are publicly available from Smith Bernal, Official Court Reports, 167 Fleet Street. London EC4A 2EA, tel. 0171 939 2266. I understand that copies are also available for public consultation in Westminster public libraries. Since transcripts of oral evidence were available to the general public I have no means of identifying the locations of all such transcripts.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister how many photocopies the Government have made of the Scott report as of 13 February. [15703]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: No photocopies were made of the report as a whole prior to publication. Photocopies of some sections of the report were made, in accordance with agreements reached with the inquiry.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16484]

  The Prime Minister
  If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Environmental Appraisals
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many environmental appraisals were produced by her Department using the guidance contained in the Department of the Environment's "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" in 1995; and if she will place copies in the Library. [15111]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding reply 14 February 1996]: None.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission. (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [16016]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  225

  Name of body

  Parliamentary commissioner

  Audit commission

  National audit office

  Open government

  Performance indicators

  Citizen's charter

  Funding Agency for Schools

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Further Education Funding Council

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Investors In People UK

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  National Council for Educational Technology

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  National Youth Agency

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Remploy Ltd.

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Teacher Training Agency

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department have a statutory base and which(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meeting

  Admit public to all meetings

  Hold open meetings

  Name of body

  Statutory base

  Statutory

  Voluntary

  Statutory

  Voluntary

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Education Assets Board

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Funding Agency for Schools

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Further Education Funding Council

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Investors In People UK

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  National Council for Educational Technology

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  National Youth Agency

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Remploy Ltd.

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Teacher Training Agency

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Under-fives Provision
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to allow local education authorities to continue to fund under-fives provision directly through the local management of schools formula and to redeem vouchers on behalf of local providers under the nursery voucher scheme. [16284]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Officials wrote to all chief education officers on 31 January to inform them that the proposed grant for nursery education in respect of local education authority maintained schools will be paid to local education authorities for distribution through their LMS schemes. LEAs will continue to be able to spend what they consider appropriate on provision for under-fives, taking the grant and other forms of revenue into account.

  It will be for local decision whether LEAs participate in handling vouchers, or leave it to the schools they maintain.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision at January 1995,
  226
  and (b) hold open meetings for the public; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16029]

  Mr. Forth
  the information requested is shown in the table:

  (b) the potential deduction from the under-fives standard spending assessment, based on the January 1995 pupil count, (c) the actual deduction agreed with the pilot authorities and (d) the criteria used to adjust the potential deduction to reach the actual deduction, including the pupil numbers involved, for each of the pilot authorities participating in phase one of the voucher scheme. [16285]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department's estimate of the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision in each of the phase 1 authorities in January 1995—taken from the annual schools census—is shown in the table, with the deduction from the 1996–97 standard spending assessment in each case.

  LEA

  Estimated number of 4-year-olds in maintained provision at January 1995

  SSA deduction (£ million)

  Kensington and Chelsea

  800

  0.7

  Wandsworth

  2,600

  2.4

  Westminster

  1,100

  1.0

  Norfolk

  6,300

  6.8

  227
  The pupil numbers underpinning the deductions were adjusted to take into account local education authority comments on the January estimates and the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision in the autumn term 1994 and the summer term 1995 and the number of four-year-old pupils in maintained provision who were not resident in the LEA and who will not receive a voucher in phase 1.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16596]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I first saw the report of the Scott inquiry on the morning of Monday 19 February.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the members of her Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16520]

  Mrs. Shephard
  No members of my Department saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was published.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to her office. [16493]

  Mrs. Shephard
  The report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to my office at 2pm on Friday 16 February.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which Ministers in her Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16486]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

  School Premises Regulations
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the progress of the revised school premises regulations. [17173]

  Mrs.Gillan
  Following my answer on 10 January—Official Report, column 274—I can confirm that new school premises regulations have been laid before Parliament today.

  The new regulations will come into on 1 September this year, when the transitional arrangements of the 1981 regulations expire.

  The government will publish an explanatory circular and two sets guidance during the summer. The circular will explain the regulations in layman's terms; one guidance document will cover accommodation in schools and nurscries, the other will cover will cover school grounds.

  Cash Limits
  MR. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes she plans to cash limits on votes within her responsibility for 1995–96. [17174]
  228
  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1 February 1996 that the cash limit for class x, vote 1, schools, research and miscellaneous services will be reduced by£75,000 from£735,483,000 to£735,408,000. The cash limit will now be reduced by a further£900,000 to£734,508,000. The reduction will be used to offset an increase in the non-voted cash limit for local authority capital for school building projects—DFEE/LACAP. The local authority capital cash limit, DFEE/LACAP, will therefore be increased by£900,000 from£46,898,000 to£47,798,000.

  Teachers' Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans she has to update the actuarial valuation of the teachers' superannuation scheme; [16348]

  (2) what estimates she has made of catch-up contributions required to cater for the review of the teachers' superannuation scheme actuarial valuation. [16317]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The valuation of the teachers' superannuation scheme is carried out by the Government Actuary and it is for him to estimate the contribution required. My right hon. Friend is awaiting the Government Actuary's report on the valuation of the scheme as at 31 March 1991, which she expects early in 1996–97.

TREASURY

  Tax Relief and Allowances
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 22 May 1995,Official Report, column 469 on revenue costs of tax reliefs and allowances, to give figures for 1996–97. [14401]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated full-year revenue costs at 1996–97 income levels are in the table. Separate costings have been produced for allowances and reliefs. The combined cost of both allowances and reliefs would be greater than the sum of the individual figures.

  Cost of allowances and reliefs

  £ billion

  Group of taxpayers

  Allowances

  Reliefs

  Top 1 per cent.

  0.4

  0.8

  Top 5 per cent.

  2.2

  2.1

  Top 10 per cent.

  4.3

  3.0

  Top 25 per cent.

  8.6

  4.4

  Top 50 per cent.

  15.4

  6.2

  Top 70 per cent.

  20.8

  7.0

  All taxpayers

  28.1

  7.4

  Exchange and Trading Schemes
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many local exchange and trading schemes have been established in the United Kingdom; and how many members they have. [15429]
  229
  Mr. Jack
  Information on the number of local exchange and trading schemes which have been established in the United Kingdom, and the number of members they have, is not available.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16175]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  There are no executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Treasury.

  Seized Alcoholic Drinks
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of disposal of seized alcoholic drinks and tobacco products. [17172]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs has carried out a review of its policy on the disposal of seized excise goods. The policy to destroy small seizures of alcohol, in an

  Claims paid by ECGD in£ millions by financial year from 1 April 1988

  Country

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  Indonesia

  5

  5

  3

  2

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Iraq

  28

  56

  193

  181

  104

  61

  46

  14

  Jordan

  1

  28

  49

  50

  46

  41

  36

  31

  Nigeria

  291

  242

  157

  131

  98

  48

  28

  5

  Oman

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other countries in Gulf Co-operation Council group

  5

  3

  12

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1To 31 January 1996.

  Export Credits Guarantee Advisory Service
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of 20 January 1994,Official Report, columns 748–50, on membership of the exports credits guarantee advisory service. [15623]

  Mr. Nelson
  There have been no further appointments to the Export Credits Guarantee Advisory Council since 20 January 1994. The following members, however, how now retired from service:

  A. G. Gormly, Esq., CBE

  C. Smallwood Esq.

  Sir Robert Davidson

  Sir Frank Lampl.

  Further appointments will be made in due course.

  Iraq (Petroleum)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the role played by Crescent International Petroleum in trading with Iraq. [15967]

  Mr. Nelson
  No.
  230
  economic and environmentally satisfactory manner, will continue. For individual large seizures of alcohol Customs will, wherever possible, continue to sell the goods back to the original UK manufacturer. The policy to destroy all tobacco seizures will continue. A copy of Customs' review report has been placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the factors included under the heading "other elements" contributing to ECGD exposure in Nigeria and Brazil as outlined on page 6 of the annual report of ECGD. [15174]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The other elements are made up entirely of claims paid not yet recovered.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year since 1988 the total amount of claims paid by ECGD broken down to show those paid in respect(a) Iraq, (b) Jordan, (c) Nigeria, (d) Oman, (e) Indonesia, and (f) other countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council group. [15177]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following is the information:

  Post Office
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what were the main components of the pay off to the former chief executive of the Post Office; [15915]

  (2) what early retirement or voluntary severance schemes are currently in place for employees of the Post Office; [15916]

  (3) what were the principal factors in his decision to approve the early retirement of the chief executive of the Post Office. [15924]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: The details of the payments made to Mr. Cockburn, the former chief executive, on leaving the Post Office were set out in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) on 5 December 1995, Official Report, column 162. The Post Office is responsible for the early retirement and voluntary severance schemes in place for its employees.

  There are two principal pension schemes in operation within the Post Office: the Post Office staff superannuation scheme and the Post Office pension scheme. Mr. Cockburn is a member of the former. The provisions and administration of each are the responsibility of the Post Office and the trustees.
  231
  Mr. Cockburn left the Post Office board when his three year appointment to it expired in October 1995. Although offered renewal of his contract on existing terms, he decided after 34 years in the Post Office, 14 of them as a member of the Post Office board, to seek a new challenge in the private sector. I did not approve the early retirement of Mr. Cockburn; this was a matter for him and the Post Office under the terms of his original appointment to the board.

  Nigeria (Arms Exports)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that no arms are exported to Nigeria from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU states, under licences which were granted prior to the current embargo; and if he will make a statement. [16260]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 21 February 1996]: At the end of last year, the European Union decided to strengthen its measures against the military regime in response to adverse developments in Nigeria. Among these measures was strengthening of the existing restrictions on the sale of military equipment, though there was no agreement to extend these measures to existing contracts and therefore export licences which were issued against those contracts were not revoked.

  So far as future exports are concerned, in common with arms embargoes against other countries, the embargo against Nigeria will include all military, security and paramilitary goods and arms, ammunition and related material which is listed in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, available from HMSO. The rules do not distinguish between items intended for the military and for the police, nor has any exception been allowed for international peacekeeping operations in which the Nigerians might be involved.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many wind turbines were erected in (i) each year since 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995 and (iv) 1996 to date. [16417]

  Mr. Page
  The number of wind turbines erected in the United Kingdom under the non-fossil fuel obligation—in England and Wales—the Northern Ireland non-fossil fuel obligation, NI-NFFO, and the Scottish renewables order, SRO, are as follows:

  Year

  NFFO 1 and 2

  NI-NFFO 1

  SRO 1

  Total

  1991

  13

  —

  —

  13

  1992

  113

  —

  —

  113

  1993

  247

  —

  —

  247

  1994

  54

  20

  —

  74

  1995

  15

  30

  26

  71

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  442

  50

  26

  518

  There are also some small-scale wind turbines in domestic use, and some single large-scale wind turbines erected outside the non-fossil fuel obligation and other obligations arrangements. Data on their number could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Capita Managed Services Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the terms on which the contract to collect the costs awarded against directors disqualified from managing a limited company was awarded to Capita Managed Services Ltd. [16275]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The contract has been awarded for an initial period of three years commencing on 1 December 1995. The terms themselves are a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the process by which Capita Managed Services Ltd. was awarded the contract to collect the costs awarded against directors who are disqualified from acting in the management of limited companies. [16273]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  An advertisement setting out details of the service requirement and calling for expressions of interest was placed in "Government Opportunities". Respondents were asked to complete a pre-qualification questionnaire. On the basis of the replies a short list of six was drawn up and formal tenders issued. The bid from Capita Managed Services Ltd. represented best value for money and the contract was awarded accordingly.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16177]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is as follows:

  Those non-departmental public bodies which:
  (a) Have a statutory base:
  All except the National Consumer Council, the Simpler Trade Procedures Board and the Design Council, the latter being established by royal charter. The research councils are also established by royal charter, a prerogative instrument, but are governed by the Science and Technology Act 1965 which imposes statutory duties in areas such as production of an annual report and keeping of accounts.
  (b) Admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings:
  None.
  (c) Hold open meetings for the public:
  None except the research councils who from time to time voluntarily hold open meetings.

  In both (b) and (c) it is voluntary and not a statutory requirement for all DTI NDPBs.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of Government policies upon small businesses in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [15236]

  Mr. Page
  The Government are fully committed to supporting the small firms sector and recognise the key role that it plays in the economy.
  233
  After reductions in the number of businesses in the early 1990s, there was a net increase in the number of businesses operating in England and Wales in both 1994 and 1995. Policy for small firms focuses mainly on providing a favourable economic climate—based on low inflation and stable interest rates in which enterprises can flourish. The Government are also concentrating on reducing administrative and regulatory burdens thereby enabling businesses to get on, unimpeded, with running their businesses.

  The Government also provide direct assistance to small firms.

  The establishment of the business link network now provides a single point of access to a wide range of information and services to small and medium-sized firms in England. Early indicators are that firms welcome these services and are impressed by the quality of provision.

  In shaping their policy the Government are listening to the voice of small firms through the regional "Your Business Matters" conference and will take careful account of the report to be presented at a national conference on 11 March.

  The small business ministerial group will have a significant effect on small firms by providing a forum for developing co-ordinated and cohesive policy across Whitehall Departments.

  Greyhound Breeding, Ireland
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the hon. Member for Wentworth will receive an answer to the question of 30 November, about the support of greyhound breeding in Ireland by the EC. [13126]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 February 1996, c. 232]: The current objective 1 programme of EC structural funds grants for the Republic of Ireland, which covers the period 1994 to 1999, includes three relevant measures: a quality breeding scheme, including purchase of breeding greyhounds from abroad; grant towards the cost of marketing greyhounds; and grant towards breeding premises for various animals including greyhounds. Intended totals of grant for the three schemes are IR£300,000, IR£353,000 and 1R£7.5 million respectively. The first two schemes have not yet begun. Under the third scheme, IR£38,000 has so far been paid in respect of premises for greyhounds.

  I understand that no information is available about the number of greyhounds to be bred or, therefore, the cost per animal.

  I shall be glad to consider the matter further if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry, concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what 234
  date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16545]

  Mr. Lang
  Correspondence on this issue was copied by the Scott inquiry to spokesmen for the main Opposition parties. This makes it clear that Sir Richard was glad to note the arrangements made for giving advance access to Opposition spokesmen. The Government do not propose to deposit copies of the correspondence in the Library of the House.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16470]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Biotechnology and Biological Research Council
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about forthcoming prior options reviews of institutes sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. [17213]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Government announced on 29 September 1995 that all public sector research establishments would be subject to prior options reviews. I announced on 24 November reviews of BBSRC-sponsored institutes concerned with agriculture and plant sciences.

  Reviews are now beginning of the BBSRC's arrangements for sponsoring the Babraham Institute, the Institute for Animal Health and the Roslin Institute.

  These reviews will take place alongside those of establishments parented or sponsored by other Government Departments which are carrying out work in similar or related fields. The reviews will build on any relevant recent studies.

  I should welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 8 April 1996 to:
  Dr. Susannah Bolton, Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ in respect of the Babraham Institute;
  Dr. David L. O. Smith, Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HS in respect of the Institute for Animal Health; and
  Dr. Vincent Essex, BBSRC, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1UH in respect of the Roslin Institute.

  Internet
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when it is planned that the British library will make available on the Internet information on British patents, trade marks, registered designs, and information from the Official Journal. [16216]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  The British library has no plans to make available on the Internet information on British patents, trade marks, registered designs, an information from the Official Journal.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department were present at the international exhibition for military production held in Baghdad in 1989. [15695]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: Some officials serving at the British embassy in Baghdad attended the exhibition. No Ministers were present.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings concerning the future of the Western Sahara have been attended by representatives of Her Majesty's Government(a) at the UN and (b) elsewhere in the past year; and if he will make a statement. [15933]

  Mr. Hanley
  Programmes for official visits to the UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara—MINURSO—from the UK and elsewhere have usually included visits to refugee camps in Algeria under MINURSO auspices. Most recently, officials from the foreign and Commonwealth Office visited camps in Tindouf in October 1995.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the UN Security Council concerning the performance of MINURSO in registering potential voters in the referendum on the future of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [15934]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have expressed concern in the UN Security Council at the slow rate of progress in registering voters in the referendum on the future of the Western Sahara. The Secretary-General has reported that he will monitor the situation closely and bring the matter to the Security Council's attention if the situation showed no or very little sign of improvement.

  We remain supportive of the efforts of the UN Secretary-General and of MINURSO. We continue to urge all parties to proceed with the referendum process as quickly as possible.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by representatives of Her Majesty's Government with the new Government of Guatemala; and if he will make a statement. [15930]

  Mr. David Davis
  Lord Chesham met President Arzu on 15 January when he visited Guatemala City for the President's inauguration. We continue to encourage the Government of Guatemala to reach a peace agreement with the URNG guerrillas and a settlement of the territorial dispute with Belize.

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet 236
  signatory nations to the Antarctic treaty concerning the establishment and siting of the secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [15935]

  Mr. David Davis
  There are no immediate plans for Ministers to meet Antarctic treaty signatories to discuss this issue. The Antarctic treaty secretariat will be the subject of discussion at official level at the forthcoming Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in the Netherlands on 29 April to 10 May.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has recently held with the Argentine Foreign Minister concerning the siting of the secretariat to the Antarctic treaty; and if he will make a statement. [15936]

  Mr. Davis
  The siting of the Antarctic treaty secretariat was raised by the Argentine Foreign Minster during bilateral meetings on 15 December 1995 and on 30 January 1996. He was informed that our position remained unchanged.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16590]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary first saw the report on Wednesday 7 February 1996.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16574]

  Mr. Hanley
  Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned, in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a range of issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give the cost of the work.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16504]

  Mr. Hanley
  The report was delivered to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary during the afternoon of Wednesday 7 February 1996.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16644]

  Mr. Hanley
  Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a range of issues and a number of other officials will have
  237
  contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not, therefore, possible to give their number or grade.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16527]

  Mr. Hanley
  A small number of civil servants in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had access to the report prior to publication for the purpose of preparing the Government's response. Such access was in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the hon. Members referred to in paragraph D4.3 of the Scott report who received letters couched in the terms described in paragraph D4.2. [16468]

  Mr. Hanley
  Mrs. G. Dunwoody MP, B. Field MP, M. Wolfson MP, C. R. Gregory MP, I. Stewart MP, R. Rhodes James MP, A. Haselhurst MP, Sir G. Finsberg MP, D. Curry MP, N. Griffiths MP, J. Patten MP, D. Atkinson MP, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman MP, J. Redwood MP, C. Wardle MP, S. Bell MP, D. Alton MP, M. Jones MP, R. Tracey MP, T. Rathbone MP, D. Sumberg MP, R. Moate MP, M. Grylls MP, C. Hawkins MP, K. Baker MP, N. Winterton MP, Dr. A. Williams MP, Rt hon. Tony Benn MP, Rt hon. Peter Shore MP, Sir H. Rossi MP and M. Lord MP.

  Some received more than one letter.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication he received from the secretary to the Scott inquiry concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16633]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade today.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of the letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16550]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and FCO officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16479]

  Mr. Hanley
  If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his letter of 27 October, Ref: 2712002, was circulated to the Home Secretary; when he reached a decision that India and Pakistan should be added to the list of designated countries; on what date he told the Home Secretary of his decision in respect of India and Pakistan; if he will place in the Library copies of the material he considered in reaching his decision in respect of India and Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [16433]

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not the practice to disclose ministerial correspondence between Departments. This is consistent with long-standing conventions of confidentiality observed by successive Governments.

  Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he notified the Home Secretary of his decision about the designation of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania; what was his decision in respect of each country; and if he will place in the Library copies of the material on which he reached his decision in respect of each country. [16432]

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not the practice to disclose ministerial correspondence between Departments. This is consistent with long-standing conventions of confidentiality observed by successive Governments.

  European Funds (Public Health Education)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that European Commission funds are prudently allocated in the field of public health education. [15835]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following a decision by the Health Council, management committees have been established to oversee European Commission programmes of action on public health, including AIDS and communicable diseases. Officials on the committees representing UK Health Departments will seek to agree criteria to ensure that Community funds are prudently allocated for individual projects.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding was given by the Europe against AIDS unit of the European Commission to enable CSV Media to send St. Valentine's day cards containing condoms to right hon. Members; how many such cards were sent out throughout Europe; what was the purpose of this project; what percentage of the funding came from United Kingdom taxpayers; and what factors led the European Commission to(a) support this project and (b) accept no liability for the advice so disseminated. [15833]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission contributed£145,000 towards the cost of this campaign which included the distribution of 330.000 Valentine's day cards throughout Europe. The purpose of the campaign was to promote AIDS awareness and safer sex amongst young people.

  239
  The United Kingdom Government made no direct contribution to the cost of the campaign, and it is therefore not possible to say what percentage of the funding came from UK taxpayers. We understand that the European Commission supported the project because of rising levels of HIV infection in Europe, and that the disclaimer on the Valentine's day card is a standard clause which the Commission require on all printed material which they fund.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to propose the abolition of the AIDS unit of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement. [15836]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no such proposal.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he had with the European Commission prior to the decision being taken to proceed with the CVS Media project. [15834]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have had no consultations with the European Commission on this subject.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16640]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16637]

  Mr. Evans
  I have received no communication from the secretary of the Scott inquiry concerning the time needed by Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16500]

  Mr. Evans
  The report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to my office at approximately 3 o'clock on the afternoon on Friday 16 February.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16586]

  Mr. Evans
  I first saw the report of the Scott inquiry after it was published.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord 240
  Chancellor's Department how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of the letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16639]

  Mr. Evans
  I have received no communication from Christopher Muttukumaru.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16643]

  Mr. Evans
  Access to the report itself was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give their number or grades.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much he estimates was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott report. [16645]

  Mr. Evans
  Access to the report itself was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give the cost of the work.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16531]

  Mr. Evans
  No member of this Department saw Sir Richard Scott's report before it was presented to the House.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16475]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, column 242.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will place in the Library copies of the draft procedural rules concerning asylum and immigration currently subject to consultation; and if he will make a statement. [16261]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Revised asylum appeals procedure rules are being prepared in the light of the recommendations in the report by the consultancy firm
  241
  KPMG Peat Marwick. The draft rules will be submitted to consultation and a copy placed in the Library as soon as the preparatory work has been concluded.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations(a) his Department and (b) the legal aid service has received in each of the last five years alleging that legal aid was being received by litigants or contestants of cases who were not qualified to receive it; and if he will make a statement on the measures his Department takes to ensure that legal aid goes only to those who qualify. [15449]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The legal aid assessment office of the Benefits Agency assesses the means of applicants for civil legal aid. In November 1990, it set up a special team to investigate representations alleging abuse of the scheme. Since that date it has received the following representations.

  Number

  November 1990-March 1991

  754

  April 1991-March 1992

  2,775

  April 1992-March 1993

  5,394

  April 1993-March 1994

  8,783

  April 1994-March 1995

  11,402

  April 1995-March 1996

  115,000

  1 Anticipated.

  A small number of these representations will originally have been channelled through my Department. All applications for civil legal aid are scrutinised carefully by the Legal Aid Board to ensure that the case has merit, and the legal aid assessment office to ensure that the applicant's means are within the prescribed limits. Allegations that legal aid is being received by those who do not qualify for it are investigated thoroughly.

  Unlawful Legislation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judgments handed down by the High Court in each year since 1987 have held that provisions of(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation were unlawful, giving in each case the sponsoring Department of the legislation and the court's reasons. [15648]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 22 February 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about High Court judgments.
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Access to Children (Grandparents)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to give grandparents a legal right to have access to their grandchildren. [15471]
  242
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Under the Children Act 1989, grandparents can already apply to a court for an order granting them contact with their grandchildren. The leave of the court is usually required to make such an application. In considering any application, the paramount consideration for the court is the welfare and best interests of the child.

  War Disability Pensions
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions appeals by former officers in the armed services were heard by war disability pension tribunals in Newcastle in each of the last three years; how many cases were heard on each occasion; how many sittings he expects in 1996; and where else such hearings of this sort are heard in the north of England. [15465]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Tribunal sittings at Newcastle

  Officer cases heard on each occasion

  1993

  2

  1

  1994

  2

  4

  1995

  1

  5

  The level of sittings at Newcastle depends on the number of appeals due to be heard there. There are currently five outstanding officer cases at Newcastle and at the present rate of such appeals the pensions appeal tribunals expect to arrange two sitting days at Newcastle in 1996.

  Officer cases are also heard at the following venues in the north of England: Chester, Leeds, Manchester and Middlesbrough.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nursery School Places
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new nursery school places will be created in Northern Ireland during 1996. [15027]

  Mr. Ancram
  Current plans are for 150 new full-time equivalent places, in Belfast and Londonderry.

  Action for Community Employment Scheme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the application of policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines to the funding of the action for community employment scheme. [15029]

  Mr. Ancram
  Policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines have been applied to decisions regarding the funding of the action for community employment programme. The effect of the reduction in funding should not have a differential impact on the overall balance of the programme to PAFT target groups.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [15030]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what recent meetings he has had with the Irish Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the peace process; [15032]

  (2) what recent meetings he has had with Irish Ministers regarding the peace initiative. [15042]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Mr. Spring and I met at a two-part meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference which met initially in London on 1 February and concluded in Dublin on 7 February. Amongst other things we conducted an extensive review of all recent developments in the peace process.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the Mitchell report; and if he will make a statement. [15043]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government have received a number of written and oral representations since the publication of the international body's report; these are being considered. The Government have welcomed and accepted the report, and intend to discuss its recommendations with the Northern Ireland parties.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received on the role of an elected body in the Northern Ireland peace process. [15038]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received views on this proposal from a wide range of sources.

  Elected Convention
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the establishment of an elected convention in Northern Ireland. [15031]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In the absence of decommissioning, we believe that a broadly acceptable elective process represents one alternative direct way forward to all-party negotiations. We are continuing to explore the acceptability of these ideas with the relevant parties.

  Northern Ireland Committee
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for a greater use of the Northern Ireland Committee. [15034]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  We are considering proposals that the procedures and remit of the Northern Ireland Committee should be developed in line with those of the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees; but this could be 244
  done only after consultation with the Northern Ireland parties and any such arrangements would need to be reviewed if there were agreement leading to the establishment of new locally-accountable institutions in Northern Ireland.

  Politically Motivated Violence
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of politically motivated violence, with specific reference to punishment beatings and killings, have taken place since the publication of the Mitchell report. [15035]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The report of the international body was published on 24 January and since that date—up to 13 February—there has been one death in Northern Ireland resulting from terrorist activity. During this period there have also been 17 casualties resulting from so-called punishment attacks. Of these, nine have been attributed to loyalist and eight to republican groups.

  Housing
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the resource provisions for housing in Northern Ireland for 1995–96 and 1996–97. [15036]

  Mr. Moss
  The overall gross resources available for housing in Northern Ireland in 1996–97 are some£605 million which is£6 million more than in 1995–96.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the prospects for the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [15039]

  Mr. Ancram
  The aerospace industry in Northern Ireland is dominated by Short Brothers, owned by Bombardier, the Canadian company. Should the current crisis at Fokker not be resolved, jobs would be lost at Shorts but the company would not be at risk. It is a highly regarded cost competitive partner in many global ventures. Should Fokker continue in production, Shorts would be a serious contender for more contracts.

  Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects; and if he will make a statement. [15040]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government have concluded that it would be possible to introduce silent video-recording of interviews with terrorist suspects, and my right hon. and learned Friend has recently announced his intention to do so. Provision for the silent video-recording of interviews with terrorist suspects was included in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill at Report stage on 19 February.
  245
  However, after serious consideration the Government have concluded that it would not be right to introduce audio recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland, given the serious risks to life were the tapes subsequently to come into the public domain.

  This measure will be a further addition to the wide range of safeguards already in place in the holding centres.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to ensure that public appointments are balanced and representative. [15041]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Public appointments are made in accordance with the guidelines on public appointments in Northern Ireland which were revised in October 1995. These advise that public bodies should, as far as possible, reflect a broad community, gender, age and geographical balance. Appointments are, however, made on the basis of an individual's ability or potential to make a positive contribution to the work of the particular body concerned.

  The recently appointed Commissioner for Public Appointments in Northern Ireland—and in the rest of the United Kingdom—Sir Len Peach, will audit the public appointments process to ensure that it is operating in a fair and proper way.

  Campbell's Soups
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the boycott of Campbell's Soups in Northern Ireland. [15044]

  Mr. Ancram
  The hon. Member's representation to me in the House on 7 December is the only one of which I am aware.

  Employment and Economic Development
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he is having with trade unions about the future of employment and economic development of Northern Ireland. [15045]

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend has useful, wide-ranging discussions with representatives of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about employment and other matters, most recently when he met them on 19 December 1995.

  Ceasefire
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the level of observance of the ceasefire by organisations previously engaged in terrorism in the Province; and if he will make a statement. [15046]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The recent terrorist incidents in London, where three people lost their lives and scores of 246
  people have been injured, is a stark reminder of what terrorists are capable of.

  During the ceasefire period, terrorist organisations continued to engage in various criminal activities such as murder, punishment beatings, robberies and racketeering. They also continued to train and to target individuals and installations.

  The police have a good clear-up rate for terrorist crime and will make arrests whenever possible.

  Free School Transport
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the costs of free school transport in Northern Ireland; what assessment he has made of the research; and what policy proposals he has on free school transport. [15463]

  Mr. Ancram
  No independent research has been commissioned. In 1992 the Department of Education established a joint Department/education and library board working party to review the arrangements for the provision of assisted home-to-school transport in Northern Ireland and, as a result of this, arrangements were put in place to monitor on-going costs. A consultation paper outlining a number of options for reducing the escalating costs of transport was issued in December 1995.

  This consultation is on-going. In the interim, the existing arrangements remain unchanged.

  Pupil Performance
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what comparison he has made of the relative performance of pupils studying GCSEs and A-levels in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. [15028]

  Mr. Ancram
  Annual comparisons are made between pupil performance in Northern Ireland and England and Wales. Latest available comparison shows 87 per cent. of A-level pupils in Northern Ireland achieving at least two A-levels compared with 81 per cent. in England and 76 per cent. in Wales, and 51 per cent. of Northern Ireland pupils achieving five or more good GCSE grades compared with 44 per cent. in England and 41 per cent. in Wales.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16180]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:
  247

  Executive Bodies: Department of Agriculture (NI)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (i)

  (ii)

  DANI NDPBs which have a statutory base

  Admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings

  Hold open meetings for the public

  Statutory requirement

  Voluntarily

  Fishery Harbour Authority

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Agricultural Wages Board

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Livestock and Meat Commission

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Agricultural Research Institute

  No

  —

  —

  Yes

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  No

  —

  —

  Yes

  (The Pig Production Development Committee is no longer considered to be an executive body. Its status will be amended in the "Public Bodies" publication at the next opportunity).

  Department of Education (Northern Ireland)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (i)

  (ii)

  DENI NDPBs which have a statutory base

  Admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings

  Hold open meetings for the public

  Statutory requirement

  Voluntarily

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Yes (only to full Council meetings)

  No

  —

  Yes

  Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Trustees of the Ulster Museum

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

  Yes (other than a Teaching Appointments Committee meeting

  Yes (except where the nature of the business to be transacted would be prejudicial to the public interest)

  Yes

  —

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  North-Eastern Education and Library Board

  South-Eastern Education and Library Board

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Western Education and Library Board

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Department of Economic Development

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (i)

  (ii)

  DED NDPBs which have a statutory base

  admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings

  hold open meetings for the public

  statutory requirement

  voluntarily

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Enterprise Ulster

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Construction Industry Training Board

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Ulster Sheltered Employment

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Labour Relations Agency

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Northern Ireland Commissioner of the Rights of Trade Union Members

  1n/a

  No

  n/a

  —

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action

  1n/a

  No

  n/a

  —

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Fair Employment Commission

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  1 Questions (b) and (c) are not relevant to the Commissioners above as they are both sole appointments with no board involvement.

  Department of Environment (Northern Ireland)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (i)

  (ii)

  (a) DOE NDPBs which have a statutory base

  Admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings

  Hold open meetings for the public

  Statutory requirement

  Voluntarily

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Yes

  No

  n/a

  —

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE)

  No

  Yes (specific area or proposal)

  n/a

  —

  Laganside Corporation

  No

  Yes (specific area or proposal)

  n/a

  —

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC)

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Local Government Staff Commission (LGSC)

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  248 249

  Department of Health and Social Services

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (i)

  (ii)

  DHSS NDPBs which have a statutory base

  Admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings

  Hold open meetings for the public

  Statutory requirement

  Voluntarily

  Mental Health Commission

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  Northern Ireland Council for Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Education

  No

  No

  n/a

  —

  In respect of all other executive non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland, the answer is nil.

  Secondary School Pupils
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of secondary school children in Northern Ireland attend grammar schools. [15026]

  Mr. Ancram
  Forty per cent. of secondary age pupils attend grammar schools.

  All-party Negotiations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress towards all-party negotiations on Northern Ireland. [15033]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government have been engaged in a series of intensive meetings with all the relevant parties to discuss their ideas on the way forward. Our aim is to achieve all-party negotiations leading to a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement in relation to Northern Ireland. These discussions are continuing.

  Registration of Clubs Order
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding article 43 of the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. [15017]

  Mr. Moss
  Up to 13 February, eight letters of complaint had been received.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has commenced his review of the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland. [17299]

  Mr. Moss
  The civil service White Paper, "Continuity and Change", published in 1994, introduced five-yearly reviews for next steps agencies such as the Ordnance Survey for Northern Ireland, OSNI. The first such review of the agency by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has now begun.

