Sitting of 27 February 1996

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

    Landfill Tax
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the proposed landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [15487]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The landfill tax is another step towards green taxation. It shifts tax from jobs and resources and has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. MacShane: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the landfill tax at present constituted will penalise the very bodies and companies that are seeking to clear up contaminated land? In my constituency, it will add £20 million to the cost of any efforts made by the local authority to clean contaminated land, and cost hundreds of millions of pounds in the rest of Yorkshire. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the tax will do great damage to British Steel, for example, and other companies that want to clear up contaminated land? It is a tax designed to put money into the Treasury. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me and local authorities, as well as responsible companies, in opposition to the bean-counting twerps at the Treasury and devise a real tax that will stop pollution where it begins rather than where it ends?
    Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the tax does not put money into the Treasury. It is a tax on landfill that will be recycled. The moneys will be paid out to reduce tax on jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be true. He shows by shaking his head that he does not understand the tax. I am surprised, because there is a landfill tax in Switzerland that works extremely well.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tax, an environmental initiative for which he and I both worked, is yet a further sign of the Government's commitment to environmental matters? Does he agree also that no excuses can or should be accepted from local authorities for not implementing the landfill tax as it is clear that they have the moneys to do so?
    Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend will be as sorry as I am that the Labour party has shown once again that, although it talks generally about the environment
    704
    sometimes—not very often—it is not prepared to make the major changes that are necessary when it comes to precise and practical details. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) knows, the concerns about how we should deal with landfill, which is the removal of contamination, are the subject of active discussion. Local authorities have already been able to retain in their baselines the moneys that they used to use for waste responsibilities. Those moneys have been transferred to the Environment Agency.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that the tax, especially in the form of the £7 levy, will have a detrimental effect on the coal industry, and particularly on coal-fired stations where fly ash is produced by the burning of coal? At present 50 per cent. of fly ash is recycled. The other 50 per cent., especially in Scotland, is put into lagoons and reclaimed lands in the Forth estuary. It is an asset for the community and not detrimental to it. Is the right hon. Gentleman considering imposing the £2 levy rather than the levy of £7?
    Mr. Gummer: It is a useful material and we are trying to promote recycling. That is important. If we are to have green taxes, they should be designed to ensure that we recycle rather than continue with landfill, which is one of the least satisfactory uses of the material to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That is why environmental groups throughout the country have welcomed the tax change. I am sorry that the Labour party does not support it.
    Mr. Devlin: Is it not the case that an amendment that links the concerns of the hon. Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) has been accepted by the Committee that is considering the Finance Bill? Is not the real concern about landfill tax the fly tipping that is engaged in by those who are not prepared to pay for rubbish to be taken to an incinerator or a waste exchange area, which means that material is left on roadsides? Should not we be considering an arrangement for the general public to rid themselves of their rubbish without littering our countryside?
    Mr. Gummer: As my hon. Friend says, it is certainly necessary to give the general public more opportunities to be able to get rid of their rubbish. Many local authorities are already doing that. I hope considerably to encourage that approach. Amendments have been accepted by the Committee that is considering the Finance Bill, and they will go some way to meet some of the concerns. As the hon. Member for Rotherham clearly does not understand the way in which the tax will work and fails to appreciate that the Treasury does not gain from it—moneys raised by the tax will be recycled to reduce pressures on jobs—there was no point in supplying him with such details. He has not got that far.

    Lappel Bank Case
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Lappel bank case before the European Court of Justice. [15488]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The United

    705
    Kingdom, with the support of France, has argued its case strongly at the European Court of Justice, and we await the Advocate-General's opinion.
    Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for that answer, but does the Minister accept that, if anything, the Lappel bank case teaches us that we have a completely unworkable system of environmental protection, because any Government Department can confer strong environmental protection on bird habitats and then unilaterally withdraw it when it feels like it, and that the only remedy for anyone who wants to contest the withdrawal is to go to the European Court of Justice, which takes ages, costs a fortune and has no powers of injunction to stop work in the interim?
    Mr. Clappison: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Our system is working perfectly well. In the Lappel bank case, while we await the opinion of the Advocate-General, we are mindful of the importance of the port of Sheerness and its continuing viability. On the environmental consequences, the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that Lappel bank is only 1 per cent. of the special area of protection in the Medway, which does not contain rare or endangered species. Our system is working well, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to bear that in mind.

    Council House Sales
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979. [15489]
    Mr. Gummer: About 1.45 million tenants in England bought their homes between April 1979 and September 1995. At the moment, tenants are still becoming home owners at the rate of 200 a day across Great Britain.
    Sir David Knox: How does my right hon. Friend assess the future for potential sales? Will they be direct sales? Does he have any other schemes?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will agree that the changes that we have made, which give new opportunities to existing tenants in housing association property and thus ensure that future tenants in new homes will have the right to buy, and which have increased the ways in which tenants can be given a chance to buy their own homes, should mean that we shall continue to enable people to buy their own homes. The public will know that none of those 1.45 million families would have been able to buy their own home had the Labour party been in power, because it tried to stop the sales on every possible occasion.
    Mr. Olner: Will the Minister consider seriously the Environment Committee report on housing needs and condemn mortgage lenders who are currently red-lining ex-council properties? The asset of those tenants is continually diminishing. Will he consider the matter with the utmost urgency?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration condemned such practices in his speech only last Friday.

    Town and Village Centres
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the Government's measures to revitalise town and village centres. [15490]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Through our planning policies, we provide a framework to maintain and increase their vitality and, through specific measures such as the urban design campaign, city challenge and our proposed rate relief scheme for village shops, support local initiatives that benefit the whole community.
    Mr. Riddick: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that there is concern among retailers in the towns and villages of my constituency—for example, Holmfirth, Meltham and Slaithwaite—about the difficult trading conditions that they face, which will make it difficult for some of them to survive? I heard only this morning that Lloyds bank plans to close its branch in Marsden. Does he agree that although the Government are not able to force people not to shop elsewhere—in supermarkets, for example—it is important that they should take steps to ensure the continuing vitality of towns and villages in constituencies such as mine?
    Mr. Jones: When judging planning applications for new retail development, we shall ensure that local authorities take into account the impact of any new development on such communities and follow our guidance in terms of a hierarchy of suitable sites. At the end of the day, of course, there is much that traders and the communities in which they live can do to patronise these shops and to ensure that local authorities have a properly thought-out strategy for each town, village and city centre.
    Mr. Vaz: The truth is that the Government have done their best to destroy town, city and village centres. May I remind the House that it was this Government and these Ministers who allowed hundreds of out-of-town shopping centres to be built all over the country, and to tear the heart out of our towns and villages? When will the Government be prepared to stop using planning policy to destroy city and town centres and use it productively to do what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) just asked—promote and protect town and village centres?
    Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman took a close interest in such matters, he would know that that is precisely how we use the planning system. Nothing has done more to destroy city centres over the years than Labour councils' imposition of massive taxes, which has caused many businesses to move out.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are two ways in which not to revitalise villages and towns? One is to introduce car parking charges, and the other is to insist that large housing developments take place on the edges of villages and towns, in green belts. Those are both policies of Labour-controlled councils in Lancashire.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has hit two nails firmly on the head. First, car parking facilities for shoppers are a

    707
    key way to ensure the vitality of town centres. Secondly, as my hon. Friend says, the more housing there is in town and village centres, the less pressure there is on the green belt and the more people there are in the towns to patronise shops.

    Local Authority Revenue
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authority leaders on the level of Government contribution to overall local authority revenue. [15491]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met leaders of the local authority associations on 15 January and on 6 February to discuss a range of issues affecting local government, including the financing of local authority revenue expenditure.
    Mr. Pike: Has not Lancashire's education grant been increased by only 1.4 per cent.? That increase is smaller than the increases in standard spending assessment and inflation. Such small increases mean that counties such as Lancashire must either cut other services or increase the council tax.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Lancashire's SSA has risen by 3.1 per cent., its SSA per head has risen by 2.8 per cent. and its budget has risen by 3.2 per cent. If Labour councillors cannot manage, perhaps they should resign.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: When will my hon. Friend take action—
    Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I give notice that I wish to raise the issue to which I have referred on a motion for the Adjournment.

    Home Ownership
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policies for the promotion of home ownership. [15492]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): The Government are fully committed to promoting the continued growth of sustainable home ownership, both by prudent management of the economy and through specific policies to help people to become home owners.
    Mrs. Winterton: Given that home ownership is a core value of Conservatism, does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better time at which to buy a house, that interest rates are at an historic low and that it makes good sense to invest in new property? Will he ensure that we include in the next Budget, and in the next general election manifesto, firm policy plans to enable more people to buy their homes? Home ownership is very popular, and most families aspire to it.
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The relationship between interest rates, earnings and prices is now such
    708
    that buying a home is virtually the bargain of the century. The market is clearly going to turn around next year. As for specific help for home buyers, my hon. Friend—who co-chairs the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill with distinction—will know that the Committee has passed clauses permitting housing association tenants to acquire their properties in some circumstances.
    Mr. Sheerman: What are the Government doing about the tens of thousands of people in negative equity or the tens of thousands of people who, spurred on by the Government's propaganda and mishandling of the economy, invested in homes and then lost them again? What will the Government do for them?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), had been at the Council for Mortgage Lenders on Friday, he would know that I raised that very issue with some of the lenders. I told them that their policies must be tailored to the new conditions in the economy—in which people have to change jobs and accept other changes—and that we now have sustained low inflation, rather than the rapid inflation to which people became accustomed. The Government's action is concerned with sustaining a very low rate of inflation, decreasing interest rates and, therefore, decreasing mortgage rates, which helps not only people who aspire to own a home but those who have difficulty sustaining the purchase of their home. We will be continuing with that action.
    Mr. Marland: Will my hon. Friend reassure the House and all current council house dwellers that, should they wish to purchase their council houses after the next election, under a Conservative Government they will be able to do so? Will he contrast that with the wishy-washy commitments, if any, that we get from Labour Members and the fact that Labour councillors have for a very long time tried to deny council house tenants the right to buy their homes?
    Mr. Curry: We shall not merely maintain the policy that allows local authority tenants to buy their homes; we are making it possible for housing association tenants to buy their homes on equivalent terms. That will be an opportunity that has been closed to many, and it is part of the extension of sustainable home ownership to which we are thoroughly committed.
    Mr. Raynsford: Why does the Minister not admit that, far from helping home owners, the Government have created the worst crisis for home owners in this country's history? Millions of home owners are caught in negative equity, 1,000 home owners lose their homes through repossession every week and the market is suffering from a deep crisis of confidence. The Minister knows that the Government's policies have been a disaster for home owners. They have betrayed home owners, and home owners are rightly looking to Labour for a solution.
    Mr. Curry: There is nothing like the Labour party when it comes to wallowing in other people's problems. The fact is that we still have more people moving into home ownership than are facing difficulties from home ownership. We intend to extend home ownership, which

    709
    is part of our policy of achieving a sensible housing market in which home ownership, private renting and social housing have their proper roles to play. The Government have introduced that creative scheme. The Opposition have no creative policies except for the use of capital receipts, but they will not even tell us during what period they will be spent. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will spell at least that out next week.

    Urban Design
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage higher standards of urban design in respect of new developments in towns and villages. [15493]
    Mr. Gummer: I take every opportunity to raise the profile of urban design and the quality initiative that the document "Quality in Town and Country" spearheaded. I also launched a national urban design campaign last summer.
    Mr. Day: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have lost much green open space in my constituency of Cheadle, particularly to large out-of-town retail developments? If planning procedures allow such developments—against my will and that of a large percentage of my electorate—would it not be better if they were made more suitable for green, leafy areas, rather than, as at present, the American mid-west?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will know that I have sought to insist that the town centre is the most natural place for retail development and to see that the quality of those developments should, like the quality of all developments, improve considerably. I am pleased to say that, although my hon. Friend has in his area the problem he described, he will note in the Henry Square Revival in Ashton-under-Lyne and the Gorse Stacks in Chester real examples of better design because of the Government's encouragement. We shall continue with that.
    Mr. Clapham: When promoting urban design, will the Secretary of State consider no build being extended under high-voltage power lines, as happens in many villages in my constituency? Bearing in mind the link between ill health and the electromagnetic field under power lines, will the Minister consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "The microphone is not on."]
    Madam Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been interrupted. The technicians are aware that the microphone is not working; I can see them working on the problem.
    Mr. Clapham: Bearing in mind the link between ill health and the electromagnetic field under power lines, will the Minister consider amending planning law to ensure avenues of no build under such lines?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I have no intention of doing that. I have considered the evidence carefully and believe that the hon. Gentleman is asserting as fact a very questionable argument.

    Water Prices
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage the price of water for domestic consumers has changed over the past five years; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change. [15494]
    Mr. Clappison: Average domestic water and sewerage charges have increased by 35 per cent., including inflation, over the past five years. Charges have risen to help pay for the massive modernisation programme which has been necessary to raise water quality and environmental standards.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the sharp rise in the price of water is so different from the sharp fall in the price of the services provided by almost every other privatised industry—I am thinking of electricity, telecommunications and gas—would not it be helpful to give the public a full explanation of that difference? Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the basic reasons was the previous starvation of investment whereas the industry now has to bear the cost of implementing Euro-directives and the massive cost of removing agricultural chemicals and pesticides from water supplies?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to improving agricultural practices. On the wider issue, however, he is right to make the connection between the need for investment now and the lack of investment in the past. He will be aware that, since privatisation, investment has run at roughly twice the previous level. It is certainly much higher than it was before 1979. Higher investment is necessary to pay for the environmental standards that we wish to implement.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister agree that the problem of the 35 per cent. increase is only compounded by the even greater increase in profits over the past five years? Is not it disgraceful that, for the past two years, investment in the industry has actually fallen, which gives the lie to his claims?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady fails to see the link between profit and investment. Profit is very important for investment, and we want investment to continue so as to provide higher environmental standards, cleaner rivers, beaches and bathing water and high-quality drinking water. The hon. Lady's party would take us back to the bad old days of the Labour Administration when the industry was starved of investment.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that the major reason for the increase in water charges is the fact that we have to meet EU directives. Will my hon. Friend confirm that half those directives have nothing to do with health and safety but are concerned only with matters of taste and colour? Even at this late stage in the huge investment programme, will my hon. Friend try to persuade his European ministerial colleagues to get rid of such unnecessary EU directives?
    Mr. Clappison: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government are committed to high

    711
    standards of drinking water. Higher environmental standards across the board are the essence of the way in which we impose and interpret those directives. I know that my hon. Friend would wish his constituents in Barnet to have good-quality drinking water standards, just as we would for our constituents.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will appreciate that the figures he cites disguise a wide variation in water prices across the country. Will he explain to those whose bills have doubled, or more, in the south-west—and other areas that have been hit hard—why the Government believe it is appropriate to continue to subsidise the already lower prices in Scotland but refuse any help to those who have been hit in high-paying areas such as the south-west?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the particular need for investment in the south-west and the problems along the coast there. He would do well to bear in mind the need for investment arising from the lack of investment in the past. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the improved environmental standards in the south-west. The hon. Gentleman should study the report issued by the Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, which shows that the rise in prices in Scotland has been very nearly the same as that in this country.
    Mrs. Peacock: I note what my hon. Friend says about investment in the water industry. He knows very well the amount that Yorkshire Water has invested. What does he say, however, to consumers in Yorkshire, given that Yorkshire Water has recently announced a 5.5 per cent. increase in its charges—more than twice the rate of inflation—and said in the same breath that it is not sure that it will be able to supply water to its customers due to possible shortages?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend will know that, under the regulator's price structure, prices will be stabilised in Yorkshire and will be much lower in future. Particular problems in Yorkshire have been caused by exceptionally dry weather—[Interruption.] The Government are anxious to ensure that no water supply problems are caused by dry conditions in Yorkshire. Opposition Members who are shouting would do well to remember that, during the drought in Yorkshire last summer, no standpipes were used and there were no rota cuts, unlike what happened in 1976, when there was also dry weather.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the average price rise hides the fact that, while water prices generally have been pushed up by 80 per cent., charges for metered supplies have come down by 2 per cent. in real terms? First, is not such discrimination against one group of customers unlawful and, secondly, is not it part of the Government's general secret agenda to force or bribe everybody to go on to meters?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is comprehensively wrong. It is a shame that he chooses to rubbish water metering, when it has important benefits for water conservation and the environment. The longer the hon. Gentleman rubbishes water metering, the more he shows that he is not concerned about the environment,
    712
    has given no thought to the environmental consequences of water policy and has nothing constructive to say on the subject.

    Rural Business
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans to introduce a new rural business use class. [15495]
    Sir Paul Beresford: We announced in the rural White Paper our intention of consulting on the possible introduction shortly of a new rural business use class. A consultation paper is in preparation and the intention is to improve the rural economy by giving local planning authorities more confidence to allow appropriate new businesses to set up in the countryside.
    Mrs. Lait: That is welcome progress in helping to reduce rural unemployment in areas such as Rother, where it has been far too high for far too long. Does my hon. Friend agree that councillors and planning officials have been the most opposed to successful, small-scale business development? What plans are there to provide training and information for them so that such developments may be encouraged—so that we may have thriving villages and a thriving countryside?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will be aware that, even at its consultancy stage, the White Paper will contain reassurance on exactly the concerns of local authority councillors and planning officials. I am sure that they will grab the opportunity and move with it when it is fully realisable.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the initiative extend to Scotland, Britain's premier rugby nation?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I should have thought that, bearing in mind my accent, the hon. Gentleman was taking a big risk talking about rugby—even at Murrayfield. I shall certainly put his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who might like to consider it.

    Telecommunication Masts
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is pursuing to regulate the construction of telecommunication masts in areas of outstanding natural beauty. [15496]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Except in an emergency, the erection of telecommunication masts in areas of outstanding natural beauty needs planning permission from the local planning authority. Guidance on such applications is set out in the Department's planning policy guidance note 8, which emphasises the need to protect the best and most sensitive environments.
    Mr. Jenkin: Can my hon. Friend envisage the great landscape paintings of Constable spiked with telecommunication masts for cellphones? Will he assure me that he will co-ordinate carefully the telephone

    713
    companies and the local authority in Dedham vale in my constituency to ensure that masts are not erected in inappropriate and obtrusive places?
    Mr. Jones: It is probably just as well that my hon. Friend mentioned Constable, rather than some modern painters whose works already look as if they have telecommunication masts all over them. I certainly accept what he said about the need for proper co-ordination between operators and local planning authorities. After all, the purpose of preliminary notification is to enable authorities to pick out plans for sensitive sites and to ensure that full planning applications are required for them.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is no earthly use his governing telecommunication poles unless he also governs electricity pylons? Will he ensure that in areas of outstanding natural beauty such as the Forest of Bowland, supplies are routed underground whenever possible?
    Mr. Jones: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I shall certainly think about what might be done in that regard.
    Mr. Miller: It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is sometimes a convert to the need for regulation. What discussions has the Minister had with the Radio Authority and network planners? It is no good dealing with the issue piecemeal. We need a strategic plan in place, and his Department should take a lead role in that respect, ensuring that the proper infrastructure is there and that the environment is protected in the way described by the hon. Member for Colchester, North.
    Mr. Jones: The whole point of calling operators and local authorities together is to ensure proper co-ordination. In trying to promote good practice, we shall certainly take into account the concerns that many hon. Members have expressed.

    Energy Conservation
    Ms Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding domestic energy conservation measures. [15497]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: We have recently widened the formal arrangements for dialogue between the energy efficiency industry and Ministers, and I met representatives of the industry on 20 February. We have received to date 119 responses to our consultation on guidance to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. We have also received recent representations on our successful home energy efficiency scheme.
    Ms Ruddock: How can the Government still claim to be in favour of sustainable development when they have cut by one third the modest home energy insulation programme, which conserves energy and reduces CO, emissions? Is he aware that the number of backlog applications from people who are poor, old and cold is approaching 250,000, and that 1,500 jobs will be lost
    714
    because of the cut made by the Secretary of State? Will the Minister now reinstate that £31 million, or does he say one thing and do another?
    Mr. Jones: If anyone said one thing and did another it is the hon. Lady, because although she is fond of the scheme now, under the Labour Government there was no such support for energy conservation. Judging by what she says, I suspect that she would take an axe to the scheme even now. I have explained to the House several times that £30 million was added to the budget for the scheme in anticipation of the second stage of VAT. That was voted down by the House, so of course the VAT compensation package also fell.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that home energy efficiency schemes save individual households as much as 33⅓ per cent. on their fuel bills? Would it not be a long-term investment of the soundest kind, both for the nation and for the individual, if the scheme were further promoted as soon as it is possible to do so?
    Mr. Jones: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right—and of course, even with the changes that we have made, more people will benefit. Those who do not qualify for free fitting of insulation will receive a 25 per cent. discount, which is a substantial incentive for people to adopt such measures in their homes.
    Mr. Dafis: The wreck of the Sea Empress has many lessons to teach us, one of which is that we must reduce our dependence on burning fossil fuels. Is not energy efficiency the first priority? How can the Government claim to be serious about the matter when they are cutting the home energy efficiency scheme budget by 30 per cent., and when the Energy Saving Trust will have to make do with £25 million for two years rather than the £350 million that it expected? Is that not a terrible indictment of the Government's lack of commitment and seriousness on the matter?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that energy conservation is extremely important in tackling environmental problems, and it is also one of the most cost-effective ways of doing so. If I had to name the worst enemy of progress, it would be the complacency of the British public, and that is difficult to address.

    Environment Agency
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessments have been made of the impact that the new United Kingdom Environment Agency will have on the cost of running small businesses. [15499]
    Mr. Clappison: Establishing the new Environment Agency will help all businesses by reducing the number of regulators with which they have to deal.
    Mr. Steen: As the Environment Agency has the power to introduce new self-financing regulations, what will the Government do to protect the 4 million small firms that will be the victims of rampant and over-zealous officialdom? What is needed is a fast-track approach on

    715
    appeal. Can something be done to reduce the impact on small firms of over-zealous officials who constantly want to gold-plate every rule and regulation that comes out of this place?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is a zealous campaigner on behalf of deregulation, and I hope that he will welcome this as a deregulatory measure that will help business by providing a one-stop shop that can meet its needs. I hope that he will join the warm welcome that has been given to the new agency by the CBI and other representatives of business, including the Advisory Council for Business and the Environment. We will listen carefully to opinions as the agency progresses, but it will be a help to business and it will be deregulatory.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that high environmental standards are extremely good not only for people but for jobs? In meeting those high standards, many small firms have been able to develop a market both at home and abroad. Should we not be doing everything possible to encourage high environmental standards and the jobs that go with them?
    Mr. Clappison: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. High environmental standards help businesses both large and small. For our part, the Government are prepared to give plaudits to businesses that are successful in winning environmental exports. We are interested in a positive environmental policy that benefits business and the environment. We wait to hear the Opposition's policies—so far, we have heard absolutely nothing.

    Local Authority Services
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet representatives of the GMB to discuss the provision of local authority services. [15500]
    Mr. Gummer: None.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the General Municipal Boilermakers Union has waged a sustained campaign against compulsory competitive tendering? Does he further agree that the fact that that union is one of the paymasters of the Labour party should strike terror into the heart of every council tax payer in the country?
    Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that the Labour party in local government is much more interested in the dictates of the unions that represent local government workers than in the needs of the community of electors. There have been recent examples of that union attempting to stop contracting out to protect its closed-shop practices, and there are other similar examples all over the country. The union is supported by the Labour party—and by the Labour leadership—because it puts money into Labour's pockets.
    Mr. Betts: When the Minister meets representatives of the union to talk about CCT, will he discuss the waste of money on housing management CCT, particularly in the city of Sheffield? In Sheffield, the authority had to spend £900,000 and not one firm tendered for the work in
    716
    question. The last firm to withdraw said that it would not bid because it could not improve on the services provided by Sheffield city council. Is it not time that the Minister allowed local authorities to spend money on providing houses for people in need, rather than wasting money on the outdated dogma that he espouses?
    Mr. Gummer: All over the country, tenants have found that management has improved, even where they have not gone over to private enterprise, because for the first time, owing to CCT, local authorities are asking them what they want. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Labour party hate CCT as it means that their paymasters have to compete for jobs instead of taking them from the local authorities run by him and his lackeys.

    Air Quality
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regarding air quality. [15501]
    Mr. Clappison: My ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet officers of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to discuss issues of importance regarding air quality.
    Dr. Spink: I welcome the new duty that is to be placed on local authorities to assess air quality and make improvement plans. I invite my hon. Friend to visit Castle Point to encourage the local borough council to provide additional air quality monitoring equipment in Benfleet, so that a better balance of air quality monitoring may be achieved in Castle Point.
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend's point is well made. Last year, under the Environment Act 1995, the greatest progress towards achieving clean air was made since the Clean Air Act 1956. Local authorities have an important part to play in that strategy. I know that my hon. Friend will take a close interest in the progress made at Benfleet and the rest of the country towards the higher environmental standards, including clean air, that the Government seek.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.[15516]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my meetings in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House whether he knew of the £6.2 million rescue package put together by ex-Tory Cabinet Minister Lord Younger last October to save the hon. Member for

    717
    Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) from being disqualified as a Member of Parliament? Did the Prime Minister approve of the deal?
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I have to say to the hon. Lady—forgive me for that slip—that that is not a matter for me, and it was not a matter of which I was aware.
    Mr. Pickles: In his busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the book by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? What lessons does he draw from it for his own Government—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question about lessons to be drawn by the Government and hon. Members should listen.
    Mr. Pickles: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the suggestion in the book that, under a Labour Government, each newly married couple would receive £5,000? Is he aware that the last time that that proposal was seriously made was in Germany under the Third Reich? Does he agree that, in seeking a role model for his own leader, the hon. Gentleman has bypassed domestic role models and seeks the concept of "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer"?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read the book, but it clearly sounds an extremely good buy, even if I have to purchase it myself. I am not sure that the book will do a good deal of good for the hon. Gentleman who wrote it. If he has the influence on Labour party policy that many of us believe, I hope that everybody will take the opportunity of reading the book.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister knows that we have supported the Government wholeheartedly in the peace process and will continue to do so. In view of the damaging speculation, will he clarify whether any deal was offered to the Government last night, as has been suggested?
    The Prime Minister: I made it clear last night—and I have made it clear on earlier occasions—that I have no intention of doing any deal with any party on any occasion if the price of that deal is any given action by the Government in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process. I appreciate the support that I have had, across the House, on that process. To many Members of the House, the process has been seen as being above politics in many ways, which I believe is right. I am not in the market for deals now or in the future, and I think that every hon. Member is aware of that.
    Mr. Blair: I am grateful for that reply. I hope that the Prime Minister will, therefore, deplore any briefing that was given last night about deals being offered to the Government. Does he agree that the issue of Northern Ireland and other issues of intense party controversy are best kept entirely separate in future?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that those matters are separate and, as I said a moment ago, there are no deals and there will be no deals, and I think everyone is aware of that.
    Mr. Skinner: The DUP?
    The Prime Minister: There is no deal with any political party in the House—not with the Democratic Unionist party, not with the Ulster Unionists, not with the Social Democratic and Labour party. No deal—not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not at all—on this process.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend continue to give priority to increasing the number of police officers available for beat duty, especially in rural areas? Does he agree that those officers should be full time, that the fight against crime requires total dedication and commitment from our police and that part-time officers are no substitute?
    The Prime Ministers: I agree with my hon. Friend about the tremendous reassurance that is given to people by seeing police officers on the beat. He will be aware that we have provided funding in this year's public expenditure round that gives chief constables the resources to put a further 5,000 police officers on the beat.
    Having said that, I also believe that those who serve part time in the police force do a very good service for their community, as do special constables. My hon. Friend is entirely right, however, that the public feel deeply reassured by seeing more full-time, fully trained police officers on the beat. That is what we want; we have provided resources to obtain it.
    Mr. Ashdown: On GMTV on Sunday, the Defence Secretary said that he believed that a European single currency in Europe is very likely. Does the Prime Minister agree?
    The Prime Minister: May I, first, in a spirit of cross-party good will, wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy birthday? I cannot promise that this good will will always last.
    I think that many countries in Europe believe that a single currency would be good for Europe and that it will take place: it may, at some stage in the future. I believe that the time scales currently set out cannot safely be met.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend goes to the intergovernmental conference, will he ask his Spanish counterpart how he explains to the young people of Spain, one third of whom are unemployed, why their jobs should be sacrificed on the altar of the social chapter?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend directs that question especially at my Spanish colleague, but it might equally be directed at several of my colleagues elsewhere in Europe. Throughout Europe, countries that have signed the social chapter and that have many social provisions that would be included in the social chapter, were this country foolish enough to sign it, have higher unemployment, including youth unemployment, than we have in this country—and, in many cases, far higher unemployment. That is why we believe that it would be quite wrong, in the interests not only of competitiveness but of having people in work, especially young people, to

    719
    sign it. We will not, and it is one of the dividing lines between the policy of the Government and that of the principal Opposition parties.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15517]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister think it is right that last night's vote on the conduct of two Ministers was won only because the two Ministers concerned decided to vote to exonerate themselves?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has always taken a great interest in matters relating to Iraq. He demanded an immediate ceasefire and peace conference before Saddam Hussein had been defeated in the war, so he takes a great interest in this matter.
    If the Government had been defeated by one or two votes last night, the hon. Gentleman would have said, "Everything is proved; all must change." Unfortunately for him, the House did not vote to defeat the Government last night. If he reads the debate that took place in the House of Lords—where perhaps a more dispassionate view was taken on many issues—he will see that five Law Lords said unequivocally that they agreed with the legal advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
    On that basis, I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) withdraw the remarks that he has made repeatedly in the past three years. Until he does so, the Government will not be able to take seriously a single word that he utters.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper giving the history of defence equipment sales over the past 30 years or so? Is it not correct that the first super salesman at the Ministry of Defence was Mr. Ray Brown, who was appointed by Lord Healey? Did not Lord Callaghan, as Prime Minister, introduce the Chevaline missile without telling half of his Cabinet or the House? He would certainly never have told the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who were members of CND.
    The Prime Minister: It is just possible that the reason why he would not tell them was given by my right hon. Friend at the end of his remarks. What happened under previous Governments is a matter of record. It is also a matter of record that this Government sold no hard armaments to Iraq and that the previous Labour Government provided many to Argentina. That is a matter of record, not speculation.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15518]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Cunningham: I wonder whether the Prime Minister noticed the demonstration that took place in
    720
    Edinburgh on Saturday against swingeing Government education cuts. Some 40,000 people—parents, teachers and children—marched in protest against those cuts. That is the equivalent of about 500,000 people marching on the streets of London. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Minister at the Scottish Office said that he would have joined the demonstration if he had been in Edinburgh? If the Prime Minister had been in Scotland at the weekend, would he have joined the demonstration also—bearing it in mind that the slashing of local government budgets means that he would not be guaranteed police protection?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that more resources are made available year after year for education in all parts of the United Kingdom. She knows also that the proportion of public expenditure per head of population throughout Scotland is far higher than that throughout the whole of England and Wales. It is only smaller than that in Northern Ireland, where very special circumstances prevail. Of course, the hon. Lady is also in favour of an extra tax in order to provide more money and an extra imposition of £6 per week for every family in Scotland as a result of policies that she supports.
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15519]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ending of the IRA ceasefire makes it even more important that the prevention of terrorism Act be renewed? Does he agree that that measure should be supported by all parties in the House and that to abstain, rather than to vote against it—which now appears to be the policy of the Labour party—is not sufficient and will do nothing to help in the war against terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the Labour party for the bipartisan approach that it has adopted: I repeat that point yet again. I was very pleased to hear from the shadow Home Secretary that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, they will be prepared to go a little further and support us on that Bill. It would be helpful were the Opposition to do so, but that is a matter that they must consider. I can say only that, on that Bill, I would especially welcome their support in the Lobby.
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15520]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Wright: After yesterday's events, what advice would the Prime Minister give to a civil servant who is asked by a Minister consistently, deliberately and designedly to mislead the House of Commons?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case and that there is a code of conduct for civil servants, which they follow. That has been, is and will continue to be the case.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood parliamentary constituency. [15522]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I assume from that reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is referring to his last visit to Royal Air Force Northolt in my constituency?
    722
    On that occasion, he may have climbed out to the south-west over pleasant, open countryside and green belt. Will he ensure that his Government stick to the excellent sentiments expressed by him and the leaders of the Labour and Liberal parties in their letter to The Times on 9 February, in which they called for the preservation of the countryside?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently produced a White Paper on rural affairs as well and our concern for the countryside has not lately arrived, but has been a party concern for many years. That remains the case.

Thameslink 2000
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Thameslink 2000 project.
Thameslink services, introduced in 1988, currently provide rail links between north and south London through the City. Capacity is limited by the nature of the infrastructure, especially bottlenecks around London Bridge, which means that, at present, no more than six trains per hour in each direction can be accommodated. The Thameslink 2000 project will provide additional track and station capacity for those cross-London services.
The centrepiece will be a new low-level station at St. Pancras adjoining the channel tunnel rail link terminal. In addition, there will be two new rail flyovers at New Cross Gate and Bermondsey, an extra platform and track at London Bridge, additional tracks through Borough Market, rebuilding works at Blackfriars and Farringdon, and a new connection to the east coast main line north of King's Cross.
The project will quadruple capacity on the existing route from six to 24 trains per hour in each direction. By strengthening the link between the rail network north and south of London, it will provide significant new opportunities for services from points as far afield as Brighton, Eastbourne and Bognor Regis in the south, to Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough in the north. It will enhance access links to both Gatwick and Stansted airports.
The project will make it easier for passengers to travel by rail to and from the channel tunnel rail link terminal at St. Pancras, and it will relieve road congestion in London. The project's estimated total cost is about £650 million, and the analysis of its costs and benefits shows that it offers excellent value for money, with a benefit-cost ratio of nearly 3:1.
The construction of the channel tunnel rail link terminal at St. Pancras provides a unique opportunity to take forward Thameslink 2000 in parallel. The Government have therefore decided that the successful bidder for the CTRL project should provide the main station structure for Thameslink 2000 and the link to the Great Northern line. We will make available sufficient funding to cover the cost of those works. Railtrack—once in the private sector—will undertake the remaining infrastructure works, including the fitting out of the station.
In addition, the franchising director has negotiated terms with Railtrack that provide Railtrack with the necessary assurance of funding for the additional services provided by Thameslink 2000. Because of the additional revenue generated by the services, it is expected that the effects on franchise operators of the additional services will be broadly neutral.
The cost of the Government's contribution towards the capital costs of the project will depend on the outcome of the CTRL competition, but I expect it to be around £100 million out of the total capital cost of £650 million. With joint funding, and Railtrack and the CTRL promoter taking construction risk, this will be an excellent example of the private and public sectors combining to take forward a major investment project.
724
The Government will also take Railtrack's need to fund Thameslink 2000 into account in decisions on Railtrack's capital structure for flotation. I am in no doubt that prospective investors in Railtrack will welcome this commitment to Thameslink 2000.
On current plans, Thameslink 2000 services can be expected to start within six years. The precise timing will depend on progress on the CTRL—on which I hope to make a statement shortly—and on the time taken for Railtrack to secure the necessary authorisation for the works under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The Government remain committed to the progressive, strategic enhancement of the capital's transport infrastructure. Work on the Jubilee line extension is in full swing. Today's announcement provides a green light for Thameslink 2000. Because of the timing considerations resulting from the interaction with the CTRL, Thameslink will now precede work on the crossrail project for enhancing capacity on east-west, cross-London routes. Thameslink 2000 will be a valuable addition to London's infrastructure—complementing the channel tunnel rail link, providing new service opportunities for train operators, and providing additional capacity for commuters into London.
The Government's support for Thameslink is good news for London, but not for London alone; rail users across the south-east will benefit from the increased capacity that it provides. The project is clear evidence of the capacity of a railway firmly rooted in the private sector to take forward major investment projects. Far from fragmenting the railway, we are adding extra capacity and providing a better integrated network. Today's announcement demonstrates our commitment to a dynamic, expanding railway for the next century.
Ms Clare Short: The Labour party greatly welcomes the Secretary of State's long-overdue announcement of the further development of Thameslink—which will, among other things, significantly enhance train capacity north-south across London and improve capacity at Charing Cross, which currently suffers many hold-ups. As the right hon. Gentleman said, Thameslink 2000 will also provide capacity at St. Pancras to deal with passengers arriving on the channel tunnel rail link. That, of course, explains the timing of the announcement, because the Secretary of State will shortly announce the award of the drastically delayed channel tunnel rail link project.
Given that motivation, will the Secretary of State tell the House clearly and exactly when work will start on this project? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is deeply regrettable that the project has been so badly delayed as a result of rail privatisation?
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Nonsense.
Ms Short: That is not nonsense—it is absolutely true. The Minister should not intervene in that way.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is even more regrettable that the project will cost the taxpayer a massively increased amount of money as a result of rail privatisation? [Laughter.] Hon. Members should not laugh—that is true. That is their Government's policy.

725
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the old Greater London council funded the original British Rail feasibility study, which brought back into use a small section of railway south of Farringdon that had not been used for passenger services since the first world war, allowing the north-south connection to be made? Conservative Members might wish to know that was achieved by the GLC and British Rail.
Is the Secretary of State aware that British Rail established the Bedford-Brighton service, which runs every 15 minutes, in 1988—and that British Rail had plans to expand the system, in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today, from 1990? British Rail had a Bill ready in 1991, but the Department of Transport would not allow the Bill to be deposited. Is the Secretary of State also aware that, following the 1992 election, everything was subsumed in the preparation for privatisation, and this valuable project was further delayed?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, even more tragically, if the project had gone forward in 1991, it would not only be up and running now, but would be largely paid for, since it is a project that would have been self-financing under the old British Rail system? I understand that, under the privatisation structure, it has been more difficult and expensive for the Secretary of State to carry the project forward, because he has had to arrange further funding for the franchising director to pay extra leasing charges to the rolling stock companies and extra track access charges to Railtrack. I also understand that the Secretary of State must have faced difficulties in persuading the Treasury to release much larger amounts of taxpayers' money than would have been necessary to take the project forward in 1991.
Will the Secretary of State admit that the project clearly demonstrates the folly of rail privatisation? The Thameslink project has been delayed by at least five years, and will cost the taxpayer much more because of privatisation. Even at this late stage, will the Secretary of State learn the folly of his ways and agree to halt the process of rail privatisation? It is holding back investment and costing the taxpayer more, as the Thameslink project clearly demonstrates.
Sir George Young: It would be churlish of me not to welcome the remarks welcoming my announcement that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her question, but, with respect, she has totally missed the point. It is precisely because we are privatising Railtrack that we can make progress with the capital investment without the need to impose extra obligations on the taxpayer or to borrow more money.
The hon. Lady would be unable to make the statement that I have just made, because she would not proceed with the privatisation of Railtrack. The hon. Lady is not allowed to make any public expenditure commitments, and she could not have made the statement that I have just made because, under a nationalised Railtrack, it would cost extra money. It is because we are privatising Railtrack that we can make faster progress with the project than the Labour party could.
On the hon. Lady's more specific questions, I made it clear in my statement that there will not be any impact on the franchising director's budget. The effect will be
726
neutral, because the additional revenues generated by the capital investment will remove the need for subsidy. On the question of progress, I said that we hoped the project would be up and running within six years. I hope that Railtrack will proceed with the Transport and Works Act 1992 process towards the end of the year.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given that a recent comparative study of European capitals put London in first place both for international access and for access within the city, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today's announcement? May I press him on the timing of a further statement about crossrail?
Sir George Young: As I implied in my statement, I hope to make a statement shortly about the progress that we are making with the channel tunnel rail link, but at this stage I cannot go any further in answer to my right hon. Friend's request.
Mr. David Chidgey: We welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the progress—at last—of Thameslink, although we have some reservations about the routeing through London Bridge, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is somewhat concerned.
Will the Secretary of State tell us his views on the effect of linking the Thameslink project with the channel tunnel rail link, because that could be a recipe for further delay? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance today that the Thameslink projects can be carried out as advance works for the channel tunnel rail link works? That is a very important point. I am equally concerned that it now appears that crossrail will be delayed until after Thameslink and the channel tunnel rail link are in place. Is that so?
Finally, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that provision will be made for an interchange at Farringdon to connect Thameslink with crossrail? That is a very important point for overall access to the system.
Sir George Young: On the first question, there have been informal consultations with the London boroughs involved, and they have given a general welcome to what is planned, but they have reserved their position under the Transport and Works Act 1992. That process will give the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others an opportunity to make their points to the inspector about the impact of the works on specific buildings and on the environment.
As for the CTRL, the box required for the station for Thameslink 2000 is an integral part of the St. Pancras tunnel, and the works will proceed in parallel.
I owe my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) a response on crossrail. As I said in my statement, I expect crossrail to come after the Jubilee line extension and Thameslink 2000. That is a sensible sequence; I am sure that the House will recognise that we cannot do all these major projects at the same time.
The Farringdon interchange will be a matter for crossrail when that project begins.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I had the responsibility—nay, the privilege—as a Back Bencher, of

727
introducing the original Thameslink Bill—the British Rail (London) Bill—to the House as opposed private business. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is, in effect, a mark 2 development of that original project. Will he confirm that this project will be a boon not just for all Londoners but for many people wanting to cross London from one side to the other? Of all the projects brought before this House, this must be the ideal one for employing private finance.
Sir George Young: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's pioneering work in promoting legislation in earlier Parliaments which assisted the development of the railways. When he joined the Government, I inherited from him a private Bill dealing with King's Cross, which I then had the privilege of promoting.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the benefits go far wider than Londoners alone. Those who want to travel through London will benefit enormously from the strengthening of the links between the rail network to the north and south of London. My hon. Friend is quite right to stand back and take a strategic view of my announcement.
Ms Glenda Jackson: I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the rail drivers' union, ASLEF. I welcome the Government's long-awaited decision on the project; but does not Railtrack's financial investment depend on the Government wiping out part of Railtrack's outstanding debt? Far from being rooted firmly in the private sector, will not the bulk of the money for the project come from the public sector—although such profits as are made, if the Government do not rethink rail privatisation, will go into private pockets?
Sir George Young: It would be churlish of me not to thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the project. I am delighted that ASLEF may also support it. The figures I quoted show that the Government are making a modest contribution: £100 million out of £650 million. As I said in the statement, we shall take account of Thameslink 2000 when setting the capital structure for Railtrack, but I expect that Railtrack with Thameslink will be a more attractive investment for investors, because it offers the potential for growth.
Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents and I will warmly welcome today's announcement, providing that it benefits my constituency as well as other parts of the south-east? Is he further aware that the Thameslink services extend at the moment along the Kent coast line only as far as Sevenoaks? Can he assure me that, as a result of today's important announcement, Thameslink services can be extended along the Maidstone East line and through Tonbridge along the Kent coast line as well?
Sir George Young: The answer to my right hon. Friend's last point is yes. A number of train operators will be looking to offer additional services as a result of the expansion of capacity.
The announcement will certainly be of benefit to Kent commuters going to Charing Cross, because it increases capacity around Borough Market, where there is often
728
congestion. Extra provision for Thameslink traffic will ease the flow of Kent commuter traffic into Charing Cross.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a welcome for this announcement, in principle, on both sides of the House? That welcome, however, is qualified, because there is little in it that could not have been done some 10 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has merely announced linkages and an enhancement of the current service.
Does the Secretary of State agree that a drawback of Thameslink 2000 is the lack of an interchange with the Central line, which is important pending the east-west opening of crossrail? Would it not be better to look at the possibility of an interchange in the Snow Hill area—there is none at the moment—to make the service of even greater use?
Sir George Young: I should like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's last point. He is right, in that I have detected a broad welcome for my announcement, although there has been some carping criticism from Opposition Members about the Government's investment in London Transport. It is worth putting on record the fact that total investment by London Transport in the current year is forecast to be about £1 billion, which is four times as great in real terms as in 1979.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement is yet another example—no doubt others will follow—of removing the dead hand of nationalisation from the railway network, and enabling private sector capital to come forward to provide important and badly needed infrastructure?
Will my right hon. Friend be a little kind to the Opposition, who are in a difficult position? They bitterly fought the privatisation of the railways, and therefore cannot welcome something that they would have welcomed had the railways still been nationalised.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. A dilemma confronts the Labour party. Many of the projects to which my hon. Friend has alluded are possible only because we have privatised nationalised industries. Without embracing the Government's approach, the Opposition would not be able to make progress with projects such as the one that I have announced, without increasing either borrowing or taxation.
My hon. Friend rightly says that several projects in London are being taken forward under the private finance initiative. There is the Lewisham extension of the docklands light railway. Other examples are the Heathrow express, Northern line trains and the Jubilee line extension. All these imaginative partnerships between the public and private sectors have been taken forward by a Conservative Government.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I also welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, and remind him that the GLC came up with the proposal 15 years ago? It is a pity that crossrail has been put on the back burner, as it were. Crossrail would be far more significant to London than a developer-led Jubilee line extension.

729
Is any new rolling stock involved in the Secretary of State's announcement? If so, where will it come from? When will the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement about the channel tunnel rail link?
Sir George Young: There is no question of crossrail being cancelled. It is a project to which we are committed. If the hon. Gentleman considers publications such as those produced by London First, he will note the recognition that there must be a sequence of major projects. That is exactly what we are doing. We have the Jubilee line extension. We shall then implement the project that I have announced. Crossrail can take its place after that.
Most sensible commentators recognise that there is a limit to the number of major transport infrastructure projects that London can cope with at any one time. It may be that the GLC thought of the project that I have announced. It thought of quite a lot of things, but it did not always find the resources with which to take them forward.
I hope that there will be additional investment in rolling stock to provide the additional services that will be made possible by Thameslink 2000. That will be a matter for the train operating companies as they negotiate with the franchising director to introduce the extra services that they will want to provide as the project comes to fruition.
Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has said that existing links between Stansted and Gatwick are to be improved. Rather sadly, he failed to mention that most excellent of all airports, Luton, where, as he will know, a new project is being formulated that will bring about a new rail link between the town and the airport. Perhaps he will tell me whether any funds might be directed to that quarter. If not, perhaps he will tell me what plans he has for the new airport link.
Sir George Young: I recently spent a morning at Luton airport, when I was informed about the ambitions that the airport company has to build an additional station closer to the airport than the existing one. I was told also of the company's plans to improve links between the airport and the station. That is something that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has much in mind as he considers the transport supplementary grant that is available to Luton each year. Within the resources that may be available, we shall do what we can to assist the imaginative project to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Mr. Jim Dowd: Although I welcome the general thrust of the proposal, is the Secretary of State able to assure people in inner south-east London especially that due consideration will be given to stations along the lines being served by Thameslink being used to provide access to the service? The Thameslink line to Sevenoaks was extremely valuable, and extremely well used. Unfortunately, it had to be withdrawn. That meant that people in inner south-east London had no access to the benefits of Thameslink.
Sir George Young: That was a positive contribution, and I shall see whether we can take that forward with the train operating companies, which will be responsible for service provision.
Sir Peter Fry: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, on behalf of my constituents, who will find it much easier to reach more parts of London and the south of England more quickly. They will, however, be able to take the greatest advantage of the new development only if there are adequate connections, not just from Wellingborough station but from Kettering and Market Harborough into Bedford. In view of the forthcoming privatisation of the midland main line, will my right hon. Friend please bear that in mind, and ensure that my constituents can take maximum advantage of his announcement?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This picks up a point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). Removing the bottleneck between the north and the south of London will make it possible to provide services over and above those currently on offer. I expect that the market will respond to that, and that it will then be possible to undertake journeys that simply cannot be made at the moment. That will increase the demand for rail services, which is what every hon. Member would like to see.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that this project, like many others, is connected to the channel tunnel project? Does he further agree that the channel tunnel project is up to the neck in debt, and that few people, it seems, are anxious to bail it out? Will he state on behalf of the Government that under no circumstances will the Tory Government take part in the bailing out of the channel tunnel experiment? If the Tory Government will not do that, is he going to call on his friend, Sir George Younger, other Tory ex-Members of Parliament and banks, and have a Bromsgrove bail-out system?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is a legislative prohibition on the Government giving assistance to Eurotunnel. It is worth pointing out that it was a Labour Government who cancelled a publicly funded channel tunnel project; it was a Conservative Government who managed to get it built, through private enterprise.
Mr. David Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for people south of the river, in places such as Croydon, one thing that will make it less likely that they will use the train to go north is the current frequency of the Thameslink service? He will appreciate that the residents of Croydon will warmly welcome this enormous extra investment in the public transport infrastructure in London, but has he made any assessment of the impact of the transfer of people from road to rail?
Sir George Young: It is indeed good news for Croydon, for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend outlines. In my statement, I said that the project would help to relieve road congestion by making a number of journeys possible by train that are not currently practicable and that are therefore made by car. Initial assessments show that Thameslink 2000 will increase rail travel by about 3 per cent. in the south-east area, and I expect that some of that will be diversion from the road.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State mentioned the benefits in terms of access to the channel

731
tunnel, but does he understand the frustration that exists on the west coast main line? Although the Thameslink 2000 project, welcome though it may be, will benefit some, it will do nothing for the many people who get poor service and poor access. It is also apparent from the statement that there is no overall structure and planning framework by which services will be improved nationally. Does that mean that, so long as we have this lousy Government, we shall have lousy services on the west coast?
Sir George Young: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has disturbed what otherwise was a consensus that this is a sensible project with which to proceed, at least from new Labour, if not from old Labour. The whole thrust of my announcement was that it would be possible for additional services to be provided by rail. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
So far as the west coast main line is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that, initially, we are taking forward, also under the private finance initiative, signalling projects, on which we hope to make good progress during 1996.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. Friend has been involved in London politics as a councillor and Member of Parliament for many years. Can he remember a time when there have been as many railway projects under consideration, planning and construction—realistic lines, which will come about in our lifetime? Does he consider that the rather churlish response of the Opposition reflects the fact that they know that this is considerably in excess of anything planned by the then Labour-controlled GLC, or anything that they could manage if they were in government?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was also kind enough to draw attention to my long connection with London politics—a connection which, sadly, the boundary commission may be bringing to an end.
I have mentioned a number of the other projects that are currently under way. The Central line is to undergo £750 million-worth of modernisation, and to receive 85 new trains; £400 million-worth of Northern line trains will come into service in 1996; and the tendering process to choose the private consortium for the Lewisham extension should be completed in the spring. There are many other projects, including the Heathrow express and the Jubilee line extension. It is difficult to sustain the argument that the Government are not investing in public transport in the capital.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State would expect me, as the Member of Parliament representing the area surrounding London Bridge, to support cross-London rail routes. I presume, however, that he would not expect me to support the alignment south of Blackfriars, given the prospect of substantial demolition of residential and commercial properties and Borough market.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that his announcement does not prejudice the right of the inquiry to decide that that route should not go ahead, and that residents and other interested parties are entitled to argue
732
that there is a viable alternative route south of Blackfriars bridge, via the Elephant and Castle and Herne Hill? That would not involve nearly as much disruption and demolition.
Sir George Young: It would indeed be possible for the hon. Gentleman's constituents to argue to the inspector, under the process provided for by the Transport and Works Act 1992, both that they object to the proposal and that they can suggest an alternative way of meeting the need. It would then be up to the inspector to judge the merits of the argument, and to submit them in his report to me.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend used his statement to trail an announcement relating to the promoter of the channel tunnel rail link. As he knows, the Government have chosen Ebbsfleet, 19 minutes from St. Pancras, as the channel tunnel rail link intermediate station: that will provide my constituents with magnificent connections to all parts of the country, north and south.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I have said on one or two occasions that I hope to make an announcement about the channel tunnel rail link shortly; I can say no more at this stage.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Today's announcement will be welcome in East Anglia, particularly in King's Lynn and west Norfolk. The borough council has lobbied hard for the project, not least because it will provide new economic opportunities.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent announcement that the King's Lynn to London route is to have new Networkers, and can he confirm it? More broadly, does he agree that his statement shows the Government's commitment to public transport?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: what he has said is, indeed, the case. The Thameslink 2000 diagram, which I have before me, reveals new opportunities for the King's Lynn-Cambridge-Royston line, through connections and the opening up of destinations in the south.
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said towards the end of his remarks. The Government are indeed committed to driving up standards on the railways, and enabling them to play a greater part in taking traffic off the roads.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the benefits for the south coast from Brighton to Bognor Regis. The Kent lines through Eltham and New Eltham will benefit particularly from the flyover at New Cross and the Borough Market junction proposals. Do the Liberals seriously want Borough Market junction to be taken out of the scheme? Virtually everyone has been fighting for better public transport links in south London for the past 20 years.
Sir George Young: As a north London Member, I hesitate to intervene in a dispute between south London Members. My hon. Friend was right in what he said at the beginning, however: Thameslink 2000 will provide enormous opportunities for people in south-east London.

Points of Order
4.3 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, last Thursday, I dropped you a note and a copy of a statutory instrument, the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. I dropped you that note because that issue—the proposals to change the statutory instrument—was first flagged up three years ago. Certainly the current incumbents of office—the Ministers—at the Department for Education and Employment told me in January that it would be ready in February, and it was. It was rushed through—some people might say hastily—to meet the commitments given in the Standing Committee on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill.
The instrument not only lacks coherence: it lacks legibility. When I was a teacher, had a group of students brought it in to me, I would have sent them back—DFEE and all—and told them to repeat the exercise until it was in a form that was legible, coherent and acceptable to the House. I seek your advice on whether the instrument is in an acceptable form to be presented to hon. Members.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand, as he says, that the instrument laid before the House last week contains a number of manuscript alterations to the printed proof. I have taken the trouble to look at the instrument to see it for myself.
The form of the instrument is a matter for the Department concerned, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman must pursue his inquiry in that direction. I have myself made further inquiries, and I understand that the Minister was attempting to be helpful to the Committee in laying the draft instrument at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps the reason why there were so many manuscript amendments was his attempt to help the Committee at that stage.
Mr. John Butcher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the centuries, the House has gained its powers and privileges through its ability to deny or grant the supply of moneys to the Executive, and the decisions that the Executive makes. A decision will soon be made to spend a large amount of money—raised through public subscription—at a particular location to celebrate the millennium appropriately. The Millennium Commission is unelected, and it is a large amount of money.
If the Secretary of State for National Heritage were to come to you and request a short debate and a free vote, in which the representatives of all parts of the country could express a view, I am sure that it would be excellent therapy for those who can become hyper-ventilated over the issue, and would be seen as an endorsement of the decision, or a recommendation, after which there could be no argument over who rightly secured the investment of that money.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman needed to ventilate the matter. He may, of course, care to put it to the Leader of the House during business questions, because it is a matter for him, not for the Speaker.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, for the first time that I can remember, I noticed that openly armed police officers were around the outskirts of the Houses of Parliament. I understand that you are not responsible for police activity outside of the House, but only for the inside.
I am as interested in security as any other hon. Member in this place, but were you consulted before that rather dramatic decision was taken? If you were not consulted, do you know whether leading Members of the House were consulted? I feel that it is not a welcome development, although we all know the reasons for it. However, it looks as though we are somewhat under siege in this place, and I feel that, by giving that impression, we are in many ways giving way to the terrorists. I wonder whether you would like to reflect on the matter, and tell us exactly how the decision was taken.
Madam Speaker: I refuse to discuss matters of security across the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman would care to see me or the Serjeant at Arms privately, he will be most welcome.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are the defender of Back Benchers' rights in this House. During our questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, there was only one question—Question 5—on local authority revenue. You will have noted that, after the question from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was answered, there was an immediate use of an ancient practice to gag further questions on that subject.
The Labour party is clearly embarrassed by the Government's generosity this year in the settlement for local government finance, and it was an unfair abuse by the Labour Opposition to gag Back Benchers on a very important subject.
Madam Speaker: It is the prerogative of hon. Members to use our procedures. I think that the hon. Gentleman who acted in that way is seeking a full Adjournment debate on the matter, so that more time can be made available for questioning on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), Madam Speaker. I thank you for your ruling and guidance on that matter, but may I draw to your attention a possible related procedural complication?
The printing of the substantive document and its distribution may be delayed. It has been made available to the Committee, but it is of importance to every school organisation, every school governor and every education authority across the country.
It so happens that the statutory instrument is germane to the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, whose Committee stage is drawing to a close. It is also germane to that Bill's Report stage. However, by the time the Bill reaches its Report stage, either the statutory instrument will have been debated in Committee or it will not. In either case, the question arises whether there will have

735
been sufficient time for its substantive printed version to have been made available to interested parties. Should it be debated in Committee or on Report?
Madam Speaker: I said that it was a matter for the Department concerned, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Some of the Ministers on the Government Front Bench will no doubt have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: As a Back Bencher, I seek your advice, Madam Speaker, and, in a sense, your protection. You will know that the list of hon. Members wishing to speak in yesterday's debate on the Scott report was heavily oversubscribed by, I understand, hon. Members of all parties.
I was admonished by Mr. Deputy Speaker because I sought, with no disrespect to the occupant of the Chair, to mention the fact that, of the 12 Conservative Members called to speak, most were ex-Ministers, six were old Etonians, five had been to Oxford university and all were associated with one of the main protagonists in the events under debate. I meant no disrespect to the Chair, but was simply asking whether Government Whips had applied any undue pressure on the Chair to ensure such representation.
Madam Speaker: This is one Parliament where there is no pressure—undue or otherwise—on the Speaker of the House. When selecting the names of Conservative Members to be called yesterday, I did not look in "Who's Who" to see whether they had been to Dewsbury grammar school or to Oxford or Cambridge. It was entirely my selection and, having reflected on yesterday's debate, I thought that a good cross-section of hon. Members was called.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the excitement of last night, when the Government managed to get their majority of one, perhaps it went unnoticed that, according to the weekend press, two Tory Members who went through the Division Lobbies to sustain the Government were bankrupt. Do you not think it is time that we examined the matter, because there is speculation that as many as 30 of them are bankrupt as a result of their investment at Lloyd's?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me.

Void Premises
4.12 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the owners of property which has been empty for more than three months to make the reasons for the vacancy public; to make such property available in certain specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
I venture to suggest that housing need is at the top of the list of constituents' complaints and worries brought to our surgeries. I happen to believe that the housing problem goes far beyond that of the "void premises" in the Bill's title, and amounts to a scandal.
There are 150,000 homeless people in this country—92,000 are statutorily homeless, 46,000 are in short lets, 8,000 are on the streets, and 5,000 are in bedsits—yet there are 800,000 empty homes. If my modest arithmetic is correct, there are five empty homes for every homeless person. What one hears from officials is incorrect. Many of the empty homes are in areas of greatest need. We must marry the two sides of the matter. That scandal is an indictment of us all, and it is incumbent on us all to deal with it. My Bill proposes to do just that.
The Government have recognised the problem, and have introduced measure after measure to deal with it. During part of the period since 1979, the number of void premises fell. Unfortunately, in three of the past four years the number of void properties rose. Sadly, the number of Government-owned void properties—especially those owned by the Ministry of Defence—has risen faster than any other group of void premises.
My Bill addresses two parts of the problem. Among the people who own the 700,000 void properties in the private sector, we need to enhance persuasion. Through the Empty Homes Agency—an excellent body, which is partly funded by the Government—three or four local authorities, including Reading, Southampton and Brighton, have empty homes strategies. They employ an empty homes officer—that is excellent—who persuades people that their empty private homes should be used, that they are losing £5,000 a year by not using them, and that 95 per cent. of all tenancies are successful. Those persuasive techniques are working. Recently, 200 homes were brought back into use in Reading as a result, for example.
What if persuasion fails? My Bill proposes that every local authority should have a void strategy and employ an officer to deal with the disposal of voids—first by identifying them, and then by persuading people to use them.
In addition, 102,000 empty properties are owned by the taxpayer—the public sector. It is totally unacceptable to permit that. Many of those properties have been empty for a long time. My Bill—it follows a paper that was kindly published by the Adam Smith Institute two years ago, and an entirely successful Government trial project in Clapton Park estate in Hackney—proposes that people on waiting lists in local authority areas should have the right to slap a notice on the doorstep of local authority premises or Government agencies when they have spotted that the homes have been lying wasted and idle for three months or more.
That notice of negligence to public bodies should say: "We, Mr. and Mrs. Bloggs, identify your void property. We call on you to use it, start to repair it, or condemn it

737
within 21 days." If it is used or repairs are begun within 21 days, we have all succeeded. Under the Bill, if that local authority or the Ministry of Defence fails to act within the designated period, one more homeless person will have found a home. Conservative Members, who always applaud efficiency, will sigh with relief, and we especially welcome any relief of homelessness.
If the idea comes to fruition, we shall see not only how homelessness can be tackled in a new way, but that people can be trusted. Beyond the first day when the new tenants go in, they will be told that they must deal with dilapidations and repair the premises. Of course they must, and we should trust them to do that. All over the world, and in our country too, trusting the people in such policies as sweat equity, staircasing and homesteading has brought benefits and has been proved sensible and useful.
I ask the House to accept my Bill, so that all the necessary steps can be taken. Sometimes it is necessary for the House to think the unthinkable. My proposals combine the best of ingredients—common sense, trusting the people, and using national resources better for a good cause.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hartley Booth, Sir Timothy Sainsbury, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Sir Sydney Chapman.

VOID PREMISES
Mr. Hartley Booth accordingly presented a Bill to require the owners of property which has been empty for more than three months to make the reasons for the vacancy public; to make such property available in certain specified circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
Orders of the Day

  Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.21 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  One of the most important responsibilities of any Government is to ensure that their criminal justice system is fair, efficient and effective—fair towards all those affected by it, efficient in focusing on the issues that really matter at trial, and effective in bringing about the acquittal of the innocent and the conviction of the guilty.
  The Bill is intended to meet those aims. Like the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it is designed to restore the balance in our criminal justice system—to make life tougher for criminals and to improve the protection of the public. It implements proposals made in three consultation papers that we issued last year. More generally, it represents our response to a number of recommendations made by the royal commission on criminal justice in its 1993 report. The Bill's most significant provisions extend to Northern Ireland. Also, I am pleased to say that it implements the last of the 27 points that I announced in October 1993 to strengthen the fight against crime.
  The most important provisions in the Bill are those dealing with prosecution and defence disclosure. The current arrangements require too much of the prosecution and too little of the defence. They do not serve the interests of justice and are in need of reform.
  At present, the prosecution must disclose to the defence any material that may possibly be relevant to an issue in the case, unless the material is sensitive and a court rules that it may be withheld. In contrast, with a few specified exceptions, the accused need not disclose anything about his defence before the trial.
  The current law has given rise to serious problems. The accused can request the disclosure of reams of material, whether or not it has any relevance to the defence that he proposes to advance at trial. That places heavy burdens on the police in particular.
  It is also difficult to protect from disclosure sensitive material, such as the identity of an informant. The current rules oblige the courts to order disclosure in cases where the actual relevance of sensitive material may be marginal at best. An adverse ruling requiring the disclosure of the identity of an informant may place the informant's life in danger. All too often, the prosecution must abandon the case, however strong the other evidence may be.
  Let me give an example. Three individuals were arrested in possession of a number of incendiary devices. An issue arose subsequently about the disclosure of intelligence files held centrally by the police, on the organisation to which the defendants belonged. None of the information was to form part of the prosecution case at the trial, but the trial judge ruled that the files should be disclosed to the defence. Since that would have compromised future investigations, the prosecution decided to offer no evidence, rather than comply with the

  739
  ruling. One of the defendants commented in a statement to the media that it had been their intention to remove the contents of a vehicle and then damage it. He added:
  "The only reason this trial collapsed was because the prosecution refused to reveal to our defence lawyers material about us held on computer by the police."
  The presentation of a defence at the last minute—with no advance warning to the prosecution—does not contribute to the efficient conduct of a trial. It encourages defendants to come forward with a plausible, but false, defence at a very late stage.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves the subject of sensitive material, will he confirm that questions of sensitive material arise in trial after trial in the criminal courts? Does not that make a total nonsense of the part of Lord Justice Scott's report that seems to indicate that public interest immunity does not apply to criminal cases?
  Mr. Howard: I shall be referring later to the relevance of Lord Justice Scott's report to the Bill. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) will forgive me if I do not respond to his invitation to pursue that matter at this stage.
  The royal commission on criminal justice found the current arrangements unsatisfactory and concluded that changes were needed. Its proposals included the creation of a statutory scheme for prosecution and defence disclosure in stages, underpinned by subordinate legislation or a code of practice. We agree with that general approach, but our detailed proposals differ from the royal commission's in two important respects.
  First, the commission's test for prosecution disclosure was very wide ranging. If anything, it would have imposed even more burdens on the prosecution and the police than the current requirements. Our scheme focuses on the likely effect of unused material on the prosecution case and on the defence case when that is known. Secondly, the proposals would have required the accused to give only a general indication of the nature of his case and would not in practice have contributed to narrowing the issues in dispute before the trial. Our scheme requires the defence to provide more detailed information so as to clarify in advance what is really at issue between the two parties. In building on the work of the royal commission, we have set ourselves the task of putting in place a system that will remove the iniquities of the current arrangements without denying the defendant access to material to which he would be entitled in the interests of justice.
  We set out our proposals in a consultation paper in May last year. Many organisations and individuals representing a range of interests responded to it. There was widespread support for the Government's proposals, particularly on defence disclosure, and those proposals have formed the basis for the disclosure provisions of the Bill.
  The police warmly welcomed our proposals. As the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said,
  "The proposals should help to reduce problems arising out of the bulk of material the prosecution currently has to disclose. It will introduce a more systematic and therefore more accountable system.
  We particularly endorse the principle of defence disclosure as an important and positive step which we believe will be welcomed by many working within the criminal justice system."
  740
  The president of the Police Superintendents Association added:
  "This Bill is a real step forward in the fight against professional crime and is another weight in the re-balancing of the criminal justice system which for too long has protected those who abuse the present arrangements."
  To complete the picture, the chairman of the Police Federation described the reaction of his association to the Bill in graphic terms, saying:
  "This is a black day for the Lawyers' Angling Society. This Bill should end the farce of the gigantic fishing expedition which has become a notorious tactic amounting, in plain English, to blatant attempts to obstruct and delay justice."
  I come now to the detail of the disclosure provisions in the Bill. The disclosure scheme in part I would require the prosecutor to disclose to the accused unused material that the prosecutor thought might undermine the prosecution case. At the same time, he would give the accused a schedule listing all unused material that was not sensitive. In response, the accused would disclose the general nature of his case, the matters on which he took issue with the prosecution and the reasons for doing so. Defence disclosure would be mandatory in the Crown court, but voluntary in magistrates courts.
  In response to defence disclosure, the prosecutor would disclose any additional unused material that might assist the defence that had been disclosed. If a dispute arose about whether there was any other material that might assist that defence, it would be resolved by the court. The Bill allows a court to draw an inference if the accused does not comply with the defence disclosure requirements.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary clarify a point that has been of concern to the Law Society? The duty to disclose information that may undermine the prosecution case is taken to include material that would support the defence case, and there may be a grey area in between. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if, for example, the police came upon evidence that might tend to support a defendant's alibi, that would have to be disclosed, even though it may not directly undermine any piece of evidence forming part of the prosecution case?
  Mr. Howard: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the remarks that I have just made could not have been clearer in dealing with that specific point. That situation would not arise in the context of first stage disclosure, for the simple reason that it is not at that stage a part of the prosecution's duty to anticipate any defence that might be disclosed. But if, at the second stage of prosecution disclosure, the defence team had identified its defence as an alibi defence—to take the hon. and learned Gentleman's example—it would certainly be part of the prosecution's duty to disclose any material available to it that supported that alibi defence. That is absolutely clear from what I said—it is a clear part of the scheme that underlies the Bill.
  As to sensitive material, the Bill retains the current procedure, whereby the court rules on whether it is in the public interest to disclose such material. However, the prosecutor would not need to bring such material before the court unless he thought that it undermined the prosecution case or unless it might reasonably assist the defence disclosed by the accused.

