Sitting of 9 January 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Hemsworth, in the room of Derek Anthony Enright Esq., deceased.—[Mr. Dewar.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    British-USA Co-operation
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the United States Secretary of Defence to discuss British-United States of America defence co-operation. [6338]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence last met the United States Defence Secretary at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence planning committee meeting in Brussels on 29 November. He will be visiting Washington again shortly.
    Mr. Merchant: First, I wish you a happy new year, Madam Speaker. Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend whether when the Secretary of State next meets his American counterpart he will stress the paramount importance to Britain of the United States-British defence relationship,
    2
    as demonstrated by our excellent co-operation in Bosnia through the implementation force and on general intelligence matters.
    Mr. Soames: I also wish you a very happy new year, Madam Speaker—as indeed do all wings of the Tory party. The transatlantic relationship is, and continues to be, of paramount importance to the United Kingdom defence effort. It is based on a shared world outlook and a commitment to common fundamental values.
    As my hon. Friend correctly points out, the current peace implementation is the latest example of co-operation between our two countries. It also demonstrates the importance of the United States to European defence, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that fact to the attention of the House.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister inform the House of the total cost to the taxpayer and to the environment of the Trident programme—which was purchased from the United States—during its planned operating life?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will answer a question about the Trident programme later. Suffice it to say that the Trident programme represents a remarkable achievement by the Royal Navy, coming in within budget and on time. It is a wonder of technical engineering.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend next meets his American friends, will he remind them that co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States on nuclear matters has brought about the demise of the Soviet regime and the fall of the Berlin wall? The deployment of cruise missiles contributed massively to those outcomes, just as Trident is contributing to world peace today.
    Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to draw the matter to the attention of the House. He will recall the Labour party's opposition to stationing cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, which significantly dented the Soviet Union's resolve to carry on. We clearly cannot accept anything that risks

    3
    weakening NATO or the transatlantic link. NATO is the most successful defence alliance in history and it remains the bedrock of our European security.

    Mr. David Hart
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of Mr. David Hart in his Department's financial efficiency schemes. [6339]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Mr. Hart's unpaid advice has made a valuable contribution at the Ministry of Defence, including to the defence costs study and to our continuing search for greater efficiency.
    Mr. Betts: The Minister did not sound very confident about that answer. Is not the whole affair just another example of serious lack of judgment on the part of the Secretary of State for Defence? Given Mr. Hart's expressed views about buying our defence equipment from abroad and the role that he is obviously playing in the efficiency studies within the Department, will the Minister assure us that Mr. Hart's activities will in no way reduce further the capabilities of the Royal Air Force? Will the Minister also give an assurance that Mr. Hart's activities will not lead to a threat to the future of the Eurofighter project?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am extremely confident; unfortunately, I am also voiceless. The capabilities of Mr. Hart are considerable, and as I have said, he contributed significantly to the defence costs study. That will shortly save the Ministry of Defence over £1 billion every year.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend seek the advice of Mr. Hart on the financial efficiency of the bid by Land-Rover Marshalls for the ambulances required by the MOD? Will my hon. Friend discuss with Mr. Hart the rather more expensive bid by a foreign country—namely, Austria?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is more ingenious than ever. I congratulate him on his advocacy for his constituency, which I knew he would produce, because he always does. Unfortunately, I must tell him that no decision has yet been made on the ambulance procurement issue.
    Dr. Reid: Is it not true that, under the Secretary of State and his advisers, we have a new slogan for the Ministry of Defence—"If it's British military heritage, sell it; if it's foreign military hardware, buy it"? Does the Minister believe that that is efficient? Will he explain to the Secretary of State, when he returns from his jaunt to Japan, and to his advisers that operational effectiveness is the only way to judge efficiency for the armed forces?
    The morale of the British armed forces is undermined every time this free-market Secretary of State and his free-market fanatic adviser take a decision. Does it make any sense to have people running the Ministry of Defence who know the price of everything and the value of nothing?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No. The hon. Member is pursuing a canard. [Interruption.] I am sorry, that is foreign. He based his question on the recent, incorrect suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been involved in selling off Admiralty arch. It has never been
    4
    the Government's intention to sell off Admiralty arch, and it is not now. The problem is that it is insufficiently occupied. We intend to keep it in the public sector, and to ensure that it is well and properly occupied.
    Mr. Forman: Since the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) appears to know more about Mr. David Hart than many of the rest of us, will my hon. Friend consider placing a copy of his biographical details in the Library?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I would not wish to put a copy of the biographical details of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) in the Library, because they would not bear reading.

    Army Recruitment Costs
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average amount spent on recruitment costs for each entrant to the Army in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available. [6341]
    Mr. Soames: During 1994–95, the average cost of an entrant to the Army was £4,638. That figure does not include the significant recruiting efforts made by individual regiments for which costs are not held centrally.
    Mr. Flynn: Can the Minister explain why the Government spent £1 billion in redundancy costs, forcing—against their will, in most cases—137,000 people out of the armed forces? Those people were fully trained and fit. At the same time, in 1994, every recruit to the RAF cost £26,000. So the Government spent £ 1 billion getting rid of people, and £1.25 billion replacing them. Can we rest in our beds at night knowing that the people who are responsible for that enormous calamity and waste are in charge of the defence of the realm?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is confusing a number of separate issues. There are difficulties with recruiting at the moment, and recruiting to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force is expensive. The reason for that is that, although the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force do not at the moment require large numbers of recruits, for obvious reasons they need to retain a viable, satisfactory and operational recruiting service. The Army spends rather less on recruiting because it has more people coming through its books the whole time, so the average cost is much less.
    As for redundancies, it was certainly a cause of great sadness that "Options for Change", the defence costs studies, and all the other measures flowing from those resulted in large numbers of people leaving the services—but I am afraid that that was inevitable. To ensure the correct profile of experience and the right balance of specialisation and age, it is necessary at all times to continue recruiting, to refresh the ranks at all levels.
    Mr. Brazier: Is it not true that the armed forces are basically for the young, and that although we must deal generously with the older people who have had to be made redundant we must continue to recruit young people? Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the welcome initiatives that he is currently carrying out with the education and employment services?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition that, especially for the infantry and the other

    5
    specialist arms of the services, this is essentially a young man's game. We need to ensure a constant flow of young people of the right age. I am grateful to him, too, for mentioning the jobcentre initiatives. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, we shall tomorrow be announcing an initiative with the Employment Service to advertise jobs in 1,100 jobcentres nationwide. That follows a highly successful trial at 99 jobcentres. We are extremely confident that it will tap into an important source of young people and give them the information that they need when considering whether to join the armed forces. We very much hope that many more will do so as a result.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister believe that the recruitment budget has been well spent when the total strength of the Army is only 104,000 men and women against a requirement of 117,000—a shortfall of 13,000? It takes a Government of special genius, does it not, to be unable to recruit men and women to the Army when there are 2.5 million men and women desperate for work?
    Mr. Soames: That shows a profound misunderstanding of the facts and is an obvious demonstration of the hon. Gentleman's complete lack of grasp of this important matter. We are competing in a highly competitive job market. It is true that we are suffering from manpower shortages—the Army is short of 2,500 men—but the hon. Gentleman's figures are way out.
    I believe that our recruitment budget is extremely well and effectively spent. As I have said in the House before and will go on saying, we need to do better and to improve the image of the armed forces, so as to ensure a proper flow of young men and women into them. We badly need them; but the hon. Gentleman's assertions are way out of order.
    Mr. Rathbone: What does the cost of recruiting to the Territorial Army happen to be? It has always struck me as the most cost-efficient part of the military.
    Mr. Soames: I cannot tell my hon. Friend precisely, because the cost comes under the overall recruiting budget. My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that recruitment to the TA is extremely important. We regard it as an essential part of the one-army concept, and we regard the reserves as part of the mainstream forces. We greatly value their contribution to the United Kingdom defence effort.

    Trident
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the deployment of Trident. [6342]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The Trident system has been in operational service since December 1994. The phased replacement of Polaris by the Trident system is proceeding to schedule.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that when Victorious went on patrol it had only 12 missiles on board, compared with the 16 that Vanguard is carrying? Is that a change of policy? Does it mean that we are going
    6
    to buy fewer missiles from the United States; and will each missile be carrying more warheads than the Polaris missiles carried, thereby putting us in breach of the non-proliferation treaty? Or will we conform to that treaty?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We shall certainly conform to the non-proliferation treaty. The hon. Gentleman was one of 42 Opposition Members who last October signed a motion calling for Trident to be scrapped. He comes from the wing of the Labour party that represents the real Labour party, and that means we cannot trust Labour on defence.
    Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend accept that the history of nuclear weapons makes many hon. Members uncomfortable—particularly the deployment of cruise missiles in the past decade, which was opposed by many hon. Members? The non-stop opposition to Trident by some Liberal and Labour Members suggests that they are more concerned with their own peculiar principles than with the good defence of our nation, which is supported by the majority of its people.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. Nuclear deterrence has worked to prevent war in Europe for the past 50 years. We should remember that our nuclear deterrent has been a very good buy. Had Labour been in power in the past 16 years, we would not have any of those questions because we would not have a nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister confirm that his Department contacted Rosyth dockyard with a view to estimating the price of a contract to refit the Trident missile system? What does that tell us about the status of the Devonport contract? Does it not suggest that it was always unsoundly based and that the decision to send it there was purely political rather than economic?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No. My Department has not contacted Rosyth dockyard, which put in a unsolicited bid. The decision in 1993 to put nuclear refitting into Devonport was taken when we needed to have the issue settled. We do not intend to reopen the issue and move the contract to Rosyth.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the results of the recent Russian election and the uncertainty that has been created underline the need for the west to maintain its nuclear shield? Do those election results not show that the meandering policies of the Leader of the Opposition on defence demonstrate that only one party can be guaranteed to defend the country?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) used to be a member of the parliamentary Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Defence is just one of many issues on which he and the Labour party have said time and again, "We were wrong about that. Please forgive us." But the electorate will not forgive them.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that the Government are entirely responsible for the two and a half years of delay and indecision over the refitting of Trident and the future ownership of the two dockyards? Will he tell the House today when he intends to make an announcement about the future ownership of those dockyards and provide firm guarantees on work load,

    7
    safety and conditions of employment at both Rosyth and Devonport?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: It is not as a result of Government indecision that the matter has been delayed for so long. It is an exceptionally important and complicated matter to tie up all the issues involved in nuclear refitting. The hon. Lady has been assiduous and vigorous in fighting the corner for Rosyth, but nevertheless the Government have been absolutely right to pursue negotiations with the various companies involved. We have done so vigorously, and we intend to pursue those negotiations to a conclusion.

    Trained Personnel
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken to enable the services to retain trained personnel. [6343]
    Mr. Soames: The services have well-established measures in place to encourage the retention of trained personnel including incentive bonuses and excellent resettlement provisions. A career in the services today offers a rewarding and often exciting life with excellent opportunities rarely to be found in any other career.
    Mr. Nicholson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that there are widespread concerns, which have been expressed to me recently by service families of constituents, about the number of officers voluntarily leaving the three services. Particular concerns have been expressed about general list naval officers. Is he aware that the reassurances and initiatives announced earlier will be very welcome, but can he assure the House that those initiatives will not involve any lowering of standards in recruitment?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to raise the concern that is felt about what is clearly a problem. The services have been through a difficult and protracted period of change. The process has probably been more difficult than that faced by any other organisation within our society. We believe that the front line is now properly, correctly and robustly configured for the pursuit of our defence and security goals.
    Big decisions have been taken. I hope that the men and women in the armed forces can now look forward to a period of stability. I confirm that we shall be seeking no lowering of any standards. On the contrary: we seek always to raise standards. We seek to be a model employer, employing very good people.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that, as numbers fall and commitments are maintained or intensified, so the threat to the maintenance of good morale in the forces also intensifies, which is something that requires rather more urgent attention than the Government give it?
    Mr. Soames: On the contrary: as the hon. Gentleman knows—he has considerable experience of these matters—with one or two isolated exceptions where bases or stations have been hit badly by redundancy programmes, morale in all three services is extremely high. I know that the hon. Gentleman undertakes many service visits. He will know that the armed forces are supremely confident of their mission and supremely capable of carrying it out.

    North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on the enlargement of NATO [6344]
    Mr. Soames: The Government support the enlargement of NATO and are playing an important role in enhancing the stability and security of the whole of Europe.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend continue his policy of maintaining and building on NATO's strength and not jeopardise that strength by over-rapid development of NATO by following Labour's Eurocentric policies? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party cannot be trusted to maintain a strong NATO and, indeed, cannot be trusted on defence?
    Mr. Soames: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend on both issues. NATO is the most successful defensive alliance that the world has ever seen. My hon. Friend is right to confirm that it must and will remain for ever the cornerstone of our European defence. It is inconceivable that we could consider true security in Europe other than on the basis of a transatlantic alliance. I share my hon. Friend's real concerns and those of many ordinary people the length and breadth of the land about the United Kingdom's security should Labour ever come to power again.
    Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister, when considering future security in the north Atlantic, alarmed at the developments in Guatemala, where the hand-picked candidate of the extreme right-wing former dictator is ahead in the elections? That man, Senor Alfonso Portillo, could become President. Is the Minister—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That supplementary question is entirely out of order. It is the first day back and I shall bear in mind my reprimand to the hon. Member for the next two or three weeks. Let us have another question.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Coming from Guatemala closer to home, and agreeing with my hon. Friend about the significant importance of NATO and the excellent support that the Government have given and continue to give to NATO through the "Partnership for Peace" proposals, when considering the enlargement of NATO, will he assure the House that, in addition to the "Partnership for Peace" proposals, he will give the most urgent consideration to including the Visegrad countries—the countries of central Europe—as full members of NATO?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has probably had a more honourable and distinguished career in respect of such efforts than anyone in this place. His contribution to NATO is great. He knows that the "Partnership for Peace" operation has been an outstanding success. He is right to warn that countries will not for ever tolerate being dragged along on the PFP programme. The how and why of the enlargement programme are almost settled. There is further work to be done, however, on retaining the effectiveness of NATO while the transition to enlargement takes place. Otherwise, I can definitely give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks.
    Mr. Spellar: The Minister is obviously aware that one of the key issues in NATO is the harmonisation of equipment. Can he give us a better reply than his

    9
    colleague and say how he reconciles that with considering field ambulances from non-NATO Austria over the world-class Land Rover? When will he put British industry first?
    Mr. Soames: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a number of failings, but I did not know that deafness was one of them. My hon. Friend has said that no decision has yet been taken. The hon. Gentleman's question is therefore a total waste of time.

    Nuclear Proliferation
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current assessment of the threat posed by nuclear proliferation. [6345]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The threat posed by potential nuclear proliferation remains serious, and the Government continue to make strenuous efforts to prevent such proliferation.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Bearing in mind the continuing threat from nuclear proliferation, does he agree that it is important that we retain our independent nuclear deterrent, which is a credible defence for this nation and sends out a very clear message? Does he further agree that there would not be such a clear message should the Labour party come to power, with its proposals in its defence review, which would indeed just whittle away and, finally, ditch our own deterrent, which is the guarantee of our security?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party would play hokey cokey with our nuclear deterrent. It does not believe in the nuclear deterrent when it says that it does. But sometimes it says that it does not, and still it does not.
    Mr. Wareing: If the Government are so supportive of non-proliferation, does that include the south Pacific? How does the Government's policy of supporting French nuclear tests square with the policies that the Minister has outlined now? Will the Government declare a unilateral moratorium on British testing?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the French Government already possess nuclear weapons, so it is not really a question of non-proliferation. The French Government were given advice that they should test their weapons to pursue safety, and we could not possibly question that. We have already declared that we will abide by the US moratorium, so there is no need for us to take the step that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

    Married Quarters
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the sell-off of the married quarters housing stock. [6347]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We propose to take forward the transfer to the private sector of the married quarters estate in England and Wales.
    Mrs. Prentice: Having already wasted £6 million of taxpayers' money on a previously ill thought out housing sell-off, will the Minister now give the House some assurance that further taxpayers' money will not be
    10
    wasted in that way, or is he convinced that, with David Hart as the adviser in this sale, he will get it right this time?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I have considerable confidence that we are getting it right. We have made it clear, however, that the sale will go ahead only if both the price and the terms are right. There are tremendous benefits to be obtained. We want to improve the management and the quality of the married quarters housing estate. I hope that that is an objective that the hon. Lady shares.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in some cases, the quality of the married quarters housing stock, such as that at Colchester garrison, leaves something to be desired? Will he confirm that the sale of the housing stock will release resources that can be used to improve the properties, and may also make available surplus properties for use by the local community?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is quite right. The purpose of the sale is to achieve a number of benefits, including an investment in upgrading service homes, but also genuinely to transfer risk to the private sector, which is best placed to take that risk. It will help us to dispose of surplus properties more effectively and, as I said in answer to the previous supplementary question, it will improve the management and quality of service housing.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister accept that the disposal of Ministry of Defence property, including service housing and other property, can raise considerable anxiety, as evidenced by the description by Lord Hill-Norton, Admiral of the Fleet, of the Minister's right hon. Friend as "a little creep"—a description that one certainly could not apply, for many reasons, to the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)? There are, of course, considerable apprehensions in the minds of many people about the future of Greenwich, about the future of the old Admiralty and 'of Admiralty arch itself. What assurances can the Minister give the House that those properties will be properly dealt with?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am a little disappointed in the hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps he was not here earlier when I answered a question about Admiralty arch. I have made it plain that the Government have no intention, and never had any intention, of disposing of Admiralty arch. The question of Greenwich has been raised and dealt with in the House on many occasions; it is clear that the facility needs to be used properly, to the nation's best advantage, and it will be so used.
    Mr. Dykes: How many married quarters will be relinquished during the gradual phasing out of RAF Stanmore Park? Can my hon. Friend confirm the good news that the combination to form RAF Bentley Priory will eventually create more civilian jobs?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I can answer yes to the second question, on the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I am afraid that I cannot answer the first without notice, but I will write to my hon. Friend.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the evacuation arrangements for British troops in the event of an emergency evacuation from Bosnia. [6348]
    Mr. Soames: The NATO-led implementation force, of which the British troops form a significant and important part, is robustly configured and fully capable of ensuring its own defence and enforcing local compliance with the peace agreement, should that become necessary.
    Mr. Jones: We are given to understand that the NATO troops are capable of responding vigorously to infringements of the Dayton agreement, but how can that be credible in relation to one of the combatants, Croatia? As our supply lines run through that country, will we not face a choice between turning a blind eye to any Croatian infringements and withdrawing our troops?
    Mr. Soames: I am happy to be able to report that there have been very few infringements and firing incidents. Compliance is generally good. Indeed, most of the firing incidents that have taken place so far have been fuelled by an excess of new year cocktails, which in Bosnia can lead to recreational firing of a thoroughly dangerous type.
    The general commanding UK 3 Division, General Jackson—to whom I spoke today—assures me that all the British soldiers are in excellent heart, and that they have a clear sense of purpose, a proper military mission and the equipment that they need to carry it out. They are doing a first-class job.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that "evacuation" is not a word that should ever occur in the NATO manual?
    Mr. Soames: As my hon. Friend knows, members of the Brigade of Guards do not retreat; they advance backwards. There is no question of evacuation. IFOR, the implementation force, is robustly and fully equipped to undertake its job, and it will do that job. It is encouraging that compliance has been very good so far: that is good news, and it means that the operation will be able to take place on the agreed time scale.
    Mr. Murphy: Has the Minister seen today's reports that a soldier in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, when captured by the Bosnian Serbs some time ago, was subjected to torture? Is there any truth in that report, and what does the Minister intend to do about it?
    Mr. Soames: I had only just heard of the report when I came into the Chamber. I have no reason to believe that it is true. I should add that that regiment acquitted itself with great distinction and considerable courage in very difficult circumstances, and I cannot believe that what is reported happened.
    Mr. Atkins: Were not British troops chosen to perform the tasks that they are performing in Bosnia because they have some of the best equipment in the world, and are the best-trained troops in the world? Have not their presence and their activities so far justified the world's judgment in wanting them to be there?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the remarkable achievements of British troops in Bosnia, where they have
    12
    worked logistical and peacekeeping miracles in the mud and snow and in a very difficult theatre of war. They have done a marvellous job; they are a huge credit to everyone in the country, and we should all share a great sense of pride in what they have done.

    Food Procurement
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue guidelines covering the procedure for food procurement in the armed forces. [6349]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Procurement and supply of food to the armed forces is undertaken by NAAFI against a three-year contract which began on 1 October 1994. Food is required to meet specifications or standards agreed between the MOD and NAAFI and to provide value for money.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister may be aware that I have been organising a national boycott of Campbell Soups products because of the disgraceful way in which that company treated my constituents when it announced the closure of an extremely profitable factory in Maryport. May we have an assurance that Ministers will say to NAAFI, "Boycott Campbell Soups products and, in particular, Fray Bentos products"? Will the Minister also advise the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to follow suit?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I suspect that a bowl of soup is just what I need at the moment. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's vigour in pursuing his campaigns. The NAAFI does not buy soup from Campbell Soups, because it buys on the basis of price and does not buy condensed soup. An interesting statistic that the hon. Gentleman will wish to know is that the Army spends £125,000 a year on soup.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Although Napoleon Bonaparte rightly understood that an army marches on its stomach, is not the problem with the British Army today that it gets rather more food than it needs, as is shown by the performance in objective procedures such as the P Company selection test and the basic fitness test?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister confirm that the guidelines covering procedure for the procurement of military ambulances ensures that the cheapest unit that meets the specifications is the one that is purchased?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Lady is again to be congratulated on her ingenuity. I know of no guidelines on the procedures covering military ambulances in terms such as she suggests.

    RAF Manston
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running and maintenance costs for his Department's Fire Service and Central Training Establishment at RAF Manston. [6351]
    Mr. Soames: The costs of the Ministry of Defence Fire Service and Central Training Establishment cannot be easily separated from the overall cost of running RAF Manston. The current review of MOD fire service training should, however, identify these costs in due course.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for informing the House that there will be a review the costs

    13
    of fire training provision by the MOD. May I urge him to make that a wide-ranging review to include all Home Office facilities and the National Fire College at Moreton-in-Marsh so that we can ensure that MOD fire service training provision is truly cost-effective?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this matter to my attention and for the correspondence that he has had with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the excellent fire service college at Moreton-in-Marsh. As he knows, the review is considering all options for professional fire training, including the Civil Airports Authority's fire school, local authority fire brigades and the fire service school in his constituency. I assure my hon. Friend that any proposal will be carefully considered, and I shall be happy to see my hon. Friend if he wishes to lobby on its behalf.

    Recruitment
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his American counterpart to discuss the recruitment of military personnel. [6352]
    Mr. Soames: In his regular meetings with his American counterpart, my right hon. Friend discusses the range of relevant military issues.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my hon. Friend take account of American experience on the issue of homosexuality and military personnel and do nothing that would damage the morale and fighting efficiency of our highly motivated and exclusively professional armed forces? Will he assure the House that Ministers will stand firm however heavy the fire from the ranks of the politically correct?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. He knows that it remains the Government's view that homosexuality is incompatible with the special conditions of service life. The policy is not the result of a moral judgment, but a practical result of homosexuality's effect on military life and morale factors, as my hon. Friend rightly says. I am happy to give him the reassurance that he seeks.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When he discusses recruitment of military personnel with his American counterparts, does the Secretary of State for Defence discuss the way in which defence chiefs and ex-defence chiefs have treated political defence leaders? Would it be acceptable, for example, for someone who is or has been in the United States military to describe the Secretary of State as "a little creep"?
    Mr. Soames: It would be as discourteous there as it was here.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6368]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and
    14
    others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Flynn: What democratic legitimacy has a Prime Minister who lost the last vote in the House, who has lost every by-election by a mile, and who is now being abandoned by some of his most honourable Members, including the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), who is warmly welcomed to the Opposition Benches today? How can a party at war with itself provide good government? Is it not degrading of the Prime Minister to deny the country an election and the choice between an exhausted Tory Government and an invigorated young Labour party? They cannot command the confidence of the people. The powerful cry from this country's people to the Government is to go—
    Madam Speaker: Order. There are others who want to ask the Prime Minister questions.
    The Prime Minister: The legitimacy might have something to do with the largest popular vote ever recorded at the last general election and a majority in the House.
    Mr. Brooke: In his busy life, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity yesterday to read in The Times, in the series on aging, a self-analysis by a middle-class married woman, in which she identified seven what she called
    "irritating little signs of the spiral towards death",
    and did he note that she placed at their heart having voted for the Liberal Democrats at the last general election?
    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, I am afraid that I did not see that article, and I am extremely sorry that I missed it.
    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister tell us what on earth possessed him to resurrect the idea of Post Office privatisation on Sunday? Is it not exactly because of policies such as that that his party is in disarray, that his Members of Parliament are defecting and that the country wants a change of Government?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has just had an extremely interesting trip to Japan. While he was there, he might have been better occupied if he had travelled on the privatised Japanese railway—a policy which he and his colleagues also oppose for this country. What the right hon. Gentleman, despite his rhetoric, does not in his heart understand is that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector—[interruption.] I am delighted to see the opposition to private ownership coming from Opposition Members. Private ownership enables people to have, if I may use the phrase, a stake in this country.
    Mr. Blair: He can tell that to consumers of water and electricity. Is it not obvious that the only reason that Post Office privatisation is back on the agenda is to placate that faction of the Conservative party that wants to privatise anything and everything? Is it not precisely because the whole business of his Government is now about pleasing one faction or another of the Conservative party that the country has given up on the Conservatives as a serious party of government?
    The Prime Minister: For the right hon. Gentleman, who tries to tell the world that he is a moderniser who

    15
    has brought his party into the 1990s, to oppose—as he does lock, stock and barrel—private ownership of industry in this country, when prices are falling and services are improving, shows the extent to which the glossy words he uses are not matched by what he really believes in.
    Mr. Blair: If he is so keen and confident about privatising the Post Office, the Prime Minister should put it in his manifesto and call a general election to decide the matter.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have observed over the years that we have included in our manifesto many policies to which he and his party have objected, and we have won elections on those policies. He should say whether he will re-nationalise those industries that arc now in the private sector. What is the answer to that? He does not know and he cannot say, because, if he says yes, he upsets one half of his party and if he says no, he upsets the other half.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Assuming that my right hon. Friend has an extensive knowledge of the Bible, including the Old Testament and Genesis, will he ensure that the policies that he introduces do not enable the Cains of this generation to flourish any more than they did in biblical times?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that this party will remain the same centre-right broad church in the future as it has been throughout its history.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not clear that the Prime Minister cannot stop his colleagues from squabbling however many warnings he gives them on television? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence now indulges in long-distance, intercontinental squabbling. As long as the Prime Minister has to face those elements in his party, he cannot address the concerns shared by thousands of people who voted for him last time, which were so clearly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson). Might he not now admit that the party is over for him?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the hon. Lady has made a decision that she will, in due course, come to regret, for reasons that I have set out in the past. She has made her decision and will have to live with it, both in the short term and in the long term.
    Matters of concern for people in this country are mortgage rates, which are the lowest for 30 years; the basic rate of tax, which is the lowest for 50 years; unemployment, which is falling more rapidly here than anywhere else in Europe; and inflation, which is lower than it has been for 50 years. Those are matters about which the right hon. Gentleman used to attack the Conservative party some years ago; they are now being solved more successfully than they have been at any stage in the past. The right hon. Gentleman has no response to the economic prospects that now lie ahead of us.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: During his discussions this morning with the leader of the Spanish Opposition, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to ask him why, after more than 10 years of socialism in Spain, that country still has the highest unemployment figures of western Europe?
    The Prime Minister: There is, of course, a close relationship across Europe between socialist Governments
    16
    who have been in power for a long time, the level of social costs that they apply, the adoption of the social chapter and the unemployment levels in those countries. That is why we are so determined not to adopt those policies, but to ensure that our economic policies create jobs and do not destroy them for dogmatic reasons.

    Lockerbie
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met President Clinton, they discussed the advisability of continuing with the pursuit of those persons alleged to have committed the murders at Lockerbie in December 1988. [6369]
    The Prime Minister: On 29 November, I discussed Lockerbie and Libya briefly with President Clinton. Both Britain and the United States remain committed to bringing to justice those responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. The evidence supports the charges against the two accused.
    Dr. Godman: Why does the Prime Minister place so much emphasis on the need to try such persons in either Scotland or America? Why America? Why does he not tell President Clinton that it makes much better sense to try those individuals at the High Court in Edinburgh or, failing that, at an international tribunal at The Hague? Surely he cannot expect the Libyan authorities to allow those individuals to subject themselves to a television show trial in Washington.
    The Prime Minister: We are not asking them to. We think that the trial should take place in Scotland. We certainly do not think that it would be desirable—necessarily—for it to take place at The Hague. If, as they have occasionally intimated, the Libyans accept Scottish law and a Scottish judge, I know of no good reason whatsoever why the accused should not appear before a court in Scotland. That is where the crime was committed—above Scotland—and that is where I believe the accused should most properly stand trial. I hope that that will occur and I hope that the accused will be surrendered by the Libyan Government so that justice can be seen to be done.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As we have an absolute obligation to the relatives of those who died in that appalling massacre, and as the people of Libya are suffering terribly from the policy of sanctions, what is the argument against passing a simple law in this House that would enable the two accused persons to be tried at The Hague in exactly the same way as other foreign alleged criminals—from Serbia, for example—are being tried? Should we not try to resolve the problem quickly in the interests of those who lost relatives in that appalling carnage?
    The Prime Minister: I, too, have seen some of the suggestions that the accused should be surrendered for trial in one place or another, but there is no guarantee whatever that the accused would be made available for trial if we went to the trouble of setting up a trial in a third country—at, for example, The Hague.
    On a wider but relevant point, I do not think that we ought to allow suspected terrorists to dictate where and how they should be tried. That would imply an acceptance of the accused's assertion that they would not receive a fair trial in Scotland. That is not an assertion that I believe the House should accept.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6370]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell: Since the Prime Minister's majority is getting smaller and smaller, will he stop the privatisation of the railways, which is costing taxpayers £1 billion, stop the back-door privatisation of the health service, and certainly not go ahead with the privatisation of the Post Office? Will he resign now, call a general election and take his little creeps with him?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is of course no. I am rather surprised to hear that question from him. Unless I misremember, it was the hon. Gentleman who, not very long ago, said that the Labour leadership
    "got it into their heads that Labour is unelectable unless it goes down this social democratic road. That is rubbish".
    The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would claim that that is exactly the road that they are going down. On that basis, and considering what the hon. Gentleman just said, he ought not to want an election.
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6371]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alexander: In view of the healthy economic statistics that my right hon. Friend gave the House a moment ago, especially the fact that inflation is now at its lowest level for 50 years, is it not abundantly clear to all independent observers that Britain is a success story? Will he confirm to the House and the country that he has no
    18
    intention of putting all that at risk by coming forward with the sort of half-baked ideas that we had from the midday sun in Singapore recently?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely correct about the success that the country now has, which is recognised in almost every country in the world with, perhaps, the solitary exception of this one. I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that we have success. We have provided the basis to turn our country into the most enterprising country in Europe. We are now in a position to return to a tax-cutting agenda and to give people more choice, more opportunity and genuine ownership—a genuine stake in this society. That is the way in which we believe it is right to proceed, and will proceed.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6372]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that there is no place in the modern Conservative party for those who believe in closer ties with Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Sadly for the hon. Lady, that is not what my right hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Hargreaves: In view of the number of questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during recent Defence questions, will my right hon. Friend take time to speak with the Secretary of State for Defence on the subject of the forthcoming order of ambulances for the Army?
    The Prime Minister: Nothing has yet been decided on the subject of the order of ambulances for the Army. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who answered questions this afternoon, will report the views of the House to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Holloway Prison
3.30 pm
Mr. Jack Strawasked the Secretary of State for Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy pursued by the authorities in Holloway prison in manacling pregnant prisoners in labour.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I am grateful to have the opportunity to clarify both Prison Service policy in general and the practice in Holloway. It is our policy to secure all prisoners under escort for whatever reason, but where medical treatment is concerned we remove restraints for both male and female prisoners as and when requested by medical staff. However, it is the policy of the Prison Service not to keep women handcuffed while in labour and childbirth. It has never been Prison Service policy to keep women handcuffed during labour and childbirth. Although I am explaining this now for the benefit of hon. Members, the policy was also explained by the Director General of the Prison Service on a number of occasions over the weekend. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. We must have order in the House. The Minister is making an important statement. Those who are not interested are perfectly free to leave, but the rest of us would like to hear what she has to say.
Miss Widdecombe: The practice at Holloway prison is to follow the national policy to which I have just referred. The case that has probably prompted the hon. Gentleman's concerns stems from Channel 4's use of secret cameras outside the labour ward at Whittington hospital. I must say that their use on this occasion meant that the full story was not told.
The cameras filmed the prisoner every time she left the maternity ward and entered the public areas either to use the lavatory or to smoke a cigarette. During that time, which was prior to the confirmation of labour, she was secured. While she was in the labour ward, she was not handcuffed or manacled, even before labour was confirmed. Once labour was established, the prisoner was allowed out of the ward unsecured, as has been confirmed by hospital staff.
There are standing arrangements agreed between Whittington hospital and Holloway prison to deal with prisoners who attend for medical treatment. No concerns have been registered by the hospital about Holloway practice. Hospitals are not secure places in which to keep prisoners. Since 1990, 20 women have escaped from hospitals. Of all the escapes by women from escort since 1990, 28.5 per cent. have been from hospitals. In absolute terms, that is 20 escapes out of a total of 70 escapes from escort. The Prison Service is obliged to take precautions, and it would rightly be criticised if it did not.
Some hon. Members may like to think that a pregnant woman would not or could not escape, but unfortunately that is not true. In a recent case, a prisoner who was four and a half months pregnant jumped from a first-floor window during—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Labour happens after nine months.
Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is making a statement. If the hon. Member for Workington
20
(Mr. Campbell-Savours) has a question, I shall try to call him at the appropriate time. Until then, he must listen to the statement.
Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to listen—he does not want to know the truth. The lady to whom I was referring jumped from a first floor window during an antenatal appointment. In another incident, a woman prisoner who was in hospital to give birth was allowed privacy with a visitor and obtained drugs. In a further incident, a male prisoner who was diagnosed as completely paralysed jumped up and ran away as soon as his bed watch was withdrawn.
The Prison Service has a duty of care to the mother, but that must be balanced against the needs of the service to keep all prisoners—including pregnant women prisoners—in secure custody. I am satisfied that the policy is right and is consistent with the views of the House.
Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the statement that she has just made is completely unacceptable, and that in a civilised society it is inhuman, degrading and unnecessary for a prisoner to be shackled at any stage of labour? Will the Minister confirm—as she finally had to admit on television last Friday—that no woman prisoner in labour has ever escaped? Does she appreciate that labour may go on for many hours, during which many women find it necessary to walk around?
With regard to the case of the prisoner shown on Channel 4 last Friday, does the Minister accept that the woman was in labour when she was in hospital? How is the fact that the woman was manacled on a number of occasions while going to the lavatory and into the corridors consistent with the categorical undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) by Mr. Richard Tilt—the acting Director General of the Prison Service—that
"cuffs have…to be removed from women in labour"?
Was not the action taken to manacle this prisoner in the clearest breach of that undertaking?
The Minister stated that there had been no complaints from Whittington hospital. Is she aware—as I am, following conversations this morning with the chairman of the Whittington hospital trust—that that hospital is profoundly concerned about the practice of manacling prisoners who are in labour and, indeed, prisoners who are pregnant? Why has the Prison Service been so dilatory in responding to the offer made by the Whittington to take its community midwifery service into Holloway prison itself, thus ending the need for pregnant prisoners to travel to hospital except once labour has been established?
Is the Minister aware that staff at all levels in the Prison Service now feel so intimidated by the climate created by Ministers that they are being forced to make decisions that defy both common sense and common decency? Does not the Minister understand that that climate of intimidation led to the grotesque situation shown on Channel 4 last Friday, when the security measures taken were wholly disproportionate to the risk? Was not the president of the Royal College of Midwives entirely right when she said that the distress of handcuffing a woman in labour inevitably puts the health of the mother and the baby at risk, and is barbaric and a fundamental violation of a woman's dignity?
Miss Widdecombe: All the hon. Gentleman's questions were answered by my statement, but I shall spell out my reply so that even he will understand. The lady was not in labour when she was secured.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend realise that my constituents expect criminals who are sent to gaol to stay there and that we expect everything to be done to ensure that escapes do not happen or that there are fewer and fewer of them? What progress is being made to reduce the number of escapes from Her Majesty's prisons?
Miss Widdecombe: Considerable progress has already been made, as my hon. Friend will be aware. Since the Prison Service became an agency in 1993, escapes have been cut by 77 per cent. There was, however, still a disproportionately high level, in percentage terms, of escapes among female prisoners vis-à-vis male prisoners. When we looked into that, we found that the only difference was that, whereas restraints were routinely used on male prisoners under escort, they were not used on female prisoners. We therefore changed our policy in April, with the result that escapes among female prisoners have dramatically fallen. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend as to the progress that we are making.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why does not the Minister show some understanding of the anger and revulsion felt by many responsible people as a result of the revelations? Can she confirm that the use of chains in these circumstances has increased, that it has increased as a direct result of Ministers' insistence on certain security measures and that there are alternatives, such as the creation of greater security in the places used and having more staff attending escort duties?
Miss Widdecombe: I can only state again that we remove restraints when treatment has commenced or, in the case of pregnant women, when labour is confirmed. We regard that as striking the right balance between the need to maintain security and the need to recognise the mother's situation. The film on Channel 4 showed clearly the lady concerned moving freely around the side ward, even after childbirth, when she was unsecured and looking after her baby. She was secured only when she entered the public areas of the hospital when she was not in labour.
Lady Olga Maitland: Although the issue of handcuffing prisoners is undoubtedly controversial, does my hon. Friend agree that it somewhat masks the real progress that has been made in prison conditions? The vast majority of inmates now live on their own in cells with internal sanitation.
Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. Now, 96 per cent. of prisoners have access to sanitation 24 hours a day. We have completely eliminated trebling in cells, we have reduced the number of prisoners sharing two to cells designed for one and we have completely eliminated the use of police cells. That is a major achievement by the Prison Service, and I am sorry that Opposition Members will not join in praising the management and staff concerned.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Despite the fact that the Minister seems to show a frightening inability to understand the difference between a woman who is four and a half months pregnant and a
22
woman who is in labour, would she like to tell us how many cases there are of women prisoners being taken to an outside hospital without being in labour? Starting contractions does not inhibit the ability to walk around. If the Minister cannot get accurate information, would she like to astonish the House by saying that she is sorry?
Miss Widdecombe: For accurate information, we rely on the experts, who are the medical staff. There is a clear procedure for establishing when a woman is in labour. That is established not by the prison staff, but by the medical staff. A form is filled in, which establishes that fact—[Interruption.] Yes. That means that we have a written record, much to the discomfort of Opposition Members, of when labour started in this case. There is a clear procedure and a clear record is kept. With the exception of one incident for which we apologised fully at the time—the case of Ms Edwards—there has been no record of any woman being secured while in labour, according to medical staff and medical definition.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in October last year, an additional £326,000 was allocated to Holloway, which enabled the prison to employ an additional 25 members of staff? Can she give the House an assurance that when a female prisoner attends for medical care, especially for maternity care, she will be escorted by female prison warders?
Miss Widdecombe: I share the concerns that have been expressed about decency and delicacy and the use of male officers in these circumstances, and about females being secured to male officers while undergoing intimate treatment. I understand that. The Prison Service has also taken those concerns on board. We hope to be able to move to a position in which, as far as possible, women in this situation are attended by female prison officers.
Ms Glenda Jackson: If the Minister listens to expert medical opinion, why has she ignored what the Royal College of Midwives has said: that the sort of treatment that we saw on our television screens, and about which we have heard in the past, being given to women prisoners while giving birth is totally unacceptable? It can cause grave trauma in the mother and there is sufficient evidence to give concern that it can traumatise the baby. Surely it is time that a direct order was given that no such barbaric practice will ever occur again.
Miss Widdecombe: We have made it clear that women in labour will not be secured and that it has never been our policy for them to be so secured. The opinion of the medical staff who were involved in the actual incident in the hospital is that our policy was not violated. I can quite believe that anybody merely watching the film and the discussions surrounding it may well have come to a different view, but on the facts as presented, and as logged by Holloway staff and by hospital staff, there was no violation of our policy, there was no barbaric treatment and the usual procedures were fully carried out.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that there are a number of prison officers in my constituency who work at Whitemoor, Wayland and Norwich? They completely refute any suggestion that there is a climate of intimidation. They have never heard anything quite so ridiculous, because they support the strong leadership given by the Government.
Miss Widdecombe: I can indeed confirm that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clear that those

23
who work at the sharp end in the Prison Service, and who do such magnificent work, have confidence in the Government's policies.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: As someone who has joined the Minister on many occasions in the life lobby, where she has taken a position of principle, I find it quite astonishing that she could spend the last week going on television, and come to the House today, to defend this practice. This is the practice of the last century. The great body of British public opinion believes that it is wrong that pregnant women should be manacled in prison. I call on the Minister once again to think of her principles of the past and to stand up and demand a review of this utterly inhumane policy.
Miss Widdecombe: I can see no connection between the principles connected with the campaign to which the hon. Gentleman referred, from which I have never resiled, as well he knows, and the issue before us at the moment. Concern is taken for the mother and therefore also for her baby in all the medical attention that we manage to secure. If a woman is taken to hospital before she is in labour, that is because we have taken seriously any possibility that that situation may have been arrived at. I do not think that it would be anything other than harsh to have women delivered in prison, which could well be the result of midwives going into prison, rather than patients going into hospital. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on it, he will find that what I have said is a civilised and secure policy.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this woman was in prison for theft, and that, unless she were pregnant at the time that she committed the offence, the chances are that it was not a first offence, and that it is essential that even women who are pregnant must be treated from the point of view of punishment, as everybody else in our society is? Is she aware that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has on a previous occasion sought to exploit an aspect of the Prison Service and had to be bailed out by his own leader because he got into such a state? Is not the Labour party doing exactly the same as it did on that occasion: trying to exploit some aspect of prison arrangements for its own political advantage?
Miss Widdecombe: It is very clear to me that the Opposition pay scant regard to facts and rather more regard to political advantage. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) met me to discuss the policy, and we had an entirely sensible discussion about it. He did not express shock, horror and outrage about the policy that has been implemented throughout.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Minister ask the Royal College of Midwives to conduct a private seminar for her about some of the basic facts of childbirth? She will learn that there is no single second when someone can say that a woman has gone into labour. The possession of forms to be filled in does not alter the biological facts. The onset of contractions usually leads to the development of labour, and it is a scientific fact that, if trauma is interposed, labour can be arrested—which is not a very good idea for anyone concerned.
Will the Minister tell us exactly when the form was filled in and how much later that occurred? Does she think it likely that a woman who was about to go into labour would run away, and where would she run to?
Miss Widdecombe: With regard to telling the hon. Lady the exact moment at which labour commenced, that is a matter for medical advice. That is why we always take medical advice and that is why we act upon it as soon as it is received and remove restraints.
The Director General of the Prison Service will shortly meet the president of the Royal College of Midwives to have what I hope will be a slightly more constructive discussion than we have had today. They will discuss respective concerns and examine what can be done to reassure the public, who may have been deceived by the wild and rash claims of the Labour party. I say once again: no woman in labour, as defined on medical advice, is secured.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Minister accept that any woman who has had a child will find her statements utterly repellent? They will find the grins on the faces of Tory Members of Parliament even more repellent.
Will the Minister allow me to spell it out? Whatever forms she may have seen, once a woman's waters have broken, her cervix is dilated and she is sitting or standing awaiting the onset of labour contractions, she will not be running anywhere. There is a world of difference between being four and a half, six or even seven months pregnant and the final hours of pregnancy. Does the Minister accept that it is degrading and inappropriate for women to be shackled to men in the final hours of pregnancy?
Miss Widdecombe: On the last point, I have said already that I fully share the concern expressed about male officers being involved at that stage and, if possible, we shall move to a position where female officers are used on such occasions. I share the hon. Lady's concerns in that regard, and I do not seek to diminish them in any way.
The hon. Lady gave a graphic description of the onset of labour, but I am sure that she does not need to tell the medical profession about it. Medical professionals know all the facts, and we take their advice.
Ms Jean Corston: Will the Minister confirm that the board of visitors at Holloway prison warned her that the practice was continuing? Why did she choose to do nothing about it then?
Miss Widdecombe: Because our policy has been fully implemented.
Mr. George Howarth: I visited Holloway early in December, and if I were not concerned about the practice, I would not have sought a meeting with the Minister. The Minister said that I put my arguments in a very reasonable way. Therefore, does she accept that I sought a meeting with her because I was concerned about the practice? If she did not believe that we were protesting about the manacling of women during pregnancy, why—on the very day that I visited her at the Home Office—did the acting Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt, issue a letter on the subject? In that letter, he said:
"Cuffs are also to be removed from women who are in labour".
In other words, he reiterated the policy that was supposed to operate. However, the events took place after those assurances were given to me and after that letter was sent

25
out by Mr. Tilt. Is it not the case that the Minister simply did not do anything when she knew full well what was going on?
Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to confirm that, when the hon. Gentleman came to see me, he put his points very reasonably. He was seeking clarification of the policy. We had decided, because there had been so much discussion and misinformation, to reiterate the exact terms of the policy. They were not fresh instructions; they were a reiteration of existing instructions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on.

Points of Order
3.56 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will know, there has been exceptionally severe weather over the past few weeks in Scotland. In the Grampian region, for example, many schools opened only today, and some are still closed. Local authorities have incurred phenomenal extra costs that are way beyond anything for which they could reasonably have been expected to budget—at a time when they have been told that budgets will be cut even further. Surely the Government must make a statement on how those extra costs are to be met.
Have you had any requests from the Government to make such a statement? If they had any care for the people still unfortunately under their rule, it seems logical that they would make a statement about what is to happen.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed today that the Government are seeking to make a statement on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any notice of ministerial intention to make a statement on what has become notorious as the Vickers memorandum? In that memorandum—written by a captain of industry and knight of the realm, Sir Colin Chandler, following discussions with Dick Evans, the chief executive of British Aerospace—a conspiracy is unveiled, involving the possible kidnap or murder of a political refugee, Professor Muhammad al-Masari, who was living peacefully in London. Is there any indication that the Government will explain the extraordinary events and their relationship to the decision to deport Mr. al-Masari?
Madam Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier. I am always informed before midday if the Government are seeking to make a statement. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to any others who wish to change the business of the House that they should approach the Leader of the House on Thursday during business questions to see whether there is any opportunity for a statement or debate.
Mr. David Marshall: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), Madam Speaker. As you are the protector of the rights of Back Benchers, I am sure that you are as concerned as I am that approximately 30,000 houses in Glasgow have suffered flood damage as a result of burst pipes, due to the exceptionally severe weather. More than 1,000 families are now homeless. However, the Scottish Minister responsible for industry and local government either complains that it is his day off or blames everything on school janitors. Can you advise me what one has to do to obtain a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on the problem, which is so important to the whole of Scotland?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might reflect—he has been here for a number of years—that there are now greater opportunities for hon. Members to raise such issues in Adjournment debates. Perhaps I might direct his attention to the fact that, when matters are raised in Adjournment debates, the Minister has to make some response.

House of Commons (Reform)
3.58 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a United Kingdom Convention for Parliamentary Reform; to require it to take evidence and to make proposals; and for connected purposes.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill to establish a United Kingdom convention for parliamentary reform. I say that in spite of the fact that, as I shall describe in a moment, the process of winning the right to put the Bill before the House was in itself an excellent example of the reasons why the Bill is so necessary.
The purpose of the Bill will be to allow reform of our parliamentary system and procedures to be discussed objectively and in a non-party political manner, drawing on the wisdom of experts who are currently engaged in politics, and of those who are not. In that way, my Bill will allow proposals to be made and debated not on the basis of how much benefit they would bring to one political party or another but solely on the basis of their benefit to the citizens of our country, on whose behalf our present parliamentary set-up works so poorly.
My proposals are based on the highly successful work done by the Scottish convention. Although two of the four main parties in Scottish politics declined the opportunity to participate in the convention, the broad measure of agreement achieved over a wide range of political issues by the two parties that did participate was highly significant. It clearly showed that people of good will, when they are forced to put mere party self-interest on one side for a while, can produce a result that meets far better the needs of the electorate than the current political dog-fight ever can.
So why can we safely say that the present parliamentary set-up needs reform? For a start, there has been for some time widespread agreement on the need for change. Within the past few years, we have had the Jopling proposals and more recently the Nolan committee. But neither of them has come anywhere near satisfying the general public. As politicians, we are now just about the most despised of all the professions; only those who inhabit the Press Gallery—in the nether regions above your head, Madam Speaker—are more widely despised by the public than we are. How demeaning that we should be considered only marginally better than journalists. I say that as one whose father was a journalist—which at least proves that I am upwardly mobile.
If we are to gain more respect not just for ourselves—that is comparatively unimportant—but for the processes of government, so that our society can work better, and above all with a more widespread acceptance that our laws are sensible and worthy of being obeyed—with all that that means for the sense of well-being and common purpose in society—we should surely start by demonstrating that we can accept and understand the need for the reform of our own institution.
It was, I believe, Sir Cyril Smith who once memorably called this place the longest-running farce in Whitehall. Let us look at one or two examples of what he meant. In order to be sure of obtaining the chance to bring my proposals before the House today, I had to spend about 15 hours cooped up in a small room off an upstairs corridor
28
somewhere that seemed, judging by the noise throughout the night, to be strategically placed just below Big Ben. There, my four hon. Friends who will be presenting the next four ten-minute Bills to the House joined me as we tried to snatch what sleep we could in a scene all too reminiscent of the doorway of some major London store on the night before the start of the January sales.
No doubt, next time, someone else will be so determined to ensure his place in the queue that he will feel compelled to wait not just for the 15 hours that we endured but for even longer. What an absurd way for Members of Parliament to decide who shall have the opportunity to put legislation before the House. Here we all are, paid more than twice the average wage, yet to do our job we have to indulge in this strange pantomime.
To take another example: every time we come to vote, it can take 20 minutes or more from the moment the vote is called to the moment a result is announced. I shall never forget the occasion, soon after I arrived in the House, when we started voting on a series of amendments to an education Bill at about 9 o'clock in the evening; apart from a short debate in the middle, lasting about 20 minutes, we then did nothing but vote until 1 o'clock in the early hours of the following morning. It is absurd that Members of this House should spend their time going through the Division Lobbies time and again, spending 20 minutes on each Division, three or four times an hour, for four hours on the trot. If we were setting up a new Parliament today, can anyone believe that we would not introduce some form of electronic voting system? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, we would not."] Of course we would.
It is not just the procedures that we use which are desperately in need of modernising if we are not to appear as a ridiculous anachronism to the average voter. If we were setting up a new Parliament today, can anyone imagine that we could do so in a debating Chamber that is large enough to hold only about two thirds of all the Members of Parliament? Of course we would not.
Nor would we dream of building a Chamber in which the main participants face one another a few feet apart, resembling gladiators in a Roman arena. The absurdity of that arrangement becomes clear when we remember that it arose from the simple fact that the Commons first sat in St. Stephen's chapel, where Government and Opposition occupied respective choirstalls. How often since the broadcasting of Parliament began—and particularly since it was televised—must the audience of Prime Minister's Question Time have wished that those occupying the Front Benches behaved less with the ferocity of gladiators and more with the decorum of choirboys?
Does anyone in the House believe that we can win the respect of the electorate as long as we maintain a system of questioning Ministers under which they are thought to have performed well only when they have been successful in hiding any glimmer of what might be called useful information?
As I have pointed out, we are the object of ridicule to many people. Is that any surprise, when we insist on maintaining practices and procedures that waste huge amounts of time and energy for no good reason other than that is the way in which it has always been done in the past?

29
Let us use the opportunity that the Bill can provide to see ourselves for once as others see us. The longer we hide from ourselves the extent to which the public despise us, the harder it will be to win back their respect. We need to clean up the mess of our politics, and where better to start than the way in which we run our own affairs?
My Bill will give Parliament the chance to hear proposals made by an objective, non-party political body as to how we can reform ourselves, so that we can once more win the respect of the electorate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Rendel, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Robert Maclennan and Mrs. Ray Michie.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFORM)
Mr. David Rendel accordingly presented a Bill to establish a United Kingdom Convention for Parliamentary Reform; to require it to take evidence and to make proposals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 February and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to make special provision in Northern Ireland for the maintenance of order and the rule of law. It will do so by re-enacting, with omissions and amendments, the current Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. The Bill is made necessary by the continuing character and level of cruel and criminal terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, and by the fact that the current Act expires in August.
  I described the scope of this terrorist activity when the House last discussed the current Act on 12 June last year. That scope has not diminished; rather, it has increased. To the catalogue that I then listed—the preparation of explosive devices, robbery and extortion for the purpose of acquiring funds, intimidation, brutal beatings, the training of operational terrorist teams, the researching of improvised weapons, the targeting of victims and the maintenance of undiminished supplies of illegal armaments—we must now add our recent experience of murders carried out for blatantly political purposes.
  Since the beginning of December alone, five men have been gunned down in public or murdered in their homes. The very dogs in the street in the communities involved know that it is the work of the IRA. Putting it more elegantly, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has described the so-called Direct Action Against Drugs group as a flag of convenience for the IRA. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) concurs. The RUC knows that they are right, and has said so. These murders were procured by the IRA.
  The Government react to these killings with the deepest anger and concern. We have conveyed that in our public statements, and I have written to Senator Mitchell and the other members of the international body to draw the murders to their attention. They illustrate all too vividly the central importance of the issue of illegal arms. All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, Church leaders and community leaders, and the Irish Government, have condemned the murders in the most forthright terms. Although the murders themselves are revolting, almost as sickening has been the evasion of leading Sinn Fein people when they, too, have been called on to condemn them.
  However disappointing it is, by reason of all these matters this is not the time, I must submit to the House, when we can sensibly say that the need for special provision for Northern Ireland has passed.
  Like its predecessors, the current Act has enabled the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland to function effectively and fairly, despite ferocious terrorist attacks on it. In addition, it has set up a legal framework for action
  32
  by the security forces against terrorists that is proportionate and effective, while yet providing individual citizens with appropriate safeguards.
  The House will be grateful to Mr. John Rowe QC for his thorough reviews of the current Act and of the prevention of terrorism legislation in recent years. With Mr. Rowe, we believe that there is a continuing need for a special provision for Northern Ireland, and in the form of a new emergency provisions Act. Nevertheless, I judge that there can be no one in the House who does not regret the necessity for retaining any of this legislation. I have long made clear my wish to see conditions established that will mean that the emergency legislation has done its job and can be repealed. I am only too mindful of how easy it is for emergency legislation, once enacted, to stick within the statute book.
  There have, of course, in recent times been changes in the scene, and welcome changes for the better: the ceasefires of August and October are foremost among them. I certainly acknowledge again the efforts of all who achieved them. Especially, I pay tribute to the resilience and courage of the police, the Army and all the ordinary people of Northern Ireland in resisting terrorism over 25 years.
  The Government have not been slow to respond to these changes. On security, the Government's response has been positive and wide-ranging: routine military patrolling in support of the police is down by 80 per cent.; 1,600 troops, including three battalions, have been relocated from Northern Ireland; North Howard Street Mill and other security bases have been vacated, some demolished, and a number of security installations, including the tower at the Rosemount police station in Londonderry, have been removed; closed roads at the border with the Republic of Ireland have been opened to traffic; the majority of orders under the vehicle control zone order were revoked on 1 August 1995; all Northern Ireland exclusion orders have been lifted; and the civilian search unit has been disbanded.
  These measures and a range of other steps, including changes to remission rates in prisons, give the lie direct to those who accuse the Government of foot-dragging or of refusing to build on the new situation. We will go further when I am advised by the Chief Constable that we can prudently do so.
  In the political field, the Government are fully committed to achieving inclusive all-party negotiations aimed at a comprehensive political settlement based on consent. We wish to see the removal of what at present disqualifies Sinn Fein in particular from participating in those negotiations. We want to see it there, in common with other parties, in right of having established a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful methods, as the Downing street declaration makes clear is necessary.
  It is a partial peace that we have in Northern Ireland today. It is no more than that. It is sometimes referred to simply as "peace" only because of the horrors of what for so long preceded it. As I said in our last debate on the Act,
  "what is really needed to move the peace process forward is the ending of actions that rupture or menace the peace."
  Since then, the opportunity to end those actions has not been taken. On the contrary, the murders that I have already mentioned illustrate how it has been cynically spurned. Therefore, in the opinion of the Government,

  33
  there is little room for debate as to whether the need has gone altogether for an emergency provisions Act for Northern Ireland; the evidence is too clear that it has not.
  On the contrary: in the face of today's diminished but nevertheless established threat, the debate should be about what is a prudent and proportionate response to it. Let us remember that the current Act contains power to suspend many of its provisions—a power that has been exercised in respect of detention under section 36. That power is also incorporated in the Bill, and it would be exercisable even from the outset of the new Act if circumstances then warranted it.
  There is also room for wider debate. For example, Mr. Rowe recommends that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which applies only to Northern Ireland, and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which applies in the main to the United Kingdom as a whole, should be consolidated in one comprehensive statute, providing all that is needed to cope with the perceived threat of terrorism anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I believe that there is much merit in that. In our debate on 12 June, I spoke of the need for a
  "wide-ranging look at all the options for permanent counter-terrorism legislation once a lasting peace is established".—[Official Report, 12 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 503-509.]
  Today I am very pleased to be able to announce that the distinguished Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has agreed to lead such a review.
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have invited him to
  "consider the future need for specific counter terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom, if the cessation of violence connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland leads to a lasting peace, taking into account the threat from other kinds of terrorism, and the United Kingdom's obligations under international law; and to make recommendations."
  These new arrangements will not affect the annual review of the way in which the prevention of terrorism Act has operated in 1995. Mr. Rowe will duly report on the Act, as he has for the past two years.
  I am also very glad to announce that Lord Lloyd will be assisted by a distinguished adviser from Northern Ireland, Mr. Justice Kerr, who is a judge of the High Court there. It will not be possible for Lord Lloyd's review to be completed in time for new legislation to be enacted before the current Act expires. Accordingly, in recognition of that situation, the Bill provides for its own expiry only two years after it takes effect, and it, too, will be generally subject to the need for renewal after its first year, under the provisions of clause 60, and contrary to the terms of the Opposition's amendment.
  As to there being no power to amend the Act annually, for which we are criticised in the amendment, no predecessor statute, I believe, has ever incorporated such a power, and it would not be practicable to introduce one now.
  There is one other salient question to which I should refer before I come to the detail of the Bill: the holding centres and the electronic recording of interviews conducted within them. The holding centres are, of course, police offices where a person suspected of terrorist offences and who has been arrested under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
  34
  1989 is detained for questioning, subject to substantial safeguards, which include a statutory maximum time limit of seven days for the power to detain. Like, I should think, every hon. Member, I look forward to the day when holding centres can pass into disuse, with all interviews being subject to rules under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, but I am advised by the Chief Constable that that day has not yet come, and I accept that advice.
  Meanwhile, however, I have decided—with the agreement of the Chief Constable—to introduce a system for the silent video recording of all such interviews, and I shall introduce for consultation a code of practice for that purpose in due course. The change will reflect what Lord Colville, in reviewing the Act, recommended in 1990.
  I have discussed the whole difficult question at length with the Chief Constable. It is fair to remind the House that Mr. Rowe has recommended the audio recording of all such interviews, but, in the light of the Chief Constable's firm advice about the security connotations represented by the proposal, I cannot suggest to the House at this stage that it would be prudent to adopt it.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Who is running Northern Ireland—the Secretary of State or the Chief Constable? So far, the Secretary of State has said no fewer than three times that he has simply taken the Chief Constable's advice. What reasons did the Chief Constable give for refusing to recommend tape-recorded evidence?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman's opening question was rhetorical. I take responsibility for the running of Northern Ireland, and I am accountable to the House of Commons; but, on security matters, I seek the advice of my principal security adviser, who is the Chief Constable.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office will deal with that aspect more fully when he winds up the debate, but anyone who studies these matters—certainly anyone who has studied the reports to which I have referred—must note the existence of security connotations when an audio recording is made of the words used by anyone making a statement in a holding centre. Those security connotations exist, and must be taken seriously. I am not prepared to put people in Northern Ireland at further risk of death and maiming as a result of terrorism, and in this instance I will accept the Chief Constable's advice.
  Silent video recording of interviews in the holding centres would, however, enhance the safeguards already available to those detained under the terrorism provisions. It would also reduce the time taken in criminal trials on the issue of whether confession statements were truly made voluntarily. It reinforces the protection already provided by the independent commissioner for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, and his deputy, Dr. Norris—who, I remind the House, hold positions introduced for the first time by me. I pay tribute to their excellent work, although I regret that we cannot agree that a legal advice unit in a holding centre would be practical.
  Over the past year, Sir Louis and Dr. Norris have paid almost a hundred visits to the holding centres, with the full co-operation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and have interviewed nearly 140 detainees. The number of persons now being detained has fallen considerably, and the number of complaints has dropped dramatically.