  The review process will entail a thorough evaluation of the performance of the agency since its launch and a reappraisal of the various prior options, that is, abolition, privatisation, contractorisation, market testing and opportunities for rationalisation and merger.

  Comments and contributions will be sought from those with an interest in OSNI and its work by 12 April 1996.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many IACS claims in the last year for which figures are available were(a) submitted and (b) paid in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the Yorkshire and Humberside region; how many of these claims were received after the deadline date and then paid; and what was their value. [15912]

  Mr. Baldry
  Details of IACS applications submitted in 1995 are as shown in the table:

  Northallerton

  UK

  RSC1

  Number of IACS applications submitted

  149,693

  11,837

  Number of IACS applications approved for AAPS payments or for processing of livestock payments2

  149,556

  11,833

  Number of IACS applications received after 15 May 1995 but before 6 June 19953

  1,497

  91

  Number of IACS applications received after 6 June 19954

  185

  12

  Value of payments made on late applications5

  Details not readily available

  1The figures shown for Northallerton regional service centre cover applications for Cleveland, Durham, Yorkshire and Humberside. Specific details for the Yorkshire and Humberside region are not readily available.

  2 The IACS area aid application forms the claim for arable area payments and the declaration of forage area in support of claims under the livestock schemes. Additional separate applications are required for claims under the beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes and for hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  3 IACS applications received after 15 May but before 6 June 1995 receive reduced payments of 1 per cent, of entitlement to arable area aid and/or livestock premium for each working day that they are late.

  4 Applications received after 6 June 1995 lose entitlement to all aid or premium for each scheme that the application is related to. However, applicants for the beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes may still be entitled to aid limited to 15 livestock units.

  5 Arable area payments and payments under livestock schemes are made separately. The value of payments linked to a late IACS application is not readily available, and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he received the dossier from Channel 4's "Dispatches" programme; and if his officials are conducting an investigation into the allegations that a local veterinary inspector failed properly to inspect calves being exported through Dover; [14418]
  251
  (2) if (a) Mr. Jonathan Stirling is and (b) other veterinarians working on his behalf are still acting as local veterinary inspectors in connection with the export of live farm animals. [14472]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: Documents have been received from Channel 4 over a period of time concerning the allegations made in the "Dispatches" programme. An inquiry into those allegations has been instigated by this Department. Mr. Stirling is still designated as a local veterinary inspector, as are other members of his practice, and continues to carry out his duties at the export lairages under close Ministry supervision.

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the number of persons entering sheep farming for the first time for each year since 1990; and what estimate he has made of the number and percentage who were over 40 years of age at the time. [15956]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry does not collect information on the age and number of persons entering sheep farming and consequently no basis exists on which to make estimates.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the current financial contribution to the economy of the fish farming industry. [16047]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1994, the output of the UK fish farming industry was worth some£250 million at first sale.

  Chernobyl (Compensation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total amount of compensation paid by the Government to farmers in the United Kingdom in respect of the Chernobyl disaster; and if he will make a statement. [16323]

  Mrs. Browning
  As at 31 January 1996, the total amount of compensation paid under the sheep compensation scheme by the Government to farmers in the United Kingdom in respect of the Chernobyl disaster has been£12,096,842. The scheme was introduced in July 1986 to compensate farmers whose enterprises had been disrupted as a result of movement and slaughter restrictions associated with the Chernobyl accident.

  Salmon Season
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the National Rivers Authority on the likely effect of delaying the start of the salmon season for(a) net and (b) rod and line fisheries; what recommendations he has received; and what further advice he has sought on this matter from the authority. [16427]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1994, the Government's salmon advisory committee published a report on the run timing of salmon which, among other things, recommended that consideration be given to the protection, and perhaps 252
  enhancement, of early running salmon, particularly in stocks where spring runs have suffered the most acute decline. Actions that it suggested might be appropriate included additional controls of exploitation in both commercial and sport fisheries. Following publication of the report, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, asked the National Rivers Authority to consider urgently whether, and if so what, action was needed to conserve the runs of spring run salmon in the fisheries for which it is responsible. In this context, he also asked the authority to reconsider the recommendation, in the report on salmon net fisheries presented to Parliament in 1991, that the opening date for the drift net fisheries of Northumbria and Yorkshire should be postponed until 1 May so as to reduce the level of exploitation of spring run salmon. Copies of the NRA's response to this request and my subsequent reply have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Rustling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the incidence of rustling from United Kingdom farms. [16048]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nor the Home Office has made such an assessment.

TRANSPORT

  Train Cancellations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what percentage of trains were cancelled on each of the former Network SouthEast lines in each four-week period during 1995. [14558]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Train Delays
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what percentage of trains arrived more than five minutes late during peak hours on each of the former Network SouthEast lines in each four-week period during 1995. [14557]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  South Eastern Trains
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken by British Rail to advertise to likely bidders the need for new rolling stock for South Eastern Trains; and if he will make a statement. [15767]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director has asked specifically for tenders to include proposals for the provision of rolling stock for the full franchise term, including firm proposals for either replacement or life
  253
  extension of the class 411 rolling stock. The franchising director has also indicated that, where proposals are made for investment in new rolling stock, he will be prepared to consider extending the term of the franchise from the time at which the replacement rolling stock is committed irrevocably.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [16024]

  Mr. Norris
  Listed below are the answers for each of the Department of Transport's non-departmental public bodies.

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service—THLS:

  (a) is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner.

  (b) 1is subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  (c) 1is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  (d) the statutory provisions for open government do not apply.

  (e) a system of performance indicators is currently the subject of discussion and should be implemented soon.

  (f) is encouraged to follow the principles of the citizen's charter.

  Northern Lights Board—NLB:

  (a) is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner.

  (b) 1is subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  (c) 1is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  (d) the statutory provisions for open government do not apply.

  (e) a system of performance indicators is currently the subject of discussion and should be implemented soon.

  (f) is encouraged to follow the principles of the citizen's charter.

  London Regional Passengers Committee:

  (a) is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner.

  (b) is not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  (c) is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  (d) the statutory provisions for open government do not apply.

  (e) has no performance indicators.

  (f) is not subject to the provisions of the citizen's charter.

  Traffic Director for London:

  (a) is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner.

  254

  (b) 1is not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  (c) 1is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  (d) complies with the code of practice on open government.

  (e) has performance indicators.

  (f) is subject to the provisions of the citizen's charter.

  1Audit arrangements are set out in "Public Bodies 1995", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16176]

  Mr. Norris
  Listed below are the answers for each of the Department of Transport's non-departmental public bodies.

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service—THLS:

  (a) has a statutory base;

  (b) there is no statutory right for the public to attend board;

  (c) there is no statutory requirement to hold open meetings in public.

  Northern Lights Board—NLB:

  (a) has a statutory base;

  (b) there is no statutory right for the public to attend board;

  (c) there is no statutory requirement to hold open meetings in public.

  London Regional Passengers Committee:

  (a) has a statutory base;

  (b) there is no board to which the public could be admitted;

  (c) no open meetings, as such, are held but voluntary arrangements were made to enable members of the public to attend meetings at the time of public consultation for the red route proposals.

  Traffic Director for London:

  (a) has a statutory base;

  (b) there is no statutory right for the public to attend board;

  (c) there is no statutory requirement to hold open meetings in public.

  BR Vendor Unit
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sales completed by the BR vendor unit, with the name of purchaser and price paid in each case. [16228]

  Mr. Watts
  The sales completed by the British Railways Board are listed below. Those where the BR vendor unit has been involved are marked with an asterisk.

  Gross proceeds from the sale to date of businesses sold by BR amount to some£304 million. As explained in the Government's response of 14 December 1995 to the

  255
  Transport Committee's fourth report, on railway finances, it would be contrary to the commercial interests of British Rail and the Government to publish details of individual sales at this stage, as that may prejudice similar sales still in progress. Details of individual sales completed will be made public in due course.

  In addition to that figure, the sale of the rolling stock leasing companies, which was handled by my Department, realised£1,822.23 million.

  Train Carriages (Telephones)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute consultations with the railway companies for the provision of no-telephoning carriages on trains. [16421]

  Mr. Watts
  No. Any restrictions on the use of telephones on trains is a matter for train operators.

  Colney Hospital, Norfolk
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have been held between the Highways Agency and (i) the Norfolk and Norwich Health Care trust and (ii) the prospective developer of the proposed Colney hospital to discuss the possibility of an interchange on the A47 Norwich southern bypass; what response has been given by the agency; what is the estimated cost of such an interchange; and what advice the agency has given to the health care trust on the traffic implications of the proposed hospital for the A47 and A 11 trunk roads if no such interchange was constructed. [15644]

  Mr. Watts
  There has been no direct approach by the Norfolk and Norwich Health Care trust or the prospective developer of the proposed Colney hospital to the Highways Agency or its predecessor, the Department of Transport, about the possibility of an interchange on the A47 Norwich southern bypass.

  However, the Highways Agency is opposed to the proposal for an additional interchange. It would encourage the use of the bypass by local traffic to such an extent as to undermine its role as a trunk road route for longer distance traffic. It would also present engineering and road safety difficulties.

  No design work or survey has been carried out by the Highways Agency and therefore no estimate of the cost of an interchange can be given.

  South Norfolk district council has been asked to ensure that the Highways Agency is consulted when the planning application for the proposed hospital is submitted and that a traffic impact statement, TIS, be prepared by the developer covering the effect of generated traffic on the bypass and relevant junctions.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each metropolitan district council(a) the number of accommodation units in council ownership, (b) the total projected annual
  256
  income from these units, (c) the rent arrears for each of the last three years, (d) the total amount of council tax billed (e) the total amount of council tax arrears,(f) the total amount of community charge arrears and(g) the council's annual spend on managing its estates; what (i) guidance and (ii) incentives have been given to these authorities to reduce the levels of arrears; and if he will make a statement.[14912]

  Mr. Curry
  I have today placed in the Library a table detailing the requested information on the latest relevant basis for each metropolitan district council in England.

  The Government expect local authorities to pursue all arrears of rent, community charge and council tax that are collectable. It is in the interests of authorities to do so to restrict their level of borrowing and council tax bills overall. Authorities have a range of powers enabling them to enforce recovery of rent arrears, community charge and council tax arrears. They use these powers at their discretion and my Department has provided general guidance through practice notes and other advice. For example in October 1994 a research report "Rent Arrears in Local Authorities and Housing Associations" was issued by the Government to all local authorities; this contains good practice advice on preventing and managing rent arrears.

  The Government have introduced a range of measures to encourage authorities to maximise revenue collection, for example the ring-fencing of housing revenue accounts, penalising poor performers in the distribution of housing investment programme allocations and requiring publication of arrears information under the citizen's charter performance indictor regime set up by the Audit Commission.

  French Local Government
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake an assessment of the contracte de ville system of local and central Government relations in France; and if he will make a statement on its applicability to the United Kingdom. [15171]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government have no plans to carry out a formal assessment of the French contracte de ville system. However, we keep abreast of this and related policies in other countries through regular informal contacts and published literature. This includes a research study entitled, "Management Innovations in Urban Policy: Lessons from France" undertaken for the Local Government Management Board (1994).

  Environment Agency (Women)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to find suitably qualified women to become members of the regional committees of the Environment Agency.[15620]

  Mr. Clappison
  As with all public appointments, individuals are selected on merit, which is in accordance with the recommendations of the Nolan committee. Before appointing the chairmen of the regional environment protection advisory committees in England, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State invited interested people to put forward nominations. He is taking full account of the contribution women can make to the
  257
  committees. We would expect the agency and other appointing authorities to take similar account in making their appointments.

  Recycling
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the percentage of(a) paper, (b) glass, (c) aluminium and (d) iron currently recycled in the United Kingdom; and what are the Government's targets for 2000. [15535]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1993, the percentage of waste paper, glass, aluminium and iron recycled in the United Kingdom was as follows: paper; 32 per cent. glass, 29 per cent.; aluminium, 29 per cent. and iron, 42 per cent. The figures are expressed as a proportion of consumption and encompass all sources of these materials.

  The EC directive on packaging and packaging waste sets an overall recovery target for packaging waste of 50–65 per cent. with an overall recycling target of 25–45 per cent., and a minimum of 15 per cent. for each material, to be achieved by 2001. The Government's producer responsibility initiative has led to a number of industries setting themselves re-use and recovery targets, to be achieved by 2000. These include recycling 58 per cent. of packaging waste, recycling 50 per cent. of aluminium cans and 37 per cent. of steel cans, recycling 50 per cent. of glass containers and recovery of 90 per cent. of end-of-life vehicles. It is anticipated that these targets will contribute substantially to raising the overall recycling rates for paper, glass, aluminium and iron.

  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what official data are collected to identify proportions of waste recycled by(a) material and (b) local authority. [15434]

  Mr. Clappison
  No official data are collected centrally at present. However, information on the proportions of materials recycled is collated by relevant trade associations. Summaries of these data, where their provenance is clear, are published by the Department in the "Digest of Environmental Statistics". Information on local authority recycling is collated by a range of organisations, including the Audit Commission.

  In line with the targets set in "Making Waste Work", the Government's strategy for sustainable waste management, the Department is working with the Environment Agency, local authorities and other organisations to improve the quality of information available centrally.

  Pollution Monitoring
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of full-time employees involved in the United Kingdom in monitoring(a) air pollution, (b) water pollution and (c) solid waste disposal. [15534]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, the Environment Agency, covering England and Wales, expects to have transferred to it on 1 April 1996 the following numbers of inspectors:

  (a) 277 from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution;

  (b) 545 front the National Rivers Authority; and

  (c) 986 from local waste regulation authorities.

  258
  The figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members and qualifications of the board of the Environment Agency; and what steps have been taken to inform industry and the public about the forthcoming work plan of the agency. [15621]

  Mr. Clappison
  Membership of the board is:

  Lord De Ramsey (Chairman)

  Sir Richard George (Deputy Chairman)

  Peter Burnham

  Professor Ronald Edwards

  Imtiaz Farookhi

  Edward Gallagher

  Nigel Haigh

  Christopher Hampson

  Councillor John Harman

  Mrs. Karen Morgan

  John Norris

  Derek Osborn

  Dr. Anne Powell

  Mrs. Joan Wykes.

  My right hon. Friend has announced his intention to appoint an industrialist to the remaining vacancy.

  Full information is not held centrally about individual members' formal qualifications.

  Prior to vesting on 1 April, the agency has had extensive contact with industry, environmental interest groups, local authorities and other public bodies about its role and plans. A formal launch was held on 6 February. The agency is currently preparing its corporate plan for 1997–98, which will include data for 1996–97. This will be published in the summer.

  The agency will be inviting comments from all interested parties to inform its future strategies and plans. In addition, the agency is contacting businesses to provide them with contact points.

  Government Buildings (Groundwater Damage)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to protect Government buildings in London below London Underground level from damage caused by rising groundwater; and if he will make a statement. [15977]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A study of groundwater levels around Whitehall from 1989 to 1995 was initiated by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association and taken over by Property Holdings. It concluded that water levels rose and fell with the seasons but did not indicate any long-term rise in groundwater levels.

  Very few Government office buildings have basements extending down to the level of the London Underground bored tube railways.
  259
  Basements of all buildings are inspected regularly so that early sign of water penetration can be detected and dealt with. As far as we are aware, no building is currently in any imminent danger from rising groundwater.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [16015]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department are listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1995". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on Tuesday 25 April 1995, Official Report, column 474–75. Since then, Letchworth garden city corporation has ceased to be a public body and Leeds development corporation has been wound up. Otherwise, the position in respect of the bodies covered by that answer remains unchanged.

  Two new executive NDPBs have been established since April 1995, and my Department has taken on responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. The local government residuary body is subject to the scrutiny of the Audit Commission. The Health and Safety Commission and Executive and the Environment Agency are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office. All four bodies are subject to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner and are expected to adopt a code of practice on open government, have key performance measures and abide by the citizens charter.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base and which(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) hold open meetings for the public; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16031]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of my Department's executive non-departmental public bodies can be found in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1995". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library. All of these except the National Forest Company and the British Board of Agrement have a specific statutory base. None of my Department's executive NDPBs is under a statutory requirement to admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings. There is a statutory right for members of the public to attend meetings of the regional committees of the National Rivers Authority that discuss flood defence, fisheries and rivers issues except where business is of a confidential nature.

  All six housing action trusts voluntarily hold board meetings which are open to the public except when confidential issues are discussed. The following urban development corporations voluntarily hold open meetings
  260
  when considering planning applications: Birmingham heartlands, black country, Bristol, London docklands, Merseyside, Plymouth, Sheffield and Trafford park.

  Outer Estuarine Limit (Humber River)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will review the outer estuarine limit of the Humber; and when he expects to announce the result of that review. [14975]

  Mr. Clappison
  The National Rivers Authority has been asked to review the basis for establishing estuary boundaries for the purposes of the urban waste water treatment directive and advise my Department accordingly. It is envisaged that the Secretary of State will announce the results by the summer of this year.

  Colney Hospital, Norfolk
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when planning consent was granted by him for a second district hospital at Colney in South Norfolk district; when that permission expired; and if a new planning application will need to be referred to him. [15641]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planning approval for a second district hospital at Colney in South Norfolk district was granted on 5 December 1988 and expired in December 1993. There are no proposals currently in front of the council, but as the adopted local plan makes provision for such a development, it is unlikely that any new planning application would need to be referred to my right hon. Friend.

  Planning Policies
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning policies concerning the location of facilities with wide catchment areas have been introduced since 1988. [15642]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planning policy guidance note 13—PPG13—on transport, which was published in 1994, addresses the location of major travel generating developments. PPG13 advises that facilities with wide catchment areas should be located so that they are well served by public transport and as accessible as possible to those who need to use them. Other planning policy guidance notes have been issued since 1988 which address the location of specific types of development relative to transport provision.

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the sequential test for location of employment and traffic-generating activities set out in his planning policy guidance note 6 applies to the location of hospitals where a local planning authority considers a planning application for a new hospital. [15643]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Our draft revised PPG6 suggests that a sequential approach should apply to key town centre uses which attract a substantial number of people. This will include hospitals in many instances.

  Agenda 21
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources have been deployed by his
  261
  Department to ensure compliance with the requirements of agenda 21 of the Rio de Janeiro summit; and if he will make a statement. [15944]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is one of my Department's main objectives, through the implementation of the United Kingdom sustainable development strategy, to ensure effective follow-up to agenda 21 and the agreements reached at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The United Kingdom plays a leading role in international fora, such as the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and the environmental conventions, in helping to promote agreement on tackling global issues identified by agenda 21. The United Kingdom report to the Commission on Sustainable Development of 1996 gives details of estimated expenditure by the Department on sustainable development. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to co-ordinate local agenda 21 activities; which local authorities have reported that they are unlikely to be able to report on their plans by December 1996; and if he will make a statement. [15945]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department welcomes and supports the local agenda 21 process. I understand that the Local Government Management Board, on behalf of the local agenda 21 steering group, has invited local authorities to send their local agenda 21 action plans agreed with their local communities to it by the end of 1996, and that response so far from UK local authorities has been good. Authorities are not obliged to report their progress to my Department, but we will continue to be interested in the progress being made.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's current estimate of the increase in global average temperatures over the next(a) five and (b) 10 years; and what were the estimates by his Department in each of the past five years. [15941]

  Mr. Clappison
  The 1995 second scientific assessment from the intergovernmental panel on climate change—IPCC—suggests that the underlying rise in global average temperature will be about 0.1–0.2 deg C over the next decade. The actual temperature changes will be strongly affected by natural variability. The comparable estimate in the fist IPCC scientific assessment in 1990 was 0.3 deg C per decade; the 1995 estimate is lower because it has taken into account the cooling effect of aerosols produced by man-made sulphur dioxide emissions.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total tonnage of contaminated land in brownfield sites as reported by local authorities in England and Wales. [15782]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities are not required to report the area or volume of contaminated land to the Department.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the initiatives being taken by his Department to reduce levels of(a) carbon dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide and (c) methane in the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement. [15937]

  Mr. Clappison
  The United Kingdom climate change programme, published in January 1994, set out a full list of the measures being taken to return emissions of carbon dioxide and methane in the UK to 1990 levels by 2000. A progress report on carbon dioxide emissions was published in December 1995.

  The UK published its programme and national plan for meeting its commitments under the EC large combustion plant directive to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2003 compared with levels in 1980. We have agreed under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe protocol further to reduce total sulphur dioxide emissions from all sources by 80 per cent. by 2010 compared with 1980 levels. My Department will issue a consultation paper on the UK's strategy for meeting these targets shortly.

  Upper Atmosphere (Volcanic Dust)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the effect of volcanic dust in the earth's upper atmosphere and the equivalent information for 1990 and 1985. [15938]

  Mr. Clappison
  The effect on global climate of volcanic dust in the upper atmosphere in 1995, 1990 and 1985 was too small to be identified.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the level of ozone depletion over the Antarctic and Arctic; what estimates he has made of ozone levels for(a) 2000 and (b) 2005; and if he will make a statement. [15939]

  Mr. Clappison
  Stratospheric ozone depletion occurs primarily in the spring. In 1995, the total amount of ozone was some 50 to 60 per cent. below normal over the Antarctic in October, and 20 to 30 per cent. below normal locally in the Arctic in March. In 2000 and 2005, total amounts of ozone in the Antarctic are expected to be similarly below normal, but may be up to 10 per cent. further below normal in the Arctic.

  During the next 50 years ozone levels are expected to return slowly to normal as a result of actions being taken under the Montreal protocol.

  Sea Levels
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's estimate of mean sea levels for each five year period since 1965; and what estimates they have made for mean sea levels for(a) 2000 and (b) 2005. [15940]

  Mr. Clappison
  The second scientific assessment of the intergovernmental panel on climate change estimates that the global mean sea level has risen steadily by 18 cm over the past century. Over the next decade the underlying
  263
  rise is projected to be in the range 1 to 5 cm, although large natural variability at particular measurement sites will make this difficult to detect on this timescale.

  Yorkshire Water
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the terms of reference of his departmental review of Yorkshire Water; when the review begun; when it is expected to end; to whom will the conclusions of the review will be presented; if he will place a copy of the review in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [16429]

  (2) what plans he has to give (a) oral and (b) written evidence to the Yorkshire Water commission of inquiry chaired by Professor John Uff; [16431]

  (3) if he will make available the main conclusions of his Departmental review of Yorkshire Water to the commission of inquiry established by Yorkshire Water and chaired by Professor Uff. [16430]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is not conducting a review of Yorkshire Water.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed with Professor Uff the inquiry which he has been asked by Yorkshire Water to conduct into the water supply situation in Yorkshire. Officials have provided him with published details setting out the programme of work being undertaken as part of the Department's wider review, but Ministers do not expect to be asked to give evidence.

  My right hon. Friend announced on 1 September a review of water resource arrangements in England and Wales in co-operation with the National Rivers Association, the Office of Water Services and the water industry. Work on this is continuing and we expect to publish its findings later this year.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16526]

  Mr. Gummer
  None.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16591]

  Mr. Gummer
  On Thursday 15 February at 5.15 pm.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what hour and minute of what day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16543]

  Mr. Gummer
  Copies of the report were collected from the Vote Office in the House of Commons just after 3.30 pm on Thursday 15 February. I received two further copies later that day.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16480]

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier today, column 242.

  Zoo Licensing Act 1981
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. [17298]

  Mr. Clappison
  In consultation with the Scottish and Welsh Offices, my Department is about to embark on a review of the operation of this Act, which provides for a system of inspection and licensing of zoos in Great Britain. Views are being sought from the relevant local authority associations and other interested bodies. The review will also provide an opportunity to consider the European Commission's proposals for a recommendation on zoos, which are currently being considered by the Environment Council.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list estimated total emissions of carbon dioxide for the United Kingdom in each year from 1980 to the present. [15583]

  Mr. Clappisaon
  The estimated United Kingdom annual emissions of carbon dioxide from 1980 to 1994 are:

  Million tonnes of carbon

  1980

  163

  1981

  157

  1982

  153

  1983

  151

  1984

  147

  1985

  153

  1986

  157

  1987

  158

  1988

  158

  1989

  155

  1990

  158

  1991

  160

  1992

  155

  1993

  151

  1994

  1149

  1 Provisional.

  Data on UK carbon dioxide emissions are published annually in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" and "UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory". Estimates from 1990 use the methodology developed by the intergovernmental panel on climate change: those for earlier years are on a comparable, but slightly different, basis used by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Figures on the IPCC' s methodology are not available for the earlier years.

  Oyster Beds
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, columns 480–81, if he will list each native oyster bed according to its size in (a) percentage terms, (b) tonnage terms and (c) square area in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the EU ranked from largest to smallest. [15552]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  In England and Wales areas which produce native oysters—O. edulis—and which will include in some cases more than one native oyster bed, are as follows:

  Area

  Size in percentage terms

  Square area (km)

  Solent

  38.00

  93.00

  North Kent Coast

  30.50

  75.00

  Crouch

  13.00

  31.00

  Poole

  2.80

  7.00

  Portsmouth Harbour

  2.50

  6.00

  West Mersea

  1.60

  4.00

  Chichester Harbour

  1.60

  4.00

  Langstone Harbour

  1.50

  4.00

  Porthcawl

  1.40

  3.50

  Percuil and Helford

  1.30

  3.00

  Falmouth

  1.00

  2.50

  Southampton Water

  1.00

  2.00

  Roach

  1.00

  2.00

  Swale

  1.00

  2.00

  Milford Haven

  0.70

  2.00

  Plymouth

  0.70

  2.00

  Walton Backwaters

  0.10

  0.30

  Butley

  0.10

  0.30

  Medina

  0.05

  0.10

  Truro

  0.05

  0.10

  Information on tonnage of native oysters harvested from these areas is not available.

  In Scotland the principal native oyster bed is situated in Loch Ryan and extends for some 9 sq km. In 1994, around 130 tonnes were harvested from this site. In Northern Ireland native oysters are cultivated at Strangford lough and Dundrum bay. The area of production is negligible and the quantity harvested is not available.

  Information on oyster beds in other member states of the EU is not available

SCOTLAND

  Agricultural Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many payments he expects to be made in Scotland in 1995–96 for set-aside of between(a)£0 and£5,000, (b)£5,001 and£10,000, (c)£10,001 and£15,000, (d)£15,001 and£20,000, (e)£20,001 and£25,000,
  266
  (f)£25,001 and£50,000, (g)£50,001 and£75,000, (h)£75,001 and£100,000, (i)£100,001 and£150,000, (j)£150,001 and£200,000 and (k) over£200,001. [15335]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The distribution by size of payments against set-aside claims under the 1995 arable area payments scheme is not yet available as not all payments have been made in those cases where non-food crops have been grown on set-aside land. However, my noble Friend the Minister will write to the hon. Member when the figures requested are available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many payments he expects to be made in Scotland in 1995–96 under the arable area payments scheme between(a)£0 and£5,000, (b)£5,001 and£10,000, (c)£10,001 and£15,000, (d)£15,001 and£20,000, (e)£20,001 and£25,000, (f)£25,001 and£50,000, (g)£50,001 and£75,000, (h)£75,001 and£100,000, (i)£100,001 and£150,000, (j)£150,001 and£200,000 (k)£200,001 and£250,000 (l)£250,001 and over. [15322]

  Mr. Robertson
  The distribution by size of total payments against claims under the 1995 arable area payments scheme is not yet available as the final oilseeds payments and some payments on non-food set-aside for the year have not yet been made. However, my noble Friend the Minister will write to the hon. Member when the figures are available.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many classes had(a) more than 30 pupils and (b) more than 35 pupils; what was the total number of classes within each authority; and what percentages (a) and (b) represented of the total number of classes for each education authority in Scotland and for each education division within Strathclyde for each academic year since 1979. [15715]

  Mr. Raymond S, Robertson
  As the information requested is lengthy I shall arrange for copies of it to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Court Service
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many High Court prosecutions have been conducted by the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland in each of the last five years. [15721]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no central of record of the number of occasions on which Lords the Advocate or Solicitors General for Scotland have represented the Crown in criminal proceedings. However, both the present office holders and their predecessors have appeared for the Crown in High Court trials and criminal appeal hearings. They have done so on numerous occasions, when their parliamentary and other duties have permitted.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) of 13 February 1996,Official Report, column 567, if he will list for each year and each health board the percentage of fundholding practices. [16044]
  267
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  1991

  'Live' fundholding practices1

  Practices in pilot and preparatory fundholding phases2

  Non-fundholding practices3

  Scotland

  0.2

  1.0

  98.8

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  0.9

  99.1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  100.0

  Borders

  —

  —

  100.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  100.0

  Fife

  —

  —

  100.0

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  100.0

  Grampian

  —

  6.5

  93.5

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  100.0

  Highland

  —

  —

  100.0

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  100.0

  Lothian

  1.4

  —

  98.6

  Orkney

  —

  —

  100.00

  Shetland

  —

  —

  100.0

  Tayside

  —

  4.9

  95.1

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  100.0

  1All 'live' standard fundholding practices and practices in the pilot phase of total purchasing.

  2 All practices in the preparatory phase of standard fundholding, small practice pilot and practices in the pilot phase of primary care purchasing.

  3All practices which are not in any phase of fundholding.

  1992

  'Live' fundholding practices1

  Practices in pilot and preparatory fundholding phases2

  Non-fundholding practices3

  Scotland

  1.2

  3.6

  95.2

  Argyll and Clyde

  1.0

  3.8

  95.2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  3.1

  96.9

  Borders

  —

  —

  100.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  100.0

  Fife

  —

  1.6

  98.4

  Forth Valley

  —

  3.6

  96.4

  Grampian

  6.7

  22.2

  71.1

  Greater Glasgow

  0.4

  0.4

  99.1

  Highland

  —

  1.4

  98.6

  Lanarkshire

  —

  2.2

  97.8

  Lothian

  1.5

  0.7

  97.8

  Orkney

  —

  —

  100.0

  Shetland

  —

  —

  100.0

  Tayside

  3.8

  6.3

  90.0

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  100.0

  1All 'live' standard fundholding practices and practices in the pilot phase of total purchasing.

  2All practices in the preparatory phase of standard fundholding, small practice pilot and practices in the pilot phase of primary care purchasing.

  3All practices which are not in any phase of fundholding.

  1993

  'Live' fundholding practices'

  Practices in pilot and preparatory fundholding phases2

  Non-fundholding practices3

  Scotland

  6.5

  3.9

  89.6

  Argyll and Clyde

  4.7

  —

  95.3

  Ayrshire and Arran

  6.3

  3.1

  90.6

  Borders

  4.2

  8.3

  87.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  2.8

  97.2

  Fife

  1.6

  3.3

  95.1

  Forth Valley

  3.6

  1.8

  94.5

  Grampian

  28.9

  13.3

  57.8

  Greater Glasgow

  0.9

  5.4

  93.8

  Highland

  4

  1.3

  94.7

  Lanarkshire

  7.5

  4.3

  88.2

  Lothian

  6.6

  3.7

  89.7

  Orkney

  —

  —

  100.0

  Shetland

  —

  —

  100.0

  268

  1993

  'Live' fundholding practices1

  Practices in pilot and preparatory fundholding phases2

  Non -fundholding practices3

  Tayside

  13.2

  —

  86.8

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  100.0

  1All 'live' standard fundholding practices and practices in the pilot phase of total purchasing.

  2All practices in the preparatory phase of standard fundholding, small practice pilot and practices in the pilot phase of primary care purchasing.

  3All practices which are not in any phase of fundholding.

  1994

  'Live' fundholding practices1

  Practices in pilot and preparatory fundholding phases2

  Non-fundholding practices3

  Scotland

  11.7

  2.7

  85.6

  Argyll and Clyde

  4.8

  —

  95.2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  7.8

  —

  92.2

  Borders

  13.0

  —

  87.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2.8

  5.6

  91.7

  Fife

  4.9

  3.3

  91.8

  Forth Valley

  7.3

  1.8

  90.9

  Grampian

  43.3

  —

  56.7

  Greater Glasgow

  5.4

  8.1

  86.5

  Highland

  9.3

  —

  90.7

  Lanarkshire

  15.1

  2.2

  82.8

  Lothian

  16.2

  2.2

  81.6

  Orkney

  —

  —

  100.0

  Shetland

  —

  —

  100.0

  Tayside

  14.1

  1.3

  84.6

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  100.0

  1All 'live' standard fundholding practices and practices in the pilot phase of total purchasing.

  2All practices in the preparatory phase of standard fundholding, small practice pilot and practices in the pilot phase of primary care purchasing.

  3All practices which are not in any phase of fundholding.

  1995

  'Live' fundholding practices1

  Practices in pilot and preparatory fundholding phases2

  Non-fundholding practices3

  Scotland

  14.5

  10.0

  75.5

  Argyll and Clyde

  4.8

  12.4

  82.9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  7.9

  3.2

  88.9

  Borders

  13.0

  17.4

  69.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8.3

  17.4

  75.0

  Fife

  7.9

  17.5

  74.6

  Forth Valley

  7.3

  14.5

  78.2

  Grampian

  43.8

  3.4

  52.8

  Greater Glasgow

  13.4

  13.4

  73.2

  Highland

  6.7

  17.3

  76.0

  Lanarkshire

  17.2

  1.1

  81.7

  Lothian

  21.5

  5.2

  73.3

  Orkney

  —

  —

  100.0

  Shetland

  —

  —

  100.0

  Tayside

  15.4

  10.3

  74.4

  Western Isles

  —

  13.3

  86.7

  1All 'live' standard fundholding practices and practices in the pilot phase of total purchasing.