  741
  Part II requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice for the actions of the police in relation to unused material for prosecution disclosure. It sets out the matters that may be included in the code of practice, including what material is to be preserved by the police. As now, the police would make all the material available to the prosecutor, with whom decisions on disclosure would rest. Although the code of practice is for the police, others conducting criminal investigations would have regard to it. Under the Bill, the code of practice must be subject to statutory consultation and approval by Parliament before it comes into operation.
  We have prepared a draft of the code of practice and have placed it in the Library, so as to inform the debates on the Bill in the House. It may be capable of further refinement, but at the moment it represents the Government's best view of what the code ought to contain, taking account of comments by outside interests and the debates in another place.
  I do not want to leave the subject of disclosure without saying something about the recommendations of Sir Richard Scott. Sir Richard makes a number of recommendations about prosecution procedures and public interest immunity. Some of those are relevant to the Bill's subject matter, and Sir Richard notes that they will have to be considered in the context of the legislation currently before the House—this Bill. We are studying the recommendations and have not yet reached a decision on them.
  Without pre-empting the consideration of those recommendations, I must point out that the recommendations on prosecution procedures take as their starting point the existing law on disclosure. I think that it is widely recognised that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory and, as I explained, the Bill proposes significant changes to them. We shall therefore be considering Sir Richard's recommendations, not against the existing law, but against the provisions in the Bill. We hope to be in a position to announce our conclusions in time for changes to be made in the Bill, if changes should appear to be necessary.
  As for the recommendations on public interest immunity, Sir Richard Scott comments that legislative intervention is, in his opinion, neither necessary nor, at present, desirable. In its current form, the Bill does not amend the law on public interest immunity. It preserves the existing common law rules about whether disclosure is in the public interest, and provides for rules of court to be made on the practice and procedure to be followed by the courts in relation to applications to the court and orders by the court.
  During our debate yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) argued that the law on public interest immunity should be put into statute. The Government will consider that issue, and the clutch of detailed recommendations by Sir Richard Scott on public interest immunity, very carefully. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised, we shall ensure that the House has an opportunity to consider those matters further.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Plainly, the Government will take time to consider the detail of the
  742
  recommendations made in Sir Richard Scott's report, but I wish to ask the Home Secretary specifically about the general point that Sir Richard made at paragraph K6.18, where he plainly anticipated the continuing use of public interest immunity certificates in criminal trials, but went on to say, in recommendation (ii):
  "PII claims on a class basis should not in future be made",
  and distinguished between a class basis and a contents basis. Does the Secretary of State accept that recommendation?
  Mr. Howard: That matter will be considered in the consultation exercise. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is seeking views on that matter and has requested those views by the beginning of May. That is a question to be considered during the consultation.
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. John Greenway rose—
  Mr. Howard: I give way first to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
  Mr. Anderson: The Home Secretary mentioned a consultation exercise, which obviously will take some time, so I want to ask about the timetable. Is it possible that, in Committee or on Report, the Bill will have the benefit of any conclusions of that consultation exercise?
  Mr. Howard: I confess that that is unlikely. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has said that he wants replies to his consultation exercise by May, and obviously it will take some time thereafter to consider the responses. I cannot, therefore, hold out any great hope to the hon. Gentleman or the House that, should we conclude that legislation is desirable in that area, such legislation might reasonably be expected to be part of the Bill.
  Mr. Greenway: This is a genuine query to which I do not know the answer, but I hope that this matter has been considered, and will be considered as the Bill proceeds through Committee.
  One of the overriding reasons why trials have collapsed is that the police have refused to give information about the identity of informers, of premises from which observations of criminal activity have been made and of those who may have been involved in surveillance. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, when considering any changes in PII certificates, he will bear in mind the fact that the Security Service Bill will allow the Security Service to become involved in surveillance of criminals? Will he ensure that the interests and identities of members of the Security Service are protected, and that we do not end up with more collapsed trials because the legislation or the changes are not properly in place and because the courts may wish to rule that the identity of a person who has been involved in surveillance should be revealed to the court?
  Mr. Howard: I assure my hon. Friend that certainly nothing in the legislation that is before the House or in

  743
  the Security Service Bill would increase the prospects of disclosure of any information of that kind or of any trial being stopped on that basis. Those matters will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, because a sensible decision can be made only in the context of a particular case. By indicating that the prosecution's duty to disclose is limited by referring to clear relevance to the issues in the case, the provisions will lessen the likelihood of disclosing information of that kind and of trials collapsing in those circumstances.
  I refer now to the other provisions in the Bill. Parts III and IV make two important improvements to pre-trial procedures, giving effect to the proposals in the consultation paper on pre-trial hearings, which we published last year. Part III enables a judge to order a preparatory hearing in a long or complex case if he thinks that substantial benefits may accrue. The preparatory hearing would be similar to those held in cases of serious or complex fraud.
  At a preparatory hearing under the Bill, the judge may order either party to provide a statement of its case. He may exercise a range of powers to narrow the issues in dispute and to assist the jury's understanding of the case. Such rulings may be appealed against, there are sanctions if either side later departs from its case or fails to comply with a requirement imposed at the hearing, and there is provision for reporting restrictions.
  Part IV creates a power for a judge to make a binding ruling on the admissibility of evidence or other point of law in any case at a pre-trial hearing. That power will be available in all cases that are to be tried at the Crown court, except those in which the judge orders a preparatory hearing, when he will be able to exercise the range of powers conferred by part III. Taken together, the measures will encourage the better preparation of cases and the better conduct of the trial. Trials will be more efficient and less stressful and time consuming for jurors and witnesses.
  Part V contains a range of reforms to magistrates courts procedures. Among other things, they amend the provisions on transfer for trial in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—further amendments on transfer will be needed—they provide for the accused to give an indication of plea before a decision is taken on mode of trial, and they extend the maximum period for the remand of juveniles in certain circumstances.
  Part VI of the Bill contains a number of important provisions to protect victims and witnesses and to enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system. Two of the provisions reflect recommendations of the royal commission on criminal justice. The first of them—providing for a retrial if an acquittal has been tainted by jury nobbling—gives effect to the only one of the 27 measures that I announced in October 1993 which has still to be implemented.
  There can be no greater threat to the rule of law than if criminals believe that they can bully or bribe their way out of the dock. That is true whether their target is a juror or a witness. For that reason, the Bill goes further than the royal commission recommended. It will make it possible to have a retrial if an acquittal has been tainted by a subsequent conviction for interference with, or intimidation of, either witnesses or jurors. The court that convicts for the interference or intimidation offence will have to certify that there is a real possibility that the
  744
  original acquittal would not have happened but for the intimidation or interference. An application must then be made to the High Court for an order quashing the acquittal. Both courts will need to be satisfied that a retrial would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
  The Bill also implements the recommendation of the royal commission that, as a last resort, judges should be able to protect victims or witnesses by imposing reporting restrictions on false or irrelevant allegations made during a speech in mitigation.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I refer to an important issue of fact. I support strongly the Home Secretary's announcement about the Bill's provision for retrials in the event of jury or witness nobbling. Does the Bill allow for a retrial when the witness or juror who has been nobbled—it is more likely to apply to witnesses—is dead?
  Mr. Howard: I see no reason why that circumstance should eliminate the provisions or why the Bill should make specific provision for it. The Bill sets out clearly the requirements that must be met, and I do not see why it should deal with that specific circumstance. It does not provide that the witness or juror must be alive for the provisions to take effect. In that context, the provisions will clearly apply.
  Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I obviously did not make myself clear—that is plainly my fault. A witness may be interfered with and later killed—that happens in serious crimes. Unfortunately, it is not an uncommon experience nowadays. The perpetrator of the original crime may have been acquitted as a result of that now dead witness having been nobbled. Can that acquitted person be retried under the Bill's provisions?
  Mr. Howard: I see no reason why such a person should not be retried. The Bill's provisions are set out very clearly. Unless the legislation states that the juror or witness must be alive—and it does not—it is clear that, in the circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman identifies, the provisions in the Bill will apply in the normal way. I do not see why those circumstances should affect its operation.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As to the intimidation or killing of witnesses, many public interest immunity certificates are issued by quite junior lawyers in cases of drug smuggling or intimidation in prison. They must be laid before the court, as occurred in the recent case.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is correct: there is a clear role for public interest immunity in those circumstances.
  Most of the provisions of the Bill, including those on disclosure, apply also in Northern Ireland. The law on disclosure in Northern Ireland is similar in most respects to the law in England and in Wales, and the difficulties to which the present arrangements give rise are potentially at least as serious there as here. We have concluded that the scheme embodied in the Bill is well suited to the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Schedule 3 to the Bill contains a number of modifications necessary to tailor its provisions to the legal context of Northern Ireland.

  745
  I hope that it will assist the House if I give notice of the main amendments that the Government intend to bring forward at later stages of the Bill. First, we intend to table amendments to deal with the misuse of prosecution material that is disclosed to the accused under the Bill. The purpose of disclosing material that does not form part of the prosecution case is to enable the accused to prepare his defence. Sometimes that material is used for a wrong purpose—for example, to harass witnesses or to gain financial advantages for the accused or his associates. We want to deter those who may be tempted to misuse disclosed material and to reassure those who supply information to the police that it will not be used other than for the intended purpose.
  Secondly, we are considering further how best to tackle the difficult issue of third party disclosure. Third parties, such as medical practices, banks or local authority social services departments, may have material that would be disclosable if held by the prosecution, so there must be some way of identifying and obtaining it. However, at present, the accused may request such material at a very late stage in the proceedings, without indicating its relevance to his defence. That places heavy burdens on third parties, who then must trawl through their records at the cost of considerable time and effort. More importantly, it results in delay and sometimes the abandonment of proceedings—often in cases where children are the victims.
  We have been developing proposals for procedural changes that will benefit third parties without preventing the accused from seeing material that helps his defence. We have consulted the judiciary and others about them, and we aim to bring them forward at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings.
  Finally, we intend to bring forward amendments to place beyond doubt the powers of the police in relation to searches of DNA databases. The amendments will ensure that the police can make full use of both DNA data and fingerprints.
  The Bill is important and is intended to make our criminal justice system fairer, more efficient and more effective. It will make it easier for courts to reach the right decision. It will do much to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. As such, it continues the work that I set in hand when I became Home Secretary, to strengthen the fight against crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: As the Home Secretary said, the Bill is important. As I said during the debate on the Loyal Address, we welcome the Bill's principle and purpose, although we shall of course ensure that it is subject to full scrutiny in the House, as it has been in the other place.
  The Bill is about procedure. For some people, the process by which courts operate is a dry, technical subject of second order, but in practice the substantive rights that citizens should enjoy, such as the right to justice, depend on the machinery—the procedure—by which those rights can be exercised. The process is therefore of immense importance. It determines our court system's character and the criminal justice system's public reputation.
  746
  In the 1970s and 1980s, that public reputation was badly damaged by mounting evidence that the system was unbalanced in favour of the prosecution. Judges' rules which were supposed to provide clear guidance to the police about the treatment of suspects and the taking of evidence from them turned out to be ineffective and unenforceable. Corners were routinely cut by investigators. The culture was that, broadly, the end justified the means and that if it was known to investigators that a suspect had committed a series of crimes it was acceptable to adduce informal oral admissions of guilt and sometimes to encourage confessions by physical force.
  The lack of effective supervision of the process inexorably led a minority of investigators down the path of corruption, of allowing the guilty to go free in return for favours and, even worse, of "fitting up" innocent people, either by the manufacture of prosecution evidence or by the suppression of evidence in the hands of the police that would be helpful to the defence.
  Public disquiet about those abuses led among other things to the establishment of two royal commissions on the criminal justice system. The first of those, chaired by Sir Cyril Philips, reported in 1981. Its recommendations led to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and to the establishment of police and criminal evidence codes. That royal commission said that there should be a change in the prosecution system to detach prosecutors from the direct control of the police. However, the Crown Prosecution Service was then established as a centralised national service, explicitly against that royal commission's recommendation.
  Evidence of serious defects in the system continued to emerge. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—having heard part of the Secretary of State's speech, he has had to leave the Chamber, but I hope that he will return to make a speech—played a leading part in shining a light on some of the most disreputable of those practices with his exposure of miscarriages of justice in the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six cases. My hon. Friend may be rightly feted for that now, but it is worth remembering that, for many years before the truth emerged, he was roundly abused by many people, including Ministers, for his efforts.
  Following those notorious miscarriages of justice, the second royal commission was established under the chairmanship of Viscount Runciman. Its report prompted some changes—including a few of the well-known 27 points in the Secretary of State's speech to the Conservative party conference in 1993—such as new and welcome machinery for the investigation of miscarriages of justice. We appreciate that the Secretary of State did not have time during that speech to name the author of every point.
  The courts, too, gradually responded to defence lawyers' demands for far greater access to so-called "unused material" held by the prosecution. After a series of Court of Appeal rulings—not all consistent with one another—in the Ward case, the Saunders case, the Davis, Johnson and Rowe case and others, the pendulum has swung from the position 20 years ago when the prosecution was under virtually no duty to disclose any unused material, to the position today, when it must disclose almost all unused material and courts can order

  747
  the disclosure of sensitive background information, including the sites from which surveillance has been undertaken and the identities of informants.
  The first priority of any criminal justice process must be to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that no person innocent of a crime is convicted of it. The effect of a miscarriage of justice on an individual is so great that that consideration must outweigh all others. It is for that reason, above all, that the fundamental requirement is on the prosecution to prove its case and not on the defence to disprove it.
  Other priorities, however, are also of great importance. They include ensuring that the guilty are convicted and are not able to walk free from court by what amounts to an abuse or a defect of process; that victims and witnesses are accorded a proper role and dignity in the process; and that public confidence in the system is maintained and enhanced. It is widely accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by people throughout the country that criminal procedure, especially in respect of disclosure of evidence, has become unbalanced in favour of the defendant.
  There have been two results. First, an immense and disproportionate burden has been placed on the police and the prosecution to disclose anything unused but potentially of relevance to the defence. That has added to delays in the court system and has tied up huge amounts of police and Crown Prosecution Service time. Last year, Brian Johnson, former chief constable of Lancashire police, wrote to me setting out what had happened in just one case in which that force had been involved. He admitted that it was a complicated case, but said:
  "For example, during a long running corruption enquiry in Lancashire, a police officer was employed full time supervising access to material by one solicitor for a continuous period of three months. Additionally in that case thousands upon thousands of documents were copied for the defence—the rental costs of copying equipment alone was not insignificant.
  Each document in the case had to be considered in respect of each of a number of defendants, firstly to determine whether it was material in relation to a particular defendant and then as to whether it should be scheduled as sensitive or non-sensitive. In the inquiry I quote above, given the number of defendants and the thousands of documents involved, it was estimated that over 5.5 million decisions had to be taken in respect of the disclosure of unused material."
  That is profoundly unsatisfactory.
  The second result is that some well-founded prosecutions have had to be abandoned because otherwise critical information about informants or surveillance sites would have had to be disclosed, putting at risk not just registered informants, whose safety must be defended, but innocent members of the public who had co-operated with the police to help to secure the conviction of serious wrongdoers.
  I give just one example. It relates to a case at Bristol Crown court in 1993. During 1992, police officers mounted an operation in Bristol to curtail a large amount of drug dealing in the city. So that the people dealing in drugs could readily be identified, the police mounted an elaborate operation which involved police officers posing as buyers making test purchases for crack cocaine. They were supported by police officers with a video camera in an unmarked van and by other officers in a static observation point from which the events were also recorded. The defendants were arrested after having sold crack to the undercover officers, but in court the charges
  748
  against nine of the defendants were withdrawn after the defence demanded to see surveillance film taken from a council flat.
  The substance of the defence case—this makes the Secretary of State's point about fishing for artificial defences—was one of identification. The police had already made full disclosure of the video recordings taken from the unmarked police van which gave the evidence of identification—that was all the evidence that the prosecution was going to use—but defence counsel for the nine defendants sought full disclosure of the video recordings taken from the static observation point. That had only one purpose: to disrupt the case to the point at which there had to be an acquittal, which is what happened. As the disclosure of the video evidence from the static observation point would palpably have identified the camera's location and therefore put the innocent person who had allowed that camera to be put there at serious risk, a decision was taken to withdraw the remaining charges.
  One could cite many other cases. Although the decision to require disclosure was made by a judge on application in some of them, in many others prosecuting counsel anticipated the judge's decision and instructed the police to disclose the names of informants or surveillance locations. When the police felt unable to do so, cases were withdrawn before reaching open court.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Even under the current system, the trial judge has to perform a balancing exercise as to whether the evidence is relevant to the defence. I do not know all the details of the case to which my hon. Friend referred, but it may be that a more robust judge would have taken a different view from the Lord Chief Justice in the case of the Crown v. Keane.
  Mr. Straw: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. It is on record that, unfortunately, some judges are robust and some less than robust. My hon. Friend makes the point that because of confusion there has been much second-guessing by prosecuting counsels, with cases never reaching court in the first place.
  The current Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, has shown, rightly, that no one is more concerned than him to see that the rights of the accused are properly upheld. In his Tom Sargant memorial lecture two years ago, Lord Taylor set out the consequences of the current confused state of the law:
  "However, the one-way traffic of disclosure by the prosecution, with no corresponding duty on the defence, has given rise to grave difficulties both for the Crown Prosecution Service and for the courts … The prosecution often have to anticipate what may conceivably be of assistance to the accused without any help from the defence so as to narrow the field. Indeed, there are often more and more searching requests by the defence for material on a purely speculative basis … The defence of duress, which used rarely to be raised, has suddenly become all the vogue and is used to seek disclosure about informants which, if given, would endanger them. Courts are being required to peruse large quantities of documents and judges, instead of being in court, are sitting in their rooms to decide what disclosure is to be made. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. It shows that the balance in this area has become distorted."
  Lord Taylor was entirely right.
  The Home Secretary first presented his proposals on 16 May 1995, when he published a consultation paper, which I welcomed at the time. We are glad that he has since responded to the many suggestions made, which are

  749
  reflected in changes to the Bill that we hope will be incorporated in Committee. The Bill has been improved in the other place, but the procedure that the Government adopted there initially was not, in the context of bipartisan debate, of the best. Their Lordships encountered grave difficulty considering the draft code and whether it could be laid before Parliament subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Following some adjournments in the other place, that provision has been accepted.
  The Government were defeated in the other place on a proposal by Lord Ackner to strengthen the indemnity provided to protect justices and justices' clerks against orders for costs and other sums in respect of matters arising from criminal jurisdiction. I am glad that the Government have accepted that addition.
  Some parts of the Bill could still be improved, and I invite a response from the Minister in winding up this debate and in Committee. When I responded to the Home Secretary's statement last May, I said that there should be sanctions against the prosecution as well as the defence when the rules in the Bill are not followed. That is important in ensuring equality of arms between defence and prosecution. There are stringent sanctions against the defence for failure to disclose and also against the defendant if he or she makes a late disclosure.
  A tiny minority of abuses in the 1970s and 1980s soured the criminal justice system and led to imbalance. A breach of the rules by the prosecution ought to be underpinned by disciplinary action by the police and, in extremis, by criminal action. A palpably negligent and serious breach of the rules should lead to disciplinary action by the police or CPS. A deliberate or reckless breach should be subject to criminal proceedings.
  While I accept that one of the Bill's main purposes is to reduce delays, there is concern that it might unwittingly increase them. Clause 1 provides for primary prosecution disclosure in the case of summary and either-way offences only when the accused pleads not guilty. The sensible intention is to prevent unnecessary work for the prosecution where the accused intends to plead guilty—I understand the mischief that is being addressed. However, there is a real danger that defendants will be advised to plead not guilty, as that is the only way that they will gain access to material. That would increase the delays that already bedevil criminal procedures and we must carefully consider how to overcome that difficulty—particularly as defence lawyers have become adept at ensuring that the cost slips that they submit to the Legal Aid Board are as extensive as possible. The existing rules are abused by some defence solicitors so that even in trivial cases, they refuse to proceed to a trial or disposal until all the material to which they are technically entitled is produced.
  Paragraph 2.1 of the code of practice places a duty on the prosecutor to provide evidence to the defence that he believes would undermine the prosecution's case. I question whether that is too strong a test. Would it not be better to use the test employed by the Home Office in other contexts, of whether the evidence might cast significant doubt on the prosecution case? Paragraph 6.6 makes reference to sensitive material being that which is given in confidence. Much of the rest of the code is specific, but "in confidence" covers a multitude of categories and that definition should be reconsidered.
  750
  The Home Secretary referred to prohibitions in the Bill and to amendments that he will table against the misuse of evidence. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Williams tabled amendments designed to prevent pornographic material contained in witness statements being circulated in prisons. It is an appalling but sad fact that when a small child is killed, sexually abused or raped, photographs and statements about the family come into existence. Defendants have access to that material for the necessary reasons of their defence, and they are able to circulate it in prison. The material can remain in circulation even after the defendant has left prison. My noble Friend proposed to stop such poisonous material being circulated in that way, and we regret that his amendments were resisted by the Government. I hope that the Secretary of State's amendments will deal with appalling misuse of the kind that I have described.
  We agree with the principle that the defence should disclose the general nature of the case on which it relies. I do not believe that once a prima facie charge has been established against a defendant it is onerous for him to have to reveal the general nature of his defence, such as a claim that he was not present when the crime was committed or that he was present but that his conduct did not add up to the charges. We cannot accept a position in which defendants try to plead alternative defences—that they were either not there or their conduct did not amount to the crime charged—or in which, as we know happens, they wait until very late in the trial process and go fishing for defences.
  I wish to deal next with the comments that the Home Secretary made about Sir Richard Scott's recommendations on public interest immunity in criminal cases. To answer the point that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made in an intervention on the Home Secretary's speech, as I read section K, chapter 6 of the Scott report, Sir Richard Scott anticipates that public interest immunity certificates could be used in criminal cases and, indeed, it is impossible that circumstances could arise in which they could not be used, given the nature of the material qualified by PH certificates. But Sir Richard recommended categorically that PII claims on a class basis should not be made in future. He said that PII contents claims should not he made for documents which might be of apparent assistance to the defence. He also made some detailed recommendations about the use of PII certificates.
  We all listened with care to the Home Secretary's comments, and I am sure that both sides of the House agree that the Scott report is complicated. Sir Richard Scott raised some issues of principle on which the Government could and should make more prompt decisions than they will on others. For example, it would be possible to make early decisions on class claims. Sir Richard explains in detail the reasons behind his view and why, in his judgment, the avoidance of class claims would not in practice prejudice sensitive intelligence material that obviously should not be seen in open court.
  We welcome the proposals in clauses 23 to 34 on preparatory hearings. I wish to make a point about the scope of clause 29, which provides for the right of appeal—with the approval of the trial judge or the Court of Appeal—against a ruling at a preparatory hearing on the admissibility of evidence or other questions of law. We agree that that would be a satisfactory way to deal with such issues before trial, but—I genuinely seek

  751
  information on this point—it seems that no appeal would be allowed against the striking out of counts in the indictment or, once there has been a preparatory hearing and the prosecution case has been heard, against the dismissal of a case altogether before the defence has put forward its case.
  That is possibly the most important power belonging to the trial judge. In most such cases, judges act entirely correctly and there is no dispute about the decisions, but not all judges are robust—the adjective used by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Sometimes, the decisions to strike out counts in the indictment or to dismiss a case before it goes to a jury are incomprehensible. If it is right, as we believe, for a right of appeal to be available on decisions on evidential matters or other issues of law in preparatory hearings, it would also be right to allow appeals in such situations. The appeals could be allowed only in controlled circumstances or with the approval of the Attorney-General to prevent a sudden rash of appeals.
  The Home Secretary referred to part V of the Bill about transfers from magistrates courts and we will examine those in detail. Clause 43 would change the current law that applies to those aged under 17 who are remanded in custody, and it would allow remands, in certain circumstances, to be extended from eight days to 28 days without a further court appearance. Although we believe that that power should not be used too often, the change in the law would be appropriate given the extreme shortage of secure local authority accommodation. In many cases these days a juvenile may be remanded to secure accommodation hundreds of miles away from the court in which he is to appear.
  I visited Mansfield recently, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), to talk to the police and social services directors about the total inadequacy of the youth justice system. There, as elsewhere, they have had great difficulty dealing with five persistent offenders who had been arrested 442 times between them before being remanded in custody. One of the many complaints that the people I spoke to made about the current system was that the only secure bed that could be found for the most severely persistent offender from Mansfield was in Southampton. The police officer in the case, who was the only person who could take physical custody of the young offender, had routinely to get up at 3 o'clock in the morning to go to Southampton to bring him to the remand court in Mansfield, for him to be remanded back to Southampton.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) in her place. I was told about a similar offender recently by the Blackburn police. In that case, the nearest secure accommodation that could be found was in Bristol, which led to immense problems for the police.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No speech of mine is ever complete without an intervention from the hon. Lady, and I am delighted to offer her an opportunity.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point about Lancaster prison. Does he recall
  752
  that we have had some notable trials there because, since the defendants are on the spot, there is no need to escort them to and from the gaol? That is a good reason to keep the court in Lancaster open.
  Mr. Straw: I share the hon. Lady's view that Lancaster Crown court should be kept open. The blood transfusion service should also have been kept open, but that is not our responsibility—it is the Government's.
  We welcome the proposals made in clauses 45 to 48 on jury and witness nobbling. I did not quite follow the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about what would happen if the witness was nobbled to the point of death. He appeared to imply that there would be an incentive to murder if the death of a witness could lead to a case being wholly aborted. That would seem to encourage not just the nobbling of witnesses, but their murder.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The problem was entirely my fault and I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman. Clause 45 would provide that before a retrial following a tainted acquittal, there would have to be two preconditions—first, an acquittal and, secondly, a conviction of a nobbler. I was trying to make a point—I confess that I did not do it well—about what would happen if the nobbler was dead. In that instance, there could be no conviction of the nobbler and, therefore, no retrial. I do not see why there should not be a retrial in such circumstances, provided that the requisite evidence comes up to the criminal standard. I hope that I have made that clear now.
  Mr. Straw: I now understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. There is a big difference between the death of a witness and the death of the person who has nobbled a witness. I accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is important and I am sure that it will be raised in Committee. With great respect, I must say that the point is entirely the opposite of the one he made in his intervention.
  Clauses 49 to 52 would make some important changes to the law on derogatory assertions made in mitigation, and we welcome that. I have read the clauses, as the Home Secretary might expect. So far as I can judge, no one person in the court system will have a duty to raise with the bench the question of whether derogatory assertions have been made. Although the power is available to rule out derogatory assertions, there is no specific trigger. I assume that that is left to the judge in the Crown court—who would be alert to the situation—to the clerk in the magistrates court or to the members of the bench. I am sure that a stipendiary magistrate would be alive to the problem, but a non-stipendiary magistrate who has to deal with many cases may be less alive to the possibility that derogatory assertions have been made.
  I want to ask two questions. First, should the prosecutor, once mitigation has been made, have a right to make submissions to the court to the effect that these powers ought to be brought into play? My second question is a wider one, but it is important. Should prosecutors have wider duties at mitigation? Curiously, the English courts have the strictest rules of evidence for defence and prosecution when it comes to the trial of an issue. These rules of evidence stretch right back to the moment when a person is identified as a suspect by the police. Elaborate rules govern the cross-examination of

  753
  suspects in police stations—far more onerous rules than those governing the cross-examination of innocent people acting as witnesses for the prosecution in open court.
  There are, however, effectively no rules when it comes to mitigation. Uncorroborated evidence about character, background, family circumstances and so on is advanced by defence lawyers as factual. At the moment, it is also unchallengeable.
  I have recently been to the courts to refresh my memory of the days when I used to make small but honest living as a junior member of the Bar. It is astonishing to see the nature of mitigation. Sometimes, of course, high-quality people have produced good evidence that is not subject to criticism. But often, especially in magistrates courts, the same standards do not apply. Usually, we find, someone has died or a girlfriend has become pregnant or someone has just found a job—and so it goes on. It may well be true, of course, but these pleas in mitigation seem to spew out of the word processors of defence lawyers and no one challenges them.
  That undermines confidence in the courts. It also means that all too often the defendant's previous convictions are skimmed over by the defence. Those previous convictions appear in brief on computer sheets: the bare details of a theft and the punishment for it, for instance. The defence will often try to minimise the nature of the previous convictions. My brief experience of sitting in courts recently showed me that, all too often, an unexpired conditional discharge has been issued but the magistrates courts do not properly take that fact into account or act upon it.
  If the prosecutor could point out that someone had been up before, and could show the court files from which it becomes clear that a different bench has said that this was the person's last chance—if he commits the offence again, he will be subject to a custodial sentence—perhaps the problem would be alleviated. Certainly, the information should be given to the court; otherwise there will be no sense of serious progression in the sentencing system.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until recently it was the practice in all Crown courts for there to be an antecedents officer, whose job it was to present the previous convictions of convicted persons to the judge, and to make inquiries, as requested by the judge or by the parties, as to the truth or otherwise of assertions that have been made—for example, about the facts of those convictions? Is he further aware that as a result of economies stemming from Government policies there are now virtually no antecedents officers in Crown courts? Would it be Labour party policy to restore those useful officers to the courts?
  Mr. Straw: I was aware of that, and the situation is serious. It is ironic that in these days of computers and centralised records the information available to courts—especially magistrates courts, but also Crown courts—is less extensive than it was, say, 20 years ago. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question is that I hope so.
  We have welcomed the Bill. Although it may be the last of the Home Secretary's 27 points to be implemented, it should by no means be the last of any series of reforms
  754
  of the criminal justice system. I do not want to be controversial in the context of this debate, but everyone must recognise the seriousness of the problem that too few offenders end up in court. Crime has doubled in the past 17 years, while the number of those convicted or cautioned for offences has fallen by 6 per cent., and the number of convictions has slumped. Convictions as a proportion of serious crimes fell alarmingly between 1980 and 1994: for rape, from 37 per cent. to 9 per cent., and for domestic burglary, from 9 per cent. to 3 per cent. On the issue of rape, I greatly hope that it will be possible to make amendments in Committee to ensure that those who are guilty of charges of rape are more likely to be convicted of them.
  Two changes need to be made in this context. First, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 needs amending to eliminate questions about a victim's sexual history—for instance, about past abortions and early sexual relationships which are not relevant to the immediate case. That was recommended by the Heilbron committee. Secondly, it seems to us that there should be proper application of so-called similar-fact evidence, so that where the defendant is accused of more than one sexual assault on different women in similar circumstances, the cases can be heard together. There have been notorious examples of such cases being detached from one another. The result is that an accumulation of probative evidence cannot be built up.
  Thirdly, the time is long overdue for reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. I referred in my opening remarks to the recommendations of the Philips royal commission, which reported to this House in January 1981 under Cm 8092. The royal commission said that there had to be changes to the CPS, adding that the last way in which it should be changed was the establishment of a single, national service. The commission went through the arguments carefully, and disputed the case for a single service at paragraphs 7.22 and 7.23:
  "Against this must be set the disadvantages that are likely to accrue from the bureaucratic nature of a large national organisation working in this area … We believe it to be hazardous to argue from the experience of other jurisdictions that a national prosecution service would be workable in England and Wales. We know of no common law jurisdiction in which the equivalent of a national prosecution system of the type we are discussing either covers an area with anything approaching the population of England and Wales … or deals with a crime load of anything like the same order of magnitude."
  Those were wise words—unfortunately not heeded by either party when the prosecution of offences legislation came before the House in 1986. In the light of experience, however, they certainly need to be heeded.
  Although the courts have fewer cases to deal with these days, they are taking longer to deal with them. The proportion of remand prisoners dealt with by the Crown courts within the statutory time limit dropped from 84 per cent. in 1989 to 74 per cent. in 1994. There was a most revealing passage about delays in the report of the debate held in another place on 5 February, when the Minister explained that under the existing committal system, the 42-day pre-trial issues guideline for service of the prosecution's case appears to be met in only very few cases. The Minister said that, although no comprehensive figures were available, sampling suggested that as many as 75 per cent. of cases exceeded that period.
  Instead of cracking down on the delays, Ministers answered that by proposing to substitute for the 42-day pre-trial guideline a 70-day period to reflect changed

  755
  circumstances. That is plainly unsatisfactory. Nor is it satisfactory that the costs of legal aid for criminal cases have rocketed—in a way that is not linked, as some defence lawyers claim, to changes in criminal procedures. The cost of criminal legal aid per defendant has risen in real terms by 127 per cent. since 1979–80. That is wholly unacceptable.
  There is also a profound need for a full investigation of the youth justice system, which is hardly working at all.
  The Opposition welcome and support the Bill and we shall work constructively to improve it. We all want a criminal justice system that protects the innocent while ensuring conviction of the guilty. The Bill is one step along the path of reform of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is so long overdue.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I welcome the Bill's central provisions on disclosure. It is clearly desirable that the police should not have to photocopy huge piles of paper unnecessarily. It is important that prosecution cases should not have to be dropped because of the need to avoid disclosing sensitive information, such as the names of informants.
  I have in mind a case involving a major banknote forgery where suspects were arrested in a hotel bedroom following a tip-off. There was a large pile of forged banknotes in the room, some of which bore the fingerprints of some of the suspects. The case had to be dropped because the judge ordered that the identity of the person who tipped off the police would have to be disclosed.
  The three-stage disclosure procedure proposed in the Bill is welcome: the obligation on the prosecution to disclose any unused material that might undermine its case; the obligation on the defence to outline its case in sufficient detail to identify the issues in dispute; and the obligation on the prosecution to disclose any further information that might assist the defence. That logical sequence should help to improve court procedures.
  I am pleased that a code of practice has been prepared to assist the police and the prosecution in producing all appropriate documents. I wish, however, to sound a note of concern, which I hope will be taken up when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies. I am concerned about how the exercise of discretion by the police and the prosecution will be scrutinised so that the system can be seen to be effective in protecting the legitimate interests of defendants.
  An idea for a defence might occur to a defendant when he and his legal advisers have an opportunity to engage in what Mr. Broughton of the Police Federation described as a fishing expedition. I am talking of an idea or ideas that may not have occurred to the defendant because he was not aware of a loophole in the prosecution's case. The police and the prosecution, from their different standpoints when compared with the approach of the suspect, may not be as acutely aware of potential defences as would be the defendant or his advisers. If the Bill is enacted, it will help to stop guilty people being acquitted. It is even more important that it should help to stop innocent people being convicted.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to provide reassurance that there will be adequate scrutiny of the police and the prosecution, to
  756
  ensure that, in cases of doubt, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service err in favour of too much disclosure rather than too little.
  I welcome preparatory schemes for long or complex cases as they will ensure that cases are well prepared and presented when they reach court. In complex fraud cases, that will be especially useful in helping jurors to understand complex issues.
  The opportunity to argue legal points at preliminary hearings will help to avoid confusion among jurors, who feel rather baffled when they are sent out of court while legal points are argued. If issues are argued before the trial begins, jurors will be able to hear the evidence in a more seamless fashion. They will no longer be baffled by unexplained requests to leave court.
  The Bill will encourage defendants to enter pleas at an early stage, which will considerably improve the court process to the advantage of all concerned. If a defendant enters a guilty plea, that will avoid the need to prepare the volume of paperwork that would be necessary if the case were going to trial. At the same time the defendant will benefit from increased certainty and increased speed in the disposal of his case. He will be able to take advantage at an early stage of any discount for his plea. The courts will be able to reflect the fact that the defendant, through his action, has saved the court, the CPS and the police quite a lot of preparatory work.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill provides powers for the courts to ban reporting of false or irrelevant allegations against witnesses during pleas of mitigation. It has always worried me that once a person has been convicted, or following a guilty plea, the last word is with the defence advocate, once the court has had the opportunity to consider all the available reports, for example. The bench and reporters finish a case with the words of the defence advocate ringing in their ears, and those words may be reported in the press to the detriment of witnesses. That damages the witnesses concerned and acts as a deterrent to other public-spirited citizens in coming forward to give evidence in future.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on reaching the end of his 27 points. He has delivered quickly on all his commitments in reform of the criminal law, despite the considerable difficulties created by the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has received the Bill in a constructive manner; I hope that his constructive approach will continue in Committee. His concern about court delays is, I am sure, fully shared by Conservative Members. I believe that the Bill will help to reduce those delays and will lead to speedier and more effective justice.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I applaud the reasoned and reasoning contribution of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), which was much in the spirit of the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As my hon. Friend said, we welcome the Bill and support its main provisions. We shall try to work constructively during its remaining stages.
  At first glance, this is a lawyer's Bill; it is somewhat technical and long. It seeks to remedy deficiencies that have been revealed in practice. In relates, however, to

  757
  deep issues of principle, such as the respective roles of defence and prosecution in criminal trials. I have in mind the golden thread of Viscount Sankey—the presumption of innocence and the burden that should properly be put on the defence. Those are areas that need properly to be explored in Committee.
  The Bill has been introduced at a time when there is deep public anxiety about the criminal justice system. We should heed that anxiety with respect. By their response to consultation documents, the Government have at least given some sign of being prepared to listen.
  I make but two preliminary points, the first of which is, perhaps, marginally controversial: that the Home Secretary, by his conduct over the years in criminal justice matters, can hardly be surprised that many reasonable people involved in criminal justice respond with caution and wariness to any proposals that he makes. In the past, many of his proposals have been made in the rather heady atmosphere of Conservative party conferences, which is not most conducive to a reasoned debate about criminal justice. There is always the fear that if one expresses anxiety—as, to be fair, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan did—about ensuring that innocent people are not found guilty and that proper facilities are available to the defence, the Home Secretary will gleefully leap out and accuse us of being the "villain's friend". Let us hope that we can proceed in a rather different spirit today.
  On a similar theme, each hon. Member has received a valuable briefing for the debate from a number of outside organisations, including the Law Society, the Bar Council, Justice and Liberty. Some of us have practised—and some still do—criminal law. In my judgment, it is always helpful to have a question and answer response from those who are learned in the field, particularly with a non-controversial Bill of this nature, because so often the atmosphere in Standing Committees is adversarial—we glower at each other across the Benches, which is not the best forum for such a study.
  I wonder why the Government have not considered referring the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, which would allow us to examine it in a somewhat more rational atmosphere. I shall not go over the history of Special Standing Committees, but the House will know that they came into being in the early 1980s. I think that only seven Bills have been subjected to that special procedure. Indeed, since 1983–84, only two Bills have been subjected to it, and both were on Scottish business. When the Opposition made that suggestion in respect of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Home Secretary stated that it could not properly be referred to such a Committee because it was controversial, He said:
  "A Special Standing Committee is a procedure suitable for non-controversial technical Bills".—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 340.]
  On another occasion, he said:
  "It has always been clear that the procedure was designed for Bills that have a degree of cross-party support. The Bills for which it has been used have been relatively technical and non-controversial."—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 710.]
  Does not this Bill fall four square into that category? If that procedure, which has been lauded by the Government in the past, and which, as with the Criminal
  758
  Attempts Bill, has proved extremely useful to the Government, is to be used at all, is not this Bill a perfect opportunity according to the Government's definition? It cannot take up a great deal of time, because under the relevant Standing Order 28 days are allowed, and it would allow us to call experts.
  The Home Secretary mentioned the consultation procedure in respect of PII certificates and the way in which Sir Richard Scott's recommendations would be examined. Would it not be appropriate, as PIIs arise under the Bill, for Sir Richard and other relevant practitioners—academic and otherwise—to be called before such a Committee? Are the Government saying that it is not appropriate for such a vehicle to be used? Surely the Bill is highly appropriate for such a procedure. The Government are not so fizzing with legislation that they have no time to deal with it because the juggernaut must press on. We all know that a substantial part of their legislative programme has already been put into effect. They have said that the consultation document on PIIs will be published in, perhaps, May. It is technically possible for the conclusions of that consultation to be incorporated in the Bill. I make that plea to the Government on the preliminary points.
  On the substantive matter of disclosure, and more generally, I am attracted by many of the proposals in the Bill, particularly those designed to speed up the process of trial and to clarify and narrow the issues in dispute beforehand. I accept that the defence should be required to show the relevance of unused material that it seeks to inspect, and not to go on a fishing expedition in the hope that a defence will emerge.
  Equally—this point was made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan—it is wrong that juries should be inconvenienced by having their consideration of trials interrupted, often for substantial periods and frequently while points of law are argued in their absence. It is surely right that, as far as is practicable, all such issues should be disposed of before a jury is sworn, as suggested in, I think, clause 34.
  If greater use is to be made of pre-trial procedures, I make the plea that the judge who decides the preliminary issues should also be the judge at trial. All too frequently, particularly in London, a succession of judges deal with such preliminary points and it is highly desirable that the judge who determines such preliminary points should also be the trial judge.
  On disclosure, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn quite rightly said that the problem of the burden of material must be considered. It is a question of drawing the line. It includes the equality of arms, which has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting article 6(1) of the European convention. There is broad consensus that the balance between defence and prosecution obligations is not right, and the Bill goes a substantial way towards remedying that.
  There will be a need to examine in detail each stage of the proposed new procedure, which in many ways appears to be cumbersome but which may be the best that we can devise. We should proceed with some humility, realising that the great miscarriages of justice that have tarnished our system over the past decade, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has played such a distinguished part, arose essentially because of non-disclosure.

  759
  There will be selective disclosure, and therefore part of the task of the Committee will be to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards. For example, the investigator should be under the clear control and supervision of the prosecutor. Any prosecutor—I spent most of my professional life prosecuting—will understand that, for the majority of the police, there is a crusading element: an element of diffamation professionelle, professional defamation. The prosecutor should be able to make a more objective assessment.
  I am broadly happy with the provisions in respect of defence disclosure, which are intended to clarify the issues and to save time. Again, however, certain safeguards need to be written into the Bill. I am prepared to accept the argument for a statement of the prosecution's case, and for a duty of continuous disclosure as new facts come to light. I shall not go into all the details now, but I will say that I welcome the possibility of a retrial in the event of an acquittal following jury nobbling, although I fear that the provision will not have much effect in practice. It is worth reading clause 46 in detail: it draws attention to many of the hurdles on the route to a retrial. I suspect that few, if any, will take place, but I nevertheless think it proper for such powers to exist. It offends our sense of justice that criminals can scoff at the law.
  I also welcome the power to restrict the reporting of defamatory allegations in mitigation; in any event, the onus is on defence counsel not to parrot the more lurid suggestions made to him by his client, without investigation. I envisage numerous difficulties, however—not just practical difficulties related to the lack of antecedents officers, which were mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), but difficulties related to the question of who will challenge. In many instances, no one in court will be able to refer the existence of defamatory allegations to the judge, and the family involved may learn of them only after the event. We should consider whether it should be the duty of the clerk at a magistrates court, or of the judge or prosecutor in the Crown court, to stop the proceedings until the family of the victim, for instance, has had a chance to make representations. None the less, I approve of the arrangements in principle.
  Let me return to an earlier point. We should be humble enough to realise that we can learn from experts in a non-controversial sphere such as this. Although many of us have experience, it may not be up to date, and it is always possible for us to learn. If the procedure is to be used at all—if the Government do not rule it out—the Bill qualifies for the establishment of a Special Standing Committee.
  5.53 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall not labour my connections with criminal proceedings, of which I think the House is aware.
  I welcome the official Opposition's support for the trend of improvement set out in the Bill. I have never heard them so supportive. Perhaps our attacks on them are going home; perhaps we should attack them less, in case we are embarrassed by their support for future measures. I caution Ministers: perhaps we should temper our criticisms of the ridiculous "tough on crime, tough on the
  760
  causes of crime" slogan, lest we find ourselves in that uncomfortable position of being supported by the Opposition.
  Mr. Straw: I think it fair to say that, when the Deputy Prime Minister used the words "the villain's friend", the person he had most in mind was the hon. and learned Gentleman, who defended the Krays. Let me add—although I did not wish to make this point, given our consensual approach to the Bill—that it just happens that I made speeches about the need for changes in the disclosure rules rather in advance of the Home Secretary's statement to the House in May. I spoke in early April.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I remind him that the Krays were convicted and went to prison for a very long time. I think that acquitting them would have been an impossible job.
  When I went down, with my learned leader, to say goodbye to Ronald Kray, he said, "Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence, for what you have done for us"—30 years. He added, "We are going to keep our fingers crossed for you in Peckham"—where I was then Conservative candidate—"so that you can become Home Secretary and let us out early." I do not think I need remind the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that I have never become Home Secretary. There is justice and sense in the system that the Conservative Government have been operating for the past 15 years.
  There are two kinds of miscarriage of justice: the conviction of the innocent and the acquittal of the guilty. The Government's criminal appeals legislation has made statutory changes to reduce the incidence of the former, and a number of measures have sought to redress the latter. They comprise many of the famous 27 points mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the wonderful Conservative conference in October 1993. Some have required legislation; others have not.
  Closed circuit television, which is being introduced all over the country, is substantially reducing the incidence of violent crime and crime as a whole—by some 60, 70 or 80 per cent. in some areas. DNA testing is also helping, as is the amendment of the right to silence. In due course, that may help to convict more guilty people.
  The introduction of tape-recorded interviews has not only secured the conviction of many of the guilty, but speeded up criminal trials. Witness intimidation has been made an offence, and more police officers have been provided, better trained, equipped and led. They have now been supplemented by the security services. The police have also been given tougher stop-and-search powers. The Bill includes a number of further improvements in the effectiveness of criminal trials, which will help to reduce the number of acquittals of the guilty.
  I shall not repeat the changes or their justification, because that would not add much to constructive consideration of the Bill, and we have not much time. Let me make two specific points. First, I am among the staunchest supporters of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who have made determined efforts to turn the criminal justice system more effectively against criminals and in favour of victims and potential victims. I backed most—but not all—of the measures that we have introduced, and I back this Bill.

  761
  Let me add, however, that, as long as we retain an adversarial system—which I consider the best way of ensuring that the innocent are not convicted—we shall have to be aware, and constantly remind ourselves, that the prosecution has advantages that the defence has not. It has resource advantages, procedural advantages, time advantages and psychological advantages. The protections for the defence are very important and must never be swept away.
  By all means we must amend and improve the protections. We must try to tilt the unnecessary benefits that the defence receives in favour of conviction of the guilty, but we must never let down our guard in protecting the basic rights that we have traditionally accorded to the defence in criminal trials, which are enshrined in the concept of the burden of proof.
  We have done so much to reduce the unfairness and injustice against the prosecution that we may soon come to the time when we go over the edge and tilt the benefits too much in favour of the prosecution. We must certainly begin to think about checking our enthusiasms for going further down that line.
  I do not think that every provision we have made is very sensible. For example, I do not think that sweeping away committal proceedings in order to be kinder to victims has helped to make our justice system more effective. It just means that bad cases get stopped at a later and more expensive stage in the proceedings.
  I am not sure that having a state-funded duty solicitor at every stage after a person has been arrested improves justice very much. It just imposes a much greater cost on justice, because many accused people who would have found a solicitor privately for at least the early stages of the proceedings now find that their representation is paid, quite expensively, by the state, to the substantial disadvantage of taxpayers. I think that we have been somewhat over-enthusiastic about introducing that type of change—which I doubt has been efficient and effective.
  We must be careful with this Bill not to make the rules we lay down over-rigid. I very much welcome the response that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made to the early indications that there would be a requirement that the names and addresses of all witnesses, not only in alibi cases, should be revealed to the prosecution. I welcome that change, because of the realistic fear—of which all of us who have practised in the criminal courts are aware—that the police might be able to get at witnesses and, sometimes deliberately and sometimes not deliberately, deter them from giving important evidence for the defence.
  It is very easy, for example, for the police to approach potential witnesses who have previous convictions and remind them that, if they give evidence, those matters will be disclosed for all to see. That is a reason why, in the end, the defence has not been able to call the witnesses whom it might otherwise have called. The Home Secretary's response to that has been both generous and sensible, and I very much welcome it.
  So, the judge must be given flexibility to consider, if he is asked, whether the circumstances of the case require the waiving of the strict rules which may, or may not, emerge from this Bill. Ultimately, the judge must be given
  762
  that type of flexibility, to protect the defence. We all have examples of how we have made pleas to the judge to make changes. Sometimes he has said, "Yes, I have the discretion to do that." Sometimes he has said, "No, I have no discretion," and the trial has continued, perhaps unfairly with regard to the matters that had been challenged.
  Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend should be aware that this Bill may have serious resource implications. There is, for example, no point in the defence revealing the details of its case if the police are not available to check up and follow through the information that they have been given. From the defence point of view, it is important—it may also be important for the prosecution—that, between the committal and the trial, the police should consider whether there is an answer to the allegation in the defence case, or whether the defence case is one which is susceptible to challenge, and the trial can be more speedily brought to an end.
  It is sensible to have matters sorted out in pre-trial reviews—especially in requiring rulings on points of law, which is long overdue—but there are practical problems. The procedure will require the barrister who is to conduct the trial to be present at the pre-trial review. The trend is to require that to happen, but it may not happen. It cannot always happen at present. What would happen if the barrister who is to conduct the trial is part-heard in another case? One cannot be expected to reschedule the pre-trial hearing. Very often, the current pre-trial hearings are not very efficient and effective, for the simple reason that the barrister who will conduct the trial is not there.
  What would happen if, at a later stage, a Queen's counsel is appointed who has a different view about the way in which the trial should be conducted from that of the junior who appeared at the pre-trial proceedings? If one is to get the barrister who will conduct the trial there, one will have to get him to set aside all other business—his work and his income. If banisters have to give up other work to be at the pre-trial review, it might require a substantial increase in the money that is paid in legal aid. The alternative would be conflict between the Bar and the bench when banisters do not appear.
  We are here requiring, are we not, a paid activity by banisters, which will further extend the time before banisters are paid? The Bar is currently—it has been at all times that I can recollect, but it is worse now than at any other time—seething with anger and irritation at the delays before the payment of fees. Members of the Bar have to live, just like everyone else. They sometimes have poor cash flows, and they may have to wait up to a year to be paid for their cases.
  The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 has extended the waiting time. One cannot put in a fee claim—
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is this a trade union point?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes; but it is one which raises resource implications.
  One cannot put in a fee claim until all the proceedings are over and the person is sentenced. That matter was not taken fully into account when the Drug Trafficking Offences Act was introduced. We will therefore have to consider carefully the resource implications of changes. If one does not take a trade union point of view, there will not be many banisters left in the profession. That may be

  763
  the direction in which everyone wants to go—I do not know—but I am not sure that the system will be improved if we do away with the dual system of solicitors and barristers.
  I hope that the points I have made about the Bill will be borne in mind during its passage through the House. I also hope that we may get some indications of good will from the Government about the manner in which those matters will be handled. I have explained my hesitations. I very much commend the requirement for pleas to be encouraged at pre-trial hearings, because that will speed justice in criminal cases. Provided that there is flexibility and understanding about why, in some cases, pleas are not ready for delivery, I have no doubt that it will be an improvement.
  I commend the further weapon against jury nobbling, so that, where it is discovered, the guilty will not necessarily go free. That should further discourage people who may be tempted to pay dishonest people. There was a recent case of a dishonest ex-police officer who asked the family of an accused person for £25,000 in return for naming the jurors. The proposal for juvenile remands, provided there is flexibility, is very sensible, and will spare the trauma of repeat appearances in court for children. I also commend the proposal to give the judge the power to restrict reporting of false or irrelevant allegations made in mitigation proceedings.
  The Bill improves the law. Not only will it honour the undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in all his 27 points, but it will make justice more efficient—as long as we keep in mind the problems that might be posed by the legislation and do not rush helter-skelter to deprive the defence of any citizen's fundamental rights.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am afraid that I am the fifth barrister of five speakers so far in the debate. I have practised at the Bar for the past 25 years—not exclusively but considerably, in criminal cases. After the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) I am tempted to give him 10 per cent. of my next fee in return for his eloquent, shop-steward-like efforts on behalf of the Bar, but he can do without the money, and I shall not weary the House by backing his undoubtedly correct complaint that payments, especially to young junior barristers, are too long delayed for legal aid defence work. In that context, the Government are among the worst late payers of debt.
  We all have bad days. I have had a bad afternoon, because earlier I made two attempts to make a good point, and on each occasion made it badly. It is bad enough making a bad point badly, but making a good point badly is nigh unforgivable. So I should like to return to my point, which relates to part VI of the Bill.
  I share the Home Secretary's view that jury and witness nobbling is extremely serious. I thought that, given his great 27-point conference speech, he was going to act toughly on it. In fact, part VI creates a procedural steeplechase for the prosecution before a case arising out of jury or witness nobbling can take place. As the Lord Chief Justice said in the other place on Second Reading, it is very important to ensure that the double jeopardy rule remains effective. It is extremely important to ensure that, wherever appropriate, people do not suffer the risk of double jeopardy on criminal charges.
  764
  However, as I meant to convey in my interventions, there may be cases in which clause 45(1)(b) cannot be satisfied because the nobbler of juror or witness will be dead as a result of the sort of gangland warfare that occurs in such cases, or will conveniently absent himself from the jurisdiction. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to consider those circumstances, and examine whether tainted acquittals might not be addressed in that context. It is not a fanciful state of affairs at all.
  I am a little concerned about the language used in debates on disclosure. It seems to be a fashion to have at one time more disclosure, and then for the pendulum to swing towards less disclosure. I suspect that, if we are witnessing such a swing of the pendulum, we may, as a result of efforts of people such as the redoubtable hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), see the pendulum swinging back the other way in a few years' time, towards more disclosure.
  I hope that the Bill, which makes a sensible and creditable attempt to address the issue of disclosure, is not simply regarded as part of that swing of the pendulum. Rather, it would be gratifying if the House for a change produced a piece of legislation that stood the test of time and provided a continuum of rules on which sensible disclosure jurisdiction could be exercised by the courts.
  I support the Bill in principle, but not the Home Secretary's rhetoric. I do not believe the Home Secretary's rhetoric that the Bill will have a significant effect on the catching of more criminals—it may or it may not. If we get the Bill right by the time it has completed all its stages, it is likely to strengthen the fairness of the trial process to both sides—the defence and the prosecution.
  I am troubled when I hear adjectives such as "robust" used about judges. So far in this debate, the only references to robust judges have been premised by the assumption that robust judges make rulings in favour of the prosecution. It is my view, and certainly the experience of practitioners, that robust judges are sometimes needed to make rulings in favour of the defence, too.
  Indeed, the subject, especially someone who is innocent and charged with a criminal offence—believe it or not, that happens from time to time—may be given protection by robust judges on whom he can rely for good judgment where necessary in favour of the defence. So let us not knot ourselves up in political rhetoric about important issues. We should approach the Bill on the basis that it is worth having only if it improves the investigation and the trial of criminal offences.
  On improving the trial of criminal offences, I have one great disappointment about the Bill that relates to victims. I am surprised that the Government, who have had much to say about victims—much of which I support in principle—have not seen fit to include in the Bill, particularly in the part dealing with pleas in mitigation, a provision for victim statements to be made available to the court in all serious cases.
  Last week, I chaired a multi-disciplinary victim support seminar in Llandrindod Wells in mid-Wales, in which it was the view of all involved—the seminar included very senior representatives of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—that a victim's statement before each court considering a serious offence would assist the

  765
  judge in passing a just sentence. One of the points made was that a victim's statement would help the judge to assess whether the plea in mitigation put forward by the defence counsel or the defence solicitor was based on honest instructions.
  We have a well-established procedure, although it is not used as much as it might be, for what are called Newton hearings. In a Newton hearing, which arises when there is a guilty plea, the judge can hold a hearing to assess the factual truth of assertions made, and in particular the basis of the guilty plea. The introduction of victim statements would enable judges to be much better informed when deciding whether a Newton hearing was necessary. So it is a disappointment that that is not included.
  However, other aspects of the Bill are welcome. In dealing with issues of disclosure, I feel bound to take us back to the most fundamental question of all about criminal trials: what is a criminal trial? What is it trying to achieve? There is a common misconception that a criminal trial is some form of public inquiry—a Scott-type inquiry, perhaps, starting with a clean sheet of paper, seeking to discover the truth and occasionally finding it.
  In reality, a criminal trial does not involve a search for any absolute form of truth; there is no search for the holy grail of what is true. A criminal trial is an exercise designed to decide whether the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to make the jury, or the magistrate, sure that the defendant is guilty.
  A criminal charge is not brought to trial unless it passes the tests set by the rules laid down in its clear published code of practice by the Crown Prosecution Service, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Those rules require there to be at least a 51 per cent. prospect of success, in the prosecution's assessment, before the case is brought. So, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, when a trial starts, the dice are, in effect, loaded against the defendant.
  Although there is theoretically a presumption of innocence, in many minds there is a presumption of guilt. The danger is that the police, too, may be loaded with a presumption of guilt. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has discovered that that occurred in at least two extremely important cases, and I know that he has been working hard on another, which the Home Secretary has so far refused to refer back to the Court of Appeal for a second time.
  We must therefore try to ensure that the disclosure procedure does not, as I said earlier, swing the pendulum back to stack the odds unfairly against the defendant. However, in my experience, especially when appearing in front of the more modern type of judge rather than the lions of an earlier generation, disclosure is a pretty good idea for the defence as well as for the prosecution. The experience of those who have practised in recent years is that, if a defendant, through his lawyers, places a skeleton argument or a case summary before the judge, even before the trial starts, a clearer version of the defence is put to the jury before the trial ends.
  Of course, a case statement by the defence requires a reasonable degree of disclosure by the defence. It can do no harm, provided that the rules are even-handed. The rules provided in the code of practice, which is now in
  766
  draft form and accompanies the Bill, seem fairly even-handed, but I have one concern about them that ought to worry the police.
  The code of practice involves another bureaucracy, another burden of form-filling and book-keeping for police officers. It is to be hoped that there will be civilian support to enable police officers to concentrate on the investigation rather than on the disclosure provisions, which could be time-consuming. Well-organised police stations now have strong civilianised clerical support, and that will be needed to deal with a regime that I understand will apply to every case, however big or small.
  Given sufficient support for the police, and given that the defence is allowed sufficient legal aid to pursue its reasonable inquiries within the disclosure regime, much of what has been provided should work. However, I have two specific misgivings about disclosure process.
  The first question is: how are we to test whether the prosecutor has carried out his duty properly? It will not be possible for the defence to do that, although it may be possible for the scrutiny to be carried out by the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, when it comes into being—although it will probably take years for any case to receive such scrutiny, because it is in the nature of such cases to take a long time to come to fruition if there has been inadequate disclosure.
  I therefore ask the Government what sort of audit or quality control will be carried out. Have procedures to ensure that there will be quality control already been drafted by the inspectorate of constabulary, and will they be carried out in every force and every division? It is important to be reassured that the regime will be followed properly, when the defence is in no position to examine what happens as closely as it might wish.
  My second misgiving is more specific, and concerns the schedule of unused non-sensitive material. That must be sufficiently detailed to enable the accused and his advisers to make a judgment about the relevance of the material listed for their use.
  We have already heard about the issues connected with pleas in mitigation. In an intervention, I referred to the fact that antecedent officers have now been removed from Crown courts. In my view, that was a seriously misguided economy. In the past, such officers, usually at least of the rank of sergeant, and sometimes inspector, were prepared to carry out inquiries.
  Typically, I have known of cases in which a defendant has put forward in mitigation the claim that he has a home and a job to go to, but when that has been checked by the antecedent officer in the court, it has been found that the defendant was telling the truth about neither. Such a liaison facility no longer exists in most courts. Such inquiries are not part of the job of the probation service, nor is there any court official to carry them out. Making them is not part of the task of the CPS either. It would be welcome if the Government decided that, for the sake of the more accurate disposal of criminal trials, antecedent officers were to be restored.
  The transfer of trial scheme seems unnecessarily complex, bureaucratic, costly and open to error—and it may take up more time than it saves. I hope that, even at this relatively late stage in the Bill's progress, the Government will be willing to consider proposals to redress those criticisms, which may well be valid.