  35
  Let me deal with the detail of the Bill. As I have said, it largely re-enacts the provisions of the existing Act; those are summarised in the explanatory and financial memorandum, so I can make this part of my speech fairly quickly. I propose to outline briefly the main features of the Bill, and to concentrate on changes and other points that the House may find particularly interesting. Before I do that, however, I shall comment on two specific aspects.
  As the House will know, the provisions for countering terrorist financer—acketeering—have been removed. It is intended to replace them by measures covering all crime by means of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order, published on 11 December 1995.
  Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State says that the anti-racketeering provisions are being removed from the emergency provisions legislation. That is appropriate, given their origins in the United States RICO—racketeer-influenced corrupt organisations—legislation, although they are narrower than that legislation. But will the legislation that the Secretary of State mentioned, which will apply to all crime, retain the same procedures with regard to authorised investigators and the same range of powers?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The provisions have proved very effective. The hon. Gentleman's question will be a matter for the reviewer; we—and no doubt others—will make representations in response to his request. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Part I contains provisions relating to the scheduled offences. It lists and defines them; makes arrangements for preliminary inquiries in magistrates courts; sets out the conditions for granting bail and for the holding in custody of young persons and their treatment on conviction; and provides for the setting of statutory time limits in scheduled cases. It continues to make special arrangements for the trial of scheduled offences—the continuation of the system of Diplock courts with its many associated safeguards. As I have said, this system has helped to ensure that justice has continued to be done in Northern Ireland. While the risk remains that jurors will be intimidated, we cannot return to trial by jury for cases in which terrorist offences are alleged.
  I shall list the changes in part I. Certain offences have been removed from the schedule, and they are those which, in the light of experience, have proven not to be charged in terrorist cases. Other offences have been made capable of being certified out. These include section 8 and section 10 offences under the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969—robbery with violence and aggravated burglary. Mr. Rowe's advice is that often cases involving these offences could safely be tried by jury, as they are often committed without terrorist involvement.
  The Government are opposed, as a matter of principle, to the idea of the Attorney-General certifying scheduled offences in a matter on which we are criticised in the Opposition's amendment. On that matter we are supported by Mr. Rowe. It is not for the Attorney-General to specify those cases that should be subjected to special treatment that falls short of the norm to which citizens are entitled. On the contrary, the Attorney-General should, where appropriate, relieve the defendant by certifying out.
  New and more flexible provisions are introduced for the setting of time limits on remand proceedings. In the context of custody time limits, the House will know that,
  36
  to date, we have not been in a position to implement the provisions of section 8 of the 1991 Act. When accepting the inclusion of its predecessor in the 1987 Act, the Minister said that, before it came into effect, he would have to be confident that any scheme was unlikely to have the effect of procuring the release on bail, or even the discharge, of a person indicted for serious terrorist crime.

  Evidence from the scheme of administrative time limits that is in place, which is closely modelled on section 8 and which we have been operating since 1992, has clearly demonstrated that, if a statutory scheme had been introduced, a number of potentially dangerous defendants on serious terrorist charges would have been released on bail. I acknowledge that we must look for improvement, and I shall speak about that in a moment.
  Lord Colville, in his 1993 report on the EPA, and his successor, Mr. Rowe, in both his annual and five-yearly EPA reports in 1994, took a similar view of section 8. In the latter report, Mr. Rowe concluded that section 8 should not be re-enacted, as it was
  "too rigid for Northern Ireland".
  He favoured a new section in a broader form with less detail, permitting regulations to set the time limits and the circumstances in which they could be extended by the court. Clauses 8 and 9 give effect to those recommendations. They are substantially, but not entirely, the same as section 8 of the current Act.
  Substantial progress has already been made in reducing the time that is spent in custody on remand by those facing serious charges. Baroness Denton of Wakefield reported in a written answer in another place on 7 December on the first three years of the administrative time limits scheme. She referred to a substantial reduction in the average time that is taken to process cases from first remand to arraignment, and to a particularly impressive fall over the past year in waiting times between arraignment and start of trial.
  My noble Friend also announced a further reduction of the remand to arraignment limit from 11 months to 10 months, and she promised that the Northern Ireland Office, in conjunction with the other agencies, would continue to examine further ways in which procedures might be streamlined. There will be no slackening of our efforts further to reduce the time taken to process all cases where the defendant is in custody.
  I can deal with part II more quickly. It relates to powers of arrest, search and seizure, and so on. It provides for the specific circumstances in which the police and Army have power under the Bill to enter and search premises, arrest and seize without a warrant, search for ammunition and transmitters, search for and seize explosives, examine documents, stop and question, and requisition and interfere with private property and public highways.
  It creates a new offence of failing to stop and be searched when required to do so by a police officer or a member of the armed forces. At present, police officers and soldiers have a power to stop and undertake a search for munitions or transmitters, but anyone failing to stop for a search does not commit an offence under the Act, and the right of arrest under section 17 of the current Act does not apply. This amendment deals with that anomaly of no offence occurring under the Act in those circumstances.
  Part III and schedule 2 deal with offences against public security and public order. I can deal quickly with those. Part III continues in force the offence of directing

  37
  a terrorist organisation. It lists the proscribed organisations and and it explains the offences relating to membership of or support for such organisations. The provisions make it an offence to dress in paramilitary clothing and forbid possession of any item for terrorist purposes, as well as the collecting or communicating of information likely to be of use to terrorists. They re-enact an offence in relation to training in the making or use of firearms or explosives.
  We propose to strengthen the current provision in relation to proof of possession of information likely to be of use to terrorists, with evidence of proximity treated as proof unless proved otherwise. That is consistent with the onus of proof applied in the case of prohibited articles such as explosives, firearms and ammunition.
  Part IV and schedule 3 deal with detention orders. Part IV contains the provisions on detention; those will be retained in their current lapsed state. Of course, those powers are and have been for some time the subject of controversy. Surely no one in the House would wish to see a situation in which the powers had to be exercised—I accept that. Nevertheless, it is the Chief Constable's advice to me, on security grounds, that those powers should be retained. Again, having considered it, I accept that advice.
  Until we are satisfied that peace is permanent and irreversible, it would be irresponsible not to ask Parliament to re-enact that power. As I have said, the power of detention is one of a number of current counter-terrorist measures that the reviewer will deal with in the course of review. Mr. Rowe recommends removal of the power, but he will forgive me if I say that that derives from a judgment political in character that we do not share. It would be my intention, unless there is a substantial change in the state of affairs in relation to security, to let the provision lapse on the Bill's commencement.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Secretary of State confirm that that was also Lord Colville's advice?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes, that is true.
  Part V deals with regulation of the provision of private security services. It continues to regulate all private security firms in Northern Ireland offering security guard services.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: The Secretary of State is being unfair to Mr. Rowe. In his report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, Mr. Rowe made it absolutely clear that he did not want to do anything whatever to get into the political arena, and some of us would have been critical of him because he did not take into account in any way the fact that there had been ceasefires and that his review occurred during a much greater period of the troubles than we experience at present. Will the Secretary of State reconsider his statement that Mr. Rowe was acting on political grounds, rather than judging the matter as a lawyer?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is not a statement that I have made. I have said that, in this regard, Mr. Rowe's recommendation is political in character and represents a political judgment that we do not share. It will be
  38
  found, on consulting the report, that Mr. Rowe refers to the provision being a backward step and to considerations of that sort.
  It is perfectly possible for everyone, including Mr. Rowe, to hold that view. It is for me and, ultimately, for the House to decide whether the detention provision should continue and whether it is a backward or forward step. As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I hold responsibility for all these matters, and I must make the political judgment as well as the judgment on security grounds that is necessitated in this instance.
  Part VI deals with people in custody under terrorism provisions. It sets out the statutory right of persons in police custody under the terrorism provisions—section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It deals with the right of a suspect to have a friend or relative informed of his detention and with the right of access to legal advice.
  Part VII and schedule 4 deal with miscellaneous matters. Some changes are proposed to part VII. The discretionary power to make codes of practice in relation to the police and armed forces' powers of arrest, search and seizure has been removed. Such codes have not been issued during the lifetime of the current Act; the powers are being used less frequently, particularly the powers of stop, search and seizure, and we have no plans currently to implement those provisions. I propose instead to remit consideration of the subject of statutory codes of practice to the independent review of counter-terrorist legislation.
  The basis of the appointment of the independent assessor of military complaints is changed from mandatory to discretionary. That will allow flexibility over the continuance of the post, which I instituted, in circumstances where military support to the RUC is greatly reduced or eliminated.
  Part VIII and schedules 5 and 6 are supplementary. Part VIII contains the supplementary provisions, which include the change in the lifespan of the Bill to two years only. As with the current Act, on enactment the legislation must be renewed annually by both Houses of Parliament to remain in force.
  Part VIII also looks forward to the time when the armed forces are no longer needed to act in support of the police. It provides for the separation of the powers of arrest, search and seizure for the police and Army, to allow the Army powers to be more easily suspended if, during the lifetime of the Act, that becomes a realistic prospect.
  There are sensible and objective grounds for being very hopeful for the future of Northern Ireland and its people. I am determined that violence and the threat of violence shall not deflect us from our aims. I am equally determined that such anti-terrorism legislation as we adopt for the maintenance of order and of the rule of law shall be no more than is proportionate to the threat.
  That is why I ask the House to renew the existing emergency powers, for a maximum of two years and with the appropriate amendments that I have mentioned. I greatly regret, therefore, that the Opposition are not prepared to agree to the Bill receiving a Second Reading for the wholly inadequate reasons set out in their amendment, with which I have dealt and which I ask the House to reject. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
  4.36 pm
  Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
  "this House, whilst asserting the need to maintain confidence in the rule of law and in the administration of justice as the fundamental basis for achieving a just and stable society in Northern Ireland, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to implement the main recommendations of Mr. John Rowe's review of the current legislation by refusing to remove internment without trial from the statute book and by failing to introduce tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects, which fails to give this House the power to amend the statute when subject to annual renewal, which fails to make the statute subject to annual review, which fails to introduce 'certifying in' of scheduled offences, and which fails to establish a full time legal advice unit at holding centres."
  I apologise to the House for an error in our reasoned amendment. We had little time to prepare it, as the Bill was introduced the day before the Christmas recess. Near the end, it states that the Bill
  "fails to make the statute subject to annual review".
  It is obvious when one studies the Bill in detail—I did not previously have time to do so—that it, does contain such a provision.
  When the Minister winds up the debate, will he clarify the Secretary of State's answer to the question the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked about the fraud and racketeering provisions in the Bill? The subject is important; they are among the measures in the emergency provisions Act that the Opposition have always supported.
  We have studied the Northern Ireland proceeds of crime legislation, which was introduced in the House in December. It would be useful to have it on record whether that legislation provides the same powers as are in the emergency provisions Act so that we can be clear that the fraud and anti-racketeering measures in the Bill are still in statute and apply to Northern Ireland.
  The emergency provisions Act was first introduced in 1973. When introducing it, the then Secretary of State said:
  "It is the Government's intention that none of the provisions of the Bill, if it is passed, should continue in force a moment longer than it is needed."—[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 278.]
  The Opposition have long argued for vigilance to ensure that temporary legislation, designed to deal with a specific emergency, does not become part of permanent law.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary have had an opportunity in the past eight months to develop coherent anti-terrorist legislation that could be UK-wide and respond to the changing nature of terrorism, both within the UK and around the world.
  In May, we offered to work with the Government to make common purpose to produce effective counter-terrorist legislation. We met Ministers in early June to discuss how we could merge the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act and how European provisions would fit and be considered.
  Our meeting was positive and was reinforced publicly in June by the Secretary of State—as he made clear today—when he announced that he would set up an authoritative and independent review of the EPA and the PTA. It was pending—the review was going to happen.
  40
  It seemed as if, in a constructive and bipartisan manner, the recommendation of J. J. Rowe's report would he implemented and that there would be a full and independent review of all existing anti-terrorist legislation so that a new Bill could be presented to the House. It should have meant that today, on the first sitting day in 1996, we would discuss counter-terrorist measures that would be most effective in response to the changing situation in Northern Ireland and the changing nature of terrorism worldwide.
  Instead, we are faced with a short-term Bill that covers two years and, later this year, we shall be faced with the renewal of the emergency provisions Act for just two months. Without that renewal, the Government's mishandling would have resulted in our being left for part of the year with no anti-terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland and the potentially ludicrous situation of certain organisations being proscribed in Britain but not in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the sorry state of affairs that she has described. Does she think that what has occurred will in any way jeopardise the bipartisan approach towards Northern Ireland by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which of course we all cherish and support?
  Mr. Canavan: I do not.
  Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for his intervention. I am—he is right—being critical of the Government in terms of the past eight months and I do so with a certain sadness. I have tried to find other instances of seven to eight months elapsing between a review being announced and the chairman of the review committee—we wish Mr. Justice Kerr well—being appointed. I came up with one similar instance, but it does not help the Government. A review of professions supplementary to medicine was announced in February and did not start until June, but the reason for the delay was a requirement for competitive tender.
  I shall now answer my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) directly. Our opposition to the Bill does not disturb in any way our bipartisanship with the Government over the basis of the Downing street declaration and the framework document—and the principles enshrined in it—because, by consent, the Labour party stands for the principle enshrined in one of the options in that document. As long as that principle is there, and as long as the Government act in good faith on the basis of that document, we will not change our position. I am sure that the Government will not, either.
  Mr. Canavan: Surely the Opposition's job is to be constructively critical of the Government rather than just to support them supinely. Using the word "bipartisanship" is an insult to hon. Members in other parties in the House, many of whom, like me, have grave reservations about what the Government are doing and are opposed, root and branch, to such oppressive legislation.
  Ms Mowlam: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, for the past six minutes, I have been constructively critical of precisely the legislation that he finds distasteful. As I make additional points, he will realise that I share many of his doubts about its nature. We should be constructively critical—as we have been about the transfer of prisoners. We should be

  41
  constructively critical about emergency legislation and policing but, in the end, if our principled stance is enshrined in one of the options in the Downing street declaration and the framework document, it would be unprincipled suddenly to oppose the Government for the sake of it simply because that is our job.
  We will oppose the Government when we believe that they are making mistakes. Indeed, as I am making clear, I do not support the Government's Bill, but that in no way changes our principled stance. The attempts to gain the consent of the people, north and south, freely and concurrently given, in which the Government are indulging, are exactly what we would be doing if we were in government.
  I see no way—I am being absolutely straight with the Secretary of State—in which I and my colleagues could have behaved differently over the efforts made by him and his colleagues during the past couple of months. If and when I believe that the Government are acting in bad faith, I shall certainly say so. When I want to be critical, as I do this afternoon, I shall be very critical, but that does not mean that, in terms of the peace process, we will criticise the Government when they are not acting in bad faith. It is central to the proceedings of the House in the coming months that we must be straight and honest with each other and do not allow arithmetic to play a role in the peace process. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I am sure that all hon. Members will be very pleased to hear the hon. Lady's reassurance on the bipartisan approach to the peace process. Will she be equally clear on whether there is still a bipartisan approach to the effective response to continuing terrorism, since we are discussing that, rather than the peace process, today?
  Ms Mowlam: I would argue that there is a very clear and effective response to the continuing intimidation and violence on the streets of Northern Ireland. I am arguing very clearly that it was essential not to be caught in the position that we are in today. If, as I am arguing, the Secretary of State and the shadow Home Secretary had started a review eight months ago, they could have finished it by now. We would not be starting it; we would be finishing it. If that had happened, we would not hear, as some will say, that the Bill should not be introduced, or, as others will say, that it should be reinforced or stay as it is.
  We could have been discussing a Bill that was not temporary and provisions that were not emergency provisions. We could have had a permanent Bill which responded to changing terrorism—new technology has become part of the terrorists' armoury. The Bill could have responded not only to terrorism in the United Kingdom, but to changing terrorism worldwide. That would have been an effective counter-terrorist response rather than a rehash of the 1991 Act.
  I shall give a couple of examples to illustrate why I say that the Bill is a rehash of the 1991 Act. Clause 9—this is a minor point, but it demonstrates the slipshod approach and the apparent decision to regurgitate, in part, the 1991 Act—refers to section 8. The subsections of section 8 to which clause 9 refers are from the 1991 Act. They have been pasted into the Bill. I do not think that that is defensible; it is slipshod. It is not as if the Government have a large legislative programme—it is rather slim. One
  42
  would think that, as it deals with important matters that are central to the future stability and maintenance of the rule of law in Northern Ireland, the Bill would have been drafted with much more care.
  Clause 15 is another minor example of the slipshod approach. It refers to the remission of prisoners, which was discussed during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995. It, too, has been pasted in from the 1991 Act, leading to a slipshod and messy schedule 5. Those two examples show that not only did we not need such a Bill, but that it is unacceptable because it is shoddily put together.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Lady is giving her view straightforwardly and it is quite clear from what she has said that she believes that emergency provisions powers are still needed. If that is the case, why is she proposing to advise the Labour party to vote in a way which would remove emergency powers legislation? It is incomprehensible as a political approach.
  Ms Mowlam: I am arguing that there must be effective counter-terrorist legislation. I do not believe that—
  Mr. Carlile rose—
  Ms Mowlam: Let me finish my point.
  I do not believe, as was argued even by the Secretary of State in his Coleraine speech in 1992 and again today, that we need to keep emergency powers on the statute book when we do not have an emergency all the time. I am arguing a different point. Britain lacks effective counter-terrorist legislation. We have lived with a mish-mash of annual renewals of the EPA and the PTA, but it could have been different.
  Another point which the Liberal Democrats always raise relates to the way in which the Opposition vote on counter-terrorist legislation. I shall give the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) a straight answer and allow him to intervene later. I should like to continue to develop the arguments and to give the reasons why we find the Bill unacceptable.
  I am not alone in criticising the eight-month delay in starting the review. Hon. Members will bear in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that the Government were always difficult to get on the dance floor—that they were reticent and always hung back. In the debate in June, the hon. Member for Upper Bann said that he saw no reason for the delay in the review.
  The Opposition would like to see new and innovative laws, but we face a Bill that we feel unable to support. I shall give some of the reasons. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I have made it clear that we would support sensible new legislation in response to terrorism. We do not oppose counter-terrorism legislation; we oppose the nature of the Bill.
  We recognise that, while violence and intimidation continue on the streets of Northern Ireland, certain procedures under the existing system cannot be changed overnight or without introducing new legislation. That is a criticism that the Liberal Democrats always make of us. They say that we vote against a measure because we disagree with it in principle, but that in practice we do not leave anything on the books. If a review had been carried out during the past eight months, we could have had before us different legislation that we might have felt able to support.

  43
  We have consistently maintained that the EPA is unacceptable. Our opposition to one of its central tenets—the power of imprisonment without trial—is well established, yet it remains in the Bill.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Is not the hon. Lady just a mite worried about the signal that she and her party may be sending over the water to Northern Ireland? I have news for her. I do not believe that many people in Northern Ireland, certainly in terrorist organisations, will read the details of the Opposition's reasoned amendment, even with the errors put right. The headline will be, "Labour party votes against anti-terrorist legislation". If that does not worry her, it should.
  Ms Mowlam: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have a clear message for any member of the IRA or any Loyalist paramilitary group. Perhaps, if they do not hear the debate, they will read it. My message is that they should not doubt that a Labour Government would act as strongly to bring to justice those involved in acts of terror as the present Government. I have made it clear on numerous occasions in the past 12 months that no paramilitary group on either side would receive succour from the Opposition. That is straightforward.
  We have stated time and time again the importance of working under the rule of law. That is paramount. Whether it be people who say they are taking direct action—whatever that means—or anyone else, it is unacceptable in a democratic, civilised society to act outside the rule of law. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen hears that message clearly. That does not mean that there are not parts of the EPA, such as internment, which do not work. It is not only the Opposition who say that. It is not as if the issue has simply arisen today.
  Lord Colville, Mr. Baker and Mr. John Rowe have objected to the power of internment. They have all specifically advocated the removal of the power from the statute book. The message is not new. The reviews that have taken place have been ignored every time. We argue that they should not be ignored, and our amendment takes into account the sound and proper advice that has been given.
  Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Lady fairly makes the point that the fact the Labour party is against internment without trial is not a new message, but are there not new circumstances which ought to be considered? Can the hon. Lady not conceive of the possibility that, if things got worse, internment without trial could be an inevitable response to execution without trial?
  Ms Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman wants execution or internment without trial, fine. If the hon. Gentleman ever forgets the difference between terrorists and us, he is not a member of a democratic institution such as the House of Commons. The difference, and the reason why we want to see the power of internment taken out of the Bill, is that we are a democratic institution. It is the role of the House of Commons to debate and expose to parliamentary scrutiny an exceptional power such as internment or any other power that the hon. Gentleman cares to dream up.
  Unless we believe that parliamentary scrutiny works, we do a disservice to exactly the democratic institutions and procedures that we as a Parliament seek to develop in
  44
  Northern Ireland. That is why we believe that internment should not be included in the Bill. If the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) or any other hon. Member wanted to seek to introduce such a power, an amendment could be debated in Parliament, and the decision would be for Parliament.
  On the issue of remission of prison sentences, the House acted quickly and efficiently last year. If the hon. Member for Spelthorne sees a need for internment, it is surely the role of Parliament to discuss whether the Government should have the power to intern. Such a power should not lie dormant on the statute book for 25 years. We should have the guts to debate internment in the House of Commons if hon. Members express a desire to give the Government such a power. Our objection to the power of internment has been one of our main objections to the EPA for many years.
  The Opposition also have doubts about the EPA because we have always argued for safeguards within the legislation. One such safeguard, to which the Secretary of State referred this afternoon, is electronic recording at holding centres. We believe that there should be video or audio taping, or some other such check, for no other reason than to protect both suspects and the police from accusations. Electronic recording would make a real difference to the problem of accusations about what has happened in holding centres.
  The Secretary of State has announced this afternoon that there will be video taping without sound. The Opposition would like to see written into the Bill the checks and balances that Mr. Rowe and others have advocated for some time. Even the Secretary of State said back in June that the time had come to write checks and balances into the Bill. We were disappointed that that did not happen. We believe that the time has come for electronic recording. The reviewers believe that its time has come, and I thought that the Secretary of State had got to the point at which he believed that it was necessary. Checks and balances in the Bill would make a difference at the holding centres.
  The main argument that has been made against electronic recording is that recordings could get into the wrong hands and create problems. I have read Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's detailed report on the checks and balances that could prevent that problem. The report is sufficient to allow the Government to go ahead with greater safeguards than video without sound would provide. I welcome the introduction of video recording. It is a move in the right direction, but it indicates a degree of indecision and confusion. I see no reason why we should not have gone the whole way and provided the same checks and balances that exist in other legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.
  Another reason why the Opposition have doubts about the EPA is, as the Secretary of State mentioned, the Diplock courts. In our reasoned amendment, we have made proposals which we hope will gain support across the House. We have argued for progressive change because—as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery implied—one cannot abandon the existing procedures overnight. We cannot just flip from Diplock courts back to jury courts.
  We accept that the imperfect so-called Diplock trial procedures cannot be abandoned overnight. We have advocated certifying in rather than certifying out, as that

  45
  would be another crucial safeguard. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate those judges in Northern Ireland who have for many years operated a very difficult and contentious system with great professionalism and courage. That should be acknowledged in the House of Commons this afternoon.
  I said in June that, if the current level of intimidation made an automatic shift to jury trials unacceptable—the Secretary of State said this afternoon that his security advice is that it does—we should begin to introduce measures to protect jurors and witnesses from intimidation. We could then begin to return to normality without making the move to jury trials until a material difference had occurred.
  Trial by jury is a defining part of our criminal procedures. We are often surrounded by lawyers in the House, and it is important that lawyers are subject—as experts on every subject are—to an element of constraint by common sense and by those who have an uncomplicated commitment to fair play. That is why I consider it important that we return to jury trials.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Lady agree that perhaps the greatest travesties of justice in terrorist trials have occurred not in Diplock trials but in jury trials, and in jury trials held not in Northern Ireland but on the mainland?
  Ms Mowlam: The hon. and learned Member is an example of the kind of lawyer to whom I was referring, and he has a detailed knowledge of the facts. I would argue that juries provide an element of fair play and common sense. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman arguing today that he thinks that there should be Diplock trials in terrorist cases on the mainland? If so, I look forward to his sharing that with the House. That suggestion could perhaps be discussed among the legal brethren, of whom I am not a member.
  Mr. McNamara: Is not the point about the jury trials in England to which the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred that the evidence upon which the juries reached their decisions was contaminated?
  Ms Mowlam: My hon. Friend is right. If the House will indulge me, I shall leave this matter where it is. From what I have heard from the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), it is clear that we will return to this issue at some point.
  I would not wish to leave the House in any doubt that, despite the paramilitary ceasefires in the past 16 months, the Opposition do not deny that killings have occurred. The House will remember the death of the post office worker Frank Kerr; others, such as William Elliot and Michael Harley, have died in the past 16 months. In addition, there were 167 punishment beatings last year. These must stop. The beatings cannot continue if we are to move the democratic peace process forward.
  It should also be put on record that the punishment beatings have resulted in two suicides. Eddy McCloskey and Malachy Clarke committed suicide following punishment beatings, and their cases—particularly the latter—were discussed in the House in June.
  46
  The links between extortion, robberies and intimidation are becoming clearer day by day, particularly in drug trafficking—a subject that the Secretary of State touched on. Drug trafficking is a tragedy that makes many young lives a misery. To the families of Michael Mooney, Tony Kane, Paul Devine, Francis Collins, Christopher Johnson, Ian Lyons and Martin McCrory—all of whom have been murdered since last April—the professed motive becomes immaterial. For their families and loved ones, the loss is the same and the grief as great.
  It is not acceptable to ignore the rule of law and to try to rule communities by fear. The persistence of brutality and intimidation on this level and the terrorising of local communities is especially repugnant when so many are engaged in a genuine search for a lasting peace. Democratic organisations do not use fear and intimidation to gain support, nor do they use pressure to discourage people from taking part in initiatives designed to promote reconciliation between divided communities. In a bipartisan way, the Opposition agree with the Secretary of State on the matter and call on the IRA to stop the murders of alleged drug dealers.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am sorry to refer to an earlier part of the hon. Lady's speech, but she took me by surprise when she abandoned her references to "checks and balances" in terms of video recording and the endorsement and advocacy of audio recording. The hon. Lady kept referring to the checks and balances that would prevent such recordings being used for the benefit of terrorists. Will she elaborate on what those checks and balances might be?
  Ms Mowlam: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for using the expression "checks and balances" in a misleading way. What I meant was that accusations of brutality—as have been made at the holding centre at Castlereagh—do no good either for the people who make the accusations or for the people who are accused and who have no way of proving whether they are innocent or guilty. By "checks and balances", I meant that audio and video recording would allow us to see what is happening. That would be to the benefit of everybody. People such as Lord Colville and Mr. Baker have argued for such recordings to be introduced at Castlereagh and at the Strand, and we would like to see that happen. If I did not make that clear or if I misled the hon. Gentleman, I apologise.
  The Secretary of State has announced the introduction of video recording without sound. My point is that, if we are to have such a system, we should do it properly. I welcome that minor change, but it will be interesting to see whether the system will be continued following Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's next review. Does that answer the hon. Gentleman's question?
  Mr. Maginnis indicated dissent.
  Ms Mowlam: Okay, I will give up on that one.
  The rule of law is paramount, and we have given a clear message—even though some hon. Members have questioned it—to terrorists on both sides that the Opposition will give no succour to anyone who breaches it. I should like to acknowledge the work of the security forces, because they have responded well and adapted to a new role. Their courage and determination to prevent criminal activity and to prosecute those involved continue

  47
  unabated. I wish to commend in particular the recent efforts of the new drug unit in Belfast, which has been increased in size to try to respond to increasing drug trafficking in Northern Ireland.
  The Opposition would have liked to have a common purpose with the Government on anti-terrorist legislation. If the Government had acted with alacrity in conducting a review, that could have been possible this afternoon. It is a matter of regret that it is not possible. We have tabled a reasoned amendment, which we hope will be accepted. In Committee, we will continue to try to make the desired changes to the Bill.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: If the hon. Lady's view is accepted, there will be no Committee.
  Ms Mowlam: There will be a Committee stage between Second and Third Reading. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's barracking, I should like to make it clear that we will vote for our reasoned amendment. I had hoped that we would have had from the Secretary of State this afternoon some statement which would have permitted us to abstain on the substantive motion.
  Some hon. Members worry that the powers in section 69 of the Act, which is now clause 60 of the Bill, will be needed if things deteriorate in the months ahead. We had hoped, as the Secretary of State said last June, that those powers could be put in reserve. That would have been some movement in relation to the past 16 months. We would have liked greater movement not only in relation to section 69, but in relation to the argument we have put this afternoon—that, if the Government had not acted so tardily, we would not have needed this debate.
  Little has been proposed by the Secretary of State today. I make it clear that we are not asking for the powers to be removed from the Bill completely, but for them to be put into reserve. That could have been done with many of the powers, and it would have given an important signal to the people of Northern Ireland about the efforts being made to keep the peace process moving. It would also have given a clear signal to the terrorists that the powers were not being taken out of the Bill completely and that they could be used if the situation deteriorated.
  We will vote twice against the legislation today, as we did in 1991. It is important to be consistent. In 1991, because of our objections to powers such as the power of internment, we voted against. It would be ironic if we were to change our position between 1991, when the troubles were rife, and now, after 16 months of ceasefire—although there is a lot of intimidation and violence on the streets.
  In direct answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, we do not want to have no anti-terrorist legislation on the statute book. We will fight hard in Committee to get some of the changes we want, but we will not vote against the Bill on Third Reading. Our position is logical and consistent. It is important that we do not leave the people of Northern Ireland without any emergency legislation.
  My principal desire this afternoon has been to ensure that it will soon be possible not to have the emergency legislation, which we have had for 74 years. The peace process is at yet another crucial stage, as the Secretary of State said this afternoon. It might be at its most sensitive
  48
  stage. We wish Senator Mitchell and his colleagues well in their work, and we look forward to their report. Working with the commission's report will be the best way forward.
  No one is engaged in a zero sum game. It is only by co-operating that the peace process can be moved forward. If we think and act in terms of winners and losers, we shall all lose. I hope that the shifts in political arithmetic in the House will not encourage hon. Members to play a numbers game. That would betray the democratic future for Northern Ireland, towards which we are all working and on which the hopes of the people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere rest.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is a matter of great regret that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) adopts the position towards the Bill that she has just announced. I strongly support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that the Labour party's position will send out entirely the wrong signals. It would have been far better if the House had been able to unite behind the Bill at this stage and not merely on Third Reading.
  Some of the hon. Members who have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in previous debates on the emergency provisions and who have become seasoned participants may agree that, on occasion, our deliberations have been characterised by some. repetition. Although that does not detract from the validity of the arguments, over the years the salient features have been well rehearsed.
  Over the years, we have heard strong arguments from Opposition Members against the emergency provisions. They have argued that the emergency provisions abuse civil liberties, and are therefore inherently unjust. They have argued at times that, domestically, the provisions erode the integrity of the state and have a corrupting influence and that, overseas, they lower the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of other countries. We have heard the argument that it would be far better to counter terrorism through ordinary law and the ordinary criminal justice system. We have also heard it suggested that emergency provisions are counter-productive in so far as they provoke animosity and disaffection, and can arguably promote the terrorists' cause. All those arguments have been taken seriously, and they have been debated many times. The simple truth is that, in the judgment of Conservative Members, those arguments have failed to convince.
  At best, the Opposition's arguments are over-simplistic; at worst, they are irresponsible. Conservatives have consistently maintained, first, that those who oppose the emergency provisions have failed to appreciate that the greatest threat to civil liberties comes from terrorism and not from emergency powers. Secondly, we have argued that those who have opposed the emergency provisions have failed to take account of the universal experience of democratic countries—that, when a democracy is challenged internally by those who do not share democratic values, additional powers are needed.
  We believe that those who oppose the emergency provisions, which are still in place, have failed to perceive that they are not wholly draconian. They seek to maintain a balance, safeguarding the interests of the individual and

  49
  producing effective methods of counter-terrorism. Above all, we believe that those who oppose the emergency provisions have failed to pay sufficient heed to those in the front line of the fight against terrorism. Over the years, the consistent message from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and from the Army has been that the powers are needed. The Government have therefore been right to maintain emergency provisions and they are right to look to do so again in future.
  We now hear a second argument—a different argument—against the emergency provisions. We began to hear it when we debated the prevention of terrorism Act last March. We heard it a little more clearly when we debated the emergency provisions in June, and we are hearing it much more clearly today. I am sure that I was not the only Member of Parliament to receive a letter from the Committee on the Administration of Justice, which is based in Belfast. I quote selectively. The letter says:
  "there is no emergency in Northern Ireland and therefore there should be no emergency law. In our view emergency legislation is both unnecessary and counterproductive."
  The same argument comes in the paper "Northern Ireland: An Emergency Ended?", which is produced by the international human rights working party of the Law Society of England and Wales. On page 42, it is argued that
  "the emergency legislation is no longer appropriate".
  The working party refers to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and its recommendation
  "'that further concrete steps be taken so as…to dismantle the apparatus of laws infringing civil liberties'".
  The body of lawyers writes:
  "We agree. There is no compelling reason for delay. The emergency legislation should go as soon as possible."
  I contend that the Government are entirely right to reject those arguments. With the demise of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 imminent, the Government are right to reinstate emergency provisions, duly amended. I do not believe that there is any need to rehearse the argument or the evidence in great detail. The facts speak for themselves. In Northern Ireland, the terrorists continue to terrorise, and the murderers continue to murder. It is reasonable to believe that a significant number of terrorists keep open the possibility of returning to full-scale violence. It would therefore be not merely irresponsible but insane of the Government not to proceed with this measure; hence there is the strongest possible support on the Conservative Benches for the Bill.
  More specifically, I wish to refer briefly to three aspects of the debate. First, I welcome the announcement of my right. hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the establishment of the review of counter-terrorist legislation. That, of course, was anticipated last June and we have already had a taste that, from some circles, there will be criticism that that has been late in coming and that the commission is long overdue. I reject that argument. I think that the Secretary of State's judgment has been right. It was all a question of timing. There had to be the right developments to enable the climate to exist for that work to he done effectively. Nevertheless, one looks forward to the findings of that review.
  50
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Redcar made much of the internment theme. I believe that the Opposition are wrong to condemn the retention of the detention powers of internment. I have consistently argued that there can be circumstances in which the reintroduction of internment is the lesser of evils. At a time of heightened terrorist activity, or anticipated heightened terrorist activity, internment can disrupt the command and communication structures of terrorists, prevent them from operating as they had planned and save lives. In such circumstances, it would be wholly wrong to eliminate the possibility of internment being reintroduced.
  The suggestion that there should be a full-scale debate in Parliament, and perhaps a vote taken, prior to the reintroduction of internment is wholly counter-productive because it would destroy the effectiveness of the practice. The Government are right to retain in the present Bill the potential for the reintroduction of internment.
  I hope that it will never be the case, but were it to be necessary for internment to return on a short-term basis, we would find it more acceptable than was the case in the 1970s. The anticipation of permanent peace and the taste of relative peace in Northern Ireland that is now being experienced will have the effect of ensuring that anyone who decided to return to full-scale violence would be unlikely to enjoy the level of community support that has hitherto existed.
  Thirdly, on the introduction of electronic recordings in the holding centres, I give a cautious welcome to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said. The clamour for electronic recordings has increased over the years. There has always been, and there remains, the strong argument that recording would deter co-operation, and that fear of retribution—of what terrorist organisations might do if they discovered how much or what information had been given—would silence detainees. That remains a valid argument, and the Government have been right to listen to it.
  The introduction of silent video recordings is an acceptable way. forward. It would deal with the real fear, or accusations, that violent physical assault can or does take place from time to time. The videos would demonstrate whether that was the case. The fact that they were silent would remove the fear that terrorist organisations might learn what had been said.
  I applaud the decision to renew the emergency provisions. I believe that it was right, and I anticipate that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree. Nevertheless, one looks forward to the time when such provisions will no longer be necessary. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government seek to reflect in the Bill the changing circumstances in Northern Ireland and the progress that has been made towards achieving permanent peace. That is evident from the reduction of the lifespan of the Act to two years; the transfer of the powers to deal with the confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities to the ordinary criminal law; making it possible for the provisions to apply only to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and not to the Army as well; and establishing a major independent review of counter-terrorist legislation.
  Nevertheless, while terrorist organisations remain in being, while their structures are in place and their weaponry is intact, the Government are surely right to consider that the time has not yet come to dispense with the emergency provisions.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Today we are starting to renew legislation that had its origins in the Special Powers Acts of the former Northern Ireland establishment. The imposition of direct rule has led to the introduction of the legislation that we are considering. The original legislation had won the admiration of the supporters of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
  This legislation has taken out many of the reprehensible parts of the Special Powers Acts but, over the past 20 years, it has been widened in its scope and powers, and many of its provisions are as reprehensible as the powers that existed in the Special Powers Acts. Indeed, when we first discussed this legislation in the House, so revolutionary were its provisions and so far-reaching its changes to what was then Great Britain law that the first Standing Committee on the Bill was largely composed of QCs and barristers, past, present and future Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General and at least one future Lord Chancellor. It was a Committee, I am told, that would not have disgraced a Benchers' dining-in night at one of the Inns of Court.
  Indeed, the membership of the Committee was so important, distinguished and heavyweight that the learned members insisted—and the Government of the day acquiesced—that we sat only in the late afternoons, so that my learned friends could attend their business and other interests in the mornings and early afternoons. In retrospect, I am not at all certain that the distinguished legal gentry greatly added to the sum of human knowledge.
  What was significant about the membership of the Committee was that the House realised then, as I hope it does now, the enormity of its actions in bringing in legislation that would limit important civil liberties: retarding and restraining of the scope of jury trials; bending the rules of evidence; indefinite internment without trial. Those were only a few of the measures that were new to United Kingdom legislation—
  Mr. Maginnis: No, that is not right.
  Mr. McNamara: Those were only a few of the powers that were new to Great Britain legislation, certainly in the sphere with which we were then dealing.
  Over the years, the powers have been systematically extended and widened. Even now, after 16 months of a cold peace, at least one fresh offence has been created—a further extension of powers. Again, the Government have done it in the most cavalier fashion by ignoring their own statutory body, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, all of whose members are appointees of the Secretary of State. Its opinion of what the Government were doing was worth nothing.
  It is not the first time that successive Secretaries of State have acted in such a cavalier fashion in respect of SACHR. Indeed, its press notice strongly criticised the Government's failure to consult it in advance of the decision to renew the powers. The commission considered that the failure to consult was
  "extremely disturbing as, not only was SACHR established under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 to advise the Secretary of State, but the Commission has, in the recent past, received specific assurances from the Government that it would be consulted on such matters."
  52
  SACHR was deeply concerned that the Government apparently intended to renew the emergency provisions legislation, without substantive change, for a further two years. It then made several other complaints.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) pointed out, I believe that the Government have lost a great opportunity to put before the House fresh legislation to deal with terrorism in the United Kingdom. It is a matter for debate whether there should be specific legislation that applies only to Northern Ireland. The chairman of SACHR, Mr. Michael Lavery, said:
  "With sustained peace for some 16 months now, a significant opportunity exists to enhance the protection of individual human rights and civil liberties".
  In its report of July 1995, the United Nations Human Rights Committee described the emergency provisions as "excessive" and called for the dismantling of
  "the apparatus of laws infringing civil liberties which were designed for periods of emergency."
  Regrettably, the Government have not accepted even the modest proposals in my hon. Friend's amendment. It is important for the Government to show some confidence in the peace process, but I believe that they have failed to do so.
  SACHR proposed some interim measures. It said that internment, which has not been used for 20 years, should not be re-enacted; that jury trial should be restored for scheduled offences at the earliest opportunity; that the standard for admissibility of confessions should be raised to that applied to non-terrorist offences; and that the special powers under the EPA to stop, question and search people should be repealed. Instead, those powers have been extended.
  It is the continuing presence of the internment power, that should make the House step back from re-enacting the legislation. During the recent troubles, the Provisional IRA had three great recruiting sergeants—internment without trial, Bloody Sunday and the deaths arising from the hunger strikes. We cannot bring the dead back to life, but the Government can, and should, apologise for Bloody Sunday—particularly as we now know, courtesy of the No. 10 minute which is in the Public Record Office, that, following the shootings in Deny, the Prime Minister warned the tribunal chairman, Lord Widgery. The minute states:
  "It had to be remembered that we were in Northern Ireland fighting not only a military war but a propaganda war".
  The Widgery tribunal was intended to be part of that propaganda war, and it was used as such. The Lord Chief Justice sought to restrict his own terms of reference, which was a most unusual approach. The minute states:
  "The Lord Chief Justice said that he saw the exercise as a fact-finding exercise. The Tribunal would be asked to inquire into what happened, not into motives. It would help if the Inquiry could be restricted to what actually happened in those few minutes when men were shot and killed; this would enable the Tribunal to confine evidence to eye witnesses".
  The decision not to examine "motives"—that is, the policy objectives—or those responsible for the policy set an unhappy precedent for all future inquiries, whether Stalker or the inquiry into the Gibraltar killings.
  Of the three issues that I have raised, the House can do something about internment. The power has not been used since my right hon. Friends the noble Lord Merlyn-Rees and the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) phased it

  53
  out, but it exists on the statute book in the form of clause 36. The explanatory and financial memorandum helpfully points out that, having granted the power, it is immediately suspended. But I suggest to the House that that is a legal fiction; it is a sleight of hand.
  Clause 60(3) states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order provide—
  (c) that all or any of those provisions which are not for the time being in force shall come into force again and remain in force for a period not exceeding twelve months from the coming into operation of the order."
  The Secretary of State may introduce the provision by order. Therefore, people may think that Parliament must approve that decision when it is taken, but that is not the case. Clause 58(2)(b) states:
  "it is declared in the order or regulations that it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency it is necessary to make the order or regulations without a draft having been so approved."
  The Secretary of State can introduce internment simply by signing an order and there is nothing that Parliament can do about it. We may have an opportunity to debate it 40 days later, but the power will be in force. The power of internment is alive and well and on the statute book.
  Mr. Trimble: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to subsection (3) of clause 58, which provides that, in the event of an order being made to reactivate the power in clause 36 at a time of emergency, the opportunity exists for the House to debate the matter. It is not an unusual provision in any way, and it is used in many analogous situations in the House. Therefore, I believe that it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that Parliament has no control over the reactivation of clause 36, as it clearly has that power.
  Mr. McNamara: I am making the point that parliamentary control will come 40 days after people have been interned. It is a load of legal nonsense to suggest that somehow the power has been removed from the statute book by virtue of its being abrogated and assuming that an order has been made. The power is there in all its glory the moment the Secretary of State wants to use it.
  We have seen how counter-productive the use of the power of internment has been in the past. It was seen as being aimed entirely at one community. It is still talked about and the events of Bloody Sunday were a protest against the introduction of internment powers.
  We should refer also to other issues that are not in the Act. There has been no attempt to grapple with the problem of lethal force in so far as it applies to the security forces. It was very fashionable to talk about the issue at the time of Private Clegg's release, and the Opposition have urged action in the area for some time. When speaking for the Opposition about the matter, my right hon. Friend Lord Archer stressed the need to introduce a penalty between manslaughter and murder for the security forces. The issue was hotly debated when Private Clegg was released, but it has now been forgotten. At the time of the McAnespie killing, it was intended to discuss the issue at the intergovernmental conference. Both Governments promised to do something about it, but little has been done.
  As a consequence of Private Clegg's release, I would like to see provision in the Bill for an automatic Parole Board review of all life sentence prisoners after they have served the same time in prison as Private Clegg. I would
  54
  also like to see some mention in legislation of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the right to life and the way in which those involved in the Gibraltar killings were treated. That matter is yet to be debated in the House.
  We must also know whether there are any other cases or proceedings pending to which the provision may apply and to which the Government may be a party. Those matters are of the utmost importance. There are also matters that come under different legislation but of which the EPA is the linchpin. They include the right of relatives of witnesses in coroners courts to receive witness statements before the inquest starts, and the right to cross-examination of members of the security forces at coroners' courts. All those matters need consideration.
  The Bill should also contain some curtailing of the extension of the common law doctrine of common purpose, especially after the way in which it was used in some of the cases arising out of the disgraceful murder of two corporals in Casement park.
  The legislation that we are being asked to renew does not relate to all the matters that I have raised, but they are part of the background of the situation. I agree with my hon. Friends that a great opportunity has been lost to try to use the situation to impart confidence and impetus to the peace process. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be quite right to oppose the Bill, if the reasoned amendment is not accepted.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Supporting the Bill gives me no pleasure whatever. I wish I did not have to, but I do so for one clear and simple reason—the conditions that originally made the emergency powers necessary have still not gone away. There is still no permanent return to normality. In Northern Ireland, there is still no universal renouncement of violence for political ends; there is still no decommissioning of weapons and explosives; and there is still no end to beatings, torture and exile.
  Not only do those conditions continue, but there is now at least one extra reason for keeping up our guard and voting for the Bill. That reason is the lynch-mob killings in the nationalist community, by members of that community. Even if the five people recently murdered were guilty of a crime, there is no crime known to mankind that could ever justify summary execution as we have seen it on the streets of Northern Ireland in the past five weeks.
  I applaud the Government—I again record my pleasure at hearing qualified continuing support from the Opposition—because they are striking a note of optimism. The Government show optimism by seeking only a two-year, not a five-year, extension. They show optimism by excluding some of the current provisions, and by promising to keep all other powers under review.
  The Government show optimism, which the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has not noticed or is not prepared to give them credit for. The thrust of her speech, if I understand it correctly, was that the Bill shows no response to changes in circumstances in Northern Ireland, or too little. I refer the hon. Lady, and anybody tempted to agree with her, to the ever-growing list of responses to the changing security position. I refer her to the comment by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that the Bill itself is a response.

  55
  There are changes in the Bill which will alter the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. I do not believe that those changes are too few—perhaps they are too many. However, I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. Even this afternoon, my right hon. Friend's speech showed a response. The idea that there has been no response, or too little, can he dismissed out of hand.
  Although not many people attend these debates, those who do so will be well aware that I am much less optimistic than my colleagues on the Front Bench. Nevertheless, I salute unreservedly the progress that they have made. I applaud the determination to keep the peace process on track shown by both the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I rejoice with the people of the Province at the huge improvements in their way of life. I wish, as I am sure the House wishes, only that the improvements had been even greater in the past year.
  Sadly, I have little doubt that there will be those in the Province, in the Republic and in the United States who will portray the Bill as proof that the House wishes to repress the nationalist community. They will claim that it is proof that we wish to deny democracy to the Province, and they will see the Bill as proof that we wish to undermine the rule of law. That is total and utter nonsense.
  The true purpose of the Bill is the exact opposite of what is claimed by Sinn Fein-IRA. It is the inevitable response to the continuing terrorism of Sinn Fein-IRA. Sinn Fein-IRA, not the Government, is now the real repressor of the nationalist community. Sinn Fein-IRA is bludgeoning into cowed silence the community that it claims to represent, but it can get only 10 per cent. support in a secret ballot when the guns are not to be seen. Sinn Fein-IRA, not the Government, is the real denier of democracy in the Province. Sinn Fein threatens to resume the use of the bullet and the bomb if it does not get its way.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Member accept that suspicions are very strong in Northern Ireland that Sinn Fein has not done enough to curtail the current spate of drug-related murders, attributed to the IRA?
  Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is being rather generous in saying that Sinn Fein-IRA has not done enough. Perhaps somebody could tell me what Sinn Fein-IRA has done to try to stop those foul murders. If somebody knows something, I look forward to being told. However, I expect that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it has done absolutely nothing, and that is despicable.
  Sinn Fein-IRA, not the Government, is busily trying to undermine the rule of law in the Province. It has taken unto itself the role of investigator, of prosecutor, of judge and—worst of all—of executioner. While each continuing manifestation of terrorism is enough to justify support for the Bill, the five recent murders make the case utterly overwhelming.
  Over the past five weeks, five nationalists have been murdered by members of their own community. The House must ask why that has happened. In my judgment, the answer is that a small number of evil psychopaths believe that their wish for a united Ireland entitles them
  56
  to play God—or perhaps Satan. Their approach is stark. There is no need in their world for formal investigation; no need to test anything that they consider to be evidence; no need to allow anybody whom they consider guilty to defend himself; and no need to provide for any appeal. In their world, in their ideology and in their twisted minds, all that is necessary is to blow men's faces away with a shotgun, and not even to say sorry.
  The House must ask another question—who are the evil people who perpetrate those acts on the streets of Northern Ireland? I have no doubt that they are members of Sinn Fein-IRA. If I understood the speech by the hon. Member for Redcar, she too believes that that is the case. I think that she is right, and I am convinced that I am, too. Those who have been charged with investigating those murders say so; it does not pay to sneer at the RUC or at the security services just because they are what they are. They say that the evidence is clear. Furthermore, the leading members of all the democratic parties in the Province say so too. I am particularly impressed by the comments made by leading members of the SDLP. My experience of Northern Ireland affairs tells me that, when the SDLP speaks about the nationalist community, the House does well to listen, and the SDLP confirms what the hon. Member for Redcar said this afternoon.
  The reason why I am certain that the murders are the work of Sinn Fein-IRA is that Sinn Fein spokesmen will not condemn them. Their evasiveness and twisting and turning on radio and television have been sickening. If those killings are not the work of the IRA, why do not Adams and McGuinness condemn them? The only reason I can think of is that they are clear in their minds that the killings are the work of the IRA, and they are not allowed by their godfathers to condemn them.
  Before the House decides later tonight how to vote, I urge it to think through the reasons for those killings. I offer three possible reasons: first, using the twisted logic of Sinn Fein-IRA, those foul murders provide a bargaining chip ahead of Senator Mitchell's report. Secondly, Sinn Fein-IRA appears to need the profits from drug dealing; and thirdly, it is losing control of those it calls "its people". History teaches that Sinn Fein-IRA is perfectly willing to kill its own people to strengthen its hand. If Senator Mitchell confirms what I believe to be true—that Sinn Fein-IRA needs to do more to convince us that it is committed to permanent peace and democratic change—it will be very handy for it to use the bargaining chip of offering to stop the killings, the beatings and the torture. That is the sickening logic of people of this sort.
  The evidence about the IRA's finances which is stacking up suggests to me that its funds are drying up. Inside the Province and in the United Kingdom generally, the police crackdown has been singularly successful. The IRA's ill-gotten gains are now much harder to come by. The international funds that used to be surreptitiously sent to the terrorists are now going to legitimate economic development projects. That being so, any criminal mind—not just the mind of a terrorist—will turn to other ways of filling the coffers. Unfortunately, drugs are becoming as much as a problem throughout the island of Ireland as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think it inevitable that both terrorist camps will see them as a source of easy money to replace the funds that they have lost.
  I see Sinn Fein-IRA's loss of control as the key reason for the dreadful murders. The other reasons certainly contribute, but it is the loss of control above all else that

  57
  begins to explain what has been going on. In recent months, I have seen for myself what the peace process has done to boost a return to what other parts of the United Kingdom consider normal policing and the normal rule of law. I have also seen the huge popularity of that return among people of both traditions in the Province.
  I have been to places such as Newry, Crossmaglen and west Belfast; an English Conservative of my views would not formerly have been seen in such places. The fact that I can go there and move about freely is certainly a sign of progress. I have seen for myself that the RUC has changed—if indeed it ever was like the image portrayed by the nationalist community. It is being accepted now.
  I commend to the House an example of that, which I learned in Newry. It has become possible to hold careers exhibitions for recruitment to the British Army and the RUC even in places along the border with the Republic. It has even got to the point where young people will visit the recruiting stands despite the fact that they are picketed by Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Small wonder, then, that the latter is worried. Its spokesmen go on television and radio to claim that policing and the rule of law do not exist in the nationalist areas, but I and others have seen the people of such areas turning to the RUC for help and protection. It is that which Sinn Fein-IRA finds utterly unacceptable, which is why it is still prepared to kill, threaten and intimidate.
  Despite the hard-won progress with the peace process, I believe that we continue to face a threat and a new set of evils. The continuing beatings and torture, and the latest murders, all produce fear. Fear in turn produces silence. In such circumstances, every democratic society has to contemplate drastic measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) put his finger on it: some of the measures in the Bill may be the lesser of two evils, but any democratic society must defend itself and its people against those who do not uphold the standards to which we subscribe.
  I really wish that Northern Ireland was a place that did not need these emergency provisions, but it is Sinn Fein-IRA, not the Government, which continues to make them necessary. They will remain necessary until all political violence is permanently over; until all parties are committed solely to democratic means of working for change; and until illegal weapons and explosives are decommissioned.
  I do not believe that the House or the Government have any choice if we are properly to defend democracy and protect the people of all the United Kingdom. Our only choice at this stage is to support the Bill. Like all hon. Members, like all the people of the United Kingdom and like everyone in the Province, however, I hope and pray that this is the last time the House will ever be asked to support this legislation.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: A few weeks ago, when President Clinton came to Northern Ireland, he reflected in what he had to say publicly that which his Administration and officials had said privately to Ulster Unionists during the past couple of years—that there was no place in a democracy for violence and murder. He added:
  58
  "You must stand firm against terror. You must say to those who still use violence for political objectives—you are the past; your day is over. Violence has no place at the table of democracy; and no role in the future of this land."
  How I wish that those who try to tell us that the emergency legislation is redundant, or partly so, could be persuaded to examine the situation in Northern Ireland in the light of the Clinton criteria—the same criteria as those set out time and again by our Prime Minister.
  Lest there be any misconception in the House about what is happening in Northern Ireland, I must take this opportunity to put the record straight.
  The joint British and Irish Downing street declaration was agreed in December 1993 and was, with helpful intentions, unequivocally endorsed by the United States Administration. It obliges all concerned, including the terrorist organisations within both traditions, to accept that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland can be decided only with the consent of its people, given through the ballot box. However, even now, Sinn Fein-IRA has not accepted the Downing street declaration or the principle of democratic consent. Of course, Sinn Fein-IRA has continued to refuse to commit itself to a permanent cessation of violence. Instead, it has used the 31 August 1994 ceasefire to negate the spirit of the Downing street declaration and as the basis for a series of political demands. There is certainly no evidence of any principle eschewal of violence or concern for the greater good of society and all Government attempts to accommodate a series of supposed IRA concerns have been met by negative and threatening responses.
  I refer to Sinn Fein in particular, not because I am unaware of the terror and suffering which has been inflicted by loyalist terror groups but because loyalist organisations have at least accepted, albeit conditionally, that there is a need to decommission illegal weapons and explosives and they have pledged themselves to observe a "no first strike" policy.
  One of the co-founders of Families Against Intimidation and Terror, or FAIT, recently listed the reality of IRA activity as experienced at grass-roots level in republican areas. Henry Robinson, himself a reformed republican terrorist, points out that terrorist organisations are still intact with their command structures in place, illegal activity is still on-going and fear and intimidation are commonplace. He is also right to say that Northern Ireland paramilitaries have never renounced violence in the way that was required of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the African National Congress, for example.
  Despite concessions by the British and Irish Governments, the IRA has given no quarter to the people who run foul of its code, nor has it accepted the democratic view that brutal and summary justice and capital punishment are not options. The IRA has been responsible for 169 of the 261 barbaric beatings and the eight murders that have occurred in the past 16 months. How can anyone who is genuinely concerned with the welfare and security of ordinary law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland seriously suggest that there is no need for the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act?
  When I speak of the ordinary citizen in Northern Ireland I am talking about more than 90 per cent. of the community. Those who view terrorism from afar may not realise that Sinn Fein-IRA achieved the support of only

  59
  4.4 and 4.8 per cent. of the total Northern Ireland electorate in the European elections in 1989 and 1994. Even in the last two local government elections in 1989 and 1993, where well-known local candidates would have tended to maximise the potential vote, Sinn Fein gained the support of only 6.3 and 6.8 per cent. respectively of the electorate.
  Herein lies the Sinn Fein-IRA dilemma. How to adapt to the political role of being a small minority of a minority is never quite obvious when logic is clouded by the debris of a Semtex bomb or distorted by the crack of an AK47 assault rifle. That is why there is an absolute necessity to remove the deadly influence of illegal weapons from the Northern Ireland equation.
  It is generally believed that the IRA holds 80 to 100 tonnes of modern sophisticated weaponry, while loyalist terrorists have another seven or eight tonnes. The IRA also possesses the capability to compound an efficient home-made explosive, or HME, which, when boosted by a small amount of commercial explosive such as Semtex, has the devastating power that was seen at Oklahoma and at the Baltic exchange in the City. With about 2.5 tonnes of Semtex, the IRA has the potential—using mainly HME with a 1 kg Semtex catalyst—to detonate an Oklahoma-type bomb every day for the next seven years.
  In addition to their bomb-making ability, the Provos can boast enough high-velocity assault rifles to equip two Army battalions. It has more than a dozen Duska half-inch heavy machine guns capable of shooting down helicopters, numerous 7.62 mm general-purpose machine guns, up to a dozen SAM 7s—surface-to-air missiles—and a significant number of RPG7 anti-armour rockets. The armoury also includes snipers' rifles and ammunition and a multitude of submachine guns, small arms and flame-throwers. Those resources are adequate to keep a terrorist campaign going for at least the next 15 to 20 years.
  Against that background, the House should try to make a considered and balanced judgment when evaluating the need to renew the emergency provisions legislation. There is a great deal of talk about infringing the human rights of the individual, but, coming from Northern Ireland, perhaps one has a keener perception of where the real denial of rights occurs and who are the chief offenders.
  The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act is but part of a very complex package that is necessary to safeguard the community to which I belong. In the face of the IRA's present rolling resumption of violence, it has been and remains an essential element in the armoury of the police. I believe that it will remain so until there is disarmament by terrorists and disbandment of their murderous organisations.
  That is why the Ulster Unionist party has advocated and supported the establishment of a disarmament commission comprising people of international repute. I regret that events led to the commission being obliged to commence its work so close to the Christmas recess and now having to work to an impossible schedule.
  The members of the commission, coming from Finland, Canada and the United States, barely had time to read themselves into the complex circumstances of Northern Ireland before the holiday break disrupted their endeavours. They are planning to resume work this
  60
  week—seven or eight days before the report is expected. A good idea has become mission impossible because of the holidays, because of the snow in Washington which has prevented some people from flying out, and especially in the light of the existing level of violence which, in the month of December, when five people were murdered by terrorists, was higher than the terrorist violence in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1989 and 1994.
  I appeal to the Government, and my party will do all that it can to co-operate in the matter, immediately to extend the time scale for the commission by up to six weeks. The adjustment for which I ask is minor when taken against the background of 26 years of terror and uncertainty. The commission having committed itself to examine disarmament, it is important that it is able to do its work properly and to present before the eyes of the world—we all recognise the importance of international opinion—the real picture of what ordinary, decent people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom must face and fear at the hands of 5 per cent. of the Northern Ireland community.
  The Secretary of State and the Minister of State must know that I am right. I hope that they will advise the Prime Minister of the need for patience and perseverance. Unless there is disarmament, there will be no opportunity to move the present tenuous ceasefire, which belongs exclusively to the terrorists—it is held like the sword of Damocles over all our heads—into a proper peace process, which can be the possession of the entire community.
  I thank the Minister with responsibility for security matters in Northern Ireland for the sensitive and sympathetic manner in which he has sought to reassure the security services and, especially, the police during what has been a difficult period for them. They have welcomed the ceasefire, as we all have, but they are bombarded with thoughtless and foolish rumours about the future of the RUC. Members of that service realise the importance of remaining alert, being properly equipped and of being supported by the strength of the law. Those are reasons why the EPA must be renewed.
  We would be negligent if we left our police service vulnerable to the potential for violence. There are so many reasons for doubt among the members of the RUC. Having stood for so long between the terrorist and the law-abiding community, it is imperative that the House endorses the good work that the Minister of State has been doing in seeking to sustain the morale of the RUC. I am concerned that consultations and the inevitable rumours that surround them may have a debilitating effect that the worst onslaught of terrorist violence has never been able to achieve.
  We have had the police authority inquiry, the RUC's own internal examination and the two-pronged study of the Northern Ireland Office, one prong dealing with the administration of the service and the other with its future and size. There is genuine concern among those who have done so much to enable a high degree of normality to be maintained, even during the worst of the violence. We cannot let these people down. When it comes to their future, there must not be a little adjusting here and a little tampering there. There must be no surprises. There must he a package produced after full and meaningful consultation.