  2All practices in the preparatory phase of standard fundholding, small practice pilot and practices in the pilot phase of primary care purchasing.

  3All practices which are not in any phase of fundholding.

  Glenochil Prison
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct an inquiry into the actions of the Crown Office and Prison Service in respect of court proceedings following disturbances at Glenochil prison. [15441]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has considered a report from the trial advocate depute. He is satisfied that the decision to prosecute those charged with involvement in the riot at Glenochil prison on 4 and 5 January 1994 was correct and that the trial was conducted properly. The Crown Office and the Scottish Prison Service are examining whether this case has implications for the handling of future cases.

  Palace of Holyroodhouse
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how often the palace of Holyroodhouse has been occupied by a member of the royal family during the past three years; and what other use is made of the palace. [16200]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 February 1996]The palace was occupied by members of the royal family on 65 days during the three years 1993 to 1995 and on 24 days by the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The palace was open to the public on most other days except for a few days before and after visits by the Queen and the Lord High Commissioner and for the first eight weeks of 1993 during reinstatement following the meeting of the European Council held at the palace in December 1992. Within the palace are the apartments of the hereditary keeper.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for financial assistance under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance have been approved since 1 July 1994; and what is their grant value. [16286]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  One hundred and one applications to the value of£11.5 million in grants have been approved under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance since 1 July 1994.

HEALTH

  Thalidomide
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospital trusts which have purchased the drug thalidomide directly or indirectly from companies in Brazil. [15898]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the
  270
  National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [16013]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is as follows.

  Those NDPBs that are:

  Subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner are:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;

  Medical Practices Committee.

  Subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission are:

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office are:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;

  National Biological Standards Board;

  National Radiological Protection Board.

  Public Health Laboratory Services Board.

  Subject to statutory provisions for open government are:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  English National Board for Nursing. Midwifery and Health Visiting;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Subject to performance indicators are:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;

  National Biological Standards Board;

  National Radiological Protection Board;

  Public Health Laboratory Services Board.

  Subject to provisions under the Citizen's Charter:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16183]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is as follows:

  Those non-departmental public bodies:

  Which have a statutory base are:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;

  Medical Practices Committee;

  National Biological Standards Board;

  National Radiological Protection Board;

  Public Health Laboratory Services Board.

  Which admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings:

  (i) under a statutory requirement—none;

  (ii) voluntarily-—Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  271

  Which hold open meetings for the public:

  (i) under a statutory requirement—none;

  (ii) voluntarily—English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many square feet of offices there are at(a) the Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters at Park parade, Harrogate and (b) the Northern regional health authority headquarters at Benfield road, Newcastle. [16067]

  Mr. Malone
  The total area of office accommodation, including circulation area, at the former Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters at Park parade, Harrogate is 6,299 sq m. The total area of office accommodation, including circulation area, at the former Northern regional health authority headquarters at Benfield road, Newcastle is 4,303 sq m.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 919, how many square feet of office accommodation will be built for the Northern and Yorkshire regional office of the NHS executive as a result of the initial contract; what additional works have been specified since the initial contract was signed with the developer; how much the additional works will cost; and how many additional square feet of offices the additional works will provide. [16149]

  Mr. Malone
  The internal floor area of the Northern and Yorkshire regional office will be 2,160 sq m. No additional works have been specified since the contract was signed; therefore, no additional cost will be incurred and no additional space will be provided.

  Yorkshire Cancer Organisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance and at which locations the NHS executive is providing in respect of accommodation for the Yorkshire Cancer Organisation. [16068]

  Mr. Horam
  The Yorkshire Cancer Organisation is presently funded by Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. For 1996–97, it will be funded jointly by the health authorities in that region. The organisation is located in Leeds.

  Community Health Services, Trent
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount of funding that Trent region received for funding community health services in each of the last three years; how much it will receive this year; and what proportion of this will be allocated to Sheffield health authority. [16046]

  Mr. Horam
  Revenue allocations are made to health authorities for hospital and community health services as a whole. There is no separate allocation of funds for community health services.

  Wheelchair Voucher Scheme
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be able to announce a decision on the proposal to introduce a wheelchair voucher scheme for people using the NHS wheelchair service. [17297]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have considered carefully the findings of the departmental working group set up to look at the feasibility of introducing such a scheme, and I will be making a full announcement about this tomorrow at 11 am. Copies of the relevant papers will be available in the Vote Office and in the Library.

  Colney Hospital, Norfolk
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums have been made available to the Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust for expenditure on traffic and transport consultants in connection with a new hospital at Colney in South Norfolk district; and what representations he has received on the compliance of the proposals with planning policy guidance 13. [15960]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a local matter. The provision of local services is a matter for local managers. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Stuart Burgess, chairman of Anglia and Oxford regional health authority, for details.

  Planning permission for any hospital development has to be obtained from the local planning authority, which must take account of the contents of planning policy guidance notes. The planning application is a matter between the local planning authority and the trust.

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff are employed by the Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust at(a) the Norfolk and Norwich hospital and (b) West Norwich hospital; and what estimate he has made of the number of staff to be employed at Colney hospital after the closure of the Norfolk and Norwich and West Norwich hospitals. [15691]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on staffing levels at individual hospitals is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Malcolm Falcon CBE, chairman of Norfolk and Norwich Health Care national health service trust, for details.

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust submitted its formal business case for building a new hospital at the end of January. Given the size of the proposed project, the business case will be considered by officials at both the NHS executive and HM Treasury before it is passed to Ministers for final approval. I cannot comment further until all aspects of the business case have been fully considered.

  Yorkshire Hospitals (Waste)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the total amount in weight of toxic waste produced annually by hospitals in Yorkshire; [15781]

  (2) what is the total amount in weight of inert or inactive waste produced annually by hospitals in Yorkshire. [15783]
  273
  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To asks the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16528]

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16503]

  Mr. Dorrell
  At approximately 4.20 pm on Thursday 15 February.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16589]

  Mr. Dorrell
  After it was delivered to my office at approximately 4.20 pm on Thursday 15 February.

  Whipp's Cross Hospital
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations he has carried out into the procurement process relating to imaging equipment for the day unit of Whipp's Cross hospital; and to what extent the process was in line with the Public Supply Contract Regulations 1995. [16714]

  Mr. Horam
  The procurement of imaging equipment is a matter for Forest Healthcare national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Lord Jenkin of Roding, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Out-of-hours Treatment
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department gives financial assistance to schemes for out-of-hours service in general practice under which all or most patients are required to attend at a centre for treatment; in what circumstances he(a) sets and (b) advises health authorities to set conditions under which a patient is entitled to expect a home visit for out-of-hours treatment; and if he will make a statement. [16424]

  Mr. Malone
  All general practitioners may apply for reimbursements, from family health services authority out-of- hours development funds, of expenses incurred in providing out-of-hours services which maintain or improve standards of care for patients out of surgery hours and which reduce pressure on individual GPs and/or make more cost-effective use of GP time. This may include reimbursement of the costs incurred in using a primary care centre. The criteria governing the appropriate location of an out-of-hours consultation are set out in the NHS (GMS) Regulations 1992, as amended.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total in real terms of assets sold by old people to pay for residential care in each of the last five years; and what was in each case the percentage change from the previous year; [16435]
  274
  (2) how many people sold their homes to pay for residential care in 1995–96; and what estimate he has made for the number in 1996–97; [16436]

  (3) how many people. having sold their assets to pay for residential care, exhausted their funds in the last year for which figures are available; and how many such people remained in the same residential home. [16438]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) over-65s and (b) over-80s need residential care. [16437]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally relates to people receiving residential care in residential care homes. At 31 March 1995, in England, the number of residents in such accommodation aged 65 and over was 220,400, 75 and over 195,700 and 85 and over 118,900 representing 2.9, 5.8, and 13.8 per cent. of the relevant mid-1994 populations respectively.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision exists to assist elderly people who have sold all their assets and subsequently exhaust their funds to remain in the same residential home. [16434]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since April 1993, local authorities have had a responsibility to arrange accommodation in residential care and nursing homes for elderly people who, for whatever reason, are assessed as needing such care but are unable to meet the cost. Such people have the right to choose which home this care is provided in, subject to availability, cost and appropriateness of the home to the level of care needed.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16478]

  Mr. Dorrell
  If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  British Library
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she intends to publish the reports on the British Library drawn up by(a) Sir Peter Levene, (b) Sir Kenneth Eaton, (c) consultants Kennedy and Donkin and (d) consultants TBV. [16217]

  Mr. Sproat
  The efficiency unit scrutiny of construction procurement by the Government, which included the British library construction project as one of its case studies, was published on 7 November 1995 and is available for purchase through Her Majesty's Stationery Office bookshops. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also sought advice from Sir Peter Levene on the progress of the construction project. As a result, Sir Kenneth Eaton was asked by the Department to undertake a short review and reported back in March 1995. My right hon. Friend does not intend to publish the report by Sir Kenneth Eaton and Kennedy and Donkin. Sir Kenneth Eaton provided confidential advice to Ministers and the Kennedy and Donkin report contained commercially
  275
  sensitive information, some of which could be the subject of future litigation. TBV Consult, formerly the Property Services Agency, is in contract with the Department of National Heritage to provide on-going project management services and, as such has not been commissioned to produce consultant reports.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the British library reading rooms will be provided with open access to the world-wide sourced scientific technological and manufacturing journals, periodicals and books, classified as to subject matter. [16221]

  Mr. Sproat
  The British library's science reference and information service currently makes available to readers, on open access in its reading rooms, the most recently published material from its collections in these categories, and will continue to do so following the move of the library's science collections to the new building at St. Pancras. Older material can be obtained for readers on request. The open access material is classified according to a scheme developed specifically for scientific and technical literature.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the total expenditure on buildings and fitments since 1972 on the British library's document supply centre. [16069]

  Mr. Sproat
  Expenditure on accommodation for the document supply centre over the last five years is set out in the table:

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Rent and rates

  119

  150

  152

  145

  147

  Utilities

  219

  288

  265

  275

  251

  Building maintenance

  488

  435

  558

  712

  526

  Professional and estate fees

  205

  94

  158

  227

  201

  Cleaning

  185

  197

  243

  229

  198

  Total

  1,216

  1,164

  1,376

  1,589

  1,324

  1Estimate.

  No capital costs have been incurred in relation to document supply centre accommodation during this period. Information in this format in relation to earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many notices of intention to implement redundancy have been serviced by the British library by reading room and location. [16219]

  Mr. Sproat
  The British library has served no redundancy notices on members of staff. The chief executive has informed library staff of the need to reduce the overall staff number over the next four years, and invited all staff to consider whether they wish to indicate an initial expression of interest in voluntary redundancy.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what monitoring she has carried out in relation to binding costs for books and journals at the British library. [16210]
  276
  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend does not routinely monitor the costs to the British library of binding books and journals, but the library reports to her annually on its performance. The most recent such report, for the financial year 1994–95, includes information on the number of volumes bound and on unit binding costs in the form of comparisons of performance during the year with plans before the year began. The library monitors unit costs for binding each month.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the operation of the subject matter classification system used for British library holdings of books and journals and the time span of the systems utilised. [16071]

  Mr. Sproat
  The British library's science reference and information service provides readers with open access to a significant proportion of the material in its collections. The classification scheme used for open access material was originally introduced in the 1960s, and was developed specifically for scientific and technical literature by the national reference library for science and invention, which then held the science collections which are now part of the British library. The scheme is regularly updated to take account of developments in scientific disciplines. For general reference books which will be held on open access in the library's humanities reading rooms at the new St. Pancras building, the library is proposing to arrange material according to the Dewey decimal classification scheme, with an index based on library of Congress subject headings.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what revenues have been derived from reader-operated photocopier machines in the British library. [16072]

  Mr. Sproat
  income to the British library for the last two years from charges for photocopier machines operated by readers is set out in the table:

  £000

  1994–95

  11995–96

  Newspaper library

  19

  21

  Science reference and information service

  217

  228

  Humanities and social sciences

  98

  93

  National sound archive

  2

  2

  Oriental and India Office collections

  18

  18

  British library information science service

  2

  2

  Document supply centre

  16

  16

  Total

  372

  380

  1Estimated.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the total number of(a) reader visits to and (b) holdings at the corn merchants store conversion in relation to the British library's document supply centre since 1979. [16070]

  Mr. Sproat
  Building 23 on the Library's site at Boston Spa in Yorkshire, which was known before conversion as the corn store, is used to store books published before 1980 for the library's document supply centre. The total linear storage capacity of its shelves is 45.75 km, 31.13 km of which is currently taken up by books. Building 23 is not itself designed to accommodate
  277
  readers, but the annual number of reader visits to the document supply centre's reading room since 1985–86 is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of reader visits

  1985–86

  4,605

  1986–87

  4,347

  1987–88

  4,502

  1988–89

  5,131

  1989–90

  5,688

  1990–91

  6,735

  1991–92

  7,403

  1992–93

  8,112

  1993–94

  9,210

  1994–95

  9,890

  1995–96

  110,580

  1Estimated.

  Information is not available in this format for earlier years.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what provision has been made for the supply of books and journals from remote locations throughout the world to the British library. [16215]

  Mr. Sproat
  The British library's document supply centre obtains items on loan from other libraries throughout the world for use in the British library's reading rooms or in other libraries in the United Kingdom. The library currently obtains some 7,000 items annually for readers in the United Kingdom in this way.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the British library reading rooms supplying information for scientific research, manufacturing industry and technological innovation will be supplied with equipment allowing reader access to the Internet. [16220]

  Mr. Sproat
  The British library is considering, taking account of considerations such as the additional costs involved, how information on matters such as science, technology and business which is available on the Internet might be made available directly to readers. At present, staff in the library's science reference and information service have access tot he Internet which they may use in providing information to readers.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what reports she has received in relation to public surveys of reader groups and their requirements and the extent to which these factors were taken into account in planning of services at the British library. [16211]

  Mr. Sproat
  The British library consults extensively with its users through its advisory committees and by means of surveys of users, individual research projects, consultative papers, focus groups, open days and newsletters. The library's code of service sets out the standards which the library's users can expect, and provides them with the opportunity to comment on both the range and the level of the library's services. My right hon. Friend does not routinely receive reports on the results of these activities, but she expects the library to report to her on the range of services which the library 278
  provides, on service levels, and on readers' needs, as part of the annual process of planning and review of performance.

  British Library and Patent Office
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made as to compliance by the British library with rule 34 of the patent co-operation treaty regulations in terms of open access to documents. [16222]

  Mr. Sproat
  Rule 34 of the patent co-operation treaty does not impose any obligations on the United Kingdom as to the maintenance of a collection of documents, or as to access to such a collection. The British library does, however, take note of rule 34 and provides access to its collections of patents and journals either by way of immediate open access, or from remote storage on request.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for the future use of Southampton buildings, Holborn, following vacation by the British library and Patent Office. [16213]

  Mr. Sproat
  The current occupants of 25 Southampton buildings, Holborn are the British library, the Patent Office and the Office of Fair Trading. The British library's collections housed there will move to the library's new building at St. Pancras following completion of that building. The Government are considering the future of 25 Southampton buildings.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for the location and provision of an open access library containing world patent and scientific information free at the point of use in respect of the British library. [16214]

  Mr. Sproat
  The British library's collections of world patents and of scientific literature are at present available for consultation free of charge at the library's reading rooms in Holborn and Aldwych. A large proportion of patents and scientific literature is available on open access. The collections will be moved to the library's new building at St. Pancras once the building has been completed. Following the move, they will be available for consultation at the reading rooms in the new building. The library has no current plans to introduce charges for consultation of material in its reading rooms.

WALES

  Late Payments of Debts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on Welsh firms of late payment by Government Departments. [16186]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1995–96, the Welsh Office paid 95 per cent. of its bills within the normal 30-day period or the contract terms. Except where the invoice is disputed, the remainder will have been paid shortly thereafter.

  Minority Languages.
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy towards the Council of Europe's charter on minority languages. [15567]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]The Government are currently considering whether to sign the charter.

  Business Failures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the last two available years the number of business failures for(a) each principal industrial sector and (b) for Wales as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [15879]

  Mr. Hague
  Official statistics on business failures are not available separately for Wales.

  Company Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the practice of relocation by companies in search of grants between areas in Wales and other areas where grants are available. [16223]

  Mr. Hague
  Regional selective assistance is not normally available for projects which merely involve the transfer of jobs from one area to another.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16174]

  Mr. Hague
  (a) The Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Further and Higher Education Funding Council, Housing for Wales, the Land Authority for Wales, the Residuary Body for Wales, the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Language Board, the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, the Wales tourist board and the agricultural wages committees are all established by statute. Other bodies are established under royal warrant or royal charter.

  (b) Only the Residuary Body for Wales, as a levying body, is bound by a statutory requirement, under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, to open its board meetings to the public. The public are allowed access to board meetings of CBDC, LAW and WNB but are asked to leave if confidential matters are to be discussed.

  (c) No NDPB is statutorily required to hold open meetings for the public; CCW, the national library of Wales and the national museum of Wales—NMW—hold such meetings voluntarily.

  Tandem plc
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all grants made by development 280
  agencies and other Government-funded bodies in Wales to Tandem plc and its subsidiaries including British Eagle Cycles of Newtown; and if he will make a statement. [16206]

  Mr. Hague
  No grants have been paid to Tandem plc or its subsidiaries, other than the grant paid to British Eagle Cycles by the Development Board for Rural Wales, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. and learned Member on 16 February, column 732.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16473]

  Mr. Hague
  If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16538]

  Mr. Hague
  No one.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16580]

  Mr. Hague
  Approximately 16.15 on Thursday 15 February 1996.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16495]

  Mr. Hague
  Approximately 16.15 on Thursday 15 February 1996.

  Ambulance Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to the chairmen of the Welsh ambulance trusts in relation to the payment of the bonuses for senior executives of trusts related to financial performance; and if he will make a statement. [16426]

  Mr. Hague
  I have published a code of conduct and accountability which makes it clear to trust boards that they are responsible for ensuring that total remuneration, which includes bonuses, to senior staff can be justified as reasonable. I have placed a copy of the code of conduct and accountability in the Library of the House.

  South-East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with(a) the outgoing chairman and (b) the incoming chairman of the South-East Wales ambulance trust concerning the payment of bonuses to the chief executive, finance director and operations director for the year 1994–95 for achieving financial break-even. [16423]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no such consultations. The payment of bonuses is a matter for the trust.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he had with the out-going chairman of
  281
  the South East Wales ambulance trust concerning the impact of his agreement on deferral of the dividend payment on the trust's capital on the calculation of the financial break-even point for the trust. [16420]

  Mr. Hague
  None. My officials have maintained close contact with the trust since its financial problems became apparent. Appropriate decisions to defer dividend payments were taken to safeguard patient services and the long-term viability of the trust.

  Mr. Glyn Davies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the payments of(a) salary, (b) expenses and (c) other emoluments to Mr. Glyn Davies in respect of membership of (i) the Development Board for Rural Wales and (ii) other public appointments between 1985 and 1995. [15221]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 15 February 1996]Mr. Glyn Davies was appointed as a board member of the Development Board for Rural Wales on 8 July 1986. He was subsequently appointed chairman of the DBRW on 1 April 1989 and at the same time was appointed as a board member of the Wales tourist board and an ex officio board member of the Welsh Development Agency. Mr. Davies resigned from all three appointments on 12 May 1994. Payments made to Mr. Davies in respect of these appointments are listed in the following table:

  Payments made to Mr. Glyn Davies

  Salary£

  Expenses£

  Other emoluments£

  DBRW member

  1986–87

  3,173.31

  573.45

  —

  1987–88

  4,535.00

  0

  —

  1988–89

  4,757.50

  0

  —

  DBRW chairman

  1989–90

  25,445.00

  5,665.70

  —

  1990–91

  27,042.00

  4,826.70

  —

  1991–92

  29,471.63

  4,739.36

  —

  1992–93

  31,025.04

  6,940.80

  —

  1993–94

  31,924.94

  6,685.14

  —

  1994–95

  3,604.00

  1,201.95

  —

  WTB member

  1989–90

  5,030.00

  905

  —

  1990–91

  5,347.00

  523

  —

  1991–92

  5,793.00

  1,268.00

  —

  1992–93

  6,135.00

  1,076.00

  —

  1993–94

  6,315.00

  1,189.00

  —

  1994–95

  741.53

  287

  —

  WDA member1

  1994–95

  —

  793.83

  —

  1 Ex officio.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to increase assistance to(a) Rwanda and (b) Burundi. [9180]

  Mr. Hanley
  [pursuant to his reply 15 January 1996, c. 364]The reply should have read:282
  "Since October 1993, Britain has committed£53 million in bilateral emergency and rehabilitation assistance to Rwanda, including Rwandan refugees in neighbouring countries. Total assistance provided over the same period including the UK share of assistance provided by the European Community is£95 million."

  Health Programmes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken since the international conference on population and development held in Cairo in 1994 to implement the agreements reached, with special reference to the allocation of more resources for reproductive health programmes. [16204]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government continue to encourage a more effective international response to agreements reached in Cairo, especially from multilateral agencies. A total of£184 million of United Kingdom aid was committed for reproductive health in the two years 1994 and 1995. Of this total,£139 million will be passed through the bilateral programmes, including non-governmental organisations, and the balance through international agencies. To improve further the effectiveness of the UK's response to the Cairo conference, we have intensified technology development and research work and initiated a seedcorn fund to test innovative approaches for improving reproductive health.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in which ways the Government's policy has changed in respect of overseas reproductive and sexual health programmes since the agreements reached at the Cairo conference in 1994. [16205]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government's policy in this area supports the programme of action agreed in Cairo in 1994, and has not altered since then. The approaches used to implement the policy are under continuous review to ensure that UK aid is as effective as possible in enabling more people to access reproductive health information and services.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of aid is currently given to develop reproductive and sexual health projects in overseas countries. [16203]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1994, 2.3 per cent. of the aid for which a breakdown is available was invested in population and reproductive health activities. The figure for 1995 is not yet available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16573]

  The Attorney-General
  Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in my Departments in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. No records are kept of the proportion of time spent by persons in my
  283
  Departments in considering the Government's response to the Scott inquiry in the course of their duties. It is not therefore possible to estimate the costs incurred.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry, concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16631]

  The Attorney-General
  I have had no such communications from Mr. Muttukumaru.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he will take as a result of the finding of the Scott inquiry that his advice to Ministers about signing public interest immunity certificates was based on a fundamental misconception of the principles of PII law. [16648]

  The Attorney-General
  The advice I gave on PH at the time of the Matrix Churchill trial was entirely in accordance with the law as it then stood. It was based on careful, detailed advice from a team of distinguished independent practitioners, was fully supported by the case law, and has been publicly endorsed by three of the defence counsel and a number of other eminent commentators.

  Since the Matrix Churchill trial the decision of the House of Lords in Ex parte Wiley (1994) has brought about a change in the law on PII. The Government will consider carefully the recommendations on the subject made in the Scott report.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. 116530]

  The Attorney-General
  A very small number of civil servants in my Departments had access to the report prior to publication for the purpose of preparing the Government's response. Such access was in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16548]

  The Attorney-General
  I and my officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16559]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister today.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16501]
  284
  The Attorney-General
  During the afternoon of Wednesday, 7 February 1996.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16587]

  The Attorney-General
  Wednesday, 7 February 1996.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16569]

  The Attorney-General
  I do not envisage making such changes. Where officials criticised in the Scott report had acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy, it would not normally be appropriate to take disciplinary action against them. If there are cases where disciplinary action is considered appropriate this would be carried out under normal departmental disciplinary procedure.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the criminal trials since 1966 at which Governments have invoked public interest immunity certificates on the basis of(a) class claim and (b) contents claim; and on what external legal advice he instructed Ministers that they must sign the PH certificates in the case of (i) Matrix Churchill and (ii) Ordtec. [16428]

  The Attorney-General
  No central record is held of public interest immunity certificates signed by Ministers. I list below the criminal cases in which PII certificates are known to have been used, on the basis of information provided by the prosecuting authorities for which I am responsible—the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. In each case an indication is given of whether the claim was made on the basis of contents, class or both. The information has been obtained from those officials likely to have the relevant knowledge, and is not necessary exhaustive.

  1989

  R v Pottle and Randle (Class)

  R v Batley (Class)

  R v Saunders and others (Class)

  1990

  R v Kokabi (Class)

  R v Coren and Greenwood (Class)

  R v Deller, Page and Rycott (Class)

  1991

  R v NatWest Investment Bank Ltd. and others Class)

  1992

  Latimer, Hegan, Bell and Allen v Director of Public Prosecutions
  for Northern Ireland (Class)

  R v Roberts. Davis and Williams (Both)

  R v Bennett (Class)

  285
  1993

  R v Attwell, Donaldson and Style (Both)

  R v Mitchell and Mitchell (Class)

  R v Smith (Both)

  1994

  R v Walker and Aquilina (Class)

  R v Fryers and Jack (Both)

  R v Mackin, Doherty and Macauley (Both)

  R v McMonagle and Heffernan (Both)

  R v Edgar (Class)

  R v McNulty (Both)

  R v Ohadhmaill (Both)

  1995

  R v Murphy (Contents)

  R v Phipps and Nodjoema (Both)

  R v Baalbaki (Both)

  R v Baker, Hay and McCulloch (Both)

  R v Mostafa (Both)

  R v Paget-Harrison (Both)

  Another case (Both)

  The advice which I gave on PII in the Matrix Churchill trial was based on a joint opinion, dated 10 January 1992, from Mr. John Laws, then first junior Treasury counsel, common law, and now a judge of the High Court, Mr. Michael Kalisher QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association 1991–93, and Mr. Nicholas Ainley.

  The PII claims upheld by the Court of Appeal in Ordtec were made on the basis of a further joint opinion obtained from Mr. Stephen Richards and Mr. William Charles, first junior Treasury counsel, common law and chancery, dated 9 October 1995, following the decision of the House of Lords in Ex parte Wiley (1994). Copies of both these opinions are in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he proposes to take in respect of the fact that he does not accept that he was not personally at fault and that the issues that had been raised by Mr. Heseltine's stand on PII certificates did not fall into the category of mundane, routine, run of the mill issues that could probably be left to be dealt with by officials. [16647]

  The Attorney-General
  Sir Richard Scott's criticism of my role results from the fact that he takes a fundamentally different view of the law on public interest immunity. My advice to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was given with great care and was fully in accordance with the law as it then stood. It involved the preparation of a specially drafted PII certificate which explained my right hon. Friend's role. The judge saw every document covered by the certificate and duly decided which should be disclosed, exactly as my right hon. Friend had been led to expect. The procedure was entirely fair.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Attorney-General which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16476]
  286
  The Attorney-General
  If any Minister did so, that is a matter for them.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Rents, Gloucestershire
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each local authority in Gloucestershire the range of local reference rents by property type determined by the rent officer service from 2 January to 2 February. [16143]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not yet available. Data on rents determined by rent officers since 2 January, including local reference rents, will be published in the Department's regular publication, "Rent Officer Statistics", which is available on a quarterly basis. I will arrange for the next edition of the bulletin, covering the first quarter of 1996, to be sent to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 738, how the totals for reduced benefit directions imposed by each Child Support Agency centre in respect of, (a) good cause accepted, (b) absent parent named and (c) good cause not accepted were arrived at for both the Belfast and Plymouth centres; and what procedures are adopted by his Department in the checking of statistics provided to the hon. Members in written parliamentary questions. [15122]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 22 February 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about reduced benefit directions within the Child Support Agency.
  Having looked again at this set of tables, I can see that for the second time they include an error. Although the monthly entries in the columns you have mentioned are accurate, a mistake has occurred in the totalling of these entries. I am extremely sorry that this error passed unnoticed by me and my colleagues who had prepared the tables: the responsibility for it is mine.
  The Agency always aims to provide prompt and accurate responses to written parliamentary questions, and I cannot recall making one such error before, let alone two on the same set of figures. The procedures for checking statistical information supplied in written answers have been reviewed and made more stringent. This will guard against a similar error being made in future.
  I have enclosed a version of the full tables supplied by way of answer to your Parliamentary Question set out in Official Report, column 738. You will note that the relevant columns do now show their correct totals.
  Once again, please accept my apologies for the trouble you have had obtaining this information.
  287

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigations completed

  Dudley

  April

  335

  63

  580

  311

  978

  May

  503

  98

  617

  306

  1,218

  June

  450

  243

  820

  389

  1,513

  July

  493

  354

  548

  265

  1,395

  August

  576

  371

  749

  531

  1,696

  September

  541

  370

  599

  464

  1,510

  October

  619

  391

  682

  384

  1,692

  November

  568

  386

  595

  386

  1,549

  Total

  4,085

  2,276

  5,190

  3,036

  11,551

  Hastings

  April

  321

  0

  522

  721

  843

  May

  460

  111

  790

  785

  1,361

  June

  469

  222

  723

  631

  1,414

  July

  544

  219

  679

  466

  1,442

  August

  472

  207

  687

  361

  1,366

  September

  495

  273

  582

  532

  1,350

  October

  555

  300

  727

  836

  1,582

  November

  540

  335

  716

  537

  1,591

  Total

  3,856

  1,667

  5,426

  4,869

  10,949

  Falkirk

  April

  369

  94

  471

  283

  934

  May

  534

  161

  833

  335

  1,528

  June

  626

  345

  944

  242

  1,915

  July

  589

  331

  645

  219

  1,565

  August

  642

  408

  939

  276

  1,989

  September

  633

  448

  862

  306

  1,943

  October

  572

  428

  757

  394

  1,757

  November

  637

  463

  918

  362

  2,018

  Total

  4,602

  2,678

  6,369

  2,417

  13,649

  Plymouth

  April

  340

  100

  452

  276

  892

  May

  467

  112

  617

  458

  1,196

  June

  508

  216

  684

  389

  1,408

  July

  494

  294

  680

  392

  1,468

  August

  438

  259

  575

  373

  1,272

  September

  508

  267

  490

  274

  1,265

  October

  450

  264

  567

  474

  1,281

  November

  641

  364

  559

  341

  1,564

  Total

  3,846

  1,876

  4,624

  2,977

  10,346

  Birkenhead

  April

  389

  96

  470

  510

  955

  May

  556

  185

  615

  511

  1,356

  June

  592

  287

  713

  445

  1,592

  July

  625

  361

  786

  278

  1,772

  August

  582

  334

  637

  430

  1,553

  September

  678

  428

  686

  455

  1,792

  October

  722

  536

  775

  401

  2,033

  November

  801

  567

  951

  382

  2,319

  Total

  4,945

  2,794

  5,633

  3,412

  13,372

  Belfast

  April

  418

  137

  540

  260

  1,095

  May

  599

  195

  740

  473

  1,534

  June

  488

  271

  689

  250

  1,448

  July

  544

  427

  680

  393

  1,651

  August

  631

  425

  744

  392

  1,800

  September

  668

  526

  805

  336

  1,999

  October

  624

  561

  736

  347

  1,921

  November

  676

  780

  789

  300

  2,245

  Total

  4,648

  3,322

  5,723

  2,751

  13,693

  288 289
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets are set by the Child Support Agency for time taken to reply to correspondence; and what progress has been made in attaining target levels. [15747]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated February 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about targets set by the Child Support Agency for the time taken to reply to correspondence.
  The only firm target the Agency has for correspondence is the Departmental target of replying to MPs' letters within 20 working days. The table below shows the performance against this target, highlighting the improvements achieved in this area.

  Chief Executive replies to MPs' letters

  Percentage

  1–20 days

  21–40 days

  Over 40 days

  September 1994

  14

  55

  31

  May 1995

  56

  44

  0

  December 1995

  60

  40

  0

  The Agency currently has a charter standard to reply to written enquiries from the public "within 10 working days". This is being revised. During 1994/95, the Agency replied to 35% of written enquiries within the charter standard. In 1995/96, the figure to the end of December was almost 40%.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of claimants of(a) severe disablement allowance, and (b) incapacity benefit currently undertaking limited paid work on the grounds that the work is (i) voluntary and (ii) therapeutic. [16083]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total contribution for each London borough paid from local authority sources in each of the past five years. 115946]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is insufficient for the purposes of providing an answer.

  Departmental officials have tried unsuccessfully on four occasions to contact the hon. Member on my behalf in order to obtain clarification.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the rates of employer national insurance contributions since 1979, the amount of revenue raised by these contributions in each year and the total of the increase in revenue resulting from changes in the employer rate. [15771]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the table:290

  Year

  Employer national insurance1 rates at 6 April each year Percentage

  Revenue raised4 £ billion

  1979–80

  213.5

  9.83

  1980–81

  213.7

  11.51

  1981–82

  213.7

  12.24

  1982–83

  213.7

  12.20

  1983–84

  211.95

  12.06

  1984–85

  211.45

  11.94

  1985–86

  310.45

  12.35

  1986–87

  10.45

  13.51

  9.0

  7.0

  5.0

  1987–88

  10.45

  14.95

  9.0

  7.0

  5.0

  1988–89

  10.45

  16.95

  9.0

  7.0

  5.0

  1989–90

  10.45

  19.14

  9.0

  7.0

  5.0

  1990–91

  10.45

  20.9

  9.0

  7.0

  5.0

  1991–92

  10.4

  21.77

  8.6

  6.6

  4.6

  1992–93

  10.4

  21.19

  8.6

  6.6

  4.6

  1993–94

  10.4

  23.08

  8.6

  6.6

  4.6

  1994–95

  10.2

  23.36

  7.6

  5.6

  3.6

  1995–96

  10.2

  5624.33

  7.0

  5.0

  3.0

  Notes:

  1Not contracted-out rates shown. The level of the contracted-out rebate for the period shown was

  4.5 per cent. 1979–80 to 1982–83

  4.1 per cent. 1983–84 to 1987–88

  3.8 per cent. 1988–89 to 1992–93

  3.0 per cent. 1993–94 to 1995–96

  2 Includes the national insurance surcharge which was abolished October 1984.

  3 The upper earnings limit for employers' contributions was abolished and reduced rates for employers of the lower paid were introduced from October 1985.