  767
  Overall, the Bill seems to make some needed changes in the criminal justice system, but I hope that the Government will recognise that we must be prepared to review the changes, especially those relating to disclosure, so that, if there are signs of weakness in them, we can revisit each area on its legal merits, rather than in terms of political rhetoric.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: For the first time in the debate, the moment has come to hear from someone who is not a lawyer. I say that with all due respect to my hon.—and learned—Friends on both sides of the House who are lawyers, but justice is too important to be left entirely to lawyers. I apologise for my absence earlier in the debate, but I had an appointment with a Minister that had already been rearranged four times, and I did not think that I could rearrange it again.
  I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said about the possibility of bringing the Bill before a Special Standing Committee so that we could take evidence from parties that have taken a particular interest in the issues covered by the Bill. There is a need for calm consideration of the issues, because they are rather important.
  I also welcome the point made by almost everyone who has spoken—certainly by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) and the hon. and learned Members for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I shall put it as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan did, by saying that it is important to err on the side of too much disclosure rather than too little. If we must make a choice, that is the choice that we should make. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton says, the prosecution has many advantages and it is important to protect the defence.
  Parts I and II of the Bill deal with disclosure. In my view, the Bill should be a little more controversial. Let me say at the outset that I entirely accept that the criminal justice system should not be just a game of chance in which clever lawyers vie to outwit one another without regard to the interests of justice. Therefore, to the extent that the Bill facilitates a genuine search for truth and justice, I welcome it. I do, however, have serious reservations. I am not at all convinced that the Bill as at present drafted represents an improvement on existing case law.
  I understand that the Bill has been prompted by three main considerations, and the Home Secretary referred to some of those in his speech. First, defence lawyers—particularly in fraud trials—have been demanding vast quantities of documents, much of which are said to be irrelevant to the case. Secondly, unscrupulous lawyers are said sometimes to demand details of informants and other confidential information in the hope that the Crown can be persuaded to abandon the prosecution rather than jeopardise its sources. I have no doubt that there is some basis for both of those arguments, and examples can be found—some have been given in the debate—to illustrate them. I believe, however, that those reasons have been talked up by those interested in obscuring the third, and by far the most important, reason for concern about disclosure—that the failure of the police and the Crown to disclose evidence inconvenient to their case has been a feature of most of the proven and alleged miscarriages of justice in the past 20 years.
  768
  I shall provide some examples, because we should not talk about the matter in terms of dry theory. The scale of non-disclosure in some of the cases that are now celebrated is truly staggering. In the Birmingham case, about 2,000 statements judged by the West Midlands police to be non-material disappeared. In November 1975—four months after the Birmingham defendants were sent to prison for life, and while their appeal was pending—a number of genuine members of the Birmingham IRA were arrested, at least one of whom gave the police a detailed account of the Birmingham IRA, including a number of names. He gave the police the name of a man said to be one of those who placed the bombs in the pub. This happened in November 1975—one year after the pub bombings and a few months after the trial. Special Branch compiled a long statement from the man, a precis of which did not surface until 1990, and then only because someone with access to police archives felt sufficiently strongly to send a copy to Granada Television.
  Among the documents disclosed at the 1991 appeal by the Birmingham Six was a statement from a colleague of the forensic scientist Dr. Skuse, who had obtained a positive test on a swab from the hand of a passenger on the Liverpool to Belfast ferry on the same evening that five of the Birmingham Six were tested by Dr. Skuse at Chorley. The Liverpool passenger had been released after he was found to have been innocently contaminated. Had that statement been available years earlier, it would have had a significant impact on the Crown case. It was obtained in time for the trial, but was not disclosed to the defence. The Attorney-General, in a letter to me dated 17 May 1991, said:
  "It is most probable that an oversight or administrative error was responsible for what was undoubtedly a most unfortunate error".
  I have a number of letters from the former Attorney-General—now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—in which he talks about regrettable oversights which, he has been assured, were entirely inadvertent.
  In the Guildford case, non-disclosure took place on an even more shocking scale. On 12 December 1975, four members of an IRA unit were captured at Balcombe street in central London, two of whom were interviewed the following day by Commander Jim Nevill and Detective Superintendent—now Sir—Peter Imbert. During the interview, the two IRA men admitted to bombing the King's Arms at Woolwich on 12 December 1975—one of the offences for which the Guildford Four had just been convicted.
  In a further interview on 30 December, one of the men told Nevill and Imbert that four members of the Balcombe street unit had been responsible for the Woolwich explosion. Nevill and Imbert—according to their interview notes—both expressed concern at the possibility that innocent people had been convicted and an anxiety to get at the truth. Nevertheless, no further interviews took place, and no charges or further investigations followed. Solicitors acting for the four persons already convicted were not informed. The Director of Public Prosecutions was informed, but took no action.
  When the Balcombe street IRA unit came to trial, not only were the two men who had given the statements not charged with the Woolwich bombing—which they had admitted to—but steps had been taken to excise from the

  769
  statements of the forensic scientists, Messrs Higgs and Lidstone, all references to connections between Woolwich, Guildford and the other offences for which the Balcombe street unit was obviously responsible.
  At the Balcombe street trial, Commander Nevill told the court that he instructed Higgs to remove references to Woolwich from his statement at the instigation of the DPP. Let it not be said that it is only the police who lose inconvenient evidence—frequently in such cases it is the DPP. Detective Chief Superintendent Huckelsby was asked at what stage he had been asked to omit from his list of offences the Woolwich bombing and four others that appeared to be linked. He replied:
  "This was discussed following the submission of my first major report to the DPP at a conference with counsel."
  Documents disclosed to the defence in the Guildford case in preparation for the 1989 appeal at which the convictions were quashed showed that one of the four, Gerry Conlon, had a cast-iron alibi all along—an alibi, incidentally, of which he knew nothing. He was not therefore in a position to request its disclosure. An alibi witness had seen Conlon asleep at the hostel at Quex road, Kilburn, at the time he was supposed to be carrying out one of the bombings many miles away. The witness's statement was properly passed by the police to the DPP, but it did not become available to the defendants for another 15 years.
  I could cite many more examples. I realise that it could be said that all of these cases occurred many years ago and that everyone concerned has cleaned up their act since then. However, that is not my experience. I sat through four preparatory hearings for the final Birmingham appeal in 1991 in which Crown counsel Graham Boal tried the patience of the court with weeks of prevarication about disclosure. Nothing in Mr. Boal's demeanour suggested that the DPP had learnt any lessons from the Guildford convictions, which had been quashed two years earlier. On the contrary, I heard him repeatedly argue that the DPP would disclose to the defendants only what he considered to be relevant and only when he was ready to do so.
  Non-disclosure has been a feature of many other celebrated miscarriages of justice, and some cases which are still alleged to be miscarriages of justice. In the Judith Ward case, non-disclosure was absolutely central. In the Stefan Kisko case, it was shown that he was convicted of a crime that he could not physically have committed, and it was many years before that poor man's conviction was quashed. Tomorrow, there is to be a debate on the Carl Bridgewater case, in which once again non-disclosure is a major feature. The Minister admitted during Home Office questions on 15 February that nine years had elapsed between the murder of Carl Bridgewater and the revelation that two fingerprints—so far unidentified—were found on the bicycle belonging to the murdered boy. Obviously, if that information had been available at the trial, it might have had a major impact on the outcome of the case. I am also dealing with the case of Brian Parsons, who is in prison for a murder that many people who have looked carefully at the case do not believe he had anything to do with.
  The force involved in that case is the Devon and Cornwall police force, which has a good reputation—justifiably so in some respects. It behaved honourably
  770
  when clearing up the Birmingham bombings case, but in the case of Brian Parsons, which is on its own patch, it is doing everything in its power to obstruct proper access to exhibits. When people tell me that all the cases occurred a long time ago and things have changed now, I do not accept it.
  If the pendulum has swung too far, as the Home Secretary and others believe, the police and prosecuting authorities have only themselves to blame. In the light of experience, it will be a long time before I accept that the good will of the Crown and the professional integrity of those involved in investigation and prosecution are a sufficient safeguard against wrongful conviction. That is the background to my approach to the Bill.
  I have several specific reservations that are shared by just about everyone—including the Law Society and, I am pleased to say, Lord Runciman—who has taken a serious interest in miscarriages of justice. Those who are most enthusiastic about the disclosure aspects of the Bill are those who were among the last to realise that there was a problem with miscarriages of justice.
  My first reservation is that, even with the best will in the world—and I accept that there are many investigators and Crown prosecutors of integrity—the Bill places too heavy a burden on the prosecutor. How can he or she be expected to represent the interests not only of the Crown, but of the defence, when it comes to deciding what is to be disclosed?
  My second reservation is that the Bill's definition of what should be disclosed is too narrow. It describes it as any material that
  "in the prosecution's opinion might undermine the case".
  There is a simple solution to that problem which does not involve great expense or bureaucracy: the defence should have access to material at its place of storage and it should be able to copy material that it decides is relevant. The decision should be made by the defence, not by the prosecution.
  My third reservation involves the list of available material with which the prosecution is obliged to supply the defence. How much detail should it go into? It is vital that any schedule should clearly show the significance of what is available.
  My fourth reservation involves what is in the public interest. It is true that that is a matter for the court to decide, but we must pay careful attention to it. The record already shows that Her Majesty's customs, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government have an entirely different concept of public interest than do most ordinary citizens. The Matrix Churchill case offered a rare insight into the official attitude to public interest. It is no good saying that it is ultimately a matter for the judge. We saw yesterday that the Crown was prepared to go to some lengths to outwit the judge in the Matrix Churchill case. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) yesterday quoted a minute from a civil servant to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which stated that the list of documents on the second public interest immunity certificate should be removed, because to retain the words
  "might increase the risk that the judge will call for copies of the documents."
  I draw the attention of the House to a book by Mr. David Rose called "In the Name of the Law". At pages 192 to 207, he sets out examples of cases where

  771
  the Crown relied on two extreme rogues, John Banks and Graham Titley, and did everything possible to prevent the court from discovering their backgrounds in the sure knowledge that the case would collapse were the truth to emerge. That is an important point because, with the role played by MI5 in investigating serious crime, there will inevitably be more claims that material cannot be disclosed on public interest grounds. I have no doubt that public interest has been, and will continue to be, abused. Our judges will have to be extremely vigilant—nothing in the Bill must limit their discretion.
  My final reservation concerns the lack of sanctions to be used when material that should have been disclosed, is not, as a result of negligence or worse. It is a feature of all proven miscarriages that no one has ever been held to account for negligent or deliberate failure to disclose, however blatant.
  Ms Janet Anderson: I hope that Chris will sit down in a moment.
  Mr. Mullin: I hear my hon. Friend the Whip. I will, but as the only representative of non-lawyers present, I feel that I must set out my concerns.
  Mr. Alun Michael: And me.
  Mr. Mullin: I am sorry—my hon. Friend, who is to reply to the debate, is also not a lawyer.
  The problem of the guilty walking free is undoubtedly a serious possibility that causes considerable public concern. As I said before, however, I believe that it has been talked up with a view to distracting attention from reality. We cannot proceed on the basis that everyone involved comes to court with good will and integrity because the record shows otherwise. We must therefore ensure that the Bill contains safeguards and that the disclosure permitted is as wide as possible.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has done so much to try to restore confidence in the criminal justice system by being critical of it. Those two elements are not inconsistent: those who care most about the system are prepared to be critical of it and to expose its failures. I am also proud to be following my hon. Friend as the second non-lawyer to participate in the debate, which is of importance to the general public, not just to lawyers. I sometimes think that debates in the House on criminal justice are dominated too heavily by lawyers.
  Today's debate goes to the heart of the criminal justice system. It goes to the heart of two points that both Parliament and the public share as items of great concern. The first is the frustration felt when the guilty walk free or when the resources of justice are diverted into a waste of time and energy; the second is the fear that the innocent will be incarcerated. We need to cut out the massive waste of time involved in needless disclosure and the pursuit of fishing trips, as they have been described. It is right for my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South to balance that aim with the importance of ensuring that the way in which we achieve it protects the innocent and does not go too far the other way.
  772
  I am not new to such issues; during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in 1994 I moved amendments that, had they been accepted, would have introduced a system of defence and prosecution disclosure in a balanced way. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been shadow Home Secretary, he has repeatedly reinforced the need to tackle the issue—he made specific proposals to do so in his speech on 5 April 1995.
  I am not sure whether the complaints about payment made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) were made personally on behalf of his union, so I shall not comment on that part of his speech, but he made the one divisive contribution to the debate—perhaps with his tongue in his cheek. He has been described as the villain's friend—he should not express surprise at our support for a measure that helps justice. The Labour party's attitude is always to offer critical and constructive support for such measures. He had the grace to welcome our approach and, in the same spirit, I invite him to support Labour measures to tackle violence, the carrying of weapons, drug-related crime and stalking, and to nip things in the bud when youngsters start to offend. Those are just a few of the issues on which he—like the Home Secretary—has voted against our proposals. If he will join us in the fight against crime, we will welcome that.
  Mr. Howard: Rubbish.
  Mr. Michael: It is the absolute truth and no amount of circulars from Conservative central office or misleading statements made outside the House by the Home Secretary can fly in the face of evidence—contained in the record of the House, in Hansard—of the way in which we have sought to be both tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, the atmosphere surrounding the speeches today, including those of the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend, was not as divisive as usual; those speeches were about finding a way to resolve the two halves of the dilemma.
  I believe that the Home Secretary missed the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, which I have just said—I hope that the Home Secretary will listen—was the one divisive contribution. The aim of the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and others has been earnestly to deal with the issues that the Home Secretary brought before the House. I have simply balanced the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Burton.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn emphasised the importance of process in setting standards of justice and in the public reputation of the court system. We should be aware that people feel considerable disquiet about the operation of the criminal justice system.
  It is disappointing that the organisation to investigate miscarriages of justice is not yet active and effective. Tomorrow, we shall debate a case that it would be appropriate to refer to that organisation. I say that because, if we are to speed up processes and avoid the duplication and reading of excess material, we need to ensure that machinery is in place to avoid and to correct miscarriages of justice.
  What sanctions will exist on the prosecution? Will the Minister agree to explore ways to strengthen the law regarding any failure to fulfil those obligations?

  773
  That argument was strongly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. We must have a balance of duties and rights and, if we lighten the load on the prosecution, we must be able to trust the prosecution to achieve the balance. There must be a heavy punishment when that trust is breached. In Committee, we should consider the emphasis that is placed on the prosecution's responsibilities to disclose, not only when—in what laymen would understand by that term—a case would be undermined, but when doubt might be cast on a case by the evidence that is available to the prosecution.
  What will the Minister's attitude be to the arguments made by my learned Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn in another place about the circulation of evidence as pornography in prison? Several cases have come to light, causing outrage, and I took the matter up some years ago. I hope that the Minister will be willing to accept, or to table, amendments in Committee. It is surely right for us to impose strict protection so that such material is not made available or circulated in prison or elsewhere. The prisoner has a right to see material that is to be used in the case against him and to discuss it with his lawyer, but that material need not be in his possession, and it need not be possible for him to circulate it in prison.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a valid point about clause 45. The requirement of a conviction may be an obstacle to some cases being treated properly. An addition is needed to give the court the power, if given evidence that there is a good reason why a conviction could not be sought or obtained, to consider the available evidence. It should not be too difficult to meet that point, and I hope that we may discuss that issue in Committee.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman was right to emphasise the victim's interests. We are right to insist on reminding the courts that crime, especially serious crime, is a crime because of damage done to a victim or victims. I am not sure that a victim statement is the right way to proceed, especially if the responsibility for preparing the statement is pushed on to the probation service. The Government rejected a proposal that I made a couple of years ago to require the Crown Prosecution Service to consider and consult the victim before downgrading or dropping serious charges. We must find a mechanism that will properly bring the victim's needs into the centre of consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), in an excellent speech, suggested a Special Standing Committee for the Bill. This is the second measure—the first was the Security Service Bill—about which it has been possible to say, "Here is a measure that is doing something worth while and sensible. Instead of arguing divisively across the Floor of the House, let us try to ensure that the Bill is better when it leaves the Chamber than when it came in, and that it succeeds in meeting the requirements of justice."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn mentioned the important issue of pleas in mitigation being open to challenge. I have sat in magistrates courts—especially juvenile courts—and heard mitigation, after a gap for the preparation of a social inquiry report, and been bemused, having been in court on the previous occasion, because there appeared to be no relationship between the
  774
  mitigation and the events that had convinced the court that a finding of guilt was appropriate. We must tackle that anomaly.
  We should heed the warnings by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that in some cases things go wrong and innocent people are found guilty. I am especially worried after studying the case of Mr. Bernard Wilson, who was found guilty in my constituency of events arising from the involvement of a police informer in promoting the activities that led to the prosecution. The judge expressed grave concern, and I continue to feel much concern, about the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with that case. Many remaining serious issues must be tackled if we are to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
  In Committee, we shall work constructively to improve the Bill. We all want a criminal justice system that protects the innocent and ensures the conviction of the guilty. The Bill is one step along the path of reform. We need to ensure in Committee that we end up with the best possible and most balanced legislation, but the measure is long overdue, and it is only one step. We have a long journey to travel before we can claim to have restored public confidence in the criminal justice system.
  6.56 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I was going to take all of the four or six minutes allocated to me to reply to some interventions, but I must start by putting part of the record straight.
  I detected no divisiveness in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Moreover, the debate was good natured throughout and the opening speeches by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) were paragons of virtue in cross-party consensus.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) cannot come to the Chamber and try—even in a low key, even in a quiet bluster—to restate the record of what Labour has done. Purely what he said in his introduction forces me to take about one minute of my time to place on the record some of the information that I extracted from Hansard last week, because I found some time to peruse Hansard carefully.
  I went back only as far as 7 March 1983, when the House debated the prevention of terrorism Act. Labour voted against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In November 1983, Labour voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In January 1984, Labour voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In February 1985, Labour voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In January 1986, Labour voted against the Public Order Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In February 1986 and February 1987, Labour voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."]
  Then, in January 1988, when we voted on the Criminal Justice Act, increasing the penalty for cruelty to children to 10 years, Labour voted against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour voted against the proposal to increase the maximum penalty for dealing in hard drugs to life imprisonment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] It voted against the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for taking a

  775
  gun to a crime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour also voted against the Attorney-General's right to appeal against lenient sentences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour voted against the Government in February 1988, January 1989 and in March 1990 when the prevention of terrorism Act was renewed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour also voted against the prevention of terrorism Act in March 1991. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."]
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 gave the courts the power to impose longer sentences on persistent, violent and sexual offenders. Labour voted against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour voted against the requirement for parents to attend court proceedings with their children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] The Act gave the courts the power to make the parents of 16 and 17-year-olds pay their children's fines. Labour voted against that and other measures in the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."]
  For the sake of brevity, I shall move on to February 1992, when Labour voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] It voted against that Act again when it was renewed in 1993. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—we are now up to date—reformed the right of silence. Labour voted against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] It did not vote against the police stop-and-search powers, but it argued against them. Labour had no opinion about the whole Act: so it decided to abstain rather than support it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour voted against the establishment of secure training centres and against the prevention of terrorism Act in March 1995. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."]
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the Labour party's repeat offending entitle it to the sternest of minimum sentences in the wilderness for the next 20 years?
  Mr. Maclean: I have examined Labour's record on law and order and I have discovered that it has a considerable criminal record.
  Of course, I welcome the Opposition's support for the Bill. I welcome also what the hon. Member for Blackburn said on television on Sunday, in supporting some of the measures suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend. I welcome his half about-turn in supporting the prevention of terrorism Act. Those actions are correct. However, because Labour has not voted against absolutely everything that we have proposed in the past few months, it does not expunge its record of voting against our proposals in the 1980s. That record speaks for itself: it is an absolute disgrace.
  I refer now to some of the issues raised during the debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said that judges should have discretion to waive the rules. He called for more flexibility, but he did not refer to any rules that he thought were too inflexible. He may have in mind the requirement to produce a defence statement in all Crown court cases, which was raised during debate in another place. The Government said then that the Bill lays down a clear rule because of the advantages in all cases of narrowing the issues in dispute before the trial, for which defence disclosure is essential.
  776
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) called for the establishment of a Special Standing Committee. I am not persuaded that the Bill meets the criteria for that procedure.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: There has not been a Special Standing Committee in relation to England and Wales for 12 years. As the Home Secretary has said, the procedure was set up specifically to consider non-controversial Bills—I believe, of this nature. Given that there are no time constraints, how can the Government not accede to that request?
  Mr. Maclean: We should not grab this Bill and send it to a Special Standing Committee just because the hon. Gentleman believes that it is remotely suitable and because no other Bill has been before such a Committee in 12 years. As the debate in the other place showed, there is a great deal of interest in the Bill. There has been an awful lot of consideration and scrutiny of the Government's proposals, as set out in the discussion paper. I cannot see what role a Special Standing Committee would have that was not performed by the experts in the other place. The legislation has been subject to considerable detailed scrutiny.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) asked how we can guard against inadvertent non-disclosure by the prosecutor. The Bill requires the prosecutor to give the accused a schedule of all material that is not sensitive. If the accused believes that material disclosed in the schedule may help the defence, he may apply to the court to obtain it.
  I shall touch upon several points raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He referred to categories of sensitive material in the code of practice and suggested that they included material given in confidence, which he thought was a very wide-ranging definition. The code does encompass a number of categories of sensitive material, including material given to the police in confidence. However, the prosecutor, and not the police, must decide whether the material meets the test for disclosure in the Bill. If the material is sensitive and the prosecutor seeks to withhold it on public interest grounds, the court will decide the issue.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the test for primary prosecution disclosure should be "casts doubt upon" rather than "undermines". We believe that "undermines" is the right test. It catches material that has an adverse effect on the prosecution case and should be disclosed. However, it is not so wide as to require the disclosure of anything that has no more than a small, peripheral effect. The alternative formulation would move us backwards to the current unsatisfactory disclosure test and it would put unnecessary burdens on the police. No doubt we shall debate the issue in more detail in Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman inquired about prosecution disclosure only after a not guilty plea in summary trials, and he suggested that that might result in delay. We understand his concern, but we take a slightly different view. In summary-only cases, disclosure currently occurs after a not guilty plea; the Bill does not change that. In either-way cases, it will usually be clear whether the accused intends to plead guilty or not guilty. There is also the incentive of a discount in sentence for an early guilty plea, and there is a disincentive if there is no such plea. We believe that that should eliminate delay and reduce costs also.

  777
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that a breach of a code of practice by the police should lead to disciplinary or criminal proceedings. If the breach is serious and amounts to a criminal offence, a prosecution may be brought. It is correct that that should occur. In other cases, a breach may result in disciplinary proceedings under the arrangements that we are devising currently following the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and the new disciplinary procedures for police officers. The court may take such a breach into account if it is relevant to the proceedings.
  I come to the final main point that the hon. Member for Blackburn raised—we may deal with some others in more detail in Committee. He suggested that sanctions should be imposed on the prosecution as well as on the defence, for failure to comply with the Bill's requirements. I understand his concern, but sanctions different from adverse comment, for example, will apply to the prosecution. For example, failure to make primary prosecution disclosure in the Bill will absolve the defence of its requirement to make defence disclosure. A change in the prosecution case must be notified to the accused, otherwise the court can stay the proceedings. I think that it is a good Bill.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to the points that I raised—I know that it was a long list. Can he comment on the two other main issues to which I referred: the possibility of an appeal by the prosecution against a decision by the judge to end counts on the indictment or to dismiss a case altogether before it goes to the jury; and whether the prosecutor should have a role in pleas in mitigation?
  Mr. Maclean: We considered the first point carefully. We decided that we could not see a role for it and we did not include it in the Bill. No doubt the case in favour will be argued sensibly in Committee. As to the prosecutor's role in a plea in mitigation, we see some merit in the prosecutor's presenting to the court the full facts of the
  778
  case as they affect the victim. We must ensure that the effect on the victim is made known to the police. That information must then be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, so that its prosecutors have the full facts and can ensure that the court is aware—certainly before sentencing—of the impact on the victim and can take that into consideration. While victim impact statements have a superficial attraction, there are some potential difficulties. For example, a defence counsel might want to question or cross-examine on some of the things that are said in a victim impact statement.
  What matters to the law-abiding public is a criminal justice system that pays proper regard to the needs of victims and witnesses as well as defendants. The Bill is another stage in redressing the balance in our criminal justice system, which for too long has protected criminals at the public's expense. The pendulum will not swing wildly. The Bill's provisions are here to stay for some considerable time, and that should be the case.
  The Bill makes improvements across the board to procedures for dealing with criminal cases. It will do much to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. That is why it deserves the support of all hon. Members.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  Question agreed to.

  Offensive Weapons Bill (Instruction)
  7.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Offensive Weapons Bill that it have power to make amendments to the Bill so as to make provision about—

  (a) supplying any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed to any person under the age of sixteen years, and

  (b) having any such article, or any offensive weapon within the meaning of section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 or section 47 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, on school premises.

  The Government fully support the Offensive Weapons Bill. It delivers a well-aimed blow at the growing evil of knife carrying, but we are especially concerned about the growth of that evil among young people. We want the Bill to be as effective as possible in relation to that age group. That is why the Government will introduce amendments in Committee.
  First, our proposal will make it an offence for a person to sell a knife to someone under 16. It will be a defence for that person to prove that he exercised due diligence. There will be an order-making power, under which the Secretary of State for the Home Department may designate articles that are excepted from the ban. So far, it has been decided to designate small, folding pocket knives. The maximum penalty for an offence will be six months' imprisonment, a level 5 fine or both.
  Secondly, the proposal will extend to schools and their grounds the offences of carrying a knife or offensive weapon. Those offences currently apply only to carriage in public. Police powers of stop and search for knives and offensive weapons will be extended to schools and their grounds. Penalties for offences committed on school grounds will be the same as those proposed for offences committed in public places—two years' imprisonment or a fine for carrying a knife, or four years' imprisonment or a fine for carrying an offensive weapon.
  There is wide support for the introduction of such measures and I hope that the House will agree to the motion.
  7.11 Pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome the motion. It gives me the opportunity to point out the ludicrous display of the Minister of State, Home Office, with his false theatrical presentation and his Greek chorus behind him.
  The motion brings into effect something that was requested in 1988 by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and that was called for more than once, before the Bill was introduced, by the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  Conservative Members are guilty as charged. We could give a list of items on which they are guilty as long as your arm, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Most of our proposals were introduced when the Home Secretary and his deputy were responsible for criminal justice system matters. I do not intend to delay the House with references to those proposals, because the motion is limited, which, as I can see from your expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you also appreciate.
  The motion gives the Committee that will consider the Bill the capacity to make proposals that go wider than the private Member's Bill introduced two weeks ago. We supported that Bill. The debate on it was another of those occasions when hon. Members on both sides of the House and both Front-Bench teams were united in supporting the need for action to deal with the possession of weapons. The capacity of the Committee to make such amendments goes a stage further in dealing with the possession of weapons by people under the age of 16.
  During that debate, there were calls for problems of advertising and of the sale of weapons to be dealt with. I hope that, although the matter is not covered in the limited motion, the Government have given serious consideration to regulating the advertising of weapons. During the debate, we gave examples of some disgraceful heavy weapons that are available and that are advertised in a variety of publications, and for the possession and advertising of which there can be no reason or excuse.
  I hope that, when the Committee considers the Bill, we shall find that the Government have co-operated with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who introduced the Bill, to ensure that we can deal with the issue of advertising as well as those dealt with in the motion. We called for those developments and we shall support them.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Cold Weather Payments (Barking and Dagenham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  7.14 pm
  Ms Margaret Hodge: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this issue, which is of enormous importance to many of my constituents who are the most vulnerable members of the local community—the elderly, the disabled, the sick and the young families living on low incomes. The debate is an excellent opportunity for the voices of those constituents to be heard, but at the same time I am horrified that it has proved necessary to call for it. The debate is not about a disagreement between me and the Government on a matter of principle, but about the way in which government works for ordinary people. It is about elderly and vulnerable constituents who have suffered unnecessary hardship because they have become the victims of absurd and bureaucratic rules and regulations.
  If the Government had demonstrated one ounce of common sense in the way in which they administered their policies, this debate would not have been necessary. The debate is about practice, not policy—about reality in the real world outside, not debate in the closed world of the Chamber. If the Government had acted with humanity and compassion and shown proper flexibility in the implementation of their policies—flexibility such as they extolled yesterday in the Scott debate when looking after their narrow party interests, but which they reject today when it concerns poor elderly pensioners—today's debate would not have been necessary.
  One means by which we can judge whether the Government provide the framework necessary to ensure a compassionate and humane society involves the way in which they treat elderly people. The blunt and crude way in which the cold weather payment system is implemented in my constituency provides overwhelming evidence of the Government's failure to act in that compassionate and humane way. The Government are preoccupied with the greed of the few, not the need of the many—with tax cuts for the rich, not cash benefits for the poor.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will shortly come to Barking and Dagenham.
  Ms Hodge: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituents in Barking and Dagenham are suffering. The Government are fostering division in my constituency, not creating social cohesion. They will be judged on that. For the sake of my constituents, I hope that the day of judgment will come before next winter and before they have to endure yet another winter without the benefits of the emergency cold weather benefits system, when they will not dare to turn their heating on or up in order to stay healthy and keep warm.
  Ten years ago, the Government introduced a national system of cold weather payments because the previous system of local office discretion was deemed to be unfair. The aim of the current scheme is to help the most vulnerable groups in society and to ensure that they are not frightened to turn up the heating in cold weather. The
  782
  intention is to provide extra money to poor and vulnerable people when the weather is extremely cold. Over the years, the scheme has been amended, but its purpose has remained unchanged. In 1991, when the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) was the Minister responsible for the scheme and amended it in response to pressure from Opposition Members, he said:
  "I propose to assure eligible people that if very cold weather arrives, they can turn up their heating."—[Official Report, 14 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 697]
  If cold weather arrives, and one lives in the wrong part of Barking, that assurance is utterly worthless. If some of my constituents turn up their heating, they will have to fork out for the extra bills—which now include the Government's 8 per cent. value added tax on domestic fuel.
  Eligibility for cold weather payments is triggered by the temperatures recorded by the Meteorological Office acting on behalf of the Benefits Agency. The temperature must be 0 deg C or less every day for seven consecutive days. That is a tough criterion, but it reflects the limited help that the Government will give to vulnerable groups. Only pensioners on income support, disabled people, and families on income support with a dependent child under five years of age can claim cold weather payments. We are not talking about a large group of people or about huge sums of money. Figures supplied by the Library show that last year the Government spent just over £76,000 on the scheme and that in the extremely cold winter of 1991–92 they spent £23 million.
  Large numbers of vulnerable people do not receive the payments because they do not claim income support even though they may be entitled to it. Age Concern estimates that in 1991 between 22 per cent. and 23 per cent. of pensioners entitled to income support did not claim it. People with incomes even a few pence above the support threshold receive nothing.
  If one lives on Lodge avenue—which has one postcode—on the Dagenham side of my constituency, eligibility for cold weather payments is triggered by temperatures taken at Stansted airport. If one lives on the Keir Hardie estate, which is on the other side of Lodge avenue and has a different postcode, eligibility is triggered by temperature readings at Heathrow airport. Quite apart from the fact that neither airport is anywhere near my constituency, there is something rather sickening about the use of airports to assess temperatures when the old, cold and poor in my constituency can only dream about flying off for a sunny break on the Costa del Sol.
  This winter, constituents in Barking received cold weather payments for only one week while their neighbours on the other side of the road—who, for administrative convenience, have a different postcode—received four payments. I am talking not about different villages or constituents who live on opposite sides of a dual carriageway or motorway, but about people in neighbouring streets, whose relatives living just up the road receive cold weather payments that they themselves are denied.
  The temperature at Heathrow may be slightly above that at Stansted—it is all to do with the east wind, apparently, but that makes no sense if one is old, cold and living in Barking: the weather does not change with the postcode. Even the high and mighty cannot ensure that it snows on just one side of the thin white line.

  783
  On 18 January, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security said:
  "Our aim for the social fund cold weather payment scheme is to have a simple network of weather stations that covers the whole country and allows automatic payments to be made quickly to those most in need. We achieve this by using weather stations chosen by the Meteorological Office which are considered representative of the postcode areas they cover, and are sophisticated and reliable enough to provide the quality of data required for the scheme."
  In reply to another written question, the Minister said:
  "We are content that the current network of 55 weather stations used for the cold weather payment scheme … provides straightforward and effective national coverage which at the same time takes reasonable and practicable account of local conditions."—[Official Report, 18 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 724.]
  The Government have got it wrong. The Minister may say that the Government can do nothing and respond with the tired, "Yes Minister" riposte that a line must be drawn somewhere. Of course a line must be drawn somewhere, but that somewhere must make common sense. The public must understand and accept it. It must mean something, and no one in Barking accepts the current nonsense.
  When the temperature dropped on one side of the road in Barking in the week from 5 December, it also dropped on the other side of the road. That did not help Mrs. Havers, who is 86 years old, hard of hearing and lives on the wrong side of the street. She survives on a paltry £71 a week and has no central heating. Ten years ago, the council took away her old boiler, so she even lost the benefit of the heat that that old-fashioned equipment gave out in her kitchen. She needed the £8.50 cold weather payment to keep warm. When the temperature dropped in the week from 21 January, that did not help Mrs. Oakes, who is Mrs. Havers' next-door neighbour and in her 70s. She lives on £65.10 a week. She has no central heating but two gas fires, yet she cannot afford to use them both. The £8.50 payment would have made all the difference to that lady—the difference between basic comfort and distressing cold.
  When the temperature dropped on one side of the road in Barking in the week from 28 January, that did not help Mr. Knight, who is unemployed, desperately looking for work and has a six-month-old baby. His parents on the other side of the line received a cold weather payment but Mr. Knight, his partner and their baby, struggling to live on £75 a week, had no emergency help. They have no central heating. For them, £7 extra a week to pump up the heating from their gas fire represents 10 per cent. of their weekly income. What a way to have to bring up a baby in a modern industrial country. Is that really what the Prime Minister meant when he lectured the country about a classless society?
  Another of my constituents, Mr. Bardwell, is living on income support and sickness benefit following a triple heart bypass operation. He receives a pitiful £57 a week. This winter, he has had to fork out an extra £5 to £6 every week for heating. That again is 10 per cent. of his income. It is hard enough for him to make ends meet without having to try to find that extra money, which he would receive in benefit if he lived at the other end of the same parliamentary constituency. What a farce. Is that fair? Can that be described as a commonsense approach? Is that how we want to treat our old folk, our disabled folk and our young children?
  784
  Child poverty has trebled under the Government and now those living through that poverty are being denied the meagre assistance of cold weather payments. That cannot be fair or right. The Government must think again.
  According to the Government's census, my constituency has a higher percentage of families with children under five than the average for London. So if Barking misses out, more children miss out than elsewhere. In my constituency, a higher proportion of the population are pensioners than elsewhere in London. Barking also has the highest proportion of single-pensioner households. The Minister may sigh, but that is true. So if Barking misses out, more elderly people miss out than elsewhere. My constituency has the highest percentage of the population who are long-term sick and disabled in London. So if Barking misses out, more disabled people miss out than elsewhere. In Barking, we have the lowest proportion of families who enjoy the benefit of central heating. The costs to those families of heating their homes are higher than elsewhere in London. When they miss out, that costs them more.
  Research undertaken by Age Concern in 1993 showed the results. It found that single-pensioner households on income support spent as much as 18 per cent. of their gross income on fuel bills, while single non-pensioner households spent a mere 5 per cent. If the elderly heat their homes, they cannot afford to eat. What a choice. Age Concern found that a third of the older people it interviewed lived in temperatures below 16 deg C, preferring food to fuel. Yet medical research suggests that the risk of respiratory infection increases sharply when temperatures drop below 16 deg. This is a typical Tory con and the health service picks up the tab for the Government's penny-pinching approach to social security.
  We know that the number of deaths in winter in the United Kingdom is three times greater than those in places such as Sweden and Germany, where the winters are much more severe but the homes much warmer. I am not prepared to stand by and see that unfair and, in the end, life-threatening maltreatment of my constituents just because of a temperature difference between Stansted and Heathrow.
  The unfairness is shown by some further facts that I have gleaned from the Library. In the week to 11 December, when the temperature at Stansted averaged 0 deg, at Heathrow it was just 1 deg above the trigger. The same is true for the week ending 27 January. That marginal difference of 1 deg in temperature made all the difference to the old, the disabled and the young living in Barking. They lost out on their entitlement to an essential payment that would help them to keep warm.
  The whole point of the emergency payment is to ensure that the very old and the very young keep warm in cold weather. It is the Government's job to make the system work and they have plenty of options. Why cannot the temperature, for instance, be measured at every benefit office or at the local town hall or civic centre? Is it that difficult to get an accurate measurement? Why cannot the boundaries be more sensibly defined, so that at least everyone in the same borough gets treated equally? Why cannot the home energy efficiency scheme be maintained? Why cut that scheme by £31 million, when investment by the Government today would ensure affordable warmth for pensioners tomorrow? If people's homes were effectively insulated, the savings could be immense.

  785
  Why cannot the Government make greater use of forecasts of periods of cold weather, rather than the actual temperature recorded? In 1991, the right hon. Member for Chelsea stated:
  "The Meteorological Office can now supply daily a forecast for each of the weather stations which we use which will indicate, with sufficient accuracy, the likely average temperature over the next seven days."—[Official Report, 14 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 697.]
  Mr. Bowen Wells (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): The forecasts are used.
  Ms Hodge: The hon. Member tells me—from a sedentary position—that the forecasts are used. They are not. On 24 December—Christmas eve—in the one week in which the whole of Barking qualified, only one weather station, in Dumfries, chose to use the forecast to trigger eligibility for those living in that area. Only in Dumfries could the elderly feel secure over Christmas that they would get their cold weather payment. One of the purposes of the changes to the scheme in 1991 was to provide reassurances to the vulnerable by introducing a fast-track system of eligibility and triggering through the use of forecasts.
  Mrs. Havers came to my surgery last Friday. She told me, "I know those people over the avenue have had four payments. How can it be that it is colder over there than it is over here? It is crazy. We are virtually next to them. I have to have my little electric heater on all the time to stay warm." Mrs. Oakes also came to my surgery last Friday. She said, "It is so cold in my house I have to go to bed with a huge scarf wrapped around my head and wearing bed socks. I take a hot water bottle and I wrap myself up in all the blankets I have." That is not what we should be hearing from elderly people in Britain today. We are talking not just about woolly hats, but about intolerably cold homes. That is the human dimension of the bureaucratic nonsense.
  Age Concern has estimated that around 8 million households cannot afford to heat their homes to adequate standards. Too many of those people live in my constituency in Barking. I urge Ministers, on behalf of my constituents, to think again. The rules are unfair and wrong. The points I have made may seem trivial to Ministers, but they are vital to the very old and the very young in my constituency who simply want to enjoy the right we all have—to keep warm in winter.
  Mr. Stephen Timms rose—
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Mr. Mike Gapes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has permission from the hon. Lady and the Minister, but I am not aware that the same is true for the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms).
  I must also remind hon. Members that the debate is about cold weather payments in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on initiating the debate. If she succeeds on behalf of Barking and Dagenham, that might have a knock-on effect that would correct the situation in the rest of the country. My hon. Friend might win a minor victory that would affect only her area. For instance, it could be decided that the lowest of the two measurements from Stansted and Heathrow should be taken. The arrangements made under the scheme should be equitable in respect of distribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking has argued in favour of various methods of measuring temperature. Temperatures should be taken locally, so that the needs of people in local areas can be met within the rules of the system. If my hon. Friend can make any progress on those terms, the effects will be felt further afield than Barking and Dagenham. The new arrangements will have to be applied universally, thereby improving a system that operates in the most dismal fashion across vast areas of this country.
  The weather seems to be improving now. It is easy for politicians to forget a problem that is over with; easy to put down some markers for future changes; and easy to be distracted by more immediate concerns. But people have been in desperate straits recently, and it is likely that some could die because of the shortcomings of the scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency. Now is the time to keep up the pressure to correct the faults in the scheme.
  My hon. Friend's constituents do not need a new system just for the next time the big freeze arrives. They need retrospective provisions to ensure that they receive the three payments that they appear to have missed. They have been encouraged to put their heating on so as not to die from the cold—on the promise that some money would be forthcoming. That money has not appeared, even though people thought it reasonable to try to keep warm.
  The cold weather payments scheme is limited in its scope. It applies to pensioners, disabled people and parents on income support with children under five. Possibly many other groups should be considered for inclusion. In 1994, 300 pensioners in this country died of hypothermia—not counting the deaths to which it was a contributory factor.
  The payments that people receive are modest: £8.50 a week. They are made when the temperature reaches freezing point for seven consecutive days, or when it is forecast to do so. If meteorological stations are being used for this purpose, the information that they give out should be much more widely available. The problem is that people need to know where to look for the forecasts for their area. In my hon. Friend's constituency, for instance, some forecasts will apply to one airport and some to another. What are people supposed to do? In some parts of the country people may have to tune in to television stations because their temperatures are being measured miles away from where they live. There must be places nearer their homes that could more sensibly be used to determine temperatures for this purpose.
  I know of a person who has spent £10 on telephone calls trying to sort out being missed out for the payments. Supposedly, once a meteorological station has issued temperature details, the payments are triggered and then

  787
  automatically made. We know, however, that the system does not work that well. Not everyone receives his entitlement. I am sure that my constituent's experience applies also to people in Barking and Dagenham, and that there are people who have never pushed hard for what they are entitled to.
  The whole scheme needs looking at. Even under the current rules, the triggering arrangements and the determinations of who should be paid what are in need of serious review. The Government are very good at developing formulae that apply to the whole country but which are not tailored to particular areas. The standard spending assessment is one example; the method used for cold weather payments is another—it is crazy.
  Weather stations alert the Department of Social Security, which decides on the basis of postcodes which areas should receive payments. I need not point out that postcode areas were not designed for cold weather payments. They exist for the administrative convenience of the Post Office. Some careful analysis would have to be done to show how such areas are compatible with the areas that deserve cold weather payments.
  Some places are higher and more exposed than others. The "heat factor" sometimes operates in town centres, where there are surrounding buildings. It is therefore essential to measure temperatures locally so as to provide correct information.
  I should love to use this opportunity to spell out the problems in Derbyshire, where the system is completely nonsensical, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are keen that I should relate my remarks to Barking and Dagenham. If the principles outlined in my hon. Friend's speech are adopted, I will be able to go back to Derbyshire and say that something has been achieved. I intend to elaborate at length on the nonsensical system in Derbyshire if I am lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject.
  As I have said, meteorological stations that are nowhere near the areas affected are being used. Postal districts that bear no relation to areas with differing climates are also being considered. Moreover, some of the meteorological stations are being de-manned, with the result that certain areas are transferred to other stations. Further de-manning can lead to chaos in such circumstances.
  I hope that the Minister will indeed take a serious look at the points made in this debate. It is difficult to squeeze retrospective measures out of the Government to cover the problem, but I hope, at the very least, that there will be some reassessment—even under the present rules—of how areas and their temperatures are considered under the scheme. We should then progress to local temperature taking, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on initiating the debate. Our constituencies share a local authority. Although the bulk of my constituents live in Redbridge, half of one of the wards in Goodmayes was transferred to the borough of Barking and Dagenham in April 1994. Therefore, I have constituents who live in Barking and Dagenham and I am well aware of the problems that they have experienced. I am also well aware that those problems have been experienced by those of
  788
  my constituents who are neighbours of those living in Barking and Dagenham but who live in the borough of Redbridge.
  I tabled early-day motion 499, which referred specifically to the problems faced by my constituents, which are identical to those experienced by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking.
  Three weather stations monitor temperatures for the whole of Greater London: one is far to the south, outside London, in Gatwick airport; the second is far to the west of London, in Heathrow airport; and the third is far to the north-east of London, outside London in Stansted airport. These three airport stations are used to determine which of the London postal districts will have a temperature level assessment on any particular day.
  In logic, one might assume that areas to the north-east of London would be assigned to the station north-east of London. Similarly, it might be supposed that those to the west would be assigned to the station which is to the west, and those to the south assigned to the station which is to the south. But when the Government introduced cold weather payments in 1988 they decided to present us with a puzzle.
  It is interesting to assess the regulations and to read the listings of postal districts in the respective national climatological message stations for London. It is clear that the criteria are not straightforward. National climatological message station 26, which is at Gatwick airport, includes some of the Croydon CR postal districts, but not all. The station at Heathrow airport includes many postal districts, including the rest of the Croydon ones. The Heathrow station, being in the west of London, is responsible for the postcodes E1 to E18, EC1 to EC4, EN1 to EN11 and various others, including IG1 to IG11, which cover the bulk of my constituency and large parts of Barking. I should explain that my hon. Friend and I share the IG11 postcode.
  Some of my constituents live in Mayesbrook road, which is on the borders of Barking and Dagenham and Ilford. Before talking about Mayesbrook road I shall refer to the Stansted weather station, which covers an area with RM postcodes. These are Romford postcodes. The station covers RM1 to RM20 as well as Colchester, Chelmsford, Southend and various other parts of Essex.
  Romford is in the London borough of Havering and the relevant postcodes extend to Essex. But RM postcodes include postal districts in Barking, Dagenham and Ilford. I have constituents who have RM postcodes and are assessed by the Stansted station. I also have constituents who live a few yards away from them who have IG postcodes and are assessed by the Heathrow station.
  Nos. 1 to 73 Mayesbrook road have the RM8 postcode; Nos. 75 to 143 have the IG3 postcode. Someone living at No. 73 Mayesbrook road has been eligible for four cold weather payments. Of course, if he was not eligible for income support he would not have received the payments. Theoretically, however, the payments could have been made. The person living next door, at No. 75, has an IG3 postcode: tough luck. That person was eligible for only one payment.
  On the side of Mayesbrook road with even numbers, Nos. 2 to 72 are part of the RM postcode; Nos. 74 to 134 are in the IG3 postcode. It is not merely a matter of different assessments on each side of the road. Along both sides of the road people are being treated unjustly as a result of a mad bureaucratic system.

  789
  How do we deal with this madness? How do I explain the system to my constituents? I have received several letters and telephone calls querying what has happened. One of my constituents said, "My mother has received extra payments but I had a payment for only one week. My mother lives only half a mile away from me." I repeat: how can I justify the system?
  Some of my constituents who live in the borough of Redbridge are treated differently from others who live in the borough. Some of my constituents live in the area of the IG3 postcode, and they are treated differently from those in RM postcode areas.
  According to the list attached to the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1724, there are 54 climatological message stations. The list includes some stations that have disappeared. In other words, there are not quite 54 stations. We know, however, that 56 million people live in the United Kingdom. In logic and fairness there should be some relationship between the number of stations and the population, or a relationship between numbers of stations and geographic areas. I estimate that the population of Greater London and of areas beyond is about 8 million or 9 million, yet we have—this includes Barking and Dagenham—only three stations.
  If an airport station is supposed to be in London, why is London City airport not used as an assessment point? It is more likely than other stations to have temperatures closer to those in the boroughs of Barking, Dagenham and Redbridge and those in the IG3 and RM postal districts. Oh, no; that is too easy. Instead, we have an absurd, nonsensical system. I look forward to the Minister's explanation. Having read "Alice in Wonderland", I look forward to hearing him try to justify the present system.
  I do not want to detain the House for much longer. I merely say that I hope that this will be the last winter during which anguished constituents will come to us, write to us or telephone us to try to secure an explanation of the cold weather payments system from us, elected Members of this place. As I have said, the regulations are nonsensical. Let us hope that a system can be introduced that is fair and just to all the residents in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and to all my constituents. Let us have a system that makes sense in logic and can be publicly justified. The present regulations are absurd and must be amended quickly.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on securing the debate, and on the powerful case she made on behalf of her constituents in both Barking and Dagenham. My constituency adjoins those of my hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). That being so, I am very familiar with the problems that they have described. I associate myself with the proposal so recently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, that London City airport would be an appropriate place for a weather station. I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion.
  This is an extremely serious matter. A report produced this month by that excellent organisation, Neighbourhood Energy Action, entitled "Heating Action for Older
  790
  People", reminds us that, in the winter of 1991–92, there were 33,000 cold-related premature and avoidable deaths in the United Kingdom. That is an enormous number. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, it is two or three times more than the number of comparable deaths in countries such as Canada and Sweden.
  It is clear that we have a serious problem with the way in which we deal with cold in this country and how it affects older people. We have not managed to resolve the problem in the same way as other countries. The present winter has been a good deal colder than that of 1991–92. It is estimated that, in the most severe weather—this estimate was made before the present winter—during a winter period, there could be up to 50,000 premature and avoidable cold-related deaths.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the high cost to the health service of treating illness caused by cold in winter. I understand that it spends about £800 million a year on treating illness caused by cold and damp housing. The failure to deal adequately with it is a costly national failure, as well as being tragic for a remarkably large number of people.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about the narrowness of the application of the current cold weather payments scheme. Not everybody on income support in Barking and elsewhere is eligible for such payments. What about people who are not on income support?
  I had a telephone call today from a widow aged 76 who had lived in the same house for 49 years. Her husband died five years ago. She is living on the savings that they had accumulated, which are dwindling. She asked, "Why should I be penalised for not being dependent on the state?" That is a hard question to answer, and it is one that many people are asking.
  In a recent letter, Councillor Jim White, of Rushmoor borough council, argued that the scheme should be extended to all pensioners. There is much sympathy for that case. I take the point that was made about the narrowness of the application of the present scheme. I hope that something more generous will be introduced.
  The cold weather payments scheme is part of the measures that are needed to tackle the problems caused by the cold each winter. Another part is energy conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking made the point that, tragically, the Government's home energy efficiency scheme has had £31 million cut from its budget of £105 million, despite the fact that, in December 1994, we were told that about £100 million a year would be available for three years.
  Such a severe cut will mean greatly increased dependence on cold weather payments in Barking and elsewhere. For example, the amount available to people over 60 who are not on benefit will be cut from £315 to £78. That will mean that less home insulation will be carried out in Barking, and that there will be greater dependence on the cold weather payments. I very much regret that.
  I make a specific point to the Minister. If he cannot answer it when he replies, perhaps he will write to me. One of the criteria for the higher rate of payment under the HEES is that the person is on disability living allowance. That should be amended to include the attendance allowance, because DLA is not paid to people over 60. There may be an inconsistency in the regulations.

  791
  I understand that the HEES is to be cut further, because the money is being top-sliced to fund the new requirements on local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which was piloted by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). It is an excellent Act, but it is regrettable if it means that less will be paid for home insulation. Poorer insulation will mean greater dependence on the cold weather payments.
  I was interested to learn recently of the proposed project for the Gascoigne estate in Barking, which is modelled on pilot work in my borough of Newham, where the money that has been put aside by London Electricity through its £1 per customer levy is being used, with funding under the HEES, to improve home insulation and reduce the consumption of electricity. That is welcome. It is hoped that that scheme will be adopted more widely, but there will problems, given the cuts in the overall amount that the Government are making available for the HEES. The cuts undermine the excellent training and employment opportunities that are provided, for example, by Newham Wise and Miller Pattison, network installers in my constituency.
  There is much unhappiness about the scheme, as my hon. Friends demonstrated powerfully this evening, caused by narrowness, meanness and the arbitrary nature of the decisions related to it. I very much hope that the Government will be able to make changes in the light of those concerns.
  8.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I hope that Ministers will always listen when Members of Parliament come up with a sound argument based on an allegation about the differential effect of a policy that has disproportionate consequences on particular constituencies. That is what Adjournment debates are for, and that is why we are here to discuss the particular problem in Barking.
  The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) strayed from the important and central task of her argument, to make wider allegations about the Government's "penny-pinching" approach. I must tell her that the Government are spending £90 billion a year on social security—the largest amount by far of any Government in British history. I also heard talk about the narrowness and meanness of approach, but, frankly, the context is so astonishingly different that her specific case is undermined by a grotesque exaggeration of the context.
  In trying to formulate Government policy, the targets that we have are to provide the most effective help at the most appropriate time to the most vulnerable people. The cold weather payments scheme has been very successful indeed. Last November, for this winter we increased the sum for the seven-day period from £7 to £8.50—a substantial increase of 20 per cent.
  As the amount paid each year depends on the weather, it is not surprising that last year's winter led to payments of only £76,000, as the hon. Lady said, because it was an exceptionally mild winter. This winter, we have paid out £62 million so far—whether more is paid out depends on the weather criteria being met—which means 7 million individual payments to 3 million individuals.
  The particular problem in focusing the scheme comes about in this fashion. The year 1991 was the key one, when the modern scheme came into operation. There is
  792
  no mystery to the modern scheme. There is no accident in the linkage between postcodes and meteorological stations, because the regulations each year list both. It is not a question of discretion thereafter by the Government or the Benefits Agency. Parliament lays it down, and alters the list each year to some extent. I am told that the annual amendment regulations have never been prayed against to permit a debate to take place. Perhaps the system is less controversial than we might have gathered this evening.
  The key factor in the 1991 change. in terms of administration and the provision of a better service, was that computerisation in the Benefits Agency had reached a point at which we could introduce an automatic payments scheme. That dispensed with the need to make a claim: when the average temperature was recorded or forecast to be below the qualifying level—0 deg C over seven consecutive days—computer scans would be carried out weekly, and everyone who met the criteria would be paid. The conditions relate not just to individuals whose qualifications depend on the scheme that we discussed earlier, but to the postcode of the area involved.
  In the modern world, it is commonplace for commercial organisations to use the postcode system—which has become increasingly developed—to determine, with the help of a computer database, which groups should be targeted in one way or another. We have managed to arrive at a detailed local arrangement by using the postcode system, while linking it with the current number of meteorological stations—55.
  Let me tell Opposition Members, who have made various local complaints, that the list of meteorological stations is reviewed after each winter, and it has been our practice to amend it to some extent. I stress that, on the basis of its professional judgment on climate grounds, the Meteorological Office advises Ministers on which meteorological stations, in climatic terms, can most appropriately be linked with particular postcodes. That is amended by regulations as may be.
  Having received correspondence on the matter, I have slightly more sympathy for those who live in mountainous areas. When we were discussing Barking, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) used a tremendous amount of parliamentary imagination to hint at problems in his constituency; I have no doubt that he will write to me about them at greater length.
  Mr. Barnes: I am supposed to be receiving a response to letters that have already been written, and points raised in business questions, about problems in Derbyshire.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's letters have not reached me yet, but when they do, they will be replied to, and the particular circumstances involved will be considered.
  Normally, problems with cold weather payments relating to meteorological stations concern mountainous areas in Scotland, Wales, the Pennine region or the west country, where there are climatic differences between the tops of mountains or hills and coastal stations. We amend the list each year. Complaints were made, with some force, that a community in Braemar had been the subject of unfair prejudice through being linked with Aviemore; last year, we changed that.
  The problem in London is slightly more complicated than was suggested by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). There are four meteorological stations to

  793
  deal with the Greater London area: Heathrow to the west, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, Stansted to the north, Gatwick to the south and RAF Manston in Kent, which deals with a portion of east London—including the south bank of the Thames, a stone's throw from the constituency of the hon. Member for Barking. It is no accident that those stations tend to be airports. Traditionally, the Met Office has been provided with the service by either commercial operators or the RAF.
  Ironically, this year—I suspect that it is an accident of this year's weather, which has highlighted the difficulties in London—Stansted has been triggered four times, which would provide £34; Gatwick has been triggered three times, which would provide £25.50; Manston has been triggered twice, which would provide £17; and Heathrow has been triggered once, which would provide £8.50. The problem of the constituents of the hon. Members for Barking, Ilford, South and Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) is that, in that portion of Greater London, the overlapping boundaries meet. It is frontier territory.
  Ms Hodge: In fact, the circumstances are not peculiar to this year. I understand from constituents who have approached me that my predecessor, Jo Richardson, had been campaigning on this very issue for many years, drawing attention to the absurdity of the bureaucratic differences.
  I understand that a mountain would make a difference. If there were a mountain in the middle of London, the weather on one side of it might well be different from that on the other side. The point is, however, that there is no mountain in Newham, Ilford, Barking or Derbyshire. All those areas experience the same amount of cold at the same time.
  Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but mountains are a more obvious example than Greater London. The fact remains that temperatures have been different at those four points around London.
  It is possible that, on a different basis, there might have been a less favourable result for the centre of London, which tends to be warmer. The fundamental problem is administrative, however, and the Government think it important. Obviously, money can be spent on administration and the creation of more weather stations—our minds are not closed, and we review the issue each year—but I wonder whether the hon. Lady is being realistic when she asks why there cannot be a weather station at every benefit office and town hall.
  I also question the hon. Lady's suggestion of boundaries based on parliamentary constituencies. I do not see why drawing a line on a simple, arbitrary, administrative basis would deal more rationally with her constituents or those of her neighbours.
  Mr. Gapes: I did not suggest that every constituency should have a meteorological station; I suggested that London's City airport should be used. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), as well as being close to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). The provision of a meteorological station there would meet the needs of people living in
  794
  east London, and would end the absurdity of parts of our boroughs being dealt with by Heathrow and other parts being dealt with by Stansted.
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more patient, he would have heard me respond directly on that issue.
  Whenever a Member of Parliament presents us with a specific proposal about a meteorological station, we are prepared to listen. I do not know—and I have no instructions immediately to hand—whether there is an appropriate meteorological station at City airport, but if there is, if the Met Office will then advise us, and if it is suitable, I will certainly consider the proposal when we review the scheme in the summer.
  Ms Hodge: I do not understand why we need the whole meteorological outfit. All that is necessary is to measure the temperature: we need only a thermometer. Surely a simple system, rather than a huge bureaucratic system, would be more sensitive to real temperatures in London.
  Mr. Evans: This is not a monstrous administrative or bureaucratic measure. Nowadays, everything is done electronically. The temperature is taken at 9 am and 9 pm GMT, and automatically relayed to the headquarters of the Met Office, which is, I believe, at Bracknell. I can also comfort the hon. Lady with the information that, because of the advance in technology, the cost of meteorological stations is falling. That depends, however, on the Met Office's being satisfied that the station is of a certain standard, and that the integrity of the data is sufficient.
  Ms Hodge indicated dissent.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady shakes her head. She says that the requirements are simple; if they can be met, I will give careful consideration to any proposals that are put to us, but I warn her that there may be a problem. If there is a meteorological station at City airport, I shall be intrigued to know whether she will want me to find out exactly what it has recorded in the past few weeks. I wait to see whether it will be better than Stansted for all her constituents. She will no doubt come back to me on that. It may well be better on that gamble—neither of us knows; whether she comes out better is another matter.
  The serious and important point is that it would not be rational to follow administrative boundaries. All that would happen if we were to do that is that I would have two hon. Members sitting next to each other on opposite sides of the House, saying, "Does it really matter whether you live in this constituency or that one?" It is better to operate the system on a climatological basis, on the basis of advice from the Meteorological Office. I have heard hon. Members ask whether that was too broad-brush an approach, but it seemed to us to be much more reasonable than introducing administrative boundaries.
  It would be technically feasible, with the appropriate expense and the rewriting of computer software, to alter the Benefits Agency computer to have boundaries by parish, street, borough, county or whatever other small division might be desired. However, the modern method to do such things is by postcode. That method is extant, and it is the well-established and modern way of doing it.

  795
  The difficulty is that the postal districts do not coincide with the constituency boundary of the hon. Member for Barking. Therefore, I can appreciate that the differences are particularly clear cut.
  I do not want unduly to prolong this debate. I am prepared to listen to individual arguments for extra meteorological stations when we review the matter this summer. This year, because of the exceptionally bad winter, the operation of the scheme has been much more apparent, and the consequences of its operation have been more clear cut than last year, when the scheme scarcely operated at all because of a much milder winter. There is some opportunity for flexibility in this matter. Ultimately, however, Ministers will be guided by meteorological advice rather than special pleading on behalf of areas which contain constituents.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Barking had her facts right. I was a little concerned to read in Hansard—on 20 February 1996, at column 157—of her speaking about one side of Lodge avenue being covered by one station and the other side by another station. She probably did not mean Lodge avenue, but the places that are off Lodge avenue. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said:
  "It does not make sense that the residents of Nos. 450 to 472 Lodge avenue have received one … payment … when the residents of Nos. 453 to 469 Lodge avenue have received four".—[Official Report, 20 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 208.]
  796
  That is wrong. That portion of Lodge avenue—with all those numbers—is in the same postal district, and has been treated exactly the same.
  I appreciate that hon. Members, very properly, wish to represent their constituents. However, the Government must have a scheme that is simple and effective, and that automatically delivers payments without a need to claim—which was the difficulty with predecessor schemes. I could go through the long history of those schemes, but, in terms of helping greater numbers of people, paying out greater amounts of money or the take-up arrangements, they were nothing like as successful as the current arrangement. That is one of the advantages of information technology, and the ability to perform computer scans based on local geographical areas and to say that the people who are within the qualifying groups can be paid automatically.
  The system is effective. It pays more vulnerable people in the appropriate circumstances than anything that has existed before. As I have said more than once, we will listen to representations each year on whether specific meteorological stations are appropriate for specific postcode areas.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past 12 months the Governor of Hong Kong has

  Name of body

  Publish annual reports

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish a register of members interests

  Britain-Russia Centre

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  British Association for Central and

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Eastern Europe

  British Council

  Yes (non-statutory)

  Yes (non-statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Commonwealth Institutes, London and Edinburgh

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Great Britain-China Centre

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Westminister Foundation for Democracy

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Crown Agents Holding and

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Realisation Board

DEFENCE

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Ministers approved the on-sale by Jordan of 29 British-supplied armoured recovery vehicles to Iraq. [16393]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In 1981, the Jordanian Government requested permission from the UK to supply to Iraq 29 armoured recovery vehicles planned to be exported to Jordan under a memorandum of understanding. Approval was given, as required by the memorandum, since the supply was consistent with Government policy at that time, which was that no lethal equipment would be exported to Iraq, the vehicles in question being classified as non-lethal. The arrangement was made before the establishment of the Iran-Iraq export guidelines in 1984.

  Procurement and Industrial Policy
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he plans to ensure that recommendations Nos. 18 and 19 of the first report from the Defence Select
  422
  met or invited to receptions, lunches or dinners David Tang, Jimmy Lai, Morris Nouraria, Stanley Ho and Li Kash Ing. [17814]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Governor has naturally met some of these people on a number of occasions in the course of his official duties.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16822]

  Mr. Hanley
  The table covers the Foreign and Overseas Development Administration.

  Committee of Session 1995–96, HC 61, on aspects of defence procurement and industrial policy are implemented. [16456]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government memorandum in response to these and the other recommendations contained in the Defence and Trade and Industry Committees' joint report on "Aspects of Defence Procurement and Industrial Policy", was published by the Committees on 7 February 1996.

  RAF Institute for Aviation Medicine
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which non-NATO countries have received(a) advice, (b) training, (c) supplies and (d) support from the RAF Institute for Aviation Medicine since 1984. [16315]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Military Services and Training
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military services and training provided by his Department between 1974 and 1979 to(a) the middle east, (b) Iran and (c) Iraq; and what was the nature and value of those services. [16988]
  423
  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to comment on the policy of previous Governments.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16830]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is as follows:

  There is a statutory right for the public to inspect the annual accounts of all the service museums, held by the Charities Commission; the National Army museum and the RAF museum publish their annual reports voluntarily. Statutory public access to the annual report and accounts of the Service Sound and Vision Corporation is available at Companies House. The Oil and Pipelines Agency's annual report and accounts are laid before each House of Parliament.

  None of the MOD's executive NDPBs publishes the agendas or minutes of meetings; and there is no statutory requirement to do so.

  Appointees to the OPA and SSVC are required to declare any personal interests and records are maintained. In the case of SSVC, any members' interest are also registered at Companies House.

  Aircraft Crashes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a substantive reply to the letter regarding aircraft crash pollution sent on 27 March 1995 by the general secretary of the Celtic League; if he will publish the text of his reply; and if he will make a statement. [17571]

  Mr. Soames
  My officials responded on 22 February this year. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites and aircraft type involved in serious crash incidents in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Cornwall, (d) Northern Ireland, (e) the rest of England and (f) the United Kingdom since 1980, indicating (i) the incidents for which RAF post-crash management techniques have been implemented and (ii) the cases where toxic pollution was (1) measured and (2) recorded; and if he will make a statement. [17572]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for the chief executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation for 1996–97. [18034]

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation has been set the following key targets for 1996–97.424

  1. To remain within ABRO's allocated budget.

  2. To deliver a responsive repair service, which both matches the needs of the customer in peace and for operations to the agreed timelines, quantity and quality criteria and offers value for money.

  3. To implement a comprehensive output based system to measure customer satisfaction.

  4. To submit to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces the results of the land command support market Test by 31 January 1997.

  5. To complete the transfer of all repair activities from ABRO Old Dalby and close the workshop by 31 December 1996.

  6. To reduce by 2 per cent. the 1996–97 ratio of labour costs to hours of production by 31 March 1997.

  7. To obtain tenders for the re-installation of the strategic test facilities for Challenger and Warrior transmission and steer units by 31 March 1997.

  Edzell Base
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 February, Official Report, column 90, how often the Ministry of Defence joint working group has met since June 1995; and at how many of these meetings the subject of the Edzell base closure was on the agenda. [17407]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence joint working party group was set up specifically to deal with the closure of RAF Edzell, and it has met three times.