  61
  We should not seek to isolate the EPA from the need to ensure that the complex issues pertaining to peace in Northern Ireland are seen in their broadest perspective. Of course my party would welcome changes that heralded normality, but it would be more than concerned if the devious devices of the 5 per cent. of the population who posture and threaten with bomb and bullet were allowed to erode the interests of society.
  The Secretary of State has promised that interrogations will be video recorded. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has argued that the process should be extended to include audio recording. I was a little sorry for the hon. Lady today because she appeared to be rather like Janus, looking forward to reality in the sense that the EPA is essential while looking back and pretending that it might be tampered with to an extent that would make it entirely ineffective. I felt that a Labour party tactic was being portrayed as a principle. It is especially disappointing that that should be so when we may well be moving into an election phase.
  We do not know which party will form the next Government. Northern Ireland cannot afford indecision over the years. That has been proved.
  I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has decided to implement the recommendation that video cameras should be introduced. I believe that the system will not work. At least it will not work for the forces of law and order. Instead, it will work for the terrorist. In this instance, the hon. Member for Redcar has become slightly confused. There is no check or balance when a lawyer demands in court to see the video recording, as he or she would be obliged to do. The recording will be seen by the public or conveyed to the public by a member of the court service.
  It is not realistic to say, "Put the cameras up there above his head and we shall not know what the terrorist is saying. We shall not be able to elicit that from a view of the top of his head." The IRA will know how to counter that approach. Every IRA man going into the holding centre will be told, "You do not strip off your clothes and lie on the floor any more. You don't crawl under the table. You sit on the chair, you look at the ceiling and you keep your mouth tight shut. If you don't do that, we shall know that you are co-operating with your interrogators." There goes a vital source of information for the police, which will bear on our hope to enforce law and order in the most difficult circumstances.
  The Secretary of State has talked about the element of the Act that will deal with those sanctioning and directing terrorism. I welcome that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been assured, and so have I, that the present killings are being sanctioned at the highest level by the army council. We know who has replaced Martin McGuinness as officer commanding northern command of the Provisional IRA. Will that gentleman be brought in for questioning and, I hope, charged with an offence? The Minister of State will give great reassurance if he is able to tell me that that will happen.
  The Government have a difficult job. By their minor adjustments, they are trying to elicit a modicum of decency from those who are members of illegal organisations. They must know by now, after 16 months of bending over backwards to make accommodations, that those people are not to be influenced.
  62
  I am disappointed with the Opposition amendment, because it seems to suggest that they expect that terrorists are basically decent chaps who are motivated to barbaric acts of violence and murder only because the Government meet their responsibility to society to try to prevent them from doing so.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Can the hon. Gentleman be helpful to the House and tell us the specific wording in the amendment that led him to make those comments?
  Mr. Maginnis: I was just about to do that and to suggest that all the hoo-ha about internment was verging on the hypocritical, because on enactment, if I read the Bill correctly, internment will be put into cold storage, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) indicated.
  Mr. McNamara: The whole point of that part of my speech was that internment was not in cold storage and that the Secretary of State could introduce it tomorrow if he wanted to.
  Mr. Maginnis: That is strange logic from the hon. Gentleman. Internment is in cold storage until such time as the Secretary of State introduces it, and then within 40 days—not after 40 days, as the hon. Gentleman suggested—the matter will be debated in the House.
  Is there no understanding among Opposition Members who have railed against it that there could be an occasion when the 5 per cent., the terrorists who have 100 tonnes of weapons, go back to full-scale violence, and—perhaps I say this more in hope than in expectation—not only this Government but the Irish Government find that unacceptable? As was pointed out by a Conservative Member, what better way would there be to disrupt the command and control structure of IRA-Sinn Fein, or any other terrorist organisation, than to take into internment quickly and effectively those who command the operation?
  In July 1994, seven weeks before the IRA ceasefire, my party prepared a paper, which, I believe, was given to the Prime Minister. We predicted a ceasefire and cautioned that the moment the Government got into debate or meetings with IRA-Sinn Fein, they would be tied to that process: Sinn Fein could walk away, but the Government would be unable to do so, because they would be accused of abandoning the so-called peace process. Now we find that a very clear division is being manufactured, which we predicted, between Sinn Fein and the IRA. It does not really exist. Martin McGuinness may, nominally, no longer be head of northern command of the IRA, but we know that in practice he is still the same powerful, ruthless killer he always was.
  Can hon. Members see the situation that is being manufactured? More and more we shall hear people, like Mitchel McLaughlin, on television saying, "Of course we do not control the IRA. We do not have any say over what it does." Again, we predicted that in our paper of 11 July 1994, in which we pointed out that Sinn Fein would employ the tactic of regretting, while understanding, the violence of the IRA. That is happening now.
  On 28 June 1995, we said that Martin McGuinness had ordered an end to the ceasefire—not an immediate end but a rolling resumption of violence. We were criticized

  63
  for doing so, because, apparently, if one tells the truth, one does not want the peace to succeed. What a load of rubbish. Look at what has happened since. Every effort was made to provoke people on to the streets in July and August to create confrontation. When, by and large, the people of the Ormeau road would not listen to the blandishments of people like Brian Gillan, who came across the city to try to provoke them, the next tactic was tried, which resulted in a spate of burnings and arson that was greater in intensity than has occurred for quite a number of years. When ordinary people refused to be provoked by such desecration to their churches, schools and homes, the killings started. They started in a way that is meant to be acceptable, because, allegedly, drug dealers were killed, and none of us likes drug dealers, but shall we see not eight but 80 or 100 of those petty criminals who have been labelled as drug dealers killed? It will not stop that trade—we all know that.
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has increased its efforts to bring the drugs trade under control, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to tell us that it is succeeding. It is a very difficult job to get the big players, but the amount of drugs that have been captured and the number of people who have been charged have risen dramatically over the past year. That is what the people on the ground want. They want the police, and they accept the police doing their job. What hypocrisy for Sinn Fein-IRA to say that part of the reason for the killing is that the police are not acceptable in certain areas in Northern Ireland. A fairly recent public opinion poll showed that the RUC is acceptable to more than 80 per cent. of the population, and, indeed, to 75 per cent. of the Roman Catholic population, in carrying out its day-to-day duties. I think that there is not a constabulary throughout the whole of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the Irish Republic that would not be proud of and pleased with that degree of acceptability.
  From where does the criticism come? It comes from those who would put themselves in the place of the police and who are acceptable to only 5 per cent. of the entire population. It is no wonder that Mr. Gerry Adams has disappeared from our television screens. Perhaps he has gone to his holiday home—one, I assume, he purchased out of the savings from his social security benefits—down in Cooley in the Irish Republic.
  I have described the reality of life in Northern Ireland as it is now, as experienced by my colleagues, by me and by society as a whole. We need no tinkering or tampering with the law or the security services at this stage. Show us normality, and we will show imagination in accepting change; but let us not, by a thousand cuts, inflict death and destruction on the people of Northern Ireland.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Porter: I hope that the House will excuse me if I drag the debate back to what it is supposed to be about—whether we need the Bill.
  I am disappointed and perplexed by some of the opposition to the legislation. It seems to be common ground—certainly between Conservative Members, and, I understand, among Official Unionists, Liberal Democrats and others—that an Act of this nature is required. I had thought that the fresh, fragrant new Labour party held the
  64
  same view, and, having read the amendment, I hoped that the presence of a new team of Northern Ireland spokesmen might produce a fragrant new approach; but it did not.
  Apparently, we are expected to accept the view that it is possible to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill—against the principle of it—on specious grounds. If she examines her conscience, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) may agree that, although there may be an argument for it, the "certifying in" of scheduled offences is hardly fundamental to the Bill; nor, I should have thought, is the establishment of a full-time legal advice unit at holding centres. Again, there may be arguments for such a unit: it may be a splendid idea, although I have not yet thought of any such arguments. Surely, however, both proposals should be contained in amendments or new clauses tabled in Committee or on Report.
  I assume that the "annual review" business has now disappeared from sight. What remains, in an allegedly reasoned amendment, is the question of internment without trial. I have never doubted the integrity of Labour's new Northern Ireland spokesman, and never will, but she justifies the view that such a review is fundamental on the basis that it was considered fundamental by the old, less fresh Labour party some years ago. She may wish to bear it in mind that a number of Labour politicians—the same is true of the Labour party as a whole—have moved away from more fundamental positions than that.
  I understand that, at one stage, the Labour party was rather in favour of socialism, and other jolly ideas. Over the past year or so, it has moved rather rapidly away from such ideas. If the Labour party can drop something as fundamental as the belief that created the party itself, surely it can re-examine its view that internment without trial, although a benefit to the Act, should be put into cold storage.
  The Opposition Members who had a slight argument about the meaning of "cold storage" were not really in dispute. If we want something to remain fresh and available, we put it into the refrigerator and take it out when we need it. That is exactly what would happen in this instance. Can any hon. Member imagine a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland waking up one morning and saying, "What shall I do today? I think that I will introduce internment without trial." The idea is ludicrous: the circumstances would have to be dire and dangerous. I hope that the Opposition will now realise that, far from being reasoned, their amendment is entirely unreasonable.
  I do not want to engage in tedious repetition, but anyone who doubts the need for the Act had only to listen—at some length, if I may say so—to the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who speaks on security matters for the Ulster Unionists. He gave all the details that the House needed to hear about the armaments that exist, the murders that have been committed and the potential for further murders. Of course we need the Act, and of course we need a fundamental review of anti-terrorist legislation. That review should be carried out carefully. I am sure that everyone will have an opportunity to express his views, and I hope that the legislation will eventually apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  In the meantime, however, no one with good will or any common sense could say that we do not need the Act. I am not saying that the Bill is perfect—no Bill that I have

  65
  discussed in the House has ever turned out to be perfect—but points and cases can be argued in Committee and on Report. I believe that signals from over the water would now be much more promising if the House expressed a concerted view, and supported a Bill that is certainly necessary.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: It is some years since I last spoke on behalf of my party in a debate on security in Northern Ireland. I believe that, on the last such occasion, our safety on the mainland—and, indeed, in the House—was being continually threatened: the situation was extremely dangerous. I welcome the progress that has been made recently—the fact that there is peace in Northern Ireland, and the degree of optimism that has been expressed on all sides. The road to a permanent peace is treacherous, however. We see a forest full of trees, rocks and other obstacles, and we would be foolhardy to assume that all the obstacles have been circumvented.
  I also welcome the fact that, in the years since I last spoke in a debate such as this, the multi-partisan policy approach has continued. It is multi-partisan not just because of my party but, in particular, because of the multiplicity of Northern Ireland parties that are represented in the House.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) is known—rightly; I emphasise that—both for her skill as a politician and for the cogency of her arguments on almost every occasion. With great respect to the hon. Lady, I must say that this has not been one of those occasions. I urge her to read the report of her speech with care; it was—I say this is a constructive spirit—a bit of a muddle.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) told us in the clearest possible terms what we all knew: that the issue of Northern Ireland might determine the timing of the next general election, because his party's attitude might be crucial. I believe that it may also affect the result of the next election more than some anticipate: Northern Ireland is an important political issue, which affects not only the people of Northern Ireland but the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
  The policy must be right. I believe that the Labour party policy may be right, or very nearly right, although I do not want to argue about the details of Labour's policy on this occasion. The message must also be right, however. Let me say to the hon. Member for Redcar that I believe that the message from Labour in today's debate seems less multi-partisan than I think she wants it to be. In the interests of producing perhaps the best possible Government for this country, I urge the Labour party to ensure that the message is not muddled by the wish to reach a compromise with the views of those such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Gentleman spoke in the debate and, plainly, his views are not entirely in accord with those of the hon. Member for Redcar.
  Mr. Maginnis: I should like to make it clear that the hon. and learned Member was expressing his own view and not mine when he alluded to me and mentioned the possibility of an election. I hope that he will acknowledge that, throughout the life of this Parliament, the Ulster Unionists have acted in the best interests of the United
  66
  Kingdom in general and Northern Ireland in particular, and have not been guilty of any behind-backs dealing or dishonourable behaviour in terms of trying to help the peace process forward.
  Mr. Carlile: I am happy to say that I make absolutely no suggestion of any underhand dealing by the hon. Gentleman and his party. I said that the hon. Gentleman was quite open in what he said. We can all take it from his speech that the timing of the next general election may be affected by the views of his party. If we were members of his party, we would take precisely that view, and no one can blame the hon. Gentleman for taking it.
  Ms Mowlam: The Opposition's first priority is not the response of any minority Northern Ireland party, in terms of its size in the House. We put the peace process first and foremost. That is why, up to now, we have adopted a bipartisan approach to the framework document. I have not changed our position in a craven response to my hon. Friends, or to other parties, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I read the Bill in the hour that I was given to read it before we broke up for the Christmas recess, and we tabled a reasoned amendment. That was the basis of our response.
  Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I emphasise that, if one does what many of us do every day, which is to read the important parts of the Order Paper, one sees a reasoned amendment that includes the words
  "declines to give a Second Reading"
  to the Bill. That is strange, because Labour's Front-Bench spokesman has told the House, "Well, we do not mind at all giving the Bill a Second Reading and we are relying on our reasoned amendment being defeated so that we can abstain on the substantive vote." The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is the impression that she has given the House. [Interruption.] I am reminded that eventually she said that Labour would vote against Second Reading. The hon. Member for Redcar brought the word "dancing" to the debate. At an early stage, she appeared to be dancing on the head of a pin, but by the end of her speech it looked as if she was sitting on the pin. No doubt she will make her own judgment about Labour's position.
  The nub of the issue is whether conditions in Northern Ireland are now such that the legal processes that apply in other parts of the United Kingdom will suffice. If the answer to that question is yes, we do not need the Bill. If the answer is no, we need the Bill or an amended version of it, and we should give it a Second Reading. There are three basic reasons for the answer to that question being no. Therefore, the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
  The first reason is the often publicly stated political position of Sinn Fein. I speak simply of Sinn Fein as a political party, and I take it—perhaps foolishly for this purpose—at face value as a political party. It is quite clear that political Sinn Fein does not yet accept the renunciation of violence—nor does it renounce terrorism, which remains part of its political armoury. The second reason was given by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone when he specified a terrifying list of weapons which I shall not repeat. The IRA is holding a terrible stockpile of hugely lethal weapons. Why are they being held by the IRA? That rhetorical question answers itself. The third reason that makes it inevitable that we support the continuation of a

  67
  Bill of this broad kind, which is subject to the processes of the House, is the murders in recent weeks, which have been committed under the entirely bogus guise of a campaign against drugs.
  Justice is generally depicted holding scales and blindfolded. As recent evidence has shown, the sort of justice that is meted out by the IRA is far from blindfold. It is very carefully targeted, and no justiciable issues are weighed in any scale. It is the sort of justice that equals the worst excesses of the Stalinist approach. That reason is as powerful as either of the other two for rejecting the view that we can do without emergency provisions at this time.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the Government and vote against Labour in the Lobby. However, that is not to say that we totally agree with the Government or with their approach. I share the view that was expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that it is highly regrettable that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which was specifically assured by the Government that it would be consulted about any legislation of this sort, was not consulted. I do not understand why the Government had to present the legislation in such a hurry. Apparently they were in too much of a hurry to fulfil that promise to the commission.
  I and my party are concerned, too, that the full-scale policy review that was promised in May 1995 was not brought into being until it was announced by the Secretary of State in the speech that opened this debate. A splendid chairman has been appointed to that body. Lord Lloyd of Berwick has a first-class legal mind and is extremely analytical. I am sure that he will produce an excellent report, but it would have been much better for that report to be available today rather than after Royal Assent to whatever Act emerges has been given.
  I am concerned that the Government seem unprepared to amend the operation of the Diplock courts. Although it is some time ago, I took the trouble to go to Northern Ireland to watch the Diplock courts in operation, to sit with the judge and to get the flavour of what happens in those courts. I share the view expressed earlier, that the justice dispensed by those courts with a single judge is second to none. No criticism of the quality of that justice is possible.
  As a lawyer, I think that Diplock courts have one great advantage over a jury court, in that, when the judge returns a verdict of guilty, he has to give reasons. It is awfully helpful to find out what those reasons are. That discipline should be applied to magistrates courts in England and Wales, where decisions are often made by judges effectively sitting alone, stipendiary magistrates in particular. Diplock courts have worked well and, above all, justly. I join the hon. Member for Redcar in paying tribute to the judges, who have done a sometimes fearful job in difficult conditions, with great courage and enormous objectivity. They are all too rarely mentioned in the roll of honour of Northern Ireland.
  However, the time has not yet come to return to jury trials in all cases—it would not be realistic to do that now. We should not only widen the scope of jury trials, but make a gesture that would include having more than one judge in the Diplock court, to stage the return to normality
  68
  and to send out a sign that we are returning to a form of justice that involves the sort of collegiate decision that ultimately occurs in a jury trial. It used to be said that there were not enough judges to do that—the Government have presented that argument—but that is not so now: there are enough judges because there are fewer Diplock trials. It could be achieved.
  Similarly, I urge the Government to accept that there should be custody time limits for all persons who face remand for indictable offences. In addition, my party urges that police disciplinary procedures should be brought into line with those in England and Wales.
  We welcome the rationale behind the introduction of silent video taping of interviews. That is progress, ostensibly at least, although it has taken a long time to get there: about two years. I share, however, some of the concerns and misgivings of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone as to the way in which that might be abused.
  As someone who over many years has practised in the criminal courts, both prosecuting and defending, I believe that the guarantee that one has in a court in England and Wales against tampering or against false accusations in relation to an audio-taped interview is the second soundtrack. I do not see how one can give such a guarantee in relation to a video-taped interview. It will be much easier not only to act as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but for people to play-act and to fake allegations of oral oppression.
  I have reservations about the assertion that audio tapes cannot be made secure. Audio taping can be arranged in such a way—this has been shown to be the case by experience in England and Wales—that the interviewee soon acquires confidence in the interviewing procedure and forgets, if the room is suitably constructed, that audio taping is taking place. Nevertheless, I recognise that these are difficult issues and involve questions of judgment.
  The Liberal Democrats have consistently urged the introduction of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law. Starting with Northern Ireland might be a good idea. It would certainly boost confidence in Northern Ireland. After all, the Government accept that, in any event, the standards contained in that convention and its terms must be applied in Northern Ireland. Why not introduce the convention there and make it enforceable in local courts?
  Those are just some thoughts and some glosses that my party wants to put on the Bill. It is not perfect. It is capable of amendment, but we have the opportunity to amend it. It is in that spirit that I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote with the Government tonight.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I am delighted to follow the Liberal Democrats' spokesman, and I am happy to hear that he takes the position that his party has outlined, especially as that means taking a separate view from its sister party in Northern Ireland, the Alliance party, which today attacked the Government for this measure. I think that his position is much more understandable and will be much better understood by Northern Ireland's people.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members have rightly put their finger on the key issue that the House is considering: the necessity for the Bill.

  69
  The predecessor of this measure was introduced because of the dire emergency in Northern Ireland. It was clear that the normal processes could not cope with the circumstances with which they were faced. The House therefore thought it proper to introduce measures to take into account the emergency that arose because of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  We must consider whether circumstances have changed so much that the measure is no longer necessary. It is right that every one of us will be delighted that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of killings and injuries of people in Northern Ireland, but it falls short of being peace. If one accepts the term "a peace process", by its very nature, that process may ultimately lead to peace but, at this stage, it is certainly not peace. Some of us believe that it is more of a tactical process for the Provisional IRA. We consider first its ceasefire statement, which says that it is not a permanent cessation of violence, but that is intended to be a complete cessation of military operations.
  I remember that, for some weeks, perhaps months, everyone debated the difference between "complete" and "permanent". It was probably best put by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who said that, while his car came to a complete standstill at traffic lights, it did not stay there permanently. Of course, the IRA retains the ability to start the violence again if it should so desire.
  Over the past weeks and months, we have seen that the Provisional IRA has started that violence again. None of us is impressed that it uses the drugs issue as the excuse for removing from its community people whom it has a gripe against, and not because of drugs but because of many other issues in its community. We must therefore consider whether the present circumstances need an emergency provisions Bill.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) dealt at some length with the Provisional IRA's weapons stockpile. Apart from that considerable stockpile, its representatives have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of handing those weapons in. I am not sure whether an arms commission can sweet-talk the guns out of the Provisional IRA's hands. I doubt it very much, but the fact that, when we are taking a decision on the Bill, the IRA is saying that it has those guns and is not handing them over, leads everyone to believe that it has some future use for those weapons.
  I feel uncomfortable with the fact that, in many other areas, the state has been prepared to dismantle its apparatus of defence of our community while the terrorist organisations still keep intact their apparatus to attack the community. Some months ago, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House that the IRA was still recruiting, still developing new weapons, still fund-raising, still training and still targeting. No doubt he obtains his information from intelligence sources, and few of us will question it. If all of those things are going on in the paramilitary organisations, it is clear that the IRA is still capable of carrying out the same sort of heinous crimes that it has carried out for a generation. Those circumstances make our decision relatively easy.
  I agree with the hon Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that there is a distinction between the Provisional IRA's position and that of the loyalist paramilitary
  70
  organisations. The first distinction appeared in their ceasefire statements. The Provisional IRA could not bring itself to end its violence permanently. The loyalist organisations were prepared to do so on condition that the Provisional IRA did so. The IRA could not bring itself to say there would be no further violence, but the loyalist organisations said that they would not start any violence provided that the Provisional IRA did not either.
  Those loyalist organisations have not gone as far as anyone in the House would want, but they have moved further than the Provisional IRA, and they deserve whatever credit can possibly be given to such organisations. However, they still retain weapons that have killed in the past, and could kill in the future, innocent people in Northern Ireland. Those loyalist organisations must be included in the equation in the same way as the Provisional IRA.
  The equipment exists to carry out and continue a terrorist campaign. There are almost daily threats from Sinn Fein leaders who tell us that the peace process is in danger and about to collapse, leaving everyone to conclude that that is the case and that the Provisional IRA intends to pick up its weapons and start placing its bombs once again. In those circumstances, there is only one decision that the House can take.
  The events of the past weeks, including the many beatings that have taken place—the numbers have increased since before the ceasefire—and the recent killings, are all breaches of the ceasefire. We should not be reluctant to state that clearly. If the Provisional IRA's ceasefire requires its military operations to come to a complete standstill, sending its gunmen out to kill people—no matter which cause it claims as justification—is a breach of that ceasefire. Constitutional politicians should not pretend that those crimes are not taking place. We must establish clearly that the IRA's ceasefire is being breached; the Government are duty bound to deliver that message clearly and publicly.
  I find it difficult to reach the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—that the arms commission has been given an impossible timetable. I believe that it has been given an impossible task, given that the Provisional IRA is not disposed to handing over its weapons. It would be helpful if, when replying to the debate, the Minister could state whether the arms commission has requested an extension of time, whether it faces difficulties because of the circumstances outlined earlier and whether, if the timetable were extended, it might be able to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
  Those issues show that there is still a very real threat from the Provisional IRA and other terrorist organisations, so I reluctantly support the Government as they renew the legislation. I do not believe that any hon. Member would want the legislation to remain on the statute book for one minute longer than necessary. I shall join the Government in the Lobby tonight, and I hope that all other hon. Members will do so.
  7.3 pm
  Dr. Joe Hendron: I oppose the Bill because I believe that the oppressive legislation that we have had for the past 25 years has been counter-productive and has helped paramilitary organisations. I pose two questions to the House. Have we a ceasefire? Have we a peace process? I shall answer those questions shortly.

  71
  A Protestant lady, Miss Margaret Wright, who was thought to be a Catholic, was brutally murdered shortly before the IRA and loyalist ceasefires. But I shall now tell the House of the recent murders committed by the Provisional IRA, most of which have occurred in the city of Belfast—some of the victims were either from, or had lived in, my constituency.
  Mickey Mooney, aged 34, was murdered by the IRA on 20 April last year—before the ceasefire. Tony Kane, aged 29, was murdered by the IRA on 5 September last. He was shot dead as he sat behind the wheel of his car outside a Catholic church in west Belfast. Paul Devine was murdered by the IRA on 8 December and Francis Collins was also murdered by the IRA on 18 December.
  Christopher Johnston, also known as Syd, was murdered by the IRA on 19 December. Martin McCrory was murdered at Turf Lodge in the heart of my constituency just after Christmas—on 27 December. He was shot as he watched television in his home with his three-year-old son beside him. Ian Lyons was murdered in Lurgan on 2 January as he sat with his girl friend in a car outside her parents' home.
  How do I know that the IRA carried out those murders? There has been a fair bit of discussion on the subject. I have spoken to relatives of some of the victims, who are in no doubt that the Provos were responsible. My constituents in west Belfast have no doubt about the IRA's involvement.
  I spoke to relatives of Paul Devine, who had spent 18 months in gaol and had been released just a few months before he was murdered. While he was in prison, a member of his family went to Sinn Fein's headquarters in Andersonstown, known as Connolly house, and told a senior Sinn Fein member that he believed that Paul was going to be shot by the IRA following his release from prison. He was obviously trying to ensure that that did not happen. Following his release, Paul was warned by the police that his life was in danger from the IRA—the rest is history.
  The debate is about the emergency provisions Bill. Surely we have learnt something after 25 years of violence and civil strife. Powers of arrest and detention were often exercised, not to bring suspects before a court of justice to make them answer to a process of law, but to gather information and to invade, unjustifiably, the privacy of a person's life. Between 1978 and 1982, more than 22,000 people were arrested and interrogated—the vast majority were released without charge. Emergency legislation has been at the heart of Northern Ireland's legal structures since partition. Clearly, such a position is ultimately unsustainable, and surely the lesson is clear: a basis for political consensus must be found.
  I shall vote against the Bill because the emergency provisions Acts have totally failed to provide an effective mechanism to defeat paramilitary organisations and because the power of internment would remain on the statute book. Reference has been made to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, chaired by a senior lawyer, Mr. Michael Lavery. That commission advises the Secretary of State on civil liberty issues and has said that it regrets the Government's decision to renew the emergency provisions Act in its entirety for another two years.
  72
  The commission placed great emphasis on the fact that powers of internment, non-jury Diplock courts and admissibility of confessions would remain in place. Mr. Michael Lavery QC, the chairman, has said that, with sustained peace for 16 months, a significant opportunity exists to enhance the protection of individuals' rights and civil liberties.
  The Committee on the Administration of Justice, which has already been mentioned, is an independent, cross-community organisation, involved in working to protect civil liberties. It also opposed the renewal of the legislation and said that there was not a state of emergency at present.
  I am aware of the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Like him, I am very conscious of the recent brutal murders in the city of Belfast, but the question is whether there is an emergency in the state of Northern Ireland at this point in time. I do not think so. But there is a peace process—granted it has been faltering a little recently—and therefore emergency legislation like this Bill is unhelpful. I have carefully studied the EPA review by Mr. John Rowe QC, who rightly emphasises that he plays no part in any peace process or negotiations, and that he is not bound by any Government policies.
  The people of Ireland are divided by history. We therefore need political debate and meaningful dialogue—not draconian legislation. Over the years, members of the security forces who were involved in inevitable confrontation—I emphasise "inevitable" confrontation—with young people became recruiting sergeants for the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association, and the Ulster Volunteer Force. The situations surrounding the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four arose from pressure exerted on the legal process to solve terrorist actions.
  The father of Gerry Conlon, Giuseppe Conlon, who had been a patient of mine, was allowed to die in prison in England. Like his son, he was a totally innocent person. His widow Mrs. Sarah Conlon, who is my friend, has never received an apology from the British Government. Even after all these years, compensation for Gerry and his mother is yet to be finalised. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister took that matter up with the Home Secretary. Quite a number of years have now passed and it is immoral that compensation for Gerry Conlon and Mrs. Sarah Conlon—who lives in the heart of my constituency and is one of the loveliest people I have ever met—has not been finalised. I cannot speak for the Birmingham Six or other members of the Guildford Four.
  In theory, the law may be the same for civilians and members of the security forces, but in practice it is quite different. Both Private Ian Thain and Private Lee Clegg were found guilty of murder, but each was released after about two years in prison. In contrast, Patrick Kane, Michael Timmons and Sean Kelly, who did not murder anyone, were sentenced to life imprisonment.
  The three unarmed IRA members who were slaughtered in Gibraltar in March 1988 could easily have been arrested. As we know, they had been followed for some days. Like many others, I was shocked by the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence at the Tory party conference some months ago when he glorified the exploits and disposition of the SAS.

  73
  I return to the point with which I started. The IRA's ceasefire is only partial. It no longer shoots members of security forces, but it seems to be all right to murder members of the nationalist community.
  I spent 30 years as a medical practitioner in west Belfast and for 20 years I have been an elected politician. I know many of the people there, so I can speak with some authority on the matter. Why has the IRA murdered the young men to whom I have referred? It is nothing to do with drugs. The Provos want to reassert their power base in nationalist housing estates. They greatly fear normality. Indeed, it is what they fear most. They are not worried about the legislation going through the House today—it is normality they fear. Above all, they want to discredit the police: in fact, they want to be the police—those who deal with law and order in the area.
  Repressive legislation has indirectly led to many young people from both communities getting involved with paramilitaries. The republican leadership must put an end to murder, assault and intimidation. Those leaders have no right to order young people or their parents to report to the local Sinn Fein office. That happens virtually every day of the week in west Belfast, and I cannot see how the Bill will do anything about it. Every day somebody has to report to a Sinn Fein office, yet they say that they have nothing to do with the IRA. If the republican leadership want to be treated as democrats, they must respect democracy.
  Part of the background to the debate concerns the peace process and the twin-track process; it is all intertwined. That twin-track process launched by the two Prime Ministers must remain Government policy. In recent correspondence that I have had with the Prime Minister, he has once again referred to the end of February as the agreed time for all-party negotiations.
  Reference has been made to Senator George Mitchell and his colleagues, who have an important job to do. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has described it as a mission impossible. Certainly, what the Provos have been up to recently makes the task of Senator Mitchell and his colleagues very difficult. Like others, I am sure that, if Senator Mitchell and his colleagues requested a few more weeks in which to produce their report, both Governments would agree. I made a short submission to Senator Mitchell and his colleagues that I hope will be helpful.
  All parties, including Sinn Fein, must be involved in continuing dialogue. The people of Northern Ireland will never forgive us if we do not sustain the peace process. The agenda for all-party talks should continue to include the three main relationships—those between the two communities in the north, between the north and the south, and of course between Britain and Ireland. Let us not play into the hands of those who want to destroy the peace process. We must be responsible in our words, actions and legislation.
  The police in Northern Ireland have had an impossible task over the past 25 years. Policing in a community divided by history is not easy. The direct association of the police force with repressive legislation has made total acceptability in the nationalist community impossible. I say that as somebody who has co-operated with the police on virtually a daily basis for many years. I have nothing but respect for the great majority of them.
  74
  It is a fact of life, however, that on the nationalist housing estates of Belfast, and indeed in the nationalist communities right across the north of Ireland, people of course co-operate with the police on a day-to-day basis but have difficulties in accepting them. Although that subject is for another day, I add that the problem is to do with the police having identified with one section of the community. I appreciate that there have been improvements in recent times, but there is a major debate going on concerning that subject. Solutions concerning politics and security are inextricably linked.
  The long-suffering people of my city—on the Falls road and the Shankill road—want peace. The people of Northern Ireland want peace. All parties must therefore be involved in dialogue, and huffing and puffing will not solve anything. Recently, President Clinton visited Northern Ireland. He visited both communities and made a very big impact. His message was one of peace and support for the peace process. As I said, I shall oppose the Bill, because I believe that such legislation is counter-productive.
  A young Belfast student recently gave vivid expression to what I hope will be our shared vision for the future when he wrote:
  "In morning sunlight over Belfast a fragile ray of hope grows bright".
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I pay tribute to the important words of both my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who represent the different communities and the different sides of Belfast. It seems that many of the powerful comments by the hon. Member for Belfast, West are an argument for the renewal of the emergency provisions powers. With his great knowledge of the west Belfast community, the very fact that he speaks about the recent murders as being undoubtedly the work of the Provisional IRA is itself a powerful argument for saying that normality is very far from having been restored to the streets and the estates of Belfast.
  Although I was very impressed by the extent to which there appeared to be normality in the centres of Belfast and Londonderry when I last visited the Province during the summer, I feel that the recent sad, tragic and brutal murders are cracks in the peace process, which show once again the importance of renewing the powers.
  In addition to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Belfast, East in his powerful and effective speech, other important issues need to be considered by the House. The Labour Front-Bench spokesmen find themselves in an extraordinary position. They have tabled a reasoned amendment to the motion when their leadership has suggested that the party is now tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
  Here we have the most important powers against terrorism, which is the most serious of crimes. One might think that in the spirit of the new Labour party there might be a return to the bipartisanship that was so welcome on Northern Ireland matters. Far from it. The Labour party says that it intends to vote against the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. Opposition spokesmen have searched desperately through the Bill to find some excuse for voting against it. That is opposition for opposition's sake.

  75
  I want the Opposition to return to the old days of bipartisanship in Northern Ireland. Unless and until they support the Government on every piece of anti-terrorist legislation, the voters of Britain will never take seriously any of the weasel words of Labour spokesmen from the leader downwards on the strength of the Labour party's policy on crime. If the Opposition will not support us on measures against terrorism, they cannot be taken seriously. It is a measure of the desperation of their opposition for opposition's sake that the Opposition intend to vote against these important and crucial powers tonight.
  When we consider the importance of the powers contained in the Bill, we can see clearly, especially in view of the recent murders by the IRA masquerading as Direct Action Against Drugs, that it would be premature to remove the emergency legislation while the terrorist organisations are intact and their weapons are available to return to violence.
  No one prays more fervently than I for a complete and lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I admit that, when the peace process began, I was extremely cynical about its prospects. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland embarked on it and worked on the twin-track process with the leadership of the Irish Republic. I am delighted that the peace process has gone as far as it has.
  However, the terrorist organisations still have their arsenals of weapons. Terrorist murders are still committed by Provisional IRA, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West clearly described, as did the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in a powerful speech on security matters on behalf of the Ulster Unionists.
  The case is undoubtedly made for further renewal of the emergency powers, even if the Government have rightly said that, as soon as the security situation permits, the Government may ask Parliament to suspend individual provisions of the Act or to introduce them in a lapsed form. With terrorist murders happening, sadly, regularly in the past few weeks, it is clear that we cannot yet suspend the emergency provisions. Although we welcome the fact that terrorism has declined markedly since September 1994, when the ceasefire was announced, continuing murders highlight the need for special security measures in the Province.
  Labour Front-Bench spokesmen say in their reasoned amendment that one of the reasons they propose to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill relates to the recommendations of Mr. John Rowe QC in his analysis of the security situation. I was proud to serve with Mr. Rowe on the Bar Council for several years and I served under his chairmanship. I know what a superb lawyer he is and what a careful analysis he has made, but it must be for Her Majesty's Government to decide what is in the best interests of the security and the legal situation. They have clearly considered carefully the implications of the security situation. There is no doubt in my mind that their analysis is right.
  Several hon. Members who have spoken this evening, not least the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, have made it clear why that is. The changes that have been made to security procedures have been
  76
  implemented solely on the professional advice of the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding. The Government are right to say that they cannot and will not take unnecessary risks with people's lives.
  I am sick to the back teeth of hearing spokesmen for Sinn Fein day after day and night after night on the radio and television speaking weasel words to excuse terrorist actions and the actions of the IRA. They have refused to contemplate the surrender of their weapons and the renunciation of violence. They come up with all sorts of weasel words to excuse terrorism. While they do so, they will not be taken seriously as part of the peace process. They do not deserve to be treated as democratic politicians. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are right to continue to state powerfully than Sinn Fein and the IRA and all their works cannot be treated with respect as democratic politicians until the weapons are surrendered and we have a real ceasefire.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right last Sunday when he said what he would say to Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and others:
  "I believe you can stop these killings and these beatings and if you wish to be taken seriously as democratic politicians, now or in the future, then you should stop these killings and these beatings and you should stop them now and for good."
  Those were powerful words, which I hope and pray will be taken seriously. Until the spokesmen for Sinn Fein and the leaders of the IRA surrender their arms for good, they cannot be taken seriously, and the peace process will continue to be in serious jeopardy, despite the bravery and success of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative.
  As for the future, the Government have rightly emphasised that nothing will be implemented in Northern Ireland without the consent of all the parties in talks, without the consent of the people in a referendum or without the consent of Parliament. That is the triple lock. There is a powerful community in my constituency that emanates from. Northern Ireland. It comprises people of both faiths and both communities. It is important not only to all the peace-loving people of Northern Ireland but to all the people of the United Kingdom that the triple lock should continue to be in place. I know that it is a particular reassurance to the Unionist community in my constituency, with whom I have always had good and close links.
  Before I conclude, I should touch briefly on what I see as the way forward and what I know my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench see as the way forward. The reaction in the Province to President Clinton's visit and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visits last year clearly illustrated the hope that exists there. I saw that for myself in Northern Ireland last summer. I saw a community which had hungered for peace enjoying after so many years the fruits of peace.
  Mr. Maginnis: indicated assent.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone nodding at those words.
  The preparatory talks are intended to give fresh momentum to the peace process, but the murders in the Province by the terrorists masquerading under the false title of Direct Action Against Drugs highlight the need for

  77
  all parties in the Province to demonstrate beyond doubt that they are committed exclusively to peaceful means, not least by making progress on decommissioning.
  I apologise to the hon. Members who are to reply to the debate that I may not be able to be in the Chamber for all the closing speeches, although I hope to hear almost all of them. I am delighted to have had an opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate. I hope that the Labour party will eventually learn not to oppose the Government on important anti-terrorist measures.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Robert McCartney: The issue before the House is whether the Bill, which would in large measure re-enact the principal provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, should receive a Second Reading in what are alleged to be changed circumstances.
  I should mention to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who unfortunately is not here at present, that, as perhaps the only independent Member in the Chamber, I cast my vote either in support of the Government or in opposition to them as my conscience dictates on the issues before the House at the time. While I am ideologically totally in favour of the socio-economic policies of the Opposition—with whom I have voted as a volunteer, and not as a whipped or pressed man, on every occasion since I entered the House—I shall with little hesitation be voting with the Government this evening.
  The central principle in this debate is the extent to which the protection of the lives, personal safety and property of British citizens—particularly those living in Northern Ireland—requires laws that depart in some measure from traditional civil liberties and human rights. It can be argued that the granting of exceptional powers and the diminution of certain rights, such as trial by jury or access to legal advice, ought to be maintained only as long as the threat of terrorism in all its forms justifies it. Without doubt, that is the present case in Northern Ireland.
  The existing ceasefire has been described by the accountable Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office as a military ceasefire, which will be broken only by bombs on the mainland or by attacks on security personnel. While that fine distinction may serve the political objectives of the Government, it offers small comfort to the friends and relatives of those civilians—at present drawn almost entirely from the ghettos of the minority community—who are being mutilated with baseball bats, clubs, staves and iron bars, and murdered almost on a daily basis.
  Such people—like the rest of Northern Ireland's citizens—were sold the peace process on the basis of a permanent cessation of terrorist violence. In neither the Downing street declaration nor Government statements at the time of the announcement of the framework document do I recollect any distinction being drawn between military ceasefires and a cessation of violence such as would offer ordinary civilians the protection of normal times.
  On the one hand, the frankness of the Minister's language is to be admired, since it reveals what many in Northern Ireland have always believed to be the case: that the peace process, to use that rather nebulous term, was
  78
  only in a subsidiary way about the ending or cessation of political violence in Northern Ireland, and that its essential purpose was the protection of mainland British economic and political interests.
  Northern Ireland has always been a part of the United Kingdom where, to echo the words of the late Reginald Maudling, a level of violence was acceptable to the British Government that would have been totally unacceptable in any other part of the United Kingdom. The most effective methods of protecting the lives and property of the British citizens of Northern Ireland have always been made subordinate to the political objectives of successive British Governments.
  The terrorists have always been nurtured and encouraged by the knowledge that their objective—removing Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom—was one upon which successive British Administrations were largely neutral. Concessions could always be wrung from those Administrations at the expense of the pro-Union community. A great number of pro-Union people, like the Czechs in 1938, have rightly suspected that England's peace might be bought at their expense.
  This debate between the Government and the Opposition resembles nothing so much as the debate between the Lilliputians and the Blefuscans as to which end of the egg they should open. The only item of any substance in the Opposition amendment relates to the Government's failure to implement the recommendations of Mr. John Rowe's review by removing internment without trial from the statute book. For the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, that is a dispute without substance. Internment has been on the statute book for 20 years without its use being invoked. If the past is any guide to the future political courage of those charged with government, it could remain on the statute book into eternity without being made operative.
  What, one may ask, is all the hullabaloo about? The Republic of Ireland has had legislation allowing detention in specified circumstances since 1940, with far less justification than has been and is now being offered in Northern Ireland. I detect no protests from those who speak loudly about the very presence on the statute book of a non-invoked form of detention principle in the United Kingdom relative to Northern Ireland about the same legislation being on the statute book in the Republic of Ireland.
  In what other part of the United Kingdom would the Government have tolerated murder, mayhem and the destruction of property on the levels seen in Northern Ireland without not only having detention legislation on the statute book, but actually putting it into effect? Does anyone in the House seriously believe that, if the murder and assassination of judges, members of the public and innocent people had been taking place in Yorkshire, Cornwall or Kent at the level that we have seen in Northern Ireland, there would not have been an all-party bipartisan approach for the implementation of detention procedures in order to stop it?
  The assistant Chief Constable of Northern Ireland recently went on the record to state that, on the basis of high-grade intelligence, the police were aware of the identity of the specific killers involved in 80 per cent. of the 1,800 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. In the other 20 per cent., the police were aware of a small group—perhaps numbering two or three persons—who

  79
  were specifically involved in those killings. Those people cannot be brought to justice in accordance with the normal rules and principles of law pertaining in a stable and normal society. They are murderous and homicidal people who are exempt from punishment because of the terror that they can inspire and the punishment that they can inflict upon those who have the courage to give evidence against them.
  Let me give the House some scenarios typical of Northern Ireland. Mr. X lives in a nationalist housing estate. He is married, with a number of teenage children and—perhaps within that same estate—he has an extended family of cousins, uncles and aunts. He is an eye-witness to a murder perpetrated by someone he knows and recognises as a person with paramilitary convictions. That person may be so confident of the terror that his organisation inspires that he may not even disguise himself by wearing a mask. The witness informs the police, who arrest the perpetrator; he resists all questioning and is released. The witness refuses to testify out of fear for himself and his family. Without his evidence, the killer goes free to kill again. That is not an anecdotal account; it is a matter that is known to the security authorities.
  In the mid-1970s, I had occasion to prosecute four or five men on murder charges. All of them had a peripheral involvement. All of them had made statements, which they subsequently withdrew, identifying the person who pulled the trigger. The statements were not admissible because they had been made by accomplices. The trigger man was arrested and was subjected to interrogation, but because he was a hard case who had probably been well schooled in anti-interrogation procedures, he sat in Castlereagh for seven days and never uttered a word. He was released, and he was again involved in serious terrorist crime. He was imprisoned, released and subsequently murdered by his own kind. That is typical of what happens in many cases in Northern Ireland, and it may be one of the 1,800 unsolved murder cases in which the security authorities are firmly aware of the identity of those involved.
  Only too frequently, it is those who are peripherally involved, who are often young and inexperienced people who have acted as look-outs and who have collected information, but who are technically guilty of murder, who are convicted and who go to prison under a life sentence. They are the sort of people who perhaps ought to be released in some form of remission because they were by no means central to the horrible crimes that were committed. But in many cases, those who actually commit the murder—the hitmen, the godfathers—are beyond the law. They are certainly beyond the law that is on the statute book at present.
  I have practised law in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years, for 20 of them as a Queen's Counsel. I am dedicated to the principles of the common law for the protection of the individual against the power of the state. Like almost every other hon. Member who has spoken in or been present during this debate, I passionately look forward to the day when it is unnecessary for legislation such as the Bill to be on the statute book. However, one must face the reality that there is a point when judgment must be made about how far the ordinary laws must necessarily be put aside to protect the state and the
  80
  overwhelming majority of its law-abiding citizens from an organised, violent and murderous conspiracy that would subvert the principles of justice and order that make democratic government possible.
  It is a measure of the impasse that we have reached that the central core of this debate is not whether a measure to secure the removal from society of such violent criminals should be invoked, but whether, uninvoked and unlikely to be invoked, it should even remain on the statute book. That is the core of the Opposition's objection. The measure has been on the statute book for 20 years. It has been held in refrigerated if not cold storage against the day when it may be required to be used, but it is not in operation. One fears that the unreality that surrounds the debate is taken by the vast, law-abiding majority of both communities in Northern Ireland as a measure of the House's understanding of the true nature of their situation.
  In pursuit of the holy grail of an unattainable political situation, the squaring of an impossible political circle that will guarantee the security of the British mainland, the Government, with the bipartisan support of the Opposition, are grappling with the forms instead of dealing with the substance of the problem. To abandon democratic principle in favour of short-term expediency is but to court ultimate disaster. There could not be a less opportune time to remove the detention provision from the statute book. I do not hear people advocating its being put into operation, and I am aware of the political considerations that would have to be taken into account before such a step was taken. But to remove the detention provision from the statute book at present would offer all the wrong signals to the men of terror.
  There must come a time when the murder of civilians can no longer be ignored, even if it be the murder of alleged, and certainly unproven, drug dealers. The IRA has, in this case, created a class of psychological outlaw. No longer is it the position—it has not been for centuries—that a man may be outlawed, that every man's hand may be turned against him and that he will be beyond the protection of the law, but the IRA is attempting to use what many people instinctively, intuitively and psychologically feel about those who dabble in drugs and to make such people targets who, the average person would say, psychologically at least, should be afforded no protection.
  That is, of course, a fraud and a farce. It is only a pretext on which the IRA can dominate, terrorise and intimidate substantial and significant areas in Belfast, where it can pretend that the RUC and other law enforcement agencies are not welcome. Those are areas in which the IRA can arrogate to itself the power of the state, which it can enforce by utilising the sanction of arms and violence which, in any democratic society, should be used only by the state in accordance with laws approved by its democratic and elected Government.
  There can be no place in any peace process for a separate government of people who allege that they are entitled to bear arms. The whole idea that the IRA should not surrender its arms is political. To surrender even one rusty pistol would be to acknowledge that that pistol is held unlawfully and that the weapons held by the forces of the state are lawfully held by them to enforce such sanctions as the lawful Government may grant.

  81
  The IRA will not willingly, to use its own terms, either by the back door or by the front door, surrender what affords it its only negotiating power. Why can the British Government, in the form of their personnel in the Northern Ireland Office, be seen entertaining these people in discussions? I speak not only about the IRA, but about all the paramilitary figures who have no political mandate, but who have the power of the gun and the bomb. Would they be entertained if they did not have those weapons? The answer is no. With a mandate of 10 per cent., they would be treated—I do not mean this at all disparagingly—in exactly the same way as the Alliance party in Northern Ireland is.
  In fact, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) would agree—I hope that the Minister responsible for security in Northern Ireland will take this into account—the mandate would not even be from 10 per cent. of the population were it not for the massive impersonation, fraud and other unlawful practices that are engaged in by Sinn Fein in every election, and especially in the constituency of Belfast, West. Those people must be made aware that, if they escalate the present level of violence and return to the use of guns and bombs as a method of achieving political returns, there is some ultimate position that the established Government can rely upon to meet that challenge. That may well be the presence on the statute book of a power to detain those who are known to be involved.
  It has been mentioned during the debate that democratic Governments all over the world, from time to time, are faced with extraordinary situations where only unusual and exceptional powers are appropriate to answer a challenge. President Clinton visited us before Christmas and gave many people in Northern Ireland a lot of hope, but I remind the House that two Presidents of the United States of America—President Abraham Lincoln, during the war between the states, and President Roosevelt during the second world war—were forced to take steps that doubtless would have incurred the criticism of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
  President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, executed prisoners without trial and interfered with the United States mail to such an extent that Chief Justice Taney wrote complaining about those measures. However, the late Mr. Justice Robert Jackson, a distinguished member of the American Supreme Court and the representative of the United States Government at the Nuremberg trials, stated that he was by no means certain that democracy would have survived if President Lincoln had accepted Mr. Justice Taney's criticisms.
  More recently, when the United States felt that it was threatened on its western seaboard after the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour, 100,000 nisei, or Japanese, many of whom were American citizens, were interned in 10 camps because it was believed that, in the greater interests of the defence of the United States, it was necessary to protect the state. One could hardly accuse Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt of being fascists, but we have to bring to the debate a sense of reality.
  I do not ask or suggest that the internment provisions should be invoked, but, at a time when the IRA is beginning to escalate its violence to a point where even the Government will have to accept that the ceasefire is at an end. it would be quite wrong to send it the
  82
  message that the ultimate deterrent that it fears is being not only uninvoked but removed from this legislation. I suggest that all hon. Members who believe in the preservation of democracy and accept, in the face of escalating violence, that it is necessary to have some such proposals, should follow the Government through the Lobby this evening.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said about voting according to his conscience. I have spoken consistently and voted conscientiously against such oppressive measures over a considerable period because I honestly believe that such legislation does little, if anything, to defeat terrorism. It might even be counter-productive, by alienating some sections of the community from the forces of law and order. Nothing in recent experience has convinced me to change my mind. Even before the ceasefire, I voted consistently against such emergency provisions and I believe that the case for voting against them is even stronger now that the ceasefire has been, thankfully, in operation for more than 16 months.
  I realise that the explanatory and financial memorandum states that the Bill takes account of the developments since the paramilitary ceasefires, and supporters of the Bill might argue that it is not as bad as its predecessors. Nevertheless, on looking through the Bill, any reasonable hon. Member would have to admit that it contains some draconian measures and does not even incorporate the modest recommendations of Mr. John Rowe QC. Internment without trial is still on the statute book. The Diplock courts remain, and the police and the armed forces will still have draconian powers of search, arrest and detention which should be anathema to any civilised democracy.
  I am amazed to hear that the Liberal Democrats will vote with the Government. I always thought the Liberal Democrats had. at least some respect for civil rights, yet even that seems to have evaporated, judging from what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said.
  I realise that we cannot afford to be complacent about the continuation of the ceasefire. We can see that that is true from recent events, such as the recent convictions in the High Court in Scotland of loyalist paramilitaries involved in attempted arms smuggling to Northern Ireland. The fact that they were successfully caught and convicted had nothing whatsoever to do with the Northern Ireland emergency provisions legislation, because such legislation does not apply to Scotland. The convictions came about because of good detective work, especially by the Central Scotland police force. I pay tribute to them for their hard work.
  Reference has been made by several speakers to the murders in Northern Ireland over the Christmas and new year period. There is widespread concern in Northern Ireland and elsewhere about them. I absolutely deplore such killings. Whatever the victims have done, or are alleged to have done, no person or group of persons has a right to set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner. However, it would be unwise to interpret those tragic deaths as an end to the ceasefire and a justification for abandoning the peace process. Most, if not all, of the

  83
  recent murders would be appear to be drugs-related rather than sectarian or politically motivated. That is not in any way to condone them, but we should not allow ourselves to be swayed from the peace process. I fail to see how the Bill will help to trace and convict those responsible for such heinous crimes.
  Part of the problem in certain communities in Northern Ireland is the lack of trust between the communities and the police. I urge the Government to take seriously the need for police reform, so that the police become truly representative of, and accountable to, the communities that they serve. That would prove far more effective than this legislation in the campaign against crime—whether it be drug trafficking, terrorism, punishment beating or any other criminal activity.
  I urge the Government not to be deflected from the peace process and to pursue the twin-track approach vigorously. I appeal to all parties to support and to co-operate with Senator Mitchell's commission. The Government should set a date for the commencement of meaningful all-party talks. That would be a much more constructive approach than passing more oppressive legislation such as the Bill, which is a gross and unjustifiable infringement of the civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland and could have a negative impact on the peace process.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I approach the situation by judging the Government's attitudes, behaviour and track record. I have said before that I am concerned about the almost complete lack of recognition by Government Front Benchers of the co-operation and bipartisan support of Opposition Front Benchers. Conservative Members may dispute it all they like, but the general election is first and foremost in their minds. I believe that we must watch them like hawks to ensure that they do not use the Northern Ireland issue to their party political advantage.
  I accept that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has a reasonably good record of not using the issue for party political purposes. However, as we approach the general election, he will be subject to the same pressures from his Prime Minister and his party as any other Secretary of State. Our suspicions are reinforced by the way in which the Bill was introduced. Opposition Front Benchers were not able to consider it properly, and there was no consultation. If the Labour party's bipartisan approach to the issue had been appreciated by the Government, there would have been full consultation with the House about the Northern Ireland situation. I am concerned about the Government's real intentions in introducing the legislation.
  The parliamentary arithmetic must also be a factor in the Government's mind—not only this year but as we approach the general election. As soon as potential difficulties arose for the Government with the death of a sitting Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—he has been present in the Chamber for the entire debate but has now left temporarily—issued a vote of confidence in the Government, seemingly without the authorisation of his leader. He assured them that the Ulster Unionist party was right behind them.
  84
  The hon. Gentleman has criticised the tactics of the Labour party, but his leadership quickly recognised his had tactics in giving the Government a blank cheque. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) quickly announced publicly that the Ulster Unionist party would give no blank cheques to the Government and that any support for them would be determined according to the best interests of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
  Many Labour Members suspect that the Government will use the Northern Ireland issue for party political purposes. Opposition Front Benchers have an excellent record of clear-cut support for the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) today reiterated Labour's support for the Government's Northern Ireland initiative, and I believe that that co-operation and support should be valued properly.
  I accept the rationale advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who has consistently expressed reservations about this type of legislation. In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, I believe that we must move forward from our present position. It is a pointless and a futile exercise to consider what may or may not have happened in different circumstances. We should not say, "If such and such had happened at a particular time, we would not be here now." We are in this position, and we must do the best possible job in the current circumstances.
  I accept that events are see-sawing, but Labour Front Benchers are moving positively to make the best of a situation that is not ideal. We will not change things overnight, but we must send signals that we are willing to move away from the present mindset about this type of emergency legislation. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government. No doubt we will make mistakes; we will get things wrong here and there. However, the Labour party is trying to create an atmosphere of change and to maintain the momentum of the peace process. Although I understand the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, I believe that Opposition Front Benchers must move forward from the present position.
  Like my hon. Friend, I am absolutely astonished by the attitude adopted by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who unfortunately is not in the Chamber. His attitude clearly reflected the criticism levelled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He described the make-up of the Committee that considered the original legislation, which he said was a lawyers' delight. The Committee must have been bored to death by all the clauses, subsections and legal jargon in it.
  The Liberal Democrat spokesman demonstrated the capacity of the legal profession—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar referred to them as the "fraternity"—to discuss matters among themselves, assuming that they are better trained and a wee bit more intelligent than the rest of us. They believe that they are better able to deal with such matters and that we are simply nuisances.
  It is generally accepted—I do not agree with it myself—that the Liberal Democrats have a long tradition of support for civil liberties. However, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery supported Diplock

  85
  courts and, in fact, he advocated their extension to the rest of the United Kingdom. He went on to say that the Liberals would support the Government tonight.
  I received a letter from the local branch of the Liberal party in my constituency which I have kept for quite a while. In the letter, the Liberals demand that I take each and every opportunity to vote against the Government to bring them down, as it is the duty of all non-Tory Members of Parliament to bring down the Government. I wrote back to the Liberals asking, "Should we play party politics over Northern Ireland and bring down the Government, even though we think that they are right?" The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has put the opposite view tonight. That proves once again the variable behaviour of the Liberal Party, and I think that it stinks.
  The Liberal Democrats' sister party in Northern Ireland is the Alliance party. I shall be extreme and say that I do not have any time for the Conservative party. However, I accept that it is consistent: it represents its supporters and a particular class interest quite strongly. I do not like it, but I accept it. I think that Conservative Members will agree that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all people everywhere. Therefore, I have absolutely no respect for the Liberal Democrat position tonight.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was quite scathing about the Labour party's position on internment. Internment is not acceptable. It is said that it involves only a small point of principle, that it is in cold storage and that it was never intended to be used. If it has existed for 21 years or longer without ever being used, why should it remain? Its existence sends out all sorts of signals about 1971 which reverberate through the nationalist communities in Northern Ireland.
  The Irish immigrant communities in the United Kingdom use the issue as a stick with which to beat the United Kingdom and its reputation on civil liberties. A line in the nationalist song "The Men Behind the Wire" goes:
  "Cromwell's men are here again".
  That relates directly to the United Kingdom's policy of internment in Northern Ireland, which has caused great problems. The continuation of that policy on the statute book causes more problems than it is worth. It is a stain on our record as a democratic society, and we should get rid of it.
  It is an understatement to say that it is not easy to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. Its affairs must be handled carefully, and we must conduct ourselves responsibly. With this legislation, however, there have been delays and a lack of consultation, which suggests to me that the Government are dancing to the tune of their hardliners, to keep them on side in parliamentary votes. In doing so, they are pandering to all sorts of prejudices and hardline positions. The Government have been doing this for quite a while and are now well on the road to decay, which is less than this country deserves.
  I hope I am not doing my Unionist friends an injustice when I say that it seems to me that where they are is where they are going to stay: there will be no movement of any kind. I am fortunate enough to be on the mailing list of the Ulster Unionist party; some of the papers I am sent show considerable movement by some of the party's members, but that is not reflected by their parliamentary
  86
  representatives. I know that we all have to account for ourselves to our constituents back home, but I do not think sometimes that enough attention is paid to how we arrived at this predicament in the first place.
  I do not want to go down memory lane this evening—this is not the time to do so—but most of us here do know why we are where we are in Northern Ireland. The Unionists perhaps do not recognise sufficiently the fears and doubts of the other section of society in Northern Ireland, The Unionist community is dominant there—I do not use the word maliciously—and is undoubtedly the stronger of the two communities. I repeat, therefore, that there does not seem to be enough willingness on the part of Unionist representatives in this Chamber to move forward.
  I do not live in Northern Ireland; I have never lived in a society where a person can be killed at a moment's notice for his political or religious beliefs or because he happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I fully recognise the pressures that have been brought to bear in Northern Ireland for the past 25 years, but the Unionist community needs to remember that it is not just a question of the past 25 years—it is also important to remember how the problems began and to think about where we are heading in the future.
  I think it daft to authorise only silent video recordings, although the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made one or two worthwhile points about the operational difficulties. I think that silent videos will make Britain once again a laughing stock, just as we were when the spokesmen for the paramilitary organisations were not allowed to speak on television. That just made us look stupid, and we were ridiculed throughout the world. To their credit, the Government eventually got off that hook. Silent videos would be disastrous, and would not help at all.
  Clause 51 is a good example of the Government's clumsiness—some would say deviousness—in sending out the wrong signals. Under current legislation, the appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures is mandatory; as I understand it, however, the Bill will make it discretionary. If there are such good reasons for holding fast to the status quo, why meddle with the appointment of this person? I should like to hear the Government's view.
  In the context of Northern Ireland, we all have a duty to behave responsibly. I fully support the Labour Front-Bench position, which is to support the Government for as long as the Government are clearly acting in the interests both of the people of Northern Ireland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. At the first signs of the Government trying to turn the issue to their party advantage—there are already such signs on the horizon—the trouble will start. There is no uglier sight than that of a Conservative Government clinging to power by their fingernails. History will judge them harshly if they try to use this issue for political ends.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I respect what the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), who share a passionate desire for peace in Northern Ireland, said, but it was the extraordinarily lucid speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), a