  4 Figures have been subject to rounding.

  5 Estimate taken from the Government Actuary's report on the Benefits up-rating and Contributions re-rating Orders, published February 1996. Cm 3149.

  6 If the employers' contribution structure, rates and level of contracted-out rebates in force in 1979–80 and applied in 1995–96. employers would have paid about£5.6 billion more in national insurance contributions for that year.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance has been issued to agents of his Department when assessing benefit claims for(a) myalgic encephalomyelitis and (b) fibromyalgia sufferers. [15748]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 21 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what guidance has been issued to agents of his Department when assessing benefit claims for (a) Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and (b) fibromyalgia sufferers.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) employs doctors through the BA Medical Services, who are trained in all physical, sensory and mental conditions including ME and fibromyalgia. Entitlement to benefit is decided by independent adjudication officers, who can seek the opinion of these doctors.
  Various publications containing procedural guidance on the processing of claims are available to BA staff. These include Background Information on Incapacity for Work and the Disability Handbook which provide information on specific disabilities including ME and fibromyalgia, additionally they advise staff when to seek guidance from BAMS. The Disability Handbook is currently being redrafted following discussions with the ME Association. The Short Term Benefits Guide also provides procedural guidance regarding ME and fibromyalgia for BA staff.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  £ million

  Year

  1978–79

  1985–86

  1989–90

  1994–95

  Long-term sick and disabled1

  1,770

  5,220

  8,420

  19,600

  Long-term sick and disabled2

  5,162

  8,095

  10,544

  19,600

  1 Figures are in cash prices.

  2 Figures are in real-terms (1994–95 prices).

  An explanation of increases in expenditure is not available in the format requested. The increases are due to increasing caseloads and average amounts. Individuals may also be entitled to receive more than one benefit from within this group.

  In 1992 disability living allowance and disability working allowance were introduced, which added£3,129 million to expenditure in 1994–95. The increase in the real value of benefits from 1978–79 to 1994–95 accounts for a further£3,392 million.

  Number of cases where fraud established

  Benefit savings

  Prosecutions

  Overpayments

  1994–95

  2,345

  £4,324,451

  149

  £58,309

  1995–31 January 1996

  1,518

  £4,402,524

  104

  £124,201

  Bronchitis and Emphysema Report
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he received the report from the industrial injuries advisory Council on chronic bronchitis and emphysema; if he will place a copy in the Library; when he expects to respond to the advisory Council's report; and if he will make a statement. [15749]

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many of those failing to attend the medical examination for incapacity benefit applied on the basis of mental health problems; and what percentage of the total this represents; [15867]

  (2) how many of those failing to return the incapacity benefit questionnaire are applying on the basis of mental health problems; and what percentage of the total this represents. [15866]

  (3) how many of those appealing against the result of the all-work test for incapacity benefit applied for the benefit on the basis of mental health problems; and what percentage of the total this represents. [15865]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Long-term Sick and Disabled People
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on 12 February 1996,Official Report, column 476, if he will represent the data in real terms, and to what extent the increase in the number of long-term sick and disabled is due to (a) the number of claimants to existing schemes, (b) new claimants to new benefits and (c) an increase in the real value of benefits. [15828]

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

  Fraud, Northumberland
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on 12 February 1996,Official Report, column 471, if he will give (a) equivalent figures for Newcastle upon Tyne and (b) the sums of benefit subject to recovery. [16150]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table. Figures for organised fraud investigations are not available locally.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The report has not yet been received. I understand that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council expects to submit it within the next few weeks. A copy will be placed in the Library when the report is published, normally within three months of receipt.

  The Government will consider carefully any recommendations the council may make.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been(a) the total level of housing benefit paid out and (b) the number of recipients in each London borough for each of the past five years. [15931]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the tables:

  Table 1: Average number of housing benefit recipients in London boroughs

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Barking and Dagenham

  8,500

  14,300

  14,600

  15,400

  16,400

  Barnet

  8,500

  13,200

  14,800

  16,900

  19,000

  Bexley

  5,300

  8,300

  8,900

  9,900

  10,000

  Brent

  14,200

  18,500

  22,200

  27,200

  32,000

  Bromley

  7,800

  12,400

  13,500

  14,600

  15,600

  Camden

  16,300

  23,400

  25,900

  30,800

  32,600

  City of London

  700

  900

  600

  1,100

  1,100

  Croydon

  10,700

  16,800

  20,000

  22,100

  23,700

  Ealing

  12,400

  18,600

  16,900

  20,400

  24,300

  Enfield

  9,000

  14,200

  15,500

  17,300

  18,000

  Greenwich

  12,700

  18,800

  21,000

  23,900

  25,500

  Hackney

  21,200

  25,900

  32,300

  35,500

  37,500

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  12,600

  17,200

  18,700

  20,500

  22,500

  Haringey

  16,900

  31,100

  35,800

  37,500

  38,500

  Harrow

  4,100

  6,900

  7,800

  9,100

  10,000

  Havering

  5,800

  9,900

  10,400

  10,800

  13,900

  Hillingdon

  5,600

  10,100

  11,500

  13,400

  14,800

  Hounslow

  7,000

  10,600

  10,500

  12,000

  16,700

  Islington

  16,000

  23,900

  27,300

  27,100

  30,100

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9,500

  11,400

  13,200

  15,500

  17,600

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,100

  6,000

  6,300

  6,800

  7,400

  Lambeth

  22,400

  29,600

  34,700

  37,900

  42,800

  Lewisham

  19,600

  31,400

  34,100

  33,000

  36,100

  Mellon

  5,400

  9,900

  10,900

  11,600

  12,100

  Newham

  15,800

  27,500

  29,600

  34,800

  35,800

  Redbridge

  6,300

  10,300

  11,100

  12,300

  13,500

  Richmond upon Thames

  4,500

  8,000

  8,100

  8,700

  9,600

  Southwark

  20,600

  26,500

  30,200

  35,300

  40,600

  Sutton

  4,700

  8,200

  8,900

  9,600

  10,300

  Tower Hamlets

  19,800

  26,500

  28,600

  30,400

  32,100

  Waltham Forest

  11,600

  15,700

  17,600

  19,400

  19,300

  Wandsworth

  16,300

  24,800

  26,300

  29,500

  29,700

  Westminster

  11,200

  16,500

  18,600

  20,200

  22,400

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  Figures given are an average of four quarters in each year.

  Table 2: Housing benefit expenditure in London boroughs

  £ millions

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Barking and Dagenham

  10.300

  12.600

  17.200

  21,600

  28.000

  Barnet

  19.500

  24.500

  32.100

  44.100

  59.500

  Bexley

  8.900

  10.800

  14.100

  20.100

  26.900

  Brent

  42.600

  50.900

  63.500

  85.700

  110.100

  Bromley

  17.400

  21.000

  27.600

  34.000

  41.600

  Camden

  41.200

  53.900

  67.100

  87.300

  104.700

  City of London

  1.400

  1.700

  2.000

  2.400

  2.800

  Croydon

  21.200

  29.900

  46.700

  58.200

  73.900

  Ealing

  36.000

  41.600

  56.600

  78.900

  104.800

  Enfield

  21.900

  27.000

  37.100

  45.800

  52.400

  Greenwich

  27.200

  30.900

  44.000

  55.700

  67.300

  Hackney

  40.000

  58.200

  89.000

  114.500

  144.200

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  33.600

  36.600

  48.200

  57.300

  69.900

  Haringey

  53.000

  41.300

  105.400

  117.300

  131.400

  Harrow

  10.200

  13.100

  19.500

  26.300

  33.900

  Havering

  11.000

  14.000

  16.100

  20.100

  24.900

  Hillingdon

  11.900

  15.300

  23.900

  35.000

  45.900

  Hounslow

  13.900

  15.800

  23.100

  33.700

  44.700

  Islington

  33.300

  42.100

  66.500

  75.400

  94.300

  Kensington and Chelsea

  21.300

  24.100

  34.700

  48.700

  64.600

  Kingston upon Thames

  8.000

  10.200

  14.400

  18.500

  23.700

  Lambeth

  40.400

  47.600

  66.900

  90.600

  114.300

  Lewisham

  33.300

  41.900

  54.800

  68.000

  86.000

  294

  Table 2: Housing benefit expenditure in London boroughs

  £ millions

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Merton

  12.500

  18.100

  24.700

  29.700

  34.500

  Newham

  33.300

  47.600

  64.100

  81.100

  105.300

  Redbridge

  17.200

  25.100

  35.500

  44.400

  50.300

  Richmond upon Thames

  9.700

  12.300

  16.600

  21.400

  26.100

  Southwark

  42.900

  97.400

  70.000

  92.600

  108.200

  Sutton

  9.800

  11.700

  16.600

  21.000

  25.400

  Tower Hamlets

  44.200

  50.100

  70.000

  70.000

  70.300

  Waltham Forest

  20.000

  24.900

  36.100

  45.300

  54.000

  Wandsworth

  38.800

  46.800

  62.800

  79.300

  98.100

  Westminster

  35.700

  43.200

  61.600

  88.700

  114.200

  Sources:

  Audited accounts provided to the Departments of Social Security and Environment.

  Audited accounts for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of administration of housing benefit for each London borough in the last financial year; and what proportion of this was borne by central Government for each borough. [15932]

  Mr. Evans
  The latest available information is set out in the table.

  £ thousand

  London borough

  Administration costs

  Barking and Dagenham

  643

  Barnet

  2,411

  Bexley

  510

  Brent

  3,149

  Bromley

  1,466

  Camden

  4,722

  City

  205

  Croydon

  1,784

  Ealing

  2,946

  Enfield

  2,383

  Greenwich

  2,923

  Hackney

  2,872

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,192

  Haringey

  2,561

  Harrow

  885

  Havering

  453

  Hillingdon

  1,724

  Hounslow

  2,264

  Islington

  3,111

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,971

  Kingston upon Thames

  596

  Lambeth

  3,694

  Lewisham

  3,618

  Merton

  612

  Newham

  3,698

  Redbridge

  1,330

  Richmond upon Thames

  737

  Southwark

  2,543

  Sutton

  774

  Tower Hamlets

  2,039

  Waltham Forest

  1,903

  Wandsworth

  1,815

  Westminster

  5,224

  Note:

  No figures are available for the proportion of Housing Benefit administration costs met by Central Government. This is because half of the subsidy is distributed by the Department for the Environment, via the Revenue Support Grant. This does not specify the exact amount attributable to Housing Benefit.

  Source:

  Department for the Environment return 'RO4 Housing Benefit, Sports and Other' 1994–95.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16178]

  Mr. Heald
  The Occupational Pensions Board is the only executive non-departmental public body sponsored by this Department. Its statutory base is in the Pensions Schemes Act 1993. There is no statutory requirement to admit members of the public to board or committee meetings, nor is it the practice to do so. There is a statutory requirement, under the provisions of the Occupational Pensions Board (Determinations and Review Procedure) Regulations 1973 to hold public hearings, in connection with reviews of the board's determinations, unless the board for any special reasons directs otherwise. If such a hearing is held privately, a member of the Council on Tribunals is entitled to attend.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16534]

  Mr. Lilley
  No members of this Department saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was published.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16583]

  Mr. Lilley
  At 3.30 pm on 15 February.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16497]
  296
  Mr. Lilley
  Copies of the report of the Scott inquiry were delivered to my office shortly before noon on 15 February. The copies were in sealed packages which were not opened until 3.30 pm.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16474]

  Mr. Lilley
  If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16537]

  Mr. Newton
  None.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16561]

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16599]

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16571]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister today.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Chester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Trident
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What targeting arrangements are made for patrolling Trident submarines now that the Soviet Union is no longer the enemy, and whether any nuclear weapon-free countries are targeted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, our nuclear missiles are de-targeted and have been since 1994. It is not our practice to comment further on matters of targeting.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as that is the case, and the Government are admitting that there is no target, what is the use of patrolling Trident weapons at a cost which can amount to about £50 million? Does the noble Earl agree that it is a completely useless exercise? Why are the Government continuing with this nonsense when the budget of every other Department of State is being cut?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe the key point is that our deterrent, together with those of our NATO allies, contributes towards maintaining stability in Europe. To perform that role in the current international environment, the weapons do not need to be targeted. Stability is best preserved by maintaining the invulnerability of our strategic deterrent and continuous patrols by our submarines achieve just that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, have we not been discussing with the French for a very long time the question of co-operation on patrolling? Can the Minister say what has been achieved?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we co-operate with France on a wide range of nuclear issues, including technical matters. For obvious reasons it is not our practice to release details of our co-operation, which involves the national security of both countries. I can tell the noble Lord that the dialogue is continuing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that Trident has now what is called a sub-strategic role as well as a strategic role? Presumably, there is a difference in the targeting procedure—I am not talking about the targets—when Trident is being strategic and when it is sub-strategic. Will the Minister confirm that and advise the House how that switch is made?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is quite right. The entry into service of HMS "Victorious"
1138
means that Trident now provides a continuously available sub-strategic capability. The UK sub-strategic capability is also provided by the RAF with its Tornados armed with WE177 free-fall bombs. The concept of sub-strategic capability has long been a vital part of our and NATO's nuclear doctrine. Without it, a potential adversary could gamble on us not being prepared to use our full strategic capability in response to aggression. The sub-strategic capability removes the risk of him believing that we ourselves will be deterred from using nuclear weapons.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation, but he did not quite answer the question that I asked. How is targeting procedure affected in a submarine when someone decides that it is acting sub-strategically as opposed to strategically?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the way in which the missiles are targeted is something that we do not discuss in public, for obvious reasons. But there is essentially no difference in the way that strategic and sub-strategic missiles are targeted.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, are they the same missiles?
Earl Howe: No, my Lords.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in order to enlighten my ignorance, can my noble friend tell us the exact difference between sub-strategic and strategic and what does each mean?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in a few words, a strategic nuclear strike would be an all-out nuclear attack. A sub-strategic strike would be an attack of a more restricted kind, perhaps against a specific military target. The difference is one of scale and purpose.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if the missiles used in a strategic attack and in a sub-strategic attack are different, one must assume that the latter are smaller and of shorter range. Can the Minister say whether they can be used with conventional warheads? If they can, is it really a sensible way to carry a medium or short-range conventional weapon; hiding it deep under the sea in a boat costing hundreds of millions of pounds for use, for instance, in Poland or East Germany?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the missiles on board our Trident and Polaris nuclear submarines are all nuclear missiles. There are no conventionally-armed missiles on those boats. Indeed, a decision was taken some little time ago that that should be the case. However, we have decided to arm the Royal Navy with Tomahawk cruise missiles, which will be coming into service during the next few years. But that is very different from the nuclear deterrent, which is the subject of this Question.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, is it not the case that the Royal Navy is the most efficient fighting

1139
service and its ability to transfer from strategic to sub-strategic weapons, or vice versa, is probably instantaneous?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I believe that in the Royal Navy we have a Senior Service of which all of us can be very proud.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Earl Howe: The Trident nuclear deterrent represents a superb technical achievement for the United Kingdom.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the Trident submarine as being a contribution towards stability. Is he aware that the versatility now arriving by the sub-strategic role increases instability as far as any non-nuclear country is concerned? Is the noble Earl aware that it is only those countries who possess such weapons who feel the slightest bit stable about it? As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it is a contribution towards an uncertain situation which prevents us from arriving at real peace. Will the Government look at this matter seriously and ask themselves whether they ought not to make a little bit of progress towards a non-nuclear situation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord. As I have explained, a sub-strategic capability essentially fills a gap in the deterrent. Were it not for that capability, a potential enemy could misread our intentions and I believe that that would fatally damage the deterrent effect.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that, given the fact that the Russians have already launched another nuclear submarine and are building a new generation of them, if the noble Lord opposite is so concerned about balance it is perhaps reasonable that we should retain our very modest deterrent?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As she will know, the UK's nuclear deterrent is a minimum deterrent.

Grey Squirrels: Control Studies
3.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are arranging to monitor the effects of schemes designed to reduce populations of grey squirrels and so to prevent the extinction of red squirrels in particular areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, the Forestry Commission has for many years been undertaking annual surveys of the distribution of red and grey squirrels and of the number of grey squirrels killed.
1140
Two research projects have been set up in Anglesey and Thetford to discover whether controlling grey squirrels will help prevent the extinction of red squirrels.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I welcome the Government's recent decisions and the help they have been giving over this problem. Does he agree that action is needed soon to prevent serious damage to trees from grey squirrels and to enable the red squirrels to survive? Is he aware that we still have red squirrels in northern Scotland because the greys have not yet penetrated from the south but that it is only a matter of time unless effective culling is undertaken?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend makes a number of good points, not least that there are still many red squirrels in northern Scotland. In fact, three-quarters of the red squirrels in Great Britain are in Scotland. Action, which I agree is essential, is already in place. More action plans will be coming on stream. The Forestry Commission, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, SNH, English Nature and the CCW in Wales are all committed to various action plans. It is important that that action is taken to prevent tree damage and to help red squirrels.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the real villain was Henry VIII who destroyed the forests in which the red squirrels fed? They almost disappeared. When foreign squirrels, including the grey squirrel, were imported, they did not attack the red squirrels but played happily in what pieces of forest were available. Now the red squirrel is particularly susceptible to a virus to which the grey squirrel is not. It will be very bad this winter. Thousands more red squirrels will die because of the virus. It is no way the fault of the grey squirrel which does no harm to the trees or the birds in my garden.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am not sure whether recent analysis and research supports the noble Lord's interpretation. I believe that Henry VIII felled oak trees to build ships. The red squirrel finds acorns a little hard to eat. He is a discerning fellow; he prefers well-hung hazelnuts. One of the problems is that grey squirrels are voracious eaters. They eat hazelnuts before they are ripe which prevents the red squirrels eating them. So there is a problem in the winter. There are other problems which must be addressed. Red squirrels prefer pines, Norwegian spruce and larch; grey squirrels prefer broadleaved trees. The drive we have at the moment to increase broadleaved planting in Great Britain will at the same time affect the success with which grey squirrels are able to survive.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of a most interesting debate last night in another place when this subject was gone into in considerable detail. A great deal of information was given. The noble Earl spoke about red squirrels in Scotland and the hope that we can save as many as possible. At the same time there seems to be a contradiction. In paragraph 10.5 of the UK action plan for biodiversity the red squirrel is listed among the

1141
subjects for special grants. In view of the fact that the SNH grant for 1996–97 has been cut by 11 per cent., is the Minister satisfied that the essential work of helping to preserve the red squirrel will be funded properly?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, there are ample resources to produce the action required to safeguard the future of the red squirrel. The resources do not come just from one nature agency such as SNH, but from the Forestry Commission, woodland owners in the private sector and other sources. The partnership approach has been adopted in relation to the red squirrel. There is an organisation called Red Alert which draws together all the different initiatives. The funding of SNH has been decided upon the ground of the efficiencies which we know are possible in that organisation and upon the new priorities which are expected of that organisation. The species action plan is a priority which we are confident it can meet.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the misunderstanding among householders of the depredations caused by these tree rats and the fact that preservation societies are being set up to protect them, will the Government take action to try to publicise to everyone, particularly urban dwellers, just how much depredation these rats cause?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. The campaign being run by Red Alert is designed partially to educate and raise public awareness of the merits and otherwise of the grey squirrel. In addition, it is important that all woodland owners are aware of the need to control grey squirrels. They can do extensive damage to broadleaved trees. If they are not controlled the damage they can do to our countryside, landscapes and various habitats will also be extensive.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that he said that an inquiry is going on to see what effect grey squirrels are having on the survival of red squirrels? Does that mean that there is no proof that grey squirrels are driving out red squirrels? Secondly, with the poisoning of grey squirrels is account being taken of the damage that may be caused to other animals and birds which feed off the carcasses of those grey squirrels? Finally, is it the intention—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Oh no!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, you are going to have it whether you like it or not. You should know that by now. Finally, is it now the policy of Her Majesty's Government completely to exterminate the grey squirrel in every part of the UK?
The Earl of Lindsay: My. Lords, there is strong circumstantial evidence that within 15 years of grey squirrels moving into a wood the red squirrels have moved out. We believe that that is due partially to the disease that grey squirrels carry from which red squirrels die. We believe that grey squirrels out-compete red squirrels for available food and so in the winter the grey squirrels are well fed while the red squirrels are badly
1142
fed. As regards Warfarin, the hoppers have been designed carefully so that other small mammals and birds cannot get at it. Even if another small mammal were to get at the Warfarin hopper or consumed a grey squirrel which had died from Warfarin, that small mammal would have to eat an extraordinary number of such grey squirrels even to be at risk of any damage.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, have my noble friend and the Government ever considered going back to the old wartime offers of so much money per grey squirrel tail to encourage farmers and other people on the land to help reduce the numbers?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we have so many different initiatives in place around the country designed to deal with grey squirrel that the bounty on the grey squirrel's tail is not one we are considering at the moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question as to whether it is government policy to exterminate the grey squirrel?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is obvious that the Government's policy with regard to biodiversity is to strike a balance. We want to secure the future of the red squirrel whose numbers and range have fallen against the fast-rising numbers of the grey squirrel. There are now 2.5 million grey squirrels in the UK. We believe that that is too many.

Sheep Dips: Research
3.19 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which research organisations are to receive the £1.2 million allocated by them to study alternatives, including vaccines, to organophosphate sheep dips to protect sheep against scab.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, two research contracts have recently been awarded. The first is for studies on an immunological approach to sheep scab control, and represents a major collaborative effort by seven laboratories. These are the Central Veterinary Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Universities of Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Leeds; the Moredun Research Institute in Edinburgh, the Babraham Institute in Cambridge; and the School of Biological Sciences in Bangor.
The second, complementary study, aims to understand the critical factors that affect the spread and development of sheep scab and includes looking for natural predators of the sheep scab mite. The study is being undertaken by the University of Liverpool in collaboration with the University of Bristol, the Central Veterinary Laboratory and the School of Biological Sciences, Bangor.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful that the Government have seen fit to fund the research.

1143
Am I correct in my understanding that the project is to last between two-and-a-half and three years? If that is the case, will the licensing of any vaccine produced during that time be fast tracked, in view of the fact that a great deal of sheep scab is occurring throughout the country?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House recognises the contribution that the noble Countess has made towards our resolution to pursue the problem of sheep scab and the alternative methods of controlling it. As regards this project, it is at an early stage and at the frontiers of known science. If everything went perfectly, which we would not expect, we would have a useful vaccine in seven years time. We should be pleased if we had a vaccine in 10 years' time but it may well be longer.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in view of the defects as regards the resistance of sheep scab mites to one of the main chemical alternatives to OP dips, will the Government accelerate the work on at least one of the two research projects so that it will be completed in less than three years? During that time we may see the possibility of alleviating the very unsatisfactory dilemma that is presented to sheep farmers who wish to dip their sheep.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I do not believe that there is anything we can do to speed up the research projects. They take the time that they take because that is the required time. The end product will not be a useful vaccine but an indication of how a useful vaccine might be developed. We are still a long way away from having an alternative to chemical control.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned the resistance of mites to the pyrethroid group of dips. Many farmers are returning to the use of OPs. While I realise that sheep scab must be controlled, may I ask the Minister to ensure that the medical profession is well aware of the symptoms of OP poisoning in humans? There are still problems and every day I receive tragic letters from people who are receiving no co-operation from their GPs or consultants.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, however much I may do to respond to the noble Countess's request my effectiveness will be much less than hers.

Business: "Sea Empress" Question
3.22 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley had given notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What form of inquiry they propose to establish to investigate the accident to the tanker "Sea Empress" off Milford Haven.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in view of the fact that at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Goschen will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the "Sea Empress", I suggest that that will provide an
1144
opportunity for a full Answer to be given to the noble Lord's Question. I understand that the noble Lord is content to wait until then. I hope that that course of action will meet with the approval of the whole House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I shall therefore not proceed to ask my Question.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 31,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 32 to 65,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 66 to 71,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 72 to 92,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 93 to 95,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 96 to 98,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 99 and 100,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clauses 101 and 102.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of commitment of] 1 th December last be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Scottish Select Committee.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what will be the total cost of this unhappy enterprise to the taxpayer?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we discussed the issue fully on Second Reading and there was a further discussion in another place. The measures provided for

1145
in the Bill allow the rescheduling of the debt. It is not yet decided how much of that debt will be rescheduled in the manner outlined on Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Report received.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PARTS I AND II
(". The court and any person, in exercising functions under or in consequence of Parts I and II, shall have regard to the following general principles—

(a) that the institution of marriage is to be supported;

(b) that the parties to a marriage which may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practicable steps to save it;

(c) that a marriage which has irretrievably broken down and is being brought to an end should be brought to an end—

(i) with minimum distress to the parties and to the children affected; and

(ii) without costs being unreasonably incurred in connection with the procedures to be followed in bringing it to an end.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 follows our consideration in Committee of an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to insert a clause setting out the general objectives of the Act. During that debate it was clear that a number of your Lordships supported the inclusion of such a provision. I indicated in general terms that I was anxious to consider the matter and therefore I am happy to bring forward this amendment, which I hope reflects the mood of the House on this important issue.
It is important that the amendment is included at the beginning of the Bill as it sets the framework for all those who will be concerned to operate it, whether it be persons exercising functions under Parts I and II or 'whether it be the court making decisions under these provisions.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and those who supported him for making the suggestion. This is an important amendment to the Bill and an improvement. It serves as a useful assertion of the framework within which the Bill should operate. I therefore have pleasure in begging to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 3, leave out ("Parts I and II") and insert ("any provision of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for his part in paving the way to my noble and learned friend's amendment and to my noble and learned friend in going so far to meet our wishes.
In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which are grouped with it. However, Amendment No. 5 raises different issues and I propose to move it separately.
The advantage of the statement of principles on the lines tabled by my noble and learned friend is that it gives a guideline to the interpretations of any matter in a measure which might be obscure or ambiguous. Secondly, it is a general guide to the way in which a statute should be interpreted when it comes before the courts.
It is an alternative to dealing with the matter by Long Title which is the method I would generally prefer if only because otherwise the Long Title serves no useful purpose at all. However, in this case, I agree that it is more convenient to proceed in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, dealt with it in Committee and the way it is dealt with by my noble and learned friend's Amendment No. I. That has the support of several precedents mentioned in Committee and approved by the Renton Committee on legislation.
There have been a number of criticisms of some decisions made under the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and its consolidation in 1973. I do not believe that some of those decisions would have been criticised if a statement of principles such as that we have before us and susceptible of improvement had preceded the 1969 Act. As it was, judges had to do their best to carry into effect what they conceived to be the general objective of the 1969 Act. What they saw was a desire, a mechanism, to make divorce ever more facile, if necessary at the expense of justice. That being so, a number of decisions of the court inevitably took that direction, at the expense of justice. In using that term, I shall go no further than the White Paper which led to the Bill now before the House. The whole of chapter 2 deals with shortcomings in the existing law, which is in effect the 1969 Act. Indeed, one paragraph uses the word "injustice".
As regards my noble and learned friend's amendment, we are grateful to him for it as far as it goes. But there are one or two curious omissions which are bound to raise questions. First is the provision referred to in my Amendment No. 2 which draws attention to the important matter of the institution of marriage in relation to Parts I and II. That makes it significant that there is no reference to Part III. The relevant principle proclaimed in my noble and learned friend's amendment is that the institution of marriage is to be supported. Is that of no significance in relation to Part III which deals with domestic violence? I venture to ask why that is omitted.
Amendment No. 4 is purely a verbal alteration but I think it important. The words I seek to omit are,
"a marriage which has irretrievably broken down".
It is a matter which will be taken up later in a number of amendments to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is unnecessarily provocative to refer

1147
in the statement of principles to that formula to which there is grave objection. What I suggest is a more neutral term; namely, "is being dissolved". I cannot see that my noble friend's amendment loses anything by that change and, as I said, the phrase is much less provocative. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I believe that it is appropriate at this stage to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the remarks he made in moving the amendment and his acceptance of the general sense of the amendment I moved in Committee. I believe that he encompassed most of the points I made. Of course, I am still very much concerned about reconciliation, but that will be dealt with at a later stage of the Bill. I believe that the noble and learned Lord's proposed amendment covers the points I made. I am quite happy to express my gratitude for his positive response to that amendment and for writing a provision into the Bill. I obviously reserve my position as regards future remarks on later amendments which may be relevant.
Lord Robertson of OakridgeLords, I welcome the amendment in general but I have one reservation: it concerns the reference to children in paragraph (c). As drafted it could be taken to imply that the children's needs and problems can be disposed of at the time when the marriage is brought to an end. Unfortunately, that will seldom be possible as the effects of divorce on a child often continue well into the future.
I mention four areas where problems may affect children after divorce. First, there may be arguments about access. Secondly, there are situations in which parents compete for children's good will by offering expensive presents and treats. Thirdly, there are instances where parents' main priorities are to rebuild their social life and find another partner. The children come off second best and may experience a sense of rejection which has lasting effects upon them. Lastly, when mother's new partner moves into the house in place of father, children are at a higher risk of abuse. In his book Homes and Battered Children, published in 1994 by the Family Education Trust, Mr. R. Whelan calculated that the risk of abuse was 33 times higher than if children had remained with their own married parents.
Those problems cannot be solved readily by legislation but we cannot afford to ignore them. However, if the reference to children in the amendment were to include such a phrase as, "with regard to the present and future needs of the children", all those concerned would be encouraged to look ahead beyond the actual divorce settlement. I believe that that would be helpful. Perhaps I may suggest to your Lordships that, between now and Third Reading, consideration might be given to amending this section of the Bill on the lines that I have proposed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, am warmly in favour of the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend
1148
the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps I may briefly elaborate on the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and say that statements of principle are always helpful, especially in the early stages of an Act of Parliament. I say that because they clarify the intention of Parliament with regard to the other provisions of the Bill and enable the detailed provisions of the legislation to be more easily interpreted by the courts and understood by the users of statutes.
As to the amendments tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I must say that Amendment No. 5 is one that I believe my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should welcome. He himself set the precedent for that in the Children Act. At the beginning of that Act—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting him, but my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor specifically excluded Amendment No. 5 from this group so that we may discuss it later.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must say that I regret that fact.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should tell my noble friend that it is to be dealt with separately.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I understand.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should just like to say that I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whenever it may come.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in that case, circumstances compel me to defer my further support for that amendment.
I am very doubtful about the other amendments tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, the most important of which is Amendment No. 2. That would make the new clause moved by my noble and learned friend apply to the whole of the Bill. The proposed new clause applies to Part I and II only and I am sure that that is correct. Speaking broadly, those parts deal with divorce whereas Part III of the Bill deals with quite separate matters; namely, "Family Homes and Domestic Violence". Of course, not all of the provisions in Part III relate to divorce, although, as regards domestic violence, they overlap a little.
I should like briefly to refer to Amendment No. 3, which seems to me to be just a drafting amendment and not one which I feel my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should accept. Amendment No. 4 goes a little beyond drafting, but I prefer the wording chosen by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor rather than the alternative proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, welcome Amendment No. 1 for reasons very similar to those just given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is too modest to say that the amendment accepts some of the principles of drafting for which he argued in the Renton Report.