TRANSPORT

  Whisper Concrete
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the use of Whisper concrete on the M18 and A50 and its future use in road building. [16711]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the use of Whisper concrete.
  Trials of the concrete road surface, referred to as Whisper concrete, have been carried out on the M18 and A50. This surface differs from conventional concrete in that skid resistant aggregate is incorporated within the top layer and subsequently exposed to create a random texture. The objective is to provide both a safe and durable road surface but one less noisy than some conventional concrete roads.
  Preliminary assessment of the two trials is encouraging but evaluation of longer term performance is still continuing. It is hoped that a final assessment will be possible following this winter. Subject to performance proving satisfactory, consideration will then be given to permit wider use.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total expenditure by his Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16777]

  Mr. Norris
  Expenditure of some £4.5 million which can be attributed to the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 is as follows:
  425

  £3 million paid to the Isle of Wight as part of the local transport capital settlement;

  £1.3 million paid to British Rail by the Franchising Director in support of passenger rail services on the Island line;

  £80.000 by the Driving Standards Agency;

  £35,000 on vehicle testing operations, including staff costs;

  and £74.000 by the Coastguard Agency.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of accidents involving HGVs attributable(a) in whole and (b) in part to the defective eyesight of the HGV driver for the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available. [16728]

  Mr. Norris
  No statistics are collected on the relationship between accidents and defective eyesight; it is practically impossible to link defective eyesight and accident liability. Even if tests of eyesight were routinely conducted after accidents, it could not be established that poor eyesight was responsible.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was his Department's budget for(a) consultants' fees and (b) all other costs associated with the public and press launch for the introduction of (i) the Great Western, (ii) South West Trains and (iii) London Tilbury Southend rail franchises. [17006]

  Mr. Watts
  The Great Western and South West Trains rail franchises were publicly launched with the assistance of officials from my Department and its marketing consultants—Shandwick Consultants Ltd. It is not possible to identify separately the costs associated with my Department's role in these events. Information about payments to individual contractors is commercially confidential.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given to the Rail Regulator regarding the introduction of competition for passenger rail services up to 31 December 1996; and what arrangements will apply after this date. [16983]

  Mr. Watts
  Guidance on competition for rail passenger services was included in the guidance given by the Secretary of State to the Rail Regulator on 31 March 1994. The regulator published a policy statement, "Competition for railway passenger services" in December 1994. Both of these documents are in the House Library.

  Rail (Speed Restrictions)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sections of rail track currently subject to temporary speed restrictions due to the poor condition of the track; and in each case, when it is estimated that these speed restrictions will be lifted. [17035]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack informs me that this information is not held centrally and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  M62
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated relating to increasing the capacity of the M62 junctions 12 to 14 since the cancellation of the M62 relief road. [17095]

  Mr. Watts
  Work is at an early stage and options are still being identified. So far, we have commissioned work on traffic management and demand, and on possible minor improvements to the M62.

  We are also developing transport models in partnership with the Greater Manchester authorities. These will enable us to assess behavioural responses and to test alternatives.

  Evaluation will start when all the information has been gathered.

  We shall consult the public, and others, when we have identified effective and affordable alternatives.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safeguards will be put in place to guarantee the continued service of the royal train after privatisation. [17113]

  Mr. Watts
  Confidential contractual arrangements are being put in place to guarantee the continued service of the royal train after privatisation.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to prevent young people from using high-powered motor cycles. [17552]

  Mr. Norris
  Implementation of the second EC directive on driving licences will restrict motor cycle riders under the age of 21 to machines with a power output of up to 33 brake horse power (25kW) for two years.

  Tug Coverage
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out by home port the coverage of tugs on the north and west coasts of Scotland(a) before and (b) since the publication of the Donaldson report on the Braer incident indicating whether it is year-round; and if he will make a statement. [17211]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the coverage of tugs in the North and West coasts of Scotland.
  To ensure that the Coastguard is able to provide details of tugs available in an emergency they are maintained on a database at each Coastguard Rescue Centre. Tug availability may vary from time to time. Additionally standing arrangements exist with tug brokers to ensure that the Coastguard can obtain up to date whereabouts and availability of all tugs.
  The Coastguard maintain a tug during the six month winter period in the Minches. The current vessel is the SMIT LLOYD SAFE.

  Mr. Martin Helm
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the value of all severance payments, and payments in kind, made by his Department to Mr. Martin Helm. [17239]

  Mr. Norris
  Mr. Martin Helm left the Department on 31 December 1995. He was paid a severance payment calculated in accordance with the rules of the civil service compensation scheme. Such payments are based on age, pay and length of service at the time of leaving. A payment of compensation in lieu of notice was also paid. It is not customary of divulge the value of payments made to individuals.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16816]

  Mr. Norris
  The following is a list of the answers for each of the Department of Transport's executive NDPBs.

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS) and Northern Lights Board (NLB)

  (a) and (b) THLS and NLB prepare annual reports which are consolidated into the Annual Report and Accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund. The Accounts are laid before Parliament as required by statute.

  (c), (d) and (e) Neither THLS nor NLB publish minutes or agendas of meetings or a register or members' interests. There is no statutory requirement to do so.

  London Regional Passengers' Committee (LRPC)

  (a) LRPC publishes an annual report under statutory requirement.

  (b) (c) and (d) Annual accounts, minutes of meetings and agendas of meetings are published voluntarily.

  (e) A register of members' interests is not published. There is no statutory requirement to do so.

  Traffic Director for London

  (a) and (b) The Traffic Director publishes an annual report and accounts under statutory requirement.

  (c), (d) and (e) the Traffic Director is a Corporation Sole and does not have a board, hold formal board meetings or have a register of members' interests. Therefore there are no minutes, agendas or register to publish.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what stage has been reached in the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory. [18219]

  Mr. Norris
  Negotiations with the preferred bidder, the Transport Research Foundation, are continuing. I expect the sale to be completed by the middle of March.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the Thameslink 2000 project. [18217]
  428
  Mr. Watts
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Road Tax Discs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle excise duty tax discs have been reported stolen; how many duplicate tax discs were issued to replace those stolen during the same period; and how much revenue has been generated by charging motorists for replacements in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available. [17246]

  Mr. Norris
  Statistics on stolen tax discs are not available. In 1995, 140,849 duplicate discs were issued to replace lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated, illegible or faded discs. An administration fee of £7 is charged.

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number and value of items, equipment and furniture,(a) stolen from and (b) otherwise unaccounted for within his Department and its agencies, by region, identifying all such items with a value above £5,000. [17240]

  Mr. Norris
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) Stolen

  (b) Unaccounted for

  Region

  Number

  Value £

  Number

  Value £

  Eastern

  3

  1,570

  3

  1,019

  North-east

  26

  13,245

  —

  —

  South-west

  3

  2,526

  3

  195

  Midlands

  14

  24,831

  —

  —

  London

  186

  120,404

  —

  —

  North-west

  1

  60

  —

  —

  Scotland and Northern Ireland

  1

  590

  9

  2,568

  Wales

  10

  2,189

  9

  684

  South and South-east

  16

  14,665

  7

  1,843

  No single item has a value above £5,000. The largest losses are due to theft of computer chips.

  Crossrail
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) consultants and (b) other employees are currently employed by the crossrail project team. [17237]

  Mr. Norris
  The crossrail project team currently employs 304 consultancy staff, of whom 243 are on short-term assignments, and 106 British Rail and London Underground staff.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list total payments made to date by his Department to(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals for work on the crossrail scheme indicating the name of body involved and the services provided. [17236]
  429
  Mr. Norris
  Total payments made to date by the Department of Transport to consultants for work on the crossrail scheme amount to some £735,000. The consultants and services provided are as follows:

  Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick: Audit of estimated cost

  Bechtel Limited: Value engineering study

  S G Warburn and Co. Ltd.: Joint venture study

  Bovis/Sir Alexander Gibb: Study of cost-effectiveness

  Ove Arup and Partners: Small-scale alternatives study.

  No payments have been made by the Department to other outside organizations—apart from London Transport and British Rail—or individuals for work on the crossrail scheme.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the total payments made by his Department to the crossrail project team to date. [17238]

  Mr. Norris
  Payments made to date by the Department of Transport to London Transport and British Rail in respect of cross rail amount to some £144 million.

  Trunk Roads (Greater London)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the trunk road network within Greater London has a currently residual life of(a) less than 12 months, (b) between one and four years, (c) between five and nine years, (d) between 10 and 14 years, (e) between 15 and 19 years and (f) greater than 19 years; and if he will make a statement. [17250]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the residual life of the trunk road network in Greater London.
  430
  We do not keep residual life information in the form you have requested. This is because the form of construction of much of London's trunk road network is different to present day construction standards. Consequently the technical survey system we would normally use cannot reliably predict residual. Instead we assess the overall condition and life expectancy of the carriageways by taking into account other forms of surveys, underlying ground conditions, traffic volumes and any historical data we can muster.
  We continually monitor the condition of the trunk road network in London, bringing forward maintenance schemes as necessary. The priority and form of work for each is considered individually taking into account condition, cost and design life, as well as other special factors such as the scale of disruption caused by the alternative forms of works.

  Tyne and Wear Fire Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents in which the fire service was called to road traffic accidents occurred in the Tyne and Wear fire authority area in the last three complete years; and how such incidents are taken account of in standard spending assessment calculation. [16094]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following information about road traffic accidents in the area of the Tyne and Wear fire authority has been taken from annual returns provided by the fire authority (a financial year basis was adopted in 1993):

  1992: 545

  1993 (first quarter): 94

  1993–94: 414

  1994–95: 453.

  Road traffic accidents are covered in the fire calls indicator which is one of the factors in the fire standard spending assessment distributional formula. For 1996–97, this takes account of the average over the two years 1993 and 1994 of the number of fires, fire false alarm calls and special service calls attended by local authority fire brigades. For this purpose, the special service calls included are road traffic accidents, rail and air accidents, leaks and spills. The number of special service calls for 1994 relates to the financial year 1994–95.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Negative Resolution Orders
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many orders by negative resolution were laid between October 1994 and July 1995; of these how many were(a) brought into effect (i) immediately, (ii) within 10 days, (iii) within 20 days, (iv) within 30 days, (v) within 40 days and (vi) after more than 40 days (b) prayed against then granted debates (1) before being brought into effect and (2) after being brought into effect and (c) how many were rescinded or not brought into effect as a result of parliamentary scrutiny. [16073]

  Mr. Newton
  The number of negative statutory instruments laid between October 1994 and July 1995 was 1,078. Of these, 168 were prayed against and debates were granted on 28 of them—22 were debated in Standing Committee and six on the Floor of the House.

  The remaining information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BMARC
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) of 26 January,Official Report, column 423, how many of the new total of applications had (a) full end user certificate or (b) purchaser orders for each of the years mentioned. [15176]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 16 February 1996,Official Report, columns 42–43. Of the export licence applications covered by that answer, one quarter were accompanied by copies of end user certificates, and around 45 per cent. had copies of purchase orders originating from either the agent or the intended consignee. There is some overlap between these figures, as some applications were supported by both types of documentation.

  Iraq (Military and Financial Credit)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will obtain from the United States Government records held by them on the military and financial credit support afforded to the Iraqi Government between August 1988 and August 1990 relating to United Kingdom-based banks as their subsidiaries. [15976]

  Mr. Nelson
  No.

  Iraq (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek information from the United States Senate Banking Committee relating to the Technology Development Group and the supply of military equipment to Iraq. [16008]

  Mr. Nelson
  No.

  Timber
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the contribution that home-produced timber makes to the balance of trade figures. [16086]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The standard international trade classification, under which UK trade is recorded, does not separately identify home-produced timber. The UK crude deficit in timber, wherever produced, was £1.4 billion to 1994 and £0.9 billion in January to September 1995.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the amount and monetary value of asbestos cement and asbestos friction materials imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [16617]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The answer is in the table:

  UK imports of asbestos cement and asbestos friction materials

  Asbestos cement

  Asbestos friction materials

  Year

  £ million

  Tonnes

  £ million

  Tonnes

  1991

  29

  88,178

  18

  4,099

  1992

  23

  71,210

  21

  5,706

  1993

  20

  61,816

  22

  3,668

  1994

  25

  74,154

  23

  4,643

  1995 (January-September)

  15

  47,024

  18

  3,672

  Notes:

  1. Asbestos cement is defined as heading 661.83 of the standard international trade classification (SITC) revision 3, and includes articles of cellulose fibre-cement.

  2. Asbestos friction materials are defined as heading 663.8 SITC revision 3.

  Source:

  "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom".

  Capita Managed Services Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much work from his Department was allocated to Capita Managed Services before the resignation of Mr. J. Jasper as director. [16250]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directors of Capita Managed Services at the time they were appointed to collect costs against disqualified directors have themselves been, or are, directors of companies which have been liquidated. [16274]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As far as is known, no directors of Capita Managed Services Ltd. were, at the time the company was awarded the contract to collect costs from disqualified directors, themselves directors of companies which had been the subject of winding up proceedings.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions(a) the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales and (b) the Inspector General of the Insolvency Service or their representatives

  433
  met John Arthur Jasper; and what was the nature of these meetings. [16276]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Registrar of Companies and his staff have had several meetings with Mr. J. A. Jasper over a period of several years in connection with a computer services contract with Capita entered into in 1991 and with other possible contracts to provide services to Companies House. Neither the inspector general of the Insolvency Service nor his staff has had any meetings with Mr. Jasper.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions(a) he and (b) other members of his Department met or had contact with John Arthur Jasper; and if he will make a statement on these meetings. [16277]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Neither I nor other Ministers in my Department have met Mr. Jasper on official business. In respect of the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales and the inspector general of the Insolvency Service, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave today to his Order question 16276. Information on whether other of my officials have met or had contact with Mr. Jasper is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Official Receiver
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to announce the contracts for Official Receiver services to be contracted out; and which services(a) will and (b) will not be contracted out, indicating the considerations underlying each decision. [16412]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I hope to be able to make an announcement before the end of the month regarding the outcome of the contracting out exercise undertaken by the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what times the bidders for the work of the Official Receiver were allowed to change or adjust their bids; how many were(a) given and (b) not given this option; and if he will list the changes made to bids indicating their source. [16415]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None of the six bidders invited to tender for the work available to be contracted out were permitted to change or adjust their final bids. They were all, however, invited to clarify certain points contained in their proposals during the technical and financial evaluation. The three organisations offering the best possibility of value for money were invited to further clarify some details of their proposals but no adjustment to their original bids was permitted.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bids for the Official Receiver's work were not in the form demanded by the tender documentation. [16414]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  All bids received were in the form specified in the invitation to tender.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the impact on staff numbers if the work of the Official Receiver is transferred 434
  to the private sector; and when the trade unions will be notified of any redundancies. [16416]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Up to 812 staff could be covered by the application of TUPE in any contracting out of official receivers functions.

  No redundancies of staff in the Insolvency Service have been identified.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the postponement of the decision on the future of the Insolvency Service. [16272]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The planned announcement of the outcome of the contracting out exercise undertaken by the Insolvency Service was postponed to enable further discussions to be held with bidders appearing to offer the best prospect of value for money.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the running costs of the Insolvency Service for the year ended 31 January identifying the costs of(a) staff, (b) leases and office rentals, (c) stationery and office equipment and (d) other support services. [17465]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Insolvency Service year end is 31 March. Its running cost budget for the year to 31 March 1996 is £54,984,000, of which total pay costs are £36,689,000, accommodation costs £10,754,000, stationery and office machinery £825,000 and other running costs £6,716,000.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his officials last met the liquidators of BCC1. [17063]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My officials last met the joint liquidators on 31 March 1995.

  Single Market Legislation
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent each EU country has adopted single market legislation; and if he will make a statement. [16402]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following are the European Commission's figures of 8 November 1995 for the percentage of single market measures in the 1985 Commission White Paper on the single market which have been transposed into national law by member states of the European Union.

  Per cent.

  Denmark

  99.1

  Luxembourg

  96.4

  Portugal

  96.4

  Netherlands

  95.5

  France

  95.0

  Sweden

  95.0

  United Kingdom

  93.7

  Spain

  93.7

  Italy

  91.9

  Belgium

  91.0

  Ireland

  91.0

  Greece

  89.6

  435

  Per cent.

  Finland

  89.6

  Germany

  88.2

  Austria

  77.8

  We are encouraging the Commission to ensure that member states catch up on delays, and, at least as importantly, to ensure single market measures are effectively and evenly enforced in each member state. We are also making efforts to ensure that the UK catches up on its backlog.

  Defence Jobs (Lancashire)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the number of jobs in Lancashire which depend on the defence industry and its suppliers; and if he will make a statement. [16306]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The latest estimate for the number of defence-dependent jobs in Lancashire is 30,000. This is from a survey commissioned by Lancashire county council and represents some 25 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry and about 5 per cent. of all employment in Lancashire.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the studies currently funded by the Medical Research Council into Alzheimer's disease and the amounts of money awarded for each study; and if he will make a statement; [16901]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's funding for research into Alzheimer's disease. [16900]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The DTI's support for research into Alzheimer's disease is funded through the research councils from the science budget.

  Medical Research Council funding of research into Alzheimer's disease was £1.376 million in 1994–95, the last financial year for which complete information is available. The various research projects are listed, together with the corresponding amount of money:

  1. Research carried out at MRC establishments:

  MRC environmental epidemiology unit: Alzheimer's disease in relation to drinking water—£28,000.

  MRC laboratory of molecular biology: the molecular biology of Alzheimer's disease—£0536,000.

  MRC neurochemical pathology unit:

  Aluminium as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease—£320,00.

  Human brain peptidases involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease—£120,000.

  Transgenic models of cerebral amyloid deposition—£214,000.

  A neuropsychological comparison of Lewy body dementia, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease—£38,000.

  2. Grunt funded research:

  Ninewells hospital, Dundee—department of clinical pharmacology: the glycobiology of the amyloid precursor protein—£35,000.

  St. Mary's hospital, London: transgenesis as a mechanism to develop animal models of human disease—£22,000.

  436

  Institute of Psychiatry, London:

  A study of the association between Apo E e4 and Alzheimer's disease in a cohort of older hypertensive subjects—£27,000.

  Modelling of Alzheimer's disease in transgenic mice—£49,000.

  University of Cambridge—department of experimental psychology: immunotoxic lesions of primate cholinergic projections—£2,000.

  University of Sussex: development of neuronal cell lines from normal and Alzheimer's disease patients; £3,000.

  In addition, the MRC estimates that in 1994–95, a further £2.54 million was spent on research which was of some relevance to Alzheimer's disease.

  The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council is also funding one research project related to Alzheimer's disease.
  Babraham Institute: Candidate neuronal genes in cognition and ageing—£95,250 over three years.

  Three other research councils, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council are also funding some research which is, or may prove to be, of relevance to Alzheimer's disease.

  Exports
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of exports to(a) the middle east, (b) Iraq and (c) Iran between 1974 and 1979. [16906]

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

  UK visible exports to the middle east1

  Year

  Middle east1

  Iraq

  Iran

  1974

  1,085.5

  59.8

  278.6

  1975

  1,767.8

  137.1

  494.7

  1976

  2,273.3

  151.8

  513.1

  1977

  3,068.7

  167.4

  658.4

  1978

  3,476.4

  216.7

  752.0

  1979

  3,081.7

  201.2

  231.8

  Note:

  1The middle east consists of: Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah etc., Oman, North Yemen, South Yemen, Iraq and Iran.

  Source:

  "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom."

  Machine Tools
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the levels of sales of machine tools to(a) the middle east, (b) Iraq and (c) Iran between 1974 and 1979. [16987]

  Mr. Nelson
  Information before 1979 is available only for those countries which accounted for a significant proportion of UK exports of machine tools or those for which machine tools formed a significant proportion of
  437
  total UK visible exports. The available information is given in the table:

  UK exports of machine tools1

  £ million, current prices

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  Cyprus

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.26

  Syria

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.43

  Lebanon

  n/a

  0.24

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.36

  Israel

  1.02

  1.79

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1.88

  Jordan

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.22

  Saudi Arabia

  n/a

  0.85

  2.52

  n/a

  n/a

  1.31

  Kuwait

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.59

  Bahrain

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.22

  Qatar

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.28

  Abu Dhabi

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.48

  Dubai

  n/a

  0.27

  n/a

  2.47

  n/a

  2.63

  Sharjah etc.

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.01

  Oman

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.45

  North Yemen

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.11

  South Yemen

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.04

  Iraq

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.40

  Iran

  1.34

  2.46

  4.02

  9.53

  n/a

  1.68

  Middle east

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13.34

  Notes:

  1Machine tools are defined as heading 715.1 in the Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 1) until 1977 and as heading 736 of SITC (R2) from 1978.

  n/a = not available.

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Osmium-187
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of osmium-187 exist in the United Kingdom; what licensing arrangements cover its import and export; and what is the current market price per kilogramme of osmium-187. [16756]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Osmium 187 is a constituent of naturally occurring osmium—1.6 per cent. abundance. It is not subject to either export or import control.

  The price per gram is approximately £10.

  I am not aware that the 187 isotope is available in the UK in a separated form. Any inquiries to discover the quantities of Osmium 187 could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Controls
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to publish a consultation paper with proposals for(a) new legislation in place of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 and (b) export licensing procedures suitable for peacetime requirements. [17233]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government are currently considering Sir Richard Scott's recommendations and will be publishing a consultation paper.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total expenditure by his Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16770]
  438
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Department has regional information on the following programmes in the Isle of Wight area:

  1994–95

  £

  Regional Selective Assistance

  159,634

  Business Enterprise Services Budget

  150,000

  Business Link Pump Priming Budget

  100,000

  Regional Enterprise Grants for Innovation Projects

  73,500

  There was other departmental expenditure on the Isle of Wight which cannot be broken down on an area basis or where the work necessary to do so would result in disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16881]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Each senior official and special adviser is required to make a declaration of his or her financial interests. This enables the Department to prevent potential conflicts of interest arising. In the case of other officials, conflicts of interest are dealt with by their line management. I have no plans to establish a central register.

  Tripod Engineering (Iraq)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the cover on the contract between Tripod Engineering and the Government of Iraq signed on 8 November 1988 was taken up and forms part of the ECGD outstanding claims with respect to the Government of Iraq. [16316]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Yes.

  Duke Power
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of whether Duke Power of North Carolina is a suitable potential buyer for nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. [17532]

  Mr. Eggar
  No assessment has been made as the contact was a preliminary and indirect one.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Duke Power's safety record and its experience of operating gas-cooled reactors. [17533]

  Mr. Eggar
  Duke Power does not own or operate any power stations in the UK. The advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations are unique to the UK. Any operator in the UK needs to satisfy the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate that it has the ability to meet the high standards of safety which the NII demands before it can be licensed to operate a nuclear installation.

  Bankruptcy Costs
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average cost of administering a bankruptcy in each of the last three years. [17469]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on unit costs remains confidential until the conclusion of, and announcement of a decision on, the proposal for contracting our official receivers' case administration work. I will write to the hon. Member when an announcement has been made.

  Directors' Disqualifications
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directors were disqualified as a result of the work completed by the Insolvency Service; and how many directors were prosecuted for fraudulent trading as a result of work conducted by the Insolvency Service in the 12 months ended 31 January. [17464]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  During the 12 months ended 31 January 1996, 721 directors were disqualified and 26 directors were prosecuted for fraudulent trading.

  ROM-Data Corporation
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the findings of his Department's inquiry into the circumstances of the grant of regional selective assistance for the ROM-Data Corporation. [18075]

  Mr. Lang
  I have today placed a report summarising the outcome of my Department's inquiry in the Library of the House.

  Nigeria (Export Licences)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number and type of export licences that his Department has(a) issued for non-lethal equipment to Nigeria between 20 January 1995 and 20 November 1995 and (b) issued for dual use equipment since 20 November 1995. [14893]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: A statistical analysis of export licences granted for military, para-military and security equipment granted during 1995 will shortly be placed in the Library of the House. The analysis will include all countries of destination for which these licences were issued, including Nigeria. I shall write to the hon. Member when this is done. Fourteen licences were issued for dual-use equipment between 20 January 1995 and 8 February 1996, as follows:

  Number of licences

  Heading1

  9

  1C

  1

  2B

  3

  3A

  1

  5A2

  1 Headings under group 3 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 and subsequently schedule 1 to the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1995.

  Tandem plc
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all grants made by development agencies and other Government-funded bodies to Tandem and its subsidiaries, including British Eagle Cycles of Newtown; and if he will make a statement. [16207]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: The information requested is not collated. I have no record of my Department having made grants to either of these businesses.

  Company Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the practice of relocation by companies in search of grants between areas where grants are available. [16224]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: The Government's regional policy aims to attract companies to the assisted areas. However, grants are not available simply for relocation to those areas. Any assistance must normally bring about a significant net increase in employment.

HEALTH

  Medium Secure Facilities
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will undertake research to establish whether the use by health authorities and NHS trusts of privately owned medium secure facilities for detained patients costs more than using equivalent provision in NHS units; [16785]

  (2) if the increased number of purpose-built medium secure beds is expected to eliminate the need for the use of privately owned medium secure facilities. [16786]

  Mr. Bowis
  The availability of medium secure places in the independent sector provides health authorities with a greater choice. Selection of suitable places is a matter for health authorities who are responsible for commissioning services in a way which makes the best use of available resources to meet the needs of their population.

  Beds and Staff
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage change there has been since 1979 in the number of(a) hospital beds in the NHS, (b) full-time equivalent nursing staff and (c) bureaucrats and administrative staff. [13248]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the average daily number of available beds in 1979 is published in the "Statistical Bulletin: NHS Hospital Activity Statistics 1979–1990/91". Information for 1994–95 is published in "Bed Availability for England: 1994–95". Copies of these documents are available in the Library.
  441
  Information on managers, administrative and clerical staff, nursing and midwifery staff is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) and general medical services (GMS) staff, England at September 1979 and 1994—whole-time equivalents

  1979

  1994

  Percentage change

  HCHS general and senior managers and administrative and clerical staff1

  102,960

  157,560

  53

  HCHS and GMS nursing and midwifery staff2

  3278,760

  346,700

  n/a

  Excluded from the nursing and midwifery figures above:

  Learners4

  76,650

  11,080

  —

  Project 2000 students4

  n/a

  32,000

  —

  Notes:

  1There were 41,270 GMS practice managers and other administrative staff in 1994; comparable figures are not available for 1979.

  2HCHS agency staff and "learners" are excluded.

  3Figure does not take into account the reduction in nurses standard working hours in 1980–81 from 40 to 37.5 hours a week, and is not directly comparable with the figure given for 1994.

  4Learners are nurses on traditional nurse training courses, spending the majority of their time on patient care, and are directly employed by the NHS HCHS. Project 2000 training was introduced in 1989 and has gradually replaced traditional pre-registration nurse training. Project 2000 students are funded by bursaries, they are supernumerary not employees, and are thus excluded from the WTE count of NHS HCHS nursing staff. Figures for Project 2000 students are headcounts and should not be added to other figures which are whole-time equivalents.

  HCHS figures are as at 30 September for each year. GMS figures are as at 1 October for each year. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten. Percentages are calculated using unrounded figures.

  n/a denotes not applicable. Source:

  Returns from SH3 and KHO3.

  Department of Health annual Non-Medical Workforce Census and bi-annual General Medical Practitioner Census.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16880]

  Mr. Horam
  There is a requirement in the Department's conditions of service manual that staff faced with a conflict of business interest, which they may be able to further as a result of their official position, must declare this to their personnel section. They must comply with any subsequent instruction from the Department regarding such interests. I see no need for the establishment of a central register of officials' interests.

  Kidney Transplant Patients
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will exempt from prescription charges kidney transplant patients who have to take drugs on a lifelong basis. [16898]
  442
  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to extend the medical exemption arrangements.

  Infertility Treatment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if(a) St. Thomas's hospital, (b) King's College hospital and (c) St. George's hospital, Tooting have a co-payment scheme for in vitro fertilisation treatment patients. [16737]

  Mr. Horam
  None of these hospitals has such a scheme.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if patients treated at the assisted conception unit at Chelsea and Westminster hospital are seen by NHS consultants in NHS time; [16740]

  (2) what charge is made to patients at the assisted conception unit at Chelsea and Westminster hospital; and what it covers; [16741]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the assisted conception unit at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. [16780]

  Mr. Horam
  The assisted conception unit at Chelsea and Westminster hospital opened in November 1995. Since opening, it has provided 11 cycles of in vitro fertilisation treatment to national health service patients and eight cycles to private patients.

  In 1996–97 the unit aims to undertake 600 cycles of IVF. At present, it has two contracts with health authorities to provide a total of 270 cycles to the NHS during 1996–97.

  Both NHS and private patients are seen by consultants working under the terms of their contracts with the Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust.

  At present private patients at the unit are charged £800 for each cycle of IVF treatment. Health authorities are charged an identical amount for NHS patients. This is projected to cover the trust's costs and deliver an appropriate return on capital during the first full year of operation—1996–97—and subsequently, if business plan projections are met.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has taken external legal advice about whether patients of the assisted conception unit at Chelsea and Westminster hospital are national health service patients or private patients. [16739]

  Mr. Horam
  No.

  1991 Census
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what revisions he expects to make to the 1991 census and when these will be announced; and what effect these changes will have on the statistics available for populations within county boundaries. [16742]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no plans to revise the population figures from the 1991 census. The Registrar General's current series of mid-year population estimates are based on the 1991 census and include adjustments for estimated under-coverage in the census as well as for births, deaths and registration since 1991. Census figures
  443
  for new local authority areas created under the Local Government Act 1992 will be published as each new area takes effect.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set target dates for replies to letters sent to his Department. [16783]

  Mr. Horam
  We aim to reply to all letters within 20 working days of receipt.

  Incontinence
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he is currently funding or planning to fund into the problems and treatment of incontinence. [16738]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department commissioned the social policy research unit of York university to research and produce a report on "The Role of the Continence Adviser in England and Wales". This was published in January 1994 and distributed to all health authorities, NHS trusts and continence advisers. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  The Department has also commissioned three other research projects on incontinence:

  A feasibility study on costs, quality and effectiveness of continence services—social policy research unit, university of York.

  The development of methodologies to identify urinary incontinence and set targets for health gain—health and community care research unit, university of Liverpool.

  Evaluation of health interventions by continence services and primary health care teams on patient outcomes related to incontinence—department of public health and primary care, university of Oxford).

  These projects have just been completed and are subject to peer review.

  In addition to Department of Health funding, the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, has commissioned a large research programme costing about £5.5 million entitled "Incontinence: A population laboratory approach to the epidemiology and evaluation of care". The programme is based on five interlinked projects:

  Incontinence: prevalence needs and associated factors;

  Evaluation of services for incontinence;

  Evaluation of treatments for detrusor instability

  Evaluation of treatments for genuine stress incontinence;

  Incontinence: incidence, natural history and aetiological factors.

  The NHS centre for reviews and dissemination is currently carrying out a systematic review on interventions to manage enuresis.

  Research is being undertaken as part of the NHS research and development programme on:

  Development of an improved reusable incontinence bedpan;

  Treatment of urinary incontinence in stroke patients;

  The effect of oestrogen replacement therapy on urinary tract dysfunction and urogenital collagen structure on postmenopausal women with stress incontinence.

  444
  Following completion of each research programme, the Department will consider how best to encourage health care decision makers to act on the findings.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support he plans to give voluntary agencies concerned with the problem of incontinence(a) in 1995 and (b) in future years. [16757]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1995–96, the Department is providing funding to voluntary organisations concerned with incontinence as follows:

  The Continence Foundation—£85,000 towards its helpline and administrative costs, as part of grant awards which began in 1993–94.

  InconTact—£25,000, as part of a three-year grant of £25,000 per year towards the costs of its project to develop a continence public awareness programme.

  The Enuresis Resource and Information Centre—£47,113, made up of £33,000 as part of a three-year grant towards its administrative costs, £5,000 as part of a two-year grant for its project to pilot training seminars for doctors and nurses on nocturnal enuresis and £9,113 for the translation of ERIC's guide for parents on bedwetting into five ethnic minority languages.

  In addition to the above amounts, the Department is providing £50,000 to support National Continence Day/Bedwetting Day which will be held on 19 and 20 March 1996.

  Sir John Hannan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the work of(a) his Department and (b) the NHS in the past year in respect of continence services. [16758]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health supports a number of initiatives.

  The organisation of continence services locally and the manner in which they are delivered, are matters for district health authorities and hospital and community trusts.

  Ear, Nose and Throat Operations
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many procedures were carried out on children aged up to 16 years in each of the last 10 years for(a) myringotomy, (b) adenoidectomy and (c) tonsillectomy. [16905]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available for National Health Service hospitals in England is shown in the table:

  Myringotomy

  Adenoidectomy

  Tonsillectomy

  1989–90

  5,173

  17,601

  45,645

  1990–91

  5,241

  16,577

  47,582

  1991–92

  7,040

  17,804

  51,597

  1992–93

  6,312

  17,532

  52,931

  1993–94

  3,971

  16,220

  54,578

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics.

  The latest year for which information is available is 1993–94; prior to 1989–90, data to the level of detail requested was not available centrally.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure by his Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16776]
  445
  Mr. Horam
  The information is as follows:

  Isle of Wight district health authority and family health services authority expenditure 1994–95

  Category of expenditure

  Amount £

  DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITY EXPENDITURE:

  Healthcare and related services purchased:

  Mental handicap

  2,679,000

  Mental illness

  5,247,000

  Maternity

  2,221,000

  General and acute

  26,945,000

  Accident and emergency

  1,417,000

  Primary care

  4,210,000

  Other contractual expenditure

  4,903,000

  Other

  1,627,000

  Total district health authority expenditure

  49,249,000

  Family health services authority expenditure:

  Primary

  9,480,000

  GP fundholding

  21,608,000

  Other

  934,000

  Total family health services authority expenditure

  32,022,000

  TOTAL ISLE OF WIGHT EXPENDITURE

  81,271,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are provisional.

  2. "Other" relates to the authorities' administration and purchasing expenses, and other services.

  Source:

  1. Annual accounts and financial returns of the Isle of Wight DHA.

  2. Annual accounts of the Isle of Wight FHSA.

  Local authority centrally financed services expenditure on Isle of Wight 1994–95

  Category of expenditure

  Amount £

  Training support grant

  161,104

  Drugs and alcohol abusers

  26,214

  Special transitional grant

  1,981,465

  Guardian ad litem and reporting officers

  19,535

  Services for people with mental illness

  107,038

  Total

  2,295,356

  This does not include any expenditure on the Isle of Wight incurred by other health bodies but not separately identifiable

  Thalidomide
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how many patients and in which areas the drug thalidomide has been prescribed in the last five years. [17391]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued to hospital trusts about the purchasing of the drug thalidomide from abroad; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [17406]

  Mr. Malone
  There are no guidelines specifically relating to the purchase of the drug thalidomide from abroad. Decisions made by national health service trusts on the purchase of drugs to meet patients' needs and on the most appropriate source of supply, are made with the input of clinicians and pharmacists, in accordance with the Medicines Acts 1968 and 1971. "Guidance on thalidomide" was published by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency in the 446
  May 1994 issue of "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" a drug safety bulletin which is circulated to all doctors, dentists, pharmacists and coroners. This guidance note strongly advised all doctors considering the use of thalidomide to follow detailed external guidelines on the clinical use and distribution of thalidomide which were published in a widely available medical journal. A reminder was published in July 1995. Copies of both the May 1994 document and that of July 1995 are available in the Library.

  "Mental Health and Stress in the Work Place"
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the booklet "Mental Health and Stress in the Work Place" to be published. [17425]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is not a departmental publication.

  Nottingham Health Authority
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be announcing the new membership of Nottingham health authority. [17695]

  Mr. Malone
  The names of the non-executive members appointed to the proposed new health authorities will shortly be announced by the appropriate regional office of the national health service executive.

  South Birmingham Health Authority
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of funding allocated to South Birmingham health authority in respect of VAT liability in the current financial year; and what it has been in each of the past three years. [17771]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no separate allocation of funds in respect of value added tax liability.

  Emergency Hospital Admissions (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were refused emergency medical admission to a hospital in the Greater London area during 1995. [17787]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available. Patients have the right to get emergency treatment from the national health service at any time.

  Continuing Health Care
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the key results of the NHS executive-social services inspectorate's monitoring of the implementation of the guidance on NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care; and if he will make a statement. [18076]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have recently written to health and local authorities outlining the key results of the monitoring work carried out by the national health service executive and social services inspectorate and highlighting recommendations for further action. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  The monitoring work suggests that the majority of health authorities have made good progress in preparing to implement the guidance. This has been effective where

  447
  health and local authorities have worked together closely. There are also issues on which progress in some parts of the country has been less encouraging. We have indicated our commitment to ensuring that these issues are addressed.

  Work on continuing health care will continue to be a priority for the NHS during 1996–97 and beyond to ensure the full implementation of the guidance. Health authorities, working closely with local authorities, will need to monitor closely the impact of their eligibility criteria and to develop further services to meet continuing health care needs. The letter highlights the key priorities for further work. The NHS executive and social services inspectorate will continue to monitor implementation closely and will make further reports on progress in due course.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16823]

  Mr. Horam
  The non-departmental public bodies which

  Publish annual reports are:

  (i) Under a statutory requirement:

  English National Board of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  (ii) Voluntarily:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Medical Practices Committee

  National Biological Standards Board

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board.

  Publish annual accounts are:

  (i) Under a statutory requirement:

  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 Service Board.

  (ii) Voluntarily:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Publish the minutes of meetings are:

  (i) Under a statutory requirement:

  None.

  (ii) Voluntarily:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Publish the agendas of meetings are:

  (i) Under a statutory requirement:

  None.

  (ii) Voluntarily:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  English National Board for Nursing. Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  448
  Publish a register of members' interests are:

  (i) Under a statutory requirement:

  None.

  (ii) and Voluntarily:

  English National Board for Nursing. Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Patient Admissions
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are his Department's guidelines for the admission of gynaecology and psychiatric patients through casualty units in hospitals where there is no registrar appointed for either of these specialities; and what recommendations are made by his Department for proper differential diagnosis to be made in such cases for admission or discharge of patients; [17404]

  (2) what guidelines exist for admitting patients where there is one registrar to deal with that patient's problems; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [17405]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no central guidance. Procedures for admitting patients to hospital are determined in accordance with local arrangements.

  Health Economics Consortiums
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health economics consortiums have been set up in the United Kingdom; what capital the Government have allocated to these units; what is their remit and to whom they are accountable; and how many district health authorities, or other public bodies, have commissioned reports on service provision from these units. [17403]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 7 February 1996,Official Report, column 270.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the revenue from NHS charges for(a) prescriptions, (b) dental services, (c) dental examinations and (d) eye tests in (i) 1978–79 and (ii) 1995. [17823]

  Mr. Malone
  The information available for the last full year is given in the table:

  Revenue from national health service charges—£ million, cash terms

  Income from

  1978–79

  1994–95

  Prescription charges

  24.2

  287.2

  Dental charges (for general dental services)

  55.4

  1383.3

  Dental examinations

  20

  260.0

  NHS eye tests

  30

  30

  1 Includes patient charge income from dental examinations.2 No patient charges for dental examinations were levied before 1 January 1989. The figure for 1994–95 is an estimate, as patients pay charges on the basis of their whole course of treatment and the amount paid in respect of individual procedures is not separately recorded.

  3 There is no charge for the provision of NHS sight tests. Since April 1989 entitlement to NHS sight tests has been restricted to certain priority groups, including children and those on low income. People not entitled to an NHS test now pay for a private sight test.

ENVIRONMENT

  Owner-occupiers
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many owner-occupiers there were(a) at the latest available date and (b) in 1979. [15502]

  Mr. Curry
  The number of owner-occupied dwellings in Great Britain in 1979 was 11,348,000, and in December 1994 the number had grown to 15,807,000.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional measures he proposes to combat homelessness. [15503]

  Mr. Curry
  The Housing Bill includes measures to prevent homelessness by ensuring that housing advice is available and that long-term social housing tenancies are allocated to households with the greatest underlying need.

  Energy Conservation
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authorities on the implementation of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [15504]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The implementation of the Act was discussed by the Central and Local Government Environment Forum on 6 December. The local authority associations were represented on the working group established to consider guidance on the Act. Guidance for England will be issued very shortly; all English district and metropolitan authorities, and many other interested bodies, had the opportunity to comment on a draft.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received to the publication of the rural White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [15505]

  Mr. Gummer
  We have received well over 500 written responses to the various policies and proposals in the rural White Paper. In addition, Ministers and officials have participated in a large number of conferences and seminars which have been arranged across England to discuss the White Paper.

  Air Quality
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding air quality. [15506]

  Mr. Clappison
  This year, my ministerial colleagues and I have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament and the public concerning air quality.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement. [15507]
  450
  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1994 and 1995, Parliament approved orders under the Local Government Act 1988 which added legal, construction and property, financial, personnel and information technology services to the compulsory competitive tendering regime. CCT for these services is being introduced under a implementation timetable which begins in 1996 and continues to 2000.

  Our priority, a present, is the successful implementation of CCT for the existing range of CCT activities and we currently have no proposals to add to the list of activities.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extra costs that local authorities will face as a result of his decision to delay local government reorganisation. [15508]

  Mr. Curry
  I do not expect that a delay in the date for any particular reorganisation should affect its cost.

  Housing Management Contracts
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance is available from his Department to local authorities when they are required to re-run the tender process for housing management contracts. [15509]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Negative Equity and Repossession
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of home owners who will(a) experience negative equity and (b) undergo repossession in 1996. [15510]

  Mr. Curry
  The Government do not make such forecasts. Home owners will continue to benefit from the Government's economic policies, which have made home ownership more affordable than for many years.

  Anti-social Tenants
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to help local authorities deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. [15511]

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to help local authorities deal with anti-social tenants. [15498]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have included in the Housing Bill a substantial package of measures to help local authorities to deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. That package will also assist housing associations and private landlords.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution he expects the private finance initiative to make to the capital programme of local authorities. [15512]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government have created opportunities for local authorities to use the private finance initiative to achieve increased levels of investment in upgrading and developing the services that they offer.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total number of employees(a) in the National Rivers Authority at its disestablishment and (b) in the Environment Agency at its launch. [15513]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are 7,420 full-time equivalent posts in the National Rivers Authority. The equivalent number for the Environment Agency from 1 April 1996 is expected to be a little over 9,100—the agency will inherit the functions and staff of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution as well as those of the National Rivers Authority.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet representatives of the GMB union to discuss the provision of local authority services. [15514]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Rents-to-mortgages Scheme
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [15515]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has made no estimate of future sales.

  Domestic Heating
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the local grant finance settlement for 1996–97 makes allowance for the differing amounts of fuel required to heat identical properties throughout Britain on the basis of the Building Research Establishment domestic energy model. [16063]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The main use of the Building Research Establishment domestic energy model is a design tool for comparing the energy consumption of different building designs. It would therefore be inappropriate to include it in the formulae for distributing revenue support grant.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of the housing corporations' budget is being earmarked for the(a) acquisition and (b) rehabilitation of properties belonging to the Ministry of Defence married quarters estate which are currently being offered for sale. [16390]

  Mr. Curry
  None of the budget is being earmarked. Housing associations will be entitled to bid competitively for funds to assist with the acquisition and rehabilitation of MOD property, on the same basis as for other property, if the schemes proposed meet the housing corporations' criteria.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many telecommunications masts were erected in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995 and (iv) to date. [16403]
  452
  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Thefts
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 533, what additional information is available in respect of the nature, number and value of items of Health and Safety Executive equipment lost in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1995–96 to date. [16712]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am able to provide the following information about the nature, number and value of HSE equipment lost in 1993–94 and 1995–96 to date:

  Cost £ (purchase price)

  1993–94

  1995–96 to date

  Nature of equipment

  Amount stolen

  Amount unaccounted for

  Amount stolen

  Amount unaccounted for

  Computer equipment

  6,502

  43,860

  37,352

  0

  Scientific equipment

  6,277

  344,271

  0

  0

  Photographic equipment

  20,769

  526

  0

  0

  Other equipment

  6,163

  96,138

  0

  0

  Totals

  39,711

  484,795

  37,352

  0

  Photographic equipment later recovered

  17,036

  —

  —

  —

  During 1993 and 1994, the HSE mounted special exercises to verify the existence of its assets. These revealed that a number of items had been disposed of over preceding years, many at the end of their lives, without formal documentation, so could not be accounted for. At the time of the loss, these items had little, or no, historic net book value—so the loss suffered was much less than the purchase price shown.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the successful bids under round 2 of the single regeneration budget by region and value of grant. [17364]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested was placed in the Library of the House and circulated to hon. Members on 12 December 1995. I have sent further copies to the hon. Member.

  High-voltage Power Cables
  Mr. Williams O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to issue planning guidance notes to local authorities on building near to high-voltage power lines; and if he will make a statement. [17127]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The National Radiological Protection Board, which advises the Government, local authorities and industry on these matters, has already issued guidance on the known health effects of proximity to high-voltage cables and other sources of
  453
  electromagnetic fields. The board will not hesitate to give further advice on protection if the scientific evidence indicates that it is necessary.

  Cement Kilns (Pollution)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which member states of the European Union allow the burning of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns with limits on the emission of particulates and other products of combustion more restrictive than those which apply in the United Kingdom. [17696]

  Mr. Clappison
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution wrote to member states in the European Union in 1994 requesting information on the emission regulations applicable to cement plants burning secondary liquid fuels. The response was poor and consequently this information is not available.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of housing association homes for rent which will be constructed in 1996–97; and what is his estimate for funding levels for 1996–97. [15484]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates of funding for housing associations and the number of homes that they will provide in 1996–97 have recently been published by the Housing Corporation as part of the approved development programme. Public funding for the ADP during the year will be £1,062.8 million, including £40 million receipts, of which some £786.7 million will be used to provide homes for rent. In addition, schemes funded through the ADP are expected to attract some £827 million of private finance.

  The ADP is expected to provide around 28,000 housing association homes for rent during 1996–97 through new build and rehabilitation. Funding from the ADP, local authorities and other sources is expected to provide a total of around 60,000 additional social lettings for rent or shared ownership in 1996–97.

  Cremations and Burials
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment if he will make a statement on his meeting on the re-use of graves and problems of cremation and burial with Reverend Dr. Peter Tupp, Lord Young of Dartington and other representatives of the National Funerals college. [15750]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has not met representatives from the National Funerals college because policy responsibility for matters relating to burial and cremation rests with the Home Office. He did, however, meet the Rev. Dr. Peter Jupp on 5 February as part of a delegation representing the Churches' Group on Funeral Services at Cemeteries and Crematoria. The meeting was held to discuss issues relating to the potential sale of local authority crematoriums. The Secretary of State told the delegation that he hoped local authorities would consider the potential merits of transferring their crematoriums to the private sector and that he had provided time-limited financial measures to encourage authorities to review the position carefully. He confirmed, however, that these measures were enabling ones only,454
  and that local authorities will have the discretion either to retain or sell their crematoriums, according to their own assessment of local needs and circumstances. The delegation said that, in its view, such decisions should take into account whether transfer to the private sector would put funeral directing businesses and crematoriums in common ownership and should have regard to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report on Service Corporation International (CM20880). The meeting agreed that officials from the Department and from the Churches' group should continue to liaise on issues relating to Department of the Environment's area of responsibility.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will collate figures on the number of acres of playing fields on which development has been refused; and if he will make a statement. [15752]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department does not hold information on this basis. The Sports Council is compiling a register of sports pitches under threat from proposals for development, but even this would not answer the question.

  Local planning authorities have been advised, in planning policy guidance note 17(PPG17), to consider the longer-term need for playing fields, both by schools and the wider community. In addition, before allowing their development, authorities should consider proposals against policies in the local plan, including the need for public open space. Last July the Government published their sports White Paper, "Sport: Raising the Game", which makes it clear that the Government are concerned about the fate of all playing fields, not only those used by schools. The Government are currently consulting on a proposal that the Sports Council should be made a statutory consultee on planning proposals affecting all playing fields. This would ensure that local planning authorities are aware of any deficiency in playing field provision in making any decision on proposals to develop playing fields.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16821]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of the executive non-departmental public 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. The information contained in that answer—No. 20496—remains correct with the following exceptions: Letchworth Garden city corporation ceased to be a public body on 30 September 1995 and Leeds development corporation has been wound up. The registers of

  455
  members' interests of the British Board of Agreement and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are now voluntarily available for public inspection.

  Two new executive NDPBs have been established since April 1995, the Local Government Residuary Body and the Environment Agency, and my Department has taken on responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. The new bodies and the Health and Safety Commission and Executive are statutorily required to publish annual reports and accounts. None of the new bodies publishes agendas or minutes of meetings. The Environment Agency will, like the National Rivers Authority, be under a statutory requirement to make agendas and minutes of the regional committees available to the public.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had concerning the site of the millennium exhibition in his capacity as Minister for London; what advice he has given; and if he will make a statement. [17751]

  Mr. Gummer
  The case for Greenwich has been mentioned to me regularly by London organisations and individuals in the course of meetings on other issues. These are too numerous to list. Whenever the exhibition is raised, I explain that the decision is for the Millennium Commission and not for the Government.

  Waste Management Licensing
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the fees and charges for waste management licensing; and if he will make a statement. [17877]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland have made the Waste Management Licensing (Fees and Charges) Scheme 1996 under section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The scheme has been made with the approval of the Treasury and comes into force on 1 April 1996.

  In line with the "polluter pays" principle, the financial objective of the charging scheme is full recovery of the costs of supervising sites licensed under section 35 of the 1990 Act; and the cost of considering licence applications. With the aim of fulfilling this objective, the 1996 charging scheme increases subsistence charges by 15 per cent. and application fees by 2.75 per cent.

  In order to reduce the effect of the introduction of charges on small businesses, we set some of them at 70 per cent. of our assessment of full cost recovery in 1994–95 and 1995–96. The abrupt ending of this transitional provision would have had a disproportionate impact on the businesses affected. We have therefore decided that the transitional provision should be retained for one year longer than was originally intended and should be set at 85 per cent. of our assessment of full cost recovery in 1996–97.

  As required by section 41 of the 1990 Act, a copy of the 1996 charging scheme is being laid before the House and placed in the Library of the House.
  456
  Subsequent charging schemes for waste manage licensing will be made under sections 41 and 42 of the Environment Act 1995 on the basis of proposals submitted by the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and they will reflect the costs incurred by the agencies in their operation of the licensing system.

  Landfill Tax
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of recycling credits to be paid by waste disposal authorities following the introduction of the landfill tax. [17923]

  Mr. Clappison
  Statutory payments, which are made by waste disposal and waste collection authorities to those who recycle waste, are commonly known as "recycling credits". These payments are made under section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and associated regulations.

  Payments of credits are intended to reflect savings in the costs of waste collection and disposal which benefit collection and disposal authorities, as a direct result of the activities of recyclers. In particular, disposal credits, which are paid by waste disposal authorities, represent the net saving of expenditure on the disposal of waste, which arises because the waste has been recycled.

  Provisions to introduce the proposed landfill tax are contained in the Finance Bill, which is currently before Parliament. The aim of the new tax is to increase the cost of landfill disposal of waste, reflecting its environmental impact. This will make alternative waste management practices, such as recycling, more economic. The landfill tax supports the objectives set out in our White Paper on waste, "Making Waste Work".

  Waste disposal authorities should take their own legal advice if they are in doubt as to their position, as the interpretation of legislation is ultimately a matter for the courts. However, it is the aim of the recycling credits legislation that all expenditure on the disposal of waste should be included in the calculation of disposal credits. The amounts of disposal credits should therefore be increased to reflect the introduction, subject to parliamentary approval, of the landfill tax, where landfill is the most expensive disposal method as defined by the regulations.

  OECD Environment Ministers' Meeting
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the outcome of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Environment Ministers' meeting in Paris on 19 and 20 February; and if he will make a statement. [17924]

  Mr. Gummer
  I was elected to chair the meeting of OECD Environment Ministers in Paris on 19 and 20 February. This was in recognition of the UK's international environmental leadership, including our key role in last year's Berlin conference on climate change and Vienna conference on the ozone layer, and further acknowledged by the invitation to me from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to join the international advisory group of eminent persons preparing for this year's habitat II conference in Istanbul.
  457
  The meeting marked the 25th anniversary of the setting up of the OECD's environment policy committee and the first occasion that a British Minister had taken the chair. The meeting provided an opportunity both to review past performance and to decide the priorities for future action, particularly in the context of the 1997 special session of the General Assembly of the United Nations to follow up the 1992 Rio earth summit.

  There was acceptance at the meeting of the need for OECD countries to show leadership in resolving global environmental problems both through domestic action and by assisting developing and transition economies to take action themselves.

  The meeting endorsed OECD acts on the "greening" of Governments and the OECD itself, and on pollutant release and transfer registers. Ministers also adopted a declaration on lead risk reduction and supported the principle of opening up OECD instruments on the mutual acceptance of chemicals data to non-OECD countries.

  Ministers called for reports from the OECD, to be prepared over the next one to two years, on the relationship between globalisation and environmental policies, on the environmental effects of subsidies and tax disincentives, and on green tax reform.

  I was able to draw upon the UK's strong environmental performance. I pressed the importance of the annual environmental audit contained in the White Paper which we have published every year since the first comprehensive environmental strategy "This Common Inheritance" in 1990.

  The whole government machine is brought into process, not least through the Green Ministers machinery. This experience enabled the United Kingdom to be the first country to publish all the action plans called for at the 1992 Rio earth summit—a comprehensive strategy for sustainable development and action programmes for climate change, biodiversity and forests.

  This strategy included the setting up of the Government panel and the UK round table on sustainable development and the "Going for Green" campaign. We have now produced detailed strategies for waste and air quality, thus setting for the first time clear targets and providing effective monitoring. This radical approach has been carried through to our preparation of the world's first set of indicators of sustainable development and pioneering work on recommendations for costed biodiversity targets.

  The Environment Act 1995 set up environment agencies for England and Wales and for Scotland. The Government's commitment to work with the market to achieve environmental progress has been shown by various economic instruments such as the 1994 Budget introduction of a new landfill tax which shifts the burden of taxation to discourage harmful activities; our pledge to increase the duty on road fuels on average by at least 5 per cent. each year in real terms in future budgets; and the 15 per cent. reduction in the duty on road fuel gases made in the 1995 budget, bringing their price broadly into line with that of petrol and diesel. These are all examples of fiscal measures taken for environmental purposes.

  Our strategy also includes voluntary measures such as the EC eco-management and audit scheme, where the UK has become the first country to register sites. A major
  458
  review of radioactive waste management policy was completed last year and later this year we shall become one of the first countries in Europe to publish an Environmental health action plan. The environment White Paper to be published at the end of March will highlight major achievements in 1995 and identify key new initiatives for the coming year.

  By combining effective government machinery, detailed targets and monitoring, and clear strategies covering the whole environmental agenda, the United Kingdom is now widely recognised as one of the global leaders on sustainable development.

  Yorkshire Water
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when and by whom he was first informed that approval had been given to Yorkshire Water to increase charges; what subsequent representations he has made to the director general of Ofwat on this matter; what information he requested from the director as to the grounds on which he gave approval for the increase; and if he will make a statement. [16835]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Yorkshire Water's price limits, together with the price limits for all the water companies, were set by the Director General of Water Services in his thorough quinquennial review, the outcome of which was announced by the director general in July 1994. Two companies subsequently sought a referral of their new price limits to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In its reports, the MMC largely endorsed the director general's approach and his determinations. I am satisfied therefore that the director general's review was properly and carefully carried out. Yorkshire Water's average charge increase from April 1996 is within the price limit set by the director-general.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make representations to those responsible for Yorkshire Water's commission of inquiry that its terms of reference should include Yorkshire Water's pricing policy. [16836]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Professor Uff has been asked by Yorkshire Water to conduct an inquiry into the water supply situation in Yorkshire. The terms of reference of the inquiry are a matter for Professor Uff.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when members of his Department met Professor John Uff, in respect of Yorkshire Water's commission of inquiry; and on what occasions pricing policy was discussed. [16798]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I have met Professor John Uff. Professor Uff has also had contact with officials, who referred him to the framework of price regulation and the regulator's decisions in his quinquennial review in 1994.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met Professor Uff. This corrects the error in the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave on 22 February, Official Report, column 282. I regret this error.
  459
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct the director general of Ofwat to withdraw his approval to Yorkshire Water increasing its charges pending the outcome of(a) his departmental review of Yorkshire Water and (b) Yorkshire Water's commission of inquiry. [16799]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The Director General of Water Services has responsibility for determining the limits on water companies' charge increases. Yorkshire Water's average charge increase of 5.6 per cent. from April 1996 is within the price limit set by the director general.

  My Department is not conducting a review of Yorkshire Water.

  Groundwater Levels, London
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made of the changes in groundwater levels in London; what assessment he has made of the implications for such changes for the London Underground and for buildings; and if he will make a statement; [16913]

  (2) what research his Department has commissioned into groundwater levels in London; if he will publish the results of such research; and what action he has taken as a result of such research; [16914]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the NRA Thames region report on rising groundwater levels in the chalk-basal sands aquifer of the central London basin as it affects possible flooding in London; and if he will make a statement; [16962]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the possible damage to buildings from rising groundwater levels in London; [16963]

  (5) what representations he has received from (a) London Underground Ltd. and (b) others regarding rising groundwater levels in London; [16964]

  (6) what estimate he has made of the costs of addressing rising groundwater levels in London by (a) regional control using purpose-built wells, (b) regional control using existing wells, (c) local control by building and landowners on an ad hoc basis and (d) structural modifications to prevent damage coupled with local control as in (c); and what estimate he has made of the costs of taking no such actions; [16965]

  (7) what action he has taken to ensure that the design and building of new structures in London takes account of possible future groundwater levels. [16966]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answers 26 February 1996]: A report, "The engineering implications of rising groundwater levels in the deep aquifer beneath London", was published by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association in May 1989, funded in part by the Department. It reported on groundwater levels in London, rates of change of groundwater levels, locations where problems with deep structures and buildings could occur, the time scale over which problems could arise and the cost implications of a range of control procedures.
  460
  The National Rivers Authority, at the request of the Department, has monitored groundwater levels in London since 1989, and reported annually. These reports have been distributed to many organisations including London Underground. Regular meetings are held between the National Rivers Authority, Thames Water Utilities, London Underground Ltd., the Loss Prevention Council and the Association of British Insurers and others to disseminate information. It is the responsibility of owners of existing and new structures to ensure the adequate protection of their assets.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many water meters were installed by water authorities and companies in domestic properties in(a) 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) 1995. [17365]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The number of water meters installed in domestic properties is as follows:

  Households

  1990–91

  1315,000

  1995–96

  21,404,000

  Source:

  1 Ofwat.

  2 Water company estimates.

  Information relating to 1985 is not available.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the officials in her Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if she will establish a register of officials' interests. [16894]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Staff of the Department must declare any conflict of interest between their work and outside interests so that senior management can determine how best to proceed. This requirement is set out in the handbooks of the former Education and Employment Departments and will be reflected in the guidance that is currently being produced for the new Department for Education and Employment.

  A central register is not kept. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer.

  Schools Expenditure (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in total on school education in Durham, in each year since 1979. [17210]
  461
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows in cash and 1995 prices gross expenditure for pre-primary, primary and secondary education by Durham local education authority from 1979–80 to 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Gross expenditure on schools—Durham county council

  £ million

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1979–80

  64,426

  161.000

  1980–81

  78.888

  166.613

  1981–82

  85.288

  164.243

  1982–83

  89.281

  160.502

  1983–84

  91.786

  157.692

  1984–85

  93.842

  153.510

  1985–86

  99.253

  153.924

  1986–87

  107.785

  162.261

  1987–88

  117.785

  168.611

  1988–89

  126.568

  169.558

  1989–90

  139.931

  175.223

  1990–91

  151.933

  176.132

  1991–92

  158.585

  173.041

  1992–93

  203.717

  213.596

  1993–94

  185,618

  189.101

  Staff-student Ratios (Universities)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the average staff-student ratios in(a) the arts, (b) social science, and (d) applied science departments in British universities. [17744]

  Mr. Forth
  Information for the higher education institutions formerly funded by the Universities Funding Council in Great Britain is contained in the publication "University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the UK" published by the Universities Statistical Record. Statistics for the higher education institutions formerly funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council for England have been

  Name of body

  Annual reports

  Annual accounts

  Minutes of meetings

  Agendas of meetings

  Register of interests

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes2

  No

  No

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes1

  Yes1

  No

  No

  No

  Education Assets Board

  No

  Yes1

  No

  No

  Yes2

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes1

  Yes1

  No

  No

  No

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Yes1

  Yes1

  No

  No

  No

  Funding Agency for Schools

  Yes

  Yes1

  No

  No

  Yes2

  Further Education Funding Council

  Yes

  Yes1

  No

  No

  No

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Yes

  Yes1

  No

  No

  Yes2

  Investors in People UK

  Yes1

  Yes1

  No

  No

  No

  National Council for Educational Technology

  Yes

  Yes1

  No

  No

  Yes2

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  Yes1

  Yes1

  No

  No

  No

  National Youth Agency

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Remploy Ltd.

  Yes1

  Yes1

  No

  No

  Yes2

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  Yes

  Yes1

  No

  No

  Yes2

  Teacher Training Agency

  Yes1

  Yes1

  No

  No

  Yes2

  1 Statutory.

  2 Available for inspection at the NDPB's offices.

  462
  published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in "Student Staff Ratios in polytechnics and colleges". Copies of both publications are in the House Library.

  Teachers (Kirklees)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total amount paid by Kirklees metropolitan council on behalf of its teachers to the teachers; superannuation scheme during 1994–95. [17604]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total amount paid in pension contributions to the teachers' superannuation scheme by Kirklees metropolitan borough council during 1994–95 was £5,566,102.

  Teachers' Pay
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what impact the teachers' pay settlement will have on education spending in the 1996–97 settlement. [15486]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The impact on the pay award will depend on the decisions made by local authorities when they determine their budgets for services, including education, for 1996–97.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16829]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Nursery Provision (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many three-year-olds are currently receiving nursery education in Durham. [17184]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in table 3, column (viii) of Statistical Bulletin 1/96: "Pupils Under Five Years of Age in Schools in England—January 1995", which is available in the Library.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent by each training and enterprise council on administration for the year 1994–95. [17746]

  Mr. Paice
  The "in year" administration costs of each of the English training and enterprise councils as stated in their annual statutory audited accounts for 1994–95 are given in the following table:

  TEC administration costs 1994–95

  £

  North-east

  County Durham

  2,844,998

  Northumberland

  2,170,801

  Teesside

  4,101,000

  Tyneside

  3,928,000

  Sunderland City (Wearside)

  1,589,414

  Total

  14,634,213

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  1,952,421

  Merseyside

  4,626,182

  QUALITEC

  990,569

  Total

  7,569,172

  North-west

  Bolton/Bury

  2,452,327

  Manchester

  2,973,860

  METROTEC

  2,173,116

  Oldham

  1,006,057

  Rochdale

  656,133

  South and East Cheshire

  1,051,417

  Stockport and High Peak

  898,243

  Cumbria

  2,439,495

  ELTEC

  2,681,903

  LAWTEC

  2,174,424

  NORMID

  1,203,943

  Total

  19,710,918

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  3,195,000

  Bradford and District

  1,514,564

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  2,348,460

  Humberside

  3,257,145

  Leeds

  2,392,053

  North Yorkshire

  1,481,000

  Rotherham

  1,406,127

  Sheffield

  1,679,000

  Wakefield

  1,188,133

  Total

  18,431,482

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  1,518,605

  CAMBSTEC

  1,103,244

  Essex

  3,156,151

  Greater Peterborough

  1,010,561

  Hertfordshire

  2,152,000

  464

  TEC administration costs 1994–95

  £

  Norfolk and Waveney

  2,841,000

  Suffolk

  1,148,694

  Total

  12,930,255

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  1,521,000

  Leicester

  2,293,012

  Lincolnshire

  2,596,050

  Northamptonshire

  1,237,785

  North Derbyshire

  1,935,855

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,364,870

  South Derbyshire

  1,561,000

  Total

  12,509,572

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  2,954,000

  Central England

  897,848

  Coventry/Warwick

  1,336,237

  Dudley

  1,273,292

  HAWTEC

  1,153,623

  Sandwell

  835,866

  Shropshire

  1,175,098

  Staffordshire

  2,995,000

  Walsall

  1,367,391

  Wolverhampton

  1,742,000

  Total

  15,730,355

  South-West

  WESTEC (Avon)

  2,950,000

  Devon/Cornwall

  6,405,000

  Dorset

  1,442,896

  Gloucester

  2,726,513

  Somerset

  1,822,761

  Wiltshire

  1,792,597

  Total

  17,139,767

  London

  AZTEC

  1,856,188

  CENTEC

  2,878,041

  CILNTEC

  3,116,232

  LETEC

  3,814,563

  North London

  2,587,420

  North West London

  1,141,113

  SOLOTEC

  2,684,946

  West London

  1,747,613

  Total

  19,826,116

  South-east

  Hampshire

  2,128,114

  Isle of Wight

  544,541

  Kent

  3,064,096

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  1,005,491

  Heart of England

  2,310,937

  Surrey

  2,365,167

  Sussex

  2,802,000

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  2,186,361

  Total

  16,406,707

  Grand total

  154,888,557

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many civil servants her Department employs to oversee and monitor the activities of the training and enterprise councils; and what is their annual cost. [17747]
  465
  Mr. Paice
  The Department currently employs 238 civil servants in Government offices whose work is principally about overseeing and monitoring the activities of training and enterprise councils. In 1995–96, the estimated cost of these staff is £6.4 million.