  87
  great deal of which I agreed with, which has prompted me to speak briefly in this debate. For all its lucidity and polish, his speech had a distinctively Northern Ireland flavour.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman implied, in passing, that the United Kingdom Government lacked a full commitment to Northern Ireland; at least, he suggested that that commitment was not as great as he would like. Drawing on my experience as the Minister responsible for economic affairs in Northern Ireland for three years, I think it unfair not to give the Government proper respect for the totality of their commitment.
  I offer as an example the fact that the Department of Economic Development, for which I was responsible, had a budget of £500 million a year, compared with the £1.3 billion at the disposal of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the whole of Great Britain. The population of Northern Ireland, small though it may be, thus enjoyed a budget almost one third as much as the one for the rest of the United Kingdom. That enabled us to put in place some dramatic initiatives to win jobs for Northern Ireland and to bring about the prosperity which, with the peace process, has now led to a 5.6 per cent. increase in employment. Property prices and all the other economic indicators are now working their way through very well indeed. All this is a sign of the great commitment of the United Kingdom Government to Northern Ireland.
  Similarly, there has been a firm military commitment to the Province for many years. Anyone who doubts the Government's commitment doubts, in effect, the dedication of the troops who have served so courageously in Northern Ireland over the years. Their courage and determination are unflinching in the face of a great deal of aggression and murder, and they deserve higher tributes than they are sometimes paid.
  Those who urge tougher measures against terrorism in Northern Ireland have my support, in the sense that I understand why they make their demands. Nothing could be more galling than knowing that there are identifiable people in Northern Ireland who have been responsible for atrocities. We have to ensure that the rule of law is applied, and seen to be applied, in Northern Ireland. If I learned one thing during my three years there as a Minister, it was the crucial importance of winning the international war to make people understand the difficulties of the situation in Northern Ireland.
  Anyone who visits the United States will recognise that the depth of ignorance in some parts of that country seems to have been magnified by the length of time that has passed since the forebears of the individuals there left Ireland. Any Government must be able to project their policies internationally, and particularly in the United States. In places such as Boston, it is necessary to win the war of words and promote understanding of the difficulties of government in Northern Ireland. The imposition of draconian measures and the use of detention in Northern Ireland would inevitably lead to a massive backlash in the United States and we would head towards another range of problems.
  The Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, which was much vilified by some people in Northern Ireland, was of massive significance in the United States. The
  88
  consul-general in Boston told me that, before the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he was frequently barracked as he left his residence, and was subjected to much vilification in the United States. The Anglo-Irish Agreement, which showed that the Government of the United Kingdom was working with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, removed from those who wished to cause trouble in the United States one of their strongest weapons—the argument that the British were acting contrary to the interests of the people of Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement has been important in helping to win the publicity battle.
  I share the incredulity of the hon. and learned Member for North Down that it is not possible to take more action against terrorism in Northern Ireland. The first time that I was duty Minister and was asked to sign a certificate to allow the release, on compassionate grounds for a wedding, of a person who had been guilty of terrorist crime, I expressed incredulity that a convicted terrorist should be allowed out of prison to attend a wedding. I was minded not to sign that certificate, and had to be persuaded that it was in line with normal tradition in Northern Ireland and that it would have been counter-productive not to have signed it.
  I understand the impatience of many people in Northern Ireland that more cannot be done to enforce the rules against terrorism; nevertheless, I believe that the Government are committed to the right path. It is, as outlined in the Bill, to take for a reduced period of two years a range of powers which include judicial matters, military activity and various matters relating to the emergency legislation.
  Many people may be impatient with the position in Northern Ireland, but I recall an interesting and perceptive article by Matthew Parris in The Spectator just before Christmas in which he pointed out how wise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in handling the problems in Northern Ireland, and that many people would have said, "I need an answer now. I must resolve this problem now." The problems in Northern Ireland cannot be resolved now. It will take time, patience and diplomatic skill, all of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have to an exceptional degree.
  As part of their armoury in dealing with the difficult circumstances they face, it is appropriate that we should place again on the statute book a range of measures—some of which are available now and some of which are available prospectively—to ensure that, if necessary, the Government can use those powers, although in many cases they will not be required. The Bill is well judged and deserves our support.
  8.23 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I shall speak briefly to pay tribute to a number of activities in the city of Sheffield, where I live. Since the peace declaration last year, a number of groups have done an enormous amount to focus attention on the peace process and the need to ensure that it continues.
  About two years ago, an initial meeting in Sheffield to promote peace in Northern Ireland drew a comparison between Northern Ireland and South Africa. During that discussion, some quite moving speeches convinced me and the 100 other people who attended that emphasis on

  89
  terrorism was not the best way to promote peace in countries and societies with a history of cultural antagonism between different communities. The meeting was controversial, because it was addressed by Sinn Fein councillors. At the time, the Government were not speaking to Sinn Fein, nor were its representatives allowed to be reported in the media.
  Some 18 months later, the people who had organised the meeting held a conference in Sheffield which brought people from all parties and from all the grass roots organisations in Northern Ireland and many organisations in the city together to discuss how to build on the peace process, which by then was six months old. It was noticeable that many people described the useful work that was being done by local communities in Northern Ireland to build joint approaches on education and trade and to work within the European Community.
  Those meetings and that conference made it clear to me that the emphasis on prevention of terrorism legislation and the emergency provisions was not the key to promoting peace in Northern Ireland. That is why I am pleased to say a few words tonight to endorse wholeheartedly the reasoned amendment. If we are to give the peace process the significant boost it needs, we should be prepared to criticise and deplore any acts of violence in Northern Ireland, but we should also make sure that we are on record as saying that the correct way forward to stimulate the peace process is not further to endorse the emergency powers and the assumption that the violence in Northern Ireland is exceptional from a United Kingdom point of view.
  We cannot have it both ways. If we are intent on integrating Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and ensuring that Northern Ireland has the same standards of education and levels of service that we would expect in the rest of the United Kingdom, we must apply the same standards of justice and make the same assumptions about people's rights and liberties there. As long as the emergency powers exist, that cannot be said to be true by Members of the Westminster Parliament.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Jackson: No. I am making a short speech.
  It is important that hon. Members on both sides of the House—I hope that the Opposition's amendment will receive some support from Conservative Members—make it clear that the continuation of emergency powers is not the correct way forward, and that we are not in favour of that approach. The emergency powers go against the normal civil liberties that I expect as a citizen of the United Kingdom, including the right to trial by jury and the right not to be imprisoned without due cause—in other words, internment. Those liberties or rights should belong to every person in the United Kingdom. That is fundamental.
  It is against that background that, since becoming a Member of this place, I have consistently voted against the continuation of prevention of terrorism legislation. I am conscious, of course, that we are talking about the emergency provisions in Northern Ireland, and I shall vote against their continuation.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I am sorry that I was unable to be present for the earlier part of the debate. My
  90
  absence was unavoidable, because I was serving on a Standing Committee. I wish, however, to say a few words in support of the extension of the measures set out in the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), I have always supported their extension.
  I recognise and welcome the changing situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that, in the near future, the House will be able to make major changes to the legislation that bears on the Province.
  The massive improvement in security in Northern Ireland is much to be welcomed, as is the impact that it has had on the mainland as well. Tremendous steps have been taken that even a few years ago would probably have been regarded as impossible in such a short period. Those steps are in everyone's interests. I am optimistic that there will be further dramatic improvements.
  I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those on all sides who have made the dramatic improvement possible. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the lead which he has given. I congratulate him on the caution which he has rightly shown when dealing with Irish affairs. Unfortunately, killings are still being carried out. It is sad that there were more examples over the Christmas period. They are clearly linked in some way with terrorist organisations.
  There is always a need to be cautious when dealing with terrorism because it is, to a great extent, unpredictable. There is always a danger of resurgence.
  There are two particular reasons why I think it right to retain the array of measures that are set out in the Bill. First, it is necessary to maintain full ability to implement such measures in the event of an unfortunate breakdown in security. We would be foolish, even after 16 months, to imagine that such a breakdown is not a possibility. We must be prepared, although we hope for and are talking about a long-term peaceful settlement. That must be so while it is clear that terrorist organisations continue to exist, and retain their weapons and the ability to use them.
  It would be foolish for the House to change the legal framework in which terrorism can be combated until we have seen clear progress in decommissioning.
  We should, however, consider reducing proportionally the strength of the security measures as progress is made. I am aware that that has already happened in the workings of the military in Northern Ireland, where soldiers have come off the streets. Indeed, three major units have been relocated from Northern Ireland. Much greater reliance has been put on the police service operating in the same way as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Military action in support of the RUC has fallen by about three quarters over the relevant period. Practical steps have been taken in the right direction.
  Mr. Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the flaw in the argument of some Opposition Members is that the situation in Northern Ireland, although much improved, is not as good as it is in Sheffield, for example, or in other parts of the United Kingdom? The security forces still have to be in Northern Ireland in case there is a resurgence of long-standing problems. The recent difficulties—for example, shootings that are claimed to be associated with drugs—show that we cannot afford to withdraw all the measures in the hope that, somehow, the peace process will result in a good end.
  Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is not a matter of what the situation in Northern Ireland is

  91
  like now or what it was last week or six months ago. Unfortunately, there is an explosive potential that is not present in Sheffield, I am glad to say, that must be taken into account. We must ensure that mechanisms are available to the security forces and that the law in Northern Ireland matches the situation that exists or as it might exist rather than as it exists in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  The second way in which recognition is given to the changes in Northern Ireland is in the reduction of the period covered by the Bill to two years. There is ample evidence that that is the right course. There is evidence also that my hon. Friend the Minister would like a further relaxation of the legislative framework if it is matched by action from the terrorist organisations that still exist. My hon. Friend said:
  "As soon as the security situation permits the Government intends to ask Parliament to suspend individual provisions in the current Act or introduce them in a lapsed form on enactment of the Bill."
  The guarantee is there. It is merely a question of timing.
  It is right that the current legislation should be retained for the time being because it is entirely appropriate to wait for the results of the overall review of methods of combating terrorism. Once the legislation that relates to the battle against terrorism has been fully reviewed and set in a modern context, given the changing events in Northern Ireland, that will be the right moment for a proper and long-term settlement, which will bear on all the legislation that deals with terrorism.
  The House should continue to support the current Act and look to the future. It is to be hoped that the future will be much rosier and that it will be possible to make changes without risking the lives of innocent people in Northern Ireland and of those who have laboured for so long to protect them.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friends and to Conservative Members for leaving sufficient time for my winding-up speech.
  I shall deal first with a point that has arisen on a number of occasions during the debate. It concerns the bipartisan approach, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) reiterated, we would pursue. During the debate, I wrote down some synonyms for the word "bipartisan", and I came up with "mutual", "joint", "collaborative", "integrated". I did not come up with "We decide, and you follow." I did not come up with what occurred on the last day before Christmas, when we had to table an amendment or response to a Bill that we had not seen. It was not published until the last day before the House shut down for Christmas. Whether we tabled an amendment depended on whether hon. Members managed to prolong a debate on the Humber bridge. We got this Bill only when there was a severe danger that the business of the House was about to collapse.
  "Bipartisan" does not mean that. It does not mean that we have a Bill right at the end of the Session, where the Government, using the traditional tactics, smuggle something out, making no comment on it. Although we are committed to a bipartisan approach—it is far too
  92
  serious a business for anything else—we have to ask the Government, please, to respect the wishes of the Opposition and at least allow us to see the proposed legislation before the closing date for tabling an amendment. That is a very important point to make.
  We would have welcomed the chance to sit down with the Government, to put points about the proposed legislation, not just in early June. We would have liked to continue that process and to ask what is in it that can meet our traditional objectives and the general objective that there should be in anti-terrorist legislation. The objections about the way in which the Bill was introduced have come not just from Opposition Members but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Government's own advisers. The Standing Advisory Committee on Human Relations has also objected to the fact that, although promises were given that it would be consulted on such legislation, it was not.
  Much of the debate has featured the appalling killings and beatings, as paramilitary organisations enact their own brutality in their own areas. From the Labour party's viewpoint, let us make no mistake that that is terrorism of the most stark and literal kind. It is rule by terror. It is just as serious if it is rule by terror of nationalist areas as it would be if it was the terrorising of one's opponents. There has been no more unconvincing a sight—many hon. Members have referred to this—on our screens through December and the early part of January than Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin of Sinn Fein failing to condemn the killings and beatings. He was the only person on the box who was less credible than Mystic Meg. He knows that he cannot criticise Sinn Fein without losing his position as front man of that organisation.
  The Government know, as do we, that the killings and beatings could be stopped if Sinn Fein and the IRA wanted it. The most clear-cut sign of that was during President Clinton's visit. Let us look at the figures that were given to me in a parliamentary answer by the Minister, who is present tonight. Between June and December, there were 126 punishment beatings. Between 22 November and 4 December—the fortnight around President Clinton's visit—no such attacks were carried out—none at all. The cynicism of that is chilling, but, unfortunately, when CBS's cameras were switched away, the killings and beatings were switched on again.
  I do not know whether Sinn Fein and the IRA realise—or whether they care—the extent to which their own democratic credibility is being destroyed by those actions. Confronted by that situation, the choice we all have to make is whether not to move until that appalling behaviour stops or to grasp the opportunity to show the way forward and away from inappropriate so-called "emergency" legislation.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House—people of good will—made passionate speeches tonight and reached different conclusions. The Labour party believes that this is the time to demonstrate our own democratic credentials to the full.
  It was interesting that very few hon. Members looking at the matter from the other viewpoint demonstrated how the proposed legislation was helpful at this time, in this situation. In fact, I cannot remember anyone doing that. They did not pray in aid the proposed legislation for dealing with the problem that is occurring at the moment.

  93
  It is worth pointing out that the Government's decision to extend the emergency provisions Act by two years gives the EPA the chance to mark its silver jubilee in 1998. Very few non-emergency laws last for 25 years, as this one will if it gets its Second Reading.
  Mr. Devlin: Is it not a sad fact that the current court system in Northern Ireland, the so-called Diplock courts, will have to remain, because, in the current climate, with the terrorist beatings, murders and so on, it will not be possible to conduct trials on the same basis as in, say, Stockton-on-Tees, Sheffield or anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Worthington: It is not an either/or situation. The Secretary of State might make a judgment that certain offences need to remain under Diplock courts. A way forward would be to demonstrate, either by using the certifying-in procedure or some other mechanism, that we are gradually moving away from the Diplock courts. One of the things that we would have liked to discuss with the Government was the way in which one can move away from the Diplock courts. The Labour party recognises that there has to be anti-terrorist legislation.
  One of the striking things about the debate was that it was portrayed by people of intelligence that by voting against the measure, the Labour party was against anti-terrorist legislation. That is not true. Simply because one votes against a particular Government health measure does not mean that one is anti-health. Simply because one votes against a particular Government education measure does not mean that one is anti-education. One is being asked to judge whether this is the right form of anti-terrorist legislation, and I hope to demonstrate tonight that we, like the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionists, do not believe it is.
  We also recognise, as does international opinion about emergency laws, that one should not keep laws in existence where there is only the threat of emergency rather than reality. That is what international bodies are now criticising Britain for. It is not enough to say that we should keep the legislation because the threat of an emergency exists; we must demonstrate that there is currently a need for the powers that it contains. Labour recognises that, if it were in office, it would need anti-terrorist powers. We have approached the matter as if we were the Government—as we may be before the legislation reaches the statute book. We are not talking theoretically; we are criticising not simply for the sake of it, but with a sense of total responsibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar spelled out what is wrong with the measure and with the Government's approach to it. Soon after the start of the ceasefires, we said that the emergency legislation needed to be reviewed—if for no other reason than because parts of the legislation, particularly those providing for internment, could be used as a recruiting sergeant for the paramilitaries. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron).
  The establishment of a review is clear evidence to the world—to this Parliament, to all in Northern Ireland, to the United Nations, to the European Court of Human Rights, to President Clinton and Senator Mitchell—that the British Government have done all the homework necessary to push the peace process on. Indeed, that is
  94
  clear to all, both north and south of the border. It is important for the Government to show that they are at the forefront in promoting fair democratic values and human rights.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has used the throwaway phrase "recruiting sergeant for terrorism". That is not necessarily true just because someone says it. It would be much more helpful if the hon. Gentleman would consider the many ways in which the Government and parties such as mine have tried to encourage Sinn Fein-IRA to eschew violence and to move into the democratic mood. That has been kicked in our faces again and again. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that appearing to be soft in legislation to deal with terrorism will bring him some reward?
  Mr. Worthington: It is not a question of being soft; it is a question whether anti-terrorism legislation is effective. Governments have been saying for 20 years that internment is not effective anti-terrorism legislation because they dare not introduce it—and they dare not introduce it because they know just how ineffective it was when it was introduced before. That ineffectiveness has made the present Government unwilling to introduce internment again. We must send the message that we anticipate no circumstances in which we would introduce internment. What is the point of having legislation that one feels cannot be used, but which will still send a message to those who are marginal—who may he deciding whether to join paramilitary organisations, and making up their minds about what sort of Government the British Government are?
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Worthington: May I make a little more progress? We are a little short of time. In Northern Ireland terms, an hour is a mere second. I shall certainly give way later.
  What do we have? In June, it was announced that a review was to take place. We would normally expect the announcement of a review to be accompanied by the announcement of its remit and the name of the person conducting the review; however, month after month passed with no such announcement and no start of the review. At the end of October, there was an updating of the codes of practice for the EPA, containing the sentence
  "It is unlikely that the Reviewer will report much before the summer of 1996."
  Today, at last, we have the announcement of the review committee's membership. We must be critical of the Government for the delay. It is not as if the person who has been chosen—we wish Lord Lloyd well—were inaccessible. After months of trawling the world to find a reviewer, the Government have come up with a lawyer who was born in the same year as the Secretary of State, was called to the Bar in the same year as the Secretary of State and lives 20 miles down the road from the Secretary of State. I admit that one went to Eton and Cambridge and the other to Tonbridge and Oxford, but, after a seven-month delay, the Government have not come up with an unknown figure.
  In a press release, the Minister of State said that the reviewer would consider the EPA and the PTA, their working at the present time and their possible amalgamation and incorporation in United Kingdom law

  95
  by the summer of 1996. The Secretary of State is asking us to believe that Lord Lloyd and Mr. Justice Kerr can do that in far less time than it has taken him to choose someone to head the review committee. He is living in fairyland, and the Government know that. I hope that the Minister will give us a realistic date by which Lord Lloyd will have to report.
  We are not alone in saying that the Secretary of State is being too dilatory. The hon. Member for Upper Bann said it in June, before he was translated to his present eminence as leader of his party. What he said then was very different from what was said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) today—that there should be "no tinkering or tampering" with the EPA. The hon. Member for Upper Bann said:
  "Anti-terrorist legislation cannot be allowed to disappear altogether."
  A single Act was needed to replace the present legislation, which, in the hon. Gentleman's view,
  "should be on the statute book by March 1996 or August 1996 at the latest."
  He called for a single and flexible Act for the United Kingdom. The Labour party would go along with that.
  Mr. Trimble: I and my colleagues are intrigued by the conflict that the hon. Gentleman pretends to find between my hon. Friend and me. If he casts his mind back, the hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that the Bill purports to be, and is by and large, simply a re-enactment of the emergency provisions Act. My hon. Friend's critical comments were directed towards the Opposition Front Bench and were that there should be no tinkering with that Act, which merely continues on the statute book until the review is completed, at which time the legislation can be replaced by the single United Kingdom-wide Act that we have called for.
  It is perfectly correct to say that, last June, I said that that could be done by 1996, so that we would not have had to extend the emergency provisions Act. It would be fine if we could go back to June and replay events, but we have to deal with the situation as it is. We cannot allow the emergency provisions Act to lapse, as the hon. Gentleman would like, thus leaving the people of Northern Ireland without protection, as he would want.
  Mr. Worthington: I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's first point. In June, he was highly critical of the Government's behaviour over the emergency powers, and said that the Government were too dilatory. I do not know what word one would use in January about not having made further progress, but in June the hon. Gentleman said:
  "I do not see any difficulty in proceeding to put together a consolidated Act which could be used to cover the continuing situation…as well as international terrorism."
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Act
  "should be on the statute book by March 1996 or August 1996 at the latest…If the Secretary of State proceeds in the slow manner that he has indicated, the Government will end up looking foolish and we do not want that to happen on this issue."—[Official Report, 12 June 1995; Vol. 261. c. 530–31.]
  Do the Government now look foolish?
  Mr. Trimble: The only person who appears to be looking foolish at the moment is the hon. Gentleman,
  96
  because he is taking something completely out of context and putting it in quite a different way. Of course, if the review had been put in place last June, as I urged the Government to do, we would not now have to renew the emergency provisions Act, but we have to renew that Act, and in that context it is absolutely foolish to vote against a measure that is clearly needed.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to make something out of the fact that occasionally on this legislation I have disagreed with the Government, he can go back through earlier debates on the issue and look at Committee reports on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1991 and subsequent criminal justice Acts. If he does that, he will find many occasions on which I moved amendments to try to persuade the Government to alter the legislation on much more substantial issues than that on which the Opposition are manufacturing a Division tonight.
  Mr. Worthington: In no way will we leave the people of Northern Ireland without anti-terrorist legislation. That was clearly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. We all agree that the danger to peace comes from the terrorists, but we have to do all we can to assist the peace process by showing our willingness to tackle contentious issues such as emergency legislation. We cannot continue with the status quo: we must show that we are fully considering those matters.
  We could send constructive messages to the world, to everybody who is watching this process, by dropping the parts of the legislation that we do not wish to use. The Secretary of State made much of his willingness to use the old section 61 to drop or to suspend particular parts of the legislation. We thought, judging by the press release that was issued by the Minister of State on 20 December, that there would be more in the Bill, because the press release states:
  "As soon as the security situation permits the Government intends to ask Parliament to suspend individual provisions in the current Act or to introduce them in a lapsed form on enactment of the Bill."
  It would be interesting if, in his winding-up speech, the Minister of State could help us by outlining marginal areas where it is contemplated that some of the Bill's provisions could be dropped. Are we to go into Committee where there is no attempt at a meeting of minds or to be bipartisan, or are there areas where the Government can be persuaded to make changes?
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) have told us that a Labour Government would introduce emergency provisions legislation. Will he now send a clear message, to use his phrase, to the House by telling us what would be in that Labour legislation to protect Northern Ireland's people from terrorism? What would be that legislation's positive elements? We have not heard that yet tonight.
  Mr. Worthington: We have backed the Government totally on their intention of having a review that, for the first time, considers the amalgamation of the EPA and the prevention of terrorism Act in a United Kingdom context, as is the intention. What we find difficult to take is why, in a situation as sensitive as this, the Government are dragging their feet on the easy bit of the anti-terrorist procedure—setting up the right machinery.
  We are disappointed that the Secretary of State has been unable to be more positive in this legislation. Why could he not come, for instance, with a commitment from

  97
  the Chief Constable that, in all possible circumstances, he would use the powers and procedures under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rather than under the emergency powers? I asked for that in June—a simple commitment and statement by the Chief Constable that, where possible, one will use the normal law rather than the emergency powers. Such a simple statement would be easy to give if the intention were there.
  The Government stated today that they were now willing to use silent video recordings in holding centres. We had been hoping that both audio and video recordings would be used in such centres. I find it hard to understand the Secretary of State's difficulty on this matter. We know that the Chief Constable has had reservations about it in terms of intimidation of witnesses or of the police if tapes found their way into the wrong hands, but, as the Secretary of State will know, his own commissioner on the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, has found ways of combating that and of safeguarding the tapes—that is what the procedure would involve. It would be interesting to Labour Members if the Minister of State could say why he has rejected Louis Blom-Cooper's recommendations and has gone for the recommendation of silent video recordings—that sounds strange.
  The Rowe report—no one reading Rowe could feel that he was in the presence of a wild radical—said that there should be audio taping of interviews at holding centres, and that it should start as soon as possible. His 1995 report says:
  "I have examined this topic before. I do not rehearse all the points."
  He goes on to say:
  "Several judges within the last year in Northern Ireland have mentioned in open Court the advantage of audio taping of interviews, in particular with reference to the time saved in trying cases. Quite apart from the saving of time, the taping of an interview would protect both the suspect and interviewing officer."
  It is therefore the judgment not of the Labour party, but of Rowe and of many judges in Northern Ireland, that audio taping would not hinder the process of justice in Northern Ireland. It would facilitate that process. They ask for the facilitating of justice and for audio and video reports. We want to know from the Minister of State why that advice from the judiciary and from Rowe is not being accepted.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Has the hon. Gentleman had any opportunity, as I have, to talk to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who conduct these interviews? If so, police officers will have told him clearly that, if the interviews are recorded in any way, a prisoner is much less likely to tell the police anything at all for fear of blackmail. Is it important to try to impose an English-style system which works fine in England, but which in Northern Ireland—where there is intimidation, blackmail and comeback—would silence the very person from whom the police must obtain information? The hon. Gentleman must accept that there are different circumstances in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Worthington: I must ask the hon. Lady—at the risk of being given another speech—whether she is speaking against the Government's recommendation on video recordings. A look of panic came over the hon. Lady's face when she realised that she was speaking against the Government's recommendation. We are to have a video—according to the hon. Lady that is all right—but the audio recording will not exist.
  98
  A serious question was being asked about the police. My impression of what the police are saying—I feel that I have been speaking to the police in Northern Ireland recently more often than the hon. Lady—is that many of them have experienced recording in normal criminal cases, regard it as a tool and aid, and would welcome it being extended to scheduled offences and the holding centres. We know that the Chief Constable is against that, but I do not make the mistake of saying that, because the Chief Constable has said that, all the police say that.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman must not try to mislead the House by suggesting that there is a clamour among rank and file police to have either video or audio recordings in the holding centres. The police who work there and who strive to gain information that will not just convict the person being questioned but help to undermine the structure of terrorism, are totally dependent on the information that they can receive from those whom they are questioning. Audio and video recordings will impede that work.
  Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman says that I must not pretend that the rank and file police are clamouring for the measure. I did not do that.
  In June, the Secretary of State said of holding centres:
  "Assuming that the continued absence of violence will allow the downward trend to continue there will, I hope, come a time when the need to use the more rigorous regime afforded by the holding centres will disappear entirely…That must be our aim, although we are not there yet."
  I believe that the Secretary of State said that there had continued to be a downward trend.
  When I saw the legislation and realised that it contained no reference to holding centres, I wondered whether the Secretary of State would today announce that those centres would disappear and we would turn to the ordinary Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, but he did not. He told us that there would be silent video recordings. The Secretary of State said that, even if he cannot discard the holding centres, the Government will propose introducing an electronic recording scheme. I assume that silent video recording constitutes an electronic recording scheme.
  The Secretary of State continued:
  "That will be in the Bill that will be required next Session to replace the present Act. Such a scheme will require statutory provision, because it remains important for arrangements to be in place to prevent tapes from being disclosed by those who might have sinister motives."—[Official Report, 12 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 507.]
  May I assume from that statement that in Committee the Minister will table an amendment respecting the Secretary of State's statement that the introduction of electronic recording requires an addition to the Act?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew indicated dissent.
  Mr. Worthington: The Secretary of State is shaking his head, so I fear the worst.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is making a substantial meal of the matter. I am glad to deal with the question of what I said on 12 June. I said, as he rightly reported, that we would propose to introduce a measure of electronic recording. I did not specify what form that electronic recording would take. It was uncertain at that stage what would be practicable and what the advice

  99
  would be. Had it been in the form of audio recording, it would have been necessary to have statutory safeguards. That was why there would have had to be provision in the Bill.
  For the reasons that I have given, the advice to me is consistent only with it being prudent to introduce a measure of electronic recording in the form of silent video recording. There is no need for statutory safeguard in respect of that, for reasons that will be apparent. That is why there is no reference to it in the Bill, and there will be no application made and no amendment moved in Committee.
  Mr. Worthington: The words before me are clear. The Secretary of State said that the introduction of an electronic recording scheme would require statutory alterations. We will have to take consultation on that. It is interesting that the promise made by the Secretary of State in June of an electronic recording scheme was his second position. He said that that would require an alteration to the Act, yet that is now not going to occur. Silent video recording will be introduced without guidelines or alterations to the Act. Or am I wrong?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: There will be a code of practice.
  Mr. Worthington: I hear what the Secretary of State says from a sedentary position.
  In his winding-up speech, will the Minister of State further confirm that it is his firm intention one day to get rid of Diplock courts and to bring back trials by jury in similar circumstances to those existing in Great Britain? Parts of the Act, such as the provision to hold Diplock courts in other parts of Northern Ireland than in Belfast, could be interpreted as a form of entrenchment of Diplock courts in the judicial system. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the clearest of commitments on that policy because I hear talk in some parts of the House of how well the Diplock courts have functioned, which implies—perhaps—some weakening of that firm intention.
  Lady Olga Maitland: On that point.
  Mr. Worthington: I am now running out of time—[Interruption.]
  Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, since the point about the ending of Diplock courts is important. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if trials by jury were brought in before the whole peace process was totally satisfactorily resolved, there would be a danger that juries would not dare to convict for fear of intimidation? Surely the hon. Gentleman is putting the cart before the horse?
  Mr. Worthington: I welcome the hon. Lady to the debate somewhat late in the day. She has now spoken for longer than some hon. Members who have been present for the whole debate. We have said repeatedly that there is no way in which the Diplock courts can be abandoned overnight. They have to be phased out. We have suggested that they should be phased out in such a way that they should disappear last in those areas where threats of intimidation or risks to justice are most severe. That is clear.
  100
  Why have the Government kept internment in the Bill? It has not been used since 1975. It is the principal source of irritation between the United Kingdom and the international community. The Government's reviewers comprehensively have come out against it. It was rejected by Lord Gardiner in 1975. It was rejected by Sir George Baker in 1984. It was rejected by Lord Colville in 1990, who said:
  "As things stand now,"—
  this was at a much more grave time in Northern Ireland—
  "I can only endorse with vigour Sir George Baker's recommendation: no detention."
  It was rejected by John Rowe in 1995. It was rejected by the Government's advisory body on human rights. The view of John Rowe in 1994 in the fundamental review was that internment should not be re-enacted in any new EPA. One has to remember that he wrote that in a pre-ceasefire context. Still the Government keep internment in the Bill.
  Internment is a difficult issue. It is a confession of failure by a democratic state dedicated to the rule of law. It is a statement that the rule of law does not work. We have had internment on our statutes for 25 years. We cannot keep it there just in case the situation worsens. We do not understand why the Government cannot see how important it is to occupy the high ground by being associated only with laws that follow the soundest principles of international law and the protection of human rights.
  The Government had an opportunity in the Bill to say that they meant to entrench and deepen the peace by moving to laws that were not emergency laws but laws of peace, of which one could be proud. The Government have failed to take that opportunity. That is why we have tabled a reasoned amendment. That is why we shall go into Committee armed with amendments to persuade the Government that, after 25 years, they should grasp the opportunities that the peace offers. That is why we shall be voting against the Bill.
  9.22 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The House has considered the Government's Bill at length and in detail since early afternoon. It is right that the House should have had that amount of time to consider such an important measure in detail. I am grateful to the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in the debate. I am especially grateful to those who intend to support the Government in the Division Lobby later tonight.
  I also listened with great care to those who have a contrary view. In matters of this kind, it behoves any Government to listen with great care to points of concern about the issues that we have considered today, especially as they relate to the criminal justice system and the concept of liberty. I shall respond to as many points as possible in the time available. First, I shall take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). [Interruption.] I am obliged to the Scottish representatives for their correction of my pronunciation of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I suspect that I shall have the pleasure of referring to the hon. Gentleman and his constituency quite frequently during the Standing Committee which we shall commence shortly.

  101
  The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by criticising the Government for publishing the Bill on the last day before the Christmas recess. I regret any inconvenience that that caused the hon. Gentleman and Opposition spokesmen, and it was not the Government's intention to embarrass him or his colleagues or to cause them inconvenience. But the fact is that the process of preparing this Bill was lengthy, and there were many detailed issues which had to be considered right up to the last moment. As a matter of fact, the day concerned was a sitting day of this House, and it was perfectly proper to employ that day for the business of Her Majesty's Government. Having said that, I regret the inconvenience that was caused to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman made the serious point that so-called punishment attacks stopped in Northern Ireland when the President of the United States paid his visit. That was a cynical piece of behaviour on the part of Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein. The fact is that Mr. Adams and the leadership of that structure are able to stop the violence when it suits their purpose, and the hon. Gentleman was right to make that point as strongly as he did.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that emergency legislation of one kind or another will have been on the statute book for some 25 years by the time the review is over. Who in this House would not regret that? But the problem is that it is not this House that is the cause of that emergency legislation, but those who seek to kill, to intimidate, to maim and to attack others in pursuit of their criminal endeavours. Those people are the reason why this House has to consider exceptional measures to deal with exceptional circumstances.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend taken evidence or had an opportunity to meet Families Against Intimidation and Terror, an organisation of which I have the honour to be one of the patrons? If he had done so, he would have heard first-hand accounts of the brutality and intimidation carried out—often against young teenagers—by Sinn Fein-IRA. Young people are having their legs smashed up, and they are taken to the Royal Victoria hospital. Surgeons have told me that it is only by the grace of God that somebody has not yet died as a result of these punishment beatings. It is absolutely essential that we are well aware of the seriousness of what is going on. We cannot take the matter for granted or be complacent.
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My only regret is that her attendance in Committee prevented her from being in the House this afternoon to make the kind of contribution that she has just made. She is absolutely right to refer—as others have done during the debate—to the work of FAIT and others who support those who have been intimidated and exiled from Northern Ireland as a part of the terrorist campaign against those of whom the terrorists disapprove. My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that, and that is why we are obliged to consider the Bill today.
  I shall continue my comments on comments of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. The House will have been somewhat puzzled by his approach. He says that he does not believe that the Bill is in the right form. The Bill is in the form that it is to deal with the circumstances that have prevailed for the past quarter of a century.
  102
  The hon. Gentleman says that he recognises the need for special legislation—although not, apparently, the Bill. However, if he was considering afresh, with a blank sheet of paper, what he would want to have to deal with the situation, he would do as the Government have done during the past few decades. He would consult the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and many others in the judiciary and elsewhere. He would inquire about what the provisions should be to meet the character of the threat that the people of Northern Ireland have faced so bravely and courageously for so many years. He would be driven to the conclusion that the measures that the House is being invited to support tonight are the measures that he would be obliged to set down in a legislative framework.
  I am therefore puzzled that the hon. Gentleman should come to the view that he should urge on his hon. Friends the need to vote against the Government's proposals this evening. I regret that, but I accept that he is as firm in his opposition to terrorism as any other hon. Member. I am especially grateful to him for the clarity of his statement in that regard.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we would not leave the people of Northern Ireland without the protection of the right kind of legislation. Why, then, does he intend to vote against the Bill tonight? If his view prevailed, the people of Northern Ireland would indeed be left without the appropriate protection.
  The hon. Gentleman posed a number of questions, and I shall seek to deal with them before I turn to other points raised in the debate. He asked about the date for the completion of the independent review. We very much hope that Lord Lloyd and his judicial assistant from Northern Ireland will be able to report as soon as possible. I emphasise the words "as soon as possible", but given the nature of the review and the fact that it will cover the concerns of not only Northern Ireland but Great Britain, it will take time.
  What is important is that the reviewer should be able to present for proper scrutiny to the House and to the wider public a considered and full document which covers all the issues. He should not feel that he is under any time pressure to deliver a report, but rather that he can be thorough in his consideration of it. It may well be that, if Lord Lloyd requires the time, it will not be until the autumn of this year that he can produce his report for the House's examination.
  The hon. Gentleman asked which provisions could be lapsed and when. It is difficult for the Government to speculate about which provisions may be candidates for early lapsing. Those decisions must, of necessity, be taken on the advice that the Government receive from the Chief Constable, who is the principal security adviser to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. If one has such a person in office, it behoves one to listen to the advice given. The Government will depend on that advice and on the analysis that the Chief Constable is able to give on the improvement in the security situation. I cannot, therefore, second-guess what that advice will be and I cannot say which provisions in the Act will be able to be lapsed. I am sure that the House will understand the reason for that.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and others asked why we could not return to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provisions. I, for one, would like

  103
  to do that, and I am sure that the House would like to, but one of the features of the debate this afternoon has been the reminder to the House of the state of the security situation in Northern Ireland. It must be obvious, therefore, that, until the security situation substantially improves, it will not be possible to employ the PACE procedures in the police offices of Northern Ireland. I very much hope that the day will come when that will be possible.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie also referred to the Diplock courts. They have, rightly, been praised for the quality of justice from the judiciary of Northern Ireland and the impression that the hon. Gentleman may have formed that those courts would therefore be a permanent feature are, I am glad to assure him, mistaken. I would welcome the ending of the Diplock court procedure, and one day it will go. It will go when people are able to be members of a jury or witnesses without fear or intimidation. Unhappily, that day has not yet arrived in Northern Ireland.
  I turn now to other contributions to the debate. I would like to start with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I particularly thank them for their contributions, especially in regard to the services of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, which without doubt has given remarkable service during the past 25 years. It has never been intimidated and has always done its duty to the criminal justice system fairly and objectively. Its judgments have stood the test of vigorous examination in many places, which is a great tribute to it.
  I am particularly glad that the hon. Lady and the hon. and learned Gentleman should single it out for especial praise for its work. I would add that the services of the resident magistrates have been equally commendable and they, too, deserve the thanks of the House for their work towards the upholding of an effective criminal justice system.
  The hon. Member for Redcar was right to make her commitment to the rule of law. The House is united in the principle of the rule of law. That has been a theme of many hon. Members in the debate tonight. The hon. Lady also gave much credit to the Royal Ulster Constabulary for its achievements. During the past 25 years, 300 members of the RUC have been killed and more than 7,000 injured in the course of their duties. The RUC, too, is a major contributor to what is called the peace process. Its steadfastness down through the years has contributed to the process that we are engaged upon, and I am particularly glad to accept the hon. Lady's tribute to them and her comments.
  I am responsible for drugs policy in Northern Ireland, and I also welcome her remarks about that. The RUC has strengthened its unit, and the Government in Northern Ireland have brought together all the departments in Northern Ireland, including education, to mount a co-ordinated campaign using the criminal justice system, information and the school room in every way to try to reduce the incidence of drug abuse in Northern Ireland.
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked about the authorised investigator powers. I particularly want to deal with the hon. Gentleman's question, because it is an important one. He
  104
  inquired about the continuing availability of the authorised investigator and his powers. I can assure him and the House that the powers currently in section 57 and schedule 5 of the EPA to deal with racketeering will continue to be available by means of article 49 and schedule 2 of the proceeds of crime legislation which was laid before the House on 11 December last year.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for giving way on that very important point. Can he assure me that the provisions that he mentioned in the proceeds of crime legislation are exactly the same as the provisions that they are replacing in the emergency provisions legislation? Can he assure me that they are exactly the same, as my cursory reading of the legislation suggests that there are significant differences?
  If the provisions were continued in the emergency provisions legislation, we would have the opportunity to debate and amend them in Committee. We will not have that opportunity with regard to the proceeds of crime legislation. The Minister may not be in a position to give me a detailed answer now, but I ask him to examine the matter. If there are differences, will he give us the opportunity to ensure that the proceeds of crime legislation is brought into line with the provisions that existed in the emergency provisions Act?
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. I can give him the assurance that he seeks: the proceeds of crime legislation, which is currently before the House, will replicate the measures that have hitherto been part of the law. The Government have no intention of diminishing the ability or the role of the authorised investigator. If there should be any doubt about that, the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to pursue the matter with me on a separate occasion, when I shall endeavour to assist him as much as possible.
  I shall now try to pick up some of the many important points that were raised during the debate. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who spoke so authoritatively and powerfully early in the debate. He made the cogent point that the threat to civil liberty comes from the terrorists. It does not come from the Bill or from the House of Commons; it comes from those who perpetuate evil in Northern Ireland against the people of Northern Ireland. I think that he made a very persuasive point.
  He said that the terrorists keep open the possibility of a return to violence. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening remarks, that, unhappily, remains the case. As long as they persist in retaining the enormous arsenal of weapons and as long as they structure and organise themselves in a state of readiness to return to full-scale violence, the legislation is essential.
  My hon. Friend welcomed the review that the right hon. Lord Lloyd is about to undertake, and I am grateful for his support in that regard. He made a good point about the question of internment when he said that a special vote in the House would mean that the birds would fly before we could bring the measure into use. He is quite right. If we needed to use the internment power, it would have to be used with great immediacy; otherwise, there would be no point in using it at all. He also made the

  105
  point that audio recording would deter co-operation but that silent recording is acceptable as a safeguard. Others made the same point.
  Mr. Canavan: When I pressed the Secretary of State earlier, he failed to give any justification for the strange decision to reject the recommendation of John Rowe QC that audio taping at holding centres be allowed. The Secretary of State hinted that I would be given a detailed explanation during the wind-up speech. May I have it now, please?
  Sir John Wheeler: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. The Government receive advice from a great many quarters—from this honourable House, for instance, from Mr. Rowe, whose services are exemplary, and from others. But my right hon. and learned Friend must also take into account the advice he receives from his principal security adviser, the Chief Constable of the RUC, who has a duty to explain the problems of dealing with terrorist suspects. They are formidable people to deal with, as the House should know.
  My right hon. and learned Friend therefore has to weigh the advice from all quarters when coming to a decision on how to implement objective and desirable procedures, in the light of the prevailing security situation. That is how the Government have approached the issue. The hon. Gentleman may not like the decision, but the plain fact is that such decisions have to be made in the round, taking all the circumstances into account—not just some of them which may be partial to one point of view.
  Mr. Canavan: What did the Chief Constable offer by way of justification for the strange decision to allow video but not audio taping?
  Sir John Wheeler: Others today have already made a case for the procedure by explaining the nature and extent of intimidation. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) did so most effectively. Many in the House have endorsed the Government's position by reference to the degree of intimidation and to the need to conduct proper interviews while safeguarding those in the interview room. If it is thought that they have offended others outside the interview room, their very lives, and possibly the lives of their families, are at risk. I therefore suggest that we have a duty to recognise those facts, whether we like them or not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), in a helpful speech, talked about the need to retain the detention power. He said that it might be seen as a measure taken against the nationalist community. Not so—this century, the Republic has seen fit to retain in its Offences Against the State Act 1939 provision for special criminal courts without juries, which are now used for other serious cases as well as for terrorist cases. That Act also contains provision for internment.
  I cannot speak for the Government of the Republic, but I can speak for the Government of the United Kingdom, and I can infer that neither Government would wish to use the measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and others have made clear, however, if the House were to remove the provision altogether, it would send a message to the terrorist gangs that would not be helpful, given the current terrorist activity in Northern Ireland.
  My hon. Friend rightly asked why Mr. Adams and those who speak for PIRA-Sinn Fein on the television and the wireless do not condemn those murders and attacks.
  106
  One of the most important developments would be to hear Sinn Fein, that claims to be totally committed to the democratic principle, condemn those evil acts and crimes. If that were to happen, there might be progress.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who is both courageous and determined in his support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, gave the House the chilling facts about the huge arsenal that the Provisional IRA, and to a lesser extent the loyalist terror gangs, still possess. If the Provisional IRA believes in peace, why does it need to retain 2.5 tonnes of Semtex? For what purpose does it require that arsenal of attack weapons?
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of the disarmament commission, and asked whether the time of the report could be considered in the light of the need for the commission to take further evidence. The Government fully accept that the deadline set for the commission is very tight. If that body believes that it will need more time to complete its task, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would be happy to consider any request that it may make. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words will carry to the ears of the commission which will have opportunity to review its work and decide whether it wishes to take more time.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the need to maintain its morale after so many years of loyal service. I appreciated what he said, and I assure him that, in looking at the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—its size, its function and its organisation—the Government will be guided by the concept of evolution and not by radical and sudden change. We owe it to the men and women of the RUC to ensure that they are kept informed of all proposed changes and that their views are considered and taken into account.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to caution the House about the possible dangers of silent recording in police stations. Others have said that we should go further. The hon. Gentleman, however, reminded Members of the disadvantages that might arise from the extension of those procedures.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), who made a helpful contribution to the debate, and to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for the support of his party in the Lobby in a few minutes' time. He was right to endorse the multi-partisan approach to Northern Ireland that has been one of the guiding spirits of the debate tonight. He was also right to point out that Provisional Sinn Fein has not yet renounced violence and to draw attention to the injustice of the PIRA murders and expulsions. The European Court of Human Rights does not apply to people who have to flee their homes. There is no right of appeal for them. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right to bring that point to the notice of the House.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to measures to reduce security. I can assure him and others that all the measures—which have been substantial in the past 16 months—are reversible. They have all been undertaken on the advice of the Chief Constable and the security forces on the basis of what is acceptable in the present circumstances. Such measures can be restored, some extremely rapidly. It is important that the House should know that, should there be an unwelcome deterioration in the security situation.

  107
  The House will understand that I have been able only to touch on a few of the many issues that have been raised during the debate. I look forward to pursuing other matters in Committee.
  Dr. Hendron: I am sorry to return to something that you mentioned earlier when talking about holding centres. I have been in holding centres many times over the years. You rightly talked about protection for those who are doing the interrogating. But as you well appreciate, the people who are being questioned also need protection. Bearing in mind that the majority of those who have entered the Castlereagh holding centre over the past 20 years have not been charged with any offence, I ask you a direct question. I do not expect an immediate answer. Do you—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that he refers to a Member either as the hon. Member or, as in this instance, the Minister.
  Dr. Hendron: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I ask the Minister to tell us how many people were beaten in Castlereagh, after which compensation was settled out of court. The nationalists in the north of Ireland would appreciate an answer to my question.
  Sir John Wheeler: I cannot comment on the detail of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I recognise that he has a serious point to make. If I can take it up with any advice that is separate from the debate, I shall certainly do so.
  I say in passing that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Conlan case. I respect his great integrity in seeking peace in west Belfast. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's remarks and responds to him direct.
  I shall not repeat anything said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in my final remarks. I merely say that the continued terrorist threat demonstrates the wisdom of the positive yet measured response to the ceasefires of the Government and the security forces. The ceasefires have released most people in Northern Ireland from constant fear of a sort that only those who have lived in the shadow of terrorism for 25 years can fully comprehend. People can now see within their grasp a peaceful future. They look forward to the economic and social improvements that that will bring.
  For some, sadly, the dark shadow is still there. The words, "They haven't gone away, you know," are still relevant. My right hon. and learned Friend has described the recent brutal murders. He referred also to punishment attacks. During the summer of 1995, 78 attacks took place on Orange halls, churches, chapels and Gaelic Athletic Association properties. The figures speak for themselves. From June to December last year, there were 143 such attacks, of which 48 were attributed to the loyalists and 95 to the republicans. This year, up to and including 7 January, there have been nine punishment attacks, four loyalist and five republican.
  We view these murders and attacks with great concern. They underline the Government's concern about arms. No doubt Senator Mitchell's international body will be following events with interest and concern. We are aware
  108
  of the possible implications for the propriety of maintaining the dialogue with Provisional Sinn Fein. For the moment we believe it right to continue that dialogue. The question of maintaining it, however, given Sinn Fein's apparently equivocal stance on the issue of illegal violence, will remain under review in consultation with the Irish Government.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 295.

  Division No. 18]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainger, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ashton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Austin-Walker, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barron, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gapes, Mike

  Bell, Stuart

  George, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Berry, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blunkett, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

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

  Gunnell, John

  Burden, Richard

  Hain, Peter

  Byers, Stephen

  Hall, Mike

  Caborn, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Heppell, John

  Church, Judith

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

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

  Coffey, Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jamieson, David

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Keen, Alan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Darling, Alistair

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davidson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dobson, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCartney, Ian

  109

  Macdonald, Calum

  Reid, Dr John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McKelvey, William

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  McLeish, Henry

  Rooker, Jeff

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooney, Terry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Alice

  Short, Clare

  Mandelson, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maxton, John

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Michael, Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Timms, Stephen

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don

  Mullin, Chris

  Turner, Dennis

  Murphy, Paul

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Hara, Edward

  Watson, Mike

  Olner, Bill

  Welsh, Andrew

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Parry, Robert

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pearson, Ian

  Wilson, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Wise, Audrey

  Pope, Greg

  Worthington, Tony

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Purchase, Ken

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Raynsford, Nick

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Allason Rupert (Torbay)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Alton, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butler, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beggs, Roy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bendall, Vivian

  Churchill, Mr

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coe, Sebastian

  Boswell, Tim

  Congdon, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  110

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Delvin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McCartney, Robert

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gale, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gallie, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Maddock, Diana

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maginnis, Ken

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, lain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Harris, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  111

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thumham, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trend, Michael

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Trimble, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Tyler, Paul

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walden, George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wallace, James

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spring, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Sproat, lain

  Willetts, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wilshire, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Stewart, Allan

  Wolfson, Mark

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sumberg, David

  Sykes, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 205.

  Division No. 19]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Beggs, Roy

  Alexander, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alton, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Bates, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  112

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Darrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forsythe, Clifford (South Antrim)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McCartney, Robert

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gale, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gallie, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Maddock, Diana

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maginnis, Ken

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  113

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spring, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Sproat, Iain

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Stephen, Michael

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Stern, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stewart, Allan

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Page, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Paice, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pawsey, James

  Thumham, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pickles, Eric

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trend, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trimble, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Tyler, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Walden, George

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wallace, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waller, Gary

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Ward, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sackville, Tom

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Watts, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Willetts, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ainger, Nick

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

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Byers, Stephen

  Ashton, Joe

  Caborn, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Battle, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bell, Stuart

  Church, Judith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Coffey, Ann

  Blunkett, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Boateng, Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, Keith

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  114

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corbett, Robin

  McAllion, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Corston, Jean

  McCartney, Ian

  Cousins, Jim

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cummings, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKelvey, William

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dafis, Cynog

  McLeish, Henry

  Darling, Alistair

  McMaster, Gordon

  Davidson, Ian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  MacShane, Denis

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McWilliam, John

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Dewar, Donald

  Mandelson, Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Dowd, Jim

  Martlew, Eric

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Maxton, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Meacher, Michael

  Etherington, Bill

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Milburn, Alan

  Fisher, Mark

  Miller, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Foulkes, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Galloway, George

  Mudie, George

  Gapes, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  George, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  O'Hara, Edward

  Godsiff, Roger

  Olner, Bill

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Parry, Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pike, Peter L

  Gunnell, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hain, Peter

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hall, Mike

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hanson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hardy, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Purchase, Ken

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Henderson, Doug

  Reid, Dr John

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Heppell, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hodge, Margaret

  Rooney, Terry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

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

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hutton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Soley, Clive

  Jamieson, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Spellar, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jowell, Tessa

  Stevenson, George

  Keen, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Timms, Stephen

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Touhig, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Turner, Dennis

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  115

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wise, Audrey

  Wareing, Robert N

  Worthington, Tony

  Watson, Mike

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Welsh, Andrew

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilson, Brian

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [MONEY>]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5OA(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

  LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(5),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn..—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful to Madam Speaker for granting me this debate this evening. The House has heard over the past seven years a long and sorry catalogue of statements about the environmental impact of the channel tunnel rail link project across the fair county of Kent. Since 1988, blight has been with us, particularly in the borough of Gravesham, but also throughout Kent. The blight originally cut a swathe across my constituency by the villages of Istead Rise and New Barn. For two years, massive blight hit those areas, and British Rail ran a rather generous scheme of buy-out, which was invoked for dozens of properties.
  In the autumn of 1990, a new announcement was made that the route would be switched to a line closely parallel with the A2. The new route affected a minimum of properties, some 10, at Henhurst road and Scalers hill in the parish of Cobham. The relevant railway promoter, British Rail's Union Railways subsidiary, showed considerable caution in the light of its previous massive compensation costs. Over the years, I have had to fight for every compensation and buy-out case. All have concerned domestic properties inhabited by their owners.
  I have called the debate tonight because of two complex cases involving small businesses which have resulted in the collapse of the businesses, at great cost to the owners. Both cases have been aired before the Select Committee which is considering the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, but they represent such injustice to what may be termed "little people" that I thought that the House should be made directly aware of them. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads to find the means of giving early redress for loss arising directly out of the actions of what were then this country's nationalised industries—British Rail and its subsidiaries.
  The first case relates to Mr. and Mrs. Colin Winzar of The Nook, Scalers hill, Cobham. The proposed line of the new route of the rail link went through their house, which was to be demolished by a deep cutting. They bought the property in September 1990, only one month before the announcement of the route. They secured the loan to buy it with a non-status mortgage over the property. Their intention to convert that mortgage to a standard one and to finance further business loans on the free equity of the house was frustrated, because all lenders viewed the property as blighted and effectively worthless as security for borrowings.
  Mr. and Mrs. Winzar were at that time proprietors of two profitable companies, an industrial cleaning company and a company of stonemasons. They had contracts with, for example, the corporation of the City of London, Thames Water and a project on Middlesex guildhall, opposite this place across Parliament square. Their inability to raise finance meant that significant contracts were lost; borrowings were impossible; Union Railways refused to make any advance payments on a future purchase—so insurance policies were cashed in. However, all their attempts to keep the businesses going

  117
  failed, with the result that the companies ceased to trade in April 1995. Mr. and Mrs. Winzar now exist on income support, and suffer growing overdrafts.
  The second case is that of Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Mallard cottage, Old Watling street, Cobham. Their house is also in the direct line of the route of the rail link. It will disappear into a wide cutting which is proposed for Ashenbank wood, a site of special scientific interest, the destruction of which would be a dreadful act of vandalism. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have occupied their property since 1987, and they had a thriving business importing and selling flowers wholesale. Their success led to expansion, and they planned to extend the property.
  However, in late 1990 they planned to move the business elsewhere to have scope for expansion. They then found that their property was unsaleable because of the rail link blight. They also ran into business difficulties, due not least to the recession and to bad debts and also to the inflexibility of their property in being able to act as security for them to raise finance. That resulted in the company going into terminal decline.
  Ironically, Union Railways—despite representations that I made at the time—would not come to an arrangement, because of the varied financial difficulties to which the company's own blight had contributed. As a result, the business has collapsed. Mr. Smith and his young family now exist on income support, with considerable debts around their necks. In both these cases, the families stood on their own feet and created small businesses of their own. They have been ruthlessly bulldozed on to the scrapheap by a massive national project—one could call it a pan-European project.
  Because this is a novel project—it is the first major new railway in this country for more than 100 years—and because it is unprecedented in this century, the House has not made provision for cases such as this, which have had disastrous consequences for those two families. Two reports have been published on the side effects of the project—the ombudsman's report on the channel tunnel rail link and blight and the Select Committee's report on the rail link and exceptional hardship. The latter report states that it should be possible to distinguish a small number of cases of exceptional hardship.
  In the two cases to which I have referred, it has been calculated that Mr. and Mrs. Winzar lost £450,000 between the forfeited house and incurred debts, while Mr. and Mrs. Smith lost some £235,000 on their home, plus a considerable sum in terms of their destroyed business. The House should look at the value of domestic properties for which provision is made for compensation and the total of their loss—including the debts incurred and the equity the families had in their businesses—and see that compensation is given.
  Debates on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in the House and on the channel tunnel rail link itself over many years have made it quite clear that there is an overwhelming majority on both sides of the House for the channel tunnel rail link project. So be it. If there is to be such a project, the full costs should be financed by the promoters—who are shortly to be identified—and even, if necessary, by the taxpayer if the House thinks that this is an excellent project. The House is not entitled to finance a massive project effectively at the expense of small householders and small business men who just have the immense bad luck to find that their properties are located in the direct path of the channel tunnel rail link.
  118
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and the whole House to find very rapid means to compensate my constituents. They are entitled to look to us for compensation that would allow them to rebuild their shattered lives, and enable them to bring back a semblance of normality and earn a living.
  10.38 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House and for the eloquence and conviction with which he has presented the problems of his constituents, with which, I am sure, the whole House will have sympathy. I appreciate the concerns of property owners and businesses who are affected by major infrastructure projects such as the proposed channel tunnel rail link. Blight and compensation are difficult matters that have occupied the House to a considerable extent.
  Parliament's most recent substantive consideration of the general law regarding compensation and blight was, of course, during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. As my hon. Friend is aware, generic issues such as compensation and blight are currently being considered by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill Select Committee. The Committee has received a large number of petitions and has heard a great deal of evidence on the issues, including the representations made by my hon. Friend's constituents, that are the subject of tonight's debate.
  The Committee will, of course, reach and announce its decisions on generic issues in relation to the Bill in due course. In what I have to say about the specific cases raised by my hon. Friend, I do not wish in any way to pre-empt the recommendations of the Committee or the decisions we shall reach in relation to those recommendations.
  I fully understand my hon. Friend's particular concern about the difficulties faced by his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Winzar and Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Although not identical, both cases involve failures of businesses with loans secured on properties affected by the channel tunnel rail link project. I understand that the difficulties arose during the period of generalised blight affecting the project. I shall say more about that and the current position on the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in a moment. It has, however, been the policy of successive Governments not to remedy generalised blight.
  Once the rail link route was safeguarded, the properties of my hon. Friend's constituents became eligible for voluntary purchase within the terms of the national compensation code. Again, I shall say more about the voluntary purchase scheme operated by Union Railways Ltd. later, if time permits. I believe, however, that Union Railways has made every reasonable effort to help Mr. and Mrs. Winzar and Mr. and Mrs. Smith through their difficulties, within the scope of current compensation arrangements.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend's reference to generalised blight is accurate. However, if the blight is caused by plans, written on maps, which involve going

  119
  straight through people's houses, although the blight is generalised, it is specific and lethal for the people concerned.
  Mr. Watts: I acknowledge the force, of my hon. Friend's point. He will understand, however, that there has always been a distinction between generalised blight, which arises before a project has been defined and a route has been safeguarded, and the situation once a route has been safeguarded, which triggers the statutory provisions that the House has enacted.
  Looking at the cases in a little more detail, I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Winzar purchased their property in 1990. It is very close to, but not on, the line of the proposed rail link route. However, the property has been included in the limits of deviation for the scheme and has been safeguarded because, in the opinion of Union Railways, construction of the new line would make living in the property intolerable.
  In accordance with the national compensation code, Union Railways therefore offered to buy the property at the market value it would have enjoyed if the rail link proposal did not exist—that is, the unblighted value of the property. It also offered a home loss payment and disturbance costs, with payment of Mr. and Mrs. Winzar's reasonable legal and agents' fees. Unfortunately, the total offer made by Union Railways proved insufficient to cover the mortgage and loans on the property raised in relation to the business. As the price offered to Mr. and Mrs. Winzar reflects the unblighted value, any loss in value since the property was bought in 1990 reflects a general fall in house prices since that date, and not the effects of the scheme.
  I understand that Union Railways has offered to go to arbitration over the valuation, and to pay the initial costs of it. It has also proposed that Mr. and Mrs. Winzar should be free to come back on a new valuation date at any time if they wish to withdraw from arbitration. In addition, the company has agreed to an extended completion period limited to 12 months as a protection against the property market falling. Completion could still be on the basis of the valuation at the time of purchase so that any rise in the property market would benefit Mr. and Mrs. Winzar.
  Mr. and Mrs. Smith are in a similar but not identical position. I understand that they bought their property in 1987 and remortgaged it in 1989 to finance an expansion of their business. It is on the line of the proposed rail link and therefore became eligible for purchase under Union Railways' voluntary purchase scheme as soon as the route was safeguarded.
  Again, Union Railways offered Mr. and Mrs. Smith the unblighted market value of their property and other payments in accordance with the national compensation code. It has also offered arbitration and to pay the costs of it, together with the possibility of Mr. and Mrs. Smith withdrawing from arbitration and recommencing within 12 months, in the hope that a rise in the housing market would benefit them.
  Finally, Union Railways has offered to allow Mr. and Mrs. Smith to continue to occupy the property for a fixed period on payment of a rent which would effectively be deducted from the completion price. It has not been prepared, however, to allow Mr. and Mrs. Smith to continue to occupy the property rent-free.
  120
  Subject to agreeing valuations, the offers made by Union Railways would leave my hon. Friend's constituents in no worse a position than they would have been had they sought to sell in the absence of the rail link. Indeed, they would get the benefit of additional payments under the national compensation code—home loss payments, disturbance costs and legal and agents' fees.
  Mr. Arnold: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? Were my constituents to come to a settlement over the domestic properties, would it prejudice their rights to subsequent compensation in respect of the losses to their businesses that arose directly out of the blight?
  Mr. Watts: I can reassure my hon. Friend that, if his constituents agreed terms of compensation within the provisions which are available now, and if, as a result of the further work which we are undertaking and on which we will consult with the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, we are able to agree and implement a scheme to provide compensation in circumstances of extreme hardship such as the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Select Committee described, and if Mr. and Mrs. Winzar and Mr. and Mrs. Smith were eligible to be considered under the terms of such a scheme, their right to be considered would not be prejudiced by the fact that they had agreed to the purchase on the basis which is currently being offered to them. I hope that that is a reassurance to my hon. Friend and his constituents.
  To ensure that no avenue has been overlooked, I shall also ask Union Railways to look again at these two cases to see whether there is anything further that can be done within the voluntary purchase scheme and the national compensation code.
  I shall now deal with the general question of the blight effects on and compensation arrangements for properties and businesses during the various phases of the channel tunnel rail link project.
  In common with all major infrastructure projects, the rail link project was subject to what is described as generalised blight, which is the blight that may arise in the early stages of a project while options are being examined and worked up, and consultation is taking place. It ceases at the point at which a project becomes sufficiently well defined for the expected land requirements to be identified on a plan and safeguarded from development.
  It has been the policy of successive Governments that there should be no remedy for generalised blight, and it is significant that Parliament did not take the opportunity to decide that generalised blight should give rise to compensation during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
  The House is aware of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration's report on the channel tunnel rail link and blight, which relates to the generalised blight phase of the rail link project. I was grateful for the opportunity to inform the House of the current position on that report, and on the subsequent report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration about the channel tunnel rail link and exceptional hardship, during the debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 14 December.
  On this occasion, I simply reiterate that, in the response to the Select Committee given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 1 November, the

  121
  Government concluded that they had to continue to resist the Parliamentary Commissioner's finding of maladministration in this case, and that any new principle of administration implied in the Committee's report was unacceptable, but that the Government were prepared to consider afresh whether a scheme might be formulated to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress should be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree by generalised blight from the channel tunnel rail link during the period June 1990 to April 1994, and how such a scheme might operate.
  The Government agreed to look again at the possibility of a compensation scheme out of respect for the Select Committee and the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and without admission of fault or liability. We also made it clear that the Government would have to consider seriously the possible costs of such a scheme, which cannot yet be established, and that we could not make an open-ended commitment on an uncosted basis, in view of the Government's responsibilities to the taxpayer.
  I know that hon. Members and their constituents are keen to know as quickly as possible the outcome of our consideration of whether such a scheme might be formulated. However, at this stage I have nothing substantive to report since the debate on 14 December, except to say that we will make as speedy progress as we can, taking account of the Government's undertaking to consult the Select Committee as proposals are developed and the need to consider seriously the costs of the scheme.
  There are many important factors to be looked at, including an acceptable definition of extreme and exceptional hardship, the basis on which any compensation might be paid, the scope of any scheme and its practical operation, and the likely cost of administering any scheme and of compensation to be paid. Until the process of fresh consideration is completed, it is not possible to say whether or what new compensation arrangements might apply or to know whether Mr. and Mrs. Winzar and Mr. and Mrs. Smith might benefit from any such arrangements. I have already assured my hon. Friend and the House that any eligibility that they have to be considered under the terms of such a scheme would not be prejudiced by their earlier agreement of terms for the purchase of their properties under the arrangements that are currently in place.
  As with all major infrastructure projects, compensation arising from the rail link is calculated in accordance with the national compensation code. In the case of the rail link, statutory powers for property purchase will not exist until enactment of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
  However, since the route was announced and safeguarded in 1994, Union Railways Ltd. has been operating a voluntary purchase scheme which mirrors the statutory arrangements. All the properties that are within the surface safeguarded zone for the rail link qualify for
  122
  voluntary purchase by Union Railways Ltd. on the same terms as under compulsory powers. The option of independent arbitration on valuation difficulties, through the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, also applies. The private sector promoter of the rail link project, when appointed, will be contractually obliged to continue the existing voluntary scheme until statutory powers are available.
  For residential owner-occupied properties which are outside the surface safeguarded areas and which are not required for the construction of the railway, Union Railways Ltd. is operating a separate discretionary purchase scheme. Hon. Members will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), announced on 19 July the publication of new guidelines for the Union Railways scheme, while announcing new guidelines to be used by the Highways Agency in its consideration of applications for discretionary purchase of property in respect of road schemes. The intention was to ensure that both sets of guidelines were broadly comparable.
  The main features of the scheme are that applicants must have a qualifying interest in the property, which must not have been bought with foreknowledge of the rail link project; the enjoyment of the property must be likely to be seriously affected by the construction or use of the rail link; the property owner must provide evidence that he or she has made reasonable efforts to sell at a realistic market price; there must be a pressing need to move, for example as a result of financial pressures, medical conditions or employment elsewhere; and purchase is at the discretion of Union Railways Ltd., which will not normally purchase unless a property is seriously affected by both diminution in value and noise.
  When purchase is agreed under the discretionary arrangements, it is at the full market price unaffected by the project. Again, the private sector promoter of the rail link project will be required contractually to continue the discretionary purchase scheme until one year after the rail link opens, at which point the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 will apply.
  Under part I of that Act, any loss of value of homes caused by the physical effects of the new rail link in operation may qualify for compensation. This is a statutory right which will be claimable 12 months after the rail link comes into operation.
  In conclusion, I again commend my hon. Friend for raising the question of blight and compensation arising from the rail link generally, and for drawing attention to the specific problems of his constituents. I hope that my comments will have given him some little assurance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock

ENVIRONMENT

  Civil Aviation Regulations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what input his Department had into the drafting of the Civil Aviation (Aerial Advertising) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2943). [7617]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8029]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department does not retain records relating to the supply of mobile telephones for more than four years. Details of the orders placed centrally from 1992 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of mobile phones

  Number of suppliers

  1992

  47

  2

  1993

  47

  3

  1994

  101

  3

  1995

  93

  7

  These details do not include telephones supplied in cars provided to my Department by the Government car service.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by Government Departments towards meeting the energy saving targets given in "Climate Change: The UK Programme." [8022]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Figures for the energy efficiency performance of the Government estate are published annually. In 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, the standard energy cost performance indicator showed a reduction of 6 per cent. from the base year 1990–91.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what programmes he has introduced to increase the energy efficiency of domestic appliances; and what progress these programmes have made towards the targets set in "Climate Change: The UK Programme." [8020]
  2
  Mr. Jones
  In view of the international market in domestic appliances, we have been working with our European partners under the Community's SAVE—specific actions for rigorous energy efficiency—programme on a number of initiatives. We have adopted minimum efficiency standards for central heating boilers, and energy labelling requirements for other domestic appliances. We are in the process of adopting minimum efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers which will lead initially to energy savings of 15 per cent. for new models. Further measures under the SAVE programme are under discussion.