1149
Those principles need defending and I am glad to see them being adopted. I would, perhaps, have wished that the noble and learned Lord had said in his amendment that the institution of marriage is to be supported whenever possible, as politics is, after all, the art of the possible. Nevertheless, I take that to be implicit in the spirit of the amendment.
However, I am not so happy with the amendments tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. In particular, I am not happy with Amendment No. 2. I believe that the institution of marriage is to be supported. I also believe that human life is to be preserved. I do not believe that it in any way qualifies my support for marriage if I put my support for the preservation of human life first. I also believe that the Queen's peace is to be kept. I do not believe that it in any way qualifies my support for the institution of marriage if I put the preservation of the Queen's peace first. Therefore, in cases where the preservation of marriage might lead to threat to the life or to severe physical injury of one of the parties, I think that it would be unduly doctrinaire to say that the preservation of the institution of marriage should come first in such circumstances. That is why I believe that the principle—as, I think, the noble and learned Lord has realised in the drafting of the amendment—is not germane to Part III of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord is entirely right to apply it to Parts I and H, but not to Part III.
I am not entirely certain of the effect of Amendment No. 3 which refers to the marriage being "in crisis". I once, rather rashly, used the word "crisis" in the title of an academic work. Shortly afterwards, one of my senior colleagues at a conference fixed me with a beady eye and told me that it was an overworked word. I concluded on reflection that my colleague was correct: either it means nothing or it is, I believe, a good deal more restrictive than many of us would like it to be.
Amendment No. 4 would remove the notion of irretrievable breakdown, which is somewhere near the very heart of the Bill. I would not go all the way with the Denham doctrine as recently re-enunciated in The Times about wrecking amendments, but I will say that, if the amendment were to be carried, it would remove something which, as I said, is very close to the heart of the Bill and of which I believe a clear majority of the House approves. Therefore, if it were carried, I, for one, would regret it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as someone whom my noble and learned friend will recognise as being not entirely happy about the legislation now before us, I should like to thank him for bringing forward the amendment, which is based on an original amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The fact that my noble and learned friend has re-drafted the amendment and brought it back in this form is most helpful. It is valuable to have the statement of principles at the beginning which, as I said when we discussed the matter in Committee, gives us a reference point for the other aspects of the Bill as they come before us.
1150
Moreover, I believe it is important that both the debate that we had in Committee and today's subsequent debate will be on the record. I now understand that that will be taken into account when lawyers are considering legislation because it sets out the intention of Parliament. I believe that our discussions are both important and helpful.
I greatly appreciate the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I stand as second to none in my great respect for his views on such matters. However, in life when one actually gets something which is of value I suppose that one should be generous enough to say "Thank you" for it; and, indeed, I do so today. I accept what my noble and learned friend has done.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble and learned friend for bringing forward his amendment today. However, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I have a certain number of reservations about it. It will come as no surprise that my noble and learned friend sees as a primary object of the Bill the minimising of costs to parties and to taxpayers. He said as much in Committee, reminding us of what was in the White Paper.
Keeping costs down is a worthy and desirable aim in all litigation, and nowhere more desirable—it may be thought—than in family matters where children are involved. However, in my view it would be wrong in principle to single out this Bill for special direction about costs, not least because it was substantially as a result of penny-pinching and the introduction 20 years ago of cheap and cheerless postal divorces under the special procedures that we are now where we are, with a divorce system which is in disrepute.
I wonder whether the word "costs" in my noble and learned friend's amendment includes the fees paid to mediators. The point may or may not be clear, but it is easy to envisage the Legal Aid Board feeling obliged, under the penny-pinching principle, to refuse legal aid for ancillary proceedings because of the availability of mediation. What seems to me so curious is that the costs principle is included in this amendment, but the principle that divorcing couples should be made aware of the consequences of their divorce, which was mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has been left out. It seems to me that that principle in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which referred to couples being made aware of the consequences of their divorce is a principle of the first importance.
As to supporting the institution of marriage, the expression is ambiguous. Are we to understand the reference to support of marriage as the option to be preferred over cohabitation? Or, are we to understand the phrase to embrace the concept that marriage can be best supported by non-acrimonious divorces which enable the parties to enter into better marriages later on? I suggest that the principle would be better expressed more openly as "support for marriage as the lifelong voluntary union of man and woman as husband and wife". That would inevitably and unambiguously give

1151
primacy of esteem to the present marriage in every case, whether it be a first or a subsequent marriage. This, I suggest, is as it ought to be.
To move on from the institution of marriage to the question of irretrievable breakdown raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and mentioned by many other noble Lords, I would just say as a drafting point that the reference in paragraph (c) of the amendment to a marriage having irretrievably broken down overlooks the fact that irretrievable breakdown in the Bill is a figment of legislative imagination. Irretrievable breakdown takes place, according to the wording of Clause 4, not earlier than the end of the period for reflection and consideration, by which time it is clearly too late to do much about distressed parties and children.
I say "Amen" to the principle that distress should not be caused to children but I believe that there is a nettle here and I propose to grasp it. I believe that the way the principle is expressed here, taken in the context of the whole amendment, is conceptually flawed. We know that as a general rule the distress of children is less in intact families than in families destroyed by separation and divorce. We know that the distress of children after divorce may increase over the years as contact with the non-resident parent is weakened, if not lost, and the resident parent enters into a new relationship or marriage. If one thing was made abundantly clear during the Committee stage of this Bill, it was that the White Paper was misleading in dwelling on the idea that generally children in conflict-ridden, intact families would be better off in divorced families. That is an unfounded hypothesis, but much of the thinking behind the Bill relies on it as received wisdom.
It is often the case that from and after the divorce decree there will be a temporary reduction in stress and friction. I can envisage a situation where a district judge, obeying my noble and learned friend's direction, would take steps or give advice deliberately to bring a marriage to an end in order to relieve short-term distress. He would, of course, say that he was in no position to accept the argument or evidence that the long-term distress of the child would be the greater if the marriage were dissolved prematurely. Or, a mediator may feel compelled to make the same sort of decision.
It is unfortunate that my noble and learned friend's amendment is in a form which too strongly influences the discretion of all those involved in the dissolution process. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, at Committee stage seems to me to have been better judged in that respect. My noble and learned friend's amendment follows the form used in the Children Act. I do not consider the Children Act formula suitable for this amendment. Section 1 of that Act placed the single issue of the welfare of a child in a unique paramount position in unspecific terms. The principles in Amendment No. 1 today are much more specific. They are not even sui generis each other; one may conflict with another; and other principles with equal if not greater claim to inclusion are not recognised. It seems to me that my noble and learned friend's
1152
amendment, as drafted, is likely to lead to confusion and unfairness. I hope that he will not press it today but will think further about it.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords—
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I might have a four penn'orth run. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the spokesman on the Front Bench is to conclude, it is probably the turn of our side of the House to speak, is it not? Someone from the noble Lord's side spoke last.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Lord is accustomed to being on his feet, I shall leave him there.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I only wish to speak briefly. I wish to support the amendment put down by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in response to that of my noble friend Lord Stallard tabled at Committee stage. I support the noble and learned Lord's amendment because it makes absolutely clear that,
"the institution of marriage is to be supported".
That is an important sentence. It will establish that all of us here—if we pass the amendment—support the institution of marriage. That means that we want it to be continued and strengthened in so far as that is possible.
The measure also, in my view, strengthens the position in relation to children. In my view, in the original Bill the position of children was forgotten. They were the forgotten part of marriage and the forgotten part of divorce. This amendment is important. It establishes the principles upon which we shall continue our discussions. I can only hope that the message that will go out from this House—we talked about messages at Committee stage—will be that we support marriage per se. I hope, in the light of this amendment, that as we go through the Bill the sentiments expressed in it will not be negated by the refusal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and others to accept what some of us consider extremely good and reasonable amendments which will improve the Bill no end, and strengthen the message we are sending out in Amendment No. 1.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, raised an issue—that was also raised by my noble friend Lord Coleraine—relating to children. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, rightly said that the damage which is done to children by divorce is cumulative, but that arrangements can be made before the divorce to minimise that. It is relevant to this amendment and to later amendments to recall that Clause 2(1)(c) contains a requirement that an order may not be made unless,
"the requirements of section 8 about the parties' arrangements for the future are satisfied".
Section 8(3)—or rather Clause 8(3), as it now is—contains a requirement that,
"The requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act … must have been satisfied".

1153
These place a duty on the court to consider whether there are children of the family and, if there are, the arrangements to be made for them. Nothing can happen until those arrangements have been made and the court has been satisfied. The court will remain bound by the requirements of Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, referred to by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, that when a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child, or the administration of a child's property or the application of any income arising from it, the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration. It seems to me that that paramountcy is already in the Bill and that many of your Lordships' concerns can be laid to rest.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I certainly would not presume to conclude any matter in your Lordships' House. Least of all would it ever be my wish to exclude the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in the matters to which he has just adverted. I believe that the principle of Amendment No. 5 is something that your Lordships may wish to debate in rather more detail at a later stage. But what he said is something that I for one will then wish to address.
It is not every Bill that benefits from a general objects clause. I should like to see such a device used sparingly. But there are Bills that benefit in that way. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, reminded us, there are precedents for them. I believe that my noble friend Lord Irvine said at Committee stage that such a Bill had been introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself, which became the Legal Aid Act 1988. I believe that this is such a Bill.
I am fortified in finding myself in respectful agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In addition to the guidance that those who have to implement these measures will find in this clause, there are two advantages that I regard as a bonus. First, it may help to dispel misunderstandings that have been disseminated about this Bill, sometimes somewhat irresponsibly, I suspect. It is common ground in your Lordships' House that we are anxious to support the family as an institution and to support marriage as an essential factor in that. We may differ as to whether particular policies are best calculated to bring that about. For example, I believe that the number of homeless people who can be seen on London's streets bear witness to some policies of the present Government which are less than supportive of the family, but we can agree that the support of marriage is an important objective of this Bill.
The second advantage was referred to in Committee by my noble friend Lord Stallard. I believe that we should emphasise in the statute the need for reconciliation procedures for those who are considering embarking on the divorce process. Here we have authority for the proposition that that is at least one of the objectives of the Bill, though I hope there will be more specific amendments that we may be able to debate at a later stage.
Referring to the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I hope he will forgive me for saying that, most unusually, I have the misfortune to differ
1154
from him. The reasons for that have already been ventilated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords. I will not presume to repeat them.
I should like to say one word about the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Coleraine.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is referring to my noble friend Lord Coleraine, not the noble Earl, Lord Coleraine.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, far be it from me to question the authority of the noble and learned Lord on the procedures of your Lordships' House. Slips of the tongue fall from all of us sometimes but perhaps are not so readily picked up.
I welcome the noble Lord's reference to the purpose of minimising the cost of divorce proceedings. It does not mean that that should be the overall consideration. I believe that there are better uses for the money in upholding marriages before they reach the stage of divorce than in spending a great deal of money at the divorce stage. I am sure that the noble Lord will go some way to agree with that.
I am personally grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for showing that he listens to our debates and that, having listened, he reflects. As I understand it, that is the purpose of our procedures. I hope that some of his colleagues in government will seek to emulate him from time to time. It is even possible that when they do they will find that they enjoy it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that my amendment has been given. I should like to address one or two of the issues that have been raised in connection with the amendments of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and refer also to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and my noble friend Lord Coleraine. I believe that we will come to the children aspect when Amendment No. 5 is moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Parliament, with great deliberation and care, put in place the Children Act 1989 to deal with disputes, and the like, connected with children, as well as intervention by local authorities, and so on, in families to help with the care of children. That was a very strong and clear statute which was put into effect after two years of careful preparation. I speak subject to the correction of those who day in, day out, work in these courts. From what I know of the matter—I have sought to take a close personal interest in it—my impression is that the Act has worked extremely well in providing a framework for deciding matters connected with the welfare and upbringing of children. Your Lordships will have in mind that it is under that framework that any disputes or matters connected with the welfare of children will ultimately be decided. I do not wish to damage that framework that has been carefully put in place by making changes which will apply only in respect of parties in a divorce situation. Of course, many of these considerations apply whether the parties are in a divorce

1155
situation or in a later or earlier situation. I will return to that in more detail when my noble and learned friend moves Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 2 is intended to spread the clause to the whole of the Bill. This is deliberate on my part. I am strongly of the view that Part III of the Bill deals with a somewhat different subject matter. For example, the importance of marriage is emphasised in that part. We have put into that part, which has been the subject of some consideration and doubt in some quarters, Clause 36. This clause ensures that courts will consider the situation as between married and unmarried people when they make use of powers under that particular part of the Bill.
If one looks at the provision in my clause with regard to saving marriages, I think it would be quite difficult to apply that appropriately in the case, for example, of violence between spouses in the matrimonial home. In that case, although the objective of saving the marriage is important, the immediate objective so far as concerns Part III of the Bill is to provide protection for the parties from that violence. I believe that these might be seen to be in conflict.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are primarily drafting amendments. On Amendment No. 3 I prefer the phrase "may have broken down" to "is in crisis" because it fits in with the logic of the Bill that people only come to the court if their marriage has reached a stage that can reasonably be described as having broken down. There is then the progression—trying to save the marriage; seeing whether the marriage can be saved; and, if it cannot, the breakdown is irretrievable. That seems to me a logical, clear and intellectually satisfactory framework.
Amendment No. 4 inserts "is being dissolved". I have been provided with the draft on the basis of bringing the marriage to an end, it having irretrievably broken down. I think that that is a satisfactory draft.
I accept that after the breakdown of a marriage there are problems of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and others. However, paragraph (c)(i) makes the point that everything possible should be done to minimise the distress occasioned. Obviously, if one starts by some procedure which does not minimise but tends to exacerbate the distress, one is apt to do even more damage by reason of the resulting situation when one takes account of the factors to which the noble Lord referred. Therefore, this is a worthy objective. I believe that to some extent it is an attainable objective and should go in.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine mentioned cost. I respectfully suggest that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is good. It is often wasteful of money, particularly when costs are incurred unreasonably in connection with proceedings on the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage. I am sure that a number of your Lordships will have heard how difficult it is in the courts for judges sometimes to restrain the willingness of parties to litigate on matters which are almost beyond doubt, occasionally very much
1156
at their own expense. Often people seem to get into hot and costly disputes when ultimate payment is being made out of the resources available for the family.
My amendment proposes a worthy objective in itself. I hope that your Lordships will approve it as it stands and will not support Amendment No. 2 which we are presently discussing.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and to my noble and learned friend for giving advance notice of his thinking on Amendment No. 5. I have already expressed my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Some points have not been answered; I shall come to those in a moment. First, perhaps I may say that I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, that anything in the way of minimising the cost and traumata of divorce is to be welcomed. It was no aim of any part of my amendment to deal with that part of the amendment of my noble and learned friend.
The main point which has not been referred to is the significance of the omission of any reference to Part III. Anyone reading the Act with this preliminary is bound to ask why those admirable principles are only applicable to Parts I and II.
Is not the institution of marriage intimately bound up with considerations as to domestic violence? Is an act of domestic violence, however necessary the intervention of the law, necessarily the end of a marriage? If the answer is no and there is a chance of repentance and reconciliation, then the omission of a reference to Part III can only be deplored.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, says that the reference to marriage is irrelevant to Part III because it does not deal with divorce as do Parts I and II. But is the institution of marriage wholly bound up with the procedures for divorce? No doubt a lax divorce law, an unjust divorce law, can gravely damage the institution of marriage, as we have seen and has been admitted by the authors of the 1969 Act in the current White Paper.
I pass from that to the question of irretrievable breakdown. If we write in "irretrievable breakdown" at this stage we are anticipating the result of important amendments to be moved shortly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others. Moreover, I do not for a moment admit that a marriage can be said to have irretrievably broken down when there is a young child. Important responsibilities still remain outstanding. Still less can I endorse a phrase that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used in Committee—of the parties being locked in a loveless marriage. There can be very few marriages where there is a young child which can properly be described as loveless. I should have thought that there were practically none. Therefore it seems to me preferable at this stage to use the neutral terminology that I have suggested.

1157
However, your Lordships undoubtedly would not wish to come to a decision at this time. Before Third Reading, I should like to consider what has been said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.

"Sea Empress"
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand that this may be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
"Madam Speaker, on Monday I made a Statement to the House on the "Sea Empress". In that Statement I referred to the difficulties of operations of this kind and said that the resolution of the incident would take time. I stressed that the weather would remain the crucial factor in determining progress. I am now informing the House of the steps that have been taken since Monday and the further steps the Government propose to take thoroughly to assess the incident and its consequences and to establish what lessons should be learnt and what further action needs to be taken.
"Since my earlier Statement the elements have posed considerable dangers and difficulties for the salvors engaged by the ship's owners. Difficulties with wind and tide have led to the ship regrounding on a number of occasions and to the loss of additional, and significant, amounts of oil. Despite these difficulties, immense efforts have been made by the salvors to try to stabilise the ship in order to prevent further loss of oil and to remove the oil still on board.
"Where oil has escaped, my marine pollution control unit's aircraft have sprayed it with dispersants. At the same time, between 150 and 160 people, organised by MPCU and supervised by qualified beachmasters, have been working to clean up oil which has been washed ashore. There has been no shortage of manpower or resources: all the equipment which could physically be brought onto the beaches has been made available. The local and harbour authorities and voluntary bodies have also been working hard to protect the environment.
"As the House will know, the ship was successfully refloated last night and towed to a jetty in Milford Haven, where it is protected by a boom. There was some further escape of oil from the vessel during these operations. It is proposed to unload the vessel into smaller tankers that will be brought alongside. This operation needs to be carefully planned and prepared and is likely to take some days. Every effort will be taken to prevent any further discharges from the ship.
"We are not yet in a position to confirm precisely the amount of the ship's cargo that remains on board. Indications are that up to half the cargo—some
1158
65,000 tonnes—has been spilt. Of this light crude, around a quarter will have evaporated. However, there is considerable pollution at sea and on parts of the coastline. Much of the pollution at sea is in the form of sheens but there are also patches of thicker oil. When it is appropriate to do so these thicker patches are being sprayed with dispersants by aircraft. There are also three oil recovery vessels currently operating at sea and two further oil recovery vessels are proceeding to the area. Oil recovery operations are also continuing within Milford Haven.
"There is pollution also on parts of the coastline. The clean-up techniques used will vary between sites and are decided in full consultation with environmental experts and interests under the overall control of the joint response centre established by the MPCU and the harbour and local authorities at Milford Haven. The actual clean-up operations are being undertaken by local authority and oil company personnel and by specialist contractors. Every assistance is being given to the voluntary bodies who are dealing with oiled seabirds. I would like to pay tribute to these bodies for all the valuable work they are doing.
"The House will want to know what the Government will do to find out, first, the causes of this accident, secondly, what lessons can be learnt from the way the salvage operation was conducted, and, finally, the extent of environmental damage and the effectiveness of the response and clean-up operations.
"As I told the House on Monday, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch has already initiated an inquiry into the causes of the grounding of the "Sea Empress". MAIB inspectors have been on the scene since Friday and have made good progress. The Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents will provide me with a full report that will be published. I am sure that MAIB is the right body to do this. This is the purpose for which it was set up under Act of Parliament. We need a thorough professional examination of what went wrong so that we can learn whatever lessons there are to learn for the design, operation, management and pilotage of tankers. MAIB, like the parallel body for the investigation of air accidents, the AAIB, has the highest reputation for professionalism and integrity. I can assure the House that in this case, as in others, its investigation and report will be independent.
"Secondly, the conduct of the salvage operation. Salvage operations can only be undertaken by skilled experienced professionals and the consortium engaged by the ship's owners includes one of the world's leading salvage firms. The responsibility for the conduct of the salvage operation rests with the salvors. Though their proposals have to be considered and agreed both by the port authority and the marine pollution control unit, responsibility for their initiation and execution rests with the salvors. The salvors had to determine the resources needed and to ensure that they were to hand.

1159
"Let me reiterate my unstinting admiration—which I am sure the whole House shares—for the tireless work which the teams of salvors, together with members of the emergency services, military and civilian helicopter crews, the ship's crew, Admiralty salvage experts, members of the MPCU and all those involved, have put into the salvage operation since the accident, often in diabolical conditions of danger, gales, freezing temperatures and acute physical discomfort. It is all too easy to criticise their efforts from the comfort of the armchair, the studio or the news room.
"Nonetheless, for all their Herculean efforts the vessel remained stranded for five days and some 65,000 tonnes of oil have been spilt. I know the House shares my disappointment and frustration at the repeated failures of the earlier salvage attempts and my deep concern at the environmental consequences. We must find out why, and whether there is any more that could be done to make a future salvage operation more likely to succeed. To that end I have asked the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents to extend the scope of the current investigation to include the salvage operations. This will include consideration of the planning and execution of the operation, examination of the contingency plans that were made and of the input and supervision of the operation by the shipowner, his insurers, the harbour authority and the marine pollution control unit. The chief inspector has told me he is appointing independent consultants to assist with this part of his inquiry. I look to all those involved to co-operate fully with this aspect of the investigation. I shall publish the chief inspector's report.
"It is also essential that we undertake rigorous scientific assessments of the damage that has been caused on land and sea and of the effectiveness of the clean-up operations.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced yesterday that up to £250,000 is being made available for a comprehensive environmental assessment and long-term monitoring programme in the area affected by the spill. The work will start immediately and will be undertaken by the Countryside Council for Wales, acting in partnership with other statutory agencies and voluntary environmental groups.
"It is intended to assess the impact of the spillage both on coastal and marine habitats, and of the effect of dispersing the oil both naturally and by chemicals on the concentrations of flora and fauna, including seabirds, seaducks and marine mammals. This will include a full assessment of the damage done to the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve and Milford Haven waterway. The levels of oil pollution in the seawater and coastal sediments will be measured, and changes monitored, as will the long-term recovery of the biological systems in general. The immediate need is to minimise to the extent that is possible the environmental effects of the spill. But we must not lose sight of the need to learn for the future.
1160
"This assessment by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be complemented by work to be done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are arranging for diversion of the research vessel "Corystes" from its current research work to a new mission of fishing and environmental monitoring. The "Corystes" will be collecting samples of fish and shellfish for analysis of residues of oil. This will supplement the present and ongoing programmes of monitoring and will enable us to determine what restrictions are necessary and to say when fishing can safely resume. In the meantime, voluntary action ensures that fish on the market remain safe to eat.
"I also wish to express our appreciation of the work of those involved in the clean-up operation who are often working in exposed and unpleasant conditions. Nonetheless, we will also need to assess the pollution response and clean-up operations. At this moment it is impossible to estimate how extensive these operations are likely to be.
"At-sea operations are the responsibility of the marine pollution control unit, while operations on shore fall primarily to the local authorities, assisted by MPCU and, in this case, by the oil industry. In consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales I propose to appoint an independent assessor to undertake a rigorous examination for us of the response and clean-up procedures and techniques employed following the "Sea Empress".
"As the report of the Ecological Steering Group established after the "Braer" recommended, it is essential that these examinations of the environmental impact and of the clean-up operations are brought together and published in a form which will provide clear guidance for the future. This will be done.
"We believe that the measures necessary to reduce the risk of pollution were clearly set out in Lord Donaldson's report, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. When we have completed the investigation and the assessments I have referred to in this Statement we will be in a position to assess the lessons on this particular spill and set them in the context of Lord Donaldson's findings and recommendations, the vast majority of which we have accepted.
"The Government are determined to find out exactly what happened, to publish the results and to learn and apply the lessons. The House would expect no less".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I pay tribute to those individuals who, at considerable personal risk, were involved in seeking to salvage this stricken vessel.
This accident was extremely serious. At this stage it is difficult to measure the damage caused to that fragile and beautiful coastline and to its fish and wildlife. It is clear, however, that the damage could have been

1161
infinitely worse. The environmental damage was limited substantially through good fortune rather than good planning.
As the Minister said, many questions must be posed. How did the accident occur? Was the salvage operation carried out efficiently? How can we best protect our coasts? How can we ensure to the best of our ability that there is no recurrence? And how best can we have the matter fully and objectively investigated?
Another salient question was omitted totally from the Statement. Were the Government at fault in any way? Were they not on notice as to the vulnerability of Milford Haven to accidents of this kind, bearing in mind that one occurred only four months ago involving a double-hulled vessel? The Government's own department carried out an internal investigation—a follow-up to the Donaldson Report—which I understand was produced to the department last June. Why has that not yet seen the light of day, given the desire made transparent today on the part of the Government to be absolutely open?
Because the Department of Transport is so closely implicated in these matters, the Opposition take the view that an investigation undertaken by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch alone is inappropriate. I hasten to add that I cast no aspersions whatsoever on the MAIB. A Minister may laugh at that; but I held these responsibilities and I know that the MAIB will do whatever it is asked to do with considerable skill. However, that said, I do not believe that the necessary remit for this investigation is covered by its immediate competences. Moreover, since the Department of Trade and Industry's actions, or failures to act, must also be investigated impartially—because serious questions affecting environmental issues also have to be raised—we believe the most appropriate form of inquiry would be for the Government to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to reconstitute his committee.
After all, why was that committee set up in the case of a much less serious accident, the "Braer"? Are there not more lessons to be learnt as a result of this particular incident? That view is taken not simply by the Opposition; it is taken by many non-governmental organisations and other people. Certainly the Donaldson Report gained much credit from the fact that it was carried out by a distinguished judge and Member of this House. That redounded to the advantage of this country in the international counsels of world shipping. If that is right, it seems somewhat fruitless to run two investigations concurrently. But the Government have already started the investigation by the MAIB. Is there a place for a further Donaldson report? I certainly believe that there is. A decisive advantage is that much work has already been done by the Donaldson Committee. There is always the possibility, if the Minister is concerned about timing, for a preliminary report to be published if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, were to undertake this work, and one could be requested.
Other issues have to be addressed. First, was the accident avoidable? At what point did a pilot come on hoard? Was it right that he came on board some
1162
15 minutes before the ship entered the harbour? Bearing in mind that large tankers take a very long time to change course, was that anything like sufficient? Any investigation will certainly examine that matter. Having regard to the fact that another incident had occurred, as I said, only four months earlier at that very same port, would it not have been a wise precaution to have a large tug available on all such occasions, bearing in mind the vulnerability of that area? That is a matter for the Government, not for the salvors or anybody else. Had there been, as was reported in the press, other, unreported incidents of a similar kind? The Minister may like to comment on that, or least indicate that the Government will carry out a full investigation into that aspect of the matter.
Secondly, did the Government pay sufficient heed to the Donaldson recommendations regarding the availability of tugs? The specific recommendation was that tugs should be available in the Western Approaches. That was intended to prevent accidents of this kind. After the collision, is it right that the Government should have declined to bring in additional tugs? Would the presence of more powerful tugs, based in our busiest mainland oil terminal, have assisted? The Government say no. But that is a point of view convenient for them to adopt. We should like to know, from an impartial investigation, whether that government view is right.
Thirdly, was there no radar to control ingress to Milford Haven? Has that been the position over a period of something like six months? How could that situation have been permitted? Did the Department of Transport know about it, and if so, what did it do about it?
Fourthly, in terms of communications, was it not extraordinary that in order to communicate with the large Chinese tug that was required a Chinese restaurateur had to be persuaded to leave his take-away in order to assist in the necessary interpretations? The whole matter is farcical.
Fifthly, should not the whole question of double hulls be carefully and impartially examined? The United States has taken a very decisive view; namely, that no single-hulled tanker should be allowed to gain access to ports of an environmentally sensitive nature. Do the Government believe that view to be right, or not? Are there dangers in retrofitting existing tankers? As I understand it, these questions were left open by the Donaldson Report. They now assume huge significance.
Sixthly, what are the environmental and economic consequences likely to be? The Minister dealt in part with that question in his report, and I am grateful for that. Many people will be affected: fishermen, hoteliers, and others. I understand that compensation will ultimately be available—but how soon? Is there to be a mechanism for providing interim payments in suitable cases? Will claimants who make reasonable claims, which may be very complex in undertaking, be given an indemnity to cover reasonable legal costs? As I understand it, legal aid will not be available because there is no litigious process in what we contemplate.
The Government have said that much responsibility falls on local authorities. What additional financial support is to be made available to those local

1163
authorities? They will have to undertake expenditure immediately. It is true that ultimately they will be able to make a claim on the funds that are available. But why do not the Government provide the support now and then stand in the place of the local authorities, so that they can recover the moneys that are due? It is patently unfair that the local authorities should have to bear the brunt of the expenditure immediately.
Seventhly—the Minister's Statement was rather long and I am perfectly entitled to put these points, even if it irritates some of those on the other side of the House—is there evidence that cargo and shipowners have been involved in cutting costs and corners, thereby making accidents far more likely?
Eighthly, will the Minister confirm that the European Union's pollution taskforce has been sent by the Commission to help clear up the oil spillage? Has the Commission also pledged financial support for the area to the extent of £250,000, with more being made available for environmental organisations if necessary to help save wildlife?
Do the Government not regard it as essentially contradictory that, while they preside over the collapse of the British merchant fleet, as undoubtedly they do, increasing numbers of substandard flags of convenience ships carry goods to and from our ports? Is there not something inherently contradictory in that attitude? At the same time they cut the Coastguard agency. They impose cuts on the Marine Safety Agency and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. Are those not very important issues which also have to be tackled? How can the Marine Accident Investigation Branch do that work? All those are issues which should be investigated by a reconstituted Donaldson Committee.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I share his wish to recognise the experience of individuals involved in the rescue procedures. Nevertheless, the Statement glosses over the fact that this is an accident which should not have happened. No, it is not stupid to say that. We had the example of an almost identical accident which happened in an identical place at a very similar time of day in terms of the tidal pattern in those waters. We also had the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—I see he is in his place and I shall not therefore discuss his report: it is, after all, his report and not mine—that we should pay particular attention to the approach to Milford Haven. It is ironic that most of our busiest oil ports are in areas of extreme environmental sensitivity, areas such as the Shetlands, the northern coast of Scotland and so on. Indeed, the "Sea Empress" had been involved in an incident at the Shetland port of Sullom Voe some months ago.
I want to concentrate on the issues of navigation. I shall attempt not to occupy quite so much time as the previous speaker. There are some important points to be made. What strikes me, as an amateur lover of boats and ships, is that, as reported at an early stage, the vessel was holed on the starboard side by rocks on the sandspit
1164
lying on her port side as she steamed towards the harbour. That suggests that the vessel was very seriously out of the correct path in the seaway.
I accept the seriousness of what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said about the pilotage. It might be very sensible to bring pilots aboard by helicopter at an earlier stage in the approaches to Milford Haven. If a pilot arrives by helicopter, the ship does not have to slow down in order to take the pilot on board. The ship does not lose way and therefore is less likely to be incapable of making the steering manoeuvres that may be necessary as she begins to move off course. I should like to hear the Minister's response to that point. It appears that the managing company for the "Sea Empress" is investigating these matters and has expressed concern that the grounding of the two vessels happened in very similar circumstances and in the same place.
The Statement speaks of the need to look at all the various factors—the ownership, the management of the vessel, and so on, and the design—which may have contributed to the accident. Does the fact that the vessel is Spanish-built, Norwegian-owned, registered in Cyprus, sailing under a Liberian flag of convenience, managed from Glasgow, chartered by the French and crewed by Russians make the investigation more difficult? As well as the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the need to investigate whether or not single-hulled vessels should ever come into our ports, especially into ports in such sensitive areas, I should also like to ask whether or not the Minister agrees that the increased use of flags of convenience makes the control of shipping in our coastal waters more difficult. That point has been raised by a number of commentators.
This has been an extremely dangerous accident. It has been dangerous for the fishing industry, which is already under stress; dangerous for the tourist industry, which is very important in that part of south-west Wales; and extremely dangerous potentially to the environment. There have been suggestions in the press that a certain complacency had developed towards the environmental danger. The suggestion was made that the sea after all could help to clean itself. All that is true. But there must be a limit, particularly in coastal waters, to the amount of absorption which can be anticipated. There seem to be obvious dangers in relying on that as a method of getting ourselves out of trouble.
One matter not mentioned in the Statement is the assertion by the noble Viscount's honourable friend the Minister in another place on the radio this morning that the principle of the polluter pays will be obeyed and put into effect in this instance. Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient funds available from various international resources and/or from the insurance policies of the shipowner to satisfy that requirement?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome the contributions from the Front Benches opposite. This has, of course, been an extremely serious accident. The Statement attempts to highlight our resolve to find out what has gone wrong.