  Consultants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each of the last five years(a) the total spent on consultants and (b) the work carried out by consultants. [17748]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to lay guidelines for the governors of maintained schools in respect of standard of premises not within the statute's requirements of the draft school building regulations laid on 22 February. [17816]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on 22 February 1996,Official Report, column 245–46.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to what school regulations nursery schools or other under-fives provisions in(a) maintained, (b) voluntary and (c) private establishments (i) are now subject and (ii) will be subject if the draft schools regulations laid on 22 February are approved by Parliament. [17817]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Nursery schools, nursery classes and reception classes in the maintained sector are subject to the Education (School Premises) Regulation 1981 and, subject to the approval of Parliament, will become subject to the Education (Schools Premises) Regulations 1996 from 1 September 1996, when the 1981 regulations will be revoked.

  Nursery schools and other under-fives provision outside the maintained sector are subject to other legislation—in particular, the Children Act 1989. Such provision falls within the scope of neither the School Premises Regulations 1981, nor the new 1996 regulations.

  Special Educational Needs Tribunal
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications there have been annually to the special educational needs tribunal since its establishment; and how many have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected. [17331]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: A total of 1,170 appeals were registered with the special educational needs tribunal between 1 September 1994 and 31 August 1995. The average time taken to dispose of these was within the tribunal's five-month target. A total of 242 appeals were disposed of by 31 August 1995. Of these, 112 were upheld, 85 were dismissed, 27 were dismissed or upheld in part, 11 were remitted to the local education authority for reconsideration and seven were struck out because they were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
  466
  Further details about the numbers of appeals for this period can be obtained from the SEN tribunal President's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  I have asked the President of the tribunal to write to the hon. Member with up-to-date figures for appeals.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the annual cost to public funds of the special educational needs tribunal. [17326]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding reply 26 February 1996]: The figure for the actual cost in the financial year ending 31 March 1996 is not yet available, but we estimate that expenditure in that year will be in the region of £1,400,000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prisons (Health Care)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what percentage of the total annual budget for prisons in Northern Ireland is designated for health care; [16708]

  (2) what provision is available to prisoners in Northern Ireland for therapeutic and psychological follow-up in the case of positive results in tests for transmissible diseases; [16692]

  (3) what policies the prison service in Northern Ireland has concerning the prevention of transmissible or contagious diseases (a) in general and (b) in respect of particular outbreaks; [16680]

  (4) what specific provisions are made of those prisoners in Northern Ireland known to be terminally ill; [16706]

  (5) how many nurses and doctors are employed in the prison service in Northern Ireland per 100 inmates; [16690]

  (6) how many prisoners in prisons in Northern Ireland are currently known to be terminally ill; and what are the causes of the terminal illnesses; [16705]

  (7) what regular medical checks prisoners in prison in Northern Ireland receive; and what systematic checks are carried out for transmissible diseases; [16689]

  (8) what steps are taken to prevent discrimination against prisoners in Northern Ireland with specific health problems; [16707]

  (9) how many prisoners died in prison in Northern Ireland in each year since 1992; and of these deaths how many were (a) self-inflicted, (b) accidental, (c) homicides, (d) due to disease, (e) due to AIDS, (f) due to tuberculosis (g) due to cancer and (h) due to vascular and heart diseases; [16679]

  (10) what steps are taken to ensure the confidentiality of medical checks on prisoners in Northern Ireland, including where a case of a transmissible disease is identified. [16691]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for reply to be given.
  467
  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 26 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions in which you ask:

  (i) the percentage of the total annual budget for prisons in Northern Ireland that is designated for health care;

  (ii) the provision available to prisoners in Northern Ireland for therapeutic and psychological follow up in the case of positive results in tests for transmissible diseases;

  (iii) the policy of the Northern Ireland Prison Service in relation to the prevention of transmissible and contagious diseases;

  (iv) the provisions that are made for terminally ill prisoners in Northern Ireland;

  (v) the number of nurses and doctors employed within the Northern Ireland Prison Service per 100 inmates;

  (vi) the number of terminally ill prisoners in Northern Ireland and the cause of the illness;

  (vii) what regular medical checks prisons in Northern Ireland receive and what systematic checks are carried out for transmissible diseases;

  (viii) the steps taken to prevent discrimination against prisoners in Northern Ireland with specific health problems;

  (ix) the number of prisoners who have died in prison in Northern Ireland in each year since 1992 and the cause of death in each case;

  (x) the steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of medical checks on prisoners in Northern Ireland, including where a case of transmissible disease is identified.

  The health care element of the Prison Service budget in 1995/96 is £1.1 million, which is slightly less than 1% of he overall budget of £143 million.
  A prisoner diagnosed as suffering from a transmissible disease has access to a Consultant Physician with the required specialist. Where necessary, psychiatric and psychology services are provided by two part-time Consultant Psychiatrists and four full-time Psychologists.
  The policy on the management of transmissible or contagious diseases depends largely on the condition involved. There is a written policy for the management of patients with HIV or Hepatitis B infection. Prison Medical Officers would take advice on managing outbreaks of infectious diseases from Consultants in Communicable Disease Control within Health and Personal Social Services Boards in Northern Ireland.
  Prisoners who are diagnosed as having a terminal illness will have access to those provisions made available to members of the public by Health and Personal Social Services Boards.
  Health care facilities for prisoners are provided by five full-time and two part-time medical officers and nine full-time and two part-time nursing staff. In addition, General Practitioner Practices provide support at three prison establishments in Northern Ireland. All these are employed by the Department of Health and Social

  Department of Agriculture

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  Livestock and Meat Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Yes (S)1

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Agricultural Resource Institute

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  No

  Fishery Harbour Authority

  Yes (V)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  No

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Notes:

  S = Statutory requirements

  V = Voluntary.

  1 Report is published biannually.

  468
  Services. Health care staff are supplemented by 44 prison grade hospital officers. On 22 February 1996 the prison population was 1593 prisoners.
  There are no terminally ill prisoners currently in prisons in Northern Ireland.
  Prisoners have access to a doctor on a daily basis. They are medically screened on admission to prison, before a court appearance, transfer, discharge and disciplinary hearing. Regular medical checks are carried out on those deemed to require further attention. There are no routine systematic checks carried out for transmissible diseases.
  All prisoners are integrated, where appropriate, into a normal location including those with specific health problems. Prison Rules in Northern Ireland permit Medical Officers to separate from other prisons any prisoner whose health makes such separation advisable in his own interest or that of other prisoners. Prisoners' medical conditions are treated as Medical in Confidence at all times.
  Medical Officers to separate from other prisoners any prisoner whose health makes such separation advisable in his own interest or that of other prisoners. Prisoners' medical conditions are treated as Medical in Confidence at all times.
  Nine prisoners have died in prison on Northern Ireland since 1992. Six of the deaths occurred in 1994—three were self-inflicted, two died from cancer and one from heart disease. Three deaths occurred in 1995—two were self-inflicted and one prisoner died from septicaemia.
  Prisoners' medical records are held in a confidential file within a secure cabinet in the prison health care centre: the same rules of confidentiality are applied as for the general public.

  Census Data
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the 1991 census data will be available on the basis of the new parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland. [16458]

  Sir John Wheeler
  On current plans, 1991 census data population counts for the new parliamentary constituencies will be available in September 1996.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16827]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:
  469

  Department of Economic Development

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Enterprise Ulster

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No1

  Fair Employment Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No1

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Labour Relations Agency

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No1

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  Yes (S)

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No1

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd.

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  Yes (S)

  Notes:

  1 Maintain a Register of Members' interests, voluntarily, which are open for inspection at their offices upon request.

  S = Statutory requirements.

  Department of Education

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  No

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Trustees of the Ulster Museum

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  NO

  North-Eastern Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  South-Eastern Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  Western Education Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment

  No

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Museums Council

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Notes

  S = Statutory requirements.

  V = Voluntary.

  Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland)

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Laganside Corporation

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Staff Commission

  Yes (V)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  No

  S = Statutory requirements.

  V = Voluntary.

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  The Department does not sponsor any executive non-departmental public bodies.
  470 471

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)2

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  S = Statutory requirements.

  V = Voluntary.

  1Report is published biannually.

  2Report is published biennially.

  3Maintain a Register of Members' interests, voluntarily, which are open for inspection at their offices upon request.

  Promotional Events
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how expenditure by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland on promotional events will be funded. [18073]

  Mr. Moss
  During the year 1995–96, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has undertaken the lead role in funding work promoting the image of Northern Ireland, including certain events geared to that objective. Recently, the Department has concluded that the legislation under which this policy was hitherto considered to give vires to work implemented does not in fact support funding for every element of the programme, and hence some expenditure has been incurred without legislative cover. Parliamentary approval for the extra-statutory elements of the programme is being sought in a supplementary estimate for the environmental and other services vote (Department of the Environment, vote 4). Pending that approval, urgently needed expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the civil contingencies fund. As I wish this valuable work to continue, I am reviewing arrangements for implementing the programme and also examining the possibility of seeking Parliament's approval of new legislation which would specifically authorise such expenditure.

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Rate Collection Agency. [18074]

  Mr. Moss
  Following the announcement on 22 June 1995 about the outcome of the Evaluation and Review of the agency, the revised framework document setting out the policy and resources framework within which the agency will operate, pending the market test of its functions, has now been approved. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  NNEB Courses
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many students at further education colleges studying Nursery Nurses Education Board courses have had a reduction in their grants in the current academic year; [16264]

  (2) if he will take steps to resolve outstanding problems in relation to the funding of NNEB courses at colleges of further education; [16265]
  472
  (3) if he will instruct education and library boards to honour their full maintenance and tuition grant commitment to students studying NNEB courses at further education colleges. [16266]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Some 56 students studying National Nursery Examination Board courses at further education colleges have had a reduction in their grants in the current academic year. On 20 February, my Department approved an amendment to the discretionary awards arrangements which will enable education and library boards to pay full grant to these students. I am not aware of any problems in relation to the funding of these courses at colleges.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure has been incurred by health authorities in Northern Ireland for the purchase of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs in each of the last three years. [17012]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: None.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been provided with electrically powered indoor wheelchairs by health authorities in each of the last three years. [17017]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The numbers of people provided with such wheelchairs is as follows:

  1992–93: 143

  1993–94: 134

  1994–95: 305

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the most recent figure available for the cost of providing an individual with an electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair; [17014]

  (2) what is the most recent figure available for the cost of providing an individual with an electrically powered indoor wheelchair. [17185]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answers 26 February 1996]: The cost would depend on individual circumstances and the type of chair supplied.
  473
  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure has been incurred by health authorities for the purchase of electrically powered indoor wheelchairs in each of the last three years. [171891]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The information requested is as follows

  1992–93: £63,152

  1993–94: £23,225

  1994–95: £112.189

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been provided with electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs by health authorities in each of the last three years. [17194]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: None.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings,(d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16826]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  (a)

  Arts Council of England

  British Film Institute

  British Library1

  British Tourist Authority1

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission1

  Broadcasting Standards Council1

  Crafts Council

  English Tourist Board1

  Football Licensing Authority1

  Geffrye Museum1

  Horniman Museum1

  Millennium Commission1

  Museum of London22

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester1

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  National Gallery2

  National Portrait Gallery2

  National Heritage Memorial Fund1

  Public Lending Right1

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  Sports Council

  The following bodies are statutorily obliged to produce a triennial report:

  British Museum

  Natural History Museum

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  Tate Gallery

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Wallace Collection

  474

  (b)

  Arts Council for England

  British Film Institute1

  British Library1

  British Museum1

  British Tourist Authority1

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission1

  Broadcasting Standards Council1

  Crafts Council

  English Tourist Board1

  Football Licensing Authority1

  Geffrye Museum1

  Horniman Museum1

  Imperial War Museum1

  Millennium Commission1

  Museum and Galleries Commission

  Museum of London1

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester1

  National Film and Television School1

  National Gallery1

  National Heritage Memorial Fund1

  National Maritime Museum1

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside1

  National Museum of Science and Industry1

  National Portrait Gallery1

  Natural History Museum1

  Public Lending Right1

  Sir John Soane's Museum1

  Sports Council

  Tate Gallery1

  Victoria and Albert Museum1

  Wallace Collection1

  (c)

  British Film Institute

  Sports Council

  (d)

  British Film Institute

  Sports Council

  (e)

  British Film Institute

  British Library

  All of DNH' s executive NDPBs are currently developing registers of members' interests. Many of these are already in place and are open to the public on request.
  1indicates where this is a statutory requirement.
  2indicates where an annual report is published by the organisation is only statutorily obliged to publish a triennial report.

WALES

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for(a) each Welsh county and (b) Wales the numbers of children receiving nursery school education and the proportion those children represent of the total number of children of pre-school age for each of the last three available years. [16287]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is in the tables.
  475

  Number of children receiving nursery education1

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Clwyd

  172

  4,757

  195

  4,542

  179

  4,718

  Dyfed

  222

  2,248

  191

  2,139

  213

  2,210

  Gwent

  913

  3,698

  915

  3,866

  864

  4,026

  Gwynedd

  —

  887

  —

  836

  —

  1,042

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,208

  4,831

  1,216

  4,285

  1,179

  4,323

  Powys

  —

  505

  —

  298

  —

  263

  South Glamorgan

  803

  2,748

  832

  2,850

  791

  2,940

  West Glamorgan

  236

  4,881

  230

  4,725

  224

  4,659

  Wales

  3,554

  24,555

  3,579

  23,541

  3,450

  24,181

  1 At January each year. Aged at 31 December (estimated). Data includes both full-time and part-time pupils in nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools. Pupils in ordinary classes in maintained primary schools, special and independent schools are excluded.

  Proportion of children receiving nursery education1

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Clwyd

  1.6

  45.0

  1.9

  43.5

  1.7

  43.8

  Dyfed

  2.6

  26.3

  2.3

  25.9

  2.5

  25.9

  Gwent

  7.2

  29.2

  7.4

  31.1

  6.8

  31.8

  Gwynedd

  —

  14.7

  —

  14.0

  —

  17.5

  Mid Glamorgan

  7.7

  30.8

  7.9

  28.0

  7.8

  28.6

  Powys

  —

  17.5

  —

  10.7

  —

  9.0

  South Glamorgan

  6.9

  23.5

  7.2

  24.5

  6.7

  25.0

  West Glamorgan

  2.5

  51.8

  2.5

  50.5

  2.4

  49.7

  Wales

  4.6

  31.7

  4.7

  30.9

  4.5

  31.4

  1 At January each year. Aged at 31 December (estimated). Data includes both full-time and part-time pupils in nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools as a proportion of the mid-year population estimates for children aged three and four-years-old. Pupils in ordinary classes in maintained primary schools, special and independent schools are excluded.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the likely change in the number of children receiving nursery education and the corresponding proportion of those children as a percentage of the total number of children of pre-school age for each county and for Wales as a whole in consequence of the introduction of the proposed nursery voucher scheme; and if he will make a statement. [16288]

  Mr. Richards
  The voucher scheme is intended to enhance current levels of provision and stimulate greater choice for parents in the maintained, voluntary and private sectors. No estimate has been made of the actual number of four-year-olds who will take up places under the scheme—that will depend on parental choice and the availability of places; but numbers are expected to be no less than at present.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16819]

  Mr. Hague

  (a) All—under statue, charter or other controlling documents. The report of work by the Agricultural Wages Committee is included in the annual report of the Agricultural Wages Board;

  (b) all except the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales and the Agricultural Wages Committee—under statue or charter;

  476

  (c) none;

  (d) none;

  (e) all have adopted or are in the process of adopting a code of practice based on the code of best practice for board members of public bodies published by Her Majesty's Treasury in June 1994, and publish or will then publish or make available such a register.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the outturn cost of the Cardiff bay barrage. [17461]

  Mr. Hague
  I have asked the corporation to contain total expenditure on the barrage project within the cost figure announced to Parliament. The current estimated outturn cost is therefore £191 million.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 February, at column 56, if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the investigating team into the management and finances of the South East Wales ambulance trust. [17350]

  Mr. Hague
  I will make arrangements for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he proposes to announce(a) the appointment of new board and (b) the re-appointment of existing board members to the South East Wales ambulance trust. [17245]
  477
  Mr. Hague
  The appointment of executive directors is a matter for the trust. The terms of appointment of two non-executive directors are due to expire on 30 April 1996. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 88, if he will give the dates on which his Department expressed concern to the South East Wales ambulance trust in relation to its financial problem; if the concern was expressed in writing; if he will place in the Library copies of any such expressions in writing; and if he will make a statement. [17351]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has maintained close contact with the trust since its financial problems became apparent, including monthly monitoring of the trust's financial performance, meetings between officials and staff at the trust and frequent correspondence. The director of the Welsh Office Health Directorate met the former chairman of the trust on three separate occasions, 27 March 1995; 30 August 1995 and 7 December 1995. He attended a meeting of the trust board on 21 December 1995 to discuss its financial performance.

  Unspent Balances
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount of unspent balances held by general practitioner fundholders or by family health service authorities on their behalf at the latest available date(a) in the whole of Wales and (b) by family health service authority separately. [17354]

  Mr. Hague
  The information, as at 31 March 1995, is as follows:

  FHSA

  £000

  Clwyd

  1,115

  Dyfed

  692

  Gwent

  2,753

  Gwynedd

  469

  Mid Glamorgan

  775

  Powys

  1,836

  South Glamorgan

  1,277

  West Glamorgan

  1,246

  Wales

  10,163

  Source

  FHSA annual accounts 1994–95.

  Ysbyty Gwynedd NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he had had with the chairman of the Ysbyty Gwynedd NHS trust in relation to the suspension of the medical director. [17410]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The medical director has not been suspended.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what reports he has had from the chairman of the Ysbyty Gwynedd NHS trust concerning allegations of fraud. [17409]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received no formal reports. The chairman of the trust is in contact with my officials about allegations of fraud.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he proposes to publish the departmental report for 1996–97. [17242]

  Mr. Hague
  The 1996 Welsh Office departmental report, covering the 1995–96 financial year, will be published on 25 March 1996. No date has been decided for the publication of next year's report.

  Emergency Medical Admissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of his statement of 21 February on the priority for placement of emergency medical admissions and its impact on elective surgery bed availability. [17243]

  Mr. Richards
  My comments on the response of NHS trusts to the demand for emergency admissions were made at the launch of the 1996 patients charter.

  My main message was that hospitals should not refuse to admit emergency cases unless all beds, other than child and maternity beds, are full.

  This is in line with the recommendations of the emergency admissions action plan developed by senior health authority and trust staff.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the present Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan community health councils about the future separation of the administration of the two councils; and what advice he has given about the appointment procedures to be adopted for staff in the event of separate administrative arrangements being implemented. [17244]

  Mr. Hague
  Consultations with both councils have led to agreement in principle to the possible separation of administrative functions, provided no additional costs are involved.

  The Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the employing body, has asked existing staff from both councils whether they want to be considered for the possible chief officer posts.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he last requested figures from the Welsh training and enterprise councils as to the levels of their reserves and their latest estimate of year-end balances; and if he will make a statement on the estimated total figure for end-year unspent balances. [17355]

  Mr. Hague
  TECs in Wales provide my Department on a quarterly basis with current and projected year-end reserve levels. The latest figures, which reflect income and expenditure to 31 December 1995, were received in February.

  My officials are currently in discussion with Welsh TECs about the projected year-end position in the light of developments during the final quarter of the financial year.
  479
  I will write to the hon. Member when these discussions have been completed.

  Planning Department (Welsh Office)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the last three years the numbers of staff in each grade and in total employed in the planning department of his office. [17570]

  Mr. Hague
  The requested information can be seen in the table.

  The numbers of staff in each grade employed within the Planning Division for the last three years are as follows:

  1 February 1996

  1 February 1995

  1 February 1994

  G5

  1.00

  —

  1.00

  G6

  —

  1.00

  1.00

  G7

  2.00

  3.00

  2.00

  G7PRO

  0.81

  1.81

  1.81

  PPO

  2.00

  3.00

  3.50

  SEO

  2.00

  2.00

  1.00

  SMCO

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  SPO

  2.50

  2.50

  2.50

  SRO

  1.81

  1.81

  1.81

  HEO

  6.00

  8.40

  7.40

  HMCO

  2.00

  3.00

  3.00

  EO

  9.00

  10.00

  8.00

  MCO

  12.01

  13.01

  16.01

  AO

  6.00

  7.00

  5.00

  MCTG1

  0.99

  0.99

  0.99

  PS

  1.00

  1.00

  2.00

  AA

  3.45

  4.45

  4.45

  MCTG2

  1.00

  1.00

  —

  CAS/AA

  2.00

  —

  —

  Total

  56.57

  64.97

  62.47

  1. The figures include staff in the Drawing Office who provide a general service to the Department but who are attached to Planning Division.

  2. The figures do not include Planning Inspectorate staff in Wales.

  3. Work on National Parks and related areas was transferred to Planning Division in May 1994 and to Environment Division in December 1995.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16825]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's Department sponsors two such bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992, when the Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the authorised practitioners scheme.
  480
  The Legal Aid Board publishes annual reports which are laid before Parliament. Annual accounts are included in that report, as is information about the background of board members. The board does not publish the agendas or minutes of meetings of the board or its committees. There are statutory requirements for the board to publish information as to the discharge of its functions in relation to legal aid and for the Lord Chancellor to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every statement of accounts and report of the auditors sent to him in accordance with requirements under the Legal Aid Act 1988.

  Divorce Petitions
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many petitions for divorce have been filed(a) within one year of marriage and (b) in total in each of the last 10 years; and of those petitions how many relate to marriages where one party has lived in the United Kingdom for less than two years. [17749]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executives of the Court Service and the Northern Ireland Court Service are best placed to provide answers on the Lord Chancellor's behalf. I have accordingly asked the chief executives to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mrs. Teresa Gorman, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about Divorce Petitions.
  The total number of divorce petitions filed in the last ten years, for England and Wales is as follows:

  1986: 179,844

  1987: 182,934

  1988: 182,804

  1989: 184,610

  1990: 191,615

  1991: 179,103

  1992: 189,419

  1993: 184,471

  1994: 175,510

  1995: 173,966

  Information on the number of petitions tiled within one year of marriage is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. It is also not possible to say how many divorce petitions relate to marriages where one party has lived in the United Kingdom for less than two years.

  Letter from H. G. Thompson to Mrs. Teresa Gorman, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to write to you direct with figures extracted, in relation to Northern Ireland. on foot of the Parliamentary Question put down by you on 23 February 1996 and answered by him today.
  In view of the manner in which the records are kept, it has not been possible to extract all the figures requested. As the figure for 1995 is not yet available, I have covered the 10-year period 1985–94 and the total number of petitions filed for each year within that period are as follows.
  481

  Year

  Number of petitions

  1985

  2,007

  1986

  1,652

  1987

  1,784

  1988

  2,224

  1989

  2,407

  1990

  2,281

  1991

  2,619

  1992

  2,615

  1993

  2,716

  1994

  2,672

  Total

  22,987

  It is not possible to identify the number of these which related either to marriages of less than one year in duration or to marriages where one party has lived in the United Kingdom for less than two years.
  I am able to report that the number of Decrees Absolute granted in marriages of less than two years duration was a total of 96 over the same 10-year period.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Overseas Development Administration
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations were held with UN agencies before publication of the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental expenditure review and the senior management review. [16398]

  Mr. Hanley
  At the outset of the fundamental expenditure review exercise, a member of the FER team had discussions in New York with senior officials from the UNDP, UNICEF and with the UK Mission to the UN. Copies of the FER were passed to UN agencies on publication.

  No separate discussions with UN agencies took place at the time of the senior management review, but as the SMR followed shortly after the FER, it was able to take account of the discussions and conclusions of the FER.

  The FER conclusions are recommendations only. We are now considering how policies should be changed to respond to the recommendations. At present, we have no plans to withdraw from any multilateral agencies. In autumn 1996, we shall be reviewing progress of reform in UN development agencies and coming to conclusion about our future relationship with those agencies.

  Ogoni People (Nigeria)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of Start for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he had made to the UN Commission on Human Rights concerning the situation of the Ogoni people of Nigeria. [16611]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UK co-sponsored a resolution on the human rights situation in Nigeria at the UN General Assembly in December. The resolution, which was passed by a convincing majority condemned the arbitrary execution after a flawed judicial process of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight co-defendants and invited the Commission on Human Rights to give urgent attention to Nigeria at its forthcoming session in March-April.

  Pakistan (Afghan Refugees)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been given to the Pakistan Government to help Afghan refugees who now live in Pakistan; what form such aid has taken; and if he will make statement. [16311]

  Mr. Hanley
  HMG do not give bilateral aid to the Pakistan Government specifically to help Afghans resident there. However, Pakistan remains a major recipient of British aid, over £28 million in bilateral assistance having been provided in 1994–5. HMG have also provided considerable sums over the years via UN bodies and NGOs to assist the refugees.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding has been given in the current financial year by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Pakistan to provide schooling for the children of Afghan refugees now living in Pakistan. [17158]

  Mr. Hanley
  No funding is currently being provided to the Pakistan Government for education costs for Afghan children resident in Pakistan.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Councillor Norman Scuplak
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken with regard to the detention of Councillor Norman Scuplak at Charles street police station on 11 January 1996; and if he will make a statement. [17569]

  The Attorney-General
  Following an allegation of theft made against him by a fellow councillor, Councillor Scuplak voluntarily attended Charles street police station where he was interviewed. The Leicestershire constabulary has its forwarded the results of its investigation to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will decide whether or not to institute criminal proceedings.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Officials (Interest)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirement are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16883]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17305]
  483
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February 1996, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS Ltd., indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17453]

  The Prime Minister
  For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Cabinet Working Group on Iraqi Procurement
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all members of the Cabinet working group on Iraqi procurement between 25 May 1989 and 25 February 1990. [17230]

  The Prime Minister
  The members of the working group on Iraqi procurement were officials drawn from the Departments concerned. It is not the practice to publish the membership of official committees.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that conventions regulating ministerial duties are codified by legislation. [17781]

  The Prime Minister
  No. I believe that ministerial duties to Parliament should be supervised by Parliament.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15751]

  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.

  Live Animal Exports
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Prime Minister if the speech by the Secretary of State for Agriculture to the annual general meeting of the Devon members of the National Farmers' Union on the export of live animals represents Government policy. [17241]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Minister set out his views on the export of live animals very clearly in his speech on 15 January. They are consistent with the views expressed in the House on previous occasions.

  2001 Census
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations his office received(a) in favour of and (b) against the setting up of a census office for Wales (i) in respect of the 1991 census and (ii) in respect of the 2001 census; and if he will make a statement. [15884]
  484
  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, none. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 23 January 1996,Official Report, column 141.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that the format of the 2001 census forms conform with the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993; if he will make it his policy to consult the Welsh Language Board in preparing census forms; and if he will make a statement. [15883]

  The Prime Minister
  The content and format of the 2001 census form are not yet decided. However, the Registrar General will ensure that the forms conform with the Welsh Language Act 1993, consulting other bodies as required.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to include in the 2001 census a question to discover how many people throughout the United Kingdom can understand, read and write the Welsh language. [17534]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 23 January 1996,Official Report, column 141.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet David Tang, Jimmy Lai, Morris Nourari, Stanley Ho and Li Kash Ing during his forthcoming visit to Hong Kong. [17813]

  The Prime Minister
  I naturally hope to meet a broad range of business men, politicians and other opinion formers.

TREASURY

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16878]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Staff are required to inform their line manager in writing of any relevant private financial interest where this might give rise to a conflict of interest with their official dealings in their current post. These records are held by the relevant team leader while the individual is in that post. No central record is held and the Treasury does not propose to establish a central register.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure by his Department on(a) staff, (b) services, (c) offices and (d) other categories on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95. [16767]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Expenditure on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 for all categories was nil.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS Ltd., indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17458]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury currently holds no contracts with EDS.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is being allocated by the European Commission to each member state to publicise the alleged benefits of a single currency. [17543]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 February 1996, columns 186–87.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) of 14 July 1993,Official Report, column 515–16 on the introduction of an upper limit for income tax allowances and reliefs for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97

  Full year yield (£ billion) at 1995–96 income levels restricted to:

  Full year yield (£ billion) at 1996–97 income levels restricted to:

  Upper limit for total allowances and reliefs1 £

  Marginal rates

  Basic rate

  20 per cent.

  Marginal rate

  Basic rate

  20 per cent.

  10,000

  0.5

  2.8

  7.8

  0.5

  3.1

  7.1

  15,000

  0.3

  2.6

  7.7

  0.3

  3.0

  7.0

  20,000

  0.2

  2.6

  7.7

  0.2

  2.9

  7.0

  No limit

  —

  2.5

  7.5

  —

  2.8

  6.8

  1 Available at marginal rates of tax.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) of 5 March 1993,Official Report, column 335, on the cumulative gain as a result of changes in income tax and national insurance since 1978–79 and 1987–88 to (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [14402]

  Mr. Jack
  Readily available information on the annual reduction in income tax and national insurance liability for 1995–96 and 1996–97 compared with the 1978–79 and 1987–88 indexed regimes are given in the table. They are based on projections of the 1993–94 survey of personal incomes. These comparisons are hypothetical since if an indexed version of the 1978–79 and 1987–88 tax regime had prevailed the income base would not have grown in the way it has. The effect of changes in mortgage relief cannot be included in the analysis because most mortgage interest relief is given at source and therefore is not recorded on individual tax records.
  486
  providing calculations of the yield from restriction to the basic rate and 20p rate only for those reliefs and allowances claimed at the marginal rate; [14264]

  (2) if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool of 1 July 1993, Official Report, column 598–600 on the introduction of an upper limit for income tax allowances and reliefs for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 providing calculations of the yield from restriction to the basic rate only for those reliefs and allowances claimed at the marginal rate. [14267]

  Mr. Jack
  Available analyses of the full year yields at 1995–96 and 1996–97 income levels from introducing combinations of allowance and relief limits and restrictions are given in the table. The figures do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such changes.

  The estimated number of people with total allowances and reliefs in excess of these limits are as follows:

  Limit

  Thousands

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  10,000

  170

  190

  15,000

  60

  70

  20,000

  30

  40

  Average reduction in income tax and national insurance per individual in 1995–96

  £

  Compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Compared with 1987–88 indexed regime

  Range of individuals income in 1995–96

  Income tax

  Income tax and national insurance

  Income tax

  Income tax and national insurance

  Under 5,000

  130

  160

  50

  60

  5,000–10,000

  360

  320

  160

  190

  10,000–15,000

  720

  540

  220

  290

  15,000–20,000

  1,080

  720

  290

  310

  20,000–25,000

  1,440

  810

  360

  320

  25,000–30,000

  1,830

  1,100

  420

  350

  30,000–40,000

  2,120

  1,390

  150

  60

  40,000–50,000

  3,350

  2,640

  430

  340

  487

  Average reduction in income tax and national insurance per individual in 1995–96

  £

  Compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Compared with 1987–88 indexed regime

  Range of individuals income in 1995–96

  Income tax

  Income tax and national insurance

  Income tax

  Income tax and national insurance

  50,000–60,000

  5,380

  4,680

  1,230

  1,190

  60,000–70,000

  8,480

  7,780

  2,600

  2,510

  70,000–80,000

  12,200

  11,600

  4,340

  4,240

  Over 80,000

  47,900

  47,200

  19,900

  19,800

  Average

  1,230

  970

  390

  400

  Average reduction in income tax and national insurance per individual in 1996–97

  £

  Compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Compared with 1987–88 indexed regime

  Range of individuals income in 1996–97

  Income tax

  Income tax and National Insurance

  Income tax

  Income tax and National Insurance

  Under 5,000

  150

  200

  60

  80

  5,000–10,000

  390

  380

  200

  250

  10,000–15,000

  810

  670

  330

  420

  15,000–20,000

  1,240

  920

  450

  500

  20,000–25,000

  1,640

  1,090

  560

  550

  25,000–30,000

  2,070

  1,390

  690

  610

  30,000–40,000

  2,490

  1,830

  530

  450

  40,000–50,000

  3,560

  2,930

  700

  630

  50,000–60,000

  5,490

  4,900

  1,490

  1,420

  60,000–70,000

  8,320

  7,760

  2,690

  2,640

  70,000–80,000

  11,800

  11,200

  4,340

  4,270

  Over 80,000

  47,200

  46,700

  19,700

  19,600

  Average

  1,410

  1,170

  540

  550

  Mortgage Endowment Policies
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will require each major company with mortgage endowment policy repayment schemes which have yet to mature to conduct an audit of these policies. [17475]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  If customers with mortgage endowment policy repayment schemes are concerned about the maturity value of their policy, they should discuss the situation with their insurer.
  488
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, by the top 10 companies, the sales of mortgage endowment repayment policies since 1979; and if he will indicate the value of these policies by companies for each year since 1979. [17473]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  This information is not held centrally.

  Self-employment
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the piloting of a single form to give the self-employed a single notification point along the lines announced in the Government's response to the first annual report of the deregulation task force. [15678]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 20 February 1996]: The pilot of the single form to give the self-employed a single notification point for tax, national insurance contributions and VAT commenced in October 1995. The form is available from tax, social security, VAT and business link offices in the pilot area in the north of England. The pilot, which has been well received, is due to run until March 1996. The intention is then to extend the use of the form to the rest of the country. In developing the national version of the pilot, the Inland Revenue has been guided by comments from consultation with customers.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16572]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in my Departments, 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 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 Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [16547]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: 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 he considers to be relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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 the letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16629]
  489
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  (holding answer 22 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the President of the Board of Trade on 22 February, columns 251–52.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what hour and minute of which day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16491]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: At about 6 pm on Friday 9 February.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he first saw the report of the Scott Inquiry. [16581]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: On 10 February, at about 10 am.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Badgers (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of the badger TB programme in each area in each of the last five years. [16242]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the approximate cost of employing staff to undertake badger investigations following TB breakdowns in cattle in England for each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  1991–92: £466,707

  1992–93: £588,328

  1993–94: £792,898

  1994–95: £1,202,448

  1995–96: £1,212,137—estimate

  In addition, considerable resources have been allocated to research into the problem of TB in badgers and cattle. It is estimated that the Department will spend £1.48 million in the current financial year.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of administration of the blood test scheme which identifies TB in badgers since its introduction. [16243]

  Mrs. Browning
  The cost of using the recently developed live test for TB in badgers, from its introduction in November 1994 to date, has been approximately £536,324.

  Food (Peanut Content)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the peanut content of food is listed on the packaging; and if he will make a statement. [16302]
  490
  Mrs. Browning
  The European Community's Scientific Committee for Food has recently reported on the subject of food intolerance. We expect the EC Commission to pursue revised labelling rules on the basis of this scientific opinion.

  In the meantime, following discussions between my officials and industry and consumer representatives, there is an increased awareness of nut allergy within the industry. Many manufacturers are now voluntarily labelling the presence of nuts on their labels and some have considered the reformulation of their products.

  Licensed Meat Wholesalers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licensed meat wholesale premises there were in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland at the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [16510]

  Mrs. Browning
  The tables set out the number of wholesale premises licensed at the end of 1995 under (i) the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, (ii) the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 and (iii) the Wild Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995:

  (i) The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995

  Type of premises

  Wales

  England

  Scotland

  Slaughterhouses

  36

  402

  48

  Cutting Plants

  25

  357

  41

  Cold Stores

  18

  242

  44

  Farmed Game Handling/Processing Facilities

  6

  57

  7

  (ii) The Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995

  Type of premises

  Wales

  England

  Scotland

  Slaughterhouses

  11

  144

  8

  Cutting Plants

  7

  68

  1

  Cold Stores

  1

  4

  —

  Re-wrapping Centres

  —

  1

  1

  (iii) The Wild Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995

  Type of premises

  Wales

  England

  Scotland

  Wild Game Processing Facilities

  —

  16

  13

  Fish Discards
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the discarding of fish; and if he will make a statement. [16720]
  491
  Mr. Baldry
  At the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 21 to 22 December 1995, we discussed the implementation of technical conservation measures under the common fisheries policy. I led the way in pressing the case for improvements to be made to help reduce discards and conserve stocks, and it was agreed that the Commission should present new proposals by 1 June 1996. The Council undertook to reach a decision on these proposals before the end of 1996.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure of his Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16779]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is not held centrally. Details of national expenditure broken down into 81 programmes are available from the MAFF/IB annual departmental report. The 1995 edition (CM 2803), available from the House of Commons Library, contains estimated outturn figures for 1994–95. The next edition of this report is due to be published on 25 March 1966 as part of a series, accompanied by a statistical supplement, which present the Government's expenditure plans for 1996–97 to 1998–99.

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for a prior options review of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany. [16973]

  Mr. Boswell
  None. Discussions are taking place with the National Institute of Agricultural Botany with a view to placing it unequivocally in the private sector.

  Sheep Producers (Aid Packages)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to press the European Union for similar aid packages for United Kingdom sheep producers to those recently awarded to the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [17780]

  Mrs. Browning
  No. As yet, no aid package has been awarded to the Republic of Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister made it clear at the Agriculture Council last December that we saw no justification for the special treatment which Ireland was seeking: responding to a weak market situation by granting special aid gives the wrong signals to producers.

  The statement agreed at that meeting of the Council makes it clear that the extension of the less favoured areas supplement to the whole of Ireland—that is, including Northern Ireland—will be proposed by the Commission only if there are sufficient funds in the budget to accommodate the resultant payments.

  Given the close relationship between sheepmeat production in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic, it is right that any special aid granted to producers in the republic should be available also to those in Northern Ireland.

  Lame Sheep
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the number and percentage of lame sheep in the national flock; [16337]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the results of the recent survey by his Department into lameness in sheep; and what action he intends to take to attempt to reduce the number of lame sheep in the national flock; [16338]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: The Government are concerned that sheep lameness is a significant problem both for welfare and economic reasons. We are currently running an advisory campaign and, following recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of sheep, propose to amend the welfare code for sheep to emphasise the importance of appropriate prevention and treatment.

  We have, in addition, been funding the Royal Veterinary college to carry out a study into ovine lameness. The first part of the study, a survey of a random sample of sheep holdings, found a reported incidence of lameness of about 8 per cent. in 1993–94. This is now being followed up by on-farm investigations into the different causes of lameness with a view to developing improved methods of control.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what hour and minute of what day the report of the Scott Inquiry was delivered to his office. [16540]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: My copy of the Scott report was collected from the House at 3.30 pm on Thursday 15 February and delivered promptly to my office.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [16523]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: No member of my Department saw a copy of the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry. [16594]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: I first saw a copy of the report of the Scott inquiry after its publication.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16483]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17304]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The Government are considering what further measures may need to be taken in the light of this and other findings of the Scott report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Health Care)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to prevent discrimination against prisoners with specific health problems. [16695]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about steps taken to prevent discrimination against prisoners with specific health problems.
  The Prison Service is conscious of the need to prevent discrimination against prisoners with specific health problems. For this reason, all notes pertaining to a prisoner's health are contained in the Inmate Medical Record (IMR). This record is kept under conditions of medical confidentiality and details of an inmate's health status are not normally made known to anyone outside the care team. (There are special exceptions such as reports to Court).
  Medical officers and nurses working in the Prison Service adhere to professional codes of conduct and health care officers who are not nurses work under the supervision of the Medical Officer and are covered by that professional Code of Conduct in relation to issues of confidentiality.
  Induction training for medical officers, for nurses and health care officers emphasises the need for medical confidentiality to be maintained. HIV training for prison staff, health care staff, counsellors and prison psychologists stresses the importance of medical confidentiality.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regular medical checks prisoners in prisons in England and Wales receive; and what systematic checks are carried out for transmissible diseases. [16701]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners' medical checks and what systematic checks are carried out for transmissible diseases.
  All persons receive a medical screening on first reception into custody. A health check is also made at each transfer between establishment, and also each time a prisoner returns from court in the case of remand prisoners.
  494
  There are no other systematic checks, but prisoners are encouraged to discuss their health care with staff. Prisoners receive advice and are counselled concerning testing for transmissible disease. At reception Hepatitis B vaccine is offered and all health screening includes questions about transmissible disease.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific provisions are made for those prisoners known to be terminally ill. [16694]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about provisions for terminally ill prisoners.
  All prisoners receive medical treatment appropriate to their needs. Prisoners who are suffering from a terminal illness and who are expected to die before the end of their prison sentence may be released on compassionate grounds. Needs vary between individuals, and the responsible Medical Officer will make recommendations appropriate to the needs of the individual case, bearing in mind security issues and the need to protect the public.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the total annual budget for prisons in England and Wales is designated for health care. [16696]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the percentage of the total annual budget for prisons which is designated for health care.
  At individual prison establishments it is for the governor to decide what proportion of his budget should be allocated to health care. having regard to the overall demands to be met. In 1994–95 spending on health care services accounted for £59 million—3.7 per cent. of the Service's total expenditure. This covered staffing costs and provision of patient care at establishments as well as the central Directorate of Health Care budget.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies the Prison Service has concerning the prevention of transmissible or contagious diseases(a) in general and (b) in respect of particular outbreaks. [16684]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service policy on prevention of transmissible or contagious diseases.
  The Prison Service policy on the prevention of transmissible or contagious diseases in general is to screen for transmissible diseases on reception into prison. Health checks are also provided on transfer to another establishment and in the case of remand prisoners, on return from Court.

  495
  In the case of testing for infection, testing is only carried out with the informed consent of the prisoner, which means that pre-test counselling is made available. This is the policy in the community and is reflected in Prison Service policy and practice.
  In the case of Hepatitis B, immunisation is offered to inmates on reception.
  The policy is to maintain medical confidentiality in respect of a prisoner's health status.
  All outbreaks of notifiable transmissible diseases are reported to the Consultant in Communicable Disease Control. His/her advice in the management of outbreaks is mandatory.
  Each prison is required to have contingency plans for the outbreak of food poisoning or other communicable diseases and these contingency plans must be approved by the Consultant in Communicable Disease Control.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is available to prisoners for therapeutic and psychological follow-up in the case of positive results in tests for transmissible diseases. [16704]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what provision is available to prisoners for therapeutic and psychological follow-up in the case of positive results in tests for transmissible diseases.
  There is training for medical officers, prison psychologists, HIV counsellors and health care workers to enable them to provide medical, psychological and social care to people who test positive to HIV infection.
  The skills and techniques of counselling for HIV infection are directly relevant to the psychological and therapeutic follow-up for other transmissible diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and tuberculosis. The multi-disciplinary HIV teams and counsellors are now receiving training which orientates them not just to HIV but for all communicable diseases.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in prisons in England and Wales are currently known to be terminally ill; and what information is available as to the nature of the terminal illness. [16693]

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

  Letter front Richard Tilt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about terminally ill prisoners in England and Wales.
  Information on the causes and total numbers of inmates who currently have terminal illnesses is not available centrally. However, health care advisors suggest that they average between 20 and 30 in the service at any one time.

  Crime and Unemployment
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the research projects undertaken or commissioned by his Department in each of the past 10 years which included discussion of possible relationships between levels of crime and unemployment; and if he will make a statement. [16405]
  496
  Mr. Maclean
  There have been four projects of this description.

  These are:

  Field, S. (1990). "Trends in Crime and their Interpretation" Home Office Research Study No. 119.

  Leitner, M., Shapland, J. and Wiles, P. (1993) "Drugs Usage and Drugs Prevention; The Views and Habits of the General Public" HMSO.

  Orme, J. (1994) "A Study of the Relationship between Unemployment and Recorded Crime" Home Office Statistical Findings 1/94.

  Graham, J. and Bowling, B. (1995) "Young People and Crime" Home Office Research Study No. 145.

  Children's Evidence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if children can give evidence through video links to the court in all cases that involve child sex abuse in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [16324]

  Mr. Maclean
  All children in cases of this kind may, with the leave of the court, give evidence by means of a live television link to the court or by means of a video recording of their evidence-in-chief. If a case of this kind arises at a court which does not have the necessary facilities, it can be transferred to one which does.

  Police Objectives (Drug Crime)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations he has received on the content of the Government's five key objectives for police forces for 1996–97; how many of those representations refer to combating drugs criminality; and if he will make a statement; [16506]

  (2) how many representations he has received on his Department's designation of drugs criminality in the target and prevent crime category of the Government objectives for police forces; and if he will make a statement. [16507]

  Mr. Maclean
  In determining the key objectives for policing for 1996–97, my right hon. and learned Friend took account of the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the local authority associations, and colleagues. Three other proposals for additional key objectives were made. None of them related to drugs.

  Police Station Closures
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations were closed, by constabulary, during(a) 1980 to 1985, (b) 1985 to 1990 and (c) 1990 to 1995. [16613]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines exist to assist officials in the immigration and nationality department in dealing with correspondence with hon. Members. [17062]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Staff in the immigration and nationality department receive training and have instructions on the handling of correspondence from Members of Parliament. There are also published guidelines to assist Members of Parliament making representations in immigration cases, which were most recently updated in April 1994.

  Immigration Applications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 486, when his Department stopped obtaining the figures for refusal of extension of exceptional leave to remain as quoted in his answer of 10 May 1994, Official Report, column 74; and for what reasons. [16947]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The precise information requested in the hon. Member's previous question has never been available. The answer given on 10 May 1994,Official Report, column 74, was based on the available information, which now broadly indicates that in 1994 and 1995 no more than some 30 persons in either year were refused an extension of exceptional leave to remain.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16824]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Publication of annual reports:

  Alcohol Education and Research Council (statutory)

  Commission for Racial Equality (statutory)

  Community Development Foundation (voluntary)

  Data Protection Registrar (statutory)

  Gaming Board for Great Britain (statutory)

  Horserace Betting Levy Board (statutory)

  Horserace Totalisator Board (statutory)

  National Lottery Charities Board (statutory)

  Police Complaints Authority (statutory)

  (b)Publication of annual reports:

  Alcohol Education and Research Council (statutory)

  Commission for Racial Equality (statutory)

  Community Development Foundation (voluntary)

  Data Protection Registrar (statutory)

  Gaming Board for Great Britain (voluntary)

  Horserace Betting Levy Board (statutory)

  Horserace Totalisator Board (statutory)

  National Lottery Charities Board (statutory)

  Police Complaints Authority (statutory)

  498
  (c)Publication of the minutes of meetings:

  Community Development Foundation (voluntary)

  In addition, the Commission for Racial Equality keeps copies of the Commissioners' monthly meetings, which are available to the public.

  (d) Publication of the agendas of meetings:

  Community Development Foundation (voluntary)

  In addition, the Commission for Racial Equality keeps copies of the Commissioners' monthly meetings, which are available to the public.

  (e) Publication of registers of members' interests:

  The Commission for Racial Equality has a register of members interests which is available to the public. In addition, to-date, details of members' interests have sometimes been given in non-departmental public bodies' annual reports. Future arrangements for all Home Office sponsored executive NDPBs are under review, including the possibility of publishing registers of members' interests.

  Kani Yilmaz
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide an answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich in his letters of 18 December 1995 and 22 February 1996 regarding Kani Yilmaz; and if he will make a statement. [17750]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter of 18 December 1995 on 21 February 1996. I shall be replying to his letter of 22 February shortly.

  Commercial Gambling (Advertising)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be issuing the consultation paper on relaxation of the restrictions on casinos, bingo clubs and advertising of commercial gambling. [18215]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have published today a consultation paper which constitutes a comprehensive review of the law on casinos, licensed bingo clubs and the advertising of commercial gambling, and which restates principles for the regulation of gambling. It proposes a number of relaxations in the law.

  Subject to this consultation, we propose to bring forward orders under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to implement the changes. The paper constitutes formal consultation on some of the proposals for the purpose of section 3(1) of the 1994 Act. Other proposals will need to be the subject of further detailed consultation before implementation. Comments on the proposals are requested by the end of May 1996.

  The main proposals on casinos are as follows:

  Secondary legislation to allow casinos in 13 new locations. The additional areas proposed are:

  Croydon

  Dartford

  Gloucester

  Folkestone

  Hastings

  Ipswich

  Morecambe

  Oxford

  Peterborough

  499

  Redbridge

  Slough

  Swindon

  Weymouth

  A reduction in the 48-hour waiting time for membership of a casino to 24 hours, together with provision for postal applications and group membership.

  A new regime for gaming machines. with increased numbers and higher stakes and pay-outs.

  An extension to liquor licensing hours.

  Advertising of the location of casinos in directories and guides.

  Payment by debit card.

  The proposals on bingo are:

  An end to the requirement that bingo establishments operate as members' clubs with a 24-hour waiting period for membership.

  Abolition of the demand criterion for the granting of licences.

  Removal of restrictions on added prize money and on frequency and prizes in multiple bingo—the national game.

  Payment by debit card.

  Extension of bingo licences from one year to three years.

  Removal of the remaining restrictions on print advertising.

  The Government are minded to allow broadcast advertising of bingo subject to the response to the consultation document.

  The document also proposes the removal of the ban on the on-site print advertising of gaming machines and the print advertising, but not broadcast advertising, of betting offices.

  These measures represent a balanced package of reform which aims to provide new opportunities for the industry and the consumer, while maintaining the effective regulation of gaming.

  The timetable for the implementation of changes arising from this document will depend on a number of factors including the response to the consultation and the availability of additional resources for the Gaming Board of Great Britain and the courts.

  Pet Animals Protection
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy of the United Kingdom in respect of accession to the European convention on the protection of pet animals. [18216]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government remain firmly committed to adopting reasonable measures to improve the treatment of animals, but are not at present convinced that accession to the pet animals convention would add significantly to the protection which domestic animals already enjoy under existing United Kingdom law. The Government will review the position again at the end of the decade.

  Prisoners (Non-English Speakers)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy regarding the conduct of social visits for persons held in Her Majesty's prisons who do not speak English; and if he will make a statement on the matters raised by the hon. Member in his letter dated 14 February. [16649]
  500
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 22 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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Homes Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about prisoners' visits.
  Generally, prisoners and their visitors may conduct their conversations in the language of their choice. The exceptions and where conversations need to be overhead for reasons of prison security or control, or because there is reason to believe that the prisoner and visitor may discuss matters relevant to national security, public safety of the commission of crime. In these situations governors may require that the conversation is monitored and interpreted.
  Further details of Prison Service policy on the conduct of visits to prisoners are set out in the Security Manual, Standing Order 5, and Circular Instruction 11/1991, copies of which are in the Library.
  Your letter of 14 February to the Home Secretary, was passed to the Director General because it concerned a number of operational matters and he will reply to you shortly.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Pakistan nationals who entered the United Kingdom via Malaysia have applied for asylum(a) on entry and (b) after entry in each of the last five years; how many applications have been (i) granted and (ii) refused; on how many applications a decision is pending; how many have been (1) upheld and (2) dismissed at appeal; and in respect of how many an appeal is awaited. [17334]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Information regarding the number of asylum seekers who have travelled through other countries before arriving in the United Kingdom is not held centrally. A breakdown of applications, initial decisions or appeals for such cases is, therefore, not available.

  General information on asylum applications from nationals of Pakistan, including a breakdown of appeal determinations in 1994. can be found in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Prisons (Staff)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount spent on wages per member of staff in each prison for the first six months of the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [16675]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 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.
  501
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 27 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to answer your recent Question about the average amount spent on wages per member of staff in each prison for the first six months of the current financial year.

  Pay as at 30 September 1995 Directorate of Operations (South)

  Area

  Establishment

  Expenditure to end September

  SLP as at 30 September

  Average

  East Anglia

  3511

  Blundeston

  2,854,718

  267

  10,692

  3516

  Bullwood Hall

  1,380,416

  136

  10,150

  3522

  Chelmsford

  3,219,834

  329

  9,787

  3551

  Highpoint

  3,689,380

  355

  10,393

  3553

  Hollesley Bay

  3,444,989

  322

  10,699

  3580

  Norwich

  4,113,756

  375

  10,970

  3624

  Wayland

  2,789,256

  265

  10,525

  Kent

  3501

  Aldington

  789,877

  75

  10,532

  3510

  Blantyre House

  774,475

  70

  11,064

  3519

  Canterbury

  2,556,880

  227

  11,264

  3524

  Cookham Wood

  1,052,360

  101

  10,419

  3528

  Dover

  2,207,833

  203

  10,876

  3531

  East Sutton Park

  559,208

  54

  10,356

  3648

  Elmley

  4,239,336

  412

  10,290

  3571

  Maidstone

  3,786,088

  344.3

  10,996

  3592

  Rochester

  3,008,169

  276

  10,899

  3598

  Standford Hill

  1,811,096

  174

  10,409

  3633

  Swaleside

  3,762,555

  363

  10,365

  London North

  3508

  Bedford

  2,956,981

  263

  11,243

  3545

  Grendon

  3,201,251

  280

  11,433

  3554

  Holloway

  5,786,817

  491

  11,786

  3542

  Littlehey

  2,995,266

  275

  10,892

  3585

  Pentonville

  6,369,731

  525

  12,133

  3609

  Wellingborough

  2,126,341

  198.9

  10,691

  3574

  Whitemoor

  7,423,414

  697

  10,651

  3621

  Woodhill

  5,105,846

  506.8

  10,075

  3614

  Wormwood Scrubs

  8,095,596

  625

  12,953

  London South

  3502

  Albany

  3,386,094

  306

  11,066

  3630

  Belmarsh

  8,583,014

  813

  10,557

  3513

  Brixton

  7,675,556

  631

  12,164

  3517

  Camp Hill

  3,025,770

  279

  10,845

  3537

  Feltham

  6,016,547

  514

  11,705

  3561

  Latchmere House

  796,910

  72

  11,068

  3584

  Parkhurst

  6,075,247

  539

  11,271

  3608

  Wandsworth

  8,607,791

  726.5

  11,848

  South Coast

  3643

  Downview

  2,011,823

  188

  10,701

  3538

  Ford

  1,901,258

  173.5

  10,958

  3547

  Haslar

  940,292

  83

  11,329

  3646

  High Down

  4,474,549

  422

  10,603

  3557

  Kingston

  1,390,006

  123

  11,301

  3564

  Lewes

  3,392,560

  301

  11,271

  3594

  Send

  893,314

  86

  10,387

  3613

  Winchester

  4,629,803

  412.5

  11,224

  Chilterns

  3507

  Aylesbury

  2,782,890

  262

  10,622

  3623

  Bullingdon

  5,000,019

  425

  111,765

  3523

  Coldingley

  2,133,451

  191

  11,170

  3556

  Huntercombe

  1,910,954

  181

  10,558

  3622

  The Mount

  2,530,561

  247

  10,245

  3582

  Onley

  2,927,243

  270

  10,842

  3583

  Oxford

  52,256

  61

  1857

  3590

  Reading

  1,971,640

  183

  10,774

  502
  The information requested is not available centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  The attached table sets out the expenditure for the first six months of the year at each prison; the staff in post at the end of that six months; and expenditure per staff in post at the end of the period.
  503

  Pay as at 30 September 1995 Directorate of Operations (South)

  Area

  Establishment

  Expenditure to end September

  SLP as at 30 September

  Average

  Wales and West

  3512

  Bristol

  5,221,442

  499

  10,464

  3520

  Cardiff

  4,002,878

  370

  10,819

  3532

  Eastwood Park

  97,365

  9

  10,818

  3533

  Erlestoke

  1,990,80

  191

  10,423

  3544

  Gloucester

  2,390,545

  223

  10,720

  3565

  Leyhill

  1,967,56

  178

  11,054

  3588

  Pucklechurch

  1,031,455

  96

  10,744

  3602

  Swansea

  2,327,223

  209

  11,135

  3605

  Usk

  1,961,303

  184

  10,659

  Wessex

  3521

  Channings Wood

  2,881,105

  268

  10,750

  3525

  Dartmoor

  4,178,642

  374

  11,173

  3527

  Dorchester

  1,602,576

  144

  11,129

  3535

  Exeter

  3,584,262

  326

  10,995

  3546

  Guys Marsh

  1,927,219

  182

  10,589

  3586

  Portland

  3,108,216

  293

  10,608

  3595

  Shepton Mallet

  1,495,209

  137

  10,914

  3606

  The Verne

  3,012,523

  281

  10,721

  1Shared staff with Bullingdon.

  Pay as at 30 September 1995 Directorate of Operations (North)

  Establishment

  Expenditure to end September

  SIP as at 30 September

  Cost per member of staff

  East Midlands

  Lincoln

  4,346,630

  393

  11,060

  Lindholme

  3,909,398

  358.5

  10,905

  Moorland

  4,122,807

  371.5

  11,098

  Morton Hall

  762,121

  74.25

  10,264

  North Sea Camp

  1,011,080

  103.5

  9,769

  Nottingham

  2,214,551

  199.8

  11,084

  Ranby

  2,369,742

  221

  10,723

  Stocken

  2,309,203

  215

  10,740

  Whatton

  1,400,304

  130.9

  10,697

  North-east

  Acklington

  3,325,093

  341

  9,751

  Castington

  2,138,298

  190

  11,254

  Durham

  6,011,175

  568.5

  10,574

  Frankland

  6,232,569

  568.5

  10,963

  Full Sutton

  7,652,947

  711.5

  10,756

  Holme House

  4,552,547

  449

  10,139

  Kirklevington

  860,880

  68.8

  12,513

  Low Newton

  1,978,309

  185.1

  10,688

  North-west

  Garth

  3,828,877

  364.5

  10,504

  Haverigg

  2,669,824

  261.8

  10,198

  Hindley

  2,956,365

  280.03

  10,557

  Kirkham

  2,163,519

  210.96

  10,256

  Lancaster Castle

  1,526,074

  146

  10,452

  Lancaster Farms

  2,955,215

  285

  10,369

  Preston

  4,610,371

  398.5

  11,569

  Thorn Cross

  1,577,989

  152.5

  10,216

  Wymott

  3.404,808

  309.5

  11,001

  Trans Pennine

  Leeds

  7,838,108

  698.5

  11,221

  Liverpool

  8,894,451

  778

  11,432

  Manchester

  8,149,425

  770.5

  10,577

  New Hall

  2,048,420

  187.3

  10,936

  Risley

  6,000,714

  551.5

  10,881

  Styal

  2,305,032

  229

  10,065

  Wakefield

  6,970,868

  609

  11,446

  504 505

  Pay as at 30 September 1995 Directorate of Operations (North)

  Establishment

  Expenditure to end September

  SIP as at 30 September

  Cost per member of staff

  Yorkshire

  Askham Grange

  821,326

  77.5

  10,598

  Deerbolt

  3,000,859

  276

  10,872

  Everthorpe

  2,295,073

  226.4

  10,137

  Hatfield

  1,393,334

  132.4

  10,524

  Hull

  4,627,270

  425.85

  10,866

  Northallerton

  1,750,228

  168.75

  10,372

  Wealstun

  2,743,146

  250

  10,972

  Wetherby

  1,410,398

  131.88

  10,694

  Central

  Ashwell

  2,002,289

  182

  11,002

  Birmingham

  6,635,518

  605.5

  10,959

  Brinsford

  3,640,163

  338.5

  10,754

  Featherstone

  3,389,342

  288

  11,768

  Gartree

  3,060,016

  288

  10,625

  Glen Parva

  5,349,035

  479.75

  11,150

  Leicester

  3,415,367

  307.5

  11,107

  Long Lartin

  5,746,105

  551

  10,428

  Stafford

  3,859,104

  341.17

  11,311

  Mercia

  Brockhill

  1,228,028

  109.5

  11,215

  Drake Hall

  1,405,874

  134.1

  10,484

  Hewell Grange

  855,957

  86.5

  9,895

  Shrewsbury

  2,369,175

  210

  11,282

  Stoke Heath

  2,386,464

  232.5

  10,264

  Sudbury/Foston

  2,053,136

  197

  10,422

  Swinfen Hall

  1,751,583

  161.5

  10,846

  Werrington

  895,703

  88

  10,179

  Prison Inspections
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of inspections carried out in each of her Majesty's prisons for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [16661]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Since January 1990, Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons has carried out 245 inspections in the 131 Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, an average of nearly two inspections per establishment.

  The total number of inspections undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons in each year is as follows:

  1990–91: 56 (from 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1991)

  1991–92: 44

  1992–93: 42

  1993–94: 40

  1994–95: 33

  1995–96: 30 (from April 1995 to date)

  Parental Control (Fines)
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parents of children convicted of an offence have been required to pay a fine in respect of refusal to comply with the court's decision to bind them over to take proper care of and exercise proper control over their child in the last 12 months. [16345]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Section 58(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 gives courts the power to fine a parent or guardian in respect of
  506
  a refusal to comply with the court's decision to bind them over to take proper care of and exercise proper control over their child. Information on the number of such fines is not separately identifiable centrally.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total annual budget, for each of the last 10 years, allocated for the inspection of Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a statement. [16662]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Information on the total annual budget allocated for the inspection of Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales is not available before 1991–92. The total annual budget for each of the last five years was:

  Year

  Budget £

  1991–92

  568,159

  1992–93

  664,506

  1993–94

  726,344

  1994–95

  665,220

  1995–96

  737,000

  Police (Bicycle Seizures)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued on the use of police powers to seize and retain bicycles used in demonstrations; and in what circumstances the police are entitled to take such action. [16792]
  507
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: There are no specific police powers of this kind and therefore no such guidance has been issued. The role of the police in controlling demonstrations is to preserve the peace, to uphold the law and to prevent the commission of offences. Police tactics and decisions on how to achieve these objectives are a matter for the independent operational judgment of chief officers of police.

  Crime (Retail Premises)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many retail premise burglaries in Coventry in each of the last five years resulted in convictions; [17019]

  (2) if he will estimate the total cost to retailers in Coventry of robberies and till snatches in each of the last five years; what are the figures in real terms; and what was the percentage change from the previous year; [17021]

  (3) how many robberies and till snatches there were in retail premises in Coventry in each of the last five years; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case; [17020]

  (4) how many retail premises were burgled in Coventry in each of the last five years; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case. [17018]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 26 February 1996]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the conviction rate for retail store robbery and till snatches in Coventry in each of the last five years. [17023]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Information which is readily available centrally is given in the table. Data for 1995 will be available in the autumn.

  Prosecutions and convictions1 in Coventry petty sessional division for theft from shops,2 for the period 1990 to 1994

  Number of defendants

  Prosecutions

  Convictions1

  1990

  585

  484

  1991

  493

  408

  1992

  491

  382

  1993

  468

  377

  1994

  428

  377

  1 Includes persons convicted at the Crown court, who were committed for trial/sentence by Coventry PSD.

  2 Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with the President of the Board of Trade with respect to retail crime; what plans he has to combat retail crime; and if he will make a statement; [17024]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likelihood of retail premises being burgled in (a) Coventry and (b) England and Wales. [17022]
  508
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 26 February 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have both contributed to the third White Paper on competitiveness, which will emphasise the importance of crime prevention.

  Work to combat retail crime is being energetically pursued by the retail action group, an associate group of the Home Office Crime Prevention Agency Board. Advice booklets for retailers on preventing burglary, robber and violence to staff have already been published. Further guidance on the prevention of customer theft and external fraud and on making an arrest will be published later this year. The group is also looking at ways of identifying and promulgating best practice, including the use of technology in crime prevention.

  Closed circuit television can make a significant contribution to reducing crime against retail premises, especially when it forms part of a package of crime prevention measures. The Home Office has provided advice to users in recently published guidance; and has helped promote its use through last year's CCTV challenge competition in which the majority of successful bids were from partnerships who wished to install security cameras in shopping centres and high streets in town centres around the country. My right hon. and learned Friend has announced that £15 million will be available in 1996 for a further CCTV challenge competition and it is likely that shopping areas will again be major beneficiaries.

  Numerous projects are also being carried forward by police forces, local partnerships, businesses and shop watch schemes. Some have been funded under the safer cities programme. Police crime prevention officers supply regular and up to date crime prevention advice to businesses, and architectural liaison officers provide advice on the part that good building design can play in preventing crime.