  In the UK, we will be supporting the Energy Saving Trust in a number of projects to enhance the take-up of energy efficient appliances. We are also in consultation with consumer groups and manufacturers about cost-effective ways to bring forward and promote the take-up of appliances which are more energy efficient.

  All of these measures will contribute to achieving our energy saving targets.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current capacity of combined heat and power plant in the United Kingdom. [8019]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The current capacity of combined heat and power plant in the United Kingdom is approximately 3,400 MW on over 1,200 sites, with about another 200 MW in construction or committed.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7833]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1994–95, all letters responding to parliamentary questions issued by heads of executive agencies for which this Department is responsible were seen and approved by Ministers and none were amended.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about regional government in the northern region; and if he will make a statement. [8049]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have received no representations, through the Government office for the north-east, about regional government in the northern region.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about regional government in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and if he will make a statement. [8048]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have received no representations about regional government in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Shire Counties Review
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the shire counties review by the Local Government Commission. [7935]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Local Government Commission has now completed its review of the structure of local government in the shire counties, and we are considering the recommendations in its final report which was published on 19 December.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors led to the interval between his receipt of the hon. Member's letter of 4 December about car boot sales and markets in Warwickshire and the despatch of his reply; and on what date he referred the letter to the Department of Trade and Industry. [7765]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As this Department has some policy responsibilities relating to car boot sales, my hon. Friend's letter of 4 December was referred to departmental officials for advice. They copied it to officials in the Department of Trade and Industry who agreed that the issues raised were for that Department. My hon. Friend's letter was therefore transferred to DTI on 15 December.

  Staff Levels, London Boroughs
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which London boroughs have not yet submitted returns on staffing levels. [7937]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The annual joint staffing watch survey collects information on staffing levels in local authorities in June of each year. The following authorities have not made returns in respect of June 1995 staff numbers:

  Bexley

  Brent

  Camden

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Southwark

  Tower Hamlets.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many full-time equivalent employees there are(a) in total and (b) per head of population in the service of each London borough. [7940]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The available information is as follows. The levels of employment in individual authorities are not directly comparable because of variations in, for example, population structure and social characteristics, the extent of the use of private firms and contractors and the level of work undertaken for other authorities and public bodies on an agency basis.
  4

  Staff at June 1995

  Equivalents whole time

  Staff per thousand Population

  City of London

  3,112

  598.5

  Camden

  1—

  1—

  Greenwich

  9,089

  42.8

  Hackney

  1—

  1—

  Hammersmith and

  1—

  1—

  Fulham

  Islington

  7,228

  41.3

  Kensington and

  3,745

  24.7

  Chelsea

  Lambeth

  9,983

  38.3

  Lewisham

  8,557

  35.3

  Southwark

  1—

  1—

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  1—

  Wandsworth

  5,684

  21.3

  Westminster

  5,698

  30

  Barking and

  5,614

  36.2

  Dagenham

  Barnet

  7,276

  23.6

  Bexley

  1—

  1—

  Brent

  1—

  1—

  Bromley

  4,418

  15.1

  Croydon

  7,426

  22.7

  Ealing

  6,213

  21.4

  Enfield

  5,997

  23.1

  Haringey

  1—

  1—

  Harrow

  4,703

  22.4

  Havering

  1—

  1—

  Hillingdon

  1—

  1—

  Hounslow

  6,653

  32.8

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  3,083

  22.3

  Merton

  4,003

  22.6

  Newham

  8,727

  38.5

  Redbridge

  6,220

  27.6

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  4,040

  23.5

  Sutton

  3,712

  21.4

  Waltham Forest

  6,959

  31.4

  Note

  1Data not available.

  Source:

  Joint Staffing Watch, June 1995. Figures are for staff in general services, ie excluding law and order services.

  Energy Savings Trust
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of funding for the Energy Savings Trust; and what is the projected funding for each year up to 2000. [8024]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Last autumn my right hon. Friend confirmed the Government's plan to provide £25 million for the Energy Saving Trust in 1996–97. He intends to provide £15 million in 1997–98 and £10 million in 1998–99, reflecting his intention that the trust should increasingly work with the market and lever in private finance. In the current financial year, the Government expect to provide £446,000 towards the trust's running costs and around £2 million via the trust to support the local energy advice centre pilot study.

  These funding arrangements reflect the trust's role as a catalyst, stimulating investment in energy efficiency and the development of self-sustaining markets for energy efficient goods and services.

  I understand that the trust oversaw total expenditure of £21.5 million between 1993 and 1995 and expects to expand its operations in future years.

  Local Services (Funding)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra funding, excluding the metropolitan railway grant, and care in the community adjustments he proposes to make available to each metropolitan district council next year, over that of the current year, in the form of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates, which will be available for each of these councils to fund local services. [7811]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table sets out the amount of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates which it is proposed each metropolitan district council will receive in 1996–97, in comparison with the amount each district received in RSG, NDR, metropolitan railway grant and community care special transitional grant in 1995–96. For 1996–97, the MRG and 1995–96 STG have been incorporated into authorities' standard spending assessments, and so will attract RSG. The 1996–97 figures do not include the additional resources available for community care, to be funded through the 1996–97 STG.

  In addition to these grants, local authorities may raise revenue through the council tax and other local sources of income.

  Local Authority

  1995–1996 RSG, NDR, MRG and STG £ million

  1996–97 RSG, and NDR £ million

  Change Percentage

  Change Percentage

  Greater Manchester1

  Bolton

  160.167

  159.327

  -0.389

  -0.5

  Bury

  91.042

  91.527

  0.485

  0.5

  Manchester

  372.765

  369.848

  -2,918

  -0.8

  Oldham

  149.413

  149.501

  0.088

  0.1

  Rochdale

  133.318

  130.672

  -2.647

  -2.0

  Salford

  152.279

  151.556

  -0.723

  -0.5

  Stockport

  130.305

  128.150

  -2.156

  -1.7

  Tameside

  127.053

  126.977

  -0.076

  -0.1

  Trafford

  115.707

  115.757

  0.050

  0.0

  Wigan

  167.614

  166.764

  -0.850

  -0.5

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  123.928

  125.232

  1.304

  1.1

  Liverpool

  375.694

  384.800

  9.105

  2.4

  St. Helens

  109.194

  111.534

  2.341

  2.1

  Sefton

  168.637

  171.759

  3.121

  1.9

  Wirral

  202.471

  209.620

  7.149

  3.5

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  124.237

  127.573

  3.335

  2.7

  Doncaster

  183.386

  187.720

  4.333

  2.4

  Rotherham

  155.713

  159.978

  4.266

  2.7

  Sheffield

  318.635

  321.283

  2.648

  0.8

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  129.627

  129.702

  0.076

  0.1

  Newcastle

  Upon Tyne

  191.110

  190.940

  -0.170

  -0.1

  North

  Tyneside

  115.089

  115.698

  0.609

  0.5

  South

  Tyneside

  101.544

  102.876

  1.331

  1.3

  Sunderland

  193.367

  195.019

  1.652

  0.9

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  765.414

  778.022

  12.608

  1.6

  Coventry

  192.253

  195.367

  3.114

  1.6

  6

  Local Authority

  1995–1996 RSG, NDR, MRG and STG £ million

  1996–97 RSG, and NDR £ million

  Change Percentage

  Change Percentage

  Dudley

  158.566

  161.400

  2.834

  1.8

  Sandwell

  199.842

  201.327

  1.485

  0.7

  Solihul

  97.332

  98.577

  1.245

  1.3

  Walsall

  175.272

  177.150

  1.878

  1.1

  Wolverhampton

  167.501

  168.497

  0.996

  0.6

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  342.353

  344,751

  2.398

  0.7

  Calderdale

  116.226

  118.512

  2.286

  2.0

  Kirkless

  220.667

  222.269

  1.602

  0.7

  Leeds

  424.628

  430.867

  6.239

  1.5

  Wakefield

  180.651

  182.566

  1.916

  1.1

  1Greater Manchester districts have opted out of railway support in 1996–97. For these authorities, the 1995–96 figures do not include the MRG. However, it is not possible to adjust the 1995–96 figures to remove the amount of RSG which Greater Manchester authorities also received for supporting rail services. Consequently, the amount of external support for greater Manchester districts appears to fall from 1995–96 to 1996–97.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which are the 20 local authorities with the highest debt levels in England; and in each case what is(a) the total amount of debt and (b) the debt per head of population. [7938]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  Authority

  Total debt1 at 31 March 1995 £ million

  Debt at 31 March 1995 per head of population £

  Birmingham

  1,287.8

  1,277

  Manchester

  1,172.9

  2,720

  Lambeth

  905.2

  3,472

  Islington

  880.1

  5,024

  Southwark

  805.8

  3,522

  Liverpool

  798.7

  1,685

  Hackney

  765.9

  3,979

  Sheffield

  758.6

  1,431

  Leeds

  688.9

  951

  Tower Hamlets

  653.5

  3,831

  Haringey

  557.1

  2,624

  Camden

  543.3

  2,977

  Newham

  542.5

  2,392

  Lewisham

  519.7

  2,144

  Brent

  471.2

  1,927

  Greenwich

  468.6

  2,208

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  442.0

  1,559

  Kent

  429.5

  278

  Salford

  425.4

  1,844

  Bradford

  412.9

  857

  1Includes both short-term borrowing and long-term borrowing. All local authority borrowing is subject to general statutory controls and to the specific limits imposed by central Government on individual authorities.

  EC Habitats Directive
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make further nominations for special areas of conservation to the European Commission under the EC habitats directive. [8198]
  7
  Mr. Gummer
  As indicated in my written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 20 June 1995,Official Report, column 140–43, a second list of candidate special areas of conservation would be sent to the European Commission once points raised in the public consultation launched on 31 March had been considered and satisfactorily resolved. That list, which consists of 75 sites, including a first tranche of 10 marine sites, was sent to the Commission on 8 January.

  Further sites will be forwarded to the Commission when the remaining points raised during consultation have been fully considered. Particular attention is being given to addressing general concerns raised by consultees about the possible designation of marine sites.

  The list of sites sent to the Commission is as follows:

  Sites

  Asby Complex

  England

  Avon Gorge Woodlands

  England

  Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats

  England

  Braunton Burrows

  England

  Breckland

  England

  Bury Inlet: Saltmarsh and Estuary/Cilfach

  Burry: Cors heli ac Aber

  Wales

  Cardigan Bay/Bae Ceredigion

  Wales

  Carn non Tri-Tighearnan

  Scotland

  Clyde Valley Woods

  Scotland

  Coll Machair

  Scotland

  Conon Islands

  Scotland

  Cotswold Beechwoods

  England

  Dartmoor

  England

  Dornoch Firth and Morrich More

  Scotland

  Downton Gorge

  England

  Drigg Coast

  England

  Duddon Mosses

  England

  Dungeness

  England

  Dunkeld—Blairgowrie Lochs

  Scotland

  Ensor's Pool

  England

  Epping Forest

  England

  Fenn's. Whixall, Bettisfield, Wem and Cadney

  Mosses

  England/Wales

  Flamborough Head

  England

  Flow Country

  Scotland

  Foinaven

  Scotland

  Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment

  England

  Fontmell and Melbury Downs

  England

  Gower Commons/Tiroedd Comin Gwyr

  Wales

  Isles of Scilly Complex

  England

  Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau/Pen Llyn a'r

  Sarnau

  Wales

  Loch Etive Woods

  Scotland

  Loch Lomond Woods

  Scotland

  Loch Maree Complex

  Scotland

  Lower Derwent Valley

  England

  Lundy

  England

  Magilligan

  Northern Ireland

  Mells Valley

  England

  Moine Mohr

  Scotland

  Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment

  England

  Moor House—Upper Teasdale

  England

  Morecambe Bay Pavements

  England

  Murlough

  Northern Ireland

  North Meadow and Clattinger Farm

  England

  North Norfolk Coast and Gibraltar Point Dunes

  England

  Orfordness—Shingle Street

  England

  Ouse Washes

  England

  Peak District Dales

  England

  Penhale Dunes

  England

  Rannoch Moor

  Scotland

  Rhidorroch Woods

  Scotland

  8

  Sites

  Rodborough Common

  England

  Ronas Hill—North Roe

  Scotland

  Roudsea Wood and Mosses

  England

  Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog

  England

  Salisbury Plain

  England

  Sandwich Bay

  England

  Sefton Coast

  England

  Sidmouth to West Bay

  England

  South Dartmoor Woods

  England

  South Hams

  England

  St. Albans Head to Durlston Head

  England

  Strangford Lough

  Northern Ireland

  Strathglass Complex

  Scotland

  Studland Dunes

  England

  The Broads

  England

  The Lizard

  England

  Thursley

  England

  Tintagel—Marsland—Clovelly Coast

  England

  Tiree Machair

  Scotland

  Torrs Warren—Luce Sands

  England

  Waveney and Little Ouse Valley Fens

  England

  Winterton—Horsey Dunes

  England

  Wormley Hoddesdonpark Woods

  England

  Wye Valley Woodlands/Coetiroedd Dyffryn

  Gwy

  England/Wales

  Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat

  Sites/Safloedd Ystlumod Dyffryn Gwy a

  Fforest Ddena

  England/Wales

  Burnley and Pendle Transport
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which members of Pendle council have sought a dispensation from him to vote on the sale of Burnley and Pendle Transport; and to whom he proposes to grant such a dispensation and for what reasons. [8130]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have received such applications on behalf of Councillors Ian Gilhespy and Gill Gilhespy. Both applications to vote were declined having regard to our policy of granting such dispensations only in cases where either at least half of the council or committee concerned would he otherwise disabled by pecuniary interests or where such disabilities would otherwise upset the elected party balance in the relevant council or committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has granted an application for Councillor John David to vote at meetings of the authority's policy committee, but not of the full council, having regard to his policy on councillor-directors of local authority-owned bus companies.

  Glass Recycling
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to encourage the recycling of glass; and what new initiatives are planned. [8208]

  Mr. Clappison
  Last month we published "Making Waste Work", a strategy for sustainable waste management in England and Wales. A copy is in the House Library. This set out many of the initiatives we have taken to encourage recycling of a range of materials, including glass. As a result of these initiatives and others, there are now well over 17,000 bottle banks and 28 per cent. of glass containers were recycled in 1994.
  9
  For the future, the glass industry is committed to achieving a 58 per cent. recycling rate for glass containers by the year 2000. To achieve this will require increased effort by consumers and local authorities as well as industry. The Government will support this effort in a number of ways, including legislation on producer responsibility for packaging which is intended to produce higher recovery and recycling rates for all packaging materials. We intend to publish draft regulations to implement this measure as soon as possible.

  London Governance
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 18 December Official Report, column 910, if he will list those organisations which have acknowledged that the Government's decision to abolish the Greater London council was right. [8115]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The fact that hardly anyone outside the Labour party is arguing for a return of the GLC seems amply to justify the Government's decision to abolish it.

  Ministerial Travel and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92 with an estimate for the current year, of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6406]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available for items(a) and (d) for 1991–92 or 1992–93. The costs for 1993–94 are £115,000 for (a) and £45,000 for (d) for 1994–95 the costs are £99,000 for (a) and £37,000 for (d). Estimated costs for 1995–96 are £140,000 for (a) and £45,000 for (d). All these costs include the costs of private secretaries travelling with Ministers.

  The cost of chauffeur-driven cars provided for all department Ministers (item b) was £265,000 in 1991–92, £254,000 in 1992–93, £258,000 in 1993–94, £258,000 in 1994–95 and an estimated cost of £264,000 for 1995–96.

  On item (c) concerning ministerial security costs, the information is not disclosed for security reasons.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 with an estimate for the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6405]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not collected in the format requested but is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department which is published in the 10
  annual report. Projections for 1995–96 are in line with overall expenditure for the next year as published in the public expenditure survey statement.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answer questions and supply additional information through the Internet. [7567]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has pages on the CCTA's world wide web site known as http://www.open.gov.uk. Currently, the DOE pages include information on: the Department's responsibilities; air quality; drinking water; local government finance; the housing White Paper summary and departmental press notices. The Department's air quality information and press notices are updated on a daily basis; other information is updated periodically. Unresolved questions about authentication and confidentiality inhibit the use of the Internet for more general communications.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Electricity Generation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current capacity of the United Kingdom's renewable energy electricity generation plant; and what are the projected capacities for each year to 2000. [8021]

  Mr. Page
  The estimated total operational capacity of renewable energy based generating plant in the United Kingdom at the end of 1995 was as follows:

  Category of operational renewables capacity

  MW dnc (Declared net capacity)

  Large-scale hydro mainly in Scotland and Wales

  1,440

  Other capacity outside NFFO1/SRO2/NI-NFFO3

  20

  Capacity within NFFO/SRO/NI-NFFO

  380

  Total estimated renewables-based generating capacity in the UK at the end of 1995

  MWdnc1,840

  1Non-fossil fuel obligation—premium market for electricity from renewables in England and Wales.

  2Scottish renewables obligation—premium market for electricity from renewables in Scotland.

  3Northern Ireland non-fossil fuel obligation—premium market for electricity from renewables in Northern Ireland.

  In addition, an average of about a further 130 MW dnc of operational capacity is expected to come on stream in each of 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 from contracts already in place under existing NFFO/SRO/NI-NFFO orders and from modest growth outside NFFO/SRO arrangements.

  Further orders are proposed for this year, NI-NFFO-2; for 1997, NFFO-4 and SRO-2; and for 1998, NFFO-5 and SRO-3, in line with delivering Government policy of working towards 1500 MW of new renewable-based

  11
  capacity by 2000. This would bring the aggregate renewable-based generation capacity to around 3000 MW dnc.

  British Energy (Overseas Buyers)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many (i) British and (ii) foreign companies have communicated to his Department an interest in purchasing British energy. [8015]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have received no expressions of interest from any British or foreign companies in purchasing British energy.

  Industrial Death and Retirement Fund
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the legal opinion on which the British Coal Corporation based the decision to wind up the industrial death and retirement fund. [7810]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for British Coal. I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  KONVER Funding
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, when he expects to have the results of the recent bids for KONVER funding; and if he will make a statement. [6209]

  Mr. Eggar
  The final text of the UK and Gibraltar KONVER II programme has now been agreed and the formal decision of the European Commission signed. Applications for grant will be invited following the first meeting of the programme monitoring committee early in 1996.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3966]

  Mr. Lang
  The information for 1994 and 1995 in respect of contacts let centrally to consultants, outside organisations and individuals employed on external consultancy is detailed in the tables below. For information on contracts let centrally to organisations employed on external consultancy in 1992 and 1993, I refer to an answer to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on 25 January 1994,Official Report, columns 211–17. Other information can be provided only at disproportionate costs.
  Lists of Contractors and Total Value of the Contracts for 1994 and 1995
  Consultants, organisations and individuals awarded external consultancy contracts in 1994

  Adept People

  Allcock Consulting

  Andersen Consulting

  Associated Information and Technology

  Benchmark Research Ltd.

  BRC Partnership Ltd.

  Broadgate Business Consultants

  Business Round Table Ltd.

  12

  Butler Research

  BZW Corporate Finance

  Cambridge Consultants Ltd.

  Capita Group Plc.

  Chantry Vellacott Ltd.

  Child Accident Prevention Trust

  Connell Wilson

  Consensus Research International

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  CRU International

  CSS International Ltd.

  David Rigby Associates

  David Snell

  Dewe Rogerson

  Dr. Paul Seabright

  Ernst and Young

  ESYS Ltd.

  Eurostrategy Consultants Ltd.

  Euro-Bid Watch

  Euro-Projects Ltd.

  FBI Management Consultants

  First Marine International

  Follow Through Project Services Ltd.

  Gamma Secure Systems

  G. M. Glover

  Grant Thornton

  HP ICM

  ICE Ergonomics

  International Ecotechnology Research Centre

  IQA/BCS

  IT World

  John Walsh

  JRA Aerospace Ltd.

  Kermon Ltd.

  KPMG Management Consulting

  Landair International Ltd.

  Logica UK Ltd.

  March Consulting Group

  Marketing Improvements Group Plc

  Maunsell Group

  Metra Martech Ltd.

  Morgan Harris Burroughs

  Morgan Stanley Ltd.

  MORI

  G. Shaffer

  C. Langman

  R. Mortiboys.

  National Economic Research Associates

  National Institute of Economic and Social Research

  National Radiological Protection Board

  National Remote Sensing Centre Ltd.

  Nimtech Ltd.

  Optimat Ltd.

  Ovum Ltd.

  PA Cambridge Economic Consultants

  PA Consulting Services Ltd.

  PERA International

  13

  PERATEC

  Performance Consulting Group

  Pin-Point Research and Business Consultancy

  PMG Films Ltd.

  Prime Strategy Consultants Ltd.

  Professor R. M. Ridley.

  Quadrilect Ltd.

  Quarto Consulting International

  Quo-Tec Ltd.

  R. Haselden

  R. S. Direct.

  Recharge North East

  Reynolds and Associates Ltd.

  Ricardo Aerospace Ltd.

  Richfords

  Salford University Business Services

  Sambrook Research International

  Satherley Design Associates

  Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd.

  Services Ltd.

  Solon Consultants

  SRU Ltd.

  Stoy Hayward Consulting

  TFPL

  The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

  The Fire Protection Association

  The Marketing Partnership

  The Motor Industry Research Association

  Theisen Ltd.

  Touche Ross and Co

  Unitech Ltd.

  University of Birmingham

  University of Middlesex

  University of Nottingham

  University of Portsmouth

  University of Sussex

  WS Atkins

  Total value of these contracts is £8,901,000

  Consultants, organisations and individuals awarded external consultancy contracts in 1995

  Allways International

  ASRU Ltd.

  Building Research Establishment

  C and J Consultants

  CIM Institute

  Clemdale Associates

  C. B. Snowdon

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Cray Systems

  D. Tydeman

  David Haynes Associates

  David Rigby Associates

  D. Hyde

  Dr. L. B. Davies

  Dr. P. Seabright

  Durham Business School

  Electronic Publishing Services Ltd.

  14

  ERM Economics

  Ernst and Young

  Europartners Consultants

  Gamma Secure Systems

  HSA Consultants

  Inforpress Associates Ltd.

  Ms J. Shawe

  Ms K. Morris

  KMPG Management Consulting

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Mach Two Ltd.

  Mercers Management Consulting Ltd.

  Metra Martech Ltd.

  Michael Hannon Marketing

  Morgan Harris Burroughs

  C. Howard-Luck

  National Institute of Economic and Social Research

  Optimat Ltd.

  PA Cambridge Economic Consultants

  PA Consulting Services Ltd.

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  P. Champion

  PMG Ltd.

  Quo-Tec Ltd.

  Rapra Technology Ltd.

  Sambrook Research International

  Schroders Investment Banking

  Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd.

  Smith System Engineering Ltd.

  Southampton University

  Stoy Hayward Consulting

  Systec Consulting

  The Harris Research Centre

  Theisen Securities Ltd.

  Touche Ross and Co.

  University of Louis Pasteur

  University of Lund

  University of Melbourne

  University of Nottingham

  Utrecht University

  Warwick Manufacturing Group

  York University

  Total value of these contracts is £5,385,000.

  The information given excludes external consultancy contracts let independently by the Department's executive agencies. I have asked agency chief executives to reply separately.

  Information concerning individuals employed by this Department can be found in "Civil Service Staff in Post" summary tables. Copies of these tables have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses. Staff are employed to assist the Department to attain its aims and objectives as set out in the departmental report. Details of total costs are included in the report.
  15
  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Mark Fisher, dated 20 December 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to provide you with information relating to the Patent Office as part of the reply to your question about the use of consultants, outside bodies and others since 1990.
  The Patent Office made no use of external consultants in 1992–94. In 1995 two consultancies, Marketing Improvements and Coopers and Lybrand, have been engaged to help on possible contractorisation projects. The total cost to date is £108,945 plus expenses. The information for the years 1990 and 1991 can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  The Patent Office contracts out a wide range of support and ancillary services such as printing, cleaning, security, training, technical and maintenance services. Expenditure amounted to £2.5 million in 1990, £2.9 million in 1991, £3.6 million in 1992, £3.3 million in 1993, £2.6 million in 1994 and £2.4 million to date in 1995. It has also used a number of external IT experts for specialist work and Employment Agency staff for general support services as particular needs arose.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Mark Fisher, dated 9 January 1996:
  Consultants and outside organisations engaged and individuals employed by the radiocommunications agency:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply direct to your parliamentary question about external consultancy contracts let, and individuals employed, by the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The Agency did not assume responsibility for letting its own contracts until 1994. The value, and details, of the external consultancy contracts let since then are as follows:

  1994 (£320,000 ex VAT)

  NERA: Economic Impact Study

  MORI: Programme of Customer Surveys

  Coopers & Lybrand: Review of Customer Service Branch

  1995 (£292,800 ex VAT)

  Y & S: Management of the Radio Spectrum and IS Strategic Partnership

  C Gamblin: Planning and Monitoring Objectives

  PA Consultancy: Customer Services Branch Efficiency Savings

  Alkemi Ltd: Security, Threat Assessment Contingency Planning

  NERA: Use of Spectrum Pricing

  Etc Ltd: Strategy for Investors in People

  Details in respect of calendar years 1990–1993 are covered in the President's reply to your question.

  Information about employees of this Agency can be found in the Civil Service Staff in Post Summary Tables, and in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, copies of which are in the House Libraries. Staff are employed to assist the Agency to attain its aims and objectives as set out in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Mark Fisher, dated 20 December 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade, the Right Hon. Ian Lang MP has asked me to reply to your question about consultants, outside organisations and individuals employed by Companies House Executive Agency, since 1990.

  The information you sought is as follows:
  Consultants and Outside Organisations
  Please see the tables attached providing a list of Consultants (Annex A) and Outside Organisations (Annex B), who have supplied goods or services to Companies House during financial years 1994/95 and 1995/96 to date. Information for earlier years can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  The attached tables state the purpose of employment and indicate with an asterisk (*) in which year(s) payments have been made by Companies House to individual consultants and other outside
  16
  suppliers for expenditure £10,000 per annum. Amounts less than £10,000 per annum have been treated as not material to your question, and details could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Individual payments to suppliers are treated as commercial in confidence but I have provided the aggregated costs for each year. Individual employees
  Information on employees appear in the copies of the Civil Service Staff Post Summary Tables for the relevant years in the House Libraries. The purpose of individuals employed is assisting the agency to attain its Objectives and Aims as set out in Companies House Annual Reports. The total staff costs are as follows:

  Year

  £000's

  1990/91

  13,519

  1991/92

  15,570

  1992/93

  15,936

  1993/94

  15,437

  1994/95

  15,326

  1995/6 (to date)

  9,653

  I trust you find this information helpful.

  Annex A

  £Spend

  Outside suppliers

  Consultancy provided

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Axsis Consultants

  Consultants Re. Electronic Mail

  —

  *

  CS Trident

  Computer Consultants

  —

  *

  Data Sciences UK Ltd.

  Consultants—Image Based System

  —

  *

  David Fowler Partners

  Consultants Re. Car Park Repairs

  *

  *

  Workplace Technologies Ltd.

  Consultants—Image Based System

  —

  *

  IBM

  Computer Consultants

  —

  *

  I.T. Southern

  Computer Consultants

  *

  —

  National Utility Services

  Utility Consultants

  *

  —

  259,000

  107,000

  Annex B

  £spend

  Outside suppliers

  Goods/Services provided

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Agfa-Gevaert Ltd.

  Reprographic Goods

  *

  *

  Anacomp Ltd.

  Micrographic Supplies

  *

  *

  Aquaplan

  Roof Repairs

  *

  *

  Arron Electrical

  Building Stores, Stock

  —

  *

  Banctec Ltd.

  Remittance Processor

  *

  —

  Barron McCann Ltd.

  Computer Maintenance and Development

  *

  *

  Barry Roofing Ltd.

  Builders

  *

  —

  Bell & Howell Ltd.

  Filming Machinery/Maintenance

  *

  *

  BPC Numeric Arts

  Bar Code System Maintenance

  *

  *

  Bridgend Office Furniture

  Office Furniture

  —

  *

  B.T. Yellow Pages

  Directory Advertising

  *

  —

  Britdoc Ltd.

  D X System

  —

  *

  B.T. Business Communications

  Telecommunications

  *

  *

  B.T. Midlands

  Telecommunications

  *

  *

  B.T. Westminster Services

  Telecommunications

  —

  *

  B.T. Glasgow

  Telecommunications

  *

  —

  British Gas

  Fuel

  *

  —

  Canon (UK) Ltd.

  Photocopiers

  *

  —

  Canon (S W)

  Cameras & Office Machinery

  *

  *

  Cardiff City Council

  Refuse Collection etc.

  *

  —

  Cardiff Lift Co.

  Updating Lifts For Disabled

  —

  *

  Caterwise

  Canteen

  *

  *

  City Electrical Factors

  Electrical Stock

  *

  *

  Clarinet Systems Ltd.

  C. D. Rom Computer

  —

  *

  Computacenter Ltd.

  Various Computer Equipment

  *

  *

  CV Carpets Ltd.

  Carpets

  *

  —

  Darley Business Forms

  Special Stationery

  *

  *

  MR-Datacom Ltd.

  Micrographic Directories

  *

  *

  Datavault Ltd.

  Storage of Documents

  *

  *

  17

  Annex B

  £spend

  Outside suppliers

  Goods/Services provided

  1994–95

  1995–96

  David Wall

  Accountancy Services

  *

  —

  D. Brown & Son

  Stationery Supplies

  *

  —

  Ellis Tylin Ltd.

  Building Maintenance Contract

  *

  *

  Elonex Computers

  Computer Supplies

  *

  —

  Esso

  Fuel

  *

  —

  Finres

  Carousels

  *

  *

  F. J. Elvin

  Building Alterations/Maintenance etc.

  *

  *

  Forward Catering

  Canteen

  *

  —

  Gandlake Computer

  Mainframe Software

  *

  *

  Services

  Licences

  Gent Ltd.

  Fire Alarm System

  *

  —

  Gill's Travel

  Foreign Travel Arrangements

  *

  *

  Golley Slater & Partners

  Design & Artwork etc.

  *

  *

  Graphics Technology

  Film for Technical Development

  *

  *

  Gresham Computer Services.

  Computer Supplies

  *

  —

  Group 4

  Cash In Transit/Security

  *

  —

  Guardian Computer Services

  Disaster Standby Services

  *

  *

  HCS Global Ltd.

  Computer Cabling/Tapes etc.

  *

  *

  Hopewiser Ltd.

  Mainframe Software Licences

  *

  —

  IBM United Kingdom

  Scanning Systems

  *

  *

  ICL

  Computer Maintenance/Equipment

  *

  *

  International Computers

  Computer Maintenance/Equipment

  —

  *

  Interlink

  Marketing Services

  *

  *

  Intercraft Design

  Furniture

  *

  —

  Isogon Communications System

  Various Computer Systems

  *

  *

  JCW Wales Ltd.

  Air Conditioning System

  *

  *

  JVH Associates Ltd.

  Vending Machine Maintenance

  *

  —

  Kardex Systems (UK)

  Public Search Swipe Cards

  *

  —

  Kodak Ltd.

  Micrographic Consumables

  *

  —

  Lancare

  Various Computer Equipment

  *

  —

  Lamson Plc

  Conveyor Belt Systems

  *

  —

  The Lewis Group Plc

  Debt collectors

  *

  *

  London Electricity

  Electricity

  *

  *

  Makers Industrial Services

  Car Park Repairs

  *

  *

  Martin Hopkins Design

  Marketing Design/Artwork

  *

  *

  Martin Walton Design

  Marketing Design/Artwork

  *

  —

  McKenzie Hughes Computers

  Computer Systems

  *

  —

  Mediascene Ltd.

  Mailing Services

  *

  —

  Memchem Ltd.

  Washroom Consumables

  *

  *

  Mercury Communications

  Telecommunications

  *

  *

  Mercury Government Services

  Telecommunications (Edinburgh)

  —

  *

  Mertec Image Data Ltd.

  Microprocessors

  *

  —

  MR-Datagen

  Maintenance Micrographic Equipment

  *

  *

  The Microfilm Shop

  Micrographic Equipment

  *

  *

  Midland Printing Services

  Statutory Forms

  —

  *

  Mitie Cleaning

  Cleaning Contract

  *

  *

  Morgan Bruce

  Legal Work

  *

  —

  National Westminster Bank Plc

  Bank Charges

  *

  *

  National West Streamline

  Bank Charges

  *

  *

  Neopost Ltd.

  Postage Costs

  —

  *

  OTIS plc

  Lift Maintenance

  *

  —

  Park Business Forms

  Stationery

  *

  *

  Pauls Industrial Services

  Asbestos Removal

  *

  *

  Photomatrix Ltd.

  Reprographic Equipment

  *

  *

  Pinnacle Office Equipment

  Office Supplies

  *

  —

  P. Macey

  Building Maintenance

  *

  —

  Publicity Centre

  Marketing

  *

  *

  R. A. Brand and Co.

  Paper

  *

  *

  Rank Xerox

  Photocopier Maintenance and copy Charges.

  *

  *

  Rentokil Ltd.

  Pest Control

  *

  —

  Research and Marketing

  Marketing Research

  *

  *

  Robert C. Green

  Building Maintenance

  *

  —

  Richard Powell

  Storage Systems

  —

  *

  Royal Mail

  Postage

  *

  *

  18

  Annex B

  £spend

  Outside suppliers

  Goods/Services provided

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Sam (UK) Ltd.

  Computer Printers

  *

  *

  SBS Business Supplies

  Stationery Supplies

  *

  *

  Scottish Power

  Fuel

  *

  —

  Sealey Painting and Decorating

  Painters and Decorators

  *

  —

  Securiplan plc

  London Security

  *

  *

  Sensormatic Camera Ltd.

  Security

  *

  —

  Securicor Ltd.

  Transit Of Cash/Cheques

  *

  *

  Shorrock Guards

  Cardiff Security

  *

  *

  Siemens Nixdorf

  High Speed Printers and Maintenance

  *

  *

  Software Corporation

  Computer Software

  *

  *

  Swalec

  Electricity

  *

  *

  Speedy Office Supplies

  Stationery

  *

  *

  Starline Blinds

  Window Blinds

  *

  —

  Strand Cleaning Services

  London Office Cleaning

  *

  *

  Sutcliffe UK

  Caterers

  *

  —

  Taylor Tiles Ltd.

  Fixtures and Fittings

  *

  —

  Taymech Ltd.

  CH Edin Refurbishment

  —

  *

  Technological Solution

  Computer Equipment

  *

  —

  Technology plc

  Computer Systems

  *

  *

  Capita Managed Services

  Mainframe Support Contract

  *

  *

  Texaco

  Fuel

  *

  —

  Thompson Systems plc

  Accounting Systems Maintenance

  *

  *

  TNT Express (UK)

  Courier Services

  *

  *

  Treforest Printing

  Stationery

  —

  *

  Ultra Comp Ltd.

  Software Licences

  *

  —

  Vitec

  Computer Equipment

  —

  *

  Carlson Wagonlit

  Travel Expenses

  *

  *

  WAT Flooring Contracts

  Fixtures and Fittings

  *

  —

  Wallace Brown

  Edinburgh Office Furniture

  —

  *

  Welsh Water

  Water Rates

  *

  *

  Wilprint Group

  Printing Of "The Register"

  *

  *

  Zenith Treforest Press

  Printing Stationery

  *

  *

  Zenith Print and Packaging

  Printing Stationery

  —

  *

  14,134,000

  6,859,000

  Letter from Peter Clapham to Mr. Mark Fisher, dated 12 December 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about consultants, outside organisations, and individuals employed by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) and the National Engineering Laboratory (NEL).
  As you will be aware, NPL and NEL are no longer executive agencies of the DTI as both are now being operated by private sector management. However as the last Chief Executive of both laboratories I am pleased to respond to your question.
  Each laboratory uses the services of many consultants, both for scientific purposes connected with the work programmes carried out for customers, and for management purposes. In the case of NPL, expenditure on consultants amounted to £551k in the six months to 30 September 1995, and £1,309k in the financial year 1994–95. For NEL the expenditure amounted to £84k in the seven months to 30 October 1995. A list of the main consultants is enclosed. I am afraid that data for earlier years is not easily available as a result of the recent changes of management of the laboratories.
  Outside organisations are used for the supply of a wide range of services to both laboratories: these services include support services such as catering, cleaning, security guards, maintenance of buildings and equipment, office services, accountancy payroll. In addition, some scientific work is sub-contracted to outside suppliers. It is not practicable to provide a comprehensive list of the firms involved.
  As to the individuals employed by the laboratories, this information is given in the Civil Service staffing statistics which are available in the Library of the House of Commons, in the DTI's Departmental Report, and in the Annual Report and Accounts issued by each laboratory.

  19
  NPL EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  Main Consultants used in 1994–95

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Commonwish Ltd

  Futurism Computing Ltd

  Hagendale Ltd

  Mr. K Worthy

  Mr. T Cornwell

  PA Consulting Group

  Amethyst Systems

  Assessment Services Ltd

  Brameur

  Beta Technology Ltd

  Chart Associates

  Cranfield Institute of technology

  DK Research

  Dr. A. Franks

  Dr. D. W. Budworth

  Dr. G. Shalfirstein

  European Systems

  Geoff Pearmine

  JB Industrial Marketing

  John Moore Associates Ltd

  Queen Mary & Westfield College

  Mr. A. Pearce

  Mr. F. A. Kandil

  Mr. J. D. Summerfield

  Richard Andon

  Sixpenny Handley Software Services

  Main Consultants used in 1995–96 Commonwish Ltd

  Futurism Computing Ltd

  Mr. T. Cornwell

  PA Consulting Group

  Core Public Relations

  Deltapoint Interim Management

  Brameur

  Beta Technology Ltd

  Chart Associates

  Dr. A. Franks

  Dr. G. Shalfirstein

  Mr. J. E. Dilly

  Mr. K. Worthy

  Mr. R. Evans

  Mr. J. D. Summerfield

  University of Sheffield

  Assessment Services Ltd

  NEL EXECUTIVE AGENCY

  Main Consultants used in 1995–96

  Ernst & Young

  Heriot-Watt University

  Optimat Ltd

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Mark Fisher, dated 12 December 1995:
  EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question about the employment of consultants by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, an Executive Agency of the DTI.
  20
  From time to time we have used consultants to help review or improve internal management functions (including the provision of information technology). The significant contracts in this area have been with the following firms (the value shown is the VAT inclusive payment to those firms in the given financial year).
  1990–91 £49,000

  EOYS Ltd: Financial Management

  BDM Ltd: Records Management

  Centre for Consultancy: Customer Care Training

  1991–92 £25,000

  Elgar Associates: Quality Assurance Training

  KPMG: Financial Information Systems Assessment

  1992–93 £103,000

  Elgar Associates: Quality Assurance Training

  Price Waterhouse: Financial Information System Assessment

  Jones Lang Wooton: Building Services Review

  1993–94 £11,000

  Price Waterhouse: Financial Information System Implementation

  1994–95 £277,000

  Coopers and Lybrand: Organisation and Structure of Service Provision

  Jones Lang Wooton: Building Services Review

  Hay Management Consultants: Personnel Services Review and Advice

  1995–96 (first six months) £25,000

  Hay Management Consultants: Personnel Services Review and Advice

  I am afraid that any more comprehensive information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Mark Fisher, dated 20 December 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about consultants, outside organisations and individuals employed by The Insolvency Service.
  The following external consultants were engaged by The Insolvency Service in the calendar years 1994 and 1995 (to date).

  Organisation

  Purpose

  Cost including VAT £

  1994

  Price Waterhouse

  User Survey

  33,518

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  Feasibility Study (Options: Contracting-out)

  72,263

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  Management Consultancy (Office Systems)

  21,891

  total 127,672

  1995

  Price Waterhouse

  User Survey

  91,262

  Shreeveport

  Contracting-out Project

  488,300

  Bevan Ashford

  Legal Advice (Contracting-out)

  26,465

  total 606,027

  The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency within the Department of Trade and Industry Prior to 1994 contracts for consultants were let by the Department of Trade and Industry, and information in relation to 1992 and 1993 was provided in a PQ No. 146 for Ms Dianne Abbott MP Dated 25 January 1994, Columns 211–217. Information on consultancy for 1990 and 1991 can only now be provided at disproportionate cost.The service has also used outside private sector organisations for advice on, development of and delivery in relation to specialist areas such as training, design and information technology systems;

  21
  accountancy work on individual disqualification cases; and accountancy support for the work of the Agency. Details of the organisations concerned and the payments made to them could only be provided at disproportionate cost.Finally, information in relation to individuals employed by The Insolvency Service in pursuit of its objectives under its Agency Framework Document are provided in its Annual Reports of which copies can be found in the House libraries.

  Cable Television Contractors
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the cost of the damage done to roads and pavements as a result of the installation of television cables by contractors operating under the licence granted by his Department. [7719]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 sets the standard of work for cable operators and other undertakers, and provides that both interim and permanent reinstatements must conform to the statutory national specification. All cases of defective reinstatement which are identified by the local highway authority must be rectified at the undertaker's expense; additionally, the undertaker must for each proven defect bear the cost of the initial investigation and three further follow-up inspections. The estimated cost of repair for damage to roads and pavements is therefore a matter for the individual cable companies concerned.

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the quality of work undertaken by cable television contractors under the licence granted by his Department. [7721]

  Mr. Taylor
  A number of complaints have been received expressing displeasure about various aspects of cable operators' street works. During 1995, four complaints by residents in United Artists' Cheltenham and Gloucester franchise were passed to my Department.

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make more rigorous the guidelines requiring cable television contractors to achieve certain standards when reinstating roads and pavements dug up to facilitate the installation of cables. [7720]

  Mr. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has overall policy responsibility for the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, the legislation relating to street works carried out by undertakers including cable companies. He is currently reviewing the situation in the light of a public consultation carried out in the first half of 1995. The responses are now being examined in order to decide what changes, if any, are needed to existing procedures under the Act. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to announce his conclusions during the first half of this year.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7575]
  22
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I can confirm that the DTI has maintained its own web server since 14 June 1995. This contains the Guide to Business, which provides an overarching structure to our presence on the web detailing the DTI organisation, key activities and contracts in relevant areas of expertise and geographic locations. Ministerial speeches and other departmental publications are also available at our web site. In addition, DTI press releases and information on the Queen's Awards to Industry are available via links to Central Office of Information and CCTA web sites respectively.

  Individual management units in the Department are encouraged to place information on the server, examples of which are the report for the Multimedia Industry Advisory Group, the Buy IT campaign, Microelectronics in Business and guidance on bids for radio broadcasting licences. All information is updated as and when necessary, often against specific revision dates.

  Questions and requests for further information are directed to the DTI using the auto-feedback option on the homepage of the web server. All DTI Ministers offices are now contractable by Internet email. Their addresses are:

  Minister

  Post

  tlo.lang@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Mr. Lang

  President of the Board of Trade

  tlo.eggar@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Mr. Eggar

  Minister for Industry and Energy

  tlo.fraser@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

  Minister of State

  tlo.nelson@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Mr. Nelson

  Minister for Trade

  tlo.oppenheim@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Mr. Oppenheim

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Company Affairs

  tlo.page@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Mr. Page

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business, Industry and Energy

  taylor-tlo.ian@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Mr. Ian Taylor

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology

  taylor-tlo.john@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Mr. John Taylor

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Ministers who have had responsibility for small firms since 1979. [7550]

  Mr. Page
  The following Ministers have had responsibility for small firms since 1979:

  David Mitchell

  John MacGregor

  David Trippier

  John Cope

  Timothy Eggar

  23

  Eric Forth

  Baroness Denton

  Lord Strathclyde

  Lord Ferrers.

  I am the current Minister with responsibility for Small Business.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what publicity business links undertakes to bring to the attention of small and medium-sized enterprises the existence of training and development national vocational qualifications. [7585]

  Mr. Page
  Business links tailor their services and publicity to meet the needs of local firms. They promote training and development, including national vocational qualifications, as an essential component of a broader strategy to help small and medium-sized enterprises achieve business competitiveness.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business mentors are currently available to small firms through business links. [7548]

  Mr. Page
  There are currently around 460 personal business advisers and 60 specialist advisers—export development counsellors, innovation and technology counsellors and design counsellors—employed or contracted by business links to provide independent advice and help to smaller firms with growth potential.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the initiatives which his Department has begun for small firms since 1979, stating when they(a) began and (b) ended. [7582]

  Mr. Page
  Initiatives introduced since 1979 with the aim of assisting small firms are outlined in the annual report, "Small Firms in Britain". Copies of the 1995 report and previous years' reports are in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the relative rules for the creation and survival of small firms in (i) Scotland and (ii) England and Wales. [7549]

  Mr. Page
  My Department is currently undertaking, or has recently conducted, research on a range of topics which can influence the creation and survival of small firms in England and Wales. Topics covered include: why small firms' growth rates differ, management training, franchising, networking, the use of information technology by small firms.

  Information on the research evaluated by my Department can be obtained from the departmental report in the Library of the House.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can supply information on the particular situation in Scotland.

  Disposable Lighters
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the compliance with United Kingdom safety requirements of disposable lighters from China; what plans he has to ban their import; and if he will make a statement. [8260]
  24
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  All smokers' lighters intended for supply in the UK, whatever their country of manufacture, are subject to the General Product Safety Regulations 1994, which place a general duty on suppliers of consumers products to supply safe products. In assessing the safety of lighters, account is taken of a number of factors, including relevant safety standards for the product, such as BS 6908: 1990, and the level of safety which consumers may reasonably expect. Local authority trading standards departments, which have the day-to-day responsibility for enforcement of the regulations, have the necessary powers to deal with unsafe products.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to review the safety of imported disposable lighters; and if he will make a statement. [8259]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department is represented on the technical committees of the British Standards Institution and the International Standards Organisation, which are reviewing the current international standard for smokers' lighters on which BS 6908 is based. A revised standard is expected to be published shortly.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what mechanisms his Department has for monitoring incidents relating to the safety of imported items such as disposable lighters; and if he will make a statement. [8258]

  Mr. Taylor
  The DTI routinely collects statistics on accidents involving consumer products from a representative sample of hospital accident and emergency departments and makes use of any other relevant complementary statistics—for example, Home Office fire statistics. In addition, officials are in close touch with trading standards departments and monitor press reports to identify possible areas of concern.

  Where areas of concern are identified, further information will be sought, including matters such as source of supply.

  Former Soviet Union (Nuclear Installations)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what channels exist for United Kingdom companies and organisations to give advice and assistance to the former Soviet Union states in order to maintain the safety of their nuclear power installations. [7717]

  Mr. Page
  A number of international assistance programmes are in place to help the former Soviet Union states maintain and improve the safety of their nuclear power installations. UK companies and organisations are providing advice and assistance within the framework of the European Union's PHARE and TACIS technical assistance programmes, the nuclear safety account managed by the European bank for reconstruction and development, the World Association of Nuclear Operators and the programmes of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In addition, there is bilateral collaboration on safety between the UK nuclear industry and counterparts in the former Soviet Union.

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to prevent faulty electrical goods being imported into this country. [7622]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The safety of electrical equipment on sale in the UK has been controlled, since 1975, by regulations implementing the low voltage Directive. Local authority trading standards departments, which have responsibility for enforcing these regulations, have the necessary powers to deal with unsafe products.

  Dounreay (Radioactive Hotspots)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are(a) the current number of radioactive hotspots identified around the Dounreay facility since the Atomic Energy Authority began its investigation, (b) the dates on which they were discovered and (c) the dates on which Atomic Energy Authority Dounreay management informed the Scottish Office of the presence of each hotspot. [7256]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) on 13 June 1995, Official Report, column 472 and the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 24 October 1995, Official Report, column 525. Since the joint COMARE RWMAC report, which noted that 143 particles had been found on either the Dounreay foreshore, the Dounreay site or Sandside beach, was published, I understand that a further 10 particles have been found on the Dounreay foreshore. Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate has been kept informed of the results of the UKAEA's investigations into radioactive particles around the Dounreay facility on a regular basis.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated time needed to build a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. [7281]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: This can be, estimated only when a number of factors, including the volume of fuel to be stored, the requirements of the user of the store, the terms of the construction contract and the time needed to acquire the necessary planning consents and safety approvals are quantified.

  Single Regeneration Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many grants representing what total sum and with what average value have been awarded under the single regeneration scheme for business start-ups in each region of Britain. [7698]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information in the form requested is not available.

  The single regeneration budget challenge fund provides support to local partnerships for schemes which promote the wider regeneration of their chosen area. Under the first two rounds of the challenge fund, 238 schemes have included plans to assist business start-ups. Over their
  26
  lifetime of up to seven years, and subject to satisfactory progress on delivery plans, these schemes stand to receive some £1.7 billion in challenge fund support towards a wide range of economic, environmental and social measures including an estimated 80,000 new business start-ups.

  Following the Chancellor's Budget statement, provision of £250 million has been made for third and fourth challenge fund bidding rounds in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively. These will provide further opportunities for business start-up support.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Attorney-General if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7820]

  The Solicitor-General
  The one agency for which the Attorney-General is responsible is the Government Property Lawyers. Neither the Attorney-General nor I have seen or approved in advance or amended any letters sent by the chief executive of the agency to hon. Members in response to parliamentary questions.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conditions he plans to include in the sale of Railtrack concerning sale of land and buildings that(a) fulfil an operational or civic purpose and (b) could be considered to be relevant to those future roles by (i) train operators and (ii) statutory bodies. [8301]

  Mr. Watts
  No such conditions obtain at present and this position will not be affected by privatisation. However, the rigorous closure procedures set out in the Railways Act 1993 will continue to apply in respect of any proposal by Railtrack to close a part of its operational passenger network.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 December,Official Report, column 1236, if he will (a) place in the Library a copy of the new instructions and guidance to the franchising director relating to passenger service requirements, (b) set out how and with whom he will consult about the terms of the new instructions and guidance and (c) indicate from what date the new instructions and guidance will take effect. [8092]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend expects to issue new instructions and guidance to the franchising director shortly. Instructions and guidance are not subject to consultation. They will come into effect as soon as they are issued. A copy will be placed in the Library.
  27
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the passenger service specifications contained in each of the bids received for the South West Trains franchise. [8093]

  Mr. Watts
  A copy of the passenger service requirement for the South West Trains franchise is in the Library. The PSR is the contractually guaranteed level of service that the franchising director requires the franchise operator to provide. All competitors for the franchise bid on that basis. Stagecoach Holdings plc has stated its intention to maintain existing service levels. The franchise agreement between the franchising director and Stagecoach, which details the various contractual obligations the franchisee must meet, will be placed on the franchising director's register, which is a publicly available document. Information about unsuccessful bids is commercially confidential.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations will exist in respect of the salaries, expenses and other remunerative benefits of the board and senior management of Railtrack following the flotation. [7784]

  Mr. Watts
  As a listed company, Railtrack Group PLC will have to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 and the Stock Exchange listing rules. On 6 September 1995, Bob Horton, Railtrack chairman, announced that Railtrack's policy is to adopt high standards in its corporate governance in the area of directors' remuneration, consistent with the Greenbury code. In his announcement, he said that share options would not be part of directors' remuneration and that a long-term incentive scheme was being developed to ensure that directors' pay reflected the performance of the company and was felt fair by the work force as a whole. Share-based participation arrangements are also being developed for the work force as a whole. Railtrack will make a full statement on directors' remuneration and these schemes in particular, prior to flotation of the company.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for each passenger rail franchisee, the targets for increases in passengers. [7778]

  Mr. Watts
  The agreements between the franchising director arid the franchisees for Great Western Trains, South West Trains and LTS Rail do not include targets for increases in the number of passengers. However, each agreement contains specific commitments for improvements to passenger and station services, and the Government expect these to generate increased use of passenger and rail services.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the measures he is taking to write off the debts of Railtrack. [7781]

  Mr. Watts
  No decisions have yet been taken on the appropriate capital structure for Railtrack when it is privatised.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assurances he has sought from the new owners of former British Railways Board freight and parcels subsidiaries over the continued use of railways for conveyance of their traffic. [7773]

  Mr. Watts
  None.
  28
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the sale value of the rolling stock leasing companies has been allocated to investment in the railway network. [7775]

  Mr. Watts
  The three passenger rolling stock leasing companies will compete in the open market to supply new and refurbished trains to the operating companies. Sale proceeds will not be hypothecated.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to begin selling shares in Railtrack. [7779]

  Mr. Watts
  We expect to float Railtrack in May 1996. More precise timing will be announced in due course.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are currently being made by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising to promote privileged travel for railway employees and dependants. [7770]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director will protect privileged travel arrangements for existing railway employees and their dependants in the reorganised railway. New arrangements have been made through the Association of Train Operating Companies' staff travel scheme in which British Rail and franchise operators participate. This scheme ensures that employers can continue to give special travel facilities to those currently entitled to them. It covers staff and former staff and their dependants of British Rail and its subsidiaries, including those recruited by BR up to 31 March 1996; staff and former staff and their dependants of Railtrack, including those recruited up to 31 March 1996 or the date of flotation of Railtrack, if earlier; and staff and former staff and their dependants of third party employers where concessionary staff travel arrangements with British Rail were in place prior to 11 December 1995. British Rail employees who, as a result of reorganisation, transfer to a new employer will take with them their existing contractual entitlements to staff travel facilities.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount of public money which has been granted to qualifying railway employees from the preparation of franchise bids in respect of(a) London, Tilbury and Southend Rail, (b) South West Trains; and (c) Great Western. [7774]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Financial assistance, up to a maximum of £100,000, is available from BR to qualifying management employee buy-out teams towards their costs in preparation for pre-qualification, and for professional advice in mounting a bid if they qualify.