1165
The first point I should address is the inquiry into the cause of the accident. I was slightly puzzled by the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He took pains to say that he felt that the MAIB was independent of government. He explained that he had held the portfolio in charge of shipping, so he is well placed to accept that independence. The MAIB is beyond the influence of the department and Ministers. We cannot interfere. It has the expertise. It was set up with the specific aim of investigating accidents of this very kind. That is its stock in trade. I see no reason why that position should not continue and why that body should not be the responsible and appropriate body to investigate this accident as it would investigate any other accident.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that he felt that the MAIB should not conduct the investigation because the Government may be implicated. I do not believe that the Government are either more or less implicated in this accident than in any other accident. All accidents around our coast have the potential to be extremely serious and are investigated by the MAIB. It has an international reputation. Its integrity is unquestioned and I do not believe that the argument that it may criticise the department is a reason for it not to undertake the inquiry. It has criticised the department and its agencies before—the Marine Safety Agency and the coastguard—and it has the ability to do so again if it believes that that is the correct course of action.
The second major theme raised by both noble Lords was that of emergency towing vehicles—the emergency tugs—and the recommendations made in the report that we commissioned from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. We accepted that report, specifically 86 out of 103 recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The report is widely accepted as making a major contribution towards maritime safety and pollution prevention.
As the House will be aware, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, identified that, as a priority, there should be two locations in which emergency towing vehicles should be positioned; in Dover and in the Minches in Scotland. We have taken forward that recommendation and acted upon it. Emergency towing vehicles are now stationed at those locations. They have been called out and used a number of times.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested that we ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to reconvene his inquiry. He contrasted that with the approach of using the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch. I believe that there is some confusion. In the "Braer" incident the body which investigated the accident was the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch. The inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, was set up to consider wider issues of safety and pollution prevention. It has been extremely successful in addressing those issues. But on the specific point of investigating the accident itself there was absolutely no quibble; the MAIB was the responsible and appropriate body in those circumstances and it is so in these circumstances also.
1166
A number of points were raised about the circumstances of the accident; what happened; whether there was deviation of the vessel from a planned course and so forth. Those are points which the MAIB inquiry will investigate in detail; it will take evidence from all parties concerned. It will interview the relevant people and produce a thorough report, which will be published. That is the forum for investigating those issues and I should not like to comment on that. Beyond that, many of the issues to which the noble Baroness referred in particular are the responsibility of the port authority. It has a proper responsibility. It is a trust port and its responsibilities and the responsibilities of the master of the vessel are clearly defined and the boundaries clearly laid down.
The noble Baroness said that it was an accident that should never have happened. That goes for every accident in the maritime field and elsewhere: no accident should happen. It was an extremely serious incident. We recognise that a substantial loss of oil into the marine environment and on the coast will cause real environmental problems. But that does not alter the fact that there was an accident which can be investigated and the details of which can be produced by the MAIB.
The noble Baroness asked about the international nature of the ownership, management and crewing of the vessel in question. It is common in the shipping world for that situation to occur. Shipping is an international business; it has always been that way and resources of many seafaring nations are drawn together to provide facilities for shipowners.
The noble Baroness asked also about flags of convenience. She will be aware that we have put substantial resources into the issues of port state control and addressing flags from countries other than the UK in those matters. We inspect around 30 per cent. of all the vessels with foreign flags that call at our ports, whereas our international obligation is only 25 per cent. That is a powerful tool. I agree with the noble Baroness that persuading administrations to conduct their responsibilities of flag state control more appropriately is something on which we should concentrate through the national maritime organisation and we give that a priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talked of the issues relating to the Marine Safety Agency, the coastguard agency and the MAIB in terms of funding. I can give an assurance that those bodies are given the appropriate funding by government. Safety will in no way be compromised. That is the view of the chief executive of the two agencies in question and I can repeat that assurance. We will not look for efficiency savings within those organisations which compromise safety and that is our final position.
This accident caused extremely severe difficulties in terms of the environment. I am pleased only that the ship has been recovered, though it has taken a long time. The assessments that we have now put in place will determine the actual causes of the accident and assess

1167
the nature of the salvage operation and of the environmental clean-up operations that go ahead. We will learn from the experience.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps he will be kind enough to respond to the question concerning local authorities and compensation for individuals.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, local authorities will be able to claim from the IOPC fund. Specific compensation arrangements have been put in place. It is an organisation agreed by international treaty and has the ability to call upon approximately £57 million worth of funding to provide compensation. It did a good job following the "Braer" in the Shetland Islands though there are legal claims still outstanding.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, my feeling on this issue is that the Minister's response has been totally disappointing. Indeed, that disappointment is now turning to anger among those of us who have been concerned about the coastal environment for many years.
The environmental response of the Government has been totally inadequate in view of what was a near ecological disaster along the coast. I urge him to consult immediately again with his honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State for Wales, to institute a full public inquiry where all the issues concerned with coastal zone management will come forward and all the ecological issues can be discussed. It makes nonsense of the deliberations of this House and of government to talk about sustainable development while such disasters continue to happen.
The European Union should immediately initiate a new proposal for regulations to control the transport movements that create this kind of pollution so that we can receive a serious response, rather than the totally inadequate response from the Government to what is a major environmental disaster.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's extreme concern for the environment of the region with which he is so closely associated. But there is a possibility that two issues are being confused. I understand that the Government's reaction in physical terms—in putting forward the agreed contingency plans, mobilising the aircraft with dispersant spraying units, bringing forward the beach-cleaning operations and so forth to deal with the oil itself—is giving the noble Lord cause for concern.
Everything is being done that possibly can be done, mobilising considerable assets to deal as far as we can with the oil. A full public inquiry will not help in any way to address the issues of the clean-up now. An inquiry, against the procedures that I have put forward, is another question. A public inquiry will take time; it will inevitably provoke bitter controversy, legal representation, cost to those who want to make points and so forth. Our concern is to get to the nature of what
1168
caused this accident and to find out what lessons can be learnt. Those are our top priorities in terms of investigating the accident.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in piecing together what happened in this accident, I have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that it was an avoidable one. The weather was bad, but it was not that bad. I have to surmise that the tanker was probably late, that the master wanted to avoid paying overtime to the people in the port and that he was cutting corners. One marine expert—I hope that he is not the one who will be conducting the inquiry—was quoted in the Guardian yesterday as saying that the problem was that the tide was too high and that it goes up and down by 25 feet. But it does that every fortnight or so and has been doing it for millions of years. So that was not a very helpful suggestion. He cut the corners. As the tide goes up it also goes in and out, sideways, probably by three or four knots across that entrance, which I know quite well. He was pushed to the side, the pilot came out too late and there was a problem of communications. I do not think they got their act together before they went into the harbour. One thing professional seafarers know is that you should not enter a harbour until you are ready. Is it not true to say that the whole accident was saved from being worse by a Chinese tug with someone from a Chinese takeaway helping to translate? It is a pretty poor reflection on life.
Viscount Goschen: And that is a pretty poor question, my Lords. I would have expected rather better of the noble Lord. Yes, there were real communications difficulties with the tug in question—we can all have a big laugh about the Chinese takeaway and it is something that the press have centred on; yes, that tug was not useful; and yes the tug was not used. But other tugs were used. It was up to the salvors to determine the tug capacity they wanted. They got the tugs there.
A great deal of comment has centred on the issue of tugs when in reality the problem towards the end was buoyancy and not pulling power. You can pull a vessel that is on rocks too hard and she will just break up. The noble Lord appears to have conducted his own inquiry and has come to his own conclusions extremely rapidly. I shall not follow him on that course and I shall not pre-empt our inquiry.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this big ship was on the Liberian register and that whatever may be the merits of that country it is not a maritime country nor one capable of carrying out any effective supervision over the management of shipping? If the ship was on the Liberian register, is there not a case for deciding to impose restrictions on the movements of ships, particularly of big ships, from non-maritime countries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to determine what is and what is not a maritime country. Liberia has a very substantial register indeed. The reasons behind that are numerous and there is a long history after the Second World War of vessels across the whole spectrum flagging out of their national registers.

1169
Rather than discriminate by country, we feel it is appropriate to discriminate in terms of condition. That is why we examine vessels which come into our ports. We use port state control. If vessels are substandard, we detain them; and if we detain them, we publish the details of the vessel and of her detention and pass them on to the maritime community. That must be the technique we use instead of trying just to say that because such and such a country does not have as long a maritime tradition as we do, therefore it shall not trade.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, it is customary on these occasions to thank the Minister for making a Statement. However, I understand that on this occasion we have very much more to thank the noble Viscount for than making a Statement. His qualities of decision-making and impromptu leadership as the Minister on the spot have been quite outstanding. For that he deserves the thanks of your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, as a former Member of Parliament for Pembroke and as someone who has had some involvement in the shipping and ports industry, perhaps I may first thank those who at considerable risk to themselves succeeded in finally salvaging this vessel. May I ask that the MAIB, in whose efficiency and integrity I have complete confidence, should look with particular urgency at an early stage in its inquiry at the whole question of following the practice of powerful tugs escorting every large tanker into port and to consider as a priority whether there should not be large tugs escorting tankers through the extremely dangerous and exposed entrance to Milford Haven?
Secondly, will my noble friend ask that all those who are inquiring into this affair look at the ecological damage and the possibilities of preventing ecological damage to the wonderful environment around the Pembrokeshire coast, but also bear in mind when looking at proposals for limiting entry only to double hulled tankers, and so on, at the importance of Milford as an oil port and to the huge importance of the oil refineries there to employment in West Wales? We have to find a balance between protecting the environment and recognising the significance of Milford in those respects.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch will be looking at the issues of the approach of the vessel, the use of pilots, whether any lessons can be learnt and how tugs should be utilised. But my understanding from speaking to people on the spot is that at Milford Haven the tides and currents are such that a very rapid approach has to be made through the entrance to the haven itself, and for that reason the use of tugs is not suitable. Vessels have to move very quickly and it is not a comparable situation to where oil tankers entering another type of port or harbour might be able to move more slowly and therefore benefit from the use of tugs. But, having said that, the inquiry will also look into that point.
1170
My noble friend made an extremely important point in that Milford Haven is an important oil terminal with a very large refinery. There is, therefore, a considerable requirement for oil and the passage of oil tankers. That balance is at the heart of this issue. It is in an extremely sensitive area, but we must do everything we can to ensure that the shipping is as safe as possible.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in a sense, we have so far been very fortunate from an ecological point of view that the wind has been northerly? There is now a 16 kilometre long oil slick out at sea and as the winds go round to the more normal south-westerly a far worse ecological disaster may result than anything we have yet seen. Is the noble Viscount satisfied that sufficient is being done to try to prevent that oil slick ending up on those sensitive shores?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right that we have been relatively fortunate with the direction of the wind in terms of the direction that the large oil spill has taken. As for the spill itself, at sea the main weapon we have is our dedicated fleet of Dakota spraying aircraft. They have been spraying where the oil is far enough offshore not to have associated environmental disadvantages with the dispersant itself coming ashore. That is the main weapon that can be used on oil at sea. Beyond that, we are largely in the hands of the elements.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I shall be brief, and some noble Lords will remember that I used to be brief when I was on the Opposition Front Bench for more than four years dealing with government Statements. In a Starred Question last week I raised the importance of preventing oil pollution of the sea very shortly before the "Sea Empress" went aground. Will my noble friend accept that I make no claim to Highland second sight, which is sometimes attributed to me, but that I and other noble Lords are very concerned on the general subject and, of course, deplore this accident? While informed comment must, I believe, await the results of the inquiry, can the Government assure us that they will now assist in every way to mitigate the damage to wildlife on Skomer and other islands and to the coastline in the path of the slicks?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, I can give my noble friend that strong assurance. We have already taken action and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, while echoing what the Minister said earlier that the salvage of a ship of this size from rocks is a very much more complex business than large sectors of the media and the population believe, is it not the case that 20 years ago Milford Haven was used by tankers twice the size of this one and without the need for helicopters or escort tugs? Should we not be looking more carefully at the apparent reduction in standards at sea, which I believe are behind a lot of these distressing incidents that we are seeing today?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. This is a highly complex issue and it is

1171
very difficult to encompass it in a soundbite, as it were. People are looking for easy explanations to a very difficult problem indeed, and one which involves a huge range of factors. I believe that the key factor in this case is that the world's leading salvage experts were on hand. It was their expertise in this highly specialised and technical field which was relied upon. The noble Lord identified the issue of human failings and the associated questions of training and standards of seafaring. Those are vital questions. The noble Lord was absolutely right to highlight them. It is also worth noting that a pilot was on board the vessel at the time.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will my noble friend resist the call for a public inquiry into this matter and allow the MAIB to get on with its job? Is my noble friend aware that in the aviation world there has not been a public inquiry into an accident for nearly 25 years and that most aviation accidents are infinitely more serious (usually involving loss of life) than the one which has taken place in Wales? The reason for that is because the reputation of the Air Accident Investigation Branch is extremely high and its reports highly regarded throughout the world. We all want to see the MAIB gain that same reputation. Unless it is allowed to do its work it will never acquire the same reputation. Will my noble friend also confirm that one of the advantages of the MAIB approach is that interim recommendations can be made, sometimes in a matter of days? Lastly, before all noble Lords condemn flags of convenience out of hand, will my noble friend confirm that the most serious recent accident of this kind involved the "Exxon Valdez" in Alaska, and that ship was American crewed and owned?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when discussing foreign-flagged vessels there is often the temptation automatically to assume that a foreign flag equals sub-standards. That is not the case. A great number of foreign-flagged vessels have been shown to be substandard and I emphasise that. However, the "Sea Empress" is a relatively new vessel and only about three years old. She is not the sort of rust-bucket that one might have deduced from initial reports.
My noble friend is quite right to highlight the usefulness of the MAIB approach. Our priority is not political expediency in immediately declaring an enormous inquiry to look into this matter. The MAIB is a body which has the technical expertise, integrity and independence to look specifically at these issues and to do so quickly. Speed is also important. I believe that my noble friend was quite right to highlight the issue of interim reports, which can be extremely useful in preventing further accidents.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest in that I am an owner of a small property on a part of the Pembrokeshire coast, which I fear has already suffered pollution from this oil tanker. Will the Government now implement a recommendation of the Donaldson report, which I understand is still under consideration and which clearly affects Milford Haven,
1172
that marine environmental high-risk areas should be established around United Kingdom shores without waiting for international agreement?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, raised the issue of environmental high-risk areas. As he mentioned, it is one of the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his report that we are considering. Despite that, the fact is that Milford Haven, with its oil terminal and the refinery, cannot be designated an area to be avoided because oil tankers have to go there. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it is an area of extreme sensitivity and that we must find the best methods of balancing those two very contrasting issues. We have seen what can happen when a great deal of oil is spilt in this highly sensitive environment. But as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned, the refinery and the terminal are extremely important to the economy of this area of Wales.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions?
Noble Lords: Lord Skelmersdale!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, most of the Statement, and much of the discussion this afternoon, has surrounded the events that happened immediately when and after the "Sea Empress" hit the rocks. It behoves us all to make the seas as safe as we possibly can. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we have to make sure that these accidents are reduced to the absolute limit. It is now possible to use satellites to place cars and even missile silos with pinpoint accuracy. Therefore, does my noble friend agree that satellite global positioning ought now be used to check on the course of all high-risk shipping in our waters at least? It should not be beyond the wit of man to set up a central control to determine a ship's position from her previously agreed, logged and safe, chartered course, as indeed happens already with aircraft.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that technological developments have made navigation a great deal easier. However, there are still the difficulties of very strong tides and currents to be taken into account. We do not yet know whether this accident was caused by an error of navigation, steering failure, engine power plant failure or whatever. We believe that technology is extremely important. A transponder should be fitted to vessels and that is something we are working on with the international community.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I pay a tribute to the noble Viscount for his fortitude in dealing with this event on the spot. It is fair to say that he kept his cool throughout in more ways than one and many of us admire him for it. As regards Skomer, which has been referred to, when claims for compensation are made there will be loud voices from many interests calling from along the coast. Will the Government make sure that Skomer—there is no loud

1173
voice because no one lives there except for a warden—is not overlooked if it needs compensation? We hope that it will not, but it may.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely kind words. I receive them with great gratitude. As regards the situation of Skomer, it is clearly a very important wildlife reserve. Extreme environmental sensitivities are involved. There is a great variety of bodies working extremely hard to make sure that the effects of this accident are minimised. They are concentrating their efforts on those islands. As regards compensation for pollution from the IOPC fund, that depends on economic loss or reasonable measures being taken to prevent pollution. However, as I said, there are several other bodies which are extremely concerned, and in financial terms, with these extremely important reserves.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 3:
Line 6, leave out ("may have broken down") and insert ("is in crisis").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, there has been a general welcome for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor having accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that there should at the outset be a statement of principles to cover the Bill. I deplored one substantial omission earlier and I have made suggestions of verbal improvements. However, there is still one striking lacuna in relation to children. The amendment seeks to add:
"that the interest of any child affected is paramount".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am so sorry, I think I am speaking to an amendment which has not been called. I do not move Amendment No. 3.
[Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 4, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 5:
Line 14, at end insert—
("(d) that the interest of any child affected is paramount.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, what I said prematurely on Amendment No. 3 is sufficiently in your Lordships' minds, so I do not propose to repeat it. It has been a notable feature of permissive divorce reform, of which this is the latest instalment, to concentrate attention on the spouses without regard to the fact that a family extends to the children. The Bill, as presented, was thin on references to children. On an earlier amendment,
1174
I quoted the phrase that was used of the parties being locked in a loveless marriage and indicated that that is impossible to enunciate when there is a child.
Practically every speech made by proponents of the measure has used the phrase "a dead marriage" as if a marriage could properly be described as dead when there is living proof on the vine. Those phrases, the Bill, and all the terminology to which I have referred, have been used in the light of the Children Act, to which my noble and learned friend referred on an earlier amendment, with welcome prematurity. That suggests that the reference in the Children Act is not sufficient when one comes to understanding and construing—and, most of all, the public understanding of this measure.
Even if the Children Act does impinge on this measure, there can be no possible harm in adding the provision which I am now submitting to your Lordships. If it does not—I confess that I am by no means certain that it does; in other words, that the Children Act would be considered as governing every transaction under this measure—we need the amendment. As I say, if it does, it can do no harm. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. So much do I respect him that I have proposed almost identical wording in an amendment to Clause 2. It raises the same point about introducing the principle expressed in the Children Act.
As I understand it the Children Act deals primarily with disputes between parents. The Family Law Bill does not deal primarily with disputes between parents but with the divorce of parents. It is possible to have a divorce where the parents are not in dispute. I suggest that care should be used in analysing the problem which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, brings before the House to show that the paramountcy of the welfare of the children should be in both—the Family Law Bill and the Children Act. The Children Act deals with court orders, custody, wardship, and so on. The same principle is expressed in the Family Law Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and many other noble Lords have pointed out the importance of children in relation to divorce. I am sure that it is my noble and learned friend's view and philosophy that the importance of children is central to the Bill. I should be grateful if the amendment could be considered in that light.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I well remember my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor improving the Children Act 1989 by putting into Section 1 words which are almost identical to those in Amendment No. 5. It was a statement of principle which was to guide all concerned in exercising their functions under the Act. The question is whether it would help to have it as an addition to the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend. In my opinion, it strengthens my noble and learned friend's new clause.
It must be confessed that Amendment No. 5 overlaps, to a minor extent, the words in paragraph (c)(i) of the

1175
amendment moved by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor where reference is made to,
"with minimum distress to the parties and to the children affected".
That does not go as far as Amendment No. 5. The two are not incompatible. If Amendment No. 5 were added, the earlier words could quite well stand. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will accept Amendment No. 5. It contains an important statement of principle which should be borne in mind by all concerned in exercising their functions under the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, were it not for my concern for children I would not be taking part in discussions on the Bill. I believe that we are all at one with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in wishing to protect their position so far as is consistent with practicality and justice.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that the Children Act has as its preliminary section, as indeed it does, that the child's welfare shall be paramount in the court's consideration whenever the court is exercising its powers under the Children Act. The question I wish to ask my noble and learned friend is: am I right in thinking that in exercising their powers under any subsequent Act the courts are still acting under the Children Act 1989, which means that the paramountcy of the child is already preserved?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, unfortunately, I was unable to be in my place in Committee and I wish to take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting a slightly different form of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. Had I been present I should have spoken strongly in favour of it.
I am not qualified to enter into the discussion about whether it is necessary to repeat the word "paramount" in this Bill if it is already in the Children Act. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will tell us that. However, I wish to speak about the word "paramount" itself because it is a difficult and strong word. I ask myself whether in a divorce situation it is fair to the parents to say that the child's interest is paramount. After considerable thought, I believe that it is and that it is necessary to have it in the Bill.
First, the interests of the parent will only rarely be in conflict with the interests of the child. If they are in conflict surely the parents should take on their shoulders the burden of the disadvantage. That principle is fundamental to our society because if children are to grow up happy and useful and as acceptable citizens they need love, security, support and guidance.
I confess that there are different ways in which that can be given. In The Republic of Plato, or indeed in the Spartan community, children were brought up by the state. It is rather different in a democracy. The cost of care by the state is astronomical, whether it is given directly, through children's homes, through foster parents or through support for dysfunctional families and single parents. In a democracy there is a limit to the
1176
burden of cost that the taxpayers are prepared to accept. Already in this country the cost of supporting dysfunctional families is reaching a level at which people are beginning to feel tetchy about it. If the situation gets out of hand taxpayers will say, "No more". If that happens children will really suffer.
We cannot afford to go down that route. That is why I believe that Parliament must say to parents, through this Bill, "If you decide to have a child, or if you have a child by mistake, you are responsible for that child. If you subsequently fail to get on together and decide to divorce you have a duty to protect the child as far as humanly possible from the results of your failure".
I believe that parents must recognise that the child's interest is paramount. If parents fail to recognise it society must, through the law, step in and say, "The interest of the child is paramount". I therefore support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may remember speaking to a similar amendment during our discussions on the Child Support Act. In the Children Act the interest of the child is paramount because it is an Act about children. It does not necessarily follow that the interest of the child should be paramount in every context. Were that to be so I am sure a large number of roads around the country would be closed instantly. I do not believe that to be in prospect. This Bill is concerned with balancing a large number of competing interests. That is necessarily so and we cannot avoid it.
When we consider the interest of the child in a situation involving divorce we must decide whether we are considering the interest of the child in conjunction with those of his parents or in opposition to them. If we consider the interest of the child in opposition to that of his parents almost every child would prefer to have two loving parents living together. But politics is the art of the possible. Because we would like that to happen it does not follow that it will happen. It is a bit like passing an Act to say that we shall always have a wise and benevolent government. I do not believe that it would prove effective.
If we consider the child's interest in opposition to that of his parents we cannot achieve what we want. We are doing more than is humanly possible. If we consider the child's interest in conjunction with that of his parents we will be doing only what the Bill is attempting to do in any event. Either the words are otiose or they are redundant and I prefer to see the Bill remain as it is.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will consider the following scene. Two children say that they want their parents to stay together and not to be divorced. The court agrees with them and the divorce is not granted. Then the father or the mother—I shall not be sexist—runs off with somebody of the opposite sex. Because he or she is not allowed to divorce that person lives with somebody else, unmarried. Unfortunately, one cannot stop human beings behaving in such a way. It is how people behave. It is important that children's interests are taken into

1177
account but I believe that to make them paramount is going too far. I believe that my example shows that to be a perfectly reasonable view to take.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I will yield to none in my desire to do everything that the law properly can to protect and promote the interests of our children. I believe that it is fundamental to our way of life. I also believe that the best possible surroundings in which children can be brought up is a happy home, with father and mother happily married providing them with a secure background. Sadly, there are many circumstances in which that is not possible. One of them is where father and mother reach a situation in which they cannot possibly live together.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, if the parents were acting properly, in considering what they should do they would consider the interests of the children paramount. However, the court is faced with what the parents have actually done. All noble Lords will know that there are cases in which one parent has gone off and left a young child in order to pursue a different way of life with somebody other than the child's other parent.
In that situation, where the question is, "Should the parents be divorced?", the court has very little option, assuming that the grounds of divorce, whatever they are, are made out, but to grant a divorce. We shall consider the grounds of divorce in more detail when we debate the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young. In my submission, the correct approach is to say that matters concerned with the welfare of the children are subject to the provisions of the Children Act which, in my view, is a well-balanced, practical and efficient method of dealing with that most important matter.
As your Lordships know, I have proposed an amendment to the hardship clause in order to take account of the possibility of the decree of divorce creating hardship for the children. Your Lordships may have seen that some people believe that I am suggesting that children should become involved in the disputes of their parents. I need not point out to your Lordships, because your Lordships know, that I have done no such thing. But it is extremely important that we do not do that if we can possibly avoid it. I believe that one of the worst things that can happen to a child when parents are divorcing is to become involved in the disputes between the parents in such a way as to sour relationships between that child and both parents. It is in the fundamental interests of the child that the child should maintain as good a relationship as possible with both parents, notwithstanding the divorce. That is the primary consideration which has led me to put this Bill before your Lordships.
Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that it is not appropriate to accept this amendment. As I said, I have proposed amendments in relation to the hardship bar and in that I was trying to take account of the views of your Lordships in Committee. I have relaxed the hardship bar which will now apply to all grounds for divorce, assuming that my proposals are carried. I have accepted also an amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Elles that the court should take that into
1178
consideration when looking to see whether the powers under the Children Act should operate. In my submission to your Lordships, that is the right way to proceed, with the paramountcy of the children coming in where there are questions about the arrangements for them: where they should live; with whom they should have contact; prohibited steps orders and so on.
Therefore, with the greatest possible respect to my noble and learned friend, I hope that he will withdraw this amendment on the basis that we are all committed to doing everything possible to promote the interests of the children in an appropriate manner in this sad situation.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will assist me on a matter which I was proposing to raise on a later debate. I wonder whether he will assist your Lordships as to the meaning of the word "paramount", referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I do not recollect a case in which it was judicially defined. Does he understand it to mean the most important of the interests to be considered or does he understand it to mean that it should be conclusive to the total exclusion of all other considerations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I take it that it is the most important interest to be considered and to dominate all other considerations. It may not be easy to give a full definition. I do not have a dictionary at hand nor, regrettably, in my head. But that is the way that I understand it. Where the court is operating under the Children Act, its leading, most important and all-prevailing consideration is that of the interests of the child.
However, that may be different where there is a dispute between parents in relation to matters. I give your Lordships one example which does not come completely out of the context of this Bill but is related to it. In the distribution of property between the father and mother, are the interests of the children to be paramount in that sense? Obviously, something must be done about providing for the father and the mother, and the children will have to be provided for properly. But I submit to your Lordships that in that case the interests of the children should not have the controlling influence which one would expect them to have as regards the question of where the child is to reside. That may not be a very good answer but it is the best that I can give.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he will bear in mind—and it supports his argument because, quite frankly, he has converted me—that "paramount" means overriding in this context in particular.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. He has answered the question much more briefly than I did.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and most of all to those who have supported the amendment.

1179
At the outset, I deal with some subsidiary points. First, I was very glad that my noble and learned friend adopted the argument that I ventured to put forward in Committee that it is highly detrimental to the interests of a child whose parents are in conflict to be brought into that conflict.
Secondly, my noble and learned friend posed a difficulty just before he sat down for the first time. He referred to the formula when it comes to the division of property. That is quite irrelevant because this Bill is not concerned at all with division of property.
In Committee, I submitted some schedules which dealt with co-ownership of the matrimonial home and its chattels. My noble and learned friend demurred from them being made part of the Bill. I understood him to say—I think I prematurely understood him to say—that he would refer the matter to the Law Commission. I have only just received a letter from my noble and learned friend, for which I am grateful, which does not appear to be quite so encouraging as that.
But the point is that there is no question at all of division of property under this Bill. Therefore, with all respect to my noble and learned friend, the point that he made was entirely irrelevant.
The third point that I wish to make is about the word "paramount" which has been referred to by more than one noble Lord, including my noble friend Lord Northbourne. That is a phrase which is perfectly well-known to the law. The original guardianship of infancy says that the welfare of the child was to be the first and paramount consideration. Parliament took over that phrase from the old Court of Chancery whose formula it was in its jurisdiction over children. If I were asked to define it, I would be obliged, I think, to say that "first" and "paramount" is really a pleonasm. A first consideration is a consideration which is more important than any other. A paramount consideration is a consideration which is more important than all others, and in relation to a child, I hope that that would be the test.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, with whom I am far happier in agreement than differing from him, said that the formula is all right in the context of the Children Act but not in any context whatever. But of all contexts, surely the context of the Family Law Bill is where it is most relevant. It is most relevant because the child is part of a family whose relationships we are considering. It is most important because the welfare of the child is paramount because the whole future of society depends on the children. It depends on the children, even if we did not have abundant evidence by now that divorce is damaging to the children whose background is disrupted.
My noble and learned friend was kind enough to send me recently the report of the Exeter University Research Group. But there is evidence upon evidence to suggest that disruption of the family background is damaging to a child. It goes back to the 1930s and the researches of Can-Saunders who found a clear link between delinquency and the disruption of the family
1180
background. Therefore, if there is any context in which that formula is relevant and desirable, it is in the context of this Bill.
My noble and learned friend referred to an amendment which he has tabled to Clause 9 picking up on an amendment that was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. That is important and, in addition, there are a number of other amendments relating to children which fall to be discussed, including my Amendment No. 8 which would spare children altogether the trauma of divorce.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that it would be premature to press the amendment at this stage. It can be considered later when we know how the Bill is shaped in relation to all the other suggestions that have been made about the welfare of children. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 5 as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Circumstances in which orders are made]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("attending information sessions") and insert ("information meetings").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 51 and 54 to 57. The amendments that I propose in this connection arise out of questions that were raised with me about sessions for information. It was thought that the expression which we had used—namely, "information sessions"—had connotations of large, public communal events which might prove intimidating to some people. There was also concern expressed about the possibility of preserving privacy.
I wanted to make the provisions as open as possible so as to enable us to benefit from pilots of the giving of information which I propose to carry out. I have sought to meet the concerns about privacy and also those expressed about parties going separately to information sessions. Obviously, there are some situations in which parties would not find it congenial to go together, especially those involving domestic violence. Therefore, I have sought to make clear that those concerns have been addressed.
I regard it as a rightly important part of the philosophy of the Bill that, before anyone goes to court with any kind of statement about the breakdown of his or her marriage, very full information should effectively be given to those concerned about the situation and particularly about all the types of help that may be available. In my view, it is extremely important that that information should be given effectively. The different situations which may arise are numerous and it is not possible to say with any precision at this stage what is the best method of dealing with them. That is why I propose substantial pilots if your Lordships and another place ultimately pass the Bill. One of the reasons for the delay in bringing it into effect is that those matters and arrangements should be thoroughly put in place so that the law will operate effectively.
I believe that most of the other amendments are self-evident in their purpose. In the light of that explanation, I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 58 and 59 which are tabled in my name. I very much welcome the first amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which states clearly the general principles guiding the working of the Bill. It states,
"that the institution of marriage is to be supported".
Secondly,
"the parties to a marriage which may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practicable steps to save it".
The most obvious ways in which those excellent principles can be given substance is by ensuring that those attending information sessions are,
"offered a counselling session with an approved marriage counsellor",
as set out in Amendment No. 52. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated that he intends such meetings to include information about marriage counselling. But his commitment, as reported at cols. 993 to 995 of Hansard of 23rd January, needs to be written into the Bill for all to see and respond to, not only for this generation but for subsequent generations.
While information about a number of matters will be given in the information meetings, the availability of marriage counselling is so fundamental and central to the stated principles that lie behind the Bill that it is crucial that it should appear in print. That is the intention of Amendment No. 52. However, we do not want just anyone to set himself—or, indeed, herself—up as a marriage counsellor. The marriage support agencies—the Jewish Marriage Council, Relate, The Tavistock Marital Studies Institute, One Plus One and Marriage Care—ensure that those who work for them undertake specialised training and receive ongoing professional supervision by experienced and specialist practitioners. Amendment No. 53 is designed to ensure that only approved counsellors in organisations approved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would undertake that crucial work.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 seek to clarify and strengthen the latter provision. Marriage counselling is a discipline in its own right, distinct from counselling of other kinds. Individual counselling gives priority to the well-being and personal development of the person concerned by considering matters from his or her point of view. Marriage counselling addresses the needs and expectations of both partners and the future of the relationship. It is a skill which requires specialist training and development.
Research from one study shows that,
"many couples do not know whether their marriage is at an end; indeed some may be using the legal system to find out".
That highlights the need for the amendments standing in my name. Of course, it will be entirely up to the couple as to whether or not they avail themselves of such marriage counselling. Moreover, in the majority of cases, it is likely that the divorce process will simply go on.
1182
However, some marriages can be saved and will be saved. Because of that it is vital that the availability of such marriage counselling should be clearly spelt out, not just for the present but for the many years ahead when the Bill is likely to be in operation. I am looking 20 or 30 years ahead. I suspect that the legislation will still be in force. It is vital for those in the future that the availability of marriage counselling, professionally monitored, is actually on the statute book. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to accept my amendments which I believe have substantial all-party support.
6 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said, his Amendment No. 6, and some of his subsequent amendments, arose out of our debates in Committee. In relation to Amendment No. 6, I asked for some reassurance about the form which the information sessions would take. Indeed, we received some welcome assurances from the noble and learned Lord. I think at that point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that some of the misunderstandings—if, indeed, there were misunderstandings—arose from the use of the expression "information sessions". The noble and learned Lord duly undertook to consider that matter. As he said, we also referred to problems as regards the privacy of the information process, and of possible intimidation of vulnerable partners. The noble and learned Lord listened to what we said and reflected on it. For the second or third time this evening, we are in his debt for that. That, as I understand it, is the whole purpose of our proceedings in Committee and at Report stage.
I wish briefly to mention two other matters. First, I have received a letter from Dr. Stephen Cretney pointing out that the pilot schemes proposed by the noble and learned Lord involve voluntary attendance. They will not in any sense involve the kind of persuasion which appears to be envisaged in the Bill, as there will be no power to apply persuasion of that kind. The information involved will comply with the existing law, and not with the law which will operate when the Bill is on the statute book. Doctor Cretney expressed some doubt whether, in consequence, we shall learn as much from these schemes as we would normally hope to learn from pilot schemes. I thought it right to inform your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord of those comments. For my part, I still think that these pilot schemes will be extremely valuable. They may not tell us all that there is to know, but I believe they will provide some useful guidance.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Irvine and I wish to express our total agreement with everything that was said by the right reverend Prelate. His arguments would not benefit from repetition by me, and I do not propose to do that except to say that it is certainly most important that the conciliation services should be undertaken by conciliators who are qualified and