  The Home Office conducted a survey in 1994 to assess the risks of crime for retailers in England and Wales, including the risks of burglary. The results are reported in Home Office research study No. 146 and Home Office research and statistics directorate research findings No. 26, copies of which are in the Library. The survey does not allow any reliable results for retailers in Coventry.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 February to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, column 107, if he will place in the Library a copy of the study of sentences given to those convicted of burglary and drug dealing and copies of similar studies he had commissioned or evaluated. [17009]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: A study of a sample of offenders convicted in 1993 is contained in chapter 9 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1994", a copy of which is in the Library. A special statistical analysis was required to provide the hon. Member with the information requested in the previous questions.
  509
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average sentence given to adults upon their(a) first, (b) second and (c) third or greater number of convictions for (i) domestic burglary and (ii) drug dealing. [17010]

  Sentencing of domestic burglars and drug dealers1 aged 21 or over by number of previous convictions

  Offence

  1st conviction

  2nd conviction

  3rd or greater conviction

  Percentage given immediate custody

  Average custodial sentence (months)

  Percentage given immediate custody

  Average custodial sentence (months)

  Percentage given immediate custody

  Average custodial sentence (months)

  Domestic burglary

  39

  15

  51

  15

  57

  15

  Drug dealing

  55

  32

  61

  25

  75

  30

  1 Based on drug trafficking offences monitored and reported in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of Drugs Seizures and Offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1994". These are offences of unlawful production of drugs other than cannabis, unlawful supply, possession with intent to supply unlawfully and unlawful import or export.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests: in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16888]

  Mr. Willetts
  Staff in the Departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, and in other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office vote, are required to declare any business interests which might conflict with their official duties and to comply with any subsequent instructions regarding the retention, disposal and management of such interests. Records are kept at operational level. I have no plans to publish the names of those concerned or to establish a central register.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS, indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17448]

  Mr. Willetts
  There are none.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to increase understanding overseas of the workings of the citizens charter. [15547]

  Mr. Willetts
  UK success in public sector reform is recognised internationally. In particular, the citizens charter is an idea that has been adopted, and adapted, in many countries. Australia, Canada, USA, France. Belgium, Portugal. Spain, Israel, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore all have programmes which resemble in substance, though not always in name, the citizens charter initiative.

  Interests is still growing as more and more countries, like Argentina, Hungary, South Africa and Kuwait, seek our advice as they develop their own programmes. On current plans, over the next four months, officials will
  510
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The information requested is not collected routinely. The results from a sample of those convicted of indictable offences in three weeks of 1993 are given in the table.

  be providing briefings to representatives of 10 different countries, and will be speaking at four international conferences.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16815]

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

SCOTLAND

  Algrade Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the police investigation of property acquisitions by the Algrade Trust. [15549]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The police are inquiring into the circumstances surrounding the making of a will. The general heritable property acquisitions of the former trustees are being examined by the Scottish Charities Office in the course of its investigation into the financial affairs of the Algrade Trust.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Scottish Charities Office to complete its investigation of the affairs of the Algrade Trust; and if he will make a statement. [15550]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The investigation is making good progress. The intervention of the Scottish Charities Office has brought about the resignations of the former trustees and their replacement by the present trustees who have backgrounds in teaching, accountancy and medicine. The new trustees are responsible for the management of the Algrade Trust. The issues giving rise to the past concerns about Algrade developed over the many years during which the former trustees had charge of the administration under the supervision and registration of the local social work department. Some
  511
  new matters have emerged in the course of the investigation and further work requires to be done on points arising from the accountancy report and into aspects of the property transactions. The investigation is not likely to be concluded before the end of June of this year.

  Court Service
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many summary trials there were in the sheriff court during 1995; and if he will indicate the total number of adjournments of summary trials in the sheriff court, the reason for these adjournments and if they were at the instance of the prosecution or the defence. [15861]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is held by the Scottish Court Service and I have asked the chief executive to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Michael Ewart to Mr. John McFall, dated 27 February 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about Sheriff Court trials and adjournments during 1995.
  The figures you seek are as follows:
  1. During the period 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1995 there were 59,299 diets of trial called which involved 43,552 summary cases.
  2. Of the 59,299 diets, 15,747 were adjourned trial diets. The reasons recorded for these adjournments were:

  Reason

  Number of adjournments

  (a) Availability/absence of Crown witness

  3,207

  (b) Lack of Court time

  2,835

  (c) Lateness of the hour/completion of evidence

  1,158

  (d) Availability/absence of Defence witness

  1,155

  (e) Inadequate time to prepare for trial

  1,016

  (f) Adjourned to notional trail diet

  945

  (g) Miscellaneous1

  5,431

  15,745

  1Miscellaneous includes a variety of causes each of which occurs relatively infrequently, including the absence of a defence agent, Procurator Fiscal or Sheriff due to ill heath, change of defence agent, difficulties with productions, adverse weather conditions and for further investigation.

  These figures do not include adjournments for reasons stated after the conclusion of a trail, for example, in those cases where the Sheriff defers sentence for the accused to demonstrate good behaviour.

  School

  Number of pupils covered by scheme 1995–96

  Total roll 1995–96

  Proportion of total roll covered by scheme 1995–96 (spring term) (Percentage)

  Fees charged for assisted pupils 1995–96 (£ per annum)

  Fee remission grant allocation 1995–96 (£)

  Kilquhanity School

  12

  32

  37.50

  2,503

  30,000

  Keil School

  64

  210

  30.48

  3,909–4,614

  234,000

  Morrison's Academy

  133

  522

  25.48

  3,258–3,453

  395,000

  The Park School

  65

  259

  25.10

  3,432–3,822

  245,000

  Kilgraston School

  55

  241

  22.82

  3,840–4,287

  192,000

  512
  I am sorry that we do not hold centrally figures which show whether adjournments were at the instance of defence or prosecution.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total number of summary trials in the sheriff courts during 1995; [16732]

  (2) what was the total number of adjournments of summary trials in the sheriff courts and the reason for these adjournments during 1995; and whether they were at the instance of the prosecution or the defence. [16733]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by the chief executive of the Scottish Court Service.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many independent sector schools have(a) more than 25 per cent.; (b) more than 50 per cent.; and (c) less than 5 per cent. of their school rolls made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1995–96. [16328]

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

  School session

  1995–96

  Assisted pupils over 25 per cent. but not more than 50 per cent. of school roll

  4

  Assisted pupils more than 50 per cent. of school roll

  Nil

  Assisted pupils less than 5 per cent. of school roll

  9

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the financial year 1995–96 in descending order the proportions of the school rolls at independent schools made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme; what is the total number of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme at each school; what is the total number of pupils on the roll of each school; what proportion of the school roll at each school is covered by the assisted places scheme; what is the level of fees charged for pupils under the assisted place scheme at each school; and what are the amounts received by each school under the assisted places scheme. [16332]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested is detailed in the table. The assisted places scheme is administered, and statistical information collected, in respect of each school session and not by reference to financial years. The information provided relates to fee remission grant allocations for the 1995–96 school session and to pupil numbers in the schools at the spring term of that school session.
  513

  School

  Number of pupils covered by scheme 1995–96

  Total roll 1995–96

  Proportion of total roll covered by scheme 1995–96 (spring term) (Percentage)

  Fees charged for assisted pupils 1995–96 (£ per annum)

  Fee remission grant allocation 1995–96 (£)

  Rudolf Steiner School, Edinburgh

  54

  260

  20.77

  2,796–3,702

  183,000

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  27

  130

  20.77

  4,330

  125,000

  Laurel Bank School

  64

  335

  19.10

  3,492–4,131

  228,000

  Kelvinside Academy

  94

  520

  18.08

  3,414–4,259

  350,000

  High School of Dundee

  199

  1,126

  17.67

  2,608–3,716

  595,000

  Rannoch School

  39

  235

  16.60

  5,490

  173,000

  Merchiston Castle School

  65

  399

  16.29

  4,665–6,675

  327,000

  George Heriot's School

  244

  1,504

  16.22

  2,787–3,732

  680,000

  St. Aloysius College

  167

  1,088

  15.35

  3,068

  450,000

  Glenalmond College

  43

  291

  14.78

  5,858–7,802

  266,000

  Wellington School

  51

  360

  14.17

  4,068–4,419

  200,000

  George Watson's College

  246

  2,073

  11.87

  2,886–3,993

  775,000

  Lomond School

  54

  461

  11.71

  4,134–4,242

  194,000

  Stewart's Melville College and the Mary Erskine School

  300

  2,573

  11.66

  2,934–4,029

  975,000

  St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh

  72

  650

  11.08

  3,028–4,012

  268,000

  Croftinloan School

  8

  79

  10.13

  5,639

  35,000

  Craigholme School

  46

  477

  9.64

  3,213–3,429

  137,000

  St. Leonard's School

  31

  329

  9.42

  4,488–5,853

  157,000

  Fernhill School

  30

  345

  8.70

  2,735–2,851

  90,000

  Butterstone School

  5

  58

  8.62

  5,076

  26,000

  Hutchesons' Grammar School

  157

  1,866

  8.41

  3,491

  488,000

  Strathallan School

  41

  492

  8.33

  6,345–7,710

  299,000

  Glasgow Academy

  82

  989

  8.29

  3,850–4,134

  300,000

  Loretto School

  31

  378

  8.2

  5,759–7,451

  205,000

  Belmont House School

  30

  366

  8.20

  3,215–3,628

  101,000

  Fettes College

  39

  486

  8.02

  4,722–7,524

  220,000

  Aberlour School

  8

  107

  7.48

  4,923

  37,000

  Gordonstoun School

  30

  418

  7.18

  6,756

  171,000

  Edinburgh Academy

  56

  795

  7.04

  5,013–5,082

  245,000

  Dollar Academy

  76

  1,093

  6.95

  3,349–3,831

  228,000

  St. George's School

  55

  901

  6.10

  3,842–4,221

  184,000

  St. Columba's School

  32

  544

  5.88

  3,525–3,801

  115,000

  Clifton Hall School

  6

  103

  5.83

  4,965

  27,000

  Beaconhurst School

  15

  267

  5.62

  4,116–4,245

  50,000

  Albyn School

  24

  429

  5.59

  3,534–3,642

  73,000

  Park Lodge School

  3

  54

  5.56

  2,829

  10,000

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  5

  93

  5.38

  4,761

  18,000

  New Park School

  6

  114

  5.26

  4,071

  19,000

  Robert Gordon's College

  70

  1,354

  5.17

  3,654

  210,000

  High School of Glasgow

  51

  986

  5.17

  3,564–4,104

  144,000

  Belhaven Hill School

  3

  70

  4.29

  5,190

  13,000

  Lathallan School

  6

  146

  4.11

  4,760

  28,000

  St. Margaret's School, Aberdeen

  16

  420

  3.81

  3,141–3,454

  50,000

  Craigclowan School

  9

  240

  3.75

  3,600

  27,000

  Hamilton College

  24

  762

  3.15

  2,341

  47,000

  Ardvreck School

  3

  119

  2.52

  4,725

  23,000

  Cargilfield School

  3

  196

  1.53

  5,865

  23,000

  Drumley House

  1

  100

  1.00

  4,545

  5,000

  Cademuir International School

  0

  86

  —

  5,460

  5,000

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which independent sector schools charged(a) the highest and (b) the lowest level of fees to pupils covered by the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1995–96; and what charges were levied. [16330]

  Mr. Robertson
  The highest tuition fee charged to pupils covered by the assisted places scheme in academic year 1995–96 was at Glenalmond college at £7,802 per annum. The lowest fees were charged at Hamilton college—£2,341 per annum for pupils aged 12 to 18 years.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on the operation of the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1995–96; how many pupils are covered by the scheme in this period; what is the number of institutions 514
  covered by the scheme in this period; and what was the overspend on the budget allocated to the scheme in this period. [16329]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested is set out in the table. Expenditure on the assisted places scheme is cash limited each year and there have been no overspends on the budget allocated in any year since the scheme commenced.

  Assisted places scheme

  School session

  11995–96

  Total expenditure

  £10,941,700

  Pupils covered

  3,050

  Schools covered

  55

  1 Provisional.

  515
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each school covered by the assisted places scheme in descending order the amounts which the school received from the scheme for the academic year 1995–96; what is the number of pupils covered by the scheme in each school; what is the total number of pupils on the school's roll and the proportion

  School

  Fee remission grant allocation 1995–96 (£)

  Number of pupils covered by scheme 1995–96

  Total roll 1995–96

  Proportion of total roll covered by scheme 1995–96 (spring term) (Percentage)

  Fees charged for assisted pupils 1995–96 (£ per annum)

  Stewart's Melville College and the Mary Erskine School

  975,000

  300

  2,573

  11.66

  2,934–4,029

  George Watson's College

  775,000

  246

  2,073

  11.87

  2,886–3,993

  George Heriot's School

  680,000

  244

  1,504

  16.22

  2,787–3,732

  High School of Dundee

  595,000

  199

  1,126

  17.67

  2,608–3,716

  Hutchesons' Grammar School

  488,000

  157

  1,866

  8.41

  3,491

  St. Aloysius College

  450,000

  167

  1,088

  15.35

  3,068

  Morrison's Academy

  395,000

  133

  522

  25.48

  3,258–3,453

  Kelvinside Academy

  350,000

  94

  520

  18.08

  3,414–4,259

  Merchiston Castle School

  327,000

  65

  399

  16.29

  4,665–6,675

  Glasgow Academy

  300,000

  82

  989

  8.29

  3,850–4,134

  Strathallan School

  299,000

  41

  492

  8.33

  6,345–7,710

  St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh

  268,000

  72

  650

  11.08

  3,028–4,012

  Glenalmond College

  266,000

  43

  291

  14.78

  5,858–7,802

  Edinburgh Academy

  245,000

  56

  795

  7.04

  5,013–5.082

  The Park School

  245,000

  65

  259

  25.10

  3,432–3,822

  Keil School

  234,000

  64

  210

  30.48

  3,909–4,614

  Dollar Academy

  228,000

  76

  1,093

  6.95

  3,349–3,831

  Laurel Bank School

  228,000

  64

  335

  19.10

  3,492–4,131

  Fettes College

  220,000

  39

  486

  8.02

  4,722–7,524

  Robert Gordon's College

  210,000

  70

  1,354

  5.17

  3,654

  Loretto School

  205,000

  31

  378

  8.20

  5,759–7,451

  Wellington School

  200,000

  51

  360

  14.17

  4,068–4,419

  Lomond School

  194,000

  54

  461

  11.71

  4,134–4,242

  Kilgraston School

  192,000

  55

  241

  22.82

  3,840–4,287

  St. George's School

  184,000

  55

  901

  6.10

  3,842–4,221

  Rudolf Steiner School, Edinburgh

  183,000

  54

  260

  20.77

  2,796–3,702

  Rannoch School

  173,000

  39

  235

  16.60

  5,490

  Gordonstoun School

  171,000

  30

  418

  7.18

  6,756

  St. Leonard's School

  157,000

  31

  329

  9.42

  4,488–5,853

  High School of Glasgow

  144,000

  51

  986

  5.17

  3,564–4,104

  Craigholme School

  137,000

  46

  477

  9.64

  3,213–3,429

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  125,000

  27

  130

  20.77

  4,330

  St. Columba's School

  115,000

  32

  544

  5.88

  3,525–3,801

  Belmont House School

  101,000

  30

  366

  8.20

  3,215–3,628

  Fernhill School

  90,000

  30

  345

  8.70

  2,735–2,851

  Albyn School

  73

  24

  429

  5.59

  3,534–3,642

  Beaconhurst School

  50,000

  15

  267

  5.62

  4,116–4,245

  St. Margaret's School. Aberdeen

  50,000

  16

  420

  3.81

  3,141–3,454

  Hamilton College

  47,000

  24

  762

  3.15

  2,341

  Aberlour School

  37,000

  8

  107

  7.48

  4,923

  Croftinloan School

  35,000

  8

  79

  10.13

  5,639

  Kilquhanity School

  30,000

  12

  32

  37.50

  2,503

  Lathallan School

  28,000

  6

  146

  4.11

  4,760

  Clifton Hall School

  27,000

  6

  103

  5.83

  4,965

  Craigclowan School

  27,000

  9

  240

  3.75

  3,600

  Butterstone School

  26,000

  5

  58

  8.62

  5,076

  Ardvreck School

  23,000

  3

  119

  2.52

  4,725

  Cargilfield School

  23,000

  3

  196

  1.53

  5,865

  New Park School

  19,000

  6

  114

  5.26

  4,071

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  18,000

  5

  93

  5.38

  4,761

  Belhaven Hill School

  13,000

  3

  70

  4.29

  5,190

  Park Lodge School

  10,000

  3

  54

  5.56

  2,829

  Cademuir International School

  5,000

  0

  86

  —

  5,460

  Drumley House

  5,000

  1

  100

  1.00

  4,545

  516
  of the school's roll made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme: and what is the level of fees charged for pupils covered by the assisted places scheme at each school. [16331]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested is detailed in the table:

  Clinical Outcome Indicators
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) collecting the data for and (b) publishing the clinical outcome indicators for the national health service in Scotland released in February 1996. [16710]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no specific data collection costs attributable to the outcome indicators work. Routine returns are simply being examined in new ways. The cost of printing the report which is distributed free was approximately £3,000.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent figure available for the cost of providing an individual with an electrically powered indoor wheelchair. [17189]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average cost of providing an electrically powered indoor wheelchair is £1,000.

  The actual cost of supplying a wheelchair to an individual patient will vary according to the model provided and any modification necessary to meet a patient's needs.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been provided with electrically powered indoor wheelchairs by health boards in each of the last three years. [17197]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Information on the number of indoor powered chairs issued in the last three years is not held centrally. Details of the overall number purchased since 1992 are set out in the table.

  Year

  Indoor

  1992–94

  1497

  1994–95

  409

  1995–96

  287

  1 For the 24 month period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1994.

  2 For six months 1 April 1995 to 30 September 1995.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been provided with electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs by health boards in each of the last three years. [17195]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Information on the number of indoor/outdoor powered chairs issued in the last three years is not held centrally. Details of the overall number purchased since the provision of special funding in 1992 are set out in the table.

  Year

  Indoor/Outdoor

  1992–93

  313

  1993–94

  267

  1994–95

  286

  1995–96

  193

  1 For six months 1 April 1995 to 30 September 1995.

  518
  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by health boards for the purchase of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs in each of the last three years. [171892]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: In February 1992, special funding was made available in Scotland for the provision of patient-controlled electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. The allocation available to artificial limb and appliance centres for the provision of these chairs over the last three years is as detailed:

  1993–94: £900,000

  1994–95:£929,000

  1995–96: £946,000

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent figure available for the cost of providing an individual with an electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair. [17015]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The average cost of providing an electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair is £1,750.

  The actual cost of supplying a wheelchair to an individual patient will vary according to the model provided and any modification necessary to meet a patient's needs.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by health boards in Scotland for the purchase of electrically powered indoor wheelchairs in each of the last three years. [17073]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The services provided by the artificial limb and appliance centres—ALACs—which includes the wheelchair service, are at present funded centrally by the national services division, NSD, of the common services agency. A review of the service currently under way recommended that funding of this service should be devolved to health boards from 1 April 1996. This recommendation was accepted and notification of the notional allocation for each board was included in the financial allocations for 1996–97.

  Restraint and Confiscation Orders
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many restraint and confiscation orders have been obtained in each of the last three years; and for what amounts. [17145]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of restraint and confiscation orders obtained in the past three years are as undernoted at1.

  Restraint orders, by their nature, cover all the realisable property of an accused person whether specifically detailed in the restraint order or not and therefore it follows that individual amounts cannot be determined. The amounts fixed by the court in individual confiscation orders and totals for each year are undernoted at2.

  Undernote1 Calendar Year

  Number of Restraint Orders

  Numbers of Confiscation Orders

  1993

  1

  3

  1994

  11

  3

  1995

  28

  9

  519

  Undernote (2) Calender Year

  Individual values of confiscation orders

  £

  1993

  98,966

  90,000

  70,000

  258,966

  1994

  1,715.65

  5,615

  9,024

  16,345.65

  1995

  41,865

  32,396

  16,665

  20,000

  7,000

  17,000

  55,000

  38,975

  35,000

  263,901

  Breast Screening
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what forecasts he has made of the number of women who will present themselves annually at the national health service breast screening programmes; and if they have been adjusted to take into account the effects of private sector advertising; [17824]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of private sector advertising on the number of women presenting themselves at NHS mass screening programmes; and if he will make a statement; [17825]

  (3) what discussions have taken place between his Department and Health Care International regarding the recent advertisements of breast screening; [17826]

  4) what comparative assessment he has made of the service offered by the NHS breast screening programme and the service being offered by Health Care International; [17827]

  (5) what steps he has taken to assess whether the breast screening service provided by Health Care International will follow agreed NHS standards of practice for breast screening. [17828]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There has been no adjustment to the target set for attendance for screening in the Scottish breast screening programme as a result of private sector advertising. The current target for attendance in the UK NHS breast screening programme is 70 per cent. In Scotland, this means that about 130,000 women are invited for screening each year and more than 91,000 are screened. No discussions have taken place between the Scottish Office and Health Care International regarding the recent advertisements for breast screening and no assessment has been made of the service being offered by it.

  The Scottish breast screening programme offers free screening every three years to all eligible women aged 50 to 64. Women aged over 64 can attend on request at the
  520
  same frequency. Every effort is made to ensure that women and their general practitioners are aware of this high-quality free service.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the implementation of EC directive 95/29 on the transport of live animals does not exclude producers in the highlands and islands from markets; and if he will make a statement. [17531]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  EC directive 95/29 sets out a range of requirements for ensuring the welfare of animals being transported throughout the single market. Implementation in Great Britain will have to be sufficiently flexible to allow the traditional pattern of livestock and marketing to continue from all parts of the country, including the highlands and islands. We shall consult further on our legislative proposals.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the study of general practitioner fundholding commissioned by his Department and carried out by John Howie of the department of general practice at Edinburgh university during 1995. [17669]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Arrangements are being made for the report of the study to be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals are currently in receipt of payments from the Benefits Agency. [15432]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This administration of benefits 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. Chris Davies, dated 26 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many individuals are currently in receipt of payments from the Benefits Agency.
  The information is not available in the form requested as a customer may be in receipt of more than one benefit at any time.
  Annex A gives details of the number of recipients of the different benefits, administered by the BA. This information which is updated annually is available in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  521

  Annex A: Benefits Agency benefit recipients

  Benefit

  Number of recipients (thousands)

  Attendance Allowance

  1,050

  Child Benefit

  7,000

  Disability Living Allowance

  1,512

  Disability Working Allowance

  5

  Family Credit

  602

  Income Support

  5,751

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,857

  Invalid Care Allowance

  285

  Industrial Death Benefit

  21

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  223

  Maternity Allowance

  15

  Non-Contributory Retirement Pension

  27

  One Parent Benefit

  949

  Reduced Earnings Allowance/RA

  151

  Retirement Pension

  10,149

  Severe Disability Allowance

  342

  Sickness Benefit

  141

  Widows Benefit

  290

  Notes:

  1. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Some people receive more than one benefit and the extent of the overlap cannot easily be quantified.

  4. The information has been provided for the year 1994–95, with the exception of Industrial Disablement Benefit, Reduced Earnings Allowance/RA which is 1993–94.

  5. Information in this table has been collected in March each year, with the following exceptions: Income Support in February; Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Severe Disability Allowance. Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and Reduced Earnings Allowance/RA in March/April and Industrial Death Benefit in December.

  6. Invalidity Benefit and Sickness Benefit were replaced by Incapacity Benefit from 13 April 1995.

  Source

  Analytical Services Division of DSS.

  Benefits Agency (Costs)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount is spent annually by the Benefits Agency on(a) postage, (b) stationery and (c) printing. [15433]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Chris Davies, dated 26 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what amount is spent annually by the Benefits Agency on (a) postage, (b) stationery and (c) printing.
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. The Agency accounting systems do not separate the individual costs of stationery from printing. The figure for stationery and printing also includes the cost of the small local office requisites.
  The Figures below are for the financial year 1994/95, the last full year for which figures are available:-

  Postage:

  For despatch of payments: £43.019 million

  Other postage costs: £20.230 million

  Stationery and Printing £51.034 million

  These figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  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 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. [16022]

  Mr. Heald
  The Occupational Pensions Board is the only executive non-departmental public body sponsored by this Department. It is:

  (a) subject to the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PCA);

  (b) not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission;

  (c) subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office, under the National Audit Act 1983;

  (d) subject to the statutory provisions for open government;

  (e) not subject to published performance indicators;

  (f) committed to the principles of the citizens charter.

  The board and its staff were brought within the jurisdiction of the PCA on 31 July 1995. From the same date, the board has been subject to the open government provisions which apply only to bodies within the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner. In line with the principles of the citizens charter, the OPB published its charter standard statement and code of practice in July 1994.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16818]

  Mr. Heald
  The Occupational Pensions Board is the only executive non-departmental public body sponsored by this Department. It does not publish: annual reports; annual accounts; minutes, or agendas, of meetings. It has voluntarily compiled a register of members' interests which is available for public inspection.

  Earnings
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he has taken legal advice as to whether the different benefits available to those earning above or below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions contravene European law on sex discrimination; and if he will make a statement; [16621]

  (2) if he will list the benefits available only to those earning above the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. [16620]

  Mr. Heald
  The benefits available to people who have paid sufficient class 1 national insurance contributions are set out in section 21(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay are also available to employees who have earnings at or above the lower earnings limit and meet the other qualifying conditions. Employees with earnings below that limit are not liable
  523
  to pay class 1 contributions, but they can pay voluntary class 3 contributions which count towards retirement pension and widow's benefits. In the light of the recent judgment by the European Court of Justice in the case of Inge Nolte v. Landesversicherungsansstalt Hannover (C317/93)), we consider that a lower earnings limit for payment of class 1 contributions is not incompatible with the principle of equal treatment between men and women in matters of social security.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances a deduction from earnings order is imposed by the Child Support Agency. [16388]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Deductions from earnings orders are used only as a last resort. They are an important method for securing compliance where it has not proved possible to get absent parents to pay maintenance fully and regularly. Nearly 38,000 deductions from earnings orders have been issued since April 1995. This is a significant increase on the 1994–95 total of 32,027.

  Cold Weather Payments, Wales
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total amount paid in each year since 1991 in respect of cold weather payments in each Welsh county; [17047]

  (2) what was the total amount paid in each parliamentary constituency in Clwyd in respect of cold weather payments in each year since 1991. [17045]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is contained in the social fund statistical series—cold weather payments by district offices—held in the statistical section of the Library.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will undertake a review of weather stations used to monitor payments for cold weather payments for Wales. [17060]

  Mr. Evans
  The operation of the cold weather payments scheme is reviewed with the Meteorological Office after the end of March each year. In particular, links between weather stations and postcode areas are reviewed and where appropriate, changes are made.

  Benefit Entitlement (Water Costs)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of revising the 524
  figure included for water costs in the calculations of benefit entitlement to reflect (a) variations of regional costs, (b) the rateable value of the property concerned and (c) the fact of a property being on a metered charge; [16805]

  (2) what figure for water costs is included in the calculations of benefit entitlement (a) in 1995 and (b) in each of the preceding five years. [16804]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Income support is a national benefit which provides a level of income for normal daily expenditure. It does not specify particular amounts for particular items of household expenditure many of which, like water, vary regionally and over time. The cost of restructuring the benefit in the way envisaged would be considerable.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average deduction from income support,(a) with and (b) without an element for arrears, paid to water companies where people have opted to have their water costs deducted at source. [16803]

  Mr. Evans
  The information available is set out in the table.

  Direct payment deductions from income support for water/sewerage charges

  £

  Average weekly deduction excluding arrears

  3.34

  Average weekly deduction including arrears

  5.86

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1995.

  Note:

  1. In certain circumstances, direct payment deductions for water/sewerage charges may be made without the consent of the Income Support recipient. Figures for people who have specifically opted tor direct payments are not available.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that the interests of pensioner members of pension schemes are fully represented through the trustees in drawing up the Occupational Pension Schemes. (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996. [17380]

  Mr. Heald
  Trustees of a trust scheme are not representative of a particular group or category of member. The interests of pensioner members will be fully considered because all trustees have a duty to consider the interests of all the beneficiaries of the pension fund. This aspect of trustees' conduct is a provision of trust law and is unaffected by the proposed Occupational Pension Schemes (Members-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

Poverty Overseas: UK Assistance
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they ARE satisfied with the level of public awareness of poverty overseas and of the United Kingdom's aid programme, and if not, what steps they propose to take to improve it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the ODA is constantly striving through its information department to increase the public awareness of the extent of poverty overseas and of the UK's development programme to alleviate it. Our recent communications review has produced recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public information.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. As most news about the third world relates to emergencies and not to development, will she assure the House that the Government will do more to promote development through education and the media? Will she also assure the House that it will not he left entirely to non-governmental organisations, which are reducing their aid and education programmes drastically, and to the European Union, which increasingly must pick up the bill for good education materials in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his question. Although the media give me probably 95 per cent. of my coverage for just 12 per cent. of the budget, the other 88 per cent. of the work is eminently valuable because so often it prevents tragedies. As regards the noble Earl's second point, I believe that he is aware of the excellent education publications produced by the development educational organisation, World Aware. I know that he recently helped to produce some new teaching materials on India. I hope that he also knows that World Aware is core-funded by the ODA. No projects were supported by the European Union in 1995 which the ODA had declined to fund. That is because we specifically give grants of more than £650,000 to organisations undertaking development education.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my noble friend is aware that I am chairman of the UK branch of Plan International. In contradiction of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I must point out that the organisation is not reducing expenditure on educational
1360
projects but it is increasing expenditure. Therefore, his statement is not a blanket statement that applies to all NGOs. Has the Minister any plans to meet representatives of World Aware?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with what my noble friend said. Most of us are trying to spread the word further because we believe that, as regards education at every age and in every quarter, it is valuable that people are made more aware of the problems to be tackled. I am pleased that I shall soon be meeting World Aware's business leaders' forum. One of the things that business is increasingly realising in this country is that it is in its own interest that we undertake good development work overseas, which in the long term brings benefits to Britain as well as to those countries.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that, in spite of years of effort by the Churches and voluntary agencies, the time and space available within the school curriculum are so limited that the Department for Education and Employment cannot do a great deal to improve it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, while I am pleased that the Churches and voluntary agencies continue to do as much as they can, the ODA is looking at what more it can do with the Department for Education and Employment to increase the opportunities for young people to learn the facts about a situation at an early age. Perhaps then more people will grow up with an understanding of why development overseas is essential to this country.
Lord McNally: My Lords, having risen several times to ask my question, I now understand how hard it is to praise the Minister. I congratulate her and her department on helping the Street Children's Consortium launch today its directory of resources. Is that not a good example of how a small amount of public money can he magnified to have impact where it really matters among some of the most deprived sections of humanity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his kind remarks. In launching the Street Children's Consortium book this morning, I saw people from all over the world who have come together to share their knowledge in the best possible way in order to try to alleviate the plight of street children. That is a serious plight in more parts of the world than television has shown. I have been saddened but privileged to see some of the excellent work that is being done all over the world in that respect. We should do all that we can to help the Street Children's Consortium.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that poverty is to some extent—indeed, a great extent—caused by over-population? My noble friend has done splendid work in drawing attention to that

1361
problem. Will she tell your Lordships to what extent there is some hope that the lesson that she has been teaching has been learnt?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton is right. The difficult problem of population running way ahead of the growth of developing countries is one which needs to he tackled continuously. In the past few years, this country has been doing far better. At the Cairo conference, I announced a programme of £100 million to be spent over two years on family planning projects and sexual health projects. In fact, I have been able to commit £181 million on those projects in that same time span. But the other critical part of tackling population growth so that we can alleviate poverty is education, and above all to educate women, because the more education they have, the more they realise that it is right to have smaller families.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that those of us involved in World Aware are very grateful for the Government's support? Will she also take heart from the fact that a public opinion poll published just last autumn indicated that 80 per cent. of the British public is in favour of maintaining, and preferably increasing, the overseas aid programme? I hope that she finds that a powerful argument on the part of the British public when she takes on her colleagues in the Treasury and elsewhere.
Does the Minister accept that no country in the world is more dependent on its international relationships than Britain, and that she will receive support from all quarters of the House when she works with her colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that no youngster leaves our schools unaware of Our relationship with the world and our dependence on a prosperous, stable world for the future of the British economy.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. World Aware is an excellent organisation. As I mentioned earlier in answer to my noble friend, it is very good that it is tackling awareness among business leaders because business leaders as well as the rest of us need to understand what we are dealing with. It may he that the public opinion poll results will show further improvements; and I shall never give up fighting for something which I believe firmly is right for Britain as well as for the developing countries. I need only say that the opportunities for Britain based on our international relationships have grown, are growing and must continue to grow. More investment in development is needed.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that there is no duplication among certain organisations as regards their work on education? What steps is she taking to liaise with the British Council on that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the House well knows, I am never satisfied about anything. However, because there is so much work to be done, I believe that there are niches into which each of the organisations can fit.

U.S. Embassy in Israel
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will promote a démarche by the European Union to the United States Government against the proposed move of the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in advance of the final status negotiations.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the US Administration had made clear that it does not intend to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem until a settlement is reached between Israel and the Palestinians on the Jerusalem issue. Thus, we have no plans to make representations on this issue.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. Will the Government continue to work for a common position within the European Union on the future of Jerusalem and against any creation of facts on the ground by the parties concerned there in advance of the negotiations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to that is yes and yes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain to the House what business it is of ours to organise a démarche to the United States, which is capable of determining those matters on its own account? If we have a definite view about this matter, which quite clearly the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, does, would it not be better that our general sentiments, in so far as we consider it to be our business, ARE conveyed through the usual channels; namely, through the British Embassy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that either I have misunderstood something that has been said or the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, may just not have heard when I said that we have no plans to make representations on the issue about which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me. Of course we make our representations through bilateral channels. In dealing with the long-term allies such as the United States, that is the way we work. But there are times with other nations when the weight of 15 members of the European Union is more powerful than simply one country speaking alone. Therefore, with other countries it is right that there should he a European Community démarche.
Lord Winston: My Lords, might it not he a more appropriate demarche, in view of recent events, to send the deepest sympathy of this House to the Israeli Government on the recent horrific and violent acts

1363
against innocent civilians; and to congratulate the Israeli Government on their continued striving for peace in the Middle East?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we deeply regret the tragic events on Sunday in Jerusalem and Ashkelon. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister issued a statement on Monday. We shall always deplore and condemn terrorism. The peace process must continue because it is the only way to ensure lasting peace and we congratulate all those who have been working hard to try to make the peace process a real success.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it appears from her last answer that the noble Baroness accepts that the peace process is the single most important factor in the well-being of all parties in the Middle East. Therefore, as those of us who live a safe distance away, if we cannot always do much to promote it ought at least not to retard it, does the Minister agree that it should not become a pawn in American domestic politics? Will the Minister further accept from me that, if the Government deliver that message, however they do so, they will receive the total support from many of us in all parts of the House whose friendship for Israel and for the United States has never been in doubt?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no one in his right mind would wish to retard the peace process. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, is absolutely right. However, I learnt long ago that one would find it quite difficult, unless one had spent many years in the United States, to understand how domestic politics in that country really work and why some things happen. Therefore, in the coming months leading up to the presidential elections I expect that we will hear, sadly, a number of expressions of view which we would gladly not hear. But we will keep our nerve. We will work for peace in the Middle East and for peace in Northern Ireland and everywhere else. We shall try to influence our American cousins to do likewise.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in view of the strong: support of the Government and their influence in Middle East affairs, can my noble friend the Minister advise the House as regards the support that the British Government ARE giving to the Palestinians, who are, after all, the other half of the peace process?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. We have been giving a great deal of bilateral aid to Palestine. We have been helping with police equipment; we have formed a know-how fund over three years; we have a major education project for the Gaza area; and we have been training for elections. We continue to carry out such work. We shall also be giving assistance in the future to the new Palestinian Council, in which I am glad to say our parliamentary Clerks in both Houses will
1364
be involved. We are delighted that that should be so. In addition, we give help through the World Bank, the EIB and of course the ECA package.

Chinese Satellite: Re-entry
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What guidance has been given to local authorities on the possible landing in their areas in March of the satellite launched recently in China but now out of control.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we have issued guidance to local authorities on four occasions about a Chinese satellite which was launched in October 1993 and which is expected to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere between the beginning of March and the end of April this year. In the highly unlikely event that it lands in the United Kingdom or in UK coastal waters, local authorities and the emergency services have been briefed on the correct course of action. I understand that the Chinese Government attempted to launch a further satellite on 15th February this year. It failed to reach orbit following an explosion shortly after the launch.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her very full reply. Should the satellite land here, is it the intention of the Government to return it to China with a view to helping international research? Further, will bulletins he issued during the next few weeks on the erratic flight path of the satellite?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is absolutely no doubt that if the satellite landed on UK soil or, indeed, in UK waters we would have an obligation to return it to China and to do so as soon as possible. As regards its erratic flight path, I should point out that the missile is out of control and beyond anyone's control. However, we are tracking it and making predictions on a daily basis as to where and when it will land.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the report correct which states that local authorities in Scotland have been directed to cover the satellite, on arrival, with a tarpaulin to protect it from normal British weather? That would be a gesture to an inanimate object which, I believe, goes further than necessary in setting an example in human rights to the Chinese Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I stressed that the satellite is out of control. Indeed, such will he its speed on re-entry that I do not believe there is any hope that re-entry may he delayed due to the weather.

1365
If the satellite should land here, it would be extremely hot. Even a tarpaulin would not, I think, protect it from the weather.

Joint London Advisory Panel
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why it was necessary to establish a Joint London Advisory Panel.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Joint London Advisory Panel was established in order that Ministers from the Cabinet Sub-Committee on London should be able to meet and discuss matters of relevance to London with London organisations.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am glad to welcome the recognition that London needs a strategic approach. However, in a democracy, would it not he more appropriate if the people were allowed to choose the members of that authority? Control has passed from the people to a number of unelected quangos and, therefore, into the hands of a government department. Can the Minister explain what advantage the Government see in the situation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is a pretty considerable advantage. I gather that the noble Baroness was really referring to the fact that the GLC was once there but that that is no longer the case, even if—
Lord Graham Lord Graham of Edmonton: No!
Earl Ferrers: Well, my Lords; the noble Baroness signified assent, so perhaps she is at variance with the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip. However, I believe that that is what she was getting at. All I can say is that, when the GLC functioned, it had 92 councillors, 20,000 staff, a budget of £1,000 million but only looked after 11 per cent. of the services. That seemed to he a total waste of money. Now that the GLC is no longer there, it has not been missed. We believe that this is a much better way. On the other hand, if Members opposite intend to reintroduce another layer of local government, it would he very helpful if they would say so, because then the people of London would know what they were in for.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all soundings of public opinion that have been taken in the Greater London area indicate that the electorate ARE desirous of once again having an elected forum to look after the global aspects of London? Is the Minister further aware that London is the only city of its kind in Europe where the residents ARE being denied that privilege?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that the electorate is being denied a privilege. There ARE 32 boroughs and all those councils are elected by people. The point of the Joint London Advisory Panel is that it enables matters which are of
1366
considerable interest to be considered across borough boundaries. The other important point is the fact that it has involved business and other organisations for the first time in trying to further the interests of London, which was not possible when a bureaucratic regime was involved.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the advantage of an elected authority is that it comes under the influence, and is subject to the wishes, of the people of London? We are discussing an authority which is totally unconnected with the people of London. Moreover—and contrary to what the noble Earl said—there is a growing feeling in London that the city badly needs the restitution of an elected body so that the people can communicate with it and be a part of it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a most interesting intervention on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. If in fact it is the view of the party opposite to reintroduce an extra layer of government, I believe that the people of London should know about it. All I can tell the noble Lord is that, with the £1,000 million which it spent and the 20,000 staff that it had, only 11 per cent. of London's services were catered for by the GLC; the remainder was covered by the boroughs. We find that the present position is very much more satisfactory. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head, hut, if his party wants to introduce another expensive layer of government, then people should be told about it. If that is the case, the party opposite should he able to tell us.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not deplorable that London is one of the very few capital cities in the world without a civic head and with no civic control over its own police force?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, London is not the only place in the world in that respect; indeed, apart from anything else, the City of London has its own police force and its own system of operations. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that obviously a certain majesty is lost when one does not have a focal point. The objective of having a focal point is only achieved if it works well. We have found that the system works better as it is.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would it be one of the tasks of this London advisory body to look at such services in London as might he more effectively dealt with on a London-wide basis? For example, in the case of transport in London there are something like 40 different bodies that have a say in that matter. Would this not he better co-ordinated centrally for London?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, makes a valid and a helpful point. That is exactly what is happening. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is encouraging area partnerships between local authorities, business communities and the voluntary sector on such matters as the Thames, theatreland and cross-river partnerships. He is encouraging the Lambeth and Southwark Councils and Westminster Council and the City and others to operate together as regards

1367
bridges and other matters. All those items require specialist attention. That is why it is better to consider the individual items separately with the help of business people who are interested and enthusiastic to see London propel itself ahead.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that, if it is the policy of the Opposition to introduce another tier of local government—that is, the old GLC—taxation must inexorably increase?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend makes another valid point. He is absolutely right. Of course it will lead to increased taxation. That is why we want to know whether the party opposite intends to introduce an extra layer of government, but the Front Bench opposite remains remarkably silent. I can only assume from that that either it has not made up its mind or it does not want to let us know its intentions.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that since the abolition of the GLC the Government have had to set up a whole range of bodies and co-ordinating groups to make up for some of the functions of the GLC without which London cannot function, and that the Joint London Advisory Panel is merely one of them? Does not the Minister further agree that what London badly needs to cover these issues is not a replacement for the GLC but a strategic body which is democratically elected and responsive to the wishes of the people of London?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite certain how that differs from the GLC, because that was an elected body. As I have explained on more than one occasion, it was an expensive one too. There are matters of considerable interest here and the Joint London Advisory Panel brings together the organisation London First, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the CBI, the Association of London Government, the London Planning Advisory Committee, the Corporation of London, Westminster City Council, London Voluntary Services Council and the London Training and Enterprise Councils. They have all got together because they wish to co-operate.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as probably the only Member of your Lordships' House who served on the Standing Committee which considered the London Government Bill in another place, does the Minister remember that it was the Tory Government of Mr. Macmillan which introduced the GLC, and the Tory Minister of Housing and Local Government, the then Sir Keith Joseph, who masterminded it through that committee? Does not the noble Earl accept that, without introducing an authority which is identical to the GLC, there is a great deal to he said for the argument that some elected authority should mastermind the services which he has mentioned, which are best dealt with on a London-wide basis rather than at the level of the boroughs?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may well be correct as regards Mr. Macmillan setting up the organisation, but 25 years have passed and we decided, with the approval of Parliament, that there should be a change. Because London is important, there is a meeting of "London Ministers", known as the ED, EDE, EF, or whatever it is. I always hate these acronyms because they are confusing and no one ever knows what the letters stand for. Nevertheless, the meeting I have mentioned is a meeting of Ministers for London who are drawn from 10 different departments. Many local authorities and individual organisations assist those Ministers. Therefore I believe that process will work better than the alternatives which have been suggested.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is certainly true that the panel will review a number of questions on a London-wide basis, as the Minister has said, for example on education, transport, private finance initiatives and so on. Why in that case is the debate of this panel to be held in private and why is the Chairman of the Conservative Party, who is not a London Minister, on the panel?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not a question of the meetings being held in private, as I believe the noble Lord said. It is perfectly reasonable that a body should discuss its problems and organisation in private. The panel is expected to meet three times a year and a note of the discussion will he made public within 24 hours. Ministers and the London Pride Partners will submit papers as necessary.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that one of the major problems facing people who live in London is traffic pollution, and that the piecemeal arrangements for discussions on an area-by-area basis cannot possibly solve that problem? Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that in terms of public expenditure the Government now allocate more public money to people who are not elected by the general population but are appointed by Government? Therefore the issue is one of democracy, not public expenditure.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not a question of democracy but of how one obtains the best results as economically as possible. This Government, along with everyone else, have been castigated for spending too much. I have explained that by removing the GLC there has been a considerable saving of money. I thought when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, rose to his feet that he would tell us what the Labour Party's policy was and whether it wished to reintroduce the GLC, but he did not do so. This is a question of saving money. That is in contrast to the party opposite, which apparently wishes to give £5,000 to every person who gets married. That seems a most extraordinary expenditure.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell us how much of the £1,000 million that he was boasting about has been saved'?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, £1,000 million.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, will the panel be able to consider the future of the Victoria Coach Station, which is situated in a conservation area? As a committee member of the residents' association, I can inform the Minister it has been causing us considerable anxiety. Since the demise of the GLC we have not been able to get a decision or any sense out of anyone.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that that is a matter which will be taken into account by the advisory panel. I am sure that, if the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, cares to draw it to the attention of the panel, it will be considered.

Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [Orders and regulations concerning the reserve forces]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("each House of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may he for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 31, 33 and 36. These amendments are almost drafting amendments. There has grown up by tradition, as I understand it, in legislation dealing with defence matters, the expression "Parliament" rather than "both Houses of Parliament" or "each House of Parliament". That is an odd expression. In other Bills that I have covered from this Front Bench I have noticed that mostly we refer to the "Houses of Parliament" or "joint Houses of Parliament", or whatever it may be. "Parliament" as a single entity is a rarity. In Committee, the noble Earl recognised that fact. It is carried forward from history.
In the case at issue, when we ARE talking about reports to Parliament I believe that it would be simpler to provide that those reports should he made to "each House of Parliament" rather than to "Parliament". To some extent this is a drafting amendment, but I believe that it would make the Bill better than it is at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not sure that the anxiety of the noble Lord is fully justified. If we look at the text on the first page of the Bill we find the familiar words:
"Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled".
So "Parliament" has entered as an accepted phrase into our legislation with great frequency for a very long time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Lord,
1370
Lord Williams, both today and in Committee. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his observations.
I continue to believe that, strictly speaking, the amendments are unnecessary, for in this context "Parliament" means both Houses. Nevertheless, in a spirit of co-operation I am happy to accept the amendments as proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("after being made") and insert ("forthwith).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we had a discussion about the orders to be laid under Clause 4(5) of the Bill. As at present drafted, the Bill says simply that:
"Any order or regulations under this section shall be laid before Parliament after being made".
There is no time limit; that is done some time after the order or regulation has been made. It seemed to us that it would be appropriate for the orders or regulations to be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible.
As the noble Earl will remember, we proposed a formulation in Committee which was "as soon as made". The noble Earl pointed out that that created difficulties. I understand and take the noble Earl's point that "as soon as" implies almost instantaneous action, which might be rather difficult. However, in other parts of the Bill we have the expression "forthwith", and it seemed to me that the formulation "forthwith" might he more palatable to the Government than "as soon as". In that spirit I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord has once again expressed his concern that no time limit is laid down within which regulations under Clause 4 must be laid. In Committee I illustrated that the Ministry of Defence is prompt in laying such regulations before Parliament with the example of Amendment 16 to the Territorial Army Regulations 1978, which was made on 18th January and laid before your Lordships' House on 23rd January. I also gave an undertaking that such regulations would continue to he laid before Parliament at the earliest convenient moment. I hoped that the noble Lord would be happy with that assurance, as he indicated he was at the time.
I acknowledge that when the question of the meaning of "forthwith" came up in our discussions, I undertook to look further into the matter. "Forthwith" carries with it the meaning of "as soon as possible given the circumstances". That is certainly the interpretation that we would put on it. That is why it is entirely appropriate when dealing with matters of the seriousness of call-out and recall and why it is inappropriate here.
The regulations which will be made under Clause 4 are essentially concerned with the internal government of the armed forces. The numbers of changes and amendments can be considerable and of great complexity, but will often be concerned with matters of detail or minor significance. As an example, Amendment 16 to the Territorial Army Regulations runs

1371
to around 100 pages and deals almost entirely with minor amendments or matters of detail. Such changes are made relatively frequently, and to be required to lay them before Parliament immediately seems to me to he excessive. There would certainly be extra costs involved in doing so. For example, instead of passing documents through the normal internal mail it would be necessary to use special messengers.
I am not clear why the noble Lord wishes to impose this burden on the Ministry of Defence in respect of the reserve forces. It does not confer any benefit on the reserve forces. It offers no advantage to Parliament over the present arrangements, which work well.
In any case, the issue goes far wider than this Bill. There are many other powers to make regulations in the defence area alone, and it is not clear whether the noble Lord would wish such regulations to be laid before Parliament forthwith. Indeed, would he wish all regulations under any statute which are required to be laid before Parliament to be laid forthwith?
Altogether I do not believe that this is an appropriate amendment. I hope that I have said sufficient to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response.
The House will wish to take note of the fact that these regulations and orders relate inter alia, under Clause 4(1)(a), to:
"the government and discipline of any reserve force".
That is not an insignificant matter. It is not something which is pushed under the table. If there is to be a change to the government and discipline of any reserve force I believe that Parliament ought to be informed officially "forthwith".
The noble Earl said that most of the orders are insignificant, but I hope that he takes the point that there is a possibility that orders will he made under Clause 4(1)(a) which are of extreme importance to Parliament and the reserve forces. I should have thought that somehow we should try to reconcile the position that I have taken, which I admit perhaps goes too far, with the position the noble Earl has taken.
Therefore, I hope very much that before Third Reading we can talk further about the matter and see whether we can arrive at an arrangement that will satisfy both of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Pensions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert ("provided that the pensions of those in civilian lift ARE fully safeguarded.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of pension entitlement for those members of the reserve forces who are liable to he called upon under the terms of the Bill.
We are most anxious to ensure that those who perform this duty are not disadvantaged thereby. In particular, we do not want their pension entitlement to be undermined. Many will be members of private occupational pension schemes. Their ultimate entitlement under such schemes is dependent upon the continuity of scheme membership, in particular contribution continuity, and any breach of continuity may adversely affect ultimate pension entitlement unless steps are taken to ensure that such continuity is protected in some way.
It is true that at one time people of working age gave little thought to pension entitlement until perhaps about 10 years before they were due to retire. All that has changed. The Government have been anxious to make people pension minded because of the concern that in the next century no government may be able to afford to pick up the tab if individuals have not made such provision. The Maxwell scandal and the subsequent Pensions Act have all combined to make people pension conscious. That is a good thing. But it means that individuals affected by the Bill will wonder about the possible effect upon their civilian pension entitlement if they are called upon to breach the contribution record as a result of being called to give service under the terms of the Bill. We do not wish to put people who give up their time and perhaps put at risk their health and their lives to be disadvantaged in pension terms because of what they have done for this country. Hence the amendment.
The Minister may claim that Clause 8 contains some safeguards. Clause 8(1)(b) allows for,
"the making of payments towards the provision of pensions".
That presumably can cover civilian pensions although it is not clear from the text. However, the commitment is not explicit. We believe that it should be. It may be argued that this could result in additional expenditure. We believe that that has to be faced if it is the only way in which such a guarantee can he provided. If employers can he persuaded to retain employees on service duty in their own occupational schemes that would be a good idea. In any event the addition of the words to the clause—the provision does not specify precisely how it should be done; simply that there should be a guarantee—still leaves it open to the Government to make appropriate arrangement by way of regulation.
We raised the issue in Committee and I had the impression that the Minister was sympathetic to what we sought to do. We believe it right and proper that some guarantee should be on the face of the Bill. I hope that this time round the Minister will be disposed to accept some form of guarantee. If he does not accept this wording, at least let us have something on the face of the Bill before it leaves the House after Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Baroness is on to a point of some significance. I have no doubt that the Government realise fully that it would be very wrong indeed if the civilian pension of someone called up under the Bill should be endangered. Many pension schemes, as those who have experience of them know, insist on continuity

1373
of membership and contribution. Therefore I shall be particularly interested to hear what the Minister says. As matters now stand, it seems a point about which the House would do well to concern itself.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. Consideration of their rights is often raised by people as regards the Territorial Army. When considering a six to nine months' commitment, the issue will be important to them. However, one area which must be looked at even more closely is making the information about how pension contributions will be supplied available to those considering taking up the special agreements. Without that detailed knowledge, many people will be scared away in case their pension is put at risk.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I, too, beg the Minister to pay heed to the amendment. Without the provision, or something similar, I do not believe that members will join the reserve forces if only because of persuasion by their families if their pensions are interfered with in any way as a result of that service. I beg my noble friend to find some way of meeting the point put by the noble Baroness.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I find myself in agreement with the sentiments expressed by all noble Lords who have spoken. The Government understand the necessity to safeguard the civilian pension provisions of reservists; that was made abundantly clear during the consultation process. That is why we have a power to permit us to do it in Clause 82(2) and (3).
In Committee and again today the noble Baroness expressed concern that the provisions in the Bill are not sufficient. I believe that she implied that having a permissive power was not the same as using it. I can assure the House that we intend to use the power. Indeed, the concerns expressed by reservists have been such that we do not believe that the Bill would he properly effective without protection for civilian pensions. We are aware from the responses that we received during the various rounds of consultation on the Bill that reservists see pension provision as very important. Their primary concern is that a period of called out service should not reduce the eventual retirement benefits from their civilian pension scheme. We therefore have it as a policy objective to safeguard the reservists' civilian pension during a period of permanent service. In essence, so long as the individual were prepared to pay any employee's contribution due, we would pay the employer's contribution, thus ensuring that there was no loss of period of reckonable service.
As I imagine noble Lords are aware, the field of pensions is very complex. We therefore see even more than the usual benefit from a period of consultation on the regulations in this area. Informal discussions with the pensions industry, reservists and employers are already under way. Many variations are possible. However, the essential choice is between complicated administration with precise benefits and simpler
1374
schemes which fit the Bill on average but not exactly in every case. The precise arrangements, therefore, have yet to be worked out.
I think that a statutory duty would be difficult to word. The formulation tabled as amendment to Clause 8 is somewhat imprecise. I feel that such a statutory provision would add little or nothing to the undertaking that I have given this afternoon. If the noble Baroness wishes for further assurance, she might find it in the Government's recognition that action on civilian pensions is necessary to maintain the support of reservists themselves for the more flexible use of reserves. I hope that the assurances I have given will be sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed statement. I note in particular his comment that provided the individual concerned paid the employee's contribution, the Government would be prepared to pay the employer's contribution in a number of instances. That is very important because that is the way in which continuity would be maintained in many cases. I am grateful indeed for the assurances that have been given. I note that the noble Earl thinks that the wording is a little vague and perhaps not precise enough. We are committed to the notion that there should be a statutory duty to ensure that pensions are fully safeguarded. However, in the detailed statement he has gone a long way to meet the concerns that we had on this side of the House. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Enlistment of men in the reserve forces]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 13 and insert—
("(c) any consul-general, consul or vice consul or any other person duly exercising the functions of a British consul in any place outside the United Kingdom.
(3) A recruit may not be enlisted in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom which is specified for the purposes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in our view enlisting is a serious and significant matter. Clause 9 recognises that. Clause 9(2)(a) refers to an enlisting officer as,
"a lord-lieutenant or deputy lieutenant holding office under Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1980: or an officer of the regular services or of any reserve force".
There follows a strange reference to,
"any other person authorised for the purpose".
We believe that that diminishes and demeans the act of enlistment. The wording is altogether too casual, vague and wide. We have put forward the amendment in the hope that it will make the process specific wherever it takes place, whether within the United Kingdom or overseas.
The second part of the amendment deals with Clause 9(3). I say in all humility that it is simply a matter of drafting. We hope that the amendment simplifies the language and expresses clearly the intention. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. As I said in Committee,

1375
Clause 9(2)(c) perhaps emerged in too broad a form. It is, though, prudent to retain the ability to recruit overseas, should the need arise. I therefore gladly agree to the proposed amendment, which brings the wording into line with that of Section 1 of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955.
With the leave of the House, I wish to raise an issue relating to the clause brought to my notice by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It concerns lord-lieutenants who are named in Clause 9 as persons who may act as enlisting officers. Lord-lieutenants are appointed under the power in Sections 130 and 131 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. That is not changed by the Bill, although there is a proposal for a consolidation measure to bring the provisions relating to lord-lieutenants into a single Act. As the House will recall, the Reserve Forces Act 1980 was a consolidation measure. The power in Section 130 of that Act replaced powers in the Local Government Act 1972. Section 131 replaced powers in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Unfortunately, the change did not come to the attention of those responsible for appointing lord-lieutenants.
My noble and learned friend believes that that oversight may place the validity of the appointments in a certain amount of doubt. He wishes to remove any possible doubt. The position is being investigated with urgency and I hope that the Government will be able to bring forward a suitable amendment at a later stage of the Bill, we hope on Third Reading.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we ARE grateful to the Minister for his response and for the gracious way in which he made it. We take the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 19 [Orders and regulations as to enlistment etc.):
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 38, leave out from ("forces") to end of line.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Williams and Lady Turner, and myself. To take the noble Earl's words, we again found that in Clause 19 the wording was somewhat broad. We debated the matter thoroughly in Committee. There could he an anxiety lest regulations under Clauses 4 and 19 could override matters on which there is already expressed statutory provision. As we understand it, that is not the Government's intention. I hope that the amendment is helpful because it is designed to remove any possible grounds for misunderstanding. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we had an interesting debate on the matter in Committee. I believe that there was a general welcome for the flexibility of the provisions in the clause for enlistment and re-engagement. Experience has shown that the equivalent provisions of the 1980 Act were too rigid.
1376
However, I recognise that there were concerns about the apparent scope of the power in the clause as drafted. I have considered what the noble Lord said on the issue and am happy to accept the proposed amendment, which gives those powers greater clarity.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are again grateful to the Minister for his response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Service of marines in the Royal Fleet Reserve]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 6:
Leave out Clause 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we find Clause 21 confusing. Of course, we recognise that it concerns the discipline Acts and there are references to them in Amendment No. 52, tabled by the noble Earl, relating to Schedule 9. The issues raised by the clause cover the basis for effectiveness and clarity of command in demanding operational situations. If the Royal Marines take the role of naval personnel who have their own designations of rank, surely while they do that it will be clearer for all concerned if they were known by the rank designation which is immediately recognisable and familiar to others within the Royal Fleet Reserve.
I should like to say how much we appreciate the fact that an amendment was put to us by the Minister's office. We found that the suggested amendment did not in this case meet the point which we are making. If anything, it underlined our anxiety. That is why we put forward the amendment at this stage in the hope that between now and completion of the passage of the Bill the Government will find some way of meeting the point. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he found the clause somewhat confusing. I shall try as best I can to explain its purpose. As I said in Committee, the provision is necessary because the Royal Fleet Reserve contains both ex-regular naval ratings and ex-regular Royal Marines. The issue does not arise in relation to the volunteer reserves because the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marines Reserve are distinct legal entities. There would be some logic in having separate ex-regular forces as well, but since the Royal Fleet Reserve as a whole is only a little over 4,000 strong, it would be difficult to justify the administrative complexity of dividing it.
Naval ratings and Royal Marines serve alongside one another with great distinction. They do, however, have different jobs, training, ranks, promotion requirements and so on. As we discussed in Committee, they ARE also treated differently under service law. That aspect is not mentioned in the clause because the necessary provisions are in Section 210 of the Army Act 1955 and Section 112 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957.
I am sure that a former Royal Marine would not think it right to he required to serve as a rating and Parliament has agreed. Clause 21 simply repeats the substance of Section 52 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, which itself originated in Section 1 of the Naval Reserve Act 1900. If the House were now to decide to remove the statutory

1377
protection, would it be with the intention of requiring marines to serve as sailors? Certainly, if the House wished it to have that effect, it would adopt the noble Lord's amendment. I firmly believe that it is most desirable to retain the clause.
As the noble Lord mentioned, I undertook in Committee to consider whether Clause 21 could be made clearer. Parliamentary Counsel succeeded in producing a revised form of words which I passed to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. With the benefit of the explanation which I have just given, I hope that there may be scope for noble Lords to look again at the wording of the clause. It remains available. If the noble Lord, Lord Judd, or any other Peer cares to table it for Third Reading, I should be happy to accept it. In the meantime, I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that Clause 21, whether in its current version or in a refined form, is a necessary part of the Bill.
Lord Judd: My Lords, again the spirit in which the noble Earl speaks is greatly appreciated. He said that the wording could be in its present form or in a refined form. We hope that between now and the passing of the Bill he will be able to consider the points that we made in Committee and have re-emphasised this afternoon. Of course, we take his point about law but our concern is about operational clarity. If people work in a demanding situation, it is surely better that there should he as much familiarity as possible with the status and rank of the people who may give orders or instructions.
We believe that there is possibly room for confusion. We therefore hope that the noble Earl will consider the point again. In the meantime, in view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Parliamentary control of commitments]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 12, line 14. leave out from ("in") to end of line 16 and insert ("any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, we find this subsection as drafted a little mystifying, despite any rationale that might be advanced in terms of existing practice. Why is the Navy alone exempted from the reference to parliamentary authorisation? Our amendment aims to bring the Navy into line with what seem to he very sensible provisions for the other two services. For that reason we have put forward wording that we hope covers the point. The same point will arise on Amendments Nos. 11, 15, 17 and 25. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I take this opportunity to speak to those amendments at the same time. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, again, I should like to be helpful to the noble Lord. Unlike the Army and the Royal Air Force, the numbers of officers and men serving in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have never been subject to statutory parliamentary control. The Bill reflects that, continuing with the structure that was used in the Reserve Forces Act 1980.
1378
However, Parliament does in practice provide maximum numbers for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. It will cause no difficulty to generalise the references in these clauses. I am therefore content to accept the amendment that the noble Lord tabled.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will not feel I am being patronising when I say that I must commend him for his spirit of co-operation this afternoon. We are delighted, and express our appreciation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Employers' consent before entering agreements]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) It shall not be an obligation on an employee outside a special agreement to inform his employer of service in the reserve force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is quite simple. It seeks an assurance that it will not become an obligation for those who are members of the Reserve Forces to inform their employers of that fact. I do not plan to press the amendment. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that no such obligation will come into force.
At present, many members of the Reserve Forces do not feel that they have to tell their employer, or indeed they do not want to tell an employer for whatever reason, that they are members of the Reserve Forces. I have come across that in the LADs that I have commanded. A surprisingly high number of members of the Territorial Army do not want their employers to know that they are members. The amendment seeks an assurance that there is no intention to create such an obligation. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord. However, I see some difficulties and very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to help. Clearly, nobody can he forced to advise an employer that he or she is a member of a reserve force. On the other hand, if it comes to a call out, particularly following our discussion on the subject of pensions, it would be rather odd if the employer did not know that an employee was a member of the Reserve Forces and was suddenly told that this would happen and that pension rights should be preserved. Perhaps the noble Earl can give us some guidance on that point.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for raising this matter and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his remarks. On the underlying point, I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the Bill does not impose a general obligation on reservists to disclose their reserve status to their employers. We encourage reservists to inform their employers of their membership. We know that many do so and seek, and gain, their employer's co-operation. That often extends to additional leave for training, for example.