  Assistance is repayable if the bid succeeds.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those types of railcard which have not been guaranteed by the Railways Act 1993. [7787]

  Mr. Watts
  Franchise operators will be required to offer young persons, senior and disabled persons railcards. Voluntary schemes administered by the Association of Train Operating Companies have been prepared to allow
  29
  the continuation of the family railcard, network card, and the HM forces railcard. All train-operating companies—including those for which franchise agreements have been signed—are members of these schemes.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of Railtrack's 10-year investment plan will be funded from(a) the company's own resources, (b) grants from public funds, (c) asset disposal and (d) the private finance initiative or other sources of private money. [7776]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer to my answer of today to the hon. Member for Newham, South, (Mr. Spearing).

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost to public funds so far in this financial year for(a) consultants and (b) other advisers for the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. [7777]

  Mr. Watts
  The total cost to public funds of consultants and advisers in 1995–96—to end of December 1995—is £21.5 million.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if rail operators are required to consider the environmental impact of increased journeys by car resulting from(a) reductions in rail services and (b) closure of rail lines. [8131]

  Mr. Watts
  Until passenger services are franchised, service levels are a commercial matter for British Rail. After franchising, core passenger service levels are guaranteed contractually through passenger service requirements. The closure of lines is subject to rigorous statutory closure. procedures.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he is making for compliance with EC directive No. 91/440 (EEC) following the privatisation of Railtrack. [7786]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack, as infrastructure manager, will have to comply with the directive as implemented in this country by the Railways Regulations 1992 and the Railways (Amendment) Regulations 1994.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of Railtrack shares he expects to sell when the company is privatised. [7780]

  Mr. Watts
  We expect to offer at least 51 per cent. of the equity of Railtrack. No further decision on the precise figure has been taken.

  The UK public offer is expected to represent not less than 30 per cent. of the shares available in the offer, with the possibility of this amount being increased in the event of strong retail demand.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to have transferred 51 per cent. of passenger rail franchises to the private sector. [7771]

  Mr. Watts
  Franchises representing some 50 per cent. of services in terms of passenger revenue have either been awarded or put out to tender to the private sector. The franchising director continues to make good progress towards his principal objective of franchising passenger rail services as soon as is reasonably practicable.
  30
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all research and consultancy contracts let by his Department concerning the privatisation of the railways over the threshold of £150,000, the dates of the relevant invitation advertisements in the European Journal and the dates of the contract award announcements. [7347]

  Mr. Watts
  The information for contracts let by my Department, currently valued at more than £150,000 excluding VAT, is listed in the table.

  The process for announcing contract awards has varied so the table includes the date for the start of each contract.

  Consultant

  Type

  Date of invitation notice

  Start of contract

  Samuel Montagu

  Merchant Banking

  n/a

  November 1988

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Access charges

  n/a

  December 1991

  Linklaters and Paines

  Legal advice

  n/a

  August 1992

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Accountancy and Taxation

  n/a

  August 1992

  Mercer Management

  Restructuring options for freight

  n/a

  September 1992

  Richard Ellis

  Property advisers

  n/a

  February 1993

  Ernst and Young

  Information systems

  n/a

  June 1993

  Dewe Rogerson Ltd. Marketing

  n/a

  June 1993

  Hambros Bank Ltd.

  Merchant Banking

  14 July 1994 OJEC Ref: 94/S 133-PA47046/EN

  August 1994

  Ernst and Young

  Corporate finance advice on BRIS contract pricing

  n/a

  September 1994

  Travers Morgan

  Specialist advice on BRIS contract pricing

  n/a

  September 1994

  Freshfields

  Legal advice

  n/a

  October 1994

  Price Waterhouse

  Accountancy

  10 August 1994 OJEC Ref: 94/S 152-PA53120/EN

  December 1994

  SBC Warburg

  Merchant Banking

  10 August 1994 OJEC Ref: 94/S 152-PA53120/EN

  December 1994

  Ernst and Young

  Accountancy

  10 August 1994 OJEC Ref: 94/S 152-PA53120/EN

  January 1995

  Linklaters and Paines

  Legal Advice

  n/a

  December 1994

  Mercer Management

  Freightliner access charges

  n/a

  February 1995

  31

  Consultant

  Type

  Date of invitation notice

  Start of contract

  Richard Ellis

  Property Advisers

  10 August 1994 OJEC Ref: 94/S 152-PA53120/EN

  March 1995

  Touche Ross

  Reporting Accountants

  10 August 1994 OJEC Ref: 94/S 152-PA53120/EN

  March 1995

  Solid Solutions Associates

  Retail Offer Adviser

  n/a

  June 1995

  Shearman and Sterling

  US Lawyers

  n/a

  July 1995

  Dewe Rogerson Ltd.

  Marketing

  10 August 1994 OJEC Ref:94/S 152-PA53120/EN

  August 1995

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Receiving Bank

  n/a

  August 1995

  Royal Mail

  Postal services

  n/a

  October 1995

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Custodian Bank

  n/a

  November 1995

  Mercer Management/NERA

  Options for Railfreight Distribution

  10 August 1994 OJEC Ref: 94/S 152-PA53120/EN

  December 1995

  Bowne International

  Printing and Publishing Services

  8 August 1995 OJEC Ref: 95/S 149- PA79013/EN

  December 1995

  HP:ICM

  International Road Show

  7 November 1995 OJEC Ref: 95/S 212 PA116782/EN

  January 1996

  n/a - not applicable.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current timetable for(a) fundraising each passenger service, (b) selling each BR-owned freight business, (c) selling each BR-owned infrastructure company, (d) selling each of the other BR businesses and (e) selling Railtrack, indicating the date that bids were or will be invited and the date on which the Government expect that the franchise or business will be sold in each case. [6182]

  Mr. Watts
  To date, 27 businesses have been sold. These are listed at table A. In addition, the two remaining rolling stock leasing companies have been sold subject to contract; sales will be completed within the next few weeks.

  The timetable for franchising and future sales is set down in list A. This gives indications only of when sales are expected to be completed or franchises awarded. More precise dates could prejudice negotiations.

  Table A

  Sale/Sold

  Month

  Freight

  Red Star

  Sold

  5 September 1995

  Rail express systems Ltd.

  Sold

  9 December 1995

  32

  Table

  Sale/Sold

  Month

  OTHER BUSINESSES

  Special Trains Unit

  Sale completed

  31 March 1995

  BRIS Design Offices

  DCU Birmingham

  Sold

  25 July 1995

  Mainline Swindon

  Sold

  18 August 1995

  IDG Glasgow

  Sold

  18 August 1995

  BPE Mechanical and Engineering Consultancy, Doncaster

  Sold

  15 September 1995

  Civil Engineering Design Group, York

  Sold

  15 September 1995

  Powertrack Engineering Company Ltd.

  Sold

  15 December 1995

  CEDAC London Ltd

  Sold

  15 December 1995

  BR Maintenance Ltd.

  Swindon Electronic Service Centre

  Sold

  11 April 1995

  Chart Leacon (Ashford), Ilford, and Doncaster Depots

  Sold

  5 June 1995

  Wolverton, and Springburn (Glasgow) Depots

  Sold

  6 June 1995

  Eastleigh Depot

  Sold

  7 June 1995

  BR Telecommunications Ltd.

  Sale completed

  21 December 1995

  BR Central Services

  Meldon Quarry Ltd.

  Sold

  February 1994

  Baileyfield Switches and Crossings Works

  Sold

  7 July 1995

  Ditton Timber Treatment Works

  Sold

  1 September 1995

  Quality and Safety Services Ltd.

  Sold

  10 November 1995

  Occupational Health Services Ltd.

  Sold

  30 November 1995

  Signalling Control (UK) Ltd.

  Sold

  1 December 1995

  Interlogic Control Engineering Ltd.

  Sold

  4 January 1996

  OBS Services Ltd.

  Sold

  3 October 1995

  Rolling stock leasing companies

  Porterbrook Leasing Ltd.

  Sale Completed

  8 January 1995

  Sold subject to contract

  Angel Train Contracts Ltd.

  Eversholt Leasing Ltd.

  List A

  (a) Franchises

  The Franchising Director is responsible for awarding franchising contracts.

  The Franchising Director awarded the franchise for South West Trains on 19 December and the franchises for Great Western and LTS Rail on 20 December.

  Final bids will be invited, and the award of the franchises will be made, as soon as practicable for InterCity East Coast, Midland Main Line, Network SouthCentral and Gatwick Express.

  Invitations to tender for South Eastern were issued on 19 December. The franchise will be awarded as soon as practicable.

  Invitations to tender for the remaining franchises will be made thereafter.

  33

  (b) Freight Businesses

  Final bids for BR's three Trainload Freight companies were invited on 29 September 1995. Sales are likely early in 1996.

  Final bids for Freightliner were invited on 22 December 1995. Sale is anticipated in Spring 1996.

  Railfreight Distribution will be offered for sale as soon as practicable.

  (c) Infrastructure companies

  Final bids for the following 13 businesses were invited on 5 October 1995 and the sales are expected in the coming months:

  Central Infrastructure Maintenance Company Limited

  Central Track Renewals Company Limited

  Scotland Infrastructure Maintenance Company Limited

  Scotland Track Renewals Company Limited

  Western Infrastructure Maintenance Company Limited

  Western Track Renewals Company Limited

  Northern Infrastructure Maintenance Company Limited

  Northern Track Renewals Company Limited

  Eastern Infrastructure Maintenance Company Limited

  Eastern Track Renewals Company Limited

  Southern Track Renewals Company Limited

  South West Infrastructure Maintenance Company Limited

  South East Infrastructure Maintenance Company Limited

  (d) Other BR Businesses

  Final bids for the following businesses were invited:

  Castleton Long Welded Rail Works 1 May 1995

  Rail Projects Limited 23 June 1995

  The engineering link 15 December 1995

  Interfleet Technology 15 December 1995

  Network Train Engineering Services 15 December 1995

  All the above are expected to be sold over the next few months.

  Final bids for the College of Railway Technology were invited on 19 January 1996.

  VI senior management

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Chief Executive/Head

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Other G5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  G6 Director

  8

  8

  9

  6

  5

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Total Executive Directors

  9

  9

  10

  8

  7

  5

  5

  4

  4

  Other G6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Total G6 and above

  9

  9

  10

  8

  7

  6

  6

  6

  5

  Source:

  Annual Reports, number of Directors. Position at 31 March.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what figures for traffic induced by the Newbury bypass have been presented to the public in Newbury; and what opportunity there has been for the public to comment on the implications; [8063]

  (2) what are the traffic figures for the inner relief road in Newbury with a western bypass under current road traffic forecasts for the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015; [8064]
  34
  BR plans to dispose of about 10 other central services in due course.
  (e)Railtrack
  The Government intend to sell Railtrack by stock market flotation in May 1996.

  Vehicles Inspectorate
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have been employed in the Vehicle Inspectorate on(a) operational and (b) management duties in each of the last five years. [8112]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people employed in the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) on operational and management duties in each of the last 5 years.
  The figures below show the total number of staff employed over the last 5 years.

  Year

  Number of Staff

  1990–91

  1,653

  1991–92

  1,879

  1992–93

  1,861

  1993–94

  1,768

  1994–95

  1,649

  Note:

  Staffing expressed in whole time equivalents averaged over the year

  It is difficult to define whether staff are involved with operational or management duties and such information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, the attached table provides a breakdown of the senior management structure within the Inspectorate over the last 9 years.

  Source:

  VI Annual Reports.

  (3) if the traffic model used in the 1995 Newbury bypass study report by the Highways Agency was the same as that used for the public inquiry of 1988; [8068]

  (4) what percentage increase was assumed by the Highways Agency in the traffic model for the A34 Newbury bypass in the total number of trips between 1983 and 1995; if this percentage increase was applied equally to all traffic; and what was the total number of trips in the model for 1995; [8047]
  35
  (5) if the figure for traffic quoted in the Highways Agency's Newbury bypass study report for the A34 inner relief road takes into account the suppression of traffic demand through congestion; [8066]

  (6) what is the capacity of the A34 inner relief road in Newbury; [8065]

  (7) what considerations led him not to carry out a traffic survey data for the Highways Agency study report of the Newbury bypass in 1995. [8067]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 9 January 1996:
  As you know, John Watts has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the A34 Newbury Bypass.
  The Highways Agency Study last year estimated that induced traffic could increase traffic on the Bypass by 10%. The Study Report has been made freely available to both public bodies and the general public since it's publication last July.
  The forecast traffic flows on the A334 Inner Relief Road in Newbury with and without the proposed bypass are shown in the table below. The bypass provides relief by allowing longer distance through traffic to avoid the town, local traffic would continue to use the existing A34. The flows given in the table assuming the bypass is completed should be treated as indicative. In practice they will depend on what local traffic management measures are developed to maximise the benefits brought by the bypass. This will be particularly important for the longer term, where flows will be heavily dependent on how traffic is managed in Newbury as a whole. For this reason the table does not attempt to forecast flows beyond 2010.

  Without bypass

  With bypass

  Year

  Low growth

  High growth

  Low growth

  High growth

  2000

  57,000

  63,000

  35,000

  39,000

  2005

  61,000

  70,000

  38,000

  43,000

  2010

  65,000

  78,000

  40,000

  48,000

  The flows given are Annual Average Daily Traffic for low and high growth The traffic model used to assess the scheme at the 1988 public inquiry was updated to a 1990 base using observed growth in Newbury. The updating of the model was undertaken on a disaggregate basis such that individual zone to zone movements were growthed up separately. The total number of trips in the model for 1983 and 1990 are approximately 100,000 and 142,300 respectively, which equates to overall growth of 42%.Since the model was rebased to 1990 no further major updating has been undertaken. Model forecasts for 1995 have not therefore been produced.The traffic appraisal work reported in the 1995 Newbury Bypass Study Report was largely based on the traffic model prepared for the 1988 public inquiry and subsequently updated for the 1992 inquiry. Additional information on existing flows was obtained from measured traffic counts undertaken on the A34 in 1994.The traffic flows forecasts quoted in the Study Report for the A34 Inner Relief Road do not make any specific allowance for suppression of demand due to congestion.However, a number of separate economic sensitivity tests were undertaken which restricted traffic growth within Newbury, including the existing A34, to reflect the effects of congestion suppressing demand. These tests indicate that the scheme continues to be good value for money.Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows on the A34 Inner Relief Road in Newbury are approximately 50,000 vehicles per day. This flow level results in significant congestion during
  36
  weekday peaks and at times during summer weekends. Within these periods the road operates close to its maximum capacity. Conditions for long distance through traffic are generally very poor and intolerable at times. More local traffic within Newbury also suffers significantly because of congestion. The overall level of service is very low.The ultimate carrying capacity of an urban road over a whole day depends on many factors including the urban nature of the road, the proportion of heavy vehicles, the effects of junctions and their capacities, the interaction of local and longer distance through traffic, the variation in traffic flows throughout the day and how traffic demand spreads from peak to off peak periods.Capacity also depends on the interaction of these factors which is complex. It is therefore very difficult to state a precise daily flow which represents the maximum flow the A34 could carry. In theory there is some scope for traffic flow to increase above existing levels outside the peak periods. But in practice for this to happen would require a significant change in driver behaviour to travel in the relatively less busy parts of the day.During the review of the Newbury bypass, the Highways Agency used information from the traffic model developed for the 1988 and 1992 public inquiries into the scheme, supplemented with traffic count data collected during 1994.In addition a number of induced traffic appraisals were undertaken based on a range of assumptions which confirmed that the scheme represents good value for money, even under the most onerous assessment conditions.In the circumstances, the Agency considered that the traffic information available for the scheme was sufficiently detailed and robust with no fundamental change to traffic patterns other than increasing congestion, to carry out the review without the need for extensive new data collection.
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of a package bid for Newbury(a) with or (b) without a western bypass. [8062]

  Mr. Watts
  We have yet to receive the royal county of Berkshire's formal 1996–97 transport policies and programme package bid for Newbury, and until we have received and considered it, we cannot comment. However, I understand that the county is looking to implement a local transport strategy that would be complementary to the Newbury bypass.

  Ormskirk Bypass
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to begin the construction of the A570 Ormskirk bypass. [7934]

  Mr. Watts
  The A570 Ormskirk bypass scheme remains in the main programme. I hope to announce a preferred route shortly. Further development work will be taken forward when resources become available.

  Microwave Landing System
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to promote the planning and installation of microwave landing systems. [7936]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the planning and installation of air traffic control infrastructure. I understand, that the National Air Traffic Services has a well-established research and development programme for microwave landing systems, which has involved the use of fixed and mobile prototype MLS equipment. By April 1996, this should have led to the installation of a fully operational category III—the worst weather conditions—MLS at Heathrow airport.

  Metropolitan Railway Grant
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the payment of metropolitan railway grant in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [7933]

  Mr. Watts
  I have no plans for payment of metropolitan railway grant in 1996–97. The current standard spending assessment "bolt on" and MRG will be combined, from 1996–97 onwards, to provide an enhanced SSA "bolt on" for local rail services supported by English passenger transport executives, with the exception of local rail services supported by Greater Manchester PTE in 1995–96. Funding for those services will, from 1996–97, be provided by the franchising director.

  Robin Hood Line
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial support has already been made available for stages 2 and 3 of the Robin Hood line, Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement about future funding. [8152]

  Mr. Norris
  I announced yesterday that the Government are to make a further £3.1 million available for stage 2, in addition to the £6.5 million already contributed, to meet cost increases and provide for the construction of Kirkby in Ashfield station. We are willing in principle to provide funds for stage 3, subject to the normal criteria for funding of local transport schemes, including value for money. Any funding by my Department for stage 3 would take into account the resources being provided from regional challenge funds.

  Rainwerth Bypass
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has received about the benefits in transport and economic terms of the Rainwerth bypass, Nottinghamshire; when finance will be available for its construction; on what date he expects completion; and if he will make a statement. [8151]

  Mr. Norris
  Nottinghamshire county council set out in some detail in its transport policies and programme submission for 1996–97 the case for building the Rainwerth bypass. Its submission shows that the council estimates the benefit-to-cost ratio of the scheme to be about 4:1.

  This was one of many worthwhile projects that we were unable to fund in the 1996–97 local transport settlement, announced last month. Nottinghamshire will have the opportunity to bid again for resources for the bypass in the 1996 TPP round. I cannot, of course, give any indication at this stage of whether such a bid would be successful.

  Capital Expenditure (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was in(a) cash and (b) real terms the allocation of capital expenditure on local roads and transport in Nottinghamshire in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [8155]
  38
  Mr. Norris
  Nottinghamshire's allocations were as follows:

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Grant

  4.682

  2.685

  Borrowing approval

  8.433

  6.168

  Gross approved spending

  13.115

  9.203

  A large part of the reduction in provision between the two years is accounted for by the reduction in expenditure on a number of major schemes which are coming to an end. The gross approved spending figure for 1996–97 includes £0.15 million of grant unused by the council in earlier years. Figures are available only in cash terms.

  Rail Fares
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those types of rail fare which have not been subject to control by the rail regulator. [7785]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director regulates key commuter and leisure fares all saver tickets, unrestricted standard return tickets where there are no saver tickets, and all standard weekly season tickets. In London, Edinburgh and Cardiff, where there is significant commuting by rail, all the key commuter fares—standard season tickets, standard singles and unrestricted standard returns—will be regulated. Operators have freedom to apply commercial judgment to setting a range of other fares including all first class fares, standard returns for longer distances, super savers, APEX and cheap day returns.

  Road and Rail Freight
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of freight in the United Kingdom was carried by(a) road and (b) rail in each of the last 10 years. [8108]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of freight carried in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years are as follows:

  Freight transport in the United Kingdom: by mode 1985–1994

  Road as percentage of all freight

  Rail as percentage of all freight

  All modes billion tonne kms

  Goods moved

  1985

  56

  8

  189

  1986

  57

  9

  189

  1987

  58

  9

  198

  1988

  60

  8

  221

  1989

  62

  8

  225

  1990

  62

  7

  221

  1991

  61

  7

  217

  1992

  61

  7

  210

  1993

  64

  7

  214

  19941

  66

  6

  224

  Goods lifted

  1985

  81

  7

  1,844

  1986

  81

  7

  1,871

  1987

  81

  7

  1,939

  1988

  82

  7

  2,201

  1989

  82

  7

  2,245

  1990

  81

  6

  2,203

  1991

  81

  7

  2,026

  39

  Freight transport in the United Kingdom: by mode 1985–1994

  Road as percentage of all freight

  Rail as percentage of all freight

  All modes billion tonne kms

  1992

  81

  6

  1,963

  1993

  82

  5

  2,028

  19941

  83

  5

  2,095

  Note:

  1Provisional.

  Sources:

  Department of Transport, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Buses
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage operators to introduce buses with modern technology minimising polluting emissions. [8106]

  Mr. Norris
  Polluting emissions from buses are already beginning to reduce and are forecast to continue to reduce until at least 2005 on the basis of current rates of vehicle replacement as a result of increasingly stringent emissions standards for new vehicles. I am satisfied, in that context, that it should be a matter for operators to decide when to buy new vehicles.

  Buses and Coaches
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) buses and (b) coaches operating on British roads are more than (i) 30, (ii) 20 and (iii) 10 years old. [8105]

  Mr. Norris
  The records held by DVLA show that, at the end of 1994, the number of licensed public service vehicles in the bus taxation class were as follows, by year of first registration:

  (i) 30 years old or more, 309

  (ii) 20 years old or more, 2,807

  (iii)10 years old or more, 34,203.

  The split between bus body type and coach body type is not readily available.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to reduce pollution caused by buses and coaches through(a) obsolete technology and (b) poor maintenance. [8107]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government are committed to cracking down on unnecessary pollution from vehicles. Emissions standards for vehicles in service, including buses and coaches, were tightened in September 1995. Buses and coaches found to exceed the prescribed emissions standards at annual tests will fail the test. In addition, compliance with emission standards is enforced both at the roadside and in operators' premises by vehicles examiners who issue prohibition notices to any vehicle exceeding the limit preventing its being used.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of(a) buses and (b) coaches currently operating on British roads have failed to reach required acceptable levels of exhaust emissions. [8116]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage freight. haulage by rail. [8104]

  Mr. Watts
  Rail must improve its performance if it is to attract new traffic and retain existing freight customers. The key to this is liberalisation and privatisation. We have already opened up the rail network to competition. Privatisation of British Rail's freight businesses is well advanced.

  Some 145 rail freight grants have been awarded since 1979, with a total value of £100 million at today's prices, securing traffic to rail equivalent to over 2.5 million lorry journeys per year.

  Public Transport (Grants)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to providing specific grants to maintaining a public transport service where the positive environmental impact of that service cannot be readily measured in terms of financial costs or prices; and if he will make a statement. [8109]

  Mr. Norris
  Those directly responsible for providing public transport services are best placed to take into account environmental and other impacts in considering the funding of particular services, in the light of the resources available to them, including Government grant. I have no plans to establish a specific grant for this purpose.

  Road Repairs (Winchelsea)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the cost of the repairs to the A259, including bridge strengthening, around Winchelsea; and how long they will take. [7797]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Jacqui Lait, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the cost and timing of road repairs and bridge strengthening on the A259 near Winchelsea.
  The future roads and bridge maintenance programme generally is being reviewed in the light of the recent budget announcement. Pending the completion of this process. I regret that I am not in a position to say what the cost and timing of future road repairs and bridge strengthening on the A259 in the Winchelsea area will be.
  I am sorry I cannot be more forthcoming at the moment.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the minimum night time noise specified in order to qualify a householder for noise insulation grant; what changes he plans; and if he will make a statement. [7995]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  41
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Minister of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about what is the minimum night-time noise specified in order to qualify a householder for noise insulation grant; what changes he plans; and if he will make a statement.
  There is no specified minimum night-time noise level to qualify a householder for noise insulating grant with respect to new or improved roads. There are no plans to change this at the present time.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the specified minimum noise level from motorway traffic qualifying householders for noise insulation; what plans he has to reduce it; and if he will make a statement. [7992]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Minister of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about what is the specified minimum noise level from motorway traffic qualifying householders for noise insulation; what plans he has to reduce it; and if he will make a statement.
  The minimum noise level requirements from motorway traffic qualifying householders for noise insulation are set out in the Noise Insulation Regulations (1975 to 1988) under which an offer of secondary glazing for eligible rooms of dwellings is made where it is estimated that maximum noise levels during the 15 years after road opening will be at least 68dBA on the L10 18 hour scale with a contribution of at least 1dBA from traffic using the new or improved road.

  Year

  BT

  Vodafone

  Martin Dawes

  New Gate Coms

  Securicor

  Intercell

  Talk Land

  Uniqeair

  Uplands Radio

  Total

  1998

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1989

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1991

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  1992

  32

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  59

  1993

  54

  65

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  125

  1994

  46

  71

  24

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  144

  1995

  78

  104

  510

  —

  10

  —

  —

  6

  1

  709

  Travel Planning
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce a nationwide information system to assist the public in travel planning. [8264]

  Mr. Norris
  Transport operators are better placed than Government to provide travel information. A number of nationwide travel planning systems are being developed, including the Great Britain bus timetable prepared by Southern Vectis, to which the Department of Transport contributed funds; the telephone hotline also run by Southern Vectis; and the national train information system planned by the British Railways Board as part of the BR/Railtrack informed traveller project.

  Midland Main Line
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been invested on rolling stock
  42 There are no plans to change this at the present time.
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last received a report from the working party set up to review the 1978 noise insulation regulations; and if he will make a statement. [7993]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 9 January 1996 The Minister of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about when he last received a report from the working party set up to review the 1978 Noise Insulation Regulations; and if he will make a statement.
  The Secretary of State last received a report from the working party set up in 1978 to review the 1975 Noise Insulation Regulations in 1983. Many of the recommendations were implemented in the 1988 amendment to the Noise Insulation Regulations.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Williams Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8037]

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of mobile telephones purchased by the Department and the suppliers used in each of the last eight years were as follows:

  and motive power on the Midland Main Line in each of the last five years. [7354]

  Mr. Watts
  As Midland Main Line has existed as a discrete organisation only since 1 April 1994 the information is not available in the form requested. However, over the last five years, around £6 billion has been invested in the railway industry of which around £1.26 billion has been spent on new and improved passenger rolling stock.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much has been invested on track maintenance on the Midland Main Line between London and Nottingham in each of the last five years; [7353]

  (2) how much has been invested on signal maintenance on the Midland Main Line between London and Nottingham for each of the last five years. [7354]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested, in respect of each of the last three years, is in the table.
  43

  £million

  Track maintenance/renewals

  Signal maintenance/renewals

  1993–94

  14 million

  2.7 million

  1994–95

  16 million

  3.1 million

  1995–96

  15.7 million

  2.4 million

  Comparable figures are not available before 1993–94, when Railtrack was formed as a separate division of the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many occasions, in each of the last five years, there have been delays on the Midland Main Line between Nottingham and London because of(a) signal failure, (b) track failure and (c) train failure. [7352]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not held centrally. It would be disproportionately expensive to try to compile it.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many reported incidents employees have been injured in each of the past five years on the Midland Main Line. [7348]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is unable to supply figures for incidents of injuries to employees on the Midland Main Line over the past five years, because accident statistics are not collated on this basis. Since 1 April 1994, accident statistics have been collated on the basis of Railtrack zones, rather than on the previous basis of British Rail regions.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many reported incidents safety regulations have been breached in each of the past five years on the Midland Main Line. [7349]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is unable to supply figures for incidents of breaches of safety regulations on any specific railway line over the past five years, because accident statistics are not collated on this basis. Since 1 April 1994, accident statistics have been collated on the basis of Railtrack zones, rather than on the previous basis of British Rail regions.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who has held responsibility for health and safety on the Midland Main Line for the past five years. [7350]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Railways Board was responsible for the health and safety on the Midland Main Line until 31 March 1994. Since that date, responsibility has rested with Railtrack midland zone and Midland Main Line operating unit.

  Green Commuter Plan (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 44
  what is his Department's role in Nottingham's green commuter plan; and if he will make a statement. [7628]

  Mr. Norris
  Nottingham's green commuter plan is an initiative by Nottingham city council, Nottingham Green Partnership, Transport 2000 Trust and Nottinghamshire county council to encourage local organisations and companies to manage the transport needs of their staff and thus improve the environmental impact of their operations. My Department welcomes voluntary initiatives at a local level such as this.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the use of video cameras on buses to catch those who block bus lanes. [7678]

  Mr. Norris
  The Traffic Director for London is co-ordinating a pilot study on the A1 in Haringey and Islington to test the potential effectiveness of camera technology for enforcing bus lanes. The project has the support of the Home Office and Transport Ministers and the Metropolitan police and is being undertaken in partnership with industry. Public trials began in December and warning letters will be issued to drivers who are identified as contravening bus lane traffic orders. The traffic director will be reporting the results of the study to Ministers later this year.

  "Transport, the Way Ahead"
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what is his latest assessment of the consultation exercise, "Transport, the Way Ahead", initiated by his predecessor. [7677]

  Mr. Norris
  The exercise has been a considerable success. Many discussions and seminars have been held around the country; over 200 written responses have been submitted.

  When Ministers have properly considered the responses, a further report will be published drawing together the threads of the debate.

  Buses and Minibuses (Fitness of Drivers)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that school and minibus drivers do not have responsibility for the transport of children if they have a recent criminal record. [7630]

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations are already in place with regard to the conduct of those who drive buses or minibuses for hire or reward. Traffic commissioners have powers to suspend or revoke such a driver's entitlement to drive these vehicles if they determine that he or she is not a fit person to do so.

  PPG 13: Transport
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of PPG 13: Transport; and if he will make a statement [7675]

  Mr. Norris
  We are assessing the impact of PPG 13 in a number of ways, through the Government offices for the regions, through our direct contacts with local authorities, and through more formal analysis. We have commissioned, jointly with the Department of the Environment, a research project to assess the implementation of PPG 13, which is currently being Undertaken by Ove Arup and Partners, together with the university of Reading. We published an interim report of this study's findings in September 1995; copies have been placed in the Library.

  Public Service Vehicle Operators' Licences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that the public service vehicle licence is not issued until checks have been made against criminal records. [7629]

  Mr. Norris
  Public service vehicle operators' licences are not granted unless traffic commissioners are satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of good repute. The applicant must declare any relevant convictions that he or any of his employees has had in the last five years. The names of all applicants for PSV operator licences are published in "Notices and Proceedings" in advance of the grant of a licence and circulated to the police, who have a statutory right to make a formal objection to a licence being granted.

  The Department is currently exploring ways in which the exchange of information with the police and the courts might be further enhanced.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he proposes to take to ensure that school bus drivers who apply for PSV licences have their applications checked to ensure they have no previous convictions for offences against children; and if he will make a statement. [7703]

  Mr. Norris
  Traffic commissioners, who are appointed by the Secretary of State, have responsibility for determining whether an applicant for a PSV driver's licence is a fit person to hold such a licence, and may require an applicant to provide such information as he may request. Applicants must declare on their applications any previous convictions for both driving and non-driving offences. If a relevant conviction is proved to exist, traffic commissioners may take action to withhold or withdraw a driver's entitlement to hold a PSV licence.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that traffic commissioners can check the names of applicants for operators' licences against a central criminal database. [7631]

  Mr. Norris
  The names of applicants for goods vehicle and public service vehicle operator licences are listed by the traffic area offices in the publications, "Applications and Decisions" and "Notifications and Proceedings", which are published fortnightly. Copies are sent to statutory objectors, including the police, to check the 46
  details of applicants for operator licences against their records. Our longer-term aim is the development of a common database for operators and drivers for enforcement and licensing purposes, and which will provide links to enable traffic commissioners to receive information from other sources relevant to their licensing and discipline decisions.

  Duty-free Goods
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made on the impact on United Kingdom airports and travellers of the removal of duty free goods in 1999. [7642]

  Mr. Norris
  I have made no such assessment. The Civil Aviation Authority, in referring questions of charging at the BAA plc airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, has asked the commission to consider, among other things, the implications for charges of the loss of intra-EU duty- and tax-free revenue.

  Transport Public Inquiries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is proposing to reduce those delays at public inquiries on transport matters caused by the obligation for the inspector to hear every person or group who wishes to make representations on a scheme. [7626]

  Mr. Watts
  None. The relevant rules give certain parties the right to appear at an inquiry. The inspector may permit others to appear, and the rules provide that such permission should not be unreasonably withheld.

  Road Network
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to transfer the main road network to(a) private or (b) public corporations. [7679]

  Mr. Watts
  None at present.

  Rescue Vehicles (Airports)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on how many occasions fire engines and other rescue vehicles were placed on alert in 1994 for(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick, (c) Manchester, and (d) Stansted airports; and if he will make a statement; [7587]

  (2) which criteria led to emergency fire engines and rescue vehicles being put on alert at United Kingdom airports; and if he will make a statement. [7586]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held by the Department or the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Road Safety Sectors (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirement there is for local authorities to maintain a road safety section. [7593]

  Mr. Norris
  Section 39(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires each local authority to prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety. In relation to England, the local authorities for this
  47
  purpose are county, metropolitan district and London borough councils. In particular, authorities must carry out studies into accidents and must, in the light of those studies, take such measures as appear to them appropriate to prevent such accidents, including the dissemination of information and advice on the use of the roads, the giving of practical training to road users, and the construction, improvement, maintenance or repair of roads for which they are the highway authority. It is the responsibility of each authority to decide on the arrangements to fulfil these requirements.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7576]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department publishes information via the CCTA Government information service site at http://www.open.gov.uk. and the Central Office of Information site. Information is updated when changes or additions occur.

  The Department's press releases and, separately, those of the Driving Standards Agency are available via the COI at http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GDT/GDT.html and GDS/GDS.html respectively. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency publishes guidance on all aspects of driver and road vehicle registration and licensing, purchase of cherished marks and registration of small ships, on the GIS site at/dvla/dvla.htm. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch's summary of investigations is available at/maib/maibhome.htm. The Highways Agency's business plan for 1995–96 is available at/hiagency/highhome.htm. The overseas section of the Transport Research Laboratory has a home page on the "One World Online"service—http://www.oneworld.org/tr1/—outlining the work it carries out for developing countries under the aegis of the Overseas Development Agency. My Department intends to mount early next year a home page on the GIS site, providing links to the above pages and other Departmental information.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has an official Internet e-mail address—sofs.transport@gtnet.gov.uk. The Transport Research Laboratory can communicate via e-mail: its customer services section is at tricial@bdu.trl.co.uk, its overseas section at lindap@o.trl.co.uk and its library at library enquiries@lib.trl.co.uk.

  M25
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to widen the M25 if terminal 5 at Heathrow is built. [7724]

  Mr. Norris
  Plans for the national trunk road programme were announced in "Managing the Trunk Road Programme", published on 28 November. The programme includes two schemes which will widen the 48
  M25 between junction 12, the M3, and junction 16, the M40, to five or six lanes in each direction. These schemes are required regardless of whether terminal 5 is built. No further widening of the M25 is planned between these junctions. The programme also includes the construction of the access road from the M25 to terminal 5—"M25 Terminal 5 Spur"—which is, of course, conditional on terminal 5 being built.

  Flight Duty Limitations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of proposals by the joint aviation authorities to change flight duty limitations. [7641]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that the joint aviation authorities' proposals would provide a level of protection against fatigue equivalent to that provided by its guidance in "CAP371—The Avoidance of Fatigue in Air Crews".

  Policy Planning Guidance Notes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the PPGs or equivalents issued by his Department in the last three years. [7676]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport jointly with the Department of the Environment published PPG 13: Transport, in March 1994.

  The Department does not issue any other guidance equivalent to the PPG series, although we do publish a wide range of advice on traffic and transport matters.

  Railtrack (Investment)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the proportions of the planned £10 billion investment by Railtrack that he expects to be made when it is in (1) public and (ii) private ownership and (b) the sources of finance; and what part will be taken by the public finance initiative. [7551]

  Mr. Watts
  The precise phasing of planned investment is a matter for Railtrack. The Government have announced their intention to privatise the company in May 1996. Future investment in the railway should, as far as is practicable, be a matter for the private sector, with the private sector taking the investment decision, providing the finance and accepting the risks and rewards.

  The majority of the planned investment programme described in Railtrack's recently published network management statement relates to the maintenance and renewal of the existing infrastructure and will be funded by the access charges paid by train operating companies. Railtrack has also identified some opportunities for developing the network, and it is envisaged that any investment in these enhancements would in the main be remunerated through additional access charges agreed with train operators. Railtrack may also be eligible to apply for contributions to the costs of specific projects from public sector bodies, including the European Union and local authorities.

  Transport Research Budget
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of his Department's 1994–95 transport research budget was devoted to transport by(a) rail and (b) road. [7559]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department commissions research in support of the Secretary of State's policy, statutory, operational, regulatory and procurement responsibilities. It is primarily for the rail industry to commission research particular to its needs. In 1994–95, British Rail's budget for research amounted to £18.4 million. Of my Department's total expenditure on research in 1994–95 of £38.7 million—reported in the 1995 forward look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology—under half of 1 per cent. is devoted specifically to rail transport issues. Some 88 per cent. is attributable to road transport.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the value of the cones hotline; [7639]

  (2) what plans he has to create a departmental hotline to give motorists details of roadworks and routes; how many staff will be employed: and at what total cost. [7640]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 6 November at column 759. Staffing of the Highways Agency information line is an operational matter for the agency. I understand that staffing levels are kept under review according to the volume of calls received. The service is currently manned from 8 am to 8 pm on working days and 9 am to 5 pm at weekends. Three members of staff are on duty from 9 am to 5 pm during weekdays, and one member is on duty early morning, evening and at weekends. The total cost of staffing the service is expected to be about £70,000 per annum.

  Road Protests (Monitoring)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total expenditure to date for services supplied to his Department by Bray's Detective Agency in monitoring road protests. [7560]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 9 January 1996:
  As you know, John Watts has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the total expenditure to date for services supplied by Brays Detective Agency in monitoring road protests. Brays Detective Agency were employed by solicitors, on behalf of the Department. The total cost to date for services supplied by them in monitoring road protests is £950,588.

  Stena Line Ferries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was his Department's involvement in respect of the 50
  recent changes in the frequency and crewing of Stena Line ferries sailing from Harwich. [7704]

  Mr. Norris
  None. These are commercial matters.

  Fishing Vessels (Ownership)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British-registered fishing vessels are(a) British-owned, (b) Spanish-owned, (c) Dutch-owned, (d) owned by other countries; and if he will list the foreign-owned vessels by port or register. [7393]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about British and foreign-owned fishing vessels registered in British ports.
  I regret the information you have requested is not available.

  Shipping (Domestic Crews)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the subsidies and tax incentives offered to the shipping industry to employ domestic crews on ships in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each of the other EU countries. [7627]

  Mr. Norris
  (a) We are pursuing a package of positive measures to improve the attractiveness of the Red Ensign and the competitiveness of British shipping. These include:

  Foreign earnings deduction (FED) for seafarers: 100 per cent. allowance on earnings made abroad;

  Crew relief costs scheme: grants to alleviate the cost of flying British crews to and from distant ports;

  Government assistance for training scheme: grants for the training of British officer trainees to first certificate of competency;

  Development of certificated seafarers scheme: grants for British junior officers training for their second certificate of competence.

  (b) Most member states have schemes. Measures include grants, subsidies, credit facilities, income tax and social security concessions, and special corporation tax regimes. The economic effects of these measures vary from country to country.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6560]

  Sir George Young
  For the period in question, information is available on expenditure by the Department and its agencies on press advertising in respect of advertising of road works, road safety publicity campaigns, vehicle excise duty enforcement campaigns and on other information campaigns as follows:
  51

  DOT £

  Highways Agency £

  DVLA £

  1990–91

  1358,497

  n/a

  85,045

  1991–92

  1721,379

  n/a

  123,704

  1992–93

  1,435,015

  n/a

  137,485

  1993–94

  2,592,593

  n/a

  38,964

  1994–95

  2111,589

  22,564,067

  24,591

  1Information on advertising placed locally by DOT regional road units was not collected centrally before 1992–93.

  2From 1994–95 statutory advertising on road works became the responsibility of the Highways Agency.

  Figures exclude VAT.

  Expenditure to date in the current financial year is as follows:

  DOT £

  Highways Agency £

  DVLA £

  1995–93

  503,081

  1,211,871

  24,142

  Projections for 1995–96 are in line with overall expenditure for next year as published in the PES statement.

  The further information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to whom the bridge master on the Skye bridge is accountable for decisions about whether or not to close the bridge in adverse weather conditions. [7239]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The bridge master is an employee of a private company—Skye Bridge Ltd.—which operates the tolled crossing and is responsible for maintenance and day-to-day operation of the bridge. By virtue of section 43(4) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, the company has powers to close the bridge temporarily in circumstances which include adverse weather. The concession agreement between the company and the Secretary of State requires that the exercise by the company of these powers will be undertaken only after consultation with the police.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7566]
  52
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  "FCO Online", the world wide web service of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing, was launched on 1 May 1995 and is updated daily. A wide range of information material is published on the site, including speeches, statements, press releases, consular and travel advice, foreign policy briefing papers and ministerial engagements. Latest additions include sound and video files.

  British Information Services New York also has its own web site providing material of regional interest in North America.

  The Overseas Development Administration does not maintain its own web site—instead it has a home page on the "One World Online" web server. Information provided on or via this page includes ODA press releases, the bi-monthly newspaper British Overseas Development and the annual review. The information is not made available on the Internet prior to normal publication procedures.

  The addresses are as follows:

  FCO (London): http://www.fco.gov.uk/

  BIS New York: http://britain.nyc.ny.us/

  ODA: http://www.oneworld.org/oda/

  Neither wing at present answers questions or supplies additional information through the Internet.

  Council of Europe (Russian Membership)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Russian application to join the Council of Europe. [7440]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly is due to make a recommendation later this month on the Russian application to join the Council of Europe. We welcome the prospect of Russia's accession.

  Commonwealth of Independent States (Nuclear Installations)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the CIS countries regarding the safety of their nuclear power installations. [7718]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Since the 1992 G7 Munich summit, we have been active in promoting improved levels of nuclear safety throughout the former Soviet Union and in central and eastern Europe. Together with our G7 and EU partners, we take full opportunity of meetings with Ministers and officials from these countries to encourage nuclear safety improvements. The closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant by the year 2000 was one of the issues which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed with President Kuchma during his recent visit to London. The recently agreed memorandum of understanding between the G7 and Ukraine on the closure of Chernobyl is an example of the successful
  53
  international efforts in this area. Preparations are now under way for the G8 nuclear safety summit in Moscow in April. This will focus on a range of nuclear safety and security issues.

  NATO Secretary General
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the appointment of the new Secretary General of NATO. [6350]

  Mr. David Davis
  We very much welcome the appointment of Javier Solana as the new Secretary General of NATO. We look forward to working closely with him.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to raise the fees for entry clearance abroad; to what level the fees for entry clearance for(a) single entry visit, (b) multiple entry visit, (c) business or work, (d) student and (e) settlement will be raised; and which countries have arrangements with the United Kingdom for free visas. [7418]

  Mr. Hanley
  The entry clearance application fee for settlement is due to rise on 1 April 1996. The new fee will be announced nearer the time. No decisions have been taken on changes to other fees.

  The United Kingdom waives visa fees for certain categories of applicant in accordance with international custom or law, or on policy grounds.

  The United Kingdom waives visa fees for nationals of certain countries of the former Soviet Union under the terms of the 1964 UK/USSR agreement abolishing consular fees on visas. These are Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgystan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine. The agreement will terminate in respect of nationals of Russia on 27 January 1996. The agreement is no longer in effect in respect of nationals of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what are the present waiting times to first interview for all categories of applicant(a) in each country and at each post in the Indian subcontinent, (b) Bangkok, (c) Manila, (d) Lagos, (e) Accra, (f) Kingston, (g) Addis Ababa and (h) Sana' a; [7659]

  (2) how many applications for entry clearance as working holiday-makers have been (a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused in (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh, (iii) Australia, (iv) Canada, (v) Nigeria, (vi) Ghana, (vii) Pakistan, (viii) Sierra Leone, (ix) Gambia and (x) Jamaica during 1994 and 1995 to the latest convenient date; [7658]

  (3) how many explanatory statements relate to entry clearance appeals were awaiting typing at each post in (a) the Indian subcontinent, (b) Manila, (c) Kingston, (d) Bangkok, (e) Lagos and (f) Accra, on the latest date for which information is available; how many staff are employed, (i) full-time and (ii) part-time, to type statements; and when he expects backlogs to be cleared; [7419]
  54
  (4) how long a person applying for entry clearance for settlement at the British post in (a) Manila, (b) Accra, (c) Lagos, (d) Kingston, (e) Nicosia, (f) Cairo, (g) Bangkok, (h) Rabat and (i) each post in each country of the Indian subcontinent on 30 September 1995 or the latest date for which information could expect to wait for (i) interview, (ii) referral of the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (iii) decisions and (iv) an explanatory statement prepared by the post in the event of an appeal against a refusal to be despatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom. [7657]

  Mr. Hanley
  In view of the amount of detail needed to answer these questions, I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Government Hospitality Fund (Wine)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the function of the Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine; if he will name the current members and chairman; what was (i) the sponsoring Department's expenditure in the last year for which information is available and (ii) the remuneration or expenses paid to the chairman and members; and if he will make a statement. [7613]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The function of the Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine is to"Advise the Minister in Charge of the Government Hospitality Fund on the maintenance of an appropriate standard of wine for use at Official Government functions".

  The current members and chairman of the committee are as named in the answer given by the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 24 October 1994, Official Report, column 440:
  Chairman:

  Sir Ewen Fergusson

  Members:

  Major John Suttees

  Mr. Anthony Hanson

  Mr Mark Savage

  Mr. Sebastian Payne.

  The sponsoring Department's Government hospitality fund total expenditure in the financial year 1994–95 was £1,437,191.

  The remuneration or expenses paid to the chairman and members of the committee is nil.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the customs union with Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [7596]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has had many discussions on the EU/Turkey customs union, and warmly welcomes the European Parliament's decision of 13 December to approve it.
  55
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Turkey covering(a) human rights, (b) the imprisonment of Members of Parliament and (c) the occupation of northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [7597]

  Mr. Davis
  We regularly make clear our concern about human rights to the Turkish Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised this issue and that of Cyprus when he met the Turkish Prime Minister on 22 November. Our embassy in Ankara has frequently raised the imprisonment of the DEP deputies, most recently following the Appeals Court hearing on 26 October.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the USA concerning Turkish membership of the European customs union. [7598]

  Mr. Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Clinton agreed when they met on 29 November on the importance of consolidating the relationship between Turkey and the EU, and that customs union was an integral part of that relationship.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by Her Majesty's embassy in Turkey to press for the release of the imprisoned Members of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [7599]

  Mr. Davis
  Our embassy in Ankara made representations to the Turkish authorities on a weekly basis in advance of the Appeals Court hearing on 26 October. They have raised it again since. The four deputies who remain in prison have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and other agencies on the human rights situation in Turkey. [7600]

  Mr. Davis
  We have not spoken recently with UNHCR about human rights in Turkey although there has been some discussion within the Council of Europe. We frequently hold discussions with non-governmental organisations about human rights, and regularly make clear our concerns to the Turkish Government.

  United Nations Compensation Fund
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the United Kingdom has transferred to the United Nations escrow account in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 778; how much of this has been subsequently passed to the UN compensation fund; if the sum transferred included interest on the original amount; and if he will make a statement. [7608]

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of US $736,938.12—including accrued interest of US $64,384.69—was transferred in February 1995 to the UN escrow account in accordance with Security Council resolution No. 778. Just over US $221.000 was subsequently passed to the UN 56
  compensation fund. No other unencumbered oil-related assets have been identified.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many claims have been made by United Kingdom citizens to the UN compensation fund for victims of the Gulf war; how many of these have been settled; and if he will make a statement. [7610]

  Mr. Hanley
  Some 4,990 claims in various categories have been submitted to the UN compensation commission by the Government on behalf of individuals and companies; 1,468 of these have been assessed so far, of which 148 have been settled.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the operation of the UN compensation commission fund for victims of the Gulf war. [7612]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations compensation commission in Geneva was established in 1991, under UN Security Council resolutions Nos. 687 and 692, to deal with claims for compensation for direct loss, damage or injury resulting from Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Claims have submitted by individuals, corporations and Governments. The commission consists of three parts: First, the policy-making Governing Council. Membership mirrors that of the Security Council; secondly, the secretariat, led by an executive secretary, which is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the commission; thirdly, panels of commissioners, who are experts in international law, finance and other fields, and are responsible for adjudicating the claims.

  Having quickly established the machinery to deal with an unprecedented number of claims, it has already assessed 2 million of the 2.6 million claims received.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the maximum compensation paid to(a) an individual and (b) a family from the UN compensation commission fund for victims of the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement. [7609]

  Mr. Hanley
  Compensation has been paid to a total of 3,967 category B—serious personal injury or death—claimants, of whom 148 are British. The maximum that an individual and a family can receive in this category is US $2,500 and US $10,000 respectively.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number and value of payments made under the UN compensation commission fund for Gulf war victims; what was the nationality of the successful claimants and if he will make a statement. [7611]

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 3,967 claims amounting to US $13,470,000 have been paid so far. The Governments and international organisations which submitted these claims are as follows:

  Algeria

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Belgium

  Bulgaria

  57

  Canada

  China

  Egypt

  Ethiopia

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  India

  Iran

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Korea

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  Malaysia

  Mauritius

  Morocco

  Netherlands

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Poland

  Russian Federation

  Slovak Republic

  Somalia

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Sweden

  Syria

  Thailand

  Tunisia

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Kingdom

  United States

  Yemen

  F. R. of Yugoslavia

  UNDP Jersualem

  UNDP Kuwait

  UNDP Washington

  UNHCR Bulgaria

  UNHCR Canada

  UNHCR Geneva

  UNRWA Vienna

  Landmines
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policies on the sale of landmines. [6359]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our national moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines comprises, since March 1995, a total ban on the export of non-self-destructing or non-detectable anti-personnel landmines; plus a ban on the export of all anti-personnel
  58
  landmines to countries which have not ratified the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention. Our aim is to restrict the availability of long-lived anti-personnel mines, which are the most dangerous to civilians; and to ensure that even self-destructing mines can be acquired only by responsible countries. We are pressing for international agreement on these lines, inter alia in the context of the current review of the 1980 UN weaponry convention.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8028]

  Mr. Hanley
  The FCO diplomatic and aid wings had the following number of mobile telephones supplied during the last eight years, from the listed number of suppliers:

  Year

  Number of phones

  Number of suppliers

  1988

  3

  1

  1989

  28

  3

  1990

  28

  3

  1991

  52

  3

  1992

  30

  4

  1993

  19

  2

  1994

  64

  6

  1995

  86

  7

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials he employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5619]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: There are Departments within the FCO which have correspondence units dealing specifically with letters from the general public and Members of Parliament. The remainder deal with such correspondence within their existing staff resources.

  To provide a breakdown of the expenditure on these services would incur disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many refugees from the former Yugoslavia have been given asylum status in each of the member states of the EU; [7232]

  (2) how may refugees from the former Yugoslavia have been granted asylum status in the United Kingdom. [7231]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the period 1991 to the end of the November 1995, there were in the United Kingdom approximately 250 grants of asylum to nationals of the former

  59
  Yugoslavia. Most of the decisions were made in 1995. Over the same time period, approximately 2,050 former Yugoslavs were refused asylum but granted exceptional leave in the United Kingdom.

  In addition to the above, the Government announced on 30 November 1992 that the United Kingdom was willing to receive 1,000 people from Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia classified by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees as being vulnerable and in need of evacuation, together with their dependants. As at 19 December 1995, a total of 910 principals and 1,216 dependents had arrived. On 6 August it was announced that a further 500 would be accepted. To date, 176 persons from this quota have arrived.

  The available information on grants of asylum or exceptional leave to remain by European Union member states is given in the table.

  Grants of Asylum or Exceptional leave to Remain to nationals of the former Yugoslavia by EU Member States1, January to June 1995

  Nationality

  Grants of Refugee status

  Not recognised as a Refugee but granted exceptional leave toremain2

  Austria

  50

  0

  Belgium

  55

  0

  Denmark

  10

  10

  Finland

  0

  5

  France

  150

  0

  Germany

  1,745

  0

  Greece

  0

  25

  Ireland

  5

  0

  Italy

  5

  0

  Luxembourg

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  0

  0

  Portugal

  0

  0

  Sweden

  0

  0

  Spain

  0

  0

  United Kingdom

  25

  570

  Total

  2,050

  615

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2Includes equivalent status used by European countries.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTME

  Probate Sub-registries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many probate sub-registries there were in(a) each county in Wales and (b) Wales as a whole in each year since 1993; and what his estimate is of the number in 1997. [6449]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about probate sub-registries.
  The probate service consists of District Probate Registries, Probate Offices and Probate Sub-Registries.
  60
  The number and type of probate offices located in Wales has not changed since 1993 and is as follows:

  Type of office

  Town

  County

  District probate registry

  Cardiff

  Mid Glamorgan

  Probate office

  Bridgend

  Mid Glamorgan

  Probate office

  Pontypridd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Probate office

  Newport

  Gwent

  Probate office

  Rhyl

  Clwyd

  Probate office

  Wrexham

  Clwyd

  Probate office

  Aberystwyth

  Dyfed

  Probate office

  Haverfordwest

  Dyfed

  Probate office

  Swansea

  West Glamorgan

  Probate sub-registries

  Bangor

  Gwynedd

  Probate sub-registries

  Carmarthen

  Dyfed

  The Court Service is currently consulting interested parties on the proposed closure of some Probate Sub-Registries and will begin public consultation in the new year on those probate offices also recommended for closure. The final decision on the proposed closures will be made by the Lord Chancellor following those consultations. It is therefore not possible at this stage to estimate the number of Probate Sub-Registries and probate offices in 1997.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7821]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Parliamentary Questions are passed to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document. I see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters. Neither I, nor my predecessor, have amended any such letters during the time specified.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7579]

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office does not use the Internet and has no plans to do so.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the awards made to organisations in Worcestershire from national lottery funds; and what was the size of the grant and the project cost in each case. [6133]
  61
  Mr. Sproat
  Figures for national lottery funds broken down by county areas are not currently available. There have, however, been 312 awards made to organisations in the west midlands, to date, totalling over £51 million.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the receipts deposited by the organisers and the total amounts paid out for each week by them in respect of the national lottery for each week of its operation to date. [7013]

  Mr. Sproat
  At 8 January 1996, receipts into the national lottery distribution fund totalled £1.4 billion.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what request she has made to Camelot for information about the sale of national lottery winners' names to list brokers; what reply she has received with particular reference to the identity of beneficiaries of such sales; and if she will make a statement. [5940]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: I have not approached Camelot about the sale of national lottery winners' names to list brokers. The Director General of the National Lottery, Mr. Peter Davis, has licensed Camelot to run the national lottery and he regulates its operations. I have therefore asked the director general to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received relating to the distribution of national lottery funding in Scotland. [4639]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: I have received a number of representations about the distribution of national lottery proceeds. Scotland has fared extremely well. To date, 550 awards have been made from proceeds totalling £112 million.

  Channel 5
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when Channel 5 television is expected to commence broadcasting; when the service will be available in Northern Ireland; which regions of Northern Ireland will(a) receive and (b) be unable to receive Channel 5 television programmes; and if she will make a statement. [6919]

  Mr. Sproat
  The start date for Channel 5 is a matter for the Independent Television Commission, which is responsible for licensing it. The Commission has indicated that the service must start simultaneously in a minimum of two major areas, no later than 1 January 1997. The transmission plan for Channel 5 includes two sites for Northern Ireland: Black Mountain, which is predicted to be able to serve about 670,000 people, and Londonderry, with around 70,000 people. Predicted coverage maps for these sites are available from the commission. The timing of the provision of the service in Northern Ireland will depend on the completion of international frequency co-ordination discussions

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the 62
  expenditure of her (a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate she has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6564]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment her Department has made of the extent to which business organisations advertise the availability of residential vacancies in hotels, hostels and houses in multiple occupation in tourist areas to attract unemployment benefit claimants; what is the nature of such organisations; and if she will make a statement. [5391]

  Mr. Sproat
  I share the widespread concern that the rapid expansion of hostels in a number of popular resort areas is causing very serious problems. My Department has made no assessment of advertising by hostel landlords, although we are indeed aware of this practice. The Government recently announced some measures designed to tackle poor standards in houses in multiple occupation including hostels. These include a new duty of care on HMO landlords and new simplified registration schemes which may be brought in by any local authority. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to bring forward legislation as soon as possible.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what web site her Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if she or her Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7571]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage is in the process of establishing a pilot site on the world wide web which will provide information about the work of the Department and the range of activities which it and its sponsored bodies cover. At present, DNH press releases are available on the world wide web from the Central Office of Information on http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GHE/GHE.html. The DNH web site will be updated to reflect developments and changes in the work of the Department. The range of information provided on the site will be reviewed in the course of the current pilot. The address of the Department of National Heritage world wide web site will be made available in due course and it will be accessible from the CCTA's open government server.

  Ministerial Travel and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her estimate of the total cost for herself and other departmental Ministers for each year
  63
  Since 1991–92, including the current year of (a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6392]

  Mr. Sproat
  While all the information requested is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, the available information is as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  11995–96 £

  Overseas travel and subsistence

  14,967

  46,092

  15,361

  Government car services

  192,693

  190,165

  120,675

  UK travel and subsistence

  10,648

  24,868

  14,882

  1To date.

  There are no comparable figures for earlier years as the Department's payment system was not in place until 1993, following the establishment of the Department of National Heritage in 1992.

  Statue of Miner, Kent
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will take steps to ensure that the statue of the miner outside Richborough power station, Kent, remains in place as a monument to the county's links with the coal industry; and if she will make a statement. [7240]

  Mr. Sproat
  If the hon. Member sends details of the statue, including photographs and a location plan, to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we will ask advisers at English Heritage to assess whether it merits protection as a structure of special architectural or historic interest.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her estimate of the cost of running her departmental office, and that of her predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6391]

  Mr. Sproat
  While the information requested is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, the following information is available:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  11995–96 £

  Total staff cost

  401,738

  338,572

  257,196

  Hospitality/entertainment

  3,700

  564

  1,905

  Government car service/taxi services

  133,183

  92,213

  46,710

  Other costs

  15,833

  1,273

  —

  Total

  554,454

  432,622

  305,811

  1To date.

  64
  There are no comparable figures for earlier years as the Department's payment system was not in place until 1993, following the establishment of the Department of National Heritage in 1992.

  National Millennium Commission
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will make a statement on the estimated outturn costs of clearing up the industrial waste at each of the sites proposed for the national millennium exhibition; [4816]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the suitability for development of the various sites proposed for the national millennium exhibition; and to what extent site clearing operations, including the removal of contaminated ground, will jeopardise the building schedules. [4817]

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

  Scratchcards
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many Camelot outlets to date have lost their franchise to sell lottery instant scratchcards on the grounds that they had been selling them to children under 16 years of age. [5238]

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

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress her Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise-related public procurement initiatives. [6718]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: My Department and its two agencies have decided that because of their relatively small expenditure on goods and services it would not be worth while to have a separate contact point for small and medium enterprises.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what work her Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to the needs of small and medium enterprises. [6619]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: My Department maintains an entry in the Government publication, "Tendering for Government Contracts" which advises small and medium enterprises on procurement procedures and lists procurement contact points. A copy of this publication is available in the House Library.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice has been given to procurement staff
  65
  on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises. [6621]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The following guidance has been issued to the procurement staff in my Department and its agencies:
  "Size may be relevant to the selection of tenderers, but only insofar as it is necessary to assess whether or not the task is within their capability. Once that assessment has been made, relative size is likely to be less significant than skills, efficiency, experience, and reliability—characteristics relevant to value for money and just as likely to be found in small firms as in large and particularly relevant in the procurement of services".