1183
accredited. It is important to have some such scheme in place. We support the amendments of the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, welcome the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the information sessions, now called meetings. I was interested to hear his explanation. Many of us are worried about what exactly will happen. The pilot schemes are to be welcomed, but quite how they will work is rather unclear. Obviously there will be pilot schemes in some areas and not in others. I do not know what conclusions we are expected to draw from that on how the process will work later. If I may say so, we are buying fairly blind on the information sessions, but it was helpful to have been given a further explanation, and no doubt more information will be forthcoming should this Bill find its way onto the statute book.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford mentioned a point that he raised in Committee. I am sure that all of us—certainly myself—who would like to see a Bill that buttresses marriage rather than civilises divorce welcome the proposals to help couples who are in difficulty. We are, of course, aware that some 20,000 to 30,000 couples each year get to the brink of divorce and then decide not to go further, and that quite a proportion of couples who divorce regret that they ever did so. Therefore, anything that can be done to help those two groups of people seems to me to be valuable.
I return to what I regard as an important point if we are putting public money into an organisation; namely, what we are putting the money into, and what the organisations are doing. I entirely agree with the point made by the right reverend Prelate when he said that we should support marriage. However, I am reluctant to put public money into organisations which regard marriage as one of a series of alternative lifestyles. I believe that is the current jargon. We need to be careful about what we are doing.
I wish to ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford what is meant by Amendment No. 53 which states,
"For the purposes of this section, an approved marriage counsellor is a person currently accredited as such by an organisation…who has undertaken specialist training in couple counselling".
What does that mean? Does the amendment refer to marriage, to cohabitation, to homosexual couples or to lesbian couples? To whom does it refer? We must understand what we are doing if we put public money into these organisations. I should also like to have a definition of "marital interaction", as referred to in the amendment. Does that mean having a row, or chatting over dinner, or holding hands? If we are passing legislation, we must define precisely what it is we are about. I return to my fundamental point; namely, that if we are putting public money into such a process, which I believe we all agree we should do to help marriages, we need to make quite sure that the money will have
1184
precisely that effect, and that it is not being given to an organisation which a great many of us would not wish to see publicly supported at all.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble and learned Lord for reviewing the phraseology of the provisions with regard to the giving of information. I was among those who expressed anxiety on this matter. However, I should like the noble and learned Lord to take the matter a little further. As I understood the noble and learned Lord at the previous stage of the Bill, he suggested that one of the means of providing information might be to make use of technology. He mentioned, in particular, the use of videos. I wonder whether using the term "meetings" might preclude all that the noble and learned Lord might have in mind, and all that might come out of the use of pilot schemes, if videos are to be used, possibly without face to face meetings taking place. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord has in mind that a meeting with a person will be required in every case. That is what the term suggests to me. I do not think we are yet quite at the point in our interaction with modern technology where the viewing of a video would be considered to constitute a meeting.
I take this opportunity to ask whether the noble and learned Lord can give us any information as to when the pilot schemes may start, although I accept, of course, that the Bill has to complete its passage first. How does the noble and learned Lord envisage discussion taking place on what the pilot schemes might consist of? I know that there is some anxiety among practitioners that time will pass quickly, and that it might be useful to have some public discussion on what the pilots might comprise at an early stage. I, for one, would be grateful to hear the noble and learned Lord's comments as regards the detail of the pilot schemes and the timetable. On behalf of myself and my noble friend—I have to be careful not to speak for all on these Benches—I should say that I believe the amendments of the right reverend Prelate are self-evidently right.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I had in mind that if a video is to be used it would be handed out, and possibly handed back, but that there would also be some arrangement for a meeting with an individual to take place—rather than solely the viewing of a video—in situations which were not covered by exemptions. I believe it is extremely important that these matters should be effectively communicated and that people are not left with an ineffectual communication of information. We are all familiar with the situation of receiving pieces of paper, sometimes in fairly large quantities, where perhaps we do not always study them as fully as the importance of the information they contain would require.
As regards timing, I wish to consult those who can help in this situation. I have already obtained information from other jurisdictions where these arrangements are in place. Assuming the Bill attains Royal Assent, I hope to proceed with it soon after that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, referred to Dr. Stephen Cretney. I accept that the pilots will have to be conducted against the

1185
background of the existing law until the new law is brought in. That is certainly an important consideration. I do not believe that what we do at the beginning will necessarily be the final form. The regulation-making power will enable us to improve the information meetings in the light of experience of their interaction with the new law after it comes into force.
My noble friend Lady Young has raised questions about the amendments of the right reverend Prelate. As a result of an amendment passed on the last occasion, Clause 18 provides for the giving of grants to marriage support services and research into the causes of marital breakdown and ways of preventing it. These are all quite clearly related to marriage and they are framed deliberately. I think it right that the availability of marriage counselling is made clear in the regulations relating to the nature of the information to be provided. The right reverend Prelate would like to see that on the face of the Bill. One of the difficulties—which we have faced in relation to other amendments—is that once one starts to specify matters one has to specify all that may be required. I have to guard against the possibility that a list will not be sufficiently flexible in order to take account of changes in the period that I and the right reverend Prelate hope the Bill will cover.
I have a problem about approved organisations. The method that I wish to use in relation to marriage counselling is grant aid. I remain of the view that it is extremely important that marriage counselling is not skewed towards the end rather than the beginning of a marriage. It is important that this kind of service is available as early as possible. In this connection, I propose that grant aid be available to organisations who qualify under the grant-aiding provisions. To impose a system of regulation organised by the Lord Chancellor or the Government is more than is necessary. As my noble friend Lady Young has said, it is not right to hand out public money by way of grants, except to those who are providing the service to standards that we think appropriate and with results which justify the giving of further money. Provision for monitoring the utility of the service is important.
The right reverend Prelate also spoke of consultation in framing the regulations. Of course, I will wish to consult with bodies working in this field. The difficulty about the form of his amendment is that it is so rigid that it would be difficult to ensure compliance with it. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able not to move his amendments and to allow me to consider putting forward an amendment in relation to consultation that meets his main concern as set out in his last amendment. As far as the earlier amendments are concerned, I shall wish to consider whether, in relation to the information session, it is possible to make provision for greater detail in the primary legislation without endangering the necessary flexibility.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to put a question. Will be not make the kind of consultation that the right
1186
reverend Prelate desires without being enjoined to do so in an Act of Parliament and the cluttering up of the statute book?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to do that. But these regulations may vary from time-to-time, and the right reverend Prelate asks for an assurance that this particular point is placed on the statute book. If the right reverend Prelate is content with an assurance that I will consult all of the relevant organisations in this field of which I am aware, obviously I am also content with that. That will save the statute book some words. My noble and learned friend is always concerned to achieve that. That is an alternative course of action. Because of the importance attached to this matter, I am willing to consult on the framing of the regulations if I am given flexibility as to the nature of that consultation. I do not wish to take on the responsibility of statutory regulation of these bodies, but prefer to rely on the fact that government money under Clause 18 will not be given to them except under the kind of conditions to which I have referred. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 7
Page 2, line 5, after ("satisfied;") insert—
("( ) it is not contrary to the interests of any child of the family to dissolve the marriage;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 9 in the same grouping.
Like many other noble Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend for including children not only on the face of the Bill but in the general objectives adopted in Amendment No. 1, and in particular the reference to minimum distress being caused to children in this process. Of course, that covers the life of the child not only before and during divorce proceedings but after them. I believe that everybody has admitted that it is after divorce proceedings that so much distress and suffering is caused to the child of a marriage that has been dissolved. I am grateful that there is now mention of the child and that the interests of the child, insofar as we are considering its position within the Bill, can fall within and be judged against the general principles expressed in Amendment No. 1.
It has been said several times—but we must remind ourselves from time-to-time—that this is a family law Bill, not a divorce reform Bill. Surely, it is not unreasonable to provide that a court should consider the welfare of the children during divorce proceedings. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 7. As can be seen from Clause 2 in Part I, the court has to take into account four considerations listed in paragraphs (a) to (d). I suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to expect the court to have regard to the interests of the children of the family during the discussion and decision-making process. I should like to repeat what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already pointed out. This does not mean that a child should have a veto

1187
on divorce, any more than that consideration of the child's interests under the Children Act means that the child can veto custody or a court order. It means that where there are circumstances which can be shown to be detrimental to the child the court must have regard to them before an application for divorce is granted. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 7.
I briefly turn to Amendment No. 9 which provides a new subsection (5) to Clause 2 of the Bill. The provision is similar to Section 1(3) of the Children Act. It contains a list of matters to which the court should have regard in considering the child's best interests. My list is taken directly from Section 1(3) of the Children Act, removing those parts of the list which are not relevant to divorce but are more appropriate to the care procedures or contested custody applications which fall within the purview of the Children Act.
My list is set out in Amendment No. 9. It refers to,
"the ascertainable wishes and the feeling of the child".
There may be some suggestion that "wishes" is not the appropriate word. It refers to,
"his physical, emotional and educational needs".
There are many cases in which there are special needs for children. The provision refers to,
"the likely effect on [the child] of any change in his circumstances; and any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering".
The provision sets out the considerations that could guide the court when it considers the interests of the child. As I have indicated, they would not be overriding. However, in considering a divorce where there are children of the marriage it seems logical and reasonable that those interests should be taken into account before a divorce is granted. There is no logical reason why welfare should be at centre stage when a court must make a decision about a child's custody or access, but should take a back seat when it comes to the parents' divorce.
We discussed at some length in Committee the effect of divorce on the children of the marriage. I do not intend to repeat all the points made during that debate. We have only to refer back to them to see all the problems as regards the broken home and the effects on the children. We all recognise that while one of the parents may hopefully imagine that he or she will find greater happiness through divorce, we can probably agree that those who will not find happiness either way will be the children of the divorcees. They will probably bear scars from that divorce for the rest of their lives.
I hope that it will be considered reasonable to put these two amendments on the face of the Bill. I should, of course, withdraw subsection (4) in Amendment No. 9, which is very similar to the provision that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has withdrawn. I beg to move.
Lord Moran: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I am very glad that the first amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor includes children. I have been concerned until now that there has been hardly any reference to children in the Bill. I am very glad that they now feature in the first amendment.
1188
I put my name to the two amendments so capably moved and spoken to by the noble Baroness because it is right that the interests of the children should come in the part of the Bill which deals with court orders. A court should have direction from Parliament in this part of the Bill to give particular attention to the interests of children.
I recently received the report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in York, published a year ago, called Family and Parenthood. Like all the reports of that foundation, it is very thorough and interesting. It states that,
"the 168,248 English and Welsh children under 16 who experienced their parents' divorce during 1992 was double the 1971 figure and exceeded the previous peak reached in 1980".
We are concerned with a large number of children. I draw attention in particular to subsection (5)(c) which provides that the court shall have regard to,
"the likely effect on [the child] of any change in his circumstances".
The same report states—it is a point raised previously in our debates—that,
"there is accumulated evidence that children whose birth parents separate run increased risks of adverse educational, health and behavioural outcomes when compared with those of similar social backgrounds whose parents stay together".
It continues:
"It is now apparent that some consequences for some children continue into adult life".
It is extremely important that when a case comes before the court it should take account of that. I have been worried during debates that not enough attention is being paid to the interests of children. That is what worries me most about the whole process of divorce. I support the amendments.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I, too, support the two amendments. Apparently 90 per cent. of children of divorcing parents wish their parents would stay together. Divorce causes loss of their status, identity and self-esteem, and in over 50 per cent. of cases loss of one parent. I strongly support the amendments which I hope will help to make divorce less likely and will help the children to stop their parents' divorcing.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I strongly support the general aim of the amendments. However, there is a practical difficulty. Subsection (5)(a) of Amendment No. 9 refers to,
"the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned".
How do the proposers of the amendment imagine that the court will ascertain those wishes and feelings without the risk of setting the child against the parent?
It seems to me that there is a place for trying to get into the mind of the child, as it were. National Family Mediation has a code of practice on this. I thought that it might be useful to your Lordships if I were to read a few paragraphs. The code states:
"Mediators must encourage the participants to consider their children's wishes and feelings. Where appropriate, they may discuss with the participants whether and to what extent it is proper to involve the children themselves in the mediation process in order to consult them about their wishes and feelings".

1189
That keeps the ball firmly in the court of the parents. It continues:
"Where it appears to any mediator that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, the mediators must advise the participants to seek help from the appropriate agency.
"Where it appears necessary or desirable in order to protect the child from significant harm, the mediator must in any event contact the appropriate agency".
The code continues:
"When parents cannot agree or the situation is such that they cannot communicate with their children without the children feeling they are caught between them, or might be disloyal or are unduly influenced by one parent, then the mediator will seek to consult the children's views directly and bring their wishes and feelings back to the parents' session. Direct consultation by a skilled mediator gives children respect as 'persons to whom duties are owed not objects of welfare'… and ensures that their views are fully considered and become an important influence on parents' final decisions".
It seems to me that to incorporate that part of the code of practice into mediation services is probably the right way for the points made in the amendments to be met. I should be fearful of anything that allowed the court direct access to the children.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, was the subject of an amendment at an earlier stage. Might it be possible for the court welfare officer to collect the information from the children? I think that could be done without unduly bringing the children into the divorce.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I presume that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, would fall to the Government, under the scheme described by my noble and learned friend, by the terms in which a grant was given to the organisation providing the counselling. It is a matter for reflection.
Perhaps my noble and learned friend can answer a question which I did not hear answered in a previous exchange. Am I right in thinking that the whole operation of the Bill is subject to the provisions of the Children Act which he has frequently described in the House as biting in a particular case? If so, are not many of the gnats which we are straining at gnats and not camels?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am afraid that I could not support Amendment No. 7 as it stands. It goes too far in two respects. First, it appears to cover children of any age. Presumably, 18 or 19 year-olds—perhaps those who are even older—could be included. Secondly, it comes into operation if there is any disadvantage whatever to a child, however small, arising from a divorce. If the amendment were reworded to read that it was "wholly contrary" or "markedly contrary" to the vital interests of any child of the marriage under the age of 16 to dissolve the marriage, I could support it, but not otherwise. Amendment No. 9 is less draconian but I am still uneasy, given how difficult it will be to predict with accuracy the consequences of the divorce on any given child.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I too am worried about Amendment No. 7 and the words,
1190
"it is not contrary to the interests of any child".
I prefer the words, "have regard to the interests of any child". I do not see how the wording could be implemented. Any divorce is not in the interests of a child; therefore there could be no divorce at all if that wording were included. I agree with my noble friend Lady Elles. I understand the proposal but the wording might lead to misinterpretation.
I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, on Amendment No. 9 and the words,
"the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned".
If we were to follow the wishes of the child those wishes might be wrong. Therefore it ought to be the child's concerns and feelings.
Some of the press got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick when they suggested that the noble and learned Lord wanted children to be involved in the process of divorce. He did not say that, but the press insinuated it. I wish to say how wrong that was. I would like the wording of Amendment No. 9 to be altered. As regards the children, it would not be fair for them to feel that their wishes would be listened to because quite often that is not possible. The children's concerns and worries might be listened to but not their wishes because they might not be fulfilled.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support the general thrust of the amendments, although some of the points that have been made ought to be taken into account before the House decides. It is true that the press have got hold of the wrong end of the stick with some of them believing that under the amendments children would have a veto on divorce. That would not be acceptable to the House, nor to me.
I repeat what I said in Committee. Children are a vital part of a marriage where children exist in it. We must bear in mind that once a child has arrived it is part of the marriage. It no longer belongs to the husband and the wife; it belongs to the husband, the wife and the children of the marriage. Therefore, it is necessary to address the concerns and welfare of the children as well as their feelings where they can be ascertained. However, the children's feelings must not constitute a veto on divorce.
It has been argued that we should not involve children in the process because they will be involved in the acrimony which so often goes with divorce. But they are already involved in acrimony. If there were no acrimony within the family, there would be no thought of divorce. One cannot use that argument against taking into account, where possible, the views and interests of children. Whether we like it or not, if we want this to be a family law Bill, as against a divorce Bill, we must address the interests of children and ensure that they are addressed properly. We must ensure that as a House and as part of Parliament we get it right. That is why the debate is so important and why the views which have been expressed have been so interesting.
Baroness David: My Lords, I expressed both at Second Reading and in Committee my wish to see children appear in the Bill. Although I greatly wish for that, I do not quite feel myself able to support the

1191
amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I do not believe that the words "interests", "wishes" and "feelings" are quite what we should have. I support the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I prefer our own amendments which come later. Thus I shall reserve my right to speak on them at the right moment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in formulating Amendment No. 9 my noble friend Lady Elles pointed out that she had taken the wording from the Children Act. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, expressed his surprise that there is so little mention of children in the Bill. However, the excellent Children Act remains extant and its terms apply, whatever may appear in the Bill. Is it not therefore reasonable that the amendments suggested by my noble friend should not appear in the Bill because they are not necessary? The legislation is already there.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems to me that Amendment No. 7 could almost be classed as the Librum veto in the old Polish Parliament. In other words, it appears that one child in a divorce can veto the prospect of divorce by his parents. It is within the bounds of imagination or possibility that there could be five children in a marriage. It could conceivably be in the interests of one of those children that the marriage continues, and in the interests of the other four that it is dissolved. Is that one child to be able to behave like a Polish count? It strikes me as not being a very sensible approach.
We all agree that the interests of children must be looked at very carefully, as the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said. Perhaps this consideration should be more important in conciliation measures than in mediation measures. The Law Society produced a brief on exactly that point.
I believe the noble and learned Lord has it right. The,
"ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned"
is not something that we should allow to go into law.
My parents divorced, and I did not want them to. It was probably a silly thing that they were divorced, and in the end they did not like it very much. But it would have been totally wrong for me (admittedly by then I was 21 or 22) to be able to stop that divorce. It would have been even more wrong to be able to stop it had the divorce taken place when I was 12 or 14. These amendments are well-meaning, but ill-thought-out.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I support both these amendments, so well introduced by my noble friend Lady Elles. In offering my support, I am well aware of the subsequent amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend in connection with the hardship bar and his new amendment, I believe tabled today, Amendment No. 137. Obviously, we shall have an opportunity to debate those matters, but both these amendments are very welcome steps in the right direction in regard to the importance of children.
It may well be wondered, therefore, why we feel it necessary to add anything further to the proposal. There is a difference between the considerations that
1192
apply in Clause 9 on the hardship bar, which we shall discuss later, and those brought forward by my noble and learned friend .in his Amendment No. 137—as I understand it, that amendment is very largely concerned with property, assets, and so on—and these amendments which fill a lacuna, as it were, in the provisions relating to children. They are based directly on the Children Act because we regard that Act as saying something of significance which ought to be central to this piece of legislation.
It does not need me to rehearse all the arguments as to the devastating effects of divorce on children. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, set them out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Although we pay lip-service to these matters all the time in this House, and did so in Committee, we now know that one in five children is from a broken home. One-third of the children in a class are from broken homes, as are one-third of the students in a university. I am told that, were we to look into the tragedy of people sleeping rough under the arches at Waterloo station, we should find that a lot are 16 year-olds, turned out of their home by dreadful step-parents of one sort or another, causing terrible social problems, all stemming from divorce. This is therefore an extremely important issue. We should not in any way gloss over it. but should see it as central to the Bill.
I understand the concerns about wording expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. It may well be that the wording is not quite right. However, I should be very loath to leave this matter to mediation. After all, nobody can be obliged to go to mediation, any more than they can be obliged to go to conciliation, desirable though it may be. Therefore, we need much firmer measures on the face of the Bill.
Another point was raised in relation to the definition of "a child" in Clause 7. That is defined in law, and covers the age of a child. We are not talking about someone who is 19 or 20.
These amendments need very careful consideration. I very much hope that if my noble and learned friend feels he cannot accept them today he will take them away and perhaps redraft them where necessary. It seems totally inconsistent to have a Children Act that sets out what we believe is best for children, and which we all supported, and then, five minutes later, have another piece of legislation that is different. That is inconsistent. It is part of the general confusion today as to what we mean about marriage and bringing up children that we have inconsistent views. When it becomes inconvenient to consider the interests of children, we drop the matter. Nothing is mentioned in the Bill. We need to be consistent.
As my noble friend Lady Elles made absolutely clear in her opening remarks, this proposal does not mean asking children to put a veto on divorce. Obviously that would be an absurd proposition. However, it does mean that when the court considers the matter, the interests of the children ought to be

1193
amajor concern. I support these amendments and hope that my noble and learned friend will consider them very seriously.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have not spoken before on this Bill. I did not want noble Lords to tell me that I had not been married and divorced and therefore knew nothing about it. However, I have done a lot of work with children. When I read in the press that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wanted children to be asked whether or not their parents should be divorced, I was absolutely horrified. I examined the Bill and the amendments, and found that he was not doing any such thing. But that is precisely what my noble friends—with whom I agree about so much in relation to the importance of children—suggest in subsection (5)(a) of Amendment No. 9 which refers to,
"the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned".
In that context, a child is asked to say whether he or she wants the parents to divorce. I do not understand how we can say that that puts the paramount interests of the child first. If the child says no to divorce, the parents stay together in a miserable situation and the child will blame himself or herself. If the child says yes, they split up and the situation is miserable. Again, the child will blame himself or herself. In such a situation the marriage is already in a very bad state, and we know that children blame themselves for that. That is what happens. This is the wrong point at which to apply such a proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, spoke about how children are consulted in mediation. With respect, that is completely different. I know a little about it, as I took a Private Member's Bill on mediation through this House last Session. Asking a child about the arrangements that will be made for him or her is quite different. Amendment No. 9 suggests that we ask a child: do you, or do you not want your parents to divorce? I cannot possibly go along with that, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will not.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am concerned as to how this amendment would work in practice. I ask myself, "How would a court take an objective view as to whether or not dissolution of the marriage is in the interests of the child?", and examine that question case by case. I suspect a confusion of thought in this debate between dissolution of the marriage and separation of the parents. It is very important that that distinction is kept at the forefront of our considerations.
At least a year before the matter comes before the court, as it would under this amendment, the parents themselves probably will have already confronted the question of whether or not they should separate and will have asked themselves the question which parents in that situation must ask. It is a question to which I do not feel there is ever a satisfactory answer. It is whether to struggle on; try to stay together in conflict and unhappiness; or stay apart in relative peace (if not harmony) possibly to spare the children further distress but meaning that the children, unhappily, do not have two parents under the same roof.
1194
So far as concerns the wishes of the children, most children would say, if asked, that the one thing they really want is for their parents to be back together. But in case after case that is the one thing the children cannot have. Whether that is then translated into a reason for holding up or preventing the dissolution of the marriage is a different question altogether. However, I fear that one side effect of these amendments would be to involve the children more than they already inevitably will be involved. I subscribe to the view—it is the view of very experienced family lawyers—that in many cases children have the right not to have to decide these difficult questions.
As a matter of drafting, it seems to me that the amendment may well be in some ways inconsistent with Clause 2(1)(c) of the Bill. The other thing with which the courts will have to be concerned in any event is whether the arrangements required to be made for the children have been met. It is certainly right, if there is an issue about what is best for the children, that any question concerning the upbringing of the children is properly considered under the provisions of the Children Act, to which reference has already been made and of which the provisions set out in Amendment No. 9 are but part. Therefore, I have reservations about the amendments.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I am a little puzzled. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can help me. Amendment No. 7 seems clear-cut. I could not support it. Yes, I could support the spirit of it, but not the letter. It is stopping the divorce.
So far as I understand Amendment No. 9, new subsection (5) simply says that:
"a court shall have regard in particular to".
To my mind, the amendment does not in any way necessarily stop the divorce. It means that the children's wishes, thoughts and situation is brought into the picture for consideration. That seems to me perfectly straightforward and reasonable, if I understand it correctly. If I do so correctly understand it, I should want to support it. I should like to know whether the noble and learned Lord accepts that that is the right way to interpret the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that we can stipulate that children in divorced families are usually unhappier than children with two loving parents living together. We need not go on arguing about that. But if we were to legislate for that, we might be accused of legislating in favour of Father Christmas. What we need to consider is whether children in divorced families are better or worse off than children with two unhappily married parents.
In Committee I said that there was no research available on that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, rightly pulled me up and drew my attention to the Exeter Family Study, which I read with very great profit. It is an excellent piece of research and I shall rely on it in many contexts in social security debates. The sentence to which she drew my attention was technically incorrect. The study attempts the task of comparing

1195
unhappily married parents with divorced parents. I have a great many queries about the statistics. I shall not detain the House with the bulk of them now.
Perhaps I may mention one point. There is no way of eliminating the possibility that the couples who divorced were unhappier than the couples in a state of conflict who continued to live together. So the fact that their children suffered more disturbance may simply be because their parents were unhappier. It may not be the consequence of the divorce.
It remains my position that we simply do not know, as a general rule, whether children are more unhappy with unhappily married parents living together or with divorced parents. I suspect that there is no general rule on that at all. In the total absence of information on which I feel that I can rely I am not prepared to put very much weight on the point. That is why I am afraid that, grateful though I am to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to the study, I still cannot support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I support the general thrust of these amendments. Any defects in drafting or wording can perfectly well be cleared up at Third Reading. Two of my amendments are grouped with this amendment. Amendment No. 25 falls right outside the area. It is concerned with representation of the child and it revives the suggestion that I made in Committee that the best person to represent the child's interests is the Official Solicitor. Other suggestions were made, such as court welfare officers. My amendment is better considered in this context. I say "represent the child's interests" and agree very strongly with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it is far more important that the child's interests should be considered than the child's views canvassed. I believe that that answers a great many of the points made in this debate.
My other amendment is Amendment No. 8. That amendment vindicates the principle that children come first. It takes children right out of the divorce process. Their views will not be canvassed and they will not be asked because there will be no divorce when there is a young child. The noble Earl says that we lack information. So we do. But we know that children suffer from divorce. We do not know how it occurs or where it occurs particularly acutely. My own feeling is that one of the greatest sources of damage is the presentation of a surrogate parent and the indoctrination of a child. My heart sank on being told, "I have done what I can but the child has an invincible repugnance to seeing his lather"—or mother. One knew that consciously or unconsciously—it was generally a little of both—the child had been influenced. So it is important to canvass the interests of the child.
The evidence is conclusive that children suffer from divorce in many ways. Twice during the course of the Bill I have quoted what was said by my noble and learned friend about that. My noble friend Lord Moran quoted some alarming figures but in fact they minimise the extent of the danger. I believe he said that over 160,000 children were involved in 1993; but that is only the children whose parents were divorced in that year.
1196
To that one must add the children who were under 15 whose parents divorced the previous year and so on back; the children under 14 the year before, and so forth. The figure is more likely to be 250,000. Are we really going to wash our hands of them? Are we going to wring our hands and say that it is just too bad? We have the highest divorce rate in Europe. Our average is almost twice the European average. Are we just to beat our breasts and leave it at that?
I therefore commend to your Lordships the idea—even if we do not accept it this time we can perhaps accept it next time—that there should be no divorce where there are children of the family under the age of 16. Not only would that dramatically reduce the rate of divorce; not only would it spare thousands of children from untold misery and detriment; but it would also at a stroke deal with the problem in relation to the mounting divorce rate.
I guarantee firmly that if such a provision were introduced there would be only a small number of divorces that would require adjudication or relief. What is more, it may well be—it would probably be—in the interests of the parents themselves. The light and flame of youth would be extinguished, but the parents would be still united in a common interest in the child for whom they have—and this is enduring—made a sacrifice. The light and flame of youth may well turn into a glow of the remaining coals of their marriage.
I agree so much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, my noble friend Lord Moran and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We turn our hack on such evidence at our peril. Why should children come first? Because they are the future of our society. They should come first and the way to make them come first is to say that there shall be no divorce if the children are under 16. It is for that reason that I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, though I would prefer to go further and see my own enacted.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the difficulty with Amendment No. 8 is that, although children nearly always suffer when their parents are divorced, many children will suffer even more if their parents do not divorce.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I see that my Amendment No. 24 is grouped with Amendment No. 7. With the permission of the House I would prefer to speak to it separately when its turn comes.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, what struck me in the course of the debate is the amount of common ground between all noble Lords who participated. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, reminded us, and rightly, that where there has been an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, we must ensure that in arranging the divorce and resolving the disputes of home and property, the court should not lose sight of the interests of the children.
It is true, as so many noble Lords have said, that the interests of the children would be best served if the marriage did not break down at all. The interests

1197
of the children would be best served by a warm, happy, affectionate home. But that is not what we are contemplating. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in an earlier debate that the question is: what is to happen when that is no longer possible and one or both parties wants a divorce? The question therefore is how best to give effect to the principle which the noble Baroness wishes to introduce into the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in his Amendment No. 8, proposes that if there is a child under 16 there can be no divorce at all, even if the court were to consider that it was in the interests of the child and that those interests would be better served by their being divorced. I agree with those noble Lords who said that it does not follow automatically that the interests of a child are necessarily, in all circumstances, better served by keeping the marriage in existence. Something may turn on the alternatives: whether the parents would continue to stay together; if they continue to stay together, what the situation in the home would he; what may happen if they did not stay together and entered into other relationships. Those are all matters to be considered. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—again, it is an unusual situation for me to find myself differing from him—he would preclude the courts from entering into any of those inquiries in the case of a child under 16 and considering the situation at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, does not go quite so far. She would invite the court to consider whether the interests of the child would be adversely affected by a divorce. But she offered the court no discrimination if it came to the conclusion that those interests were adversely affected. If the court finds that a divorce would be contrary to the interests of a child, it would have no discretion; it would have to refuse a divorce.
I respectfully agree with those noble Lords who believe that that is putting it too high. When the court is considering an order directly affecting a child—something about wardship or care and control—then the interests of the child should be paramount. My noble friend Lord Irvine reminded me a few moments ago (in fact he told me because I do not believe I ever knew it) that the word "paramount" was judicially defined in the case of Thane in 1925. That definition was used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in an earlier debate. Those interests are more important than the other interests, but they are not exclusive; they do riot "trump"—the court used that word—all the other interests.
Before I interrupted myself I was saying that where it is a question of an order directed specifically to a child, then it would be right to say that the interests of the child should be paramount. But where what is in question is whether there shall be a divorce, then the interests, the future and the happiness of other people are involved. The court should be empowered at least to give them consideration. It may decide that in all the circumstances the interests of the child outweigh those of the parents and that the interests of the child are that
1198
there should not be a divorce. So be it. But to say that the court may not even take the interests of other people into account appears to be going too far. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, pointed out, what happens if there is more than one child and the interests of those children conflict? What guidance do we give the court then?
We have all encountered children carrying a feeling of guilt because, perhaps unwittingly, they have prevented their parents from obtaining what they believe their parents desire. It would be wrong to place children in the position of being the necessary occasion of their parents' frustration without a court being able even to take that into account.
The noble Baroness rather exacerbates the problem when she says that the court must have regard to the wishes and feelings of the children. I do not dissent from that—no one in their right mind would—although at Committee stage the feeling was expressed by more than one of your Lordships that the interests of the child may be of greater importance than the expressed wishes of the child. But I would not quarrel with giving a child of suitable age the opportunity to express a view. Indeed, I think we are under an obligation as a country to do so because it is in the convention on the rights of the child, to which this country has subscribed. I have sometimes wondered how it operates always in practice. I have tried with children and grandchildren to listen to their arguments. There has usually come a time, I am hound to say, when I have lost my temper and terminated the argument. Quite how far the convention requires us to go, I am not sure; but of course we would not seek to dissuade a court from listening to the wishes of the child.
I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, in asking how the court is to go about ascertaining those wishes. I suspect that if a judge were simply to ask a child, "Do you want your parents to divorce?", none of us would have any hesitation in predicting what the answer would he. There are ways of ascertaining a child's wishes; but it is not an easy problem. I confess that I am one of those who takes the view that courts ought not to be encouraged to involve children in the emotional crises of their parents. There may be occasions when it has to be done but normally I should have thought that it could not bode well for a child to feel that he had to take sides between his parents and lose the friendship and love of one parent or the other. But what is proposed is that the wishes of the child will have to be expressed in the context of what would be virtually a veto on the divorce—I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, shakes her head, but she does not give the court any discretion if it finds that the interests of the child are adversely affected. I confess to an anxiety over whether placing a child in that position would be good for the child.
I have a great deal of sympathy, as no doubt do all noble Lords, with what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve; but I hope that she might be persuaded that the court should be given some discretion in applying that to the infinitely variable

1199
facts of any particular case. It follows from what I have said that I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, these are amendments of very great importance, and in responding to them I should like to try to answer one of the questions that was put to me. As I understand Amendment No. 7, it would prevent the grant of an order of divorce if it were contrary to the interests of any child of the family. If one leaves that out of account, there is not really a basis for the later provision in relation to that particular object. But it may well be that the object will be served in some other context—the welfare of the child will come into consideration in some other context.
The question of how children's existence should be taken into account in relation to a divorce is a very difficult one. Hitherto, it has been done by requiring that where the court considers that powers under the Children Act should be exercised in connection with the children, the court may postpone the granting of the divorce until it does just that. The provisions of the Children Act are intended to deal with all the circumstances which affect a child's welfare; where the child lives, when that is in dispute; with whom the child should have contact; points to do with where the child should be educated; and so on—four particular types of order especially in Part II of the Children Act. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of Amendment No. 9 are taken from criteria in the Children Act for deciding these matters. Hitherto, the position has been that the arrangements for the children are to be considered against the background of these criteria. That is the arrangement for the children on the divorce. It has not hitherto been regarded as part of the consideration of whether or not a divorce should be granted at all.
The extreme view is the one contained in Amendment No. 8 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He would reduce divorces at a stroke by not allowing them in the case of there being children under the age of 16. The logical consequence of that is that if you want to reduce divorces altogether at a stroke you bring in a law to say that there will be no divorce. Would that meet our present situation? You would certainly make sure that there were no divorces—no legal divorces, anyway—but you might well unleash very powerful forces.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, was that not the situation which we had for centuries?
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend will have read history about this matter as much as I have. Certainly one way out of these situations in past centuries was the drastic one of one or other of the parties terminating their lives. To my mind this is a serious matter. The idea that by getting rid of a divorce order you
1200
immediately sort out the situation is just impracticable. If I thought that the way to benefit the children in this country was to get rid of divorces so long as the children were under the age of 16 I would be very happy to embrace that, but I do not believe that for a moment.
I agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, my noble friend Lady Young and others that the present situation is serious and that is why I think it needs to be addressed, and addressed by means of the provisions of this Bill which encourage—that is the most the state can do—people to try to save their marriages. It is not a task that will always he successful but it is a task on which help is important.
In relation to the children of the marriage, it was said by a number of noble Lords that it is not intended that what is proposed should produce a veto. If it does not produce a veto, it is hard to see how it will work. So far as I understand these amendments, they do not seem to me to have implied in them a practical way of working.
Perhaps I may suggest—it may be somewhat presumptuous on my part—that one way of looking at this is by reference to the hardship bar; to use the hardship bar as a mechanism by which the interests of the children should be considered. Having regard to the debates in Committee, I have proposed that that is a way of dealing with the matter. Where there is substantial hardship to a child or children of the marriage resulting from the order of dissolution, the court should have a discretion to refuse the order of dissolution. That seems to me to provide a practical and reasonable way of handling this matter. It may be that my noble friend Lady Elles would like to do more in that connection, but that is a basis on which this matter can be approached.
I have also to point out that part of the arrangements in connection with a divorce before it can be granted under the provisions of the Bill is that the arrangements for the children are before the court. I have embodied in Amendment No. 137, to which my noble friend Lady Young referred, the criteria that my noble friend Lady Elles proposed in her earlier amendment, which is similar to one she proposed in Committee, for bringing into effect the operation of the Children Act in conjunction with the divorce arrangements. That is the right thing and the right way to look at it.
The court, in considering the divorce arrangements, should consider those that the parties have made for the children by reference to the criteria we have set out. In that way a practical arrangement is possible for taking proper account of the interests of the children. The Children Act allows the court to take account of the various matters referred to in subsection (5)(a), (h) and (c). It is perfectly reasonable that the interests, wishes and feelings of the child should be taken into account when considering, for example, where it should stay and with whom it should have contact. It is quite a different thing to say that those