1379
Equally, we know that some reservists feel it better not to inform their employers. We respect their view. The three-way relationship between the reservist, his employer and the Ministry of Defence can function only if there is openness and trust on all sides. That is as much the case in the relationship between the reservist and the employer as it is in the other part of the relationship. It would damage that trust for an employer to ask an individual whether he was a reservist and for the individual to reply untruthfully.
It would be most unusual for there to be a statutory provision to enable an individual to avoid having to answer the question truthfully or at all. Many consequential difficulties could arise from that. For example, reserve forces membership might be a material fact where an insurance policy was being taken out by the employer. The employer could not disclose it to the insurer if the individual had given a false answer.
It is axiomatic that members of the reserve forces have a call-out liability. If or when call out occurs, it would be impossible for the individual to hide his absence from the employer, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly said. Indeed, for the employer safeguards under Part VIII of the Bill to operate it will be necessary for the employer to be formally advised of the call out. It could sour the future employment relationship for the employer to discover at that point that the reservist had misled him.
Altogether, we believe it best to leave the existing position unchanged. Some employers will ask about reserve status and the employee should answer truthfully. Others will not ask, and the reservist is under no obligation to volunteer the information. I hope that I have said sufficient to persuade the noble Lord that all is well.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, is it true that, so far as employment is concerned, a reservist could not be disadvantaged—neither by declaring his membership, nor, on call out, by the employer putting him at a disadvantage as a result of his being a member of the reserve forces? Is that correct under another section of the Bill?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we shall discuss that point, probably under Clause 121 of the Bill. I suggest to my noble friend that we leave the debate until that point.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It is the one that I sought. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Consent of new employer]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 13, leave out from ("of) to ("such") in line 14 and insert ("subsection (2)(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the leave of the House I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 29, 32 and 37. These are
1380
all minor amendments in the interests of clarity, or to correct internal cross-references in the Bill. I am obviously willing to say a little about each if that would be helpful; however, I believe that they are all self-explanatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Call-out notices]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 15, line 38, leave out subsection (6) and inser—
("( ) Notices under this section may be served on a person by delivering it to him or by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, his last known address: and any call-out or variation notice delivered to that address by registered post or recorded delivery shall be deemed to have been served on him.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, it might be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 24 and 28.
We realise that the noble Earl has been examining this matter. I gather that he may be willing to meet the point made by us in Committee about the need to be confident that, in deeming a notice to have been served, there must be real evidence that the notice has in fact been delivered to the person concerned or to another identifiable person at his or her last known address. That is particularly important in an age of increasing mobility, when people move vast distances at short notice. We cannot just assume that they will always be exactly where we thought they were. We hope therefore that this amendment covers that point and that it will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I must support the sentiment behind the amendment. On a number of occasions, I myself have had the misfortune of trying to track down errant individuals over a number of weeks, only to find that they moved to three or four different places. This is an important amendment which needs consideration.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe I emphasised in Committee that it is important to be able to serve call-out notices by post. A notice can only be deemed to have been served if it is sent by registered post or recorded delivery. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the points that he raised. As ever, they are pertinent and in the interests of the individual.
Noble Lords will recall that when the matter was raised in Committee I agreed to consider it further. I have done so. I agree that the Bill as drafted is a little unfair to those who ARE away from their place of residence. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, protect those individuals who are absent from their place of residence when a call-out notice is sent. I believe that the changes are sensible. At the risk of lavishing benevolence on noble Lords opposite, I am happy to accept them.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should be very content for the noble Lord to retain those sentiments for the rest of the afternoon. Let me reciprocate by saying that on this side of the House, if we must have a government of another political persuasion, we are reassured and

1381
delighted to see the noble Earl fulfilling his role. It is very reassuring. We are grateful for his response. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Parliamentary control of numbers and reports]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 17, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert ("any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services.").
Page 17, line 34, leave out ("report to Parliament") and insert ("lay before each House of Parliament a report").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Call out of special members]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 22, line 38. leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("( ) Notices under this section may be served on a person by delivering it to him or by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, his last known address; and any call-out or variation notice delivered to that address by registered post or recorded delivery shall be deemed to have been served on him.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Exercise of functions by officers]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 24, line 28, leave out ("45.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Parliamentary control of numbers and reports]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 24, line 45, leave out from ("in") to end of line 46 and insert ("any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services").
Page 25, line I, leave out ("report to Parliament") and insert ("lay before each House of Parliament a report").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 15 to 22 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Liability of members of reserve forces under call-out orders]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 26, line 24, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 27 and insert ("who are in service under a call-out order shall not be reckoned in any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Call out for national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 27, line 30, after ("to") insert ("each House of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 52]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 28. line 44. after ("to") insert ("each House of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Call out for warlike operations]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 29, line 34, after ("to") insert ("each House of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 54]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 30, line 38, after ("to") insert ("each House of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Call out for certain operations]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 31, line 34. after ("to") insert ("each House of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 56]:
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 32, line 6, leave out ("9") and insert ("6").
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Attlee. With the indulgence of the House, I should like to read a short letter from a commanding officer in Bosnia—in this case, from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) to a Territorial Army headquarters in this country. It will, I feel, help to provide a valuable background and urgency to this particular clause and to the whole Bill. The letter reads:
"Thank goodness for the Territorial Army! I write both as the (temporary) Commander Equipment Support and as Commanding Officer 3 Battalion REME. Without wishing to appear melodramatic, the 30 Territorial Army soldiers who arrived before Christmas saved the REME bacon. I was faced with a 'surge' that began mid-December with no additional manpower—all we had was the same organisation that was designed to support a relatively static UN operation. I also had to find and sort out 'bases' for any future REME reinforcements. I cancelled Christmas and New Year R&R for my soldiers but without the influx of Territorial Army soldiers we would not have coped: as it is, we ARE barely coping. All of the Territorial Army soldiers have been quite excellent. To a man, they are enthusiastic, cheerful and willing. Their motives for coming here vary from wanting to do something a little different to good, old-fashioned patriotism. They fitted in to the battalion with ease and immediately became a valuable part of the team; the additional skills some of them have brought from their civilian occupations have already been an extra bonus.
I apologise if this letter seems a little gushing. My thanks are heartfelt; we were hard pressed over the Christmas period and would have looked very bad indeed were it not for the fact that so many of your soldiers were willing to give up their Christmas to help us out".
That is all splendid stuff. What the letter does not mention, and it is highly relevant and causing senior officers in the Army some concern, was the difficulty which was experienced in getting that number of REME volunteers to leave their jobs or getting their employers to release them. Taken altogether, that both emphasises the importance and urgency of the whole Bill and indicates the need to set the maximum period for which territorials and reservists can be called out at a realistic and reasonable level, acceptable to both employees and employers alike. It was that important factor which influenced our amendment which in Clause 57 seeks to reduce that period from nine months to six months.
I should point out first, in case it has escaped noble Lords' notice, that the figure in subsection (6) of Clause 57 refers back to Clause 56, which in turn covers:
"operations outside the United Kingdom for the protection of life or property; or … anywhere in the world for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster".
In short they ARE largely humanitarian operations. It does not cover warlike operations, which come under Clause 54, let alone those under Clause 52, which deal with situations of more immediate urgency, of imminent national danger and a possible attack on this country. Those have their own conditions. We are talking about conditions far short of general war.
I submit that, under those circumstances, however badly the reinforcements are needed by the overstretched regulars and however convenient it may be for the staff to have them for a longer rather than shorter period, it is utterly unrealistic and unreasonable to expect them to leave their jobs for more than six months. That would equally apply to employers releasing them for longer than that period. Even six months is a big sacrifice and a large slice out of a career. Even with regular troops, unaccompanied tours linked to six months are fairly stringently enforced. As a former commanding officer, I know that a sea-change occurs after that time.
So to ask more of both parties would, I believe, lead to fewer people volunteering or more opting out, which could jeopardise the whole scheme. Moreover, I suggest that six months should be perfectly adequate. These are not the types of operation which would require much, if any, preliminary specialist training. I stress again that I am not talking about operations under NATO control. The reservists or volunteers would already be trained in the basic skills. There would be a certain amount of on-the-job training. Indeed, as that letter showed, skills obtained in civilian life might prove an extra bonus. So they should have no difficulty in fitting in with the six-month tours of the regulars. They can always—the machinery exists—volunteer to serve for longer, should they so wish or should the urgency be very obvious.
So, on all counts I urge the Government to accept the six-months cut-off period in this clause. I and many of those in the TA with whom I come in contact also believe—although, I stress, not the widely
1384
representative TAVRA council, which I know does not agree with me on this point—that it may make all the difference between enthusiastic and lukewarm acceptance of this important and urgent Bill and therefore between its success and failure. This is an important amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, to which I have put my name. First, I ought to emphasise, as did the noble and gallant Lord, that we are discussing call out for what might be called humanitarian operations. We are not talking about war-like operations or about war. We are talking about cases of natural disaster, protection of life or property and alleviation of distress operations, which are summarised in Clause 56, as the noble and gallant Lord pointed out. We are not attempting to change the maximum period of service under Clauses 52 or 54; we are simply concerned with humanitarian relief missions.
It may be that a definition of what is a "war-like" operation could help us in this matter. Perhaps the noble Earl could give us a precise definition of what is a war-like operation and what is a humanitarian operation. To give one example, as the noble and gallant Lord said, as the operation in Bosnia is under NATO command, that may be defined as a war-like operation. On the other hand, I imagine that an operation in Rwanda under the United Nations command may well be considered a humanitarian operation. Perhaps the noble Earl can clarify those points.
We need to know now, rather than when the Bill is in operation, what the obligations of reservists will be for humanitarian operations. I join forces with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in believing that, if the Bill is to be as effective as we want it to be, a period of six months maximum service under what will be Section 56 is the right period. Anything longer than that will be a serious disincentive to people who would otherwise wish to sign up as reserves.
4 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest as an honorary colonel of a TA unit. I regret to say that I do not support Amendment No. 23.,
On my reading of the amendment, it will enable individuals to he called up for service for a period not exceeding nine months. I understand that honorary TA colonels and the executive council of TAVRA strongly oppose any reduction from nine months to six months. I also understand that the regular Army and the Territorial Army units wish the period to remain at nine months.
If the right team spirit is to be built up it is essential that there should be a period of pre-training before any deployment, he it operational, peace-keeping or humanitarian duties, which is what the amendment involves. It is most important that reservists blend in, in the same way as the regulars, and that both regulars and reservists get to know each other well.
If the period of service is reduced to six months, it will only allow the reservists to spend around four-and-a-half months with the unit. That would leave

1385
a gap of one-and-a-half months when new reservists would fill in and, to my mind, be much less effective. The one-and-a-half month reservists would be left behind by the outgoing unit and taken on by the incoming new unit. They would have to become familiar with the new unit and with all the new methods that that unit may employ.
Four-and-a-half month deployments would be disruptive. They would not be in the interest of good man management and would make it more difficult to build up the necessary close relationship between reservists and regulars. They would also be more expensive. I do not support the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army. My noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall has vast and comprehensive experience of military matters, as we all know. No one is better placed to balance the requirements of the services against the interests of the volunteer and his or her employers. He pointed out in Committee that regular soldiers are only away from home for six months, which should be enough to persuade us all of the virtues of Amendment No. 23.
I am grateful to my noble and gallant friend for reading out the letter, which I too have seen before. It is especially relevant to this debate in that the volunteers to whom my noble and gallant friend referred undertook minimal pre-deployment training. By "minimal" I understand that they merely ran through their Army training directives, which made sure that they knew how to operate their weapons, how to protect themselves in the event of an NBC attack and understood the basic principles of first aid, in which they had already been trained. That was so even when they were going to an operation which could be classed as war-like.
As my noble and gallant friend said, Amendment No. 23 is only relevant to Clause 56. Thus the pre-deployment training need not be prolonged and should not take more than two or three weeks. For some types of operation it might be longer. If a much longer period of pre-deployment military training is required it would suggest that the call-out should he made under either Clause 52 or Clause 54.
The attitude of the employers will be crucial. If an employer is sure that the volunteer will be away for no more than six months he may not take steps to have that volunteer exempted from call-out. It should be remembered that employers will be tempted to have the best quality men and women exempted from call-out. But those high quality men and women will be equally valuable to the volunteer reserve unit when engaged in operations. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I too support the amendment. We should remember that it is unlikely that the Government will at any time compulsorily call up a member of the reserve forces for this type of operation. I admit that they may want to, but I hope that they would always be able to rely on members of the reserve forces
1386
volunteering for such operations. As my noble and gallant friend said, if such a volunteer wishes to serve for more than six months, he can always do so.
We are also talking about members of the reserve forces who are called up as individuals to reinforce or strengthen some other unit or for some specialist purpose. It is almost inconceivable that complete TA units would be called up for the operations specified. The arguments put forward by my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall and my noble friend Lord Attlee are strong arguments, both from the point of view of the employer and of the volunteer. It is important for both to feel that if the reservist is compulsorily called up, it will not be for more than six months.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, we had an interesting discussion on this point in Committee and I drew attention then to the position of those serving in public bodies such as hospitals, who have a specialist interest. If the specified operations are humanitarian, such people may well be required—even in this country if the IRA bombing continues.
Do we really have enough information? I understand the position of the honorary colonels and they are right to press for the maximum period that they think proper for their purposes. But do we have enough information about the attitude of employers who will be asked to release, for this period of nine months, people who they really want? Before we place that obligation upon employers, as well as those who are ready to volunteer as reservists, we ought to ask their view. If at the end of the day it is found that, despite what the honorary colonels want, the withdrawal of specialists for humanitarian purposes interferes with the operations of employers, in particular hospitals and similar institutions, we should think again and make it six months. Therefore, for the moment I support the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the assumption made here is that all the operations are humanitarian and that for the sixth-month rather than nine-month period which the amendment proposes they will remain either humanitarian or associated with disaster relief. One wonders whether that is a safe assumption. What happens if our armed forces get involved in operations in a theatre to which they have gone initially for humanitarian purposes? We have only to remember Somalia to recognise that it is not a safe assumption that any operation that starts as a humanitarian or disaster relief operation will invariably run its course as that and nothing else.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we had an extensive debate on this important issue in Committee. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today, in particular my noble friend Lord Vivian who supported the wording in the Bill.
I turn initially to the point of definition raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Part VI contains three distinct powers of call-out. Clause 52 covers the most serious type of crisis. Clause 54 applies when warlike

1387
operations are in preparation or in progress. Clause 56 applies to humanitarian operations but also to peacekeeping and disaster relief operations. Whether a particular call-out power may be used in any given circumstances is a matter of act. The reservists who serve in Bosnia have been called out under Section 1 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 because it is clear that our forces are prepared for warlike operations. If the Bill were in force call-out might be under either Clause 54 or Clause 56, since the purpose of the operation would be essentially peacekeeping. If it were desired to call out reservists for peacekeeping operations that did not have a warlike element, clearly only Clause 56 would be applicable. United Nations-sponsored operations in Rwanda may be a good example, although whether it is under NATO or UN command is not strictly relevant. Whether or not it fell under Clause 56 would depend entirely on the facts of the case.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, rightly drew our attention to the possibility of the nature of the deployment starting as one thing and changing to something else. It is conceivable that the circumstances of an operation changed while reservists were called out. Clause 61 contains a power that would permit those individuals to be treated as if they had been called out under a different power appropriate to the new circumstances. That would not worsen their position. They could be released from service under the old power and immediately called out again under the new.
I do not believe that there is as great a difference between the Government's position and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as may appear at first sight. As he indicated in Committee perfectly correctly, it is the aim of the Army to limit emergency tours to six months for regular soldiers. However, one recognises that that is not always possible. Some personnel, especially in the logistics corps, serve for longer. The Royal Navy routinely deploys for seven months and often nine months. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord and I are agreed that the six-month target should be applied to reservists; that is, that reservists should not normally serve on operational tours for more than six months. I can happily give an undertaking to that effect. However, we part company when the noble and gallant Lord suggests that six months should be the statutory limit on called out service under Clause 56. It is clear to me that reservists should be able to undertake six-month operational deployments when called out under Clause 56. It is also clear that deployment must form part of a longer period of called out service. Time must be allowed at the start for the process of mobilisation itself. Time must be allowed either for individuals to be assimilated into a regular unit or for a group of reservists to form up; and time must be allowed for training, sometimes general, sometimes specialist and sometimes specific to the theatre of operations.
Inevitably, after the operational tour there will be a certain amount of administration to complete. After a six-month deployment a regular soldier is, quite properly, given leave, usually one week for separation and three weeks from his normal entitlement. Reservists should receive no less. I suggest that that will he just as important after humanitarian operations as in other
1388
cases. Our servicemen and women work just as hard and may have experiences that are as traumatic in humanitarian operations as in other kinds of operation. It is important that that leave should be protected from employer pressure to return to civilian work.
Following the debate in Committee the three services have reviewed the position. They have been able to draw on their current experience of call-out for operations in the former Yugoslavia. For the reasons I explained, the services remain of the view that a nine-month total period of called out service is necessary. Anything less will not permit the services to plan on reservists undertaking six-month operational tours alongside their regular colleagues.
Since the debate in Committee we have also taken fresh soundings within the TA. The volunteers are keen to be able to be called out to join regular units on operational tours, and they know that that requires a nine-month limit. The TA colonels, who make frequent visits to the units for which they are responsible, ARE unanimous that nine months is appropriate. One of those TA colonels is my noble friend the Duke of Westminster. He has written to me to express his views as the senior serving yeomanry officer. He asks me to say that he and the seven yeomanry commanding officers are unanimous in supporting the Government's view. I understand that the chairmen of the 14 Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations are also unanimous in their support of the nine-month limit, as the noble and gallant Lord himself indicated.
The House will appreciate that not all operations under Clause 56 will require the prolonged support of reservists. Some may last for only a few weeks or months. We will call out reservists for shorter periods than the maximum permitted whenever possible. We have done just that in the case of operations in Bosnia. I can tell the noble and gallant Lord that the TA REME provided twice as many volunteers as were sought for the Bosnia call-out. We must be able to plan on the basis of nine months' maximum permanent service for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. The proposal to limit permanent service to six months will allow only about four and a half months in theatre, assuming that a long period of pre-deployment training is not required. The time in theatre will be further reduced if more pre-deployment training is required. For a prolonged operation the more limited the time reservists can spend in theatre the greater the number of reservists we will require to call out each year to fill a certain number of posts. That alone will both increase costs and inconvenience more employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred to the attitude of employers. I said in Committee that if a particular employer or reservist felt that he had good grounds on which to object to the duration of a call-out he could apply under Part VIII of the Bill for any of a number of remedies. He could seek exemption from call-out, deferral of call-out, or an earlier discharge date. These measures demonstrate that we are fully seized of the necessity to place as small a burden as possible on reservists and their employers. However, at the same time we must be able to make good and economic use

1389
of our reservists where there is a need for their service. In the consultation process the majority of employers were content with the nine-month period. Employers who would find that difficult can seek exemption.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, will be deal with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley? In view of what my noble friend said earlier, it would seem that that point has been overtaken except that my noble friend said that there would be cases involving humanitarian relief when men would be called out not for nine months but for six months. Let us suppose, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, it ceases to be a humanitarian matter but becomes an operational matter. Will it then be possible for that period of six months to be extended?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that I covered that point earlier. I certainly endeavoured to do so. I mentioned that under Clause 61 there is a power which would allow individuals to be treated as if they had been called out under a different power should the circumstances of the deployment change. The point I emphasised was that that would not worsen their position were those circumstances to occur because they could be released from service under one power and then immediately called out again under the new power. That is how it would work. I believe that that answers the point that was raised.
There is more I could say about the damaging impact of the six-month limit that would be imposed by the amendment. I believe that the Government's proposals carry wide support within the services, within reserve forces particularly and within the TAVRAs. I hope I have now said sufficient to persuade the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, not to press the amendment.
Lord Braman: My Lords, I am most grateful for the thorough and articulate reply that the noble Earl has given on this very important subject. I am glad that we have had a good debate on the amendment. There ARE two sides to the argument, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, has made abundantly clear, including giving me a lecture on man management, which he is perfectly entitled to do.
I do not want the Government to be over-optimistic about the relish that employers and employees will have in the future about compulsory call up. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, I do not think they should underestimate the position, particularly in the medical services, where I think the National Health Service will have strong views about letting their surgeons and anaesthetists go out to humanitarian operations overseas for too long when they have plenty of humanitarian operations to do back in their own country. I hope that the Government will be conscious of not compulsorily calling out these people for any longer than is necessary. The noble Earl gave an assurance that he had that very much in mind and that in the normal course of events six months overseas would be the maximum, the rest being taken up with some sort of mobilisation procedures.
1390
I believe that the penny has dropped on this point. But if it has not dropped there could be considerable trouble ahead. The Government have taken great steps to consult inside the services, with the TAVRAs and with the regimental colonels. They have done a very good job in that. In view of the consultation that has taken place and in view of the Minister's assurance that he is conscious that it would be wrong to give the impression that volunteers or reservists would always be called up for more than six months, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [Call-out notices]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 33, line 34, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("( ) Notices under this section may be served on a person by delivering it to him or by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, his last known address; and any call-out or variation notice delivered to that address by registered post or recorded delivery shall be deemed to have been served on him.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have spoken to Amendments Nos. 24 to 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Liability to recall]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 36, line 37, leave out from ("service") to end of line 39 and insert ("under a recall order shall not be reckoned in any numbers for the time being authorised by Parliament for any of the regular services").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Recall for national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 39, line 10, after ("to") insert ("each House of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Maximum duration of service on recall]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 40, line 9, after ("to") insert ("each House of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Recall notices]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 41, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("( ) Notices under this section may be served on a person by delivering it to him or by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, his last known address; and any recall or variation notice delivered to that address by registered post or recorded delivery shall be deemed to have been served on him.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Period of service and release]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 42, line 2, leave out (" 68(7)") and insert (" 68(8)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
RECALL NOT TO AFFECT SERVICE PENSIONS
(". Where a person to or in respect of whom a service pension is payable has been accepted into service under a recall order—

(a) any pay or other emoluments to which he is entitled in respect of his service on recall shall not be reduced by reason of the service pension;

(b) the service pension shall not be withheld or reduced by reason of any such pay or emoluments.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the light of the Committee debate on pensions, I reviewed the provisions in the Bill. One particular provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 had not been carried forward into the Bill. It concerns those in receipt of a service pension who would be, as former regulars, liable to recall into service under Part VII of the Bill. The usual Treasury rule is that when an individual in receipt of a public service pension is re-employed in a similar capacity that pension should be stopped or abated. Section 31(5) of the 1980 Act gives statutory exemption from that rule to service pensioners recalled to service in an emergency. This amendment replicates that protection for those liable to recall under Part VII. They will not all be service pensioners but a proportion will be. This is a very straightforward point. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Interpretation of Part VII]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 43, line 45, after ("before") insert ("each House of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Regulations under sections 77 and 78: supplementary]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 47, line 8, leave out (" 69(7)") and insert (" 69(6)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Power to suspend payments due to national danger or great emergency]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 50, line 5, after ("before") insert ("each House of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Punishment etc. of offences of desertion or absence without leave]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 54, line 40, after ("of') insert ("desertion or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 35. These two minor amendments correct the references to "desertion" in Clause 97. The words "desertion or" are, from the
1392
construction of the subsection, clearly missing from Clause 97(2). Clause 96(2) creates an offence of absence without leave. The reference to that subsection in Clause 97(4) means that the words "desertion or" should be removed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 55, line 3, leave out ("desertion or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Regulations as to associations]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 62, line 21, after ("before") insert ("each House of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 121 [Safeguard of employment for members of reserve forces]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 63, line 24. leave out ("section 58 or 59") and insert ("Part VI").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 63, line 29. at end insert—.
("( ) After section I. there shall be inserted—"
Obligation not to discriminate.
1A.—(1) It is unlawful for a person. in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain. to discriminate against another on the grounds that he is or may become a member of the Reserve Forces of the Crown—

(a) in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment; or

(b) in the terms on which he offers him that employment; or

(c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer him that employment.

(2) It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against a person employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, on the grounds that that employee is or may become a member of the Reserve Forces of the Crown—

(a) in the terms of employment which he affords him; or

(b) in the way he affords him access to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities to services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or

(c) by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to benefits, facilities or services of any description if the employer is concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of benefits, facilities or services of that description to the public, or to a section of the public comprising the employee in question, unless—

(a) that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits, facilities or services by the employer to his employee; or

(b) the provision of the benefits, facilities or services to the employee in question is regulated by his contract of employment; or

(c) the benefits, facilities or services relate to training.".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 38 which stands in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. We return to this amendment on the issue of non-discrimination in employment because it will be recalled that in Committee, following a briefing that we received from the British Medical Association, we tabled an amendment which sought to make it illegal for employers to try to prevent employees from joining the reserve forces and fulfilling their training and other obligations arising from that. We received information that the Minister was sympathetic to our point of view.
We were assured by the BMA that it is common for employers in the NHS to try to discriminate, despite assurances to the contrary. Some NHS trusts ARE apparently issuing contracts which do not permit medical staff to join the reserves. The BMA in particular was concerned that the competitive nature of the internal market was likely to lead to an increase in the number of trusts attempting to do that and to put obstacles in the way of staff wishing to join the reserves.
As I said earlier, the Minister appeared to be aware of the BMA's concerns when we discussed the matter in Committee. However, he does not appear to have tabled a government amendment to try to come to terms with those concerns, so we have largely repeated the wording that we tabled in Committee. I hope that the Minister will now be able to say that he is prepared to accept our amendment—or, if not this, something similar which could be accepted formally on Third Reading.
It is not only a question affecting employers in the NHS. Our amendment would cover employers generally because we believe that discrimination against employees who want to become members of the reserve forces should not be permitted and that it should be stated on the face of the Bill that such discrimination is illegal. The BMA is still worried about the matter. Indeed, as recently as this morning I received a telephone call from its office asking whether we intended to pursue the amendment. In the circumstances, I wonder whether the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment this time round. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment which returns us to an issue that was raised in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in Committee that one way of avoiding discrimination was to work through the National Employers' Liaison Committee. That body has done great work in the past and should be praised.
However, I should like to press the point that it is not only the National Health Service which could he affected. In the case of the high readiness reserve, what would happen if a particular section of the business community saw that its employees would be needed for particular operations and started to take it upon itself to write into contracts of employment clauses forbidding
1394
employees from becoming reservists? That is more likely to apply in the case of smaller companies which will fall outside the general system of negotiation. What would be the attitude of the Ministry of Defence to that? How would the MoD address the problem? I realise that it is unlikely that the Minister will support the amendment, and that reintroducing such provisions would need primary legislation which is unlikely to be brought forward. Therefore, what measures does the Minister envisage being taken if the scenario that I have outlined comes to pass?
Lord Renton: My Lords, naturally in principle one should be in favour of an amendment of this kind. On the face of it and at first glance, it looks sensible and sound, but all manner of complications arise. They are analogous when wartime comes—some of us still remember that—with the principle of reserved occupations in time of war. If that principle were to be accepted by the Government as part of our legislation, I expect that the provisions would have to be redrafted stating very considerable exceptions in order to deal with circumstances where it would manifestly be wrong to compel somebody to refrain from employing a person in the reserve forces. Therefore, I would expect my noble friend to be cautious on this matter. I was not able to be present in Committee, but I understand that the matter was at least raised then. I should be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about it now.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, we discussed this issue extensively in Committee. I am not convinced that the case that she makes for an anti-discrimination provision is the best way ahead. The proposal is full of good intent, but I fear that it would not have the desired effect because it would damage the relationship between employers, the reserve forces and those employees who are also reservists.
I am firmly of the opinion that the constructive approach that we have adopted to date should continue. Building and maintaining the three-way partnership between employers, reservists and the Ministry of Defence requires openness and trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the work of the National Employers' Liaison Committee (NELC) and I too take this opportunity of saying that the Government ARE most appreciative of NELC's work. It has been particularly helpful during consultations on the Bill. It is upon that body that much of the successful co-operation rests. We have no wish to move from this co-operative approach, which is generally successful, to one which cannot help but be adversarial in nature.
An anti-discrimination measure would also be widely perceived as a punitive burden on employers. The expense to business of complying with such a measure would be unwelcome to employers. Businesses would not welcome the constraints on their management flexibility that would be imposed by having to avoid any suggestion that they were treating a reservist in some way unfavourably. Many employers might as a result come to the conclusion that the easiest way of avoiding the problem was simply to avoid recruiting reservists in

1395
the first place. Discrimination of that nature at the time of recruitment to employment is inevitably difficult to substantiate.
It follows that far from encouraging the employment of reserves, such a measure could be counterproductive. Any change in employer attitudes would affect not only the volunteer reserves, but also ex-regular servicemen and women seeking to establish a civilian career. Nor do I believe that the amendment would be of benefit to reservists in employment. It would inevitably begin to change the relationship between a reservist and his employer from a constructive and open one into being an adversarial and confrontational one. In those circumstances, neither the reservist nor the employer would benefit.
Perhaps I may comment in passing on a thought prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. To achieve even a modest and effective provision in the spirit of the amendment which the noble Baroness has proposed would require a quite substantial Bill in its own right. The Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act run to over 70 and 80 sections respectively. An initial assessment is that a substantial number of sections would he needed to achieve an equivalent level of protection for reservists.
During the proceedings in Committee and again today, the noble Baroness expressed concern that some employers were attempting to bar employees from joining the volunteer reserves by writing terms into their contracts to that effect. It appears to be the wish of the noble Baroness to make it unlawful to incorporate a term in a contract which purports to bar an employee from being a reservist. I do not believe that such a provision is necessary. The existing law copes with that situation. The Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 provides that it is a criminal offence to sack an employee who is a reservist because of his or her reserve liability. Therefore, if an employee became a reservist in breach of a term in his contract and the employer attempted to sack him, the employer could be prosecuted for so doing. Depending on the circumstances of the case, it might also be an unfair dismissal. If action less than dismissal were attempted that might be constructive dismissal.
I believe that the existing provisions in law achieve the effect that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords desire. I cannot agree that any significant change in the law is necessary. I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I urge her to think again.
Before I conclude, perhaps with the leave of the House I may address briefly two separate but connected issues relating to the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. In the light of the debate in Committee, we have looked again at the provisions of that Act, which I remind noble Lords gives reservists who enter into a period of permanent service a right to reinstatement in their civilian employment. It also makes it a criminal offence to dismiss an individual for being a reservist before the date on which he is required to report for the purpose of commencing his permanent service. That would leave an individual who attended on
1396
the day his call-out notice required, but who was not accepted into service, without either of the protections that I have mentioned. That is undesirable and I intend to bring forward a simple amendment on Third Reading in order to rectify that deficiency.
During an informal discussion the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raised the position under the 1985 Act of a female reservist who was granted maternity leave while called out. The 1985 Act makes no explicit mention of maternity leave. That might not jeopardise the position under the Act of a pregnant female reservist, but I recognise that it would be preferable for the position to be beyond doubt. I will consider whether an amendment can he prepared for a later stage in the consideration of the Bill, perhaps even for Third Reading next week.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation. However, I do not altogether share his sanguine view about the lack of necessity for any kind of protection on the face of the Bill. It is clear that people who have studied the Bill, including members of the BMA, have real doubts about the degree to which their members are protected if they wish to become reservists. They are keen to have some kind of provision on the face of the Bill which gives the necessary protection as they see it.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, commented on what happens in the case of war and reserve occupations. I believe that in such a circumstance there would he a necessity for special legislation to protect that position. Real anxieties were expressed by a number of people when the Bill was first published and I am not at all certain that the Minister's explanation covers them all. Nevertheless, I will read Hansard and study what has been said because the reply was detailed with references to the 1985 Act and so forth. It is to be hoped that we will arrive at a situation in which people feel they are adequately protected.
I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration that he has given to other aspects of the 1985 Act. I look forward to seeing the text of the two amendments which he intends to introduce at Third Reading, including an amendment in relation to women who become pregnant. That issue was raised during our informal discussions and in our discussions in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 [Absence for voting]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 64, line 18, leave out from ("at") to end of line and insert ("—

(a) any election of a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament, or

(b) any local election, or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the rubric of Clause 124 is "Absence for voting". In Committee I made the point that the clause refers only to voting at an election of a Member of Parliament. As I also said in Committee, I believe that no one should be punished on account of

1397
his absence from duty in the election of either a Member of Parliament, a Member of the European Parliament or even voting in local elections. I am pleased to say that the force of that argument was accepted by the noble Earl. In that spirit, I move the amendment to include Members of the European Parliament and local councillors as being people for whom reservists might conveniently vote without penalty. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment, in particular the reference to local elections. It would be most unfortunate if potential voters missed their opportunity to vote.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the issue in Committee and I believe that he makes a powerful point. It is right that individuals should have the opportunity to vote in elections of all kinds. The amendment provides for that and I am happy to accept it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 127, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION OF ACT TO PERSONS CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE RESERVE FORCES OR REGULAR SERVICES
(".—(1) Schedule (Application of Act to transitional members) shall have effect with respect to the application of this Act in relation to members of the reserve forces who are members of the transitional class.
(2) Nothing in the Reserve Forces Act 1980 shall apply to a member of a reserve force who is not a member of the transitional class or, in the case of a person who is to be transferred to the reserve from the regular services, is not capable of becoming a member of the transitional class.
(3) In this Act "the transitional class", in relation to members of the reserve forces, shall be construed in accordance with Part I of Schedule (Application of Act to transitional members).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. The three amendments adapt the provisions of the Bill to those individuals with reserved rights to be called out under the existing powers in the Reserve Forces Act 1980 and the prerogative powers applicable to certain officers. They will be able to opt to become fully subject to the Bill. The new clause after Clause 127 introduces the schedule. It also provides that the Reserve Forces Act 1980 will not apply to individuals fully subject to the Bill. The new schedule draws together transitional provisions which were formally spread throughout the Bill in what I believe to he a much clearer and more coherent form. The amendment to Schedule 8 is a consequential change.
The Bill includes the repeal of almost the whole of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. However, the repeal of the sections which continue to apply to these individuals with reserved rights will not he made effective immediately. Those sections will continue to be in force while there are individuals subject to them. In particular
1398
as regards former regulars, that could be for a considerable period. In theory, it could be as long as 43 years. That period would be reduced if those who had most recently joined the regular services were to opt to be subject to the new liabilities. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, for reasons which my noble friend has given, it is plain that we need the new clause. It is purely a drafting matter but the proposed new schedule in Amendment No. 51 appears to be incredibly elaborate. One would have hoped that some general phrase which covered all or most of the provisions referred to could have been inserted instead of the mass of detail. Indeed, it might have been done by delegated legislation.
Speaking for myself and for many others, one does not like to see Acts of Parliament cluttered up with too much purely technical detail. I say that in the hope that the draftsman on this occasion and other draftsmen on other occasions may well advise the Government on ways in which we can ensure that Acts of Parliament are not cluttered with such relatively minor detail.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I too accept the need for such a schedule. It sets out with a certain amount of clarity what is necessary. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that some of the drafting of the schedule appears to be odd. I am surprised to find expressions such as "transitional officer" and "transitional man". I presume that "transitional man" includes "transitional woman". I am not quite sure what that means but I find that transitional men and women may raise a number of problems with which your Lordships may not wish to deal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I believe that it would he accurate to say that either of those situations could arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows more about this matter than I do. I ask the noble Earl whether he is satisfied that the drafting is of the standard which legislation requires. I understand that the subject matter is right and needs to he dealt with but perhaps the Minister would look at that matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Renton for their remarks. As I said, I am satisfied that the schedule is necessary and, indeed, as I have indicated, I believe that it sets out in a clearer and more coherent form provisions which were previously spread about the Bill.
However, having heard those strictures, I shall certainly study the wording. I am entirely in sympathy with the general theme of the remarks made by my noble friend—that is, that Occam's razor, as it were, should be applied wherever possible to Plato's beard. I am sure that that is something which should commend itself to all parliamentary draftsmen. Having said that, I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Charitable property on disbanding of units]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 76, line 21, leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is made").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 to 49.
These minor and technical amendments serve principally to bring the provisions on charities established for the benefit of reserve forces in Scottish law more into line with those for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to clarify the duties of the Lord Advocate in connection with this schedule.
I should not wish to burden your Lordships with a detailed explanation of the amendments but I should he happy to explain any questions that are raised with me. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not an expert on Scottish charity law. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me in what respect Scottish charitable law differs from English and indeed Welsh charitable law so that these amendments are necessary.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that in itself would require an essay and perhaps more debating time than is available this afternoon. I should he happy to encapsulate in as brief a space as possible, perhaps on paper, to the noble Lord, the precise aspects in which Scottish charitable law differs from English law. Rather than read out the extensive notes which I have here, perhaps the noble Lord will accept that suggestion.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while we are looking at this matter, I wonder whether I may draw attention to Amendment No. 42 and merely register a point. While we are delighted to see that the Government are proposing this amendment and that the lines in question should he deleted, we are concerned that at several points in the Bill in the early stages of drafting there have been extraordinarily general provisions. We seek an assurance from the Minister that he will take that up with those concerned to make sure that future legislation is specific. It is distressing that we should always have to go back to passages like this in order to make sure that very sweeping generalisations are removed.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as we are on Report, I shall respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Amendments Nos. 42, 45 and 48 arise as a result of examination of the Bill since its introduction. Some slight inconsistencies have been revealed between the provisions of Part III of the schedule, which deals with succession to charitable property in Scotland, and their counterparts for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As I say, we are seeking to bring Scottish provisions into line with those which apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. These amendments simply make minor drafting changes.
I share the noble Lord's frustration at having to make such alterations and to bring in general provisions but I am advised that they are extremely necessary and desirable for the good governance of the country.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 49:
Page 77, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Page 77, line 32, leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is made").
Page 77, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("with") in line 42 and insert ("for the court to make an order—

(a) providing that paragraph 9 shall cease to apply to that property or part; and

(b) exercising,").

Page 77, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert—
("( ) On an application under sub-paragraph (1), the court may exercise any such power as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to make such order as it considers to be appropriate, whether or not that power would normally be exercisable at the instance of such a petitioner.").
Page 78, line 5, leave out ("may") and insert ("—

(a) if he has not given a direction under paragraph 9, may; and

(b) if he has given such a direction, shall,").

Page 78, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) On an application under sub-paragraph (1), the court may, subject to any such direction, exercise any such power to make such order as it considers to be appropriate, whether or not that power would normally be exercisable at the instance of the Lord Advocate.").
Page 78, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("affect") in line 11, and insert ("None of the following, that is to say, a warrant, a direction under paragraph 10 or an order under paragraph 11 or 12 shall").
Page 78, line 45. leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is made").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitory and transitional provisions]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 86, leave out lines 44 to 47 and insert—
("(4) If any such officer or man is transferred to a reserve force on or after the day appointed for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule (Application of Act to transitional members)—

(a) he shall he regarded for the purposes of paragraph 2 of that Schedule as if he had been a member of that force since immediately before the appointed day;

(b) the references in that paragraph to "that time" shall be taken to refer to the time at which he was transferred to the reserve force.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 51:
After Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
APPLICATION OF ACT TO TRANSITIONAL MEMBERS
PART 1
THE TRANSITIONAL CLASS OF MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE FORCES
1.—(1) The transitional class consists of persons who—

(a) ARE members of a reserve force:

(b) for the time being fall within paragraph 2 or 3; and

(c) have not made an election under paragraph 4.

(2) In this Schedule "transitional member" means a member of a reserve force who for the time being is a member of the transitional class; and "transitional officer" and "transitional man" shall he construed accordingly.
(3) In this Part of this Schedule "the appointed day" means such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
2. A person who, immediately before the appointed day, was an officer or man of a reserve force falls within this paragraph if—

(a) he has remained a member of that force without interruption since that time; and

(b) he has not extended his service in, or become an officer of, that force since that time.

3. An officer or man who becomes a member of a reserve force on or after the appointed day, on transfer to the reserve from the regular services, falls within this paragraph if—

(a) he joined the regular services before the appointed day and did not re-enlist, re-engage or extend his service, or become an officer, in the regular services on or after that day;

(b) he has remained a member of the reserve force concerned without interruption since being transferred from the regular services; and

(c) he has not extended his service in, or become an officer of, that force since being so transferred.

4.—(1) A person who is a transitional member of a reserve force by virtue of paragraph 2 or 3 may elect to cease being a transitional member.
(2) An officer or man serving in the regular services who—

(a) joined those services before the appointed day: and

(b) has not re-enlisted, re-engaged or extended his service, or become an officer, on or after that day.

may elect not to be a transitional member on his transfer to the reserve.
(3) An election under this paragraph is irrevocable and must be made in the prescribed manner.
(4) A person who has made an election under this paragraph shall cease to be or. as the case may he, shall not become a transitional member of the reserve force concerned.
5.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule "man", in relation to the regular services, means a person of or below the rank or rate of warrant officer.
(2) A person in permanent service on recall (whether under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, in the case of an officer, otherwise than under this Act) shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule as serving in the regular services.
PART II
APPLICATION OF ACT TO MEMBERS OF TOE TRANSITIONAL CLASS
6. The provisions of this Act (other than section (Application of Act to persons currently serving in the reserve forces or regular services) and this Schedule) apply in relation to members of the transitional class in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
7.—(1) Any reference in this Act to a reserve force, to two or inure of the reserve forces or to all the reserve forces shall, unless the context otherwise requires, he construed as a reference to the whole of the force, or of each force, concerned, including any transitional members.
(2) Any reference in this Act to members. officers or men of a reserve force includes, unless the context otherwise requires, a reference to members, officers or men who are transitional members.
(3) This paragraph has effect subject to the exceptions and modifications in the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
8.—(1) In the application of section 17(1) to a transitional man. the reference to permanent service includes a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980.
(2) Section 17(2), (3) and (4) do not apply to transitional men.
9.—(1) In the application of sections 18, 20 and 21 to a transitional man, the reference to permanent service includes a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980.
(2) In the application of section 21 to a transitional man of the Royal Fleet Reserve, the reference to training and other duties includes a reference to training or other duties in pursuance of any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980.
10. Section 22 does not apply to transitional members of a reserve land, air or marine force.
11. In the application of section 24 to a transitional member who has entered into a full-time service commitment—

(a) for the reference in subsection (7) to permanent service under Part VI there shall be substituted a reference to permanent service on call out under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or. as the case may be, under any other call-out obligations of an officer; and

(b) for the reference in subsection (8) to training under section 22 there shall (except in the case of a member of a reserve naval force) be substituted a reference to training required under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, under any other training obligations of an officer.

12.—(1) Transitional members may (subject to the provisions of this Act) enter into a special agreement or an employee agreement; and Parts IV and V apply accordingly.
(2) Transitional members of a reserve force do not lose their status as transitional members by virtue of either becoming special members of the force or (where they continue as ordinary members under section 42) ceasing to be special members of the force.
13. In the application of section 31(1) to a special agreement entered into by a transitional member, for the reference in paragraph (d) to permanent service under Part VI there shall be substituted a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or. as the case may be, under any other call-out obligations of an officer.
14. In the application of section 34(5) to transitional members. the reference in paragraph (b) to section 57(11) shall be omitted.
15. In the application of section 40(5) to a transitional special member—

(a) for the reference to section 22 there shall (except in the case of a member of a reserve naval force) be substituted a reference to the corresponding provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, of any other training obligations of an officer;

(b) for the reference to Part VI there shall be substituted a reference to the corresponding provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or. as the case may be, of any other call-out obligations of an officer.

16. An order may he made under section 41(6) suspending the operation of section 41(1)(c) in relation to transitional special members, notwithstanding that Part VI does not apply to transitional members.
17. In the application of section 45(5) to transitional members, the reference in paragraph (b) to section 57(11) shall be omitted.
18. Part VI does not apply to transitional members.
19. Regulations under section 77, 82 or 83 may make provision. in relation to transitional members liable to be called out under—

(a) the Reserve Forces Act 1980, or

(b) any other call-out obligations of officers,

corresponding to the provision which may be made in regulations under that section in relation to members of the reserve forces liable to he called out under Part VI of this Act.
20. In the application of section 95(1) to a transitional member—

(a) the reference to any provision of this Act includes a reference to any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, of any other call-out obligations of an officer; and

(b) for the reference in paragraph (a) to section 58(3)(c) there shall be substituted a reference to the corresponding provision of that Act or those obligations.

21. In the application of section 96(2) to a transitional member, for the reference to section 22 there shall (except in the case of a member of a reserve naval force) be substituted a reference to the corresponding provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, of any other training obligations of an officer.
22. In the application of section 101(2) to transitional members—

(a) the reference in paragraph (a) to any provision of this Act includes a reference to the corresponding provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, of any other call-out obligations of an officer;

(b) the reference in paragraph (d) to training includes (except in the case of members of a reserve naval force) a reference to the corresponding training required under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or, as the case may be, under any other training obligations of an officer.

23. In the application of section 122(1) to a transitional man, the reference to permanent service includes a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980.
24. In the application of section 124 to a transitional member, the reference to permanent service includes a reference to permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or. as the case may be. under any other call-out obligations of an officer.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 87, leave out lines 8 to 38 and insert—
("1.—(1) Section 205(1) (persons subject to military law) of the Army Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (e) there shall he substituted the following paragraphs—
"(e) every officer of the Territorial Army who is not a special member;
(ea) every officer of the Territorial Army who is a special member when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not);
(eb) every officer of the army reserve when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the army reserve;".
(3) In paragraph (g) for the words from "called" to the end there shall he substituted the words "in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the army reserve:".
(4) In paragraph (h) for the words from "embodied" to "parades" there shall be substituted the words "in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty". 2. At the end of section 205 of that Act there shall he inserted the following subsection—
"(4) In this section—
"full-time service" means service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996:
"permanent service" means permanent service on call out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer; and
"special member" has the same meaning as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996."
3.—(1) Section 210(2) (application of section 205 to Royal Marines) of that Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (a) there shall he inserted the following paragraph—
1404
"(aa) any reference to an officer of the army reserve shall be construed as including a reference to an officer of the Royal Marines Reserve or a marine officer of the Royal Fleet Reserve;".
(3) For paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"(b) any reference to a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or man of the army reserve shall be construed as including a reference to a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or a marine of the Royal Marines Reserve and to a marine warrant officer or non-commissioned officer or a marine of the Royal Fleet Reserve; and
(ba) any reference to the permanent staff of the army reserve shall be construed as including a reference to the permanent staff of the Royal Marines Reserve or the Royal Fleet Reserve."
4. In section 210(3) of that Act, for the words "the Royal Marines Reserve or" there shall be substituted the words "or the Royal Marines Reserve and a marine officer, marine warrant officer or non-commissioned officer or a marine of".
5. In section 210(4) of that Act, for the word "or" there shall be substituted the words "and to marine officers, marine warrant officers or non-commissioned officers and marines of".
6. After subsection (5) of section 210 of that Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6) For the purposes of this section references to marine warrant officers or non-commissioned officers and marines of the Royal Fleet Reserve shall be construed as references to persons who were transferred to that force from the Royal Marines or who enlisted in that force as marines."
7.—(1) Section 211 (application of Act to reserve forces) of that Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "any reserve of officers" there shall he substituted the words "the army reserve"; and

(b) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(b) officers of the Territorial Army when in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the Territorial Army,".
(3) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(2) Subsections (5) and (6) of section 17 shall apply to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the army reserve and the Territorial Army as if the references to forfeited service were references to a period of permanent service or, as the case may he. of service as a member of the force concerned, which is to be disregarded under section 97(6) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996."
(4) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4) The provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (4A) below shall apply to officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the army reserve and the Territorial Army only when they are in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or serving on the permanent staff of the army reserve or the Territorial Army.
(4A) The provisions referred to in subsection (4) above are—

(a) sections 150 to 153 of this Act;

(b) except insofar as they may he applied by regulations made under section 102(2) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, the provisions of Part II of this Act relating to the award of stoppages and sections 144 to 149 of this Act."

(5) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(6) Section 182 of this Act shall not apply at any time to officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers or men of the Territorial Army."
(6) For subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(8) An officer of the army reserve or the Territorial Army may be attached temporarily to any of Her Majesty's naval or air forces whether or not he is in permanent service but, if not in permanent service, shall not be so attached except with his consent."
(7) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(9) In this section—
"full-time service" mean service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996; and
"permanent service" means permanent service on call-out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer."
8. In paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 (provisions as to Royal Marines: application of section 211) to that Act—

(a) after the words "Royal Marines Reserve" there shall be inserted the words "or marine officers, marine warrant officers or non-commissioned officers or marines or; and

(b) for the words "any reserve of officers" there shall be substituted the words "the army reserve".

Air Force Act 1955 (c.19)
9.—(1) Section 205(1) (persons subject to air-force law) of the Air Force Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.
(2) Paragraph (c) shall cease to have effect.
(3) For paragraph (f) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"(f) every officer of the air force reserve or Royal Auxiliary Air Force who is not a special member;
(ff) every officer of the air force reserve or Royal Auxiliary Air Force who is a special member, when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not);".
(4) In paragraph (h). for the words from "called" to the end there shall be substituted the words "in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the air force reserve;".
(5) In paragraph (i), for the words from "embodied" to "parades" there shall be substituted the words "in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty"
10. For subsection (3) of section 205 of that Act there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) In this section—
"air forces commission" means a commission in the Royal Air Force, the air force reserve or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force;
"full-time service" means service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;
"permanent service" means permanent service on call out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer;
"special member" has the same meaning as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996."
11 .—(1) Section 210 (application of Act to reserve forces) of that Act shall he amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(a) officers of the air force reserve when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the air force reserve,"; and.
(b) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(c) officers of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force when in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not) or when serving on the permanent staff of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force,".
(3) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(2) Subsection (4) of section 17 shall apply to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the air force reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force as if the references to forfeited service were references to a period of permanent service or, as the case may he, of service as a member of the force concerned, which is to be disregarded under section 97(6) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996."
(4) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4) The provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (4A) below shall apply to officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the air force reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force only when they are in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or serving on the permanent staff of the air force reserve or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
(4A) The provisions referred to in subsection (4) above are—

(a) sections 150 to 153 of this Act;

(b) except insofar as they may be applied by regulations made under section 102(2) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, the provisions of Part II of this Act relating to the award of stoppages and sections 144 to 149 of this Act."

(5) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(6) Section 182 of this Act shall not apply at any time to officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers or men of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force."
(6) For subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(8) An officer of the air force reserve or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force may be attached temporarily to any of Her Majesty's naval or military forces whether or not he is in permanent service but, if not in permanent service, shall not be so attached except with his consent."
(7) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(9) In this section—
"full-time service" means service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;
"permanent service" means permanent service on call out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer."
Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53)
12.—(1) Section 111 (application of Act to naval forces etc.) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) Any officer or rating of any of the naval reserve forces is subject to this Act while—

(a) in permanent service on call out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or any other call-out obligations of an officer;

(b) in full-time service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;

(c) undertaking any training or duty (whether in pursuance of an obligation or not); or

(d) serving on the permanent staff of the Royal Fleet Reserve or the Royal Naval Reserve."

(3) In subsection (4), for the words from "naval" to the end there shall be substituted the words "person recalled to the Royal Navy under section 30 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 or Part VII of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 is subject to this Act from the time he is accepted into service until duly released or discharged."
13. In section 132 (definitions of Her Majesty's forces, etc.) of that Act—

(a) in subsection (7), for the words from "warrant" to the end there shall be substituted the words "marine officers and persons who were transferred to that force from the Royal Marines or who enlisted as marines.";

(b) for subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(8) In this Act "naval reserve forces" means the Royal Fleet Reserve (except so far as it consists of marine officers and persons who were transferred from the Royal Marines or who enlisted as marines) and the Royal Naval Reserve." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. Again, I shall endeavour not to burden your Lordships with a long exposition on the amendments.
Schedule 9 makes changes to the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. The changes take account of the new forms of service introduced under the Bill. Their effect is as follows. Special members under Part V of the Bill will invariably he subject to service law only when on duty. Conversely, individuals on full-time reserve service under Clause 24, and members of a reserve force serving on the permanent staff of that force, will he subject to service law at all times.
The schedule also removes obsolete terminology from the sections of the Service Discipline Acts concerned with reserves. The amendments to Schedule 10 are minor consequential changes to the schedule of repeals. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House at this stage. Earlier the noble Earl said that he would look at Clause 21 and the possibility of. refining the wording. I hope that when he does that and considers the arguments that we put forward, he will look also at the implications of this schedule to see how far it is tied 10 accommodating the points about which we ARE anxious as distinct from investigating ways in which the situation could he changed.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am happy to take that point on hoard and I shall look into the matter as the noble Lord suggests.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 89, line 27, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.
Page 89, line 35, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert ("Section 205(1)(c).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1996
4.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this draft order, I wish to speak also to the other five draft orders. The orders provide, as they have done in the past, an important opportunity to debate the central issue facing all developed countries; namely, the control of welfare spending.
Since the welfare state was established, spending on social security has grown by 5 per cent. a year faster than inflation and twice as fast as national income. On average the social security system costs every working person £15 for every working day. For the past three years we have carried through a widespread programme of reform as a result of which we have reduced the planned growth of the welfare budget to little more than I per cent. a year.
Next year, planned spending on social security will he £90 billion. That is below the planned spending we announced two years ago. The sum includes £3 billion for the up-rating of benefits. Generally, benefits will rise by 3.9 per cent.—at a time when the latest figure for the retail prices index is 2.9 per cent. That provides the largest percentage up-rating for key benefits such as retirement pensions for four years, even though inflation is running at the lowest level for more than two years. Income-related benefits, which rise in line with a different index more appropriate to the items covered by the benefits, will increase by 3 per cent.
Looking at the overall budget of social security, the fight against fraud remains our key priority in curbing spending. We are reviewing fraud, benefit by benefit. We have conducted a detailed survey of income support and unemployment benefit fraud. The survey showed that fraud in those benefits alone was costing the taxpayer more than £1.5 billion a year. A new strategy to prevent and deter that fraud was introduced.
We also reviewed housing benefit. Fraud and errors were costing £1 billion a year. We are introducing a comprehensive package of measures to tackle such fraud.
In addition to fraud, we ARE looking at ways to control all other aspects of the social security system. A few weeks ago I brought before your Lordships' House the asylum seekers changes that we have introduced in order

1409
to plug benefit loopholes in that sphere. Those regulations were introduced to restrict access to the benefits which were being widely abused by bogus asylum seekers. That abuse involved something like £200 million every year. Our reform restricts benefits for economic migrants but continues to meet our proper obligations to genuine asylum seekers. We had a significant debate a few weeks ago on the issue at the end of which, I am happy to recall, your Lordships were kind enough to support me in the Division Lobbies.
I turn now to another aspect of the benefit system where we have announced changes; namely, the position of lone parents. We have long recognised the difficulties faced by this group. We have announced a major pilot scheme to help lone parents back into work. However, we also recognise that benefits to lone parents will cost in excess of £ 9 billion this year—something like 10 per cent. of the total benefit budget.
Our strategy to ease the burden has three elements. We will improve incentives for lone parents to return to work through improvements in family credit. About 270,000 lone parents are already benefiting from family credit. We have previously extended family credit to those who work part time, and, from last July, it was raised by £10 a week for people working full time. From next April, we propose to raise the allowance for the cost of child care to £60 a week. That measure will be particularly helpful to those with more than one child and those in full-time work.
We also intend to ensure that the benefit system does not place married couples at a disadvantage compared to lone parents. In the words of Mr. Frank Field MP, the chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, in another place:
"For decades, politicians would not talk about the issue. Tax and benefit policy was squeezed to help single parents and childless couples. Single parents gained more help than did two parents. The policy has got to he reversed".
As a first step we propose not to increase the one-parent benefit or the lone-parent premium in April.
The one-parent benefit was introduced in 1976 when it was described as an "interim" benefit until the child benefit scheme came into being. When the Child Benefit Bill was going through the House of Commons, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, then Barbara Castle, said:
"There is to he an interim benefit of £1.50 a week for the one-parent family for a year from April 1976 until the child benefit scheme comes into effect".
Since that day, through changes in the benefit and taxation system, it has become possible for a lone parent to have a higher net income than a couple even when both receive similar levels of gross income—and that despite the fact that the couple would have an extra adult to support. We do not believe that the situation is right. We intend to narrow the gap between benefits for lone parents and those for couples. Regulations have been laid before the Social Security Advisory Committee to enable that to be done at a controlled pace and, most importantly, in a way which does not produce cash losers. Our proposals will increase opportunities to work for all families. They will improve incentives for lone
1410
parents to avoid welfare dependency and they will reduce the burden on couples who support themselves. We will also ensure that more lone parents receive regular maintenance from the absent parent.
The Child Support Agency is now proving increasingly effective and is on target to collect and arrange 60 per cent. more maintenance this year than in the previous year. Absent parents on benefit should also contribute to the cost of their children. One of the measures included in the package of regulations we ARE discussing today will double the minimum contribution to 10 per cent. of basic income support.
We also propose to improve incentives for all workers and not just for lone parents. From April 1996 employers will qualify for one year's remission from their national insurance contributions for each person they take on who has been out of work for two years or more. One of the measures before us today will cut Class 4 national insurance contributions paid by the self-employed by 1.3 per cent. from April. We also intend to reduce the main rate of employers national insurance contributions by 0.2 per cent. from April of next year.
We are rightly proud of the extent to which we have encouraged people to provide for their own retirement in this country. More than three-quarters of employees who are eligible to do so have opted for a private scheme rather than remain in the state earnings related pension scheme. The total value of investment in British pension funds is nearly £600 billion. That is more than that of all the other European Union countries put together; indeed, in the past year, it has increased by £100 billion.
The next priority in our successful pension strategy is to encourage more provision for the cost of long-term care for the elderly. From April 1996 we propose to double to £16,000 the upper capital limit for income support for those in residential care and we are more than trebling the lower limit. We are consulting on the important issue of developing attractive schemes for self-provision for long-term care.
We are fortunate that there are fewer people out of work in this country than in any other major country in western Europe; indeed, there are more people in jobs and, of course, we have the lowest level of inflation for a generation. The measures before us will protect the most vulnerable; they will strengthen work incentives; and they will maintain our long-term control of social security expenditure. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January he approved [8th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
5.9 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I feel sure that the House is most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his typically full and lucid explanation of this up-rating order; and, indeed, of the other orders that we are discussing today. I should begin by declaring an interest. I am lucky to be in receipt of a National Insurance pension and also of a war pension. I am most

1411
grateful to the taxpayers and the National Insurance contributors who found the money for those two benefits.
When I had some responsibility for these matters in the early 1970s the up-rating was implemented by primary legislation. There were many hours of debate as the various stages of the Bills were discussed in both Houses of Parliament. Now, of course, we have much less time for such discussion. The present practice appears to he on the day following the Budget Statement to have a statement in which the appropriate Minister gives details of the up-rating proposals to come into operation at the beginning of the next financial year. Then we have a short debate at about this time of year, as we are now doing.
It is a pity that we spend so little time on this matter. This, after all, is one of the main financial transactions of the whole year. As my noble friend has said, we are dealing with expenditure of £90 billion in one year, which is over 40 per cent. of government expenditure. Nearly every man, woman and child in this country is affected. They are either payers or receivers. It is a pity that we allow these orders to be accepted after such a short debate.
My noble friend mentioned the main up-rating. He was too modest to say whether the government commitment is met by this. As your Lordships know, the Government have a firm commitment to increase pensions and the other main benefits each year in line with prices so that they maintain their value. I should be grateful if my noble friend could confirm that this commitment is fully honoured in this up-rating statement and that it also applies to war pensions which arc, of course, increased by Royal warrant. I think I am right in saying that the commitment is more than honoured because of the downward path of inflation.
I now turn to a point briefly mentioned by my noble friend in regard to national insurance contributions for employers. This seems to me to he an immensely important provision which has not perhaps received the attention or the commendation it deserves. I welcome very much the remission of employers' national insurance contributions for a year for every person taken on who has been out of work for two years or more. welcome, too, the cut in Class 4 contributions for the self-employed by 1.3 per cent. from April, and, finally, the cut in the main rate of employers' contributions by 0.2 per cent. from April 1997. These reductions will help to contain the cost of employing people and they will make a valuable contribution to maintaining competitive conditions in this country and to keeping down unemployment. Employers in other European Union countries face much bigger burdens of employment regulations and charges than is the case in the United Kingdom. I think I am right in saying that for every pound of pay in our country there are additional labour costs amounting to £18. In Germany the figure for labour costs is £32; in France £41; and in Italy £44.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, am I right in thinking I heard the noble Lord refer to £l? I think the relevant figure is £100 of pay.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I meant to say for every £100 of pay. The figures I have mentioned are the additional costs as I understand the position. I believe that if those figures are accurate they partly explain why our unemployment rate is lower than that of most other European Union countries. They also explain why we are a successful magnate for inward investment. They show how wise are Her Majesty's Government to resist the social chapter, or what is better called the European tax on jobs, as it would be bound to increase labour costs and destroy jobs. I believe that these reductions in the employer's national insurance contribution will make a significant contribution to the economic performance of our country.
I turn now to fraud. I was glad to note that my noble friend made clear that the drive to tackle fraud will continue. It is clearly outrageous that taxpayers should be defrauded of vast sums by people who steal money to which they are not entitled. I was also glad to hear from my noble friend today that the methods of detecting fraud are being improved all the time. I hope he can confirm that that applies not only to domestic fraud but also to fraud among asylum seekers. Can my noble friend give an assurance that these drives against fraud will not be diminished in view of staff economies in his department and in the appropriate agencies?
Finally, I turn to the biggest question of all, which again was referred to by my noble friend; namely, the future costs of social security, and whether we are placing on future generations bigger burdens than we should. As your Lordships well know, in most developed countries, including our own, there is a declining working population and an increasing retired population. This is causing great anxiety, especially of course in countries such as France and Germany where pension schemes operate mostly on a pay-as-you-go basis, and where pensions and other benefits have to be met out of taxation.
Our problems are, fortunately, not so acute because of our well developed funded pension schemes where money is saved and invested. My noble friend has already given the figures and has noted that the savings and investments that we have in our occupational pension schemes ARE greater than those of all the rest of the European Union countries together. We have now reached the stage where 62 per cent. of people retiring have an occupational pension or other savings income. Of course, the proportion is going up all the time but it is still not high enough. I am glad to note that it is now possible to save through another route; namely, through personal pensions. This is a valuable additional method of saving for those who do not have access to occupational pensions.
The principle of personal pensions is sound in spite of the fact that there has been some misselling when people were wrongly persuaded to leave an occupational pension scheme and take out a personal pension policy. It is important that full restitution should be provided for those people as soon as all the relevant information is available. I am also glad to note that we now have the possibility of group personal pensions where employers who do not have an occupational pension scheme can negotiate group pensions for their employees. I believe that this will be

1413
particularly valuable for the smaller employer, and will again help to increase the number of people for whom occupational pensions are available.
In addition to the state basic scheme and a greatly reduced State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS), which both operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, we now have occupational pension schemes, personal pension schemes and group pensions schemes all providing savings and investment. This should ensure that a growing number of people have a private pension when they retire and are therefore less dependent on the state schemes. Another reason that our problems are not as acute as those of most other European Union countries is that the Government have pursued a deliberate policy of step-by-step reforms in social security. My noble friend mentioned that today. It has been a considerable achievement. It is never popular or easy to reform the social security system. Therefore, it is a considerable achievement and I believe that the Government deserve great credit for it.
I am very glad to sec that Her Majesty's Official Opposition also now recognise that reforms are required in the social security arrangements. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, nods her head. I believe that the Opposition are now thinking the unthinkable. The trouble is that when it comes to considering the reforms put forward by the Government the Opposition nearly always seem to vote against them. It seems that when it comes down to brass tacks old Labour is more powerful than new Labour. I hope that that is not the case, because it would be of immense benefit to the stability of our social security arrangements if some element of consensus were to develop. That may be hoping for too much, but it would he a good thing if that were to happen.
In conclusion, I believe that the search for economies must continue if our generation is not to hand on insupportable burdens to the next generation. These orders strike the right balance. They mean more help for the most vulnerable, stability for those who receive benefits and economies where that is possible. They also tackle abuse while at the same time maintaining the essential fabric of our social security system.
5.21 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, normally on these occasions I try to avoid going over old arguments and to concentrate on the material in the orders before us. Unfortunately, today the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, have exercised no such restraints. I shall not rise to all the red rags that have been waved in front of me, but I shall rise to one or two of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, challenged the Opposition with voting against some of the Government's so-called reforms. He tried to make a number of points about old Labour and new Labour. I have nothing to do with either of those groups, but a great many of us in all parts of the House have voted against the so-called reforms because we believe they offend against common sense, humanity and financial
1414
prudence. Many reforms are not the economies they are made out to be. If assertions of that kind are to be made I am afraid that we shall continue to respond to them.
I shall not rise to the red rag that the Minister waved in front of me about the asylum regulations. However, I shall draw his attention to information I received in this morning's post that in the very first week the regulations were in force 70 people turned up destitute at the door of the Refugee Council. I do not believe that that is a long-term economy.
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, had a great deal to say about falls in the level of unemployment. I too welcome that, but I should like to know why it is that when the level of unemployment is falling the percentage of adults on income support is nevertheless rising. Admittedly last year it rose by only 0.1 per cent., which is refreshingly small. That rise needs an explanation. I can think of many possible explanations, not all of them to the Government's discredit. However, the Government ought to be able to tell us, in order to put the debate in a proper context, why the rise has occurred. I do not know; I shall be very interested to hear the answer.
I welcome the decision to up-rate all the major benefits. Through successive public spending rounds the Secretary of State has put a great deal of effort into preserving the up-rating of benefits, and that is appreciated. I notice that he wrote in The Times last August that there was no substantial saving to he made from cuts in benefits. I agree with the Secretary of State; I am extremely glad that he made the point.
I welcome very warmly the increase in the childcare disregard on family credit for single parents. That is something for which I have asked many times. It is therefore incumbent upon me, as well as a pleasure, to welcome it.
I am not so happy with the rest of the policy on lone parents. I am informed by a usually reliable source that the Government intend to reduce income support for lone parents in order to increase the incentive to work. I very much hope that the Minister can tell me that that is not true. If it is necessary to reduce income support in order to create an incentive to work, that surely means that we are entering a world where wages are too low. In fact, we are approaching the same position that has existed for some time with the reduced rates of income support for those under 25.
I promised the Minister that I would not reopen old arguments where I could avoid it. However, I should like to put one or two questions that I have not asked before. Do the Government have any studies of wage levels for those who are above and below 25? Do they match the differential to those wage studies, or have they plucked a figure out of the air? Have they considered the hypothesis that the differential itself may be influencing wage levels? If so, have they considered whether what they are doing is compatible with the principles of a free market? Finally, if they continue along that line, is there any floor which they will put under that desire to reduce income support levels in order to increase the incentive to work? Is there any point where that process could stop, and if so where is it?