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6505]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: While the information requested is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, my Department paid a total of £10 million for goods and services in 1994–95.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what meetings her Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6620]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Neither my Department nor its two agencies have attended any meetings with organisations representing small firms.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the outcome of her Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [6664]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: My Department and its agencies will be carrying out this review during the first quarter of 1996.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will provide for schemes so far agreed under the PFI the level of financing costs above the current cost of Government borrowing for the scheme with(a) the highest financing costs and (b) the lowest costs. [5753]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Schemes are assessed under the private finance initiative for overall best value for money in providing a specified service taking account of design, building, financing and operation as a whole. It is not therefore possible to provide information in the form requested.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future of PFI work. [5751]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Neither my Department nor its agencies have dedicated private finance units, and it is not therefore possible to
  66
  quantify separately from other activity that attributable to the procurement of public services through the private finance initiative. I would not, however, expect procurement through the PFI to increase administrative costs beyond those which would be associated with other means of providing public services.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5752]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 7 December 1995, Official Report, column 374.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many officials she employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in her Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to her from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5614]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: No staff in this Department are employed exclusively in answering letters from hon. Members, and it is not possible to estimate what the overall cost of replying to letters in each of the last three years would be.

  BBC Charter
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further arrangements will be made for(a) public and (b) parliamentary debate on the future of the BBC charter. [7136]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: There has already been substantial debate on the future of the BBC. The Government's consultation document was published in November 1992 and received some 6,600 responses. In the light of those, the Government set out their proposals in a White Paper "The future of the BBC: Serving the nation, Competing world-wide" which generated comments from some 200 individuals and organisations and which was debated in both Houses. On 27 November, the Government published the BBC's draft charter and agreement, designed to put into effect the policies set out in the White Paper. Both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity to debate these documents when parliamentary business allows and before they come into effect.

HEALTH

  St. Mary's Hospital, Isle of Wight
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the finances of St. Mary's hospital, Isle of Wight. [6235]

  Mr. Horam
  St. Mary's hospital is currently reviewing its financial position with the help of its local health commission and the national health service regional
  67
  office. The trust is taking the action necessary to meet all its financial duties by the end of 1996–97, as well a producing improvements to service delivery.

  Capital Allocations
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the capital allocation by region in each of the last five years. [6337]

  Mr. Horam
  The capital allocation by region in each of the last five years is shown in the tables.

  £ thousands

  Region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  91,954

  100,324

  107,797

  Yorkshire

  104,209

  123,980

  125,598

  Trent

  140,577

  157,142

  158,336

  East Anglia

  56,139

  62,913

  69,169

  North-West Thames

  84,254

  105,345

  105,887

  North-East Thames

  107,297

  124,733

  119,041

  South-East Thames

  109,882

  115,261

  120,626

  South-West Thames

  80,339

  100,114

  94,945

  Wessex

  85,441

  92,330

  100,988

  Oxford

  62,934

  70,932

  77,383

  South Western

  94,770

  111,399

  114,964

  West Midlands

  166,130

  168,182

  175,577

  Mersey

  70,249

  79,925

  82,670

  North Western

  120,509

  129,269

  139,966

  Total

  1,374,684

  1,541,852

  1,592,947

  £ thousand

  Region

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northern and Yorkshire

  225,612

  214,806

  Trent

  153,540

  150,370

  Anglian and Oxford

  143,121

  149,131

  North Thames

  218,158

  231,037

  South Thames

  210,007

  206,359

  South and West

  211,454

  199,022

  West Midlands

  169,008

  162,545

  North-West

  213,869

  215,513

  Total

  1,544,769

  1,528,783

  1. The above includes allocations both to regional health authorities and to trusts.

  2. Totals may vary due to roundings.

  Child Psychotherapy
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child psychotherapy advisers are currently employed in his Department. [7739]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department maintains close contact with the child psychotherapy bodies but does not employ any child psychotherapy advisers.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified child psychotherapists are practising in the United Kingdom(a) by health authority and (b) in the inner cities. [7740]

  Mr. Malone
  The table shows the number of qualified child psychotherapists employed by the national health service in England by regional health authority area. Separate information on child psychotherapists employed in inner cities is not available centrally.
  68

  NHS hospitals and community health services qualified child psychotherapists—England by region as at 30 September 1994

  Whole-time equivalents

  Qualified child psychotherapists

  England total

  220

  Northern and Yorkshire

  10

  Trent

  20

  Anglia and Oxford

  10

  North Thames

  80

  South Thames

  30

  South and West

  30

  West Midlands

  1—

  North-West

  10

  Special health authorities

  20

  Notes:

  1Denotes figures of five and under.

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalent.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which preventive psychotherapeutic work with young people is likely to reduce the risk of adolescent violence and drug taking. [7738]

  Mr. Bowis
  Several studies have shown that boys who exhibit aggressive and anti-social behaviour have an increased risk of later alcoholism and drug taking. Cognitive behavioural therapy has shown promise in reducing the duration of a disorder in the treatment of conduct and oppositional disorders which may or may not involve aggressive behaviour. Other psychotherapeutic treatment approaches may be relevant if the aggressive behaviour is associated with another disorder with a specific approach. The age of the young person, the appropriateness of family involvement in the treatment and other individual factors will all play a part in determining the best course of action.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a public inquiry to investigate the deaths of heroin addicts in north Cheshire who were recently transferred to different treatment regimes, and if he will make a statement. [7670]

  Mr. Bowis
  I understand that these matters are still the subject of coroners' investigations and it will not therefore be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.

  Emergency Provision (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the present state of availability of emergency beds in London and the available capacity in London's accident and emergency units to respond to an increase in emergency admissions. [8060]
  69
  Mr. Malone
  London has 24-hour accident and emergency departments in 35 of its hospitals. Trusts and health authorities work together to ensure that changes in demand are met.

  Children (Research)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research and findings his Department has carried out into a national monitoring system to detect trends in morbidity and disability in seven-year-old children of different birth weights; and if he will make a statement. [8043]

  Mr. Bowis
  The departmentally funded national perinatal epidemiology unit has undertaken a pilot study to explore how morbidity and disability in children of different birth weight might be monitored. The study has revealed some of the issues that must be addressed in devising a reliable, cost-effective, national system.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by each health authority in the UK towards the energy saving targets in "Climate Change: the UK programme". [7958]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service energy saving programme commenced in April 1991 with a target set to reduce national energy consumption by 15 per cent. over five years to March 1996. The broad total savings in energy consumption achieved in England by March 1995, amended from previous published figures, amounts to 6.5 per cent.

  This still represents a significant improvement in efficiency and builds on earlier achievements where consumption was reduced by 21 per cent. between 1977 and 1991. Increased activity and technological advances have contributed to the slowdown in savings.

  Information is not available centrally for each authority or NHS trust in the United Kingdom.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce market testing in relation to the activities of the NHS supplies authority. [8074]

  Mr. Horam
  In common with all health authorities and trusts, the national health service supplies authority is free to market test its non-core activities, wherever it can add value by doing so. A number of services have been contracted out, and in particular about 20 per cent. of NHS supplies' logistics costs involve third party contractors who operate two distribution centres and most of the transport operations. NHS supplies is actively developing a proposed logistics strategy which is aimed at improving services and reducing warehousing and distribution costs, and includes options for further market testing of these services.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in 70
  each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8036]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health keeps records of the number of active mobile telephones, which currently stands at about 500. Annual supply figures are not recorded.

  The main supplier from 1991 to 1994 was BT (Cellnet). Since April 1994 Vodafone has been the sole supplier on winning a tendered contract. Mobile telephones are obtained to meet operational needs and are issued to individuals for official use.

  Special Hospitals Service Authority
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for health (1) pursuant to his reply of 19 December Official Report, column 1134, if he will make it his policy to answer parliamentary questions or letters from hon. Members on behalf of the Special Hospitals Service Authority; [7991]

  (2) what consideration led him not to forward to the SHSA the hon. Member's question of 19 December about the use of telephones by inmates in institutions from the criminally insane. [7986]

  Mr. Bowis
  The management and operation of the special hospitals are the responsibility of the Special Hospitals Service Authority. It is not our practice to forward parliamentary questions to health authorities for reply, but it is open to the hon. Member to raise these matter with the chairman of the authority.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health if he will list the membership of the Special Hospitals Service Authority, together with the dates of appointment and retirement. [7987]

  Mr. Bowis
  The members of the authority and the dates on which they were first appointed are listed as follows. We have announced proposals for abolishing the authority from 1 April 1996 and shall shortly be laying the necessary regulations to give effect to this.

  Name

  Position

  Date of Appointment

  Non-Executive members:

  Mrs. Anne-Marie

  Nelson

  Chairman

  18 April 1994

  Dr. James Higgins

  Vice-Chairman

  1 October 1989

  Miss Joy Young

  Member

  1 December 1993

  Ms Sheila

  Drew-Smith

  Member

  1 June 1994

  Executive members:

  Mr. Charles Kaye

  Chief Executive

  23 October 1989

  Mr. Robert Hawkins

  Director of Finance

  1 February 1990

  Mr. Frank Powell

  Director of Nursing

  1 December 1989

  Dr. Dilys Jones

  Medical Director

  1 April 1995

  Ambulance Service, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost per head of population of the ambulance service in Greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement. [8009]
  71
  Mr. Horam
  The cost per head of population of the ambulance service is broken down into two parts. For the emergency service, the cost per person is £6.37 per year. For the non-emergency service, the cost is £2.68 per year.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the progress of private finance initiative projects in the NHS in London. [8061]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service in London is making good progress with the private finance initiative. A number of projects have been approved and in a number of others private finance possibilities are being explored.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the consultancy contracts awarded by(a) health authorities and (b) NHS trusts to Newchurch and Co. in relation to private finance initiative contracts, indicating the value of each of those contracts. [8114]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is a matter for each national health service organisation to establish its own needs where the employment of external contractors may be required.

  Environmental Control Equipment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research and findings his Department has carried out into clinical trials of environmental control equipment; if he will make a statement. [8044]

  Mr. Bowis
  As part of the national health service research and development strategy there is a nationally funded programme of research on physical and complex disability managed by South and West region which includes a project to review current provision of environmental controls equipment. This is being conducted by the regional rehabilitation centre at South Birmingham community health trust. In addition, the Medical Devices Agency has recently published a comparative evaluation of environmental control systems. Copies of this evaluation will be placed in the Library.

  Cemfuel (Health Effects)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given to general practitioners in the Clitheroe area concerning possible health effects resulting from the burning of cemfuel. [7944]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for East Lancashire health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contract Mr. W. Ashworth, chairman, for details.

  Trent Healthline
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to continue the Trent healthline with effect from 1 April 1996; and if he will make a statement. [8042]

  Mr. Horam
  From 1 April 1996 responsibility for ensuring the provision of health information services will be devolved to health authorities, in accordance with 72
  revised health service guidance issued on 18 September 1995, HSG(95)44, copies of which are available in the Library.

  It will be for each health authority to decide, in accordance with the quality standards set in HSG(95)44, whether to contract with the existing service provider or to make alternative arrangements for the provision of the service. Regional offices of the NHS executive monitor the transition closely.

  Pharmacies and Dispensaries
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had to modify application of the one-mile rule regarding general practitioner dispensaries, with special reference to taking account of local preferences. [8202]

  Mr. Malone
  The regulations governing dispensing by doctors are designed to safeguard the needs of patients and ensure, where possible, that patients enjoy access to the expert services of both the medical and pharmaceutical professions. I have received representations from both professions about the application of the rules and my hon. Friend wrote to me last year about taking into account local preferences.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he takes to be fully informed of the views of local residents when considering applications for new pharmacies, with special reference to the one-mile rule. [8203]

  Mr. Malone
  An application to provide pharmaceutical services under the national health service is considered by the family health services authority in whose locality the proposed pharmacy is situated. The FHSA must consult every relevant community health council about the views of local residents.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what epidemiological investigations have been made into possible common factors relating to outbreaks, as published in the monitor MB2 series of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, of meningitis of(a) group B and (b) group C. [8196]

  Mr. Horam
  Investigation of outbreaks of meningococcal disease is the responsibility of the local consultant in communicable disease control in each health district. It is standard practice for the CCDC to look for links between cases, such as attendance at the same college, school or nursery. In some outbreaks, nose and/or throat swabs are taken from close contacts of cases before antibiotics are given. Where a high carriage rate of the organism causing the disease has been observed, this may be the reason for the outbreak. Highest carriage rates are typically seen in teenage children.

  A number of studies have been carried out in the United Kingdom to determine factors associated with increased

  73
  risk of meningococcal disease. In these studies three possible risk factors have been identified: passive smoking, close contact and recent influenza infection.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1212 if he will now take steps to monitor centrally (a) delays of admission of seriously ill patients to hospital as published definitions of delay, (b) the reasons for such delays and (c) the steps taken by district health authorities to prevent their repetition. [8185]

  Mr. Horam
  No. We are, however, monitoring the performance of NHS trusts in meeting the patients charter standard for emergency admissions.

  Day Care Services (Children)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means the proposed children's services planning guidance in the order arising from section 17(4) of the Children Act 1989 will operate within the terms of paragraph 16 of the draft guidance to social services and education departments of local authorities requiring joint review, planning and co-ordination of all day care services for children under eight years of age. [8187]

  Mr. Bowis
  The proposed order places no new requirement on local authorities in respect of day care services for children under eight. The guidance will encourage local authorities to have regard to the latest section 19 review when preparing or reviewing children's services plans.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will be applied to day care centres and out-of-school child care facilities as described in the Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations, volume 2. [8195]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Disability Discrimination Act is expected to apply to day care centres and out-of-school child care facilities in the same way that it applies to other facilities. This is currently subject to consultation.

  Medical Devices
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what code of standards applies to the Medical Devices Agency. [7790]

  Mr. Horam
  The framework of policy, planning control, delegations and accountability within which the Medical Devices Agency operates is described in its framework document, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the recorded number of failures of infusion devices causing(a) fatal doses of medication or (b) incapacitating electrical shock, for each of the last five years. [7791]

  Mr. Horam
  Over the last five years, there have been no fatalities reported to the Medical Devices Agency in 74
  which a failure of an infusion device caused a fatal dose of medication. One incident was reported involving an incapacitating electric shock.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what standards govern the operation of foetal monitoring devices. [7793]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no standards specifically governing the operation of foetal monitoring devices.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated as to the extent to which ultrasonic equipment gives incorrect readings. [7792]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 614, on national health service staff if he will provide details of medical locums by specialty. [7753]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, table 17A of the medical and dental manpower census, copies of which are available in the Library, shows directly employed locums in hospitals by specialty. This information excludes, for example, agency locums and public health and community health service locums. This latter information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 579, on medical and non-medical vacancies in the national health service, if he will provide a regional breakdown of figures. [7754]

  Mr. Malone
  The regional breakdown of vacancy data is shown in the tables. Data on junior doctors and the regional breakdown of consultants for 1991 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on vacancies for general practitioners is not centrally available. Figures on nursing and midwifery collected by the office of manpower and economics are available in the annual report of the review body of nursing staff, midwives health visitors and professions allied to medicine. Copies of the review body's report are available in the Library and includes regional data.

  Whole-time equivalent of hospital medical consultant vacant posts by region at 30 September

  1990

  1992

  1993

  1994

  England

  700

  540

  480

  570

  Northern

  70

  30

  30

  40

  Yorkshire

  40

  50

  30

  40

  Trent

  70

  80

  50

  70

  East Anglia

  20

  20

  10

  30

  North-West Thames

  20

  20

  30

  40

  North-East Thames

  70

  50

  80

  50

  South-East Thames

  40

  10

  30

  40

  South-West Thames

  70

  30

  30

  30

  Wessex

  40

  10

  10

  10

  Oxford

  20

  0

  20

  10

  South Western

  60

  40

  30

  30

  75

  Whole-time equivalent of hospital medical consultant vacant posts by region at 30 September

  1990

  1992

  1993

  1994

  West Midlands

  110

  110

  70

  100

  Mersey

  20

  20

  30

  40

  North Western

  60

  60

  50

  50

  Special Health Authorities

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Figures are rounded to the neatest 10. A regional breakdown for 1991 is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Whole-time equivalent of junior doctor vacant posts by region as at 30 September 1990

  Senior registrar

  Registrar

  Senior house officer

  England

  230

  230

  70

  Northern

  10

  20

  0

  Yorkshire

  10

  10

  10

  Trent

  40

  20

  10

  East Anglia

  10

  20

  0

  North-West Thames

  0

  10

  0

  North-East Thames

  20

  30

  10

  South-East Thames

  20

  10

  0

  South-West Thames

  10

  10

  10

  Wessex

  10

  10

  10

  Oxford

  20

  10

  0

  South Western

  20

  10

  0

  West Midlands

  20

  20

  10

  Mersey

  10

  50

  0

  North Western

  30

  20

  10

  Special Health Authorities

  10

  0

  0

  Vacant post figures for house officers are not collected.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10, therefore individual grades may not add up to the total.

  Whole-time equivalent of junior doctor vacant posts by region as at 30 September 1992

  Senior registrar

  Registrar

  Senior house officer

  England

  180

  280

  120

  Northern

  10

  20

  10

  Yorkshire

  30

  50

  10

  Trent

  20

  30

  10

  East Anglia

  10

  10

  0

  North-West Thames

  10

  20

  10

  North-East Thames

  20

  40

  20

  South-East Thames

  0

  10

  10

  South-West Thames

  10

  20

  20

  Wessex

  0

  0

  0

  Oxford

  0

  0

  0

  South Western

  20

  30

  10

  West Midlands

  40

  20

  10

  Mersey

  10

  30

  10

  North-Western

  0

  20

  10

  Special Health Authorities

  10

  10

  10

  Vacant post figures for house officers are not collected.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10, therefore individual grades may not add up to the total.

  Whole-time equivalent of junior doctor vacant posts by region as at 30 September 1993

  Senior registrar

  Registrar

  Senior house officer

  England

  200

  310

  130

  Northern

  0

  0

  10

  Yorkshire

  10

  30

  10

  76

  Whole-time equivalent of junior doctor vacant posts by region as at 30 September 1993

  Senior registrar

  Registrar

  Senior house officer

  Trent

  40

  50

  10

  East Anglia

  20

  20

  10

  North-West Thames

  20

  30

  10

  North-East Thames

  20

  40

  20

  South East Thames

  0

  10

  10

  South-West Thames

  10

  20

  0

  Wessex

  0

  10

  0

  Oxford

  0

  0

  0

  South Western

  20

  50

  10

  West Midlands

  20

  20

  10

  Mersey

  40

  30

  10

  North Western

  0

  10

  10

  Special Health Authorities

  0

  0

  0

  Vacant post figures for house officers are not collected.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10, therefore individual grades may not add up to the total.

  Whole-time equivalent of junior doctor vacant posts by region as at 30 September 1994

  Senior registrar

  Registrar

  Senior house officer

  England

  200

  280

  170

  Northern

  10

  10

  10

  Yorkshire

  20

  20

  10

  Trent

  10

  20

  10

  East Anglia

  30

  10

  10

  North-West Thames

  20

  30

  10

  North-East Thames

  20

  40

  30

  South-East Thames

  10

  10

  10

  South-West Thames

  10

  20

  20

  Wessex

  10

  10

  0

  Oxford

  0

  10

  0

  South Western

  20

  40

  10

  West Midlands

  40

  30

  20

  Mersey

  0

  0

  0

  North Western

  10

  30

  10

  Special Health Authorities

  0

  0

  0

  Vacant post figures for house officers are not collected.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10, therefore individual grades may not add up to the total.

  Supervision Registers (Records)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what form his Department holds records on the number of people who have been placed on supervision registers. [7996]

  Mr. Bowis
  Supervision registers are maintained by mental health service providers. Entries on the register form part of the patient's confidential health records.

  Homoeopathic Medicines
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the ban on certain homoeopathic medicines with particular reference to comfrey podophyllum and secalecornutum. [8206]
  77
  Mr. Malone
  There is no ban on homoeopathic medicinal products containing comfrey or secalecornutum.

  In the case of products containing podophyllum, manufacturers were asked to withdraw these products from the market in 1991. This followed advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Committee on the Review of Medicines that podophyllum appears to have unacceptable toxicity and little evidence of efficacy. The risk-benefit analysis for such products is not considered to be acceptable for use in any strength, for any indications. There was particular concern over the oral use of mutagenic chemicals such as podophyllum even at very low doses.

  Residential Care for the Elderly
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the additional costs to local authorities in providing residential care for the elderly as a result of the raising of capital allowances in the Budget. [8160]

  Mr. Bowis
  Additional resources of £60 million have been made available for 1996–97 to reflect the additional cost to the Department of Social Security and social services departments in the United Kingdom of the changes announced in the Budget to levels of capital disregard.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and timescale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5985]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: An updated list of research projects, carried out by the Department for financial years 1992–93 to 1995–96 has been placed in the Library. The cost of each individual survey is a matter of commercial confidentiality and the

  Table 1: Level of provision set for each department in public expenditure survey of previous year

  (adjusted for classification and transfer changes)

  £'s million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Defence

  21,100

  22,670

  23,310

  22,740

  22,770

  Overseas

  Development

  1,710

  1,910

  2,150

  2,270

  2,310

  Foreign Office

  920

  1,050

  1,060

  1,100

  1,130

  78
  remaining information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Total costs of surveys in each complete year since 1992–93 are estimated as follows:

  1992–93: £ 5.5 million

  1993–94: £ 6.7 million

  1994–95: £ 5.3 million.

  Alcohol
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the maximum recommended weekly levels of alcohol consumption for each country in Europe. [7218]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The only Government-endorsed recommendations of which we are aware are shown in the table.

  Number of units (UK equivalent1)

  Men

  Women

  Austria

  26.25

  17.5

  Denmark

  31.5

  21

  Sweden

  <6.25

  <6.25

  18g of ethanol.

TREASURY

  Expenditure
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what were the levels of spending, predicted a year previously, for each Department and for government overall, in each year from 1990 to 1995; [6881]

  (2) what the predicted figures for public spending, by Department and overall, in 1996 would be if the average error in past predictions for (a) 1992 to 1995 and (b) 1990 to 1995, were added to the current prediction; [6883]

  (3) what was the average overshoot or undershoot for actual spending for each Department and overall in relation to the predictions a year earlier for the years (a) 1990 to 1995 and (b) 1992 to 1995. [6882]

  Mr. Waldergrave
  Tables 1 and 2 set out the information required. The figures have been adjusted to present control total definition and departmental structure. The outturn for 1994–95 is still provisional and is consistent with the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97" published in November 1995.

  The difference between planned expenditure and final outturn varies considerably from year to year. It would not therefore be meaningful to predict outturn for 1996–97 on the basis of averages over the last few years.
  79

  Table 1: Level of provision set for each department in public expenditure survey of previous year

  (adjusted for classification and transfer changes)

  £'s million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,800

  2,220

  2,230

  2,720

  2,800

  Trade and Industry

  3,400

  4,490

  3,830

  4,590

  3,380

  ECGD

  250

  250

  120

  -30

  -90

  Transport

  4,210

  5,200

  6,930

  6,460

  5,820

  Environment

  28,630

  37,470

  40,700

  39,450

  39,870

  Home Office

  4,640

  5,180

  5,760

  6,040

  6,260

  Legal Departments

  1,890

  2,030

  1,860

  2,840

  2,990

  Education and Employment

  8,900

  9,000

  9,930

  12,620

  13,740

  National Heritage

  780

  880

  960

  990

  970

  Health

  22,120

  24,860

  27,730

  29,860

  31,690

  Social Security

  48,450

  52,610

  59,930

  65,180

  68,910

  Scotland

  9,640

  11,120

  12,560

  13,540

  14,210

  Wales

  4,470

  4,940

  5,810

  6,330

  6,650

  Northern Ireland

  5,610

  6,050

  6,600

  6,930

  7,390

  Chancellor's Department

  3,440

  3,790

  3,660

  3,450

  3,500

  European Communities

  1,870

  1,050

  2,460

  1,410

  1,350

  Cabinet Office

  270

  260

  1,000

  1,090

  970

  Department total

  174,100

  197,030

  218,590

  229,580

  236,620

  LASFE

  n/a

  10,980

  10,190

  11,130

  10,980

  Reserve

  3,000

  3,500

  4,000

  4,000

  3,500

  Control total

  177,100

  211,530

  232,770

  244,680

  251,100

  Figures rounded to nearest £10 million.

  Table 2: Average outturn compared with provision

  £ million

  1990–91 to 1994–95

  1992–93 to 1994–95

  Defence

  50

  -200

  Overseas Development

  30

  10

  Foreign Office

  130

  180

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  20

  -70

  Trade and Industry

  180

  -80

  ECGD

  30

  20

  Transport

  0

  -210

  Environment

  270

  230

  Home Office

  100

  0

  Legal Departments

  -20

  -120

  Education and Employment

  90

  60

  National Heritage

  10

  10

  Health

  270

  110

  Social Security

  1,780

  2,030

  Scotland

  130

  0

  Wales

  80

  20

  Northern Ireland

  10

  60

  Chancellor's Department

  -130

  -120

  European Communities

  80

  200

  Cabinet Office

  0

  -10

  Departmental total

  3,110

  2,120

  LASFE

  -80

  -140

  Use of reserve

  -3,600

  -3,830

  Control total

  -570

  -1,880

  Figures rounded to nearest £10 million.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the predictions for the public sector borrowing requirement in the years 1990 to 1995 made in the previous year. [6899]

  Mr. Jack
  The table sets out the information requested.

  Year

  Forecast made in:

  PSBR £ billion

  1989–90

  March 1989

  -13.8

  1990–91

  March 1990

  -6.9

  1991–92

  March 1991

  7.9

  1992–93

  March 1992

  28.1

  1993–94

  March 1993

  50.1

  1994–95

  November 1994

  37.9

  1995–96

  November 1995

  21.5

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the predicted figure for the public sector borrowing requirement in 1996 would be, if the average error in past predictions for(a) 1992 to 1995 and (b) 1990 to 1995, were added to it. [6901]

  Mr. Jack
  The Budget forecast for the PSBR in 1996–97 was £22.4 billion. The absolute average error on PSBR forecasts, made in the autumn of the previous year, for both the four-year period 1991–92 to 1994–95 and the six-year period 1989–90 to 1994–95, was equivalent to 1¼ per cent. of gross domestic product, or £10 billion.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average overshoot or undershoot for the
  81
  outturn public sector borrowing requirement in relation to the prediction a year earlier for 1990 to 1995. [6900]

  Mr. Jack
  The table compares the outturns for the PSBR for the period 1989–90 to 1994–95 with the forecasts made in the Budget in the previous year.

  PSBR f billion1

  Year

  Budget forecast

  Outturn

  1989–90

  -13.8

  -0.8

  1990–91

  -6.9

  -0.6

  1991–92

  7.9

  13.8

  1992–93

  28.1

  36.3

  1993–94

  50.1

  45.4

  1994–95

  37.9

  35.9

  For 1989–90 to 1993–94, forecasts were made in the previous March. For 1994–95, forecasts were made in November 1993.

  Bank of England (Meetings)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to stop the publication of the discussion of his monthly interviews with the Governor of the Bank of England. [7414]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has no plans to stop publication of the minutes of monthly monetary meetings. The next set of minutes will be published on 31 January.

  Tax Receipts
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average overshoot or undershoot for actual tax receipts in relation to the predictions a year earlier for 1990 to 1995 and 1992 to 1995. [6902]

  Mr. Jack
  The table compares the outturns for tax receipts for the period 1989–90 to 1994–95 with the forecast made in the Budget the previous year.

  Tax receipts £billion

  Year

  Budge forecast

  Outturn

  1989–90

  190.9

  191.5

  1990–91

  194.9

  205.8

  1991–92

  204.3

  211.6

  1992–93

  216.5

  208.7

  1993–94

  213.8

  217.0

  1994–95

  236.2

  236.8

  For 1989–90 to 1993–94, forecasts were made in the previous March. For 1994–95, forecasts were made in November 1993.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the predictions for total tax receipts in 1990 to 1995 made in the previous year. [6903]

  Mr. Jack
  The table sets out the information requested.

  Table 1: Forecasts for Tax Receipts1

  Year

  Forecasts made in:

  Tax receipts £ billion

  1989–90

  March 1989

  190.0

  1990–91

  March 1990

  194.9

  82

  Table 1: Forecasts for Tax Receipts1

  Year

  Forecasts made in:

  Tax receipts £ billion

  1991–92

  March 1991

  204.3

  1992–93

  March 1992

  216.5

  1993–94

  March 1993

  213.8

  1994–95

  November 1994

  236.2

  1995–96

  November 1995

  260.9

  1Total tax and royalty receipts, social security contributions and council tax.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total tax receipts, for each year, from 1990 to 1995. [6947]

  Mr. Jack
  The table sets out the information requested.1

  Year

  Tax receipts (£ billion)

  1989–90

  191.5

  1990–91

  205.8

  1991–92

  211.6

  1992–93

  208.7

  1993–94

  217.0

  1994–95

  236.8

  1995–96

  2254.2

  1 Total tax and royalty receipts, social security contributions and council tax.

  2Latest forecast.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the predicted total for tax receipts in 1996 would be if the average error in past predictions for(a) 1992 to 1995 and (b) 1990 to 1995 were added. [6914]

  Mr. Jack
  The Budget forecast for tax receipts in 1996–97 was £268.7 billion. The absolute average error on tax forecasts, made in the autumn of the previous year, for both the four-year period 1991–92 to 1994–95 and the six-year period 1989–90 to 1994–95 was equivalent to ¾ per cent. of GDP, or £5 billion and £6 billion respectively.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library figures showing(a) receipts of income tax annually since 1979 and (b) the changes in the rates in each such year. [6744]

  Mr. Jack
  Income tax receipts can be found in table 1.2 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1995". Income tax rates can be found in table A of the 1995 edition of the Taxes Acts. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of income received by the Exchequer from income tax in each of the last four years for which figures are available at current prices. [7558]

  Mr. Jack
  Receipts of income tax can be found in table 1.2 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1995", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Wages
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the median wage in the United Kingdom in each year from 1979 to 1995: [6907]

  (2) what was the percentage change for the average wage of each income decile, on the previous year, for the years 1979 to 1995 in (a) absolute terms and (b) real terms; [6905]

  (3) what was the average wage for each income decile in the United Kingdom, in each year from 1979 to 1995; [6908]

  (4) what was the average wage in the United Kingdom in each year from 1979 to 1995. [6906]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on the mean, median, lowest decile, and highest decile of gross weekly earnings for full-time adult workers in Great Britain for 1983 to 1995 can be found in table 17 of part A of the new earnings survey for 1993 and 1995.

  Full-time adult figures are not available for the years 1979 to 1982. Part B, table 30 shows the mean, median, lowest decile, and highest decile of gross weekly earnings, but for full-time males and full-time females separately.

  Absolutely percentage change can be calculated directly from the tables. Real percentage change can be calculated using the retail prices index (all items). This information is published in the Central Statistical Office Business Monitor MM23.

  Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  I will write to the hon. Member with the information for each of the remaining deciles, and place a copy in the Library.

  Taxation (Reliefs and Allowances)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of taxpayers with income tax reliefs and allowances in excess of(a) £7,000, (b) £8,000, (c) £9,000, (d) £10,000, (e) £11,000 and (f) £12,000, (i) including and (ii) profits related pay. [7065]

  Mr. Jack
  The number of taxpayers with income tax reliefs and allowances in excess of the specified limits at 1996–97 income levels is in the table. Detailed information is not available to provide estimates taking account of profit-related pay.

  Upper limit for total allowances and reliefs1 £

  Number of taxpayers Thousands

  7,000

  610

  8,000

  380

  9,000

  260

  10,000

  190

  11,000

  150

  12,000

  120

  1Including only allowances and reliefs given at marginal rates.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what change took place in his growth forecast for 1995 between 28 November and 13 December and what are the implications for the growth 84
  forecast for 1996; and what changes he plans to make to that forecast; [7428]

  (2) if he will list the growth differences for 1995 between (a) the Budget forecast and (b) evidence given to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee as a plus or minus effect on output in cash terms. [7632]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government's forecasts for GDP growth in 1995 and 1996 are set out in table 3.8 of the 1996–97 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". The Government publish only two forecasts a year—the Budget forecast and the summer economic forecast, which is normally published in late June.

  An increase in GDP of 2½to 2¾per cent. in 1995 would be broadly in line with the economy's trend growth rate, and would represent a continuation of sustainable recovery.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his present growth estimate for 1995 and for 1996; and what were the equivalent forecasts produced by each member of the panel of independent forecasters. [7429]

  Mrs. Knight
  The Budget forecast of GDP growth in 1995 is 2¾per cent. As shown in table 3B.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Five of the six panel members also forecast 2¾per cent. The sixth forecasts 2.6 per cent. The Budget forecast for growth in 1996 is 3 per cent. Four panel members forecast growth of 2.5 per cent. next year, one forecasts 2.9 per cent., and one 3.1 per cent.

  nternet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7577]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury maintains its own web site on the Internet. The site provides an extensive range of information including the Budget statement and all the Budget news releases, Treasury news releases, speeches, minutes of the monthly monetary meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England, reports of the panel of independent forecasters and various other publications.

  Material is added to the site on a daily basis and there is a continuing programme to add more services.

  The Treasury's system can be accessed directly using any one of the addresses set out in the table. In addition, users can find the Treasury pages through either on the Government world wide web server—http://www.open.gov.uk—or the server of the Central Office of Information—http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi.

  The addresses are:

  E-mail file transfer: ftpmail@hm-treasury.gov.uk

  File transfer (FTP): ftp.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  World wide web: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  Questions are received by Internet e-mail. These are answered electronically or by conventional means, depending on the nature of the inquiry. All information currently supplied through the Internet is available in hard

  85
  copy. From next year, a number of charts of publicly available economic data will be available through the Internet service, but will not be published separately.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of money given by Her Majesty's Government to fund local authorities in the last year for which figures are available at current prices; and if he will list the amounts by Department. [7561]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A departmental split for central Government support to local authorities is available in table 4.4 of the statistical supplement to the FSBR, Cm 2821.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8031]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The total number of mobile telephones purchased by HM Treasury during the last five financial years is as follows:

  1991–92: 08

  1992–93: 10

  1993–94: 09

  1994–95: 13

  1995–96: 09 (to date).

  Each mobile telephone was provided by the same supplier. Information concerning the preceding three years is unavailable.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7828]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The letters to which the chief executives of the executive agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer have sent to hon. Members in response to parliamentary questions were not shown to Treasury Ministers in advance.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measurements he proposes to make of the expected efficiency gains to be provided to the public sector by private sector consortia participating in the private finance initiative; and if these efficiency gains will be required to extend beyond reductions in staff members. [2823]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: As with all Government procurement, what is sought in private finance projects is the best possible value for money. This is the optimum combination of whole life costs and benefits and involves assessment of efficiency, effectiveness and economy. The staffing levels of private
  86
  sector contractors are a matter for them. A full explanation of the value for money improvements stemming from the use of private finance is set out in the booklet "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. An example of the benefits to the public of this approach is that the level of reliability for the new Northern line train service is set at four times better than the best fleet currently running on London Underground.

  Living Standards
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which year(a) average living standards and (b) the living standards of each decile of high to low income population will double, taking 1965 as a base and assuming that current economic trends continue. [5868]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Government do not make forecasts of living standards but, if the trend growth rate assumed in the projections in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" were to continue, GDP would double by 2025.

  Value Added Tax
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of firms which(a) registered and (b) deregistered for VAT each year since 1979 in each parliamentary constituency. [7553]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no available figures on the number of VAT registrations and deregistrations by parliamentary constituency. Annual estimates of registrations and deregistrations for local authority districts are published in "VAT Registration and Deregistrations, County and District Analyses 1980–1991" and "VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analyses 1992–93". Copies of these are in the Library of the House.

  The estimates include adjustments for the effects of the changes in the VAT threshold in 1991 and 1993, and hence differ from those published elsewhere by HM Customs and Excise.

  Family Expenditure Surveys
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the reasons for non-response in respect of the annual reports of the family expenditure surveys from 1965 to 1994–95. [6797]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The following reports were both commissioned and evaluated by the Central Statistical Office.

  1. Kempsey, W. F. F. (1975) "Family Expenditure Survey. A study of differential response based on a comparison of the 1971 sample with the Census" Statistical News, no. 31, pp. 3–8.

  2. Redpath, R. (1986) "Family Expenditure Survey; a second study of differential response, comparing Census characteristics of FES respondents and non-respondents" Statistical News, no. 72, pp. 13–16.

  3. Foster, K. (1995) "A comparison of the Census characteristics of respondents and non-respondents to the 1991 Family Expenditure survey" to be published January 1996, OPCS Survey Methodology Bulletin, no. 38.

  Employees
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of(a) part-time employees, (b) full-time employees, (c) all employees, have been with their current employer for (i) less than one year, (ii) one to two years, (iii) two to five years, (iv) five to 10 years, (v) 10 to 20 years and (vi) over 20 years in each year from 1992 to 1995. [6912]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The requested information is shown in the following table.

  Employees in Great Britain: at summer (per cent.)1

  2All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Less than one year

  1992

  17

  11

  6

  1993

  17

  11

  6

  1994

  18

  12

  6

  1995

  20

  13

  7

  One but less than two years

  1992

  11

  8

  3

  1993

  10

  7

  3

  1994

  10

  7

  3

  1995

  11

  7

  3

  Two but less than five years

  1992

  26

  20

  6

  1993

  24

  18

  6

  1994

  22

  16

  6

  1995

  19

  14

  5

  Five but less than ten years

  1992

  20

  16

  4

  1993

  20

  15

  4

  1994

  21

  16

  4

  1995

  22

  17

  5

  Ten but less than twenty years

  1992

  18

  15

  3

  1993

  19

  15

  4

  1994

  19

  15

  3

  1995

  18

  15

  3

  Twenty years and over

  1992

  9

  8

  1

  1993

  10

  9

  1

  1994

  11

  9

  1

  1995

  10

  9

  1

  Notes:

  1Not seasonally adjusted.

  2 The total of all employees may not equal the sum of full and part-time due to rounding. Also, the total of all employees within each category for a given year may not equal 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, CSO.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of employees in employment in each quarter from 1992 to 1995 in(a) absolute terms and (b) as a percentage of the work force. [6911]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Employees in Great Britain (thousands)1

  Level(thousands)

  Per cent of workforce2

  1992

  Spring

  21,582

  77

  Summer

  21,470

  77

  88

  Employees in Great Britain (thousands)1

  Level(thousands)

  Per cent of workforce2

  Autumn

  21,434

  77

  Winter

  21,396

  77

  1993

  Spring

  21,375

  77

  Summer

  21,362

  77

  Autumn

  21,394

  77

  Winter

  21,436

  77

  1994

  Spring

  21,477

  77

  Summer

  21,554

  77

  Autumn

  21,585

  78

  Winter

  21,687

  78

  1995

  Spring

  21,746

  78

  Summer

  21,887

  78

  Notes:

  1Seasonally adjusted.

  2 Total persons economically active.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, CSO.

  Economically Inactive People
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the number of the work force classified as economically inactive, for each quarter from 1992 to 1995 in(a) absolute terms and (b) as a percentage of the work force; [6909]

  (2) what is the Government's definition of economically inactive. [6884]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In brief, an economically inactive person is defined to be a person aged 16 or over who is neither in employment nor unemployed according to the International Labour Organisation definitions. Fuller details are given on page 49 of the labour force survey quarterly bulletin, issue No. 14. copies of which are held in the Library. Estimates from the labour force survey of the number and proportion of economically inactive people of working age are shown in the table.

  Economically inactive people (Great Britain, not seasonally adjusted)

  Number of economically inactive people of working age (000s)

  Economic inactivity rate1 (percentage)

  Spring 1992

  7,183

  21.0

  Summer 1992

  6,954

  20.3

  Autumn 1992

  7,101

  20.7

  Winter 1992–93

  7,282

  21.2

  Spring 1993

  7,326

  21.4

  Summer 1993

  7.051

  20.6

  Autumn 1993

  7,188

  20.9

  Winter 1993–94

  7,396

  21.5

  Spring 1994

  7,393

  21.5

  Summer 1994

  7,071

  20.6

  Autumn 1994

  7,314

  21.3

  Winter 1994–95

  7,555

  21.9

  Spring 1995

  7,510

  21.8

  Summer 1995

  7,138

  20.7

  1Economically inactive people as a percentage of total population of working age (men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59).

  Single Currency
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government reported on the legislative changes required to ensure that the single currency could be used on the same basis as national currencies in phase B of the European monetary union as required by the Commission's green paper; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [7241]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The green paper published by the Commission in May 1995 was intended to stimulate discussion of the practical arrangements for the possible introduction of a single currency. Its provisions do not impose legally binding requirements on any member state. The Council of Ministers did not endorse its contents. The Government have no plans to report to the Commission on the legislative measures that would be required at a national level for the possible introduction of a single currency.

  Under protocol 11 of the EC treaty, the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of PEP holders with total PEP investment in excess of(a) £20,000, (b) £30,000, (c) £40,000, (d) £50,000 and (e) £70,000, giving in each case an estimate of the cost of (i) income and (ii) capital gains tax relief in a full year on those investments. [7066]

  Mr. Jack
  Total tax relief for personal equity plans is provisionally estimated at £425 million for 1995–96, comprising £275 million of income tax relief and some £150 million of capital gains tax relief.

  I regret that the distributions of number of investors and cost of tax relief by size of total PEP investment are not available.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account was taken of growth forecast for(a) 1995 and (b) 1996 in determining the latest reduction in United Kingdom interest rates in his discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England. [7726]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Interest rate decisions are not based solely on any one indicator but are based on an overall assessment of all the relevant information concerning the prospects for inflation. As the framework is forward-looking, monetary policy responds to changes in cost and demand pressures which alter the outlook for inflation.

  As usual, the minutes of the discussion at the 13 December meeting will be published in due course.
  90
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of a reduction on interest rates of one quarter of 1 per cent. on economic growth in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996; [7416]

  (2) what assumptions he made as to interest rates in making his growth forecast for 1996. [7415]

  Mrs. Knight
  The Government do not disclose the interest rate assumptions that underlie their forecasts, which are not based on any particular pattern of interest rates. Interest rates are only one of many influences on economic growth.

  Disposable Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in real disposable incomes each year since 1981 together with his estimate of next year's change. [7413]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on real personal disposable income is published annually in the Central Statistical Office Blue Book, quarterly in the CSO press notice quarterly national accounts and is held on the CSO data base; all sources are available in the Library. The latest estimates of percentage changes in real personal disposable income since 1981 are as follows:

  1981: -0.8

  1982: -0.5

  1983: 2.7

  1984: 3.6

  1985: 3.4

  1986: 4.5

  1987: 3.4

  1988: 6.0

  1989: 4,8

  1990: 1.8

  1991: -0.1

  1992. 2.3

  1993: 1.6

  1994: 0.7.

  The budget forecast for growth in real personal disposable income was 2 per cent, in 1995 and 2¾per cent. in 1996.

  Income Tax (Over-65s)
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated number and proportion of people aged 65 years or over who will be liable to pay income tax in 1996–97 at(a) 20 per cent. only, (b) 24 per cent. and (c) 40 per cent. rates. [7647]

  Mr. Jack
  Latest estimates for 1996–97 are given in the table.

  Taxpayers aged 65 or over liable at

  Number (millions)

  Percentage

  Lower rate only

  1.35

  45

  Basic rate but not higher rate

  1.50

  50

  Higher rate

  0.15

  5

  All

  3.0

  100

  Labour Statistics (Wirral)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many adults work in the Wirral for(a) more than 40 hours a week, (b) for between 20 and 39 hours and (c) less than 20 hours a week. [7638]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Estimates of hours worked by local authority district are available only from the census of population for April 1991. The information relates to residents aged 16 and over in Wirral local authority district:

  (a) over 40 hours—16,100 (13.1 per cent.)

  (b) 22 to 40 hours—87,100 (70.6 per cent.)

  (c) under 22 hours—20,150 (16.3 per cent.).

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2032]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The annual Finance Bill allows Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to review, on a regular basis, whether any published piece of tax legislation is still needed. Both departments are committed to review, over a number of years, all the major taxes and duties. This approach, and progress achieved were set out in some detail in "Deregulation—Cutting Red Tape" published in January 1994, updated in "Deregulation—The Way Forward" published in May this year: both are available in the Library.

  Customs and Excise is responsible for two items which fall for review or statutory repeal. The first concerns Intrastat legislation—Intrastat is an EC system for capturing infra-EC trade statistics, which was introduced on 1 January 1993 when customs documentation for this traffic was abolished. This legislation contains a review clause. Treasury orders designating "Free Zones" contain a 10-year period of validity. Free zones are enclosed areas in which non-European Community goods are treated for the purposes of import duties as outside the customs territory of the Community. Customs duty, import VAT or other import charges are not due provided the goods are not released for free circulation.

  In addition, major reviews of legislation have been carried out by the Treasury. Those on building societies and credit unions, for example have led to a significant number of deregulatory proposals, some of which are being brought into effect through the use of section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the procedures by which his Department monitors the performance of personnel of the rank of district inspector and above in the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement. [6016]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The performance of all staff in the Inland Revenue up to and including band Al level—grade 4 in civil service terms—is monitored through the Department's performance management scheme. District inspectors are in either band A or band B. Above that level, the performance of senior
  92
  staff in the senior open structure is monitored through the civil service-wide performance review system. Under both systems, an annual assessment of all aspects of performance is made.

  Privatisation Proceeds
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the receipts from privatisation in each year since 1980. [6246]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The information requested is included in the table:

  Privatisation proceeds

  £ billion

  1979–80

  0.4

  1980–81

  0.2

  1981–82

  0.5

  1982–83

  0.5

  1983–84

  1.1

  1984–95

  2.1

  1985–86

  2.7

  1986–87

  4.5

  1987–88

  5.1

  1988–89

  7.1

  1989–90

  4.2

  1990–91

  5.3

  1991–92

  7.9

  1992–93

  8.2

  1993–94

  5.4

  1994–95

  6.4

  National Insurance
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been paid in employers' national insurance contributions in constant terms by the construction industry in each of the last 10 years. [8322]

  Mr. Heald
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is in the table.

  Amount of employers' National Insurance contributions paid by the construction industry' in the UK in each of the last 10 years in constant (1993–94) terms2

  Year

  Amount (£ million)

  1985–86

  1,236

  1986–87

  1,222

  1987–88

  1,195

  1988–89

  1,293

  1989–90

  Not available3

  1990–91

  1,487

  1991–92

  1,246

  1992–93

  1,119

  1993–94

  1,057

  1994–95

  Figures not yet available

  Notes:

  1Based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 1980) and the pay point covered by the P.A.Y.E. scheme.

  2 Using the average earnings index (unadjusted) averaged over each financial year.

  3Not available due to changes in the structure of contribution rates from October 1989.

  Source:

  One per cent. sample of P.A.Y.E. documents returned by employers.

DEFENCE

  NATO
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on the enlargement of NATO. [6344]

  Mr. Soames
  The Government support enlargement of NATO and are playing an important role in enhancing the stability and security of the whole of Europe.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current assessment of the threat posed by nuclear proliferation. [6345]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The threat posed by potential nuclear proliferation remains a serious one and the Government continue to make strenuous efforts to prevent such proliferation.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with European counterparts about defence matters in respect of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. [6353]

  Mr. Soames
  Defence Ministers regularly discuss defence aspects of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference with their European counterparts. The Government's position was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1 March 1995.

  Spending Reductions
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the effect on the deterrent capability of United Kingdom forces of reducing spending on defence to the European average. [6354]

  Mr. Soames
  Reducing defence expenditure to the current NATO European average of 2.5 per cent. of GDP would result in cuts of as much as £4 billion per year. Such a dramatic reduction would drastically undermine the capabilities of the armed forces.

  Financial Waste
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records he maintains in respect of financial waste in his Department. [6355]

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the level of financial waste in his Department. [6365]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department puts the front line first. To achieve this, we deliver significant year-on-year efficiency improvements. We are determined to bear down on waste wherever it occurs.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on NATO's peace implementation force in Bosnia. [6356]
  94
  Mr. Soames
  The deployment of the NATO-led peace implementation force is continuing with over 34,000 troops now in theatre, including some 8,500 UK personnel. IFOR has monitored compliance with the first stages of the peace agreement and we expect the implementation process to continue with the full support of the parties.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the British defence presence in Bosnia; what proportion of this cost has been met from international bodies; and if he will list the bodies involved. [6754]

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of the British defence presence in Bosnia to date is £377 million. Of this, £292 million has been incurred on United Nations operations and, in accordance with well-established arrangements, my Department recovers these costs from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which in turn seeks reimbursement from the UN. The latter has so far reimbursed £85 million and further reimbursements are expected. An additional £86 million associated with NATO-Western European Union operations, for which there is no reimbursement, has fallen on Defence votes.

  Personnel (Middle East)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of United Kingdom personnel belonging to the armed forces stationed in the middle east. [6357]

  Mr. Soames
  As of 1 July 1995, there were some 1,364 UK armed forces personnel stationed in the middle east region. This figure includes those deployed on operations—such as the Armilla patrol—loan service personnel and personnel attached to embassies.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent studies have been undertaken by his Department on racial harassment in the armed forces. [6358]

  Mr. Soames
  Although no studies into racial harassment in the armed forces have been undertaken by my Department, it has been made clear throughout the services that racial harassment, abuse or discrimination of any sort will not be tolerated. Complaints of racial harassment or discrimination will be investigated and, if substantiated, appropriate action will be taken against the offenders.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on international security of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [6360]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government believe that a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty would strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, and thereby contribute to international security. It is for this reason that Britain is actively negotiating to conclude an effective and verifiable CTBT commanding universal adherence as soon as practicable.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what exchanges of United Kingdom and French personnel have taken place in relation to joint work on nuclear matters; and if he will make a statement. [6361]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 37.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is given by his Department to export potential in determining product specification during the procurement process. [6362]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The consideration of export potential is an explicit requirement of my Department's project approval procedures. We also invite industry to offer adjustments to proposed equipment requirements in order to enhance export prospects, and will accept these where this can be done without unduly compromising MOD requirements or reducing overall value for money.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his Department's budget is due to procurement cost overruns and financial waste. [6364]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has made substantial progress in improving value for money in the delivery of defence capability. Efficiency improvements worth more than £3 billion have been achieved since 1988. The latest description of this, including information illustrating MOD's performance in project control, is contained in the MOD performance report 1994–95, published on 19 December.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to monitor the ammunition dump in Beaufort's dyke. [6363]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no plans to monitor the Beaufort's dyke explosive dumping ground. The Scottish Office agriculture, environment and fisheries department marine laboratory surveyed an area of the North channel, including part of Beaufort's dyke in November 1995 and an interim survey report was published yesterday, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Corporal Lee Clegg
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial support his Department is giving to the legal costs of Corporal Lee Clegg. [6366]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has provided financial support for the legal costs of Lance Corporal Clegg at his trial and subsequent appeals. The full costs are not yet known, but are likely to be several hundred thousand pounds. It would not be appropriate for my Department to provide further funds, in the absence of legal proceedings.

  Mid-air Collisions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will calculate the statistical probability of a mid-air collision involving fast jets on exercise over the next 12 months. [6367]

  Mr. Soames
  A study is being conducted by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to assess the probability of a random mid-air collision between various types of aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Royal Yacht
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efficiency gains have been achieved in the running of the royal yacht since 1990. [7045]

  Mr. Soames
  The demands on Britannia vary from year to year, depending on the number and location of countries she is required to visit. Efficiency gains are therefore difficult to quantify precisely. There has, however, been an estimated reduction in running costs—excluding repairs and refits—of some 12.7 per cent. since 1990.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the auxiliary services served in the Gulf war; and if he will list the number of personnel and their unit. [7680]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 1,774 reservists were called out or recalled in support of the Gulf conflict. Of these, 877 were members of the volunteer reserve forces and 897 had a liability for call-out or recall as a result of previous regular service. They served, among others, with medical, movements, intelligence and military police units and in public relations posts. In addition, members of the Territorial Army undertook short periods of service as members of the Regular Army in the Gulf or in support of operations: they served, again among others, in infantry and transport units.

  A full list of the units concerned, and the number of reserve personnel who served with each, could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries he has instituted into the recent allegations made by service men who served in the Gulf war that chemical weapons were used by Iraq. [7615]

  Mr. Soames
  No confirmed reports of the detection of chemical warfare agent have been received relating to the Gulf conflict.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the amount of each of the ingredients in the nerve agent pre-treatment tablet set L1A1 given to Her Majesty's armed forces during the Gulf War. [7684]

  Mr. Soames
  The nerve agent pre-treatment set tablet L1A1 given to British troops during the Gulf war consisted of the following constituents:

  Pyridostigmine bromide: 31.5mg (active constituent)

  Pregelatinised starch: 56.8 mg

  97

  Maize starch: 35.0mg

  Lactose: 27.5mg

  Colloidal silicon dioxide: 25.5mg

  Talc: 3.5mg

  Magnesium stearate: 0.25mg.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current policy in respect of the recognition of Gulf war syndrome. [7731]

  Mr. Soames
  The MOD recognises that some individual Gulf veterans have become ill and keeps an open mind on any possible link to Gulf service. However, the most extensive and detailed investigations, in this country and other Gulf coalition countries, have so far found no medical or scientific evidence to date to suggest the existence of a unique medical condition or syndrome. The Royal College of Physicians gave broad endorsement to our work in July 1995 and recommended that expert advice be sought on the possible direction of future research. We are currently following this up.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the known side effects of the inoculations given to Her Majesty's forces prior to and during the Gulf war. [7681]

  Mr. Soames
  The only known side effects are short term and commonly occur after the administration of any vaccine or combination of vaccines. These side effects can include soreness or swelling at injection site and possible nausea. Severe reactions, such as anaphylactic shock, are extremely rare.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nerve agent pre-treatment tablets set L1A1 each Her Majesty's forces personnel were instructed to take each day during the Gulf war. [7682]

  Mr. Soames
  During the periods when there was an assessed threat of possible chemical agent attack, orders were given for British troops in the Gulf theatre of operations to take nerve agent pre-treatment set tablets in accordance with the recommended dose, which is one 30mg NAPS tablet taken every eight hours.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the side effects of the ingredients in the nerve agent pre-treatment tablet set L1A1. [7683]

  Mr. Soames
  It is well recognised that the active constituent of the nerve agent pre-treatment set pyridostigmine bromide, can have minor short-term side effects on a minority of those taking the drug. These include sweating, excess salivation, abdominal pains and diarrhoea. The side effects cease when the tablets are stopped and there is no record of long-term adverse effects resulting from the drug.

  Contractors
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) full-time contractors and (b) other civilians were employed (i) at November 1990 and (ii) at the latest available date at (1) Castlemartin range, (2) Llanorbrier range, (3) Penally range, (4) RAF Brawdy, (5) RNAD Milford Haven, (6) RNAD Trecwn, (7) P and EE Pendine and (8) Pembroke dock mooring and salvage depot. [7732]
  98
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is detailed in the table.

  As at July 1990

  As at November 1995

  Location

  Contractor staff

  Other civilians

  Contractor staff

  Other civilians

  Castlemartin

  0

  70

  0

  50

  Llanorbrier

  N/K

  8

  N/K

  10

  Penally

  0

  8

  0

  8

  RAF Brawdy

  N/K

  166

  N/K

  33

  RNAD

  Milford

  Haven

  N/K

  161

  N/K

  6

  RNAD

  Trecwn

  N/K

  381

  112

  3

  P and EE

  Pendine

  N/K

  60

  121

  17

  Pembroke

  Dock

  23

  129

  21

  80

  1 July figure.

  2 November figure.

  Redundant Equipment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to increase the receipts from the sale of redundant equipment. [7818]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These matters are the responsibility of the chief executive of the Disposal Sales Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency, to reply to your question asking what new proposals he has to increase the receipts from the sale of redundant equipment.
  My Agency's Framework Document (a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House) together with the in-year targets (Official Record col 1197, of 20 December 1994 and col 1349, of 19 July 1995) set out the strategy and achievements required by the Agency. New initiatives reside in greater industrial involvement in the disposal sales process, primarily through commercial storage and marketing agreements which operate on a profit sharing basis.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the changes made to the site option investment appraisal figures for the collocation of the Army Technical Support Agency between the first draft of the figures and the figures currently being considered; [7976]

  (2) what arrangements are being made to consult the trade unions and the personnel involved regarding the future of the Army Technical Support Agency drawing office/graphics support services if the ATSA is collocated at the Chertsey site; [7975]
  99
  (3) what account has been taken of the accommodation available at the Malvern site in deciding the location of the Army Technical Support Agency following collocation; [7973]

  (4) what considerations led to (a) the omission of security and build costs for the collocation of the Army Technical Support Agency at the Chertsey site from the site option appraisal figures and (b) the inclusion of the clean-up costs for the Chertsey site; [7960]

  (5) what factors were taken into account in deciding not to consult the trade unions on the original site option investment appraisals for the collocation of the Army Technical Support Agency; [7977]

  (6) what will be the annual rent payable by the Army Technical Support Agency if it is collocated on the Chertsey site; [7963]

  (7) what plans are being made for the future of the Ministry of Defence's student engineering training centre if the Army Technical Support Agency is collocated at Chertsey; [7971]

  (8) if he will list the financial advantages of the collocation of the Army Technical Support Agency onto a leased site rather than onto a site owned by the Ministry of Defence; [7961]

  (9) what account has been taken of the comparative travel and subsistence costs in assessing the long-term costings of the collocation of the Army Technical Support Agency at Malvern or Chertsey; [7979]

  (10) if it remains the policy of the Government to move civil service posts from London to the provinces; and what account will be taken of this policy in deciding whether to collocate the Army Technical Support Agency at Chertsey; [7974]

  (11) who is the main leaseholder of the Chertsey site proposed for the collocation of the Army Technical Support Agency; [8004]

  (12) what assessment he has made of the effect of the closure of the Army Technical Support Agency at Malvern on the economy of Malvern and the surrounding area; and what plans the Government have to rejuvenate the local economy in the event of closure; [7978]

  (13) what is the estimated realisation figure from the sale of the present site in Malvern of the Army Technical Support Agency; [7972]

  (14) if the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will be able to remain on its Chertsey site if the Army Technical Support Agency is collocated elsewhere. [7962]

  Mr. Soames
  These matters are the responsibility of the chief executive of the Army Technical Support Agency. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.
  100
  Letter from J. R. Prince to Mr. Nigel Jones, dated 5 January 1996:

  COLLOCATION OF THE ARMY TECHNICAL SUPPORT AGENCY (ATSA)
  You will recall that just before the Christmas break you raised a number of questions with the Hon. Nicholas Soames, MP, Minister Armed Forces on the subject of the collocation proposals in respect of the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA). As the Chief Executive of the ATSA, I have been asked by the Minister to respond directly to you.
  Please note that this letter is copied to the Minister.
  I regret that I had been unaware of your interest in the ATSA and have not included you in the distribution of the consultative document on collocation. I attach, therefore, a copy of the consultative document and also copies of the Agency Framework Document and Corporate Plan.
  The answers to your questions are as follows.
  Question 1: What account has been taken of the accommodation available at the Malvern site in deciding the location of the ATSA following collocation?
  Answer 1: All of the accommodation at the Malvern site was taken into account when deciding on the location of the ATSA following collocation.
  Question 2: What arrangements are being made to consult the trade unions and the personnel involved regarding the future of the ATSA Drawing Office/Graphics Support Services if the ATSA is collocated at the Chertsey site?
  Answer 2: A consultative document specifically addressing the future of ATSA Drawing Office/Graphics Support Services will be forwarded to the Council of Civil Service Unions shortly. Drawing Office and Graphics staff across the ATSA sites are an integral part of the Agency and are included in the ATSA collocation proposals.
  Question 3: List the changes made to the site option investment appraisal figures for the collocation of the ATSA between the rust draft of the figures and the figures currently being declared.
  Answer 3: The drafting process is part of the normal management of any proposal, giving appropriate Departmental officials opportunity to contribute to the process. It is not Agency policy to make such drafts available for public consumption.
  Question 4: If the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will be able to remain on its Chertsey site if the ATSA is collocated elsewhere?
  Answer 4: Chertsey is currently a viable site to operate, but the situation could change if a major unit vacates the site. The Chief Executive of DERA therefore takes the view that DERA would need to review its position at Chertsey should ATSA collocate elsewhere.
  Question 5: What is the estimated realisation figure from the sale of the present site in Malvern of the ATSA?
  Answer 5: I regret that land valuations are commercial in confidence.
  Question 6: What assessment has been made of the effect of the closure of the ATSA at Malvern on the economy of Malvern and the surrounding area; and what plans the Government has to rejuvenate the local economy in the event of closure?
  Answer 6: Whilst appreciating the local effect of withdrawal of the ATSA from Malvern and our other sites, it is my responsibility to consider the implications of collocation in Defence terms. For both budgetary and business reasons, the exhaustive appraisals carried out have indicated that the most appropriate site for collocation is Chertsey.
  Question 7: Who is the main leaseholder of the Chertsey site proposed for the collocation of the ATSA?
  Answer 7: The Chertsey site is wholly owned by the MOD and is vested in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) Trading Fund.