1201
wishes and feelings could really play a part in deciding whether or not their parents should be allowed the benefit of a dissolution of their marriage.
My understanding of the research is that what really causes damage to the children is the breakdown of the marriage usually leading to separation of the unit of husband and wife into two distinct units. The child cannot stay with both and feels torn in two. That is a real danger. It usually happens sometime before the divorce. In considering the dissolution of the marriage there is nothing that the court can do to put that right unless the parties are persuaded, by means of the kind of things we are seeking to encourage here, to do it for themselves.
In my submission the Bill provides the correct framework. I am certainly willing to consider whether anything further should be done in relation to the hardship bar. I believe that that is the right way forward and the only practical way in which interests can be taken into account in a way which does not distort the whole divorce process which is, after all, not a process for the children, although it has effects on them, but for dissolving the marriage of their parents.
I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment. We may be able to consider whether anything more requires to be done in relation to the hardship bar and the other amendments I have suggested. I believe that we have come quite a long way towards dealing with the problem appropriately by later amendments.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for a rather generous offer. I shall withdraw the amendment. I would like to consider further ways in which subsection (5)(c) can be brought into the Bill in some form or other and particularly the three paragraphs which come from the Children Act. Perhaps they can be put into Clause 9 so that they will be part of the consideration of the way in which the court will consider the welfare of the children. That may be one way around the problem. I would like to consider that later.
I am surprised that some noble Lords question the words "wishes" and "feelings" which were so strongly supported in this House when the Children Bill, as it then was, was being debated. They are the precise words taken from the text of the Children Act. I realise that there are many who consider that there would be a veto on the divorce if the interests of the children were taken into account. Some of us share the deep feelings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, as regards the fact that probably there should not be any divorce, particularly where there are children under the age of 16. I accept, however, that that would not be the feeling of the House and that it would not be acceptable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would object when I say "in this day and age" because of the way people regard divorce.
Perhaps I may conclude with one comment to the House about what is happening to children. A teacher used to talk to a class in Newcastle every year on religious themes. He found that he could no longer do so because he could not talk any more about God the Father because, although the children knew about God,
1202
they did not know who or what the father was. That seems to sum up what is happening to children and their parents in today's society. I thank the noble and learned Lord and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps she can help me on this point. One of the problems is that as a result of the breakdown of a marriage many children are not in contact with their fathers. Is it not right that one of the ways of trying to alleviate that is to preserve, on the breakdown of a marriage, a good relationship between the children and their father?
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend. I thank him very much for the amendment that he has tabled which reflects one that I tabled earlier referring precisely to contact between both parents. We at least share that particular view. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for having raised the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order implements the recommendations contained in the report of the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland on Business Tenancies, published in June 1994. The Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Act 1964 governs the law relating to business tenancies in Northern Ireland and gives the tenant of business premises basic rights; namely, the right to security of tenure and the right to compensation. The committee, following its review and after extensive consultation with interested parties in Northern Ireland, concluded that the 1964 Act on the whole achieved a fair balance between the competing interests of landlord and tenant. The committee recommended that the basic principles of the Act should remain, but that its procedures should be streamlined to promote legal certainty and simplicity.
The Government accepted the recommendations of the advisory committee generally, and the order contains its core recommendations. This is a technical piece of legislation, but it is important. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January he approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order,

1203
which we support. I commend the Law Reform Advisory Committee for its work. I believe that it is still chaired by Lord Justice Carswell so the quality of the work is no surprise. I believe also that it was set up in the almost forgotten but happy days of a Labour administration, which is another cause for sel f-congratulation.
On a more sober note, no one has worked harder than the Minister in the cause of the improvement of business, inward investment and the development of employment opportunities. This order will have a part to play in that picture at a time when there are so many difficulties which threaten the very useful and fruitful work that the Minister has done over these past months and years. We support this order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his support for the order. I would expect it to come with commendation, given its source. We appreciate the work of the committee. I also thank the noble Lord for his concern for Northern Ireland at this time. It is heartbreaking to see the views and prayers of Northern Ireland for peace ignored so outrageously.
I should like to place on the record that we are cheered by how much was achieved in the 17 months of the ceasefire. There are foundations which a break in the ceasefire will not take away. People who would have crossed the street to avoid one another now work together in community and business. Business leaders have emerged to lead in the commercial world. We have always maintained shareholder value, and it remains. The strength of the local firms and their export record will help us. In Northern Ireland, if the effort amounted to 110 per cent. previously, it is now 140 per cent. We shall continue to simplify legislation. I thank the noble Lord for his support. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill
7.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I explained at Second Reading that the Bill is an enabling measure which will allow the Government to offer a package of benefits to certain overseas Hong Kong officers. In particular, we propose to make schemes, by Order in Council, to pay officers compensation for loss of their career prospects and to provide Hong Kong overseas pensioners with a measure of protection for the sterling value of their pensions. Officers will also be allowed to retire prematurely before 30th June 1997 and he entitled to resettlement help.
The Bill was considered in Committee. Noble Lords who spoke recognised the contributions that Hong Kong overseas officers have made to the success
1204
of Hong Kong and that they should receive benefits similar to those provided to their predecessors in 42 former British dependent territories. It is gratifying that no noble Lord questioned the object of the Bill. There was some discussion also of the proposed pension safeguard scheme which the Government propose to implement, by Order in Council, after enactment of this legislation.
I explained in some detail the considerations which underlie the proposed scheme and why the Government consider that it is fair to Hong Kong pensioners and to British taxpayers. The Bill passed through Committee unamended, and I have no government amendments to propose. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Chesham.)
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the other contributors who discussed the Bill. I should like also, as I did on Second Reading, to pay tribute to the Hong Kong Civil Service and its overseas members. They have worked with great efficiency and commitment to Hong Kong and its future. I should like also to wish them well in the months leading up to the handover, and for those who intend to remain in their posts over that period and beyond, I express my hope that the transition will be as trouble free as it possibly can be.
The Labour Party has been happy to support the Bill throughout its consideration in this House and another place. It provides the security needed for retiring civil servants in Hong Kong. We know that it is acceptable to them after a long period of negotiation which we are sure they will be glad is now over. It is consistent with the 42 other similar schemes, and as such, again, is highly acceptable to us. I look forward to the Bill receiving its Royal Assent and being implemented.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness with regard to the commitment of Hong Kong civil servants who are soon to be pensioners. Although I failed to make any impression on the Bill or to change the Government's mind, this is a worthy piece of legislation. I hope that it is enacted well.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their support for the Bill. We too would like to pay a great tribute to the overseas civil servants in Hong Kong. We wish them the very best, and hope that everything goes as well as it possibly can. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed.

European Convergence Criteria: Deficit Assessment
7.35 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 is about sending information on economic matters to the Commission. It asks the Government to submit to Parliament for its approval a report which assesses the UK's medium-term economic and budgetary position. It also says that this report shall form the basis of any submission of information to the Council and Commission which may be required under Articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht Treaty.
The Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97, the Red Book, provides that assessment. It describes the Government's tax and spending plans and explains how they are related to the Government's economic and political objectives. The last paragraph of chapter I of the Red Book states that it forms the basis of submissions to the European Commission for the purposes of multilateral surveillance of economic policies.
In sending that report the Government are merely continuing to co-operate in the longstanding practice of sharing information on economic matters with our partners in the Community. The Maastricht Treaty extended that co-operation with two new procedures: the agreement of broad economic policy guidelines by the Council and the excessive deficits procedure. In stage 2 of EMU the Council can make non-binding recommendations only under these procedures.
This debate is not about the Government's economic strategy which was fully debated in another place after the Budget Statement and in your Lordships' House the day after the Budget, thanks to the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. However, the House may note that this strategy has succeeded in providing a stable macroeconomic framework, sustainable growth, the longest period with inflation below 4 per cent. for almost 50 years, falling unemployment, and sound public finances. This debate is about transmitting this information in the Red Book to the European Commission to comply with our treaty obligations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report I 996–97.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, on the previous two occasions upon which we have debated this Motion, as is required, as the Minister said, by Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, noble Lords on all sides of the House protested that regurgitating chapters of the Red Book did not fulfil the conditions laid down in that section. Where, for example, in this ersatz report is there the "assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to the … social … and environmental goals", as is required by the Act? Nowhere, of course.
Including Section 1(16) to assert that the report does meet those conditions does not make it true. It is typical of the Government to think that asserting something is
1206
true makes it true. The Minister should realise that that is not the case. I suppose that the Minister thinks that if he ignores the law of the land year after year we on these Benches will eventually tire of complaining of the Government's duplicity and let the matter go. We will not. It is about time the Minister displayed some respect for the law. Surely that is not too much to ask, even of this Government.
What is clearly too much to ask is an unambiguous statement of the Government's fiscal objectives. Two years ago, when the first of these debates took place, the Government's fiscal goal, as set out in the 1993 Red Book (para 2.8) was:
"to bring the PSBR back toward balance over the medium term, and in particular to ensure that when the economy is on trend the public sector borrows no more than is required to finance its net capital spending".
I pointed out at the time that the first part of that sentence contradicts the second part. Perhaps because of my protest—perhaps not—last year the Government's fiscal goal was changed. Paragraph 2.9 of the 1994 Red Book reads:
"The Government's fiscal objective is to bring the PSBR back to balance over the medium term".
That is all. There is no mention any more of financing capital spending by the public sector.
Now, lo and behold, in the 1995 Red Book the objective of fiscal policy has been changed again. In paragraph 2.12 we find that the internal contradictions of 1993 have been reinstated and that the Government's medium-term objective is to bring the PSBR back into balance over the medium term—that is, to borrow nothing—and at the same time to borrow no more than is required to finance net capital spending—that is, to borrow something.
That confusion over the very foundation of the Government's fiscal strategy is intolerable. Even if the Minister adopts his customary position of ignoring all questions asked of him, he really must answer this: is the Government's medium-term fiscal objective that government borrowing should be zero? Or is it the Government's medium-term fiscal objective that the Government should borrow to finance capital expenditure? Which is it? To submit a report to Parliament which is internally contradictory is simply unacceptable.
Regrettably, this report is not just muddled, though that would be bad enough, it is also quite literally calculated to deceive. The deficit projections in the report are based on assumptions about general economic performance which are widely accepted by informed commentators to be false. Table 4.2 of the Red Book provides an estimate of the general government financial deficit, the relevant measure of the fiscal deficit under the Maastricht criteria. The deficit is forecast to be 4¾ per cent. of GDP in 1995–96 and 3½ per cent. in 1996-97, which is "close", as the report puts it, to the Maastricht target.
However, as is pointed out in paragraph 4.7 of the Red Book:
"The projections of the public finances in the medium term are based on the assumptions on the economy set out in paragraph 3.61".

1207
Let us turn to paragraph 3.61 and find out what those assumptions are. Crucially, we find the assumption is that the economy will grow by 2 per cent. in 1995–96 and by 3 per cent. by 1996–97. When the assumption of 3 per cent. growth this year was touted by the Government last November it was just barely credible. Today, three months later, as the latest issue of the Bank of England's latest Inflation Report makes clear, the assumption of 3 per cent. growth is truly incredible.
In the face of the Government's projection of accelerating growth, on which their estimates of the fiscal deficits are based, it is worth examining what the Bank has had to say in the past couple of weeks. In its Inflation Report it stated:
"Economic growth slowed throughout last year. Non-oil output was about 2 per cent. higher than in 1994. But the fourth-quarter growth rate fell throughout the year from 3 per cent. at the beginning to about I per cent. at the end … a more protracted period of slow growth during 1996. as a result of significant downward revisions to growth prospects in the world economy (especially France and Germany) cannot be ruled out".
So much for 3 per cent.; so much for 2½ per cent., the so-called "slow-growth" scenario used in Table 4.11 of the report. Today's PSBR figures reinforce the Bank's view.
Will the Government now tell us what, in the light of the factors which the Bank of England has identified, is the Treasury's current forecast for the impact of slower GDP growth on the projected deficit outturn?
Of course, the report is not just about forecasts; it is about the Maastricht convergence criteria. In the midst of the confusion and dissimulation, it might be expected that the Government would at least make clear to your Lordships' House what their attitude to the convergence criteria might be. Do the Government believe that the convergence criteria are the appropriate criteria for judging whether Britain should join a single currency or do they not?
I am not asking the Minister to tell us whether Britain will join. I quite understand that the Government wish to postpone that decision to a later date. What I am asking is: what are the criteria which the Government will use to reach that decision? What are the Government looking for? Do the Government believe, for example, that the achievement of the Maastricht guidelines are appropriate criteria or are they looking for something else? If so, what'? If the Prime Minister is too confused, or too fearful of Mr. Portillo's xenophobic battalions, to state what the basis of his own judgment might he, can the Minister at least tell us what is the Government's attitude to other member states forming a monetary union?
The Prime Minister's regular attempts to argue that France and Germany should not join in monetary union even if they want to do so simply makes this country look ridiculous. He is pretending that he can fix the rules of a game that he himself does not want to play. The unrestrained glee with which government Ministers greet every difficulty encountered by France and Germany on the path to monetary union clearly reveals
1208
their attitude to the enterprise. In the face of civil war in the Conservative Party, they want the whole thing to fail; they want their private nightmare to go away.
What happens to the Conservative Party does not matter much. But when party in-fighting determines the international stance of Her Majesty's Government that is enormously damaging to this country's interests. Crowing over the difficulties of our European partners in the pursuit of their political objectives is bound to build up long-standing resentment and to weaken yet further Britain's political and economic standing with our partners.
This position was made crystal clear in a remarkably frank letter sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month to Signor Dini, the chairman of the Committee of European Finance Ministers. In his letter, Mr. Clarke identified with remarkable candour the key questions about what will happen if and when—and it is most likely when—France and Germany forge a monetary union and Europe is divided into "ins" and "outs", with Britain among the "outs".
It is well worth examining Mr. Clarke's points. First, what exactly will be the link between the single currency and the pound? Do the Government imagine that the pound will go on floating? What do the Government assume will be the reaction of France and Germany to the strains of monetary union being multiplied by the strains of the devaluing pound?
Secondly, for those on the inside the logical use of the European Union's structural funds will be to develop and strengthen those weaker regions within the monetary union which have no possibility of devaluation, rather than reinforcing the competitive position of the British who continue to devalue. What will the Government do when the structural funds are diverted from Liverpool and Scotland to Lille and the eastern Länder of Germany? Mr. Clarke informed Signor Dini that he would protest. A fat lot of good that will do!
Thirdly, is it not the case that those who have joined the monetary union, the insiders, will feel that their economic interests take precedence over the economic interests of the outsiders? For example, the policies of the Central European Bank, an institution which due to the incompetence of Mr. Major will be located in Frankfurt and not where it should be in the City of London, will be geared to the needs of the insiders not the outsiders.
Fourthly, it seems likely that once the monetary union is formed the insiders will impose stricter conditions on any new entrants than are currently contained in the Treaty. Will the Minister tell us, for example, what is the Government's reaction to Herr Waigel's proposal that once the monetary union is formed the deficit conditions should be tightened'? Do the Government agree with Herr Waigel? If so, does the Minister agree that stricter conditions applied to insiders under Herr Waigel's scheme will be applied to outsiders who in the future might wish to join'? The terms for any outsider becoming an insider will be much tougher than the terms for joining at the outset.

1209
Mr. Clarke asked four vital questions. They are vital to this country's economic interests and vital to our future relationship with our European partners. From the evidence of his letter the Government do not have any answers to the questions which the Chancellor has posed. That is no way to trifle with Britain's economic future. Whether we join a monetary union or not, it is vital that the monetary union be a success for those who do join. Their prosperity is our buoyant market. The Government should be putting forward proposals to aid in the success of monetary union. They should be formulating constructive proposals as to how Britain as an outsider, should it indeed be an outsider, can best adapt to our relationship with the insiders to ensure success for both groups.
A positive approach to the goal which is so important to our French and German partners will surely be in Britain's long-term interests. Unfortunately, that is the last thing which is likely to come from the party opposite. They treat the objectives of our partners with fear and contempt.
This report is rife with muddled definitions, dubious statistics and the failure to address the issues required by the Act. It is but another example of the Government's persistent failure to deal with European affairs in the hest interests of the nation. This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory report. The Government should withdraw it and draft a report which actually meets the requirement of the law of the land.
7.50 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, even in this non-philosophical age, we sometimes ask why we are here. Certainly when I found myself thrust with the glory of intervening in this debate this evening I felt that a little research was required. I found that, in another place, the Paymaster General told us very clearly that the purpose of the debate and the Motion is to satisfy Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which is sometimes called the Maastricht Act. That usually means loud boos and hisses off from the Government Benches.
In doing my research and looking at how your Lordships' House and the other place has dealt with this Bill over the past two years, one finds three simultaneous debates taking place. There are a few old folks going down memory lane and having a complete debate about whether or not Britain should be in the Common Market—and I use the old term advisedly because it is usually the same people rehearsing the same arguments that they have rehearsed over the past 30 years. Then there are some more recent adherents who want the debate to be entirely about economic and monetary union and the single currency. Thirdly, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, uses the opportunity to bite lumps out of the Red Book, which he has done again this evening.
However, in his remarks, many of which I agreed with, he touched on the whole spirit of the Government's approach. Many of us find the Government's churlishness objectionable. They have the attitude that they have got to do it; this is the minimum
1210
that needs to be done; and get on with it. As the noble Lord suggested, that may be because to do otherwise would simply provoke the Europhobes on the Government Back Benches and the Government have lost all stomach for that fight. I think that that is a pity because the opportunity to look rationally at the convergence criteria and to have an informed discussion about how we are progressing on that would be to the benefit of all concerned. After all, a commitment to work for price stability, no excessive government deficit, stable exchange rates and no beggar-my-neighbour interest rates are not just matters of convergence but seem to be a Holy Grail of economic management to which most governments would aspire.
I approach the debate by saying that we on these Benches urge on the Government the need for a positive approach to these matters while they occupy the Government Benches, even though we understand the great difficulties which face them in keeping the party together. Recent opinion polls about economic monetary union and a single currency show overwhelmingly that people do not feel that they are sufficiently well informed about the issues. They would welcome more information and more public debate. That is surely true. If we are, as some of the critics of EMU and the single currency suggest, taking one of the most fundamental decisions which has ever faced this country, and certainly one of the most important decisions concerning sovereignty, parliamentary control and so on, there is a duty on the Government to encourage a well-informed public debate about the issues concerned.
My party makes no secret about the matter. We believe that both EMU and a single currency would be good for Britain. It would increase trade and assist business by removing uncertainty and transaction costs, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. Membership would place Britain in a hard currency zone, protecting us from the volatility of speculation. It would reduce long-term interest rates, making the cost of borrowing cheaper for firms, individuals and government itself. It would ensure that the City of London and British business are able to gain fully from the advantages of the single market, which will be greatly enhanced through the convergence of European economies and a single currency.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred to the City of London. I echo those remarks. I am sometimes very concerned about the aloofness—or is it the cowardice?—of the City at the moment in playing its part in encouraging informed debate. Sometimes the complacency with which I hear City figures saying that the City is so far ahead of any of its European competitors that it can survive almost any threat makes me wonder where I have heard that before. I then remember that it was our motorbike industry in the 1950s which used to think in that way. I am extremely worried about whether London could remain one of the three world-great financial centres if we miss the bus in terms of European monetary union.
I realise fully that this is a debate in which there are passions and strongly-held opinions on both sides. I believe that the Government are failing in the way in which they are handling their treaty responsibilities by

1211
not encouraging debate at all. The Government should look again at the suggestion made two years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that they should produce, as their commitment under the treaty, not just the Red Book but a proper paper of assessment which could be the basis of a decent and informed debate.
As someone who has been involved in the European debate almost since my student days and certainly through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, I am concerned that the way in which the debate about European monetary union and the single currency is developing has uncanny echoes of all the other times at which Britain has deluded itself into thinking that it could make its own pace, stay out of the argument, stay on the periphery of the arguments, and then finds itself pursuing an already moving train. The analogy has been made so often because that is exactly what has happened. We were not there for the iron and steel community because Ernie Bevin memorably said, "The Durham miners won't have it". There are no Durham miners today. We missed the Treaty of Messina. We missed the early development of the Community when we could have set our seal on many of the developments.
Yet again, because of the power and the threat of the Europhobes, the Government are neither playing their part at the heart of the discussions which are taking place in the Community, nor encouraging the informed debate which should be going on in this country. The criticism that that process receives from this side of the House is something that I believe the Minister should answer tonight.
8 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, although this has been a short debate, a number of interesting and important points have been raised. Perhaps I may begin by telling the noble Lord, Lord McNally, with whom I have not had the pleasure of debating before—there will no doubt be a number of further occasions upon which we can open up on such issues—that I do not believe the spirit of our response to Section 5 is churlish. The Red Book contains all the relevant information for the purposes of multilateral surveillance, which is what the debate is all about, and the UK's participation in that multilateral surveillance.
The one point upon which I agree most strongly with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is the fact that if EMU and the single currency is to succeed, no matter how many members join it, it is very important that the people of the countries of Europe are taken along with the policies that their leaders make. I believe that it was perfectly clear two or three years ago in the aftermath of Maastricht that it was not only in Britain that there were great reservations; there were reservations in many other countries. One or two factors going the other way could have brought about considerable mayhem—if, for example, the French referendum had just gone a few points in the other direction.
Therefore, I hope we can all agree about the importance, not just in this country but in all European countries, of taking our people along with us. Perhaps
1212
because of the way that we operate in this country it is even more important for us to take our people along with us. I say that because we debate European matters in both Houses of Parliament in a way that some of our other friends do not. Statements are made by Ministers returning from Council of Ministers' meetings in Brussels on almost every sphere, including fishing, the environment and finance. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister himself does so when he returns from Heads of Government meetings. That process is not always replicated in other member states.
I believe that we should at least pride ourselves on the fact that we in this country are trying to have a debate. That debate tends to divide parties just a little. Dare I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who tried to have a bit of sport at the expense of my party? I answer questions in this House day after day on the European Union. It is clear that the noble Lord's party is not entirely and completely united. Just in case the noble Lord, Lord McNally, feels too self-righteous, I commend to him some remarks I made only last night during a most interesting debate introduced by his noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. I had occasion to remind the House of some comments made by the latter noble Lord about EMU and the single currency in an interview with Der Spiegel. That suggests that the noble Lord's party is not entirely united on the question of whether European monetary union and the Euro is entirely a good thing. At the risk of being accused of attempting to reach consensus, I believe that we can all agree that our parties are not entirely united on whether or not European monetary union would be a good thing.
I should like to return to the question of a single currency because I believe that that was the central point of the contributions made by both noble Lords. However, I should like, first, to try to answer one or two of the cross questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I would hate to get the reputation of not answering questions. Indeed, I always try to answer questions. If the noble Lord does not always receive the answers that he would prefer, I suggest that that is slightly different from saying that I do not answer the questions.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions and I am sure that he will not mind if I say that I may not be able to remember, or, indeed, answer, all of them. The noble Lord reprimanded me on certain environmental measures saying that they were not in the Red Book. But environmental and social measures are contained in the Red Book: for example, the promotion of high employment; a high standard of living; a better quality of life; sustainable growth and respect for the environment; environmental measures introduced in the Budget this year; the reduced duty on fuel which produces lower emissions of gases; the continued rise in the duty on road fuels by an average of at least 5 per cent. above inflation with higher rises for super unleaded petrol where there is a lot of evidence of environmental damage; and the new tax on the waste disposed of in landfill sites introduced to use market forces to reduce environmental damage. Therefore, environmental factors are contained in the Red Book.

1213
I was also asked about the Government's fiscal strategy; indeed, I have been asked about that on a number of occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. So it is not a new subject for us to fence with over the Dispatch Box. Our objective—I have said this before—is to bring the PSBR back towards balance over the medium term and in particular to ensure that, when the economy is on trend, the public sector borrows no more than is required to finance its net capital spending.
As regards the 3 per cent. growth forecast being too optimistic, I should point out to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sticks by the Budget forecast that the economy will grow by 3 per cent. this year. Growth is supported by stronger consumer spending and by accelerated business investment. In particular, we believe that the fundamentals are in place for growth to continue. We have low inflation; we have sound public finance; and, above all, we have competitive businesses.
There is one point that I should like to make to the noble Lord who thought that structural funds could be diverted from Liverpool to Lille, and so on. I cannot remember the rest of what he said, because I lost it at that point due to the fact that I was trying to work out how to answer him. I should say that structural fund expenditure is allocated and fixed until 1999. There can be no possible diversion until that time. But, at that point, who is to know what other countries will have joined the European Union, the economies of which would actually require the use of the structural funds on a priority basis?
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned the City of London. I believe that he was unduly pessimistic. I say that because the City is a centre of international financial excellence and we expect it to continue to rise to the challenges of the future whatever they bring, in or out of EMU. London handles more international currency business than all the other European Union centres put together. It is the overwhelming choice as the European headquarters for major international investment hanks. Moreover, we have recently seen the tendency of some pharmaceutical companies and banks to move offices and headquarters to London to take advantage of the situation—
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but surely that is why we are part of a European single market. If we were an offshore financial centre, that would not necessarily apply. It is not that I underestimate the power of the City. What worries me sometimes is its complacency.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one of the lessons of the past 50 years is the fact that all of us in this country must guard against complacency. I believe that the noble Lord mentioned the motor cycle industry as an example of complacency. That led to the industry being totally superseded by the Japanese motorbike industry which certainly showed considerable aggression and no complacency at all. Therefore, we must guard against it, and that includes the City.
The latter point allows me to turn to what has been the core of tonight's discussion; namely, the question of convergence of the MU and whether or not we would
1214
join. I shall start by saying that I believe we are in an enviable position over the single currency in that we have a choice about whether or not to join. That means we can make a decision when we have a clearer view of exactly what joining the single currency entails for Britain.
I have to say that I am not entirely sure about the party opposite. I have spent some weeks considering the matter. Every time it is debated I wonder to myself whether the party opposite actually approves of the choice or would it ask us to abandon that choice, tear up our opt-out and make the decision today that we will enter the MU if the convergence factors are right in 1998–99. That is an interesting question; indeed, it is one for which I have never actually been able to find an answer. It is perhaps true to say that the party opposite has come from a position of absolute and total hostility to the European Union in my political lifetime—starting in 1979 when I became a Member of the other place—to now being with us in favour of the European Union and of the all important single market. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I do not think we ought to get ourselves trapped into thinking that the single market necessarily needs a single currency for it to work, and that if it does not have a single currency it will somehow disintegrate. That would be damaging. I shall return to that matter in a few moments because I wish to underline that point.
Right now with the option there on the table for us to decide nearer the time whether or not to join the single currency we are playing a full part with our European partners in the work which is needed to determine what preparations will be necessary for the single currency. If we join that single currency, it is important that the details are acceptable to the British public. That was the point I made at the beginning of my remarks when I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said on that point. If we do not join, the single currency will still affect British commerce, industry and our financial institutions when they do business in Europe, as well as individuals when they take their holidays in the European sun.
Whatever the final decision on membership, it is in our best interests to be fully involved in that work. We are involved in it, and we intend to continue to be involved. However, we believe that we are not now in a position to assess the pros and cons of joining at this stage. It is impossible to tell what the circumstances will be in two or three years' time. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has put it this way; namely, that we should not operate on hunches but on facts. That underlines the value of our opt out. We shall seek to join if it is in our national interests to do so. We shall make that decision on a hardheaded assessment of the pros and cons.
Every day the serious newspapers contain articles written by people either from this country or from Europe underlining the point that the single currency will be an exercise of unprecedented scale and complexity. If it is to succeed, it must be based on firm economic foundations because if it were to fail that would have disastrous consequences for the European

1215
Union. It cannot be in Europe's interests to proceed to a single currency before the economic conditions are right. Roughly 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe. Given the importance of our trade with Europe, we have a strong interest in making sure that the single currency works, whether or not we are in it. The Government put emphasis on the convergence criteria of inflation and public finances set out in the Maastricht Treaty. I underline that point in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said. The criteria aim to ensure that economies are moving in the right direction towards economic convergence which is a necessary condition for economic and monetary union.
It is important that member states bear down on inflation and control their fiscal deficits. We believe that the convergence criteria project the right message and represent sound economics in their own right, EMU or not. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, accused me of feeling unrestrained glee at the difficulties of France and Germany. If the noble Lord had been present during last night's debate, he would have heard me say clearly that we are not pleased with the problems that the French and Germans are experiencing because France and Germany are important markets for our goods and services. If they are experiencing an economic downturn, that is not good news for our all important exports to their markets. However, we believe we should look at what is happening there and see whether there are lessons to be learnt for the whole of Europe and for ourselves as regards deficits and increased welfare spending without much thought given as to how one controls that. That is the real problem in France. It is also a problem in Italy. The Germans have taken some steps—one hopes those are sufficient—to attempt to meet some of the problems that they have. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I do not accept that either myself or my honourable or right honourable friends feel unrestrained glee at the difficulties experienced by France and Germany.
I was asked whether the convergence criteria are the only criteria which apply in this area. No, they are not the only criteria. They are not sufficient in themselves. We need to consider other factors, too. We must look at the trends of the time and—dare I say it?—at employment and unemployment, which worries all the countries of the European Union. Many of those countries are in a much worse position regarding unemployment than this country. We believe that not only must we have durable convergence and steady growth to make the single currency sustainable, but we must also have in place trends in employment and other areas which will make convergence sustainable. As was pointed out in the Economist—I believe a couple of weeks ago—it is perhaps not just the convergence criteria which are needed to achieve the single currency which are important, but it is also important to maintain the economies of the different countries who join in a convergent state. If that does not happen, the pressures inside a single currency could easily cause it considerable damage, if not cause an explosion. That would be damaging to the idea that we have built up so painfully over all these years of a European Union and
1216
a single market. EMU requires durable convergence and sustainable growth. We cannot know for certain now what countries will be able to meet those conditions when we reach Stage 3 in 1999. What is clear is that not everyone will be able to meet those conditions in 1999. The latest evidence shows that only a minority of countries will have fulfilled the conditions. That leads me to the most important point made by both noble Lords; namely, if EMU goes ahead with only a minority of member states, what pressures will that create? As I have just said, those pressures could threaten the future of the European Union.
The prospect of a group of "ins" and "outs"—the "ins" part of the Euro currency bloc, and the "outs" who either do not want to join or cannot join because of a lack of convergence—raises a number of crucial questions which, as the Prime Minister has made clear, must be addressed. At the summit of European leaders in Madrid last December he succeeded in persuading his colleagues that the questions raised should be studied now because the creation of a group of "ins" and "outs" within the European Union could impinge seriously on the way it works, and on the successful way it has worked for a number of years. We yield to no one in our support of the single European market. It is vitally important that nothing damages that single European market when and if the Euro comes into being.
I was asked about the Chancellor's letter regarding the "ins" and "outs". That letter was intended to follow up the agreement made at the Madrid European Council on the need to investigate the relationship between the "ins" and "outs". Whether we are in the "ins" or in the "outs", it is important that these matters are investigated. We have stressed the importance of sorting out these issues whether we participate. These issues will be discussed by Ministers and officials during the next few months and I hope that sensible conclusions can be arrived at so that if there is a situation of "ins" and "outs", the single market will be able to continue and will not be damaged.
I may not have answered directly some of the questions put to me; but by giving an exposition of where the Government stand on the single currency and the convergence criteria, and what happens to the "ins" and "outs", I hope that I have answered a number of questions posed by both noble Lords. What we are discussing this evening gives the Commission the information to help it make judgments about how we are managing to meet the convergence criteria. I could not help but notice that in last year's report the Commission pointed out that we still had a little work to do. It commended the United Kingdom Government on keeping control of public spending. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and his party will join us in that important aspect of keeping a tight control on public spending. On the next occasion that I, as a Minister from the largest spending department, make some proposals to control my department's budget as part of the control of public spending, I hope that I shall have the support of the party opposite. That would be a novel experience.

1217
I hope that I have at least addressed the most important points made by both noble Lords. I make no apology for repeating my next point in a different way. I believe that whatever happens as regards the United Kingdom and the single European currency, that will affect every country whether they are in or out of it. It is vitally important that the economic conditions throughout the whole of Europe not just converge between now and the decision dates in 1998 and 1999,
1218
but also continue to converge after that for the sake of the whole enterprise of the single market and the prosperity it has already brought to the participating countries. I believe the single market can continue to bring that prosperity not just to the participating countries but also to those countries who wish to join it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.

  Questions of Procedure for Ministers
  Questions of Procedure for Ministers
  Scott Report
  Scott Report
  NHS Wheelchair Service
  NHS Wheelchair Service
  Bank of England Meetings: Minutes
  Bank of England Meetings: Minutes
  Pension Splitting on Divorce: Proposal
  Pension Splitting on Divorce: Proposal
  Armed Forces Review: Report
  Armed Forces Review: Report
  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation: Report
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation: Report
  National Poisons Unit
  National Poisons Unit