1415
The decision not to up-rate lone parent premium or one parent benefit is a decision I deeply regret. There is a considerable amount of evidence, most recently in a report by the Rowntree Trust which I have read, which shows both that there are considerable extra costs in being a single parent, as common sense would lead one to suppose, and that a considerable number of single parents on benefit are having difficulty getting enough to eat. That risks health costs. I believe that there is unpublished research in the Department of Health which I look forward to seeing. I shall say no more than that. There is other research going back to the Finer Committee and the Government's own Green Paper of 1985 which touches on the same point.
On the theme of wages being too low, I have been looking at the report of the Government Actuary. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, that we ought to take that together with these regulations because all form part of a common picture. I notice that the Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund is running at 8.8 per cent. of benefit expenditure. The statutory maximum is 10 per cent. When the Government introduced that 10 per cent. cap, I asked them for once in a blue moon to consider the virtues of flexibility. But this Government never seem to want flexibility when there is any use for it. It may he necessary to have further primary legislation to achieve flexibility.
I want the Government to consider to what extent the size of the Treasury grant, which is £1.925 billion, involves a cost of low wages. That, of course, produces a considerable loss to the National Insurance Fund, a great deal of it in the form of people being in part-time jobs under the lower earnings limit. In fact, if one looks at the PSBR figures, a great deal of the problem is a shortfall of revenue rather than an increase of expenditure. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, to reconsider his remarks about the social chapter having taken that shortfall of revenue from wage cutting into account. It is costing the Government a great deal more than they are aware of. Sound accounting, I think, calls for a proper examination of the question.
Twelve months ago I gave the Minister notice that, if he did not up-rate the capital limits I should want to know why. He decided not to do so. The noble Baroness did the same. He has not up-rated the capital limits. I wish to know why. I have given him 12 months' notice. I had given him 24 hours' notice too. If I do not receive an answer, I shall ask again before the noble Lord sits down.
Schedule 8 features a growing list of deductions, disqualifications and so forth. What has been done to monitor the effect of those deductions? Do we know the overall effect? If not, why not?
I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, said about the need to control fraud. It is taking money out of pockets where it legitimately belongs. I should like to make some qualifications with which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, might also agree.
1416
First, the charges of fraud must he a matter of proper standards of legal proof. I was a little dismayed to see in the Benefit Agency's review of fraud that its category of total fraud was made up in almost equal proportions of confirmed fraud and suspected fraud. Suspected fraud is not proved fraud; one cannot punish it until it is proved.
I also support the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, about the effects of cuts in the finance of the department on the drive against fraud. In a document printed in the Guardian, which has not been disowned, Mr. Lilley stated that in the context of the drive against fraud the cut in his department's running costs filled him with despair. I understand that comment. I think that the House is entitled to some reassurance.
Finally, I turn to the increase in the deduction from income support under the CSA. I divided the House at 10 minutes to 12 at night against that deduction from income support when it first came in. I believe that there ARE too many deductions already from income support. Increasing that deduction to 10 per cent. when there is also a 15 per cent. capacity for deductions for gas, water, electricity, court fines, rent arrears and all the rest will reduce people to real poverty. As regards the recovery under the CSA of money from people on income support, what is the cost of administration per pound recovered? Is this measure really cost effective? I should like to know the answer.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that we should all like to thank the Minister for introducing the up-rating order. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I, too, welcome the fact that the major benefits have been indexed as regards RPI.
It is a brief debate. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, that a debate of such significance in terms of the money spent and the number of people affected should attract more care and attention from this House. However, the noble Lord would not expect me to agree entirely with the remainder of what he said. I agree with him that most believe we are spending too much on social security. Since 1979 expenditure has increased by £30 billion in real terms. Whereas in 1979 one family in 12 received social security, it is now one family in six. To pay for that the national insurance stamp for employees—a true form of taxation—has risen from 6.5 per cent. in 1979 to 10 per cent. now, a 50 per cent. increase.
Yet such expenditure on social security has not reduced the inequality which has grown since 1979. Since that date, as all research now indicates—the Government's own low household income figures support this—the top 10 per cent. in our population have seen their incomes rise by 60 per cent., and the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent., after housing costs, have fallen by 17 per cent. in real terms. The gap between the richest and the poorest in our country has widened more since 1979 than in any other OECD country.
Yet that is not because the benefit expenditure has produced benefit levels which are either decent or sustaining. On the contrary, they are modest and

1417
inadequate, and to live on them means a life of severe hardship. Yet each and every year the Government seek to contain the budget not by tackling the real issues of why it is growing but by reducing already mean benefits still further for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Therefore, even over the past few years we have seen cuts in the benefits of the chronically sick and disabled. When invalidity benefit became incapacity benefit, not only did fewer chronically sick people qualify for it but they received lower benefits. Equally, we have seen the removal of benefits from 16 to 18 year-olds so that 90,000 young people are without a job, training, work and an income. Many of them are living on and off the streets.
Equally, we have seen the removal recently of income support for the mortgages of those who become unemployed. As the building societies warned us at the time, and as is happening, repossession figures have again started to rise. At the point at which someone loses his job and his income he is now again faced with losing his home.
Hence also we have the removal of benefits from asylum-seekers and their families. That is not because the Home Office has said that they are not genuine but because they have applied in-country and not at the port of entry.
Hence also the new jobseckers' allowance which we debated last summer means that, although paid for by national insurance, the moment one claims for a dependant the allowance turns into a means-tested benefit. That acts as a disincentive for a spouse to seek and find work.
In other words, the Government have sought to cut the cost of welfare spending by doing precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, suggested: by making economies, salami-style, on a range of benefits as they affect a range of- people. They have not used welfare spending to help people off welfare but have reduced still further the living standards of those who have no choice but to remain on welfare—the chronically sick and disabled, the unemployed, vulnerable young people and asylum-seeking families.
In social security we should seek to provide a decent floor, a decent minimum, for those who cannot support themselves, while helping those who can and should move into independence. Instead, Government have privatised risk. Under this Government, social security is neither coming from society nor offering security. Each individual is expected to cope as best he can in a world where insecurity is growing so rapidly that even those in work have no assurance that they will have a job in five years or a pension in 20 years.
I am afraid that we cannot reform the welfare state—this is where I so strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree—by making salami-style economics. What is needed is a more coherent. intelligent approach to what the Government should he doing. Yet what do we see in the up-rating? We see more of the same—more cuts, salami-style, and worsening living standards for the poorest—while apart
1418
from the issue of the child disregard the Government are doing nothing to use welfare for people as a springboard back to independence.
I focus on the three main issues to which the up-rating order refers. The first is lone parents. The Government propose to freeze lone parent benefit and the one-parent premium, worth £6.30 and £5.20 respectively, to save all of £5 million. According to the Government, that is less on financial grounds than on the assumption that one-parent families are better off not marrying. That is a perverse incentive.
As the Government know from their own departmental research, most one-parent families are in that situation not because they have never been in a partnership but because the marriage or the partnership has broken down. The average age is 33. When people become single parents, they move into greater poverty. The latest information suggests that 80 per cent. of children of single-parent families are on income support or below. Only 18 per cent. of those are in two-parent families. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has referred to the point that the Rowntree Report of December 1995, a month ago, showed that for a single parent it costs proportionately more to bring up a child than in a two-parent family. Housing, heating and constant costs remain the same, but you then have to consider the cost of child care and the ability to obtain part-time work. As a result, on average single parents have only two-thirds of the income of two-parent families.
Ministers say that single-parent families should be treated in the same way as two-parent families. But they do not start from the same position. Equal treatment in unequal circumstances is not fair. That is what the Government are achieving. As we know, most single parents stay on income support for only two to three years and move off it when the eldest child is five or more and goes to school. We want to help the move towards self-support, yet the Government's strategy of freezing the one-parent benefit makes it harder, because it is a benefit that people can take with them on the train to work. It is perverse to freeze it but the Government ARE doing so.
The second area in which we have concern relating to the up-rating orders is housing benefits. We are seeing the housing benefit for young people under 25 chopped and limited to the average cost of shared accommodation. What are the implications? First, if the young people are entrepreneurial and energetic, they will share with other young people and rent a house, thus making rented accommodation scarcer and more expensive for families. Secondly, they may go into gungy and dank bedsit land in houses in multiple occupation, where the housing stock is of poor quality and rents are high. What is worse is that they receive their housing benefit one month in arrears. Since most landlords demand the rent a month in advance, with a month's deposit, young people will find it harder to enter the housing market.
What is the third option? If they cannot rent decent accommodation together and ARE being pressed into the grottiest parts of the private rented bedsit land, their third possibility is to go home and live with their

1419
families. However, in the same up-rating statement, the Government are substantially increasing the adult non-dependent deduction from housing benefit. That means that if you are receiving housing benefit and your son and daughter come home to live with you, your housing benefit will be cut, even though they may be on income support. What signals are the Government sending out about family values when, if your son or daughter comes home to live with you as a result of housing benefit changes in the private rented sector, the bill is increased for the family left at home?
To summarise, the first concern which I mentioned is the Government's treatment of lone parents and the disincentive to seek work. The second concern was housing benefit. The third concern about the up-rating statement is what the Government ARE doing about child support. We on these Benches entirely agree that both parents should contribute to the maintenance of the child. There is no question about that. However, what the Government are doing in the up-rating statement is doubling the contribution from £2.40 to £4.80 which an absent father —let us take the man —on income support has to find from his breadline income. Top-slicing £4.80 from an income support income of just £37 a week if a person is 23 or 24 is punitive. It does nothing to help the child because not a penny of it goes to the child, it merely goes back to the Treasury. What chance will the man have to do what we all want —travel to see his child, take it to the cinema or buy it a hamburger? He cannot afford to do that. If that £4.80 were retained by the mother so that it was a contribution to the well-being of the child, we would have less objection. Instead, it is a cut in benefit to punish men who have had a child out of wedlock and are now on income support. That is no way to run a social security system.
So, on the one hand, we see benefits for the most vulnerable cut, while, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, rightly said, the total benefit bill soars. Why? It is because the Government persist in spending the money on the wrong things. Why has the housing benefit bill soared? —not because tenants choose luxury accommodation but because the Government encouraged private landlords to decontrol their rents, promising that housing benefit would take the strain. As soon as the landlords did that, housing benefit did take the strain and the Government decided that that would not do. So while rents have floated up, the Government seek to push down people's capacity to pay by cutting housing benefit.
The Government will make much of the fact that they prefer to subsidise people, not bricks and mortar. But the Minister knows well that subsidising people in that context means making them dependent on subsidy. That is what the words mean. It means extending the dependency culture which we are trying to stop.
It would be much better to have lower priced accommodation so that people are not penalised if they seek work. More costly accommodation and housing benefit deducted at 65p in the pound mean that for every pound one earns between £80 and £180 a week, one is only 5p or 8p per pound better off. Through their benefit system and extending people's dependency on housing
1420
benefit because they have cut housing subsidies, the Government have extended the very dependency culture they claim to deplore.
Why is social security expenditure rising? —because we are spending too much on in-work benefits. It is probably the fastest growing area of the DSS budget, with in-work benefits topping up low pay. What do family credit and the earnings top-up do? Employers know that they can cut wages, aware that we, as taxpayers, will take the strain in housing benefit, council tax and family credit and soon with the earnings top-up.
I believe that in-work benefits are a decent and benign response of government, but they are the utmost folly if they are not underpinned by a minimum wage. Without it, employers can pitch wages where they will, knowing that when the money wage is below a living wage we, the taxpayers, must subsidise it so that people can live and survive. The in-work benefits are the consequence of falling pay and they cost every taxpayer £750 a year because we are willing to tolerate low pay. Instead of relieving family poverty, we see a vast programme offering arbitrary state subsidies to low-wage and often bad employers. At the same time as we are privatising risk, we are nationalising the employer's wages bill. Odd that, coming from a Tory Government.
We are dealing with unemployment. The reason for that is not merely that, absolutely, there is a major problem of long-term employment, but that work is not appropriately shared. We know from the Dahrendorf Report, which we debated not so long ago, that we are in a society of two-wage earners and no-wage households. The reason for that, not entirely but in part, is the structure of the benefits system that the Government have shaped. It is a result of the means-testing which means that, the moment a wife is in work, she can afford to seek work and retain it only if her husband is already in work himself. The Government have constructed a benefits system based on means-testing that deters the second partner from holding down a job. That is perverse.
Finally, there is the problem of lone parents, on whom the Government believe we spend too much. The children of two-thirds of lone parents are under five and it is perhaps not reasonable to expect such parents to work. We know that when the youngest child is past five, they will re-enter the labour market. Being in work will float them off poverty. Why are we cutting today one of the very few benefits that take lone parents who are currently out of work into the labour market without facing disincentive?
The right way to control the social security budget is not the Government's way, which is to salami-slice individual benefits to make one-off economies that depress the living standards of those who ARE already vulnerable, sick, unemployed and poor. That is not the right way to tackle the problem. That generates dependency. It confirms the mixture of unemployment and low pay that underlies our soaring bill, along with demographic factors such as old age. Wise strategy would tackle the problem of the job market, low pay and access to the labour market. This up-rating statement does not do so. It represents yet again a major opportunity missed.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the debate, although short, has been an interesting one. I am grateful to noble Lords who took part. In my defence, I ranged rather widely because precedent clearly showed that the debate would range rather widely; and so it has done. Perhaps I may deal with those questions to which there are quick answers.
I confirm to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree that, indeed, the up-rating is entirely consistent with our commitment to up-rate pensions in line with prices. It has been fully honoured again this year; and war pensions, about which he asked specifically, have also been fully honoured. Our position on this matter is absolutely, perfectly and abundantly clear. We promised to up-rate pensions in line with prices, and that is what we have done.
That contrasts a little with the position of the party opposite. Last year I asked the noble Baroness if she could tell me whether the Opposition intended to restore that link, which was broken some years ago, given the kind of costs I mentioned then of up-rating in line with earnings rather than prices —a cost that I suspect would already have brought the social security spending budget to around £100 billion rather than £90 billion.
The noble Baroness did not answer me then, and she avoided the subject completely today. I am not entirely surprised. In the debate in the other place, my right honourable friend Sir Norman Fowler, a former distinguished Secretary of State for Social Security, specifically asked Mr. Chris Smith, the Opposition spokesman on social security, a question about that up-rating. The answer he received was quite interesting:
"we are in the process of looking at all our policies in relation to social security and, at this stage, no decision has been made. However, we shall make our policy clear within the next few months". —[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/96; cols. 210-211.]
I certainly look forward to seeing that policy. Not only will the policy on up-rating, prices and earnings be revealed to us, but also other policies on spending. I understand that that is now to happen in less than three months' time. It started off as six months. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is part of that great thinking team. She indicates her assent. She will therefore know exactly how many weeks ARE still to go before the Opposition unveil their social security spending.
I am very intrigued about this particular point. When my right honourable friend Mr. Lilley intervened and asked Mr. Smith:
"Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it" —
namely, his about-to-be-unveiled package on social security —
"can be achieved without spending more money?",
Mr. Smith said:
"Yes, and if the Secretary of State will contain himself for a few weeks, he will learn how we intend to go about it". —[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/96; col. 211.]
Perhaps now is the time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am intrigued that the Minister persists in treating the Opposition as though we are the Government, and responsible for the up-rating system. Is he getting into practice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, all I am doing is getting into practice for next year and the year after —
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My point precisely.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We shall have exactly the same speech from the party opposite without a single indication of what it would do to contain the total amount of expenditure —a point to which I shall return. We have only a few weeks to wait before the party opposite unveils its proposals. Therefore I say to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree that it will be very interesting to see what the Opposition decide on a number of issues, but in particular on the expensive issue of linking pension increases to earnings and not to prices.
When he pointed to the national insurance contribution changes, my noble friend quite rightly underlined the importance of keeping non-wage costs down. The noble Baroness made a great deal in her speech of the need to improve the opportunity for people to find work. There is not much between us on the principles involved, though there may be something between us on how we go about doing it.
I am absolutely sure about one thing. Had the noble Baroness been present for the debate introduced last week by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, she would have heard the figures quoted on a number of occasions. I am absolutely sure that increasing non-wage labour costs is not one of the routes which should be followed. If it were, the countries quoted by my noble friend Lord Dean that have gone down that road would be showing lower unemployment in general and, for example, in the youth sector. The simple fact is that they are not. In some cases they are showing hugely higher unemployment levels in both those sectors than we are. Therefore, before we move down the social chapter route, described by my noble friend as the European tax on jobs —and indeed the route of the minimum wage so beloved of the party opposite —the British people ought to ask why we have such significantly lower unemployment, especially in the youth field, than such countries as Spain, France and Italy. Indeed, the Germans have often been held up as the example to follow. They are now seeing their unemployment rate rising to a figure above ours and continuing to rise, whereas ours continues to fall. Therefore, when it comes to non-wage costs, people ought to consider those examples.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister quoted the German example. Can he say what comparable burden to German reunification this country has borne in the past five years'?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that that has anything to do with the point about non-wage labour costs. Non-wage labour costs were there long before German reunification came about.

1423
I fully accept that the German economy has indeed had to absorb considerable problems from Eastern Europe. The fact that it has done so is a great credit to that country. However, it does not get away from the simple fact that Germany's non-wage labour costs were considerably higher, and always have been, and that unemployment is now rising. Powerful companies, which I suspect would have been considered by most noble Lords to be unassailable —companies such as Daimler-Benz —are now suffering great problems. Again, that was mentioned in the debate last week on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me a number of questions. He asked why, when unemployment is falling, does income support rise? That is an interesting question. I shall have to study it in a little more detail. Certainly, one factor must be the rise in single parenthood, which I mentioned earlier. That has to be one factor in the growth in income support. Pensioners too are a factor. There is an increasing number of pensioners. In relative terms, although, as my noble friend Lord Dean points out, an increasing percentage of pensioners are making their own pension provision, the fact is that the absolute number of pensioners is increasing, and that therefore the total number requiring income support to back up the retirement pension will probably increase as well. The noble Earl has exercised my interest. I may look into that point in a little more detail. Certainly, however, those two factors must provide an important part of the answer.
The noble Earl asked me specifically, as he did last year —he was kind enough to give me a year's notice —why I have not up-rated the capital provisions, the £8,000 and £3,000 limits. I am surprised that I did not give him an answer last year. Indeed, I thought that I had done so and I must check that. My answer is the same as the one that I gave, or would have given, last year. We do look at capital limits, but we believe that we have to give second priority to them. We give first priority —I appreciate that the noble Earl thanked us for it —to up-rating the benefits themselves. We believe that capital limits are not of the first priority. When there ARE so many priorities to be met and, in our view at least, control to be kept on the total amount of social security spending, I must say to the noble Earl that capital limits must remain where they are. A disregard of any real consequence is an expensive provision to make. I do not have the figures to hand but I remember looking at them when I considered this question. To give a significant increase in capital limits costs quite a considerable amount of money. That would probably have to be taken from the up-ratings. We should prefer to concentrate on the benefit levels themselves.
I return to points made by both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness about work incentives and trying to encourage people to get hack into work. The noble Baroness, as always, made a great deal of what she called the perverse effect of income-related benefits. For the life of me I cannot see any other conclusion than that the noble Baroness would in fact countenance an increase in expenditure on those benefits. If we did not take into account the earnings of the spouse or some of the part-time earnings of the individual, inevitably that
1424
would mean that we would spend more money on benefits. That is the inevitable conclusion to the noble Baroness's argument on this point, which I have heard on a number of occasions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. We have had this argument on a couple of occasions and I am sorry that he did not take the main point. In seeking short-term savings, which is what happens when moving to means-tested benefits, the Minister produces longer term costs because he pulls the second partner out of work. As ever, the Government sacrifice the longer term benefits for short-term gains.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness has made that point also on a number of occasions. I am not too sure that there is a great deal of evidence for it. In any case, even if there are what she calls short-term gains, they would fall to be an increase in the social security benefit system, which, as her honourable friend down the Corridor said when he answered the Question last week of my right honourable friend Mr. Lilley, can be contained within its present limits.
But the noble Baroness, the noble Earl and I agree on the need to encourage people back to work. We also agree that, even when someone has found a job, there is a problem of crossing the bridge between being on benefit and not being on benefit. We have taken and are taking steps to try to improve the situation; namely, the faster processing of family credit; the housing benefit and council tax benefit extended payment, the run-on for an extra four weeks; the back-to-work bonus; and the child maintenance bonus. We have also taken steps to improve the advantages to people of working for longer hours. There is the longer hours premium, which from July this year will mean £10 a week extra in family credit and disability working allowance for people working 30 hours or more a week.
So, we all agree on the objective of trying to make sure that, when somebody finds a job, there will not be economic disincentives for them in taking the job and moving off benefit. I believe that the steps that we have taken over the past two years and those that we are currently taking will help to solve that particular problem.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl discussed the lone parent provision. The noble Earl sometimes has a suspicious turn of mind when it comes to the Government's motives. But it is not the Government's policy to reduce income support to lone parents in order to increase work incentives. There will he no cash losers from the changes to the lone parent benefit. Our policy is to narrow the gap between lone parent benefits and those benefits which go to couples with children.
I do not want to weary the House with details. But there are a number of scenarios in which the gross income in a household is not big hut, taking together the income and the benefits, a single parent with one child can get more income in the week than a married couple with one child. That cannot be a correct position. It is especially odd when one considers that in the family with the greater income there are only two mouths to

1425
feed, whereas in the two-parent family there are three mouths to feed. It seems to me that we must guard against appearing in the benefits system to be approving of that and of saying to two-parent families, "No, you can live on a smaller income than a one-parent family".
Undoubtedly, at constituency surgeries of my honourable and right honourable friends from the other place there will be couples who come and say, "We shall be better separated or divorcing." A decade ago, I came across young couples looking for housing who found that they were being constantly jumped over by single parents and who asked whether the solution to the problem would be to separate in order to get a house.
Undoubtedly, all the facts tell us that it is only by working that lone parents can improve the living standards of themselves and their children. On average, lone parents in work improve their income by some £30 a week. We could not possibly, especially as we are attempting to contain expenditure —the party opposite says that it will do the same —increase the amount of income support by that amount. As I said in my introductory remarks, lone parents already consume 10 per cent. of the total social security budget. Our aim must be to reduce that figure and not increase it. We can only do that by encouraging lone parents into work. That will benefit them and society.
We are attempting to do that in a number of ways. They receive the same adult credit as two-parent families for family credit and disability working allowance. We have taken a series of measures, some of which I have mentioned already, to improve the position. We have reduced the qualifying hours for family credit and that has helped lone parents in a very big way. I believe that no responsible government can hide from the considerable increase over the past years in the number of lone parents and their cost to the taxpayer. We believe that the way to improve their position is to give the lone parent far greater opportunities to gain work. That is what we propose to do.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation. But can he rebut the imputation, which I invited him to deny, that the Government propose to reduce income support in order to increase the incentive to work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe I started my contribution on lone parents by saying specifically that that was not our intention.
Perhaps I may turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness, the noble Earl and indeed my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. They asked, in the context of fraud, about the reductions in the cost of the social security budget on which my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Lilley and the other Ministers in his team are now engaged.
First, we are determined to ring fence those amounts of money which are going into the pursuit of fraud, the clarification of what that fraud is and how we intend to stop it. For example, the noble Earl asked about the distinction between confirmed and suspected fraud. Suspected fraud involves claims where we have a strong
1426
suspicion of fraud, but where it cannot properly be established in the time available. Confirmed fraud is exactly what it says.
The interesting point about our decision to try to reduce the administrative costs of the social security budget is that, to begin with, the party opposite told us that it was impossible without all kinds of awful things happening. Indeed, I spent a period of time nearly a fortnight ago in radio and television studios trying to explain the Government's position and countering the Opposition's accusation that it was impossible to do what we want to without all sorts of dreadful things happening.
Then, lo and behold, into our hands fell a letter from Mr. Andrew Smith, MP, who is the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to Mr. Chris Smith, MP, the social security spokesman. The noble Baroness accused me of practising being in Opposition. But the Opposition are practising to be in government in a big way when the Shadow Chief Secretary sends rude minutes to his colleagues about cutting government expenditure and then proceeds to have them leaked to the press. I say no more on that, other than admitting to being slightly amused. However, it is not amusing. It shows a tendency to say one thing and mean another.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am intrigued by his insisting on practising his oppositional stance. Would be also like to remind the House of the exchange of letters between Mr. Lilley and Mr. Waldegrave a few months ago, when Mr. Waldegrave was proposing, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, various cuts in the administration of the department and Mr. Lilley pointed out how unwise and foolish it would be? It is clear that the Treasury, as ever, overruled Mr. Lilley. He has now acquiesced in those cuts. I am sure the Minister would like to entertain the House with a similar exchange of letters.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to see that the noble Baroness is still keeping herself in practice for continued opposition by introducing a diversionary tactic. In fact, the letter was leaked. As usual, the picture was incomplete. The correspondence at that time concerned running costs in the coming financial year. The position we are now in is looking at a step-by-step change over the next three years in the way the benefit system is administered in order to achieve the savings at the end of that period.
The noble Baroness will not divert me from giving your Lordships the flavour of the letter before I sit down. It states,
"Following Peter Lilley's announcement last week that he is seeking to axe his department's running costs by a quarter, I have been making some informal enquiries about the feasibility of his plans … The advice I am getting, which is necessarily incomplete, nevertheless suggests that savings in running costs of this magnitude are perfectly feasible".
Thank you very much, Mr. Andrew Smith! The Observer, which runs a lie detector scheme each Sunday, and which it usually attempts to practise on the Government, was forced to practise it on its friends last Sunday and make the little lie detector show clearly in the "truth spin lies" lever, that it is clearly pointing to lies. That points to the distinction I made. Mr. Chris Smith said,

1427
"[The Government] make a nonsense of [his] much vaunted fight against fraud. [The benefit system would be] pushed past breaking point".
His Shadow Chief Secretary says, as I read out, that,
"savings in running costs of this magnitude are perfectly feasible"
What is perfectly feasible, but difficult to do, is to contain the social security budget. We have done it by attempting year on year to keep control. The other night I was attacked by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for allowing the public sector borrowing requirement to go out of control, as he put it. It is not out of control, but that is neither here nor there. I invited him to tell his noble friend that the next time I come forward with proposals to contain the social security budget, he should remind the noble Baroness that keeping control of one's expenditure is a vital and important fact in the Government balancing their budget. Keeping control of this enormous budget — £90 billion —as my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree pointed out, is central to that control.
We have done it. With the measures that we have taken over the past few years, virtually —I could probably say "all", but because I have not checked 1 shall say "virtually" —all opposed by the noble Baroness in debates such as this, we have kept the expenditure down to £90 billion when it might otherwise have approached £100 billion in this second half of the 1990s. That is sensible budgeting. It is looking after the people who need the help most and yet not at the same time imposing an intolerable burden on the taxpayer. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish:My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish:My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report front the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) and Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [8th Report front the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chemical Weapons Bill
6.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD LYELL) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause —
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(". —(1) There shall be a Chemical Weapons Convention National Advisory Committee (the "National Advisory Committee"), with such membership as shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint persons of relevant expertise, including scientific expertise, to serve on the National Advisory Committee and shall consult the appropriate professional bodies about its membership and role

1429
(3) The duties of the National Advisory Committee shall include the provision of advice to the Secretary of State about all aspects of the Act and the Convention.").
The noble Lord said: Before speaking to Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 which, for the convenience of the Committee, we are taking together, perhaps I can take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his performance yesterday on a somewhat related subject, in that chemical weapons appeared to a considerable extent in the Scott Report. The Minister was probably in the Chamber even longer than I was and, unlike me, he had to make two long speeches whereas I had to make only one. I am delighted to see him in his place today. I hope that he does not feel as exhausted today as I feel.
This Bill is not controversial and the Opposition are as committed to seeing it on the statute book as are the Government and the Liberal Democrats. The amendments which stand in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, and Lord Dainton, will improve the incorporation of the Bill into United Kingdom law. We are discussing Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 together for a technical reason; namely, that the advisory committee is also referred to in Amendment No. 5 and therefore it is easier to take the amendments together rather than separately.
I will set forth the argument as best I can. I do not intend to divide your Lordships on this matter. I am aware that as of this moment the Government are not of a mind to agree with me. My purpose is to try to persuade the Minister to think about the matter so that when we come back to it we can make a final attempt to deal with this and related topics. I feel that I have a particular duty to raise this matter in your Lordships' House. When a similar, but rather more complicated, amendment was discussed in another place it did not get quite the coverage that it ought to have received. Although the Minister in another place may have had other things on his mind, I do not believe that he dealt with the subject at anything like the length that, in my judgment, it deserved. He more or less said that he did not agree with it and that was the end of the matter.
I start with those matters on which we do not disagree. Unless I have misunderstood the matter, the Minister agrees that the Secretary of State —that is, the President of the Board of Trade —will need advice on this matter. There is nothing between us at all as to that. There will be a national advisory committee and another committee that will also act as an advisory body. I believe that the difference between us is all to do with whether or not it is statutory —unless there is a misunderstanding on my part. If I am mistaken the Minister will correct me in due course.
What is the reason for advice? First, what we are discussing here affects at least two very important communities: on the one hand, the research and academic community and, on the other hand, one of our major industries. Whatever view the President of the Board of Trade takes about how to operate the powers given to him, he will need advice, at least in part to reassure those two communities. Secondly, with no disrespect to the Minister's department, it does not have
1430
the expertise to enable it to operate without this kind of advice. That is the first step we take, and I doubt whether we disagree on that.
The second point on which I hope we can agree is that what we seek to do here is to help the President of the Board of Trade and to be facilitative rather than restrictive. One does not wish to stop him but rather to encourage him and make it easier for him to do things. That is the origin of my proposed Clause 1(2) in which I refer to,
"persons of relevant expertise, including scientific expertise"
and consultation with appropriate professional bodies. The obvious body —there can be no disguising it because so much of its work lies behind everything that I have contributed on this subject —is the Royal Society of Chemistry. That is one of our great bodies that has gone to enormous trouble to provide appropriate briefing for all of us. I would have that body in mind as the central professional body to be consulted. I also take the view, even though I am more doubtful on this point, that the industry body should be one of the bodies regarded as appropriate to be consulted. We are dealing here with an industry of immense importance.
The point that I am about to make is not central to whether or not the matter is statutory. There is no shortage of first-class people who I am convinced will be willing to serve. One obvious person is the current secretary general of the Royal Society of Chemistry. He has wide experience in this field, especially as he is a former deputy director of Porton Down. I am not anxious to put forward any specific person. I do not have the faintest idea whether such a person will be available. I merely emphasise the kind of people who may be asked to take part.
Why do we need a statutory body? First, if it is a non-statutory body it means that we do not have to have such a committee. There is a world of difference between saying that there should be such a committee and deciding not to bother to have one. There is nothing in the Bill to say that if it is non-statutory it has to be there. The point of making it a statutory committee is to ensure that we get such a body. It may sound trivial, but that is central to the question. To an extent, it underlies my puzzlement that the Minister tells us he favours such a committee but does not want it to be statutory. That will leave it entirely to the discretion of the Minister. That is my reading of Pepper v. Hart, although the Minister said that it will not count under those rules. Perhaps the Minister, who knows infinitely more than I do about the law, can tell me whether he believes that his statement that there should be such a non-statutory committee comes within the Pepper v. Hart rules.
Secondly, it is said that other committees exist, such as the advisory committee to Porton Down, and therefore there is no need for this one. I take the view that none of those committees is directed precisely to the subject at hand. Therefore, that is another reason why we need this amendment.
A point has been made about commercial confidentiality. I fail to see that argument in terms of a statutory committee. It will apply to any committee. I stand second to none in my view that commercial

1431
confidentiality must be protected, but I do not see that that has anything specifically to do with a statutory committee. The amendment as drafted by me and the other noble Lords does not restrict the Minister as to those whom he appoints, but it will help him to fulfil his role.
We may have been slightly at cross-purposes on one other point. The point of the committee is to advise the President of the Board of Trade, not to replace parliamentary accountability. On the contrary, it seems to me that it will strengthen parliamentary accountability, because the Minister will say that that statutory committee has provided advice and that is the basis on which he presents to Parliament what he has done.
It may be convenient to the Minister if I go on to deal with the relevant parts of Amendment No. 5. One of the great contributions of the Minister and his department is the acceptance that there should be an annual report. The amendment spells out what should be in that annual report. My judgment is that very little of what should be in the list that I have given is controversial. It will be immensely helpful to put this into the Bill for guidance or, if the Minister feels unable to do that, for him to say that in his judgment that is the kind of information which ought to be in the annual report. I draw the attention of the Minister to two or three paragraphs. First, paragraph (b) refers to the identities of chemicals which have been declared in accordance with obligations under Article VI. In practice, we do not know how Article VI will work. If the Minister knows, perhaps he will tell me. Therefore, partly because the Minister has himself agreed that we need to make the workings of the Bill publicly clear and known to all relevant people, it seems to me that a paragraph of this kind is vital in any report that is made.
Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to paragraph (d). Unless I have missed something, there will be an appeal mechanism. However, can the Minister confirm that we still do not know what it will he. Perhaps he can tell me that he now does and that I soon will. For the moment we do not know.
Paragraph (i) reminds us that we have an obligation to report to The Hague under Article X.4 of the convention. However, that obligation is not set out in the Bill. I assume that the Bill can be read still to meet that obligation, but my worry is that somehow that will be left out when we come to have the report.
A point emerges under paragraph (k) on which I ask for clarification because of my lack of knowledge of science. Over time new chemical entities will be discovered, many of which are totally undreamed of. Something has to be done to make clear that this is publicly known and that we have some transparency. Paragraph (k) is therefore meant to some extent to indicate how the Bill will work and keep up to date with the advances in science.
Perhaps I may turn to paragraph (n). We have an obligation to Parliament on this matter. The easiest way for the Minister to meet that obligation to Parliament —it is why he accepted the annual report —would be through the annual report but spelling out exactly the
items under paragraphs (n), (o) or (p) rather than allowing all that to depend on being elicited by Questions. I know how devoted both Houses of Parliament are to Questions but I have never seen them as ways of getting useful information. I suppose that I am in a minority in that matter. This seems to be a way by which one might learn something of importance.
I apologise for going on for so long. I have set out the arguments which I consider to be central. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendments. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading —many noble Lords may welcome the fact that I was not there. However, I want to prove that I read the Hansard report of Second Reading. The first amendment concerns the advisory committee. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on one or two points because I am rather confused. I hope he will forgive me for reading out the relevant tracts from Hansard. He said:
"Our view is that the national authority will need advice from many sources. It is doubtless a matter to which we shall return in Committee, but we think it is mistaken to believe that the authority will obtain all the advice it needs from a single committee".
He went on to say:
"We hope that a single committee will be able to provide the advice that the national authority will need on those subjects". — [Official Report, 30/1/96, cols. 1380–81.)
I hope that the Minister can provide clarification. It seems to be a way of saying that we do not need to put the provision on the face of the Bill but we shall set up the committee anyway. I hope that he will put the advisory committee on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, covered the amendment on the annual report admirably. The whole point of the annual report is to provide transparency and to make sure that nothing is left unsaid. Considering that the only words we have had are "an annual report", can the Minister say exactly what will be in the annual report? Will we have a draft list of subjects that will be held in the annual report? If he refuses to accept the amendment and says that this should not go on the face of the Bill, can we be given some indication of what will be contained in the annual report?
Amendment No. 6 refers to an annual seminar. That is an excellent idea because it would give an opportunity for people to voice their concerns about developments in the field, many of which may slip past the national authority. This is such a large and diverse field that some issues could be raised at an annual seminar which might not have been thought of before. Not many years ago it was almost inconceivable that terrorists would use chemical weapons as a means of terror. Unfortunately, that has been proved wrong. I hope that the Minister will look closely at these amendments.
The Earl of Halsbury: With what is left of my mind after last night's late sitting, I have to confess that these two amendments are very much on the lines that I recommended to your Lordships when I spoke at Second Reading. I endorse their acceptance. As the Committee may know, I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and I should declare that as an interest.

1433
The most important of the paragraphs of Amendment No. 5 is paragraph (p) which states:
"such other information as may serve to demonstrate the United Kingdom's compliance with the Convention".
That safeguards us against any imaginary omniscience that we may be exercising tonight. I entirely support the amendment.
Lord Kennet: I support the amendments. It is clear to many Members of the Committee that when something is desirable and in the absence of any strong structural reason why it should not exist it is much better to put it in the Act than to rely on informal undertakings by this Minister or that. Ministers change and governments change. Those undertakings cannot bind Ministers' successors. Let us have both these provisions and all the subsidiary ones written on the face of the Bill where they will survive until they are reconsidered and repealed or amended. That applies both to the annual statement to Parliament and to the advisory committee.
The advisory committee will have several roles. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries ARE immensely complicated. The more complicated a scene is the harder it is to ensure that legislation, which is itself complicated, is being carried out in the day-to-day industrial processes that we are talking about. The President of the Board of Trade will need all the advice he can get, but he can also use the advisory committee as an instrument for sending messages downhill into the industry. He can also use it as a means of obtaining information from the industry that he would not be able to obtain and of sending messages which he would not be able to send without it. The reason for that is that the Civil Service, rightly or wrongly, is shrinking all the time. Moreover, if he gets the right people on the advisory committee he is more likely to learn through them than he would through routine contact with civil servants what are the inner hopes and fears of the industry.
The industries will be put to a great deal of trouble by this legislation. I do not think that they will find it difficult to evade, if that is what they want to do, and the more co-operation and good feeling that can be obtained in the industry, the better. I commend the advisory committee as one means of obtaining that. Members of that committee will learn, and will become more useful and more representative of the industry as they serve. The continuing committee, with its changing membership, could become a profoundly beneficial institution.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his kind words when he began to move the amendment. I am grateful to him for agreeing that this amendment should be grouped with Amendment No. 5 because that helps to explain the Government's position more clearly.
In many respects, I regret that, as the noble Lord indicated, I am not prepared at present to accept either amendment. I say that I regret that because, as the noble Lord correctly recalled from Second Reading, I said
1434
then that it was indeed the intention of the Secretary of State to establish an advisory committee, albeit not on a statutory basis.
Two considerations lie at the centre of our concerns. The first is whether the advice to be received —albeit one would hope in considerable detail —would be from such a committee and whether it is appropriately the exclusive source of advice. When one couples that with Amendment No. 5, our second consideration is whether difficult issues arise about commercial confidentiality and possibly also national security.
I think that the noble Lord will have been provided with a brief by the Chemical Industries Association in preparation for this debate, as I am sure is the case with other noble Lords. The briefing states:
"We would be concerned about the possible loss of confidentiality if an Advisory Committee was given access to commercially sensitive information. If these two amendments are passed, it seems certain that a National Authority Committee would have to handle commercially sensitive information in order to make its recommendations. Our concern about the possible leakage of information about individual companies' products and processes, which is vital intellectual property in the competitive business of chemical manufacture is, therefore, heightened".
The national authority will need advice from many sources. It is mistaken to believe that it will be able to obtain all the advice it needs from a single committee, however expert it may be. This is a new regime with no clear parallels. In our view, it would be wrong to set the national authority's advisory structure in statute when flexibility is needed.
There are some areas where the national authority will need to look to a committee for advice. That is clear. As I said at Second Reading, we intend to establish an advisory committee to assist the national authority on such matters as the implementation of the convention in the UK, how the compliance monitoring arrangements of the national authority can be made more effective and on how the burden that the regulations place on business and academia might be kept to the minimum necessary.
However, the national authority will need advice in other areas where an advisory committee may not be the best. It will have to keep abreast of developments in chemical technology which may have chemical weapons applications. It will rely heavily on Porton Down for that advice, but not exclusively. It will need to maintain close contacts with both industry and academia. An advisory committee may not be the best or only way to obtain this information because research —I emphasise particularly commercial research —is subject to commercial confidentiality. However, we have not closed our minds on this and will consider the balance between advice from the committee and other channels.
Although I appreciate that there is concern to put that provision on the face of the statute, I emphasise that the Secretary of State does not need to have a statutory provision before establishing such a committee. He can do so administratively.
I turn now to the national authority's report and what it should contain. The information held by the national authority, quite properly, will be subject to national security and commercial confidentiality constraints. The Secretary of State will have to decide, within those

1435
constraints, how best he can use the information that he has to satisfy Parliament that he is undertaking his responsibilities effectively.
We are concerned that some of the information listed in the amendment could jeopardise both national security and commercial confidentiality. Perhaps I may briefly take noble Lords through this because it is important. I turn first to paragraph (b). Information on the aggregate quantities of chemicals declared could divulge commercially confidential information where there are only one or two companies in the market.
On paragraph (i), the information on defensive programmes to be declared under Article X(4) is still under discussion in the Preparatory Commission in The Hague. The divulging of any information about the UK's defensive programme must be considered carefully. It is easy to cause damage to UK interests. For example, proliferators will always be looking out for information which may lead them to promising lines of research, and any information on the scope or direction of our programme could provide clues to potential enemies on where there might be weaknesses in our defence.
On paragraph (j), information declared under Article VI(8) will include all of the UK's industrial declaration which will have obvious commercial sensitivity.
I turn to paragraph (k). Publishing a list of chemicals which recently have become of concern because of their chemical weapons potential would again be of great interest to proliferators. We should do nothing to make their task any easier.
On paragraph (n), the progress of other state parties in eliminating chemical weapons will he provided to the national authority by the international organisation in The Hague. However, it may be classified in accordance with the terms of the convention and, if so, must be protected.
Although a number of worthwhile items are included in the list, I hope that that explanation will be clear enough to bring home to noble Lords the fact that, although we are not in the business of trying to restrict information in the report in any unhelpful fashion, there are real reasons why the list that is proposed does not appear to be appropriate.
The advisory committee proposed must contain members from those affected by the Act if it is to be effective in advising on the operation of the legislation. Some members will have a commercial interest in the chemical industry or in research. Consequently, it would not be right to show the committee details of information provided by industry or research bodies for inclusion in the UK declaration. The advisory committee could not and should not act as the arbiter of which information must remain confidential. That responsibility must remain with the Secretary of State if industry, academia and research bodies are to be confident that their information will he properly protected.
It will he clear from what I have said that I have, in a curious way, a stronger resistance to Amendment No. 5 because of the difficulties that I can envisage emerging as a result of the inclusion of such detail in an annual report.
1436
However, there is a clear linkage between the amendments, and I trust that it will now be clear to noble Lords why I continue to express resistance to the proposal while accepting that an advisory committee will he desirable. While I have given that clear indication of our intention, as I understand the law, it is not a set of circumstances in which the decision in Pepper v. Hart would be applicable.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for his full and cogent reply. Last week I received material from the Chemical Industries Association. To my great regret, partly for personal reasons and partly because I had to give priority to preparing for yesterday's great debate, I have had no time to talk to its representatives. However, I shall make it my business to talk to them in the next few days. I am aware of their concerns and I believe that there is more to be argued about. I stand second to none in my view that we must protect commercial confidentiality and national security.
A great deal of my thinking as regards the national security aspect arose from my reading of the Scott Report. Perhaps I may refer to paragraph (k) of my Amendment No. 5. If a bona fide company received a demand for chemicals which it had no idea were on the list where would the information lie that would protect it from doing something not too dissimilar from what we were debating yesterday? I am intrigued to know that. Is it the Minister's view that that would somehow come via export licences or that the Government would ask why a peculiar company was now demanding chemicals which no one had previously thought of demanding?
I accept entirely the point about proliferators. We do not want to alert them to the fact that there is a new chemical entity they can use to blow up the world. Equally, it is clear that the firms, perhaps small firms, which could produce the chemicals might get themselves into trouble. It is for that reason I raised the point. I can see both sides of the argument.
The Minister used an expression which I had written in my notes but which I forgot to use. It was that we must look at the costs of all this and at the benefits. This is worthwhile, particularly in terms of burdens on industry, only if there is a net benefit. I was hoping to persuade the Minister that following from this there are net benefits to the industry and, as I continue to insist, to the research community. While I accept the fact that we are treading on new ground, we must be sure that we do nothing that is calamitous for one of the great sectors of our academic community; namely, our various departments of chemistry.
Obviously, I shall not press the amendment today but I should find it helpful if I could discuss the matter with either the Minister or his officials in order to feel that I have fully clarified my mind and done my duty. Will the Minister agree that before Report stage we can have a further interchange so that I can rest assured and therefore can assure others that we have done all that we can in this area?
Lord Kennet: I wish to raise one point that my noble friend did not mention. One of the Minister's principal objections to the statutory committee, perhaps the

1437
principal objection, was that it might preclude the President of the Board of Trade or the national authority getting advice from anywhere except the advisory committee. There is nothing in the amendment which would preclude that. The existence of a permanent advisory committee cannot preclude any arm of government from seeking advice beyond it if it feels that that would be the best way forward.
I hope that the Minister is under no misapprehension —and, conversely, I hope that I am under no misapprehension —that neither the Bill nor the amendment will, in the event of the creation of a statutory advisory authority, tend to limit the Minister's advice to that source.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord raises the interesting question of what happens once a committee is established and the terms on which it is established are declared by Parliament, namely that:
"The duties of the National Advisory Committee shall include the provision of advice to the Secretary of State about all aspects of the Act and the Convention".
There are some interesting questions about how widely he might seek advice from other sources, in particular if he had received clear advice from the committee which was in conflict with the advice he received from elsewhere.
My anxiety relates to confidentiality. Perhaps I may say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I do not believe the issue will have as much effect on academic departments. However, when commercial research is taking place and a representative of a rival company is on the advisory committee it would act against our collective interests if those who thought that they ought to be discussing the protection of their research with the national authority refrained from doing so because they were anxious that their information might fall into the hands of commercial rivals. That is a real issue that needs to be addressed.
As the noble Lord has said repeatedly, this is not a controversial Bill. As I concluded on Second Reading, I cannot believe that any right-thinking being would wish to object to its speedy passage. In view of that, I would be more than willing to engage with the noble Lord in further discussion. Indeed, I shall be glad to participate with other noble Lords who may wish to join the discussion. Perhaps a more constructive suggestion would be that the noble Lord should discuss the matter with officials in the DTI who may be better placed to explain to him some of the complicated scientific issues which lie at the heart of the Bill. Of course, I am willing to provide that for him.
Lord Kennet: The Minister, in defending the possibility that the existence of an advisory committee would preclude the Government obtaining advice elsewhere, read out the words:
"The duties of the National Advisory Committee shall include the provision of advice to the Secretary of State about all aspects".
1438
If the amendment had intended to provide that it should preclude the Secretary of State from obtaining advice from any other source, it would no doubt have stated that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllies: If the noble Lord reads my words in Hansard he will see that I did not seek to overstate that argument. The matter is not entirely without difficulty. My greater point is that we do not wish to cut off any routes of advice or information which come to the national authority or to the Secretary of State if the provision of a single advisory committee would in any way make people reluctant or hesitant about coming forward.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for his comments. I am entirely sensitive to his point about commercial confidentiality. I would be greatly worried if I were involved in anything that could be seriously damaging to the interests of bona fide firms.
Given the fact that the Minister is busy, I shall be delighted to talk to officials so long as he guarantees that they will explain the matter simply and I can understand it. In any event, we can talk about it tomorrow morning or later in the week. Given all those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 2 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Licences]:
7 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 14, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert —
("and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled several such amendments, which will not take up a great deal of time. Essentially this amendment is tabled partly for its own sake but partly because Clause 20(4) refers to:
"Appealing against a refusal to grant, renew or vary a licence or against a variation or revocation of a licence".
I asked the noble and learned Lord whether he had anything to tell me about the appeal procedure. Since he did not say anything, I take it that he has not anything to tell me about that. Therefore, I take this second opportunity to ask him to tell me about the appeals procedure. I will then take a view on whether whatever is to happen requires the positive or negative resolution procedure. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I understand the situation, the noble Lord is not so much concerned with the issue of the resolution before each House of Parliament but he is concerned to learn more about the proposals that we have in relation to appeals.
The intention is that the President of the Board of Trade will use the order-making power in the clause to adopt the model appeals provisions which are soon to be prescribed by order under the Deregulation and Contracting-out Act 1994. That Act requires model appeal procedures to be prescribed by order so that they

1439
can be incorporated into legislation. We intend to adopt those model appeal procedures. Our intention is that the good practice which the model provisions will contain will be reflected in the procedure for appealing against a decision made under this clause. We wish to standardise appeals procedures to ensure consistency. It is particularly important where appeals are infrequent, as in this case.
An appeals committee will need to be established. Its members would be drawn from research, academic, medical and other disciplines so that it has the breadth of knowledge to judge the types and quantities of chemicals to be licensed against the intended use.
I had hoped that before we reached this stage of the Bill the draft model rules would have been out for consultation. I regret that that is not the case, but I certainly hope that before we reach the next stage of the Bill they will be available. Even if that is not the case, I have no doubt that, given the relative infrequency of appeals which are likely to result under this clause, the adoption of the model rules is the appropriate way forward.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for his answer, which contained more than I expected. I very much hope that we shall see the documentation to which he refers, but we shall wait and see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Identifying persons who have information]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 16, line 23, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 24 and insert —
("and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has a different purpose. We know that the Bill gives the Government all the powers that they require to do everything to which we are committed under the convention. But of course not a great deal of what the Government will have to do is in the Bill. Those powers will be used via delegated legislation. It seems to me that that is particularly true in relation to Clause 23 and it perhaps occurs even more strongly later.
Unless the noble and learned Lord tells me that I have misunderstood the clause, I believe that we are discussing matters which may lead to criminal offences. The Bill certainly reads in that way. Therefore, I feel that I have a responsibility on behalf of all Members of the Committee —and I notice how full is the Chamber at present —to press the Minister further on anything which may lead us into matters involving the criminal law. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will clarify that matter. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This amendment deals with the desirability of negative resolution procedure. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I hope that I shall
1440
be able to convince the Committee that that is the right approach because it is proportionate to the purpose of the regulations.
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Clause 23 must be read with Clause 22. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 22(3) he will find:
"A person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the notice served on him under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence",
and is liable to a number of penalties.
The effect of Clause 22(1)(a) is that the scope is restricted to those persons likely to have information needed for the purposes of the convention. It does not apply to anyone else. Thus, there is clearly a restricted class of people.
The convention is explicit about the information needed. There are four categories of chemicals —Schedules 1 to 3 and discrete organic chemicals —and declarations are required for activities beyond specified thresholds. Those must be reflected in the regulations.
However, the deregulations must reflect also detailed technical points. For example, if a chemical has been diluted, there is the question of the concentration of chemical beyond which declarations are required. That issue and others are still under discussion internationally and may well change with experience of the regimes.
This power is needed because the convention requires that all sides covered by declaration requirements must be included in the UK declaration. Inspections will take place to check declarations and the United Kingdom will be open to challenge if another state believes that it has wrongly not declared any site. Experience of other states is that industry response is poor where there is no statutory requirement to give information. For example, Australia reports that 36 per cent. failed to respond to the carefully structured convention-related survey. Therefore, it is undoubtedly right that it should be backed by those powers.
From my explanation, the noble Lord will realise that we have moved from persons to materials because, as I understand it, the way in which one defines the persons who are under an obligation to give the information is by reference to the chemicals which they hold. It is clearly a very detailed matter and this may be one of the issues on which a more detailed scientific explanation from officials would be helpful to the noble Lord. But I hope that for present purposes that response is sufficient.
Lord Peston: Again, I thank the Minister. I think that I am now getting tired because I followed most of his explanation and then I lost him. As I say, I am sensitive about this issue because the criminal law is involved. One always feels that it is one's duty to be sure that one is not agreeing to something about which it is said at some time in the future: "Why did you agree to the negative procedure in relation to that matter?". But again, that will do for the moment, as the noble and learned Lord quite rightly says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Annual reports by Secretary of State]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 22. line 5, after ("Act") insert ("and the operation of the Convention,").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the above amendment in order to take the burden off the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It is a simple amendment which, in effect, would make the annual report cover the convention and not just the Act. There may be parts of the convention which are not covered just by the Chemical Weapons Act 1995. I realise that it would actually increase the substance of the yet to be seen annual report but, considering the nature of the matter under discussion, I believe that it would be of benefit to all. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it clear to me that where the amendment refers to,
"the operation of the Convention",
it refers to the operation of the convention within the United Kingdom. My original concern was that the noble Lord wished the report to cover the operation of the convention worldwide. I believe that he will appreciate that that would be a task beyond even the very distinguished present Secretary of State.
Now that I understand what the noble Lord seeks to do, perhaps I may tell him that, notwithstanding the limitation that he has indicated, I do not believe that it would be right to put a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to provide information which he has no power to obtain under the Act or which he might be constrained from making public because of the confidentiality requirements of the convention. I hope that general information on the operation of the convention will be provided by the international organisations and that it will prove to be possible to include that in the annual report.
The Bill is about the implementation of the convention in the United Kingdom. It contains the powers needed for the UK to comply with its obligations under the convention, and we believe that it will in fact cover this country's obligations under the convention, because that is indeed the central purpose of the Bill.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for his reply. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause —
ANNUAL SEMINAR
" . —(1) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for an annual seminar to discuss the operation of the Act and the Convention.
(2) The Secretary of State shall invite to this seminar persons with appropriate expertise from the academic, industrial and research community, together with persons from the appropriate professional bodies.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has not actually been spoken to, although I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, may have alluded to it when he spoke earlier. The amendment is essentially my way of giving some advice to the Minister about how we can work with the convention and the Act. I say that as an academic coming to the end of his career who has always hated seminars. Whatever seminar we are talking about here it is not one that I hope to be invited to under any circumstances.
First, we all agree on something about which I am genuinely worried. I am concerned that far too few people know about the convention or about the Act; or, indeed, about how it will affect them. That is my first concern, and I have had a good deal of experience in that respect over the past few weeks simply talking to academics. As I pointed out on Second Reading, they do not have the faintest idea that their lives will change a little as a result of the legislation.
The second concern upon which we are all agreed is the fact that all this will evolve. There will be new things developing that we will learn about, and again people will need to know what is happening as it is affecting them. We are not talking about an unusual phenomenon. Certainly in the world of education Secretaries of State have proceeded along such lines, although I am not certain that I have ever seen what I am proposing —namely, putting the need for a seminar on the face of an Act of Parliament —put into effect. Therefore, if we were to achieve our aim, it would possibly be for the first time ever. But, in my judgment, that would be a very good reason for so doing.
The reasons are straightforward. The desirability of dissemination via our suggested method, with leadership given by the Secretary of State —in fact, the President of the Board of Trade —and by his officials who know about such matters would be immensely helpful. That is why I recommend the proposed new clause to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdales: As I have already spoken to the amendment, albeit in a somewhat mistaken manner when discussing Amendment No. 5, I should like to echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The point that be raised is something that cannot be underestimated —that many people do not realise how much the legislation will affect their lives. It will involve a good deal of work for members of the academic profession, who are already overworked. I do not believe that many of them realise what is to take

1443
place. Having a forum for discussion would, therefore, be helpful, though I realise that such a provision will probably not reach the face of the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Secretary of State must be clearly accountable to Parliament. We have some concern that a provision of this sort might undermine that clarity. The seminar would have no clear constitution and no clear accountability of its own. However, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, who has expressed concerns that what is being legislated upon here may not be as widely known as we would wish, that we are more than happy to inform citizens of the work of the national authority; and, indeed, we will reply to any questions that are put. I also wish to indicate that the staff of the national authority would consider participating in any event that particular interest groups might wish to arrange. However, I am bound to say that I see no need for an annual seminar to be provided for in the statute.
What I believe in this context may not be all that important to the noble Lords opposite. But again perhaps I may refer back to the briefing provided by the Chemical Industries Association where an observation is made on the proposal. The association says:
"We shall expect to liaise closely with Government and with the National Authority" —
I compliment the association on that very responsible approach on such an important matter —
"concerning the effect of implementation of the Convention. However, the most appropriate consultation will, presumably. include a range of activities. This might not be best facilitated by a simple statutory requirement for an annual seminar".
It is on that basis —and they are perfectly reasonable observations that possibly a wider range of activities is required than a single seminar —that I resist the amendment.
Lord Peston: The Minister clearly did not wish me to have a heart attack. I am delighted that he resisted the amendment as I am not sure how I would have coped had he accepted it. The main point concerns transparency and dissemination. Again, I hope to talk to the industry a little about the matter because I believe it has responsibilities in that respect. It would be very much in its own interest to do so. For example, if such a seminar took place at the University of Sussex in its great science policy research unit, that would be an ideal centre for a regular getting together, especially in the early stages of making the Bill work.
Were funding to come from outside and were industry funding available for such a seminar, I would hope that the department would give it a fair wind and feel able to be present at such discussions, albeit perhaps on Chatham House terms. Having said that and placed my views on the record, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power to amend this Act):
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 22, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert —
("and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I seek clarification. I confess that I did not notice the significance of Clause 36 when we were dealing with the matter at Second Reading. Having read this part of the Bill more carefully subsequently, I am somewhat intrigued by it. I have tabled the amendment to seek clarification, particularly as regards what provisions the Secretary of State has in mind under Clause 36(1) which states,
"he considers necessary or desirable to give effect to any amendment of the Convention made in pursuance of its provisions".
I notice the subsection refers to amendment of the convention rather than amendment of the Bill. Am I to understand that the purpose of this clause is to enable the convention to be changed on an international level, which would require international agreement? We would then need to incorporate those international changes —I can well imagine that changes might occur, as this area evolves —in our legislation. We would do that, essentially, by delegated legislation. If that is what the noble and learned Lord has in mind, I am pretty sure that the so-called positive procedure ought to apply in such a case, because what we are discussing is the equivalent of primary legislation. I may have misunderstood the whole of that subsection of Clause 36, but if I have not, this is the case where I am most convinced that the positive procedure would be appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I accept entirely that the clause requires some explanation. It is a particularly important one and therefore I shall take a moment to explain the position. I have given careful thought to the powers proposed in the clause. I have concluded that they are proportionate to the limited ways in which amendments to this Act may be required. The power to amend this Act provided for in the clause is limited to implementing amendments to the convention and may not be used to make other changes. Without a provision to amend this Act, the United Kingdom would be disadvantaged; for example, in pressing for worthwhile amendments to the convention internationally for fear of being unable to implement them domestically in a timely way.
The intention is that this Act should keep in step with agreed changes to the convention. Article XV of the convention sets out the procedures whereby amendments may be made to the convention. A simple procedure is provided for administrative and technical amendments to the Annex on Chemicals and parts of the other annexes to the convention. Such changes will enter into force 180 days after notification of the proposed amendment by the international organisation. The schedule to this Act reproduces Schedule 1 to the Annex on Chemicals to the convention and amendments to the schedule to this Act would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. As I understand the matter, and as I think the noble Lord anticipated, different chemicals

1445
may from time to time come to the attention of those who are expert in these matters which should be subjected to a degree of restriction as this Act would allow. Clearly one wants to ensure that a control is exercised over those as soon as possible. It is for that reason —as the noble Lord will have heard —that there is a limited period of 180 days.
The matter becomes even more complicated. As I understand it, the changes will come into effect after 180 days but, first of all, there are 90 days during which there may be consultation. Therefore, the effective period would be 90 days for implementation by the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, with his long experience of legislative procedure, will appreciate that that is an extremely small window for making change. I would reassure the noble Lord by informing him that other amendments to the convention —other than the class to which I have just referred —must be considered by a specially convened amendment conference of state parties. Such changes enter into force 30 days after those voting in favour have ratified the changes. Any amendments to this Act, other than to its schedule, would be subject to the positive resolution procedure. That is a somewhat complicated explanation of the convention but I hope that it is clear enough. It is certainly an important provision.
Lord Peston: That is certainly extremely clear. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has met my concerns. Essentially he is saying that within the measures we have already basically agreed for dealing with specific chemical developments the negative procedure would apply. However, if a more fundamental matter were to arise which involved changing the convention —which would be in the nature of a new version of an international treaty —we would use the positive procedure. I believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord said, and that is what I wanted him to say. It is important to get that on the record because if it was not clear to me it might not be clear to one or two other relevant people. The explanation has been immensely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Finance]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 23, line 10, after ("Act") insert ("and Convention").
The noble Lord said: I realise that this is a rather clumsy vehicle in which to raise a couple of questions. If I mention those questions now the Minister may not have to address the rest of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, how did the Government arrive at the figure mentioned in the explanatory memorandum of seven additional departmental staff as the number who will be needed to implement the provisions of the Bill? I may be ignorant to a great extent of the workings of the DTI. Will the provisions of the Bill necessitate an extra seven
1446
departmental staff on top of the existing staff, or is it expected that seven members of staff will enact the requirements of this piece of legislation? If that is the case, I believe that it is a particularly optimistic assessment of the situation. The word "efficiency" is often referred to; it may be that that concept has been taken to extremes with this legislation. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point. Secondly, the annual cost to business of giving information under the terms of the Bill and receiving inspections will be £8.1 million. Many academic institutions will be caught by the regulations of the Bill. Does the figure of £8.1 million include the costs incurred by those institutions, or is that the cost of monitoring the chemicals and ensuring that the convention is being properly upheld? I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Under the amendment that the noble Lord has moved, I must say for the record that there is no legal reason to include this clause. It is there simply to satisfy rules relating to procedure. The noble Lord raised some important questions. The annual costs resulting from the Bill will amount to some £650,000. That is in addition to the United Kingdom's contribution to the international organisation to be established under the convention, which will be something like £3 million. The compliance with this new Act will not be cheap.
The seven additional staff will bring the complement of the national authority to 10. From the figures I have given, the noble Lord will appreciate it is anticipated that a considerable volume of the important work will be carried out by the authority to be established in The Hague. The noble Lord mentioned the figure of some £8 million. That is the compliance cost assessment. As far as I am aware, the compliance cost assessment includes not only the cost to industry, but also to all research establishments, be they independent or parts of a university. If I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Lord.
He may find it encouraging that the industry estimates that the revised forms which are currently under development by the DTI could reduce compliance costs by something like £1 million.
I hope that that brief explanation of some of the costs that are anticipated is useful to the noble Lord.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 39 [Commencement, extent and citation]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 23, line 14, at end insert ("and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 39(1) states that:
"This Act (except this section) shall come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order".
Given the trouble that we are going to and the fact that I hope that within two or three weeks the Bill will be an Act, I should like to be assured that it is the intention that the order will be laid before Parliament and the matter will be dealt with with no further delay. In other words, I take it that it is the view of the department that that resolution bringing the Act into force will be brought forward right away. I do not insist that the resolution bringing the Act Into force needs to go over all of the ground again but, essentially, I want to know that that will be done without delay. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 39 is a commencement clause and follows the normal convention for clauses of this type. The positive resolution procedure would be a departure from that convention. However, I appreciate the reason for the noble Lord tabling the amendment. Again, on this matter, there is nothing between us.
1448
It is our intention to ratify the convention as soon as possible. We want to ensure that the United Kingdom is a founding state party to the convention. We understand that the United States, which is clearly very important in this matter, is committed to ratifying the convention and hopes to be able to do so in the next few months. Russia is likely to follow the United States. The best way to encourage the United States and Russia to ratify the convention is to bring closer the prospect of the convention coming into force. It will do so some six months after 65 states have ratified it. As I said to noble Lords, we are at one on this because the United Kingdom's ratification will bring that very worthwhile prospect nearer.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment. House adjourned at twenty six minutes before eight o'clock.

  UN Electoral Assistance Division: UK Staff
  UN Electoral Assistance Division: UK Staff
  European Commission: Members' Allegiance
  European Commission: Members' Allegiance
  Turkey: Incidents in Sivas Province
  Turkey: Incidents in Sivas Province
  Turkey: Mr. Abdulmelik Firat
  Turkey: Mr. Abdulmelik Firat
  Gambling: Consultation Paper
  Gambling: Consultation Paper
  Pet Animals: European Convention
  Pet Animals: European Convention
  Personal Data: Protection
  Personal Data: Protection
  Sickle Cell Anaemia: Ante-natal Testing
  Sickle Cell Anaemia: Ante-natal Testing
  Scott Report: Ministerial Recipients
  Scott Report: Ministerial Recipients
  Scott Report: Pre-publication Access
  Scott Report: Pre-publication Access
  Waste Management Licensing (Fees and Charges)
  Waste Management Licensing (Fees and Charges)
  Landfill Tax and Recycling Credits
  Landfill Tax and Recycling Credits
  Pensions Split on Divorce: Cost Estimate
  Pensions Split on Divorce: Cost Estimate