  101
  Question 8: What account has been taken of the comparative travel and subsistence costs in assessing the long-term costings of the collocation of the ATSA at Malvern or Chertsey?
  Answer 8: No account has been taken of the comparative travel and subsistence costs in assessing the long-term costings of the collocation of the ATSA at Malvern or Chertsey. However, by far the greatest majority of ATSAs customers are based at Andover and my judgement is that, from a travel and subsistence point of view, collocation at Malvern would be more expensive than collocation at Chertsey.
  Question 9: List the financial advantages of the collocation of the ATSA onto a leased site rather than onto a site owned by the Ministry of Defence.
  Answer 9: The Chertsey site is wholly owned by the MOD and is vested in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) Trading Fund.
  Question 10: Whether it remains the policy of the Government to move Civil Service posts from London to the provinces, and what account will be taken of this policy in deciding whether to collocate the ATSA at Chertsey?
  Answer 10: Moves from London, or anywhere else for that matter, are only agreed if proven to be both cost effective and good business sense. The site selection for the ATSA has been based on the business needs and value for money for the MOD as a whole.
  Question 11: What will be the annual rent payable by the ATSA if it is collocated on the Chertsey site?
  Answer 11: The Chertsey site is wholly owned by the MOD. There is trading between the two Defence Agencies, but no rent is paid to organisations external to MOD.
  Question 12: What plans are being made for the future of the Ministry of Defence's Student Engineering Training Centre if the ATSA is collocated at Chertsey?
  Answer 12: The ATSA costings have made no assumption that the MOD Student Engineering Training Centre will vacate the site. In due course consideration will be given as to whether continued occupation makes both economic sense and best use of the Defence Estate, or whether there might be more appropriate locations.
  Question 13: What factors were taken into account in deciding not to consult the trade unions on the original investment appraisals for the collocation of the ATSA?
  Answer 13: The main part of the initial study concentrated principally on business and organisational aspects of the Army's Technical Branches and Authorities. It was recognised by Armed Forces Minister of the time (Jeremy Hanley) that much more detailed work would be necessary before a final decision could be taken and, in particular, more comprehensive investment appraisals were required into the rationalisation proposals. The trade unions, and other interested parties, were advised of the situation in August 1993.
  Question 14: What consideration led to the omission of the security and build costs for the collocation of the ATSA at the Chertsey site from the site option appraisal figures and the inclusion of the clean-up costs for the Chertsey site?
  Answer 14: The appraisal figures for the Chertsey site included security and build cost but excluded possible clean-up costs.
  I hope the information given above satisfactorily answers the questions you have raised. Should you require any further information I will be pleased to answer any additional questions you may wish to raise.

  Training
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total sum spent on training for each new recruit in(a) the Army, (b) the RAF and (c) the Navy in each of the past five years. [7619]
  102
  Mr. Soames
  The type and amount of training given to new recruits varies between services and, indeed, between trades and specialisations within each service. The information requested in respect of the last five years is not, therefore, held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The costs of basic training for officers and other ranks for FY 1994–95 in each of the three services are, however, set out in the following details.Royal Navy:

  Basic Training (Officer): £24,924 per recruit (20 weeks)

  Basic Training (Ratings): £6,534 per recruit (8 weeks).

  Army:

  Basic Training (Officer): £17,300 per recruit (42 weeks)

  Basic Training (Soldier): £3,338 per recruit (10 weeks)

  Royal Air Force:

  Basic Training (Officer): £15,840 per recruit (24 weeks)

  Basic Training (Airman): £3,056 per recruit (7 weeks).

  These figures refer to the cost of training only and do not include such costs as recruits' pay, messing, accommodation and clothing.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low level flights took place in the midlands(a) in 1991 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available. [8209]

  Mr. Soames
  Although records are maintained of the total number of sorties flown in the UK low flying system, statistics are not available on, nor is it possible to estimate, the number of sorties flown over the midlands.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of all papers released since 1988 by the Public Records Office that refer specifically to the 1958 US-UK mutual defence agreement. [8270]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Public Records Office.

  Driffield Airfield
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what area of land at Driffield airfield, other than that announced as being for sale, his Department is considering selling. [8073]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF technical/domestic site adjacent to Driffield airfield is due to be vacated by the RAF by June 1996 and will be declared surplus if no alternative Defence use is found. It is my Department's normal policy that surplus land should be sold on the open market to maximise the return to the taxpayer. Agents have been appointed to carry out a study into potential alternative uses for the technical/domestic site and to recommend a strategy for its disposal.

  Stolen and Lost Property
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what calculation he has made of the value of property which has been stolen or lost in each of the past five
  103
  years in the (a) Army, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Royal Navy. [7819]

  Mr. Soames
  Stores losses written off for all reasons in Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy budget areas were as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Army

  RAE

  RN

  1990–91

  5,652

  2,368

  5,790

  1991–92

  7,711

  4,493

  6,448

  1992–93

  4,158

  111,612

  5,147

  1993–94

  4,514

  2,844

  4,706

  1994–95

  23,642

  2,520

  4,613

  1This figure includes £9.25 million of stores and equipment destroyed by a fire at an RAF establishment for which two people were successfully prosecuted.

  2This figure does not include Germany, for which returns are not yet available.

  Figures could not be broken down into those solely applicable to theft or loss without disproportionate effort. Where, however, recovery is made in the same year as the loss is recorded, the figures are net of recovery.

  White Vehicle Contracts
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement for the white vehicles contract for use in Germany; which companies have been invited to tender; what is the estimated value of the order; and what efforts are being made to maximise the British-built content in the order. [3444]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I expect to announce my decision on the outcome of the competition for the provision, management and maintenance of non-operational vehicles for the British forces in Germany early in the new year. After an expressions of interest campaign, six companies were sent an invitation to tender. These were:

  ALD AutoLeasing D GmbH

  Leaseplan Deutschland GmbH

  Lombard Leasing GmbH

  Mercedes Benz AG

  PHH Europe plc

  Ryder plc.

  ALD AutoLeasing D GmbH withdrew during the tender period, while PHH Europe plc declined to tender but decided to act as a sub-contractor to Ryder plc. Consequently, tenders were received from Leaseplan Deutschland GmbH, Lombard Leasing GmbH—a member of the NatWest group—in a joint venture with Sixt AG, Mercedes Benz AG and Ryder plc/PHH Europe plc.

  The procedures used in the market test followed the guidelines laid out in the "Guide to Competing for Quality in Defence Services". This meant that both the statement of requirement and the invitation to tender which were drawn up specified the level of service required but not how it was to be delivered. No pre-set level of British content was sought; indeed the vehicle industry tends to be multinational in nature and seemingly "British" vehicles may, in fact, contain a high level of components purchased from other countries.
  104
  The final decision on the market test has not yet been made and, given the need for commercial and contract confidentiality, it would be inappropriate to state what the estimated value of the contract will be. Finally, the criteria for the selection of the winning bid is based on best value for money, which includes technical and commercial competence, and tenders will be assessed accordingly.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Defence what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7564]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence maintains an Internet world wide web site whose home page can be found at the Internet address www.mod.uk. Liaison with CCTA has ensured that the MOD home page is accessible via the Government information service WWW server at www.open.gov.uk.

  Information made available includes MOD press releases, information about historic military buildings on the Defence estate, the UK MOD newsletter covering continuous acquisition and life-cycle support, summary biographies and pictures of MOD Ministers, recruitment information for the individual services, information on the Defence Intelligence Staff and Directorate General of Information and Communication Services, the Royal Corps of Signals and the Royal Navy in Plymouth. In addition, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has a number of web pages accessible from the MOD home page, which publicise topical items from the Defence research programme.

  It is planned in the next six months to increase the number of MOD WWW pages to make further information available to the public, one example being the coverage of major defence policy speeches. The information presented is updated frequently as modifications are required.

  The present address for e-mail inquiries is press office@dgics.mod.uk. This address is publicised on the MOD home page.

  Future policy on the Internet is currently under review.

  Penalty Parking Notices
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been raised by his Department over the last three years by fixed-penalty parking notices; and what has been the income derived from pay car parks over the same period. [7360]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information sought on fixed penalty parking notices is not available in the format requested as financial records of moneys received by way of payments for fixed-penalty tickets do not differentiate on the basis of offence type. During the 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 financial years, £1.86 million, £1.78 million and £ 1.97 million respectively was collected in respect of all types of fixed-penalty tickets issued.
  105
  Income derived from pay car parks, including on-street car parking, was:

  1992–93: £2.437 million

  1993–94: £2.947 million

  1994–95: £2.964 million.

  Department of Education Northern Ireland
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Department of Education Northern Ireland properties that are currently out of use, indicating the cost of their maintenance. [6050]

  Mr. Moss
  At present, there are no DENI properties currently out of use.

  George Finbar Ross
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to take steps to secure co-operation from the United States Government for the extradition of George Finbar Ross to Northern Ireland. [7371]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The question of seeking the extradition of Mr. Ross remains under active consideration.

  It is not the practice of the relevant authorities to give details of the actions being taken to secure the apprehension of wanted persons or the progress thereof: to do so could undermine the effectiveness of those actions.

  International Investments Ltd. (Gibraltar)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have been held between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland on International Investments Ltd. (Gibraltar), liquidation fraud. [7372]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 19 December,Official Report, column 1076.

  Badger Setts, Carnmoney Hill
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 906, who carried out the badger survey commissioned by the developer of a golf club at Carnmoney hill, and if he will place a copy in the Library. [8117]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A copy of the badger survey, completed by field workers of Queen's university, Belfast, has been placed in the Library.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6565]
  106
  Sir John Wheeler
  Newspaper advertising expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office and its Departments and by agencies since 1990–91 is listed. An estimated outturn figure for 1995–96 is included. Information is not available by title. Expenditure by non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  NI departments and NI office £

  Agencies £

  1990–91

  3,024,220

  210,055

  1991–92

  4,419,230

  118,781

  1992–93

  3,972,001

  255,500

  1993–94

  3,181,384

  215,317

  1994–95

  2,777,464

  205,508

  1995–96

  3,448,157

  229,202

  Figures for 1990–91 and 1992–93 do not include the Department of Health and Social Services as these are not available.

  Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 include advertising other than newspaper advertising by part of the Department of Economic Development.

  Firearms
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of legally held(a) shotguns; (b) air rifles; (c) automatic weapons, (d) semi-automatic weapons and (e) other weapons, breaking down the figures for each police sub-divisional region. [7395]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Although the information to answer the question is not readily available in the format requested, the chief constable advises that at 31 October 1995 there were 133,769 legally held firearms in Northern Ireland. Of these, there were

  (a) 85,186 shotguns;

  (b) 20,982 air weapons (includes air rifles);

  (c) other firearms—27,601.

  Separate figures for air rifles, semi-automatic or automatic firearms and sub-divisional areas can not be provided, except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of legally held weapons in Northern Ireland as a proportion of the resident population, or such figures as are readily available. [7394]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Firearms licensing is the responsibility of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He advises me that, at 31 October 1995, there were 133,769 firearms held on certificate under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. This equates to approximately one firearm per nine head of the population1.
  1Based on 1991 census statistics.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and

  107
  (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7822]

  Sir John Wheeler
  As responsibility to answer parliamentary questions on operational matters has been delegated to the chief executives of executive agencies, such answers provided by chief executives are not approved or amended by Ministers before being sent to hon. Members. The questions and answers are copied to Ministers, for information, usually before the reply appears in Hansard.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what web site his Department maintains on the Internet, what information is provided there, how often it is updated, what is the address, and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7573]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland civil service maintains the Northern Ireland Government server based at Stormont. This server holds information relating to all Northern Ireland Departments and their agencies and this is being developed on an on-going basis to provide more in-depth information. The server is updated on a daily basis. The address for the server is:http://www.nics.gov.uk

  Questions are sent to the server via e-mail and are answered by e-mail. Where necessary, questions are forwarded to a specific Government Department to provide an appropriate reply.

  Community Care and Income Support
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if changes to community care and income support rules will apply to those who entered residential care before April 1996. [8103]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Yes.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the change to community care and income support rules in respect of spouses' entitlement to half their partner's occupational pension when the partner has gone into residential care applies to Northern Ireland. [8102]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Yes.

  Coinage
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he had with(a) the Royal Mint and (b) other interested parties about the design of the new Northern Ireland 1966 £1 coin; and if he will make a statement. [7762]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In 1993, the Royal Mint advisory committee recommended a design for the Northern Ireland £1 coin featuring the Celtic cross and a torc. I was consulted at that time about the proposed design and agreed that the design was acceptable. No other parties were involved in the decision-making process.

  Young People (Religion)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of 18 to 21-year-olds in Northern Ireland are(a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics. [8101]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population contains information on the breakdown of the population of Northern Ireland by religious denomination. The information in relation to the population aged 18 to 21 years is as follows:

  Percentage of 18 to 21-year-olds

  Roman Catholic

  42.38

  Presbyterian, Church of Ireland and Methodist

  39.47

  Others

  8.09

  Answered "None" to the question on religion

  3.74

  Did not answer the Religion question

  6.32

  The "others" category contains some non-Christian religions. A detailed breakdown of the denominations in this category is provided in table 8A of the "Northern Ireland census 1991 summary report: HMSO 1992".

  Greenpark Hospital Trust
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what time factor is permitted in the contract between the Greenpark Hospital trust and Mediguard for the former to delay paying the latter for the supply of contracted and other purchase services. [8224]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The contract conditions provide that the trust must pay such amounts as may be properly due to the contractor under the terms of the contract within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. Payment may be made in part, pending clarification of any items under dispute.

  Ministerial Travel and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, with an estimate for the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6418]

  Mr. Hague
  The cost of the ministerial use of the official car service is as follows:

  1991–92: £158,535

  1992–93: £170,062

  1993–94: £174,069

  1994–95: £176,452

  1995–96 (to end November 1995): £121,000.

  109
  Expenditure on the other items in each of the last five years is not collected in the format requested but is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the Welsh Office departmental report for 1995 (Cm 2815).

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the secretary of state for wales what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor for each year since 1990–91 including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6417]

  Mr. Hague
  The available information for my Department's private office, which serves all three Welsh Office Ministers, is as follows:

  Private Office costs

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96(to end-November)

  salaries1

  425

  434

  540

  636

  615

  403

  Travel and Subsistence2

  171

  162

  166

  175

  177

  64

  Hospitality

  20

  10

  9

  8

  10

  4

  Stationery

  n/a

  20

  25

  29

  25

  13

  Training

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Telecommunications

  70

  72

  74

  41

  41

  28

  Notes:

  1Includes the cost of the Secretary of State's special adviser as well as officials. Superannuation costs are included only from 1993–94.

  2 Includes expenditure by Ministers as well as officials.

  Expenditure on the other items in each of the last five years is not collected in the format requested but is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the Welsh Office departmental report for 1995 (Cm 2815).

  Severe Head Injuries
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the chairmen and chief executives working party to meet to discuss the Welsh Affairs Committee report on severe head injuries. [6679]

  Mr. Richards
  The chairmen and chief executives working party has established a steering group, whose core membership details are being finalised. The steering group's first meeting to discuss the report will be in early January 1996.

  Slow Learners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of moneys he has released for the next financial year for the purposes of assisting slow learners in(a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary sector; and if he will make a statement. [6725]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend announced his provisional local government revenue proposals for 1996–97 in the House on 28 November. It is for individual local authorities to determine how the resources that are made available are allocated between services, including education, in the light of their statutory responsibilities and their perception of local needs and priorities.

  Electronic Mail
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the introduction of electronic mail for the issuing of press releases and for communication between his departmental offices in Cardiff and London and the Library. [7581]

  Mr. Hague
  At present, there is no electronic mail facility for the distribution of press notices. However, as electronic mail is developed internally, the opportunity 110
  may be taken to extend it to the House of Commons Library. There is a limited electronic mail link between some departmental offices in Cardiff and London.

  School Milk
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations underlay the decision to reduce subsidies for school milk; and if he will list(a) the gross estimated savings to the Government in Wales on account of this change and (b) the net savings after deducting the EU contribution towards the cost of the scheme. [7407]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government are withdrawing support from 1996–97 for the discretionary elements of the EC school milk subsidy scheme. The elements affected are milk for school catering and for secondary school children. Estimates suggest that only around 20 per cent. of the total number of children of all ages currently benefit from the scheme. In the light of this it is doubtful whether either element has had any significant effect on the encouragement of milk consumption, which is the objective of the EU scheme.

  Savings will amount to approximately £6 million per annum in European funding, which will represent a net saving to the Exchequer of about £4 million per annum for the UK. Separate figures are not available for Wales.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7578]
  111
  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office is currently piloting a world wide web site on the Internet. The pilot project is being led by the Welsh Office industry and training department and it currently offers information covering regional selective assistance, people and prosperity—an agenda for action in Wales, and assisted areas in Wales. This information was first made available in November 1995 and will be updated regularly in 1996.

  The Department does not presently answer questions or supply additional information through the Internet. Part of the remit of the pilot project is to examine the methodology for doing so to help inform the development of policy and on the use of the Internet.

  The Welsh Office server can be found at Internet address:
  HTTP://www.welsh-ofce.gov.uk.

  Teaching Hospitals (Overheads)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with GP fundholders and hospitals in south Wales concerning the appropriate level of remuneration required to cover additional teaching overheads by(a) the University hospital of Wales and (b) other hospitals in which there is teaching activity for the medical schools; and if he will make a statement. [7584]

  Mr. Hague
  The report of the advisory group on the service increment for teaching, SIFT, which funds the costs to the NHS of supporting the teaching of medical undergraduates, was circulated for comment to chief executives of NHS trusts and family health service authorities in Wales in June 1995. Following acceptance of the report's recommendations for the future of SIFT, guidance was issued in December to assist NHS trusts who support undergraduate medical teaching in identifying the costs of doing so, over and above the costs of patient care.

  Archive Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the estimated capital and revenue costs for each of the new unitary authorities of providing archive services in 1996–97. [6603]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for individual unitary authorities.

  Roads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce(a) porous surfaces, (b) variable message signs and (c) chevron markings on carriageways. [7618]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Porous surfaces, variable message signs and chevron markings are already in use on the trunk road and motorway network. Further applications will be provided where they can be justified.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority Wales region and Dwr Cymru 112
  Welsh Water in relation to reassessment of the water quality standard intended for the lake impounded under the Cardiff bay barrage scheme. [7969]

  Mr. Hague
  None. Provisions for relevant water quality standards are contained in the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning reductions in the proposed capital schemes to be completed under the Cardiff bay barrage outfall accommodation works; [7967]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning funding for capital works to meet the water quality standards set out in the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 and its side agreements; and if he will make a statement; [7970]

  (3) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the change in the maximum number of sewage spills in a typical year into the Rivers Taff and Ely and the area of the impounded lake behind the Cardiff bay barrage and its implications for water quality and water sports; and if he will make a statement. [7968]

  Mr. Hague
  None. These are operational matters for the corporation.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) local authority and (b) housing association houses there are in Wales. [7813]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on local authority and housing association dwelling stock numbers in Wales has been published in table 1.3 of Welsh housing statistics No. 15 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of jobs created by the building of a typical local authority house for rent. [7815]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to allow local authorities to build more low-cost homes for rent. [7814]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 December.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8040]
  113
  Mr. Hague
  Figures are available only for the last five years:

  1990–91: 27

  1991–92: 28

  1992–93: 40

  1993–94: 140

  1994–95: 148.

  All purchases are subject to competition and at least three different companies are invited to tender.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the expert advisory group on cervical cancer screening services in Wales. [7964]

  Mr. Hague
  Copies of the expert advisory group's report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibition
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Crime Concern and the Prudential youth action group initiative to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [8094]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 11 March to Friday 15 March 1996.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to London health to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [8157]

  Mr. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 22 January to Friday 26 January 1996.

  State Opening (Photographer)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 13 December,Official Report, column 659, what factors led to the decision that one photographer only should be allowed to be present in the Gallery. [7756]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The fact that only one application to take photographs for official purposes was received.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6753]
  114
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6755]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Royal Household
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister how much has been saved in efficiency gains in respect of the grant in aid budget to the royal household since 1991. [7051]

  The Prime Minister
  Grant in aid for the royal household from 1991–92 to 1994–95 has decreased by 14.2 per cent. In cash terms. Details are set out in the royal household's annual report for the year to 31 March 1995, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Prime Minister further to his oral statement of Monday 18 December, on the Madrid European Council, when and by what means article 3 of the protocol on the convergence criteria referred to in article 109(J) of the treaty on European Union was deleted or amended. [7620]

  The Prime Minister
  Article 3 of the protocol on the convergence criteria has been neither deleted nor amended. It will be for the Council, meeting as Heads of State or Government in early 1998, to decide pursuant to the provisions of the treaty which member states fulfil the necessary conditions to move to stage 3 of economic and monetary union. It is not possible to say now precisely how the exchange rate criterion will be interpreted, given the changes in the way the exchange rate mechanism has operated since the treaty was agreed.

  Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 December,Official Report, column 1219–35, concerning his intention to initiate a study into the proposals for monetary union within the European Union, by whom the study will be conducted; what the terms of reference of the inquiry will be; if written or oral evidence can be submitted to it; if it will operate in public at any time; and when he expects it to report. [7669]

  The Prime Minister
  The Madrid European Council requested that the Ecofin Council, together with, in their respective fields of competence, the Commission and the European Monetary Institute, should study the range of issues raised by the fact that some countries might not initially participate in the Euro area. In particular, the study should cover those issues related to monetary
  115
  stability. The Council noted that the future relationships would have to be defined prior to the move to stage 3 and requested that the Ecofin Council should report on these issues as soon as possible.

  The United Kingdom's participation in this study in no way prejudges the United Kingdom's decision whether to notify our intention to move to stage 3 of EMU in accordance with the provisions of protocol 11 annexed to the EC treaty.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister which countries declared their intention to participate in monetary union at the Madrid summit. [7555]

  The Prime Minister
  All EU member states except for the United Kingdom and Denmark are committed to participation in the third stage of economic and monetary union in accordance with the EC treaty.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what system of redistribution and on what scale was proposed at the Madrid summit to compensate(a) nations and (b) regions damaged by monetary union; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom role in respect of such compensatory measures. [7707]

  The Prime Minister
  No system of redistribution was proposed at the European Council at Madrid.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those countries which he assessed would be able to meet the Maastricht convergence conditions by January 1998 on current trends projected. [7709]

  The Prime Minister
  The question of which countries fulfil the necessary conditions for adoption of the single currency will be decided by the Council of Ministers, meeting in the form of Heads of State or Government. The latest Commission forecasts, released on 22 November 1995, provided information on the projected status of each member state in 1997. The forecast are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister how many mobile telephones have been supplied to Departments for which he is immediately responsible in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8026]

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

  The Euro (Information)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to provide financial support from public funds to groups and organisations to circulate information on the Euro. [7763]

  The Prime Minister
  The Community budget provides for the Commission to spend 50 mecu in the 1996 calender year promoting specific policies, such as citizen first and the single currency, with a view to preparing the intergovernmental conference. Member states voted to strike this expenditure out of the Community budget but 116
  it was reinstated by the European Parliament. The Community budget for 1997 has not yet been agreed. Like other member states, the United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole rather than to the costs of individual spending programmes.

  The Government have no plans for direct Government expenditure on circulating information on the Euro in the United Kingdom. Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to restrict the circulation by the EC of information on the Euro in the United Kingdom. [7764]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not yet clear what kind of information the Commission plans to circulate.

  Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how much is to be spent by the European Commission in the next two financial years promoting the Euro; how much of that will be spent in the United Kingdom; and what the British contribution will be to the total expenditure. [7710]

  The Prime Minister
  The Community budget provides for the Commission to spend 50 mecu in the 1996 calendar year promoting specific policies, such as citizen first and the single currency, with a view to preparing the intergovernmental conference. Member states voted to strike this expenditure out of the Community budget but it was reinstated by the European Parliament. The Community budget for 1997 has not yet been agreed. Like other member states, the United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole rather than to the costs of individual spending programmes.

  The Government have no plans for direct Government expenditure on circulating information on the Euro in the United Kingdom. Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of access to United Kingdom(a) media and (b) educational institutions for those promoting the Euro as part of the Commission's publicity campaign. [7727]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not yet clear what kind of information the Commission plans to circulate.

  Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a

  117
  separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if United Kingdom citizens will be allowed to hold Euro accounts in the United Kingdom if Britain does not join monetary union. [7711]

  The Prime Minister
  United Kingdom citizens are currently able to hold bank accounts denominated in foreign currencies in the United Kingdom. The Government see no reason why that should change in any way if the United Kingdom does not participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Under protocol No. 11 of the EC treaty, the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if that is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances of the time.

  Nuclear Materials (Exports)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 473, if he will list all countries to which nuclear materials, equipment or technology have been exported, under the exception clause of the nuclear suppliers group guidelines, in the last five years. [8283]

  The Prime Minister
  There have been no exports from the United Kingdom of nuclear materials or technology under the exception to the policy, agreed in April 1992.

  Princess of Wales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on whose initiative the meeting on 20 December with Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was arranged. [8330]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with the Princess of Wales at times arranged between us.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the exchanges he has authorised between members of Her Majesty's Opposition and senior civil servants since 1 January. [8233]

  The Prime Minister
  As I made clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 30 November 1995,Official Report, column 835, I will be content to authorise confidential exchanges between senior civil servants and Opposition spokesmen from January 1996. As yet, I have not been approached by the leader of the Opposition to authorise such exchanges.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ask the Scott inquiry to investigate the letter written by the 118
  right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) to Astra Ltd. on 8 March 1985. [7410]

  The Prime Minister
  It is for Sir Richard Scott to decide for himself what to investigate within his terms of reference.

  Fouad Makhzoumi
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ban future contact by his Department with Fouad Makhzoumi of FMS in relation to defence sales to Lebanon. [7411]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans to ban contact between officials from any Government Department and Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the prospect for an exchange rate mechanism for those EEC members who do not join the single currency; [7552]

  (2) what restraints were proposed by the advocates of monetary union at the Madrid summit on the freedom of action of those countries which do not join it. [7653]

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council agreed at Madrid that the Ecofin Council, together with, in their respective fields of competence, the Commission and the European Monetary Institute, will study the range of issues raised by the fact that some countries might not initially participate in the Euro area. In particular, the study should cover those issues related to monetary stability.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister to what extent progress to monetary union requires Britain to rejoin the ERM(a) as a condition for fulfilling the preliminary stages of EMU before giving notice to join or otherwise and (b) as a condition of staying out; and if he will make a statement. [7712]

  The Prime Minister
  Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament.

  It will be for the Council, meeting as Heads of State or Government in 1998, to decide pursuant to the provisions of the EC treaty which member states fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency. It is not possible to say now precisely how the exchange rate criterion will be interpreted, given the changes in the way the ERM has operated since the treaty was agreed.

  The Madrid European Council requested that the Ecofin Council, together with, in their respective fields of competence, the Commission and the European Monetary Institute, will study the range of issues raised by the fact that some countries might not initially participate in the Euro area. In particular, the study should cover those issues related to monetary stability.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7823]

  Mr. Willetts
  Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document. The relevant Minister may see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters.

  Ascertaining whether any letters since 1994–95 have been amended could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including an estimate for the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6397]

  Date research commissioned

  Amount department spent £(excluding VAT)

  Who carried out the research

  Number of people surveyed

  Location and timescale

  Who has access to findings

  Citizen's Charter

  March 1993

  75,000

  ICM Research

  3,097

  GB

  Published August

  Customer Survey

  27 March-10 April

  1993

  1993

  Complaints Task

  May 1994

  69,400

  MORI

  1,731

  GB

  Published June

  Force

  June-November

  1995

  1994

  Charter Mark

  March 1995

  7,800

  MORI

  1,967

  UK

  Not Published

  Nomination

  Pre research:

  Scheme

  March1995

  post research: June

  1995

  Report Back

  September

  8,775

  NOP

  264(pre-stage)

  Birmingham and

  Not published

  Research

  1995

  531(post stage)

  Bristol

  Pre research:

  September 1995

  post research

  October 1995

  Simplifying system

  August 1995

  137,907

  KMPG

  60 small

  parts of England

  None so far—study;

  for business start

  including VAT

  Management

  businesses and

  and Wales

  not yet complete.

  up

  Consultants

  business

  August-September-

  intermediaries

  October1995

  Fox Hunting
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to ban fox hunting and shooting of wild birds in the(a) Crewe survey, (b) South survey, (c) Needlewood estate, (d) Lancashire survey and (e) Yorkshire survey. [7042]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have no plans to ban fox hunting or the shooting of wild birds which are not a protected species on the Duchy estates mentioned.
  120
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Estimated costs for this financial year, July 1995 to March 1996 are given.

  (a) Costs are not identified separately for the office.

  (b) £320,000.

  (c) Costs are not identified separately for the office.

  (d) For working lunches and dinners, £6,200.

  (e) Nil.

  (f) £150.

  (g) £6,500.

  (h) I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 30 October, Official Report, column 6.

  £60,000 (incudes cost of car and travel).

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department and those parts of the Government for which he is responsible into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and time scale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5971]

  Mr. Willetts
  The information is as follows:

  Set-aside Land
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the amount of EU subsidy received by the Duchy from the set-aside scheme and common agricultural policy programmes in the last year for which figures are available. [7043]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Duchy has received no EU subsidy from the set-aside scheme and CAP programmes.

  Efficiency Gains
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what efficiency gains have been achieved in the running of the Duchy over the past three years. [7047]

  Mr. Freeman
  Over the last three and a half years, from the period ending 29 September 1992 to 31 March 1995, the total costs on the Duchy of Lancaster's estates and investments account have fallen in real terms by 7 per cent., and the number of employees has been reduced from 50 to 47.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8027]

  Mr. Willetts
  This information is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Photocopiers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 256, what is the estimated cost of settling the outstanding leases on the 13 photocopiers replaced by the Cabinet Office and its agencies and HMSO and the Central Office of Information; and what is (a) the length of contract for each of the new photocopiers acquired by his Department, (b) the minimum contractual cost of using these machines in each year and (c) the maximum amount by which the maintenance and or servicing cost can rise during the whole course of the contracts. [7982]

  Mr. Willetts
  There were no settlement costs in respect of leases for the 25 photocopiers replaced by the Cabinet Office and its agencies—11 machines—and HMSO and the Central Office of Information—14 machines. Eighteen of the machines are leased on three-year contracts, three are on four-year contracts and four are on five-year contracts. The minimum contractual cost of leasing these machines is £56,189 per annum. The maximum amount by which the maintenance and/or servicing costs can rise during the course of contract is limited to the rate of inflation as measured by the retail price index.

  Open Government Code
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much public advertising has been undertaken to publicise the open government code; and at what cost. [6674]

  Mr. Willetts
  The code of practice on access to Government information came into force on 4 April 1994. In 1994–95, 52,000 copies of the Office of Public Service leaflet explaining the operation of the code and over 5,000 copies of the code of practice itself were distributed to organisations such as citizens advice bureaux and libraries, at a total cost including printing and distribution of £19,048.

  In 1995–96, this leaflet has been redesigned, and is being made widely available. A display poster, advertising the code, has also been prepared. To date, some 70,000 standard English language leaflets, 2,500 posters and
  122
  4,500 leaflets in formats for the visually impaired have been produced and distributed to public outlets as above. A further 30,000 standard English language leaflets, about 5,000 in formats for the visually impaired and about 30,000 in ethnic minority languages, are currently being produced, and will be distributed in January 1996. The total cost in 1995–96, including production and distribution, is expected to be around £80,000.

  The code has also been publicised in the citizens charter "Report Back" newsletter, which was distributed by direct mailing in major cities in September and October 1995. The full code and the revised leaflet have also been made available on the Internet. These methods of advertising have involved no separate additional cost.

  Individual Departments have issued press releases and made explanatory material tailored to their own circumstances available on request as follows:

  Department

  Leaflets issued

  Expenditure

  Department for Education and

  Employment

  195,000

  1£22,981

  Department of Environment

  not known

  *£170

  Foreign and Commonwealth

  Office including Overseas

  Development Administration

  not known

  £1,970

  Department of Health

  *30,000

  2£3,135

  Home Office

  5,000

  £1,350

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  not known

  *£1,000

  Northern Ireland Office

  34,500

  £2,945

  Scottish Office

  not known

  *£100

  Department of Social Security

  4315,000

  £13,324

  Department of Trade and

  Industry

  52,000

  6£1,602

  Department of Transport

  not known

  £1,338

  Welsh Office

  8,500

  £2,881

  Non-ministerial departments and agencies

  Charity Commissioners

  7157,000

  £14,981

  Customs and Excise

  12,000

  £1,486

  Data Protection Registrar

  not known

  £2,100

  Office of Fair Trading

  not known

  8£6,836

  Inland Revenue

  9not known

  £6,073

  OFSTED

  not known

  *£200

  OFWAT

  not known

  *£100

  Entries marked with an asterisk are approximate figures.

  1Includes £2,849 for Employment Service and £581 for Department for Education. Also includes £19,551 for 75,000 Health and Safety Executive leaflets.

  2 Includes £500 for Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  3These were inserts to the OPS leaflet and were aimed at the public. Some of the money spent by NIO was also used on internal publicity for the Code of Practice.

  4Includes braille, audio cassette and Welsh language versions. Distributed to local offices and Citizens' Advice Bureaux.

  5Figure for 1995 only.

  6Includes £970.65 in 1994, £352 in 1995 updating 1994 leaflet, and £380 on a series of Internet pages.

  7Includes 5,000 Open Government leaflets in 1994 and 152,000 combined Open Government/general information leaflets in 1995.

  8Cost of producing a Citizen's Charter booklet including information on the Open Government Code of Practice.

  9Available at every Tax Office.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his
  123
  Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7580]

  Mr. Willetts
  CCTA, the Government centre for information systems, maintains the CCTA Government information service on the world wide web at www.open.gov.uk. This provides search and retrieval facilities with links to information from 140 public sector organisations, some of which use the CCTA server, others of which have their own. The individual organisations are responsible for updating their information.

  The Cabinet Office has a number of home pages:

  Cabinet Office: www.open.gov.uk/co/cohome.htm

  CCTA: www.open.gov.uk/ccta/cctahome.htm

  Citizen's Charter Unit: www.open.gov.uk/charter/ccuhome.htm

  Machinery of Government and Standards Group:

  www.open.gov.uk/m-of-g/mghome.htm

  The available information includes an outline of Cabinet. Office activities; publications, services and events from CCTA, along with on-line public discussions via the collaborative open groups; the full text of all the citizens charters, along with the recent winners; and the text of the open government "Code of Practice on Access to Information". This includes an e-mail reply facility for further information and advice on the open government initiative. Information on the Government information service on the world wide web is updated several times a day.

  Cabinet Office agencies—the Civil Service College, the Central Office of Information and HMSO—also have web sites.

  The Cabinet Office answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet at both ministerial and official levels. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I can be contacted by e-mail at the following addresses:

  rfreeman.mp.cdl@ccta.gov.uk

  dwilletts@ccta.gov.uk

  Ministerial Travel and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including an estimate for the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d)domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6398]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I am replying in respect of my own post, which came into being in July 1995. The Chancellor of the Duchy will be answering separately on behalf of OPS Ministers. Estimated costs for myself for the current financial year—July 1995—March 1996—are as follows:

  (a) Nil

  (b) £30,000 (excluding VAT). For additional information, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 19 July, Official Report, column 1272).

  (c) Nil

  (d) Domestic travel—£2,600

  Accommodation—nil.

  Government Bills and Papers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to ensure that Government Bills and papers published by HMSO are available in HMSO bookshops outside London on the same date as they are on sale in the capital. [7433]

  Mr. Willetts
  Significant Command Papers are made available simultaneously in HMSO's regional bookshops whenever production timetables and security considerations allow; arrangements are also made for local availability when titles are likely to have particular relevance in any specific area. The timetables for Bill production usually preclude release outside London on the day of publication but, during recent months, HMSO has transmitted the text of selected Government Bills for local printing and same-day publication in Edinburgh. The results of this initiative are being evaluated.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials he employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5609]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: This Department currently employs seven full-time staff to manage over 10,000 cases of Ministers' correspondence annually. However, it is impossible to estimate the precise cost of dealing with these, because no record is kept of the contribution made by other officials. The Department ensures that such correspondence is dealt with as cost effectively as possible.

  EC Export Subsidies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the accounting and audit procedures in respect of payments of EC export subsidies to producers of composite food products outside annex II of the general agreement on tariffs and trade treaty, where it is deemed inappropriate and bureaucratic to quantify the basic commodities involved. [5899]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have asked the chief executive of the Intervention Board to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from George Trevelyan to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about EC export subsidies to producers of composite food products as the matter is within the operational responsibility of this Executive Agency. [5899]
  I am sending a copy of this letter to the House of Commons Library and the Public Information Office.
  I believe that the question relates to food products outside Annex II of the Treaty of Rome, which are commonly known as processed goods.
  125
  Export refunds are paid upon the basic agricultural products (for example, cereals, sugar, and milk) when they are used in the manufacture of processed goods (such as biscuits and cakes) which are themselves exported. As you indicated in your question, the Community has taken the view that for claimants to establish for each export the quantities of basic products contained would be inappropriate and bureaucratic. It would also be very costly if laboratory analysis was required for each consignment. A system was therefore designed, and its use authorised by Community regulations, in which the manufacturer lodges with the Agency a "recipe" for the processed good in question, and this is given a code number. Thereafter, exporters declare only the weight of the processed good exported and the "recipe" number. The recipe differs from that word in common parlance and consists only of the percentages of basic agricultural products contained in unit weight of the processed good. The export refund payment is then calculated by reference to the content identified by the recipe number.

  By a system which combines regulatory requirements and risk analysis techniques, public funds are safeguarded from false recipe declarations either by pre-production verification of the recipe proportions or by laboratory analysis of samples taken from export consignments, or both. In the event that the export declaration proves false the payment of export refund is reassessed.

  With the exception of the recipe system the accounting and audit procedures, including those of NAO, Commission auditors and the European Court of Auditors are the same for processed goods as for Annex II basic agricultural products.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assurances he has received that cattle in other countries are free of BSE. [6210]

  Mrs. Browning
  BSE is a notifiable disease under the rules of the Office of International Epizootics. This places an obligation on all of that organisation's member countries to report all cases of BSE. We have been notified, up to 18 December, of BSE cases in 10 countries, than the United as Kingdom, as follows:

  Country

  Number of BSE cases

  Canada

  11

  Denmark

  11

  Falklands Islands

  11

  France

  12

  Germany

  14

  Republic of Ireland

  112

  Italy

  12

  Oman

  12

  Portugal

  28

  Switzerland

  183

  1These countries have only had cases in cattle imported from the UK.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to isolate bovine spongiform encephalopathy symptomatic cattle at markets and abattoirs; and if he will make a statement. [6954]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: All cattle are subject to an ante mortem inspection prior to slaughter at abattoirs, all adult cattle and any showing unusual symptoms are examined by a veterinary surgeon. Any displaying symptoms of BSE are killed and incinerated. Market inspectors will also report any cattle showing potential symptoms of BSE to the Ministry for
  126
  subsequent veterinary examination and diagnosis: those considered to be actual BSE suspects are killed and incinerated. However inspectors do not examine all cattle at markets, nor are all cattle going to slaughter sold through markets.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into rapid research methods of diagnosis of spongiform encephalopathies. [6971]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The Ministry has a wide programme of research to study the nature of the BSE agent and to develop diagnostic tests for it. This work is costing around £1.4 million in the current financial year and is being carried out in six different research laboratories.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of (i) experiments involving the inoculation of mice into a level of BSE toxicity in various bovine tissues and (ii) how much BSE infectivity is required to produce positive results in experimental mice. [7142]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: The murine assay for the presence of BSE infectivity does not determine the level of infectivity present in tissues, other than to show that sufficient infectivity is present to produce disease in mice using a protocol designed to maximise the sensitivity of the assay. Using this assay BSE infectivity has been shown to be present in the brain, spinal cord and retina of clinically affected cattle and in the distal ileum of experimentally infected calves. Infectivity estimates depend on the number of mice killed and the dilution of source material to which they become affected, but any estimate will be specific to that particular mouse model and the route of challenge.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of the amount of infectivity (i) that has been found by experimentation in various species to be capable of a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy by injection into a vein and (ii) found in animal experiments to be present in the blood of various species with transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. [7142]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: No infectivity has been found in blood or associated blood fractions from cattle infected with BSE.

  Southall Horse Market
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his inspectors last visited the Southall horse market; what activities they undertook there; and if he will make a statement. [4474]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Horse sales are held at the market weekly, with the numbers of horses, ponies and donkeys presented varying from sale to sale—between 30 and 100 depending on the time of year. Veterinary inspections, organised by the State Veterinary Service, are carried out on a regular basis

  127
  to monitor welfare standards, compliance with legislative requirements and to look for evidence of animal disease. Lay inspectors of the SVS and the local authority also make frequent inspection visits for similar purposes and the police and representatives of the RSPCA and horse welfare organisations regularly attend on market days. The market was last inspected—by a veterinary inspector and a lay inspector—on 6 December. They report that the police and RSPCA were also in attendance. Thirty-five horses and ponies were inspected and no problems were recorded.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ex gratia payments have been made by his Ministry to farmers for cattle vaccinated against foot and mouth disease in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [7213]

  Mrs. Browning
  Thirteen farmers have submitted claims for ex gratia payments in respect of cattle which tested seropositive for foot and mouth disease antibodies and subsequently slaughtered in 1993. So far 10 farmers have submitted satisfactory evidence to support their claims which have been approved for payment in 1995.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was spent in each region of England in(a) set-aside payments under the arable area scheme and (b) total arable area payments, in 1994–95. [7196]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: Information relating to the amounts paid in each region of England in 1994–95 for set-aside and for total arable area payments, including set-aside, is not available. The table gives the payments claimed in each region. The total amounts paid will have been slightly lower following any necessary reductions.

  Set-aside payments

  Total arable area payments (including set-aside)

  £

  £

  Anglia

  49,732,127

  290,606,407

  East Midlands

  34,980,304

  213,995,714

  North-East

  27,982,674

  167,431,900

  Northern

  6,364,488

  40,204,615

  North Mercia

  8,453,480

  51,494,192

  South Mercia

  13,807,395

  83,004,365

  South-East

  30,151,108

  170,825,110

  South-West

  4,387,668

  29,640,602

  Wessex

  12,745,000

  72,235,608

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money is forecast to be spent in each region of England in(a) set-aside payments under the arable area scheme and (b) total arable area payments, in 1995–96. [7197]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: The table gives the latest forecasts of the value of claims in 1995–96 for set-aside and for total arable area payments, including set-aside, for land situated in each region of England.
  128

  £thousand

  (a) Set-aside payments

  (b) total arable area payments (including set-aside)

  Anglia

  46,007

  288,118

  East Midlands

  33,191

  216,825

  North-east

  25,255

  165,292

  Northern

  8,612

  42,922

  North Mercia

  7,511

  50,814

  South Mercia

  12,855

  82,300

  South-east

  29,608

  173,350

  South-west

  4,175

  30,618

  Wessex

  11,585

  72,361

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answer questions and supply additional information through the Internet. [7563]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has no dedicated web site maintained on the Internet but currently uses the CCTA Government information service to publish information. MAFF has published the following documents through this service:

  Ministry aims and objectives

  Background to the Ministry

  UK Food and Farming in figures

  Getting further information from the Ministry

  Schools Science Competition.

  The Internet web address of these pages is: http://www.open.gov.uk/maff/pages/maffhome.htm

  Updating is carried out when the statistics published as part of "UK Food and Farming" in figures change: the opportunity is then taken to update the other pages. Updates in 1995 were done in March, August, October and November.

  Electronic mail access between Ministry staff and the Internet community, via MAFF's office system, Maiden, has been in place for over 12 months and is used to answer questions and provide information through the Internet. The gateway for public inquiries using e-mail is through the MAFF helpline service on:
  helpline@inf.maff.gov.uk

  Hormone Residues
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many laboratories his Ministry has for the monitoring of hormone residues in(a) beef, (b) sheepmeat and (c) other livestock production; and if he will make a statement. [8045]

  Mrs. Browning
  The analysis of samples for the purposes of monitoring hormone residues in(a) beef, (b) sheepmeat and (c) other livestock production is carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency at Weybridge under the national surveillance scheme for residues in meat.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 21 and 22 December; and if he will make a statement. [8132]

  Mr. Baldry
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Brussels on 21–22 December, together with my hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State at the Scottish Office and at the Northern Ireland Office.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with Sweden voting against, the total allowable catches and quotas to apply in 1996. The agreement fulfilled the Government's objective of securing the best possible deal for British fishermen consistent with the scientific advice and the conservation of stocks for the future. In the final package, the total UK quotas agreed for the stocks of most importance to our fishermen were over 50,000 tonnes higher in cod equivalent terms than the quotas being discussed at the start of negotiations. This increase is worth over £30 million to the industry at 1995 prices. I invoked Hague preference on all the stocks where it was necessary to do so.

  The Council unanimously agreed access and quota arrangements for 1996 with neighbouring non-member states. The United Kingdom has large quotas at north Norway and we secured them at the same level as for 1995. Similarly, we have retained our quotas in Faroese, Greenland and Icelandic waters at the same level as in 1995. There was unanimous agreement to a negotiating mandate for the Commission to consolidate and update the Community's fisheries agreements with non-member states in the Baltic sea.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with Portugal voting against, to the allocation of the Community's 1996 quotas in the waters covered by the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. The United Kingdom's quota remains the same as in 1995. There was also unanimous agreement to a package of control measures to be applied in NAFO waters, implementing the agreement reached between the Community and Canada last April.

  The Commission presented a report on 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 conserve stocks and it was agreed that the Commission should present new proposals including measures to increase the effectiveness of the plaice box and to improve the selectivity of towed fishing gears. The Council undertook to reach a decision on these proposals before the end of 1996.

  The Commission reported on the enforcement of Community rules on drift nets in 1995. The Council noted the success of the enforcement arrangements and the very high level of compliance with the rules in the tuna fishery in the north east Atlantic.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with the Netherlands voting against, to adjustments in the rules governing the funding of schemes to reduce the size of fishing fleets. A ceiling on the funds that may be devoted to encouraging temporary cessation of fishing activity was
  130
  agreed and the level of Community funding for decommissioning vessels more than 30 years old was increased.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 18 and 19 December; and if he will make a statement. [8133]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council together with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office.

  The Council unanimously agreed a reformed EC rice regime broadly modelled on the cereals regime following the reform of 1992. The reformed rice regime includes a significant reduction in intervention prices, accompanied by compensation payments limited to national base areas with stiff penalties if these areas are exceeded. The agreement also provides for phased improvements in quality standards to ensure EC rice production is more competitive in the face of the more open trading conditions flowing from the GATT agreement.

  The Commissioner introduced a communication on the welfare of calves including in particular their rearing systems. I urged that he should bring forward without delay specific proposals for the improvement of EC rules in this area.

  The Council seemed sympathetic to a demand from the Irish Minister that Irish sheepmeat producers should receive some special aid reflecting the adverse trading conditions they experienced in the middle of 1995. I expressed doubts about the justification for any such proposal but insisted that if one were produced northern Irish producers, whose situation was very similar to those in the south, should also benefit.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Services (Stonehaven)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters, petitions and postcards he or his Department or Grampian health board have received relating to the proposal to put out to tender the provision of hospital services at Stonehaven; and how many of these were(a) in favour and (b) opposed to the proposal. [7758]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I have received 29 letters about the proposals. No petitions have been received. A total of 575 pre-printed postcards have been sent by individuals to my right hon. Friend or his predecessor. The letters reflect a range of views with most accepting that a new hospital should be built in Stonehaven. The postcards recognise the need to develop new health services in Stonehaven but express opposition to open competitive tendering for services. I suggest that the hon. Member approaches Grampian health board for information on representations made to the board. He will be aware that the board carried out
  131
  wide local consultation in preparing its specification for a new hospital and services. This provided the opportunity for expression of a wide variety of views.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Brian Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by the parliamentary constituency in which their home addresses are situated, the number of pupils currently benefiting from the assisted places scheme. [8182]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on the home addresses of assisted place pupils is not held centrally.

  Newchurch and Company
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the consultancy contracts awarded by(a) Scottish health boards and (b) NHS trusts to Newchurch and Company in relation to private finance initiative contracts, indicating the value of each of those contracts. [8113]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Newchurch and Company is providing financial advice in connection with private finance exploration on only two projects in Scotland:

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse NHS Trust—new district general hospital

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity NHS Trust—day case and maternity unit.

  Both contracts were awarded following a competitively tendered process. The values are not known centrally as this is a commercial agreement between the trust and Newchurch.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the oil spillage between Aberdeen and Neuburgh; how many sea birds and mammals have been affected; and what resources are being made available to rescue animals. [7655]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply. I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about oil spillages between Aberdeen and Neuburgh and the affect on sea birds and mammals.
  PQ 5C/95/96
  On Sunday, 10 December, the Marine Pollution Control Unit was informed that oiled birds were coming ashore between Aberdeen and Neuburgh. About 25 guillemots were affected of which eleven were cleaned. The remaining thirteen either died or had to be destroyed. The Scottish Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals was responsible for collecting the oiled birds from the beaches. No sea mammals were affected. No oil was washed ashore or sighted at sea.

  Occupational Health
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many medical and nursing staff worked in occupational health within the NHS for the last three years 132
  for which figures are available; and what were the grades of these employees. [5152]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: The number of medical and nursing staff working in occupation health within the NHS at 30 September 1993, 1994 and 1995 is shown in the table.

  Medical staff

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Consultant

  10

  11

  10

  Staff grade

  2

  2

  2

  Senior registrar

  1

  3

  1

  Hospital practitioner

  1

  1

  1

  Part-time medical officers (paragraph 94 appointments)

  22

  21

  18

  Total

  36

  38

  32

  1Provisional.

  Nursing staff

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Grade I

  6

  6

  5

  Grade H

  16

  15

  15

  Grade G

  24

  30

  30

  Grade F

  9

  15

  14

  Grade E

  6

  8

  6

  Grade D

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  61

  75

  70

  1At 31 March 1995; data for 30 September not available.

  Most of the medical staff working in occupational health in the NHS do so on a part-time basis.

  Medical Devices
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many incidents reported to the Common Services Agency(a) involving infusion devices, (b) involving over-infusion by infusion devices and (c) involving fatalities with infusion devices have occurred (i) since the start of 1985, (ii) between August 1993 and November 1994 and (iii) since August 1993. [5963]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Time period

  (a) Infusion devices (all incidents)

  (b) Over-infusion

  (c) Fatality

  (i) From 1985 to present

  46

  29

  5

  (ii) From end August 1993 to November 1994

  7

  5

  10

  (iii) From August 1993 to present

  20

  15

  21

  1A fatality involving an infusion pump was reported to Scottish Healthcare Supplies in March 1994. The fatality was later attributed to causes unrelated to the pump and the incident is not included here.

  2The fatality listed here was reported to SHS on 8 June 1995. Two infusion pumps used to treat the patient were examined by SHS and a technical report is currently with the Procurator Fiscal. The fiscal has confirmed his conclusion that the fatality was not a result of over-infusion and this incident is not included in the column (b).

  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press and public relations officers worked for the Scottish Office in(a) 1978, (b) 1992 and (c) 1995; and what was the annual cost of these posts in each year. [6081]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: The number of press and public relations officers employed in the Scottish Office information directorate at 1 April in the years 1978, 1992 and 1995 were 23, 27, and 27 respectively.

  The total annual salary bill for all staff in the information directorate, including administrative support grades, was £965,361 in 1991–92 and £1,031,836 in 1994–95. The figure for 1977–78 is not available.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide for schemes so far agreed under the PFI the level of financing costs above the current cost of Government borrowing for the scheme with(a) the highest financing costs and (b) the lowest costs. [5719]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information is not available in the form requested. It is a fundamental principle of the private finance initiative that when schemes are considered, the overall best value for money in providing a specified service is assessed, taking into account all aspects of design, building, finance and operation as a unified whole.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5736]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The estimated administrative costs of the Scottish Office private finance unit from are as follows:

  1993–94 to 1996–97

  1993–94: £38,000

  1994–95: £63,000

  1995–96: £80,000

  1996–97: £125,000.

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Health board

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  361,984

  654,993

  839,544

  978,013

  1,050,524

  1,139,261

  1,244,913

  1,541,503

  Ayrshire and Arran

  344,877

  543,678

  805,826

  863,823

  916.197

  983,569

  1,097,596

  1,258,265

  Borders

  77,866

  143,945

  180,320

  215,894

  234,704

  261,627

  305,637

  357,926

  Dumfries and Galloway

  115,805

  184,775

  260,017

  309,078

  340,806

  364,014

  411,166

  529,758

  Fife

  281,440

  450,802

  638,069

  741,875

  811,065

  874,511

  977,389

  1,290,751

  Forth Valley

  221,844

  398,973

  517,782

  604,889

  664,162

  713,950

  789,965

  998,607

  Grampian

  379,213

  696,876

  907,565

  1,112,691

  1,216,002

  1,381,119

  1,599,033

  1,841,974

  Greater Glasgow

  789,443

  1,398,192

  1,743,182

  1,960,743

  2,102,009

  2,220,729

  2,344,749

  2,840,176

  Highland

  142,481

  261,926

  337,880

  394,090

  433,661

  462,513

  516,948

  639,028

  Lanarkshire

  480,368

  861,032

  1,103,182

  1,261,896

  1,362,351

  1,471,735

  1,601,002

  1,935,899

  Lothian

  562,167

  909,458

  1,283,843

  1,500,822

  1,633,670

  1,774,271

  1,999,526

  2,539,710

  Orkney

  12,892

  23,175

  30,774

  37,365

  38,331

  43,098

  70,018

  80,435

  Shetland

  21,622

  42,291

  45,832

  46,375

  44,717

  50,399

  59,086

  73,169

  Tayside

  301,176

  544,606

  678,014

  817,992

  873,748

  966,408

  1,091,185

  1,369,588

  Western Isles

  17,812

  30,756

  45,661

  48,592

  52,460

  57,889

  63,731

  69,369

  Total

  4,110,990

  7,145,478

  9,417,491

  10,894,138

  11,774,407

  12,765,093

  14,171,944

  17,366,158

  134
  Costs are incurred in addition by Scottish Office policy divisions and agencies and by the NHS management executive in taking forward PFI projects in their particular areas but these are not identified separately from other administrative work or from the costs which would have been incurred in taking forward conventional projects. Administrative costs specifically incurred by other public bodies on PFI work are also not separately quantifiable.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5737]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The revenue consequences across all Scottish Office programmes of PFI projects over the three years 1996–97 to 1998–99 are estimated at approximately £140 million in total. These estimates are assumed to include financing, operating, maintenance and all other relevant revenue costs. In practice the size and timing of payments depend on the timing of agreement to, and completion of, contracts and on the delivery of specific services to specified standards.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was raised through the levying of prescriptions charged by each health board in Scotland in each financial year since 1979–80. [6155]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information for each health board for the financial years 1979–80 to 1994–95 is set out in the table below. The table shows NHS receipts from prescription charges paid by patients in respect of drugs and appliances and prescription charges recovered from patients under health board post-dispensing checking arrangements.

  The purchase of prescription pre-payments certificates is not deemed to be the payment of a charge under the NHS (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, as amended. These receipts are therefore not shown.
  135

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Health board

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,401,971

  1,619,931

  1,664,327

  1,739,909

  1,909,549

  2,034,494

  2,165,136

  2,293,714

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,343,944

  1,363,265

  1,493,341

  1,599,391

  1,720,195

  1,825,740

  1,992,347

  2,099,886

  Borders

  361,707

  418.690

  432,012

  460,828

  507,546

  566,992

  639,116

  690,134

  Dumfries and Galloway

  506,040

  591,008

  616,088

  650,903

  731,447

  790,551

  889,771

  947,752

  Fife

  1,127,660

  1,224,895

  1,367,947

  1,451,579

  1,634,243

  1.752,818

  1,799,866

  2,224,604

  Forth Valley

  920,575

  1,059,355

  1,088,334

  1,165,445

  1,300,438

  1,401,513

  1,596.432

  1,709,598

  Grampian

  2,043,973

  2,006,440

  2,205,824

  2,399,868

  2,694,810

  3,039,443

  3,331,274

  3,703,506

  Greater Glasgow

  2,525,368

  2,694,145

  2,847,550

  2,945,034

  3,142,277

  3,307,852

  3,500,011

  3,714,678

  Highland

  570,729

  715,553

  765,988

  847,790

  959,670

  1,042,665

  1,119,967

  1,249,931

  Lanarkshire

  1,769,306

  1,918,087

  2,115,452

  2,155,476

  2,359,297

  2,520,036

  2,742,741

  2,839,487

  Lothian

  2,352,445

  2,550,357

  3,037,17'7

  3.031,138

  3,337,516

  3,626,777

  4,053,025

  4,395,732

  Orkney

  75,240

  85,649

  87.711

  105,903

  119,597

  240,408

  164,042

  159,794

  Shetland

  73,797

  79,223

  83,269

  105,137

  103,192

  i 13,651

  130,688

  137,164

  Tayside

  1,289,796

  1,399,856

  1,536,510

  1,658,357

  1,830,338

  2.011,229

  2,206,634

  2,371,206

  Western isles

  79,929

  71,498

  77,870

  86,351

  87,519

  99,184

  114,418

  135,618

  Total

  16,442,480

  17,797,952

  19,419,400

  20,403.109

  22,437,634

  24,373,353

  26,445,468

  28,672,804

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officials he employed(a) full time and (b) part time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5608]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Any letters from hon. Members are passed to the appropriate Department for reply and this is regarded as part of the normal duties of staff in the Scottish Office. It is not possible to say how many staff have been engaged in answering letters or to provide an estimated overall cost.

  NHS Advertising
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums have been spent on advertising by each NHS trust and health board in each year since 1990. [7168]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Scottish Homes Development Programme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Homes has spent through its development programme in each of the past five years, in cash terms and at 1995–96 prices. [6687]

  NHS in Scotland hospitals—throughtput by seleted specialty:year ending 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Percentage change 1995

  1990–95

  Accident and emergency

  106.7

  111.3

  110.7

  131.9

  161.8

  151.9

  42.4

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  33.1

  31.6

  32.9

  33.0

  33.7

  35.6

  7.6

  Communicable diseases

  26.8

  31.7

  30.2

  29.6

  31.5

  34.2

  27 6

  Ear, nose and throat surgery

  67.7

  68.6

  69.3

  76.0

  80.9

  82.6

  22.0

  General medicine1

  36.4

  37.7

  39.9

  42.5

  45.9

  48.5

  33.2

  General practice

  17.4

  18.2

  19.1

  18.0

  17.7

  18.8

  8.0

  General surgery

  39.4

  40.5

  43.0

  45.0

  47.6

  50.0

  26.9

  Geriatric assessment

  9.8

  10.2

  10.8

  11.3

  11.9

  12.0

  22.4

  Gynaecology

  60.3

  61.1

  62.6

  63.4

  63.7

  66.6

  10.4

  136
  Mr, Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Scottish Homes development programme

  £ million

  Year

  Cash terms

  1995–96 prices

  1990–91

  203.0

  241.8

  1991–92

  235.0

  263.5

  1992–93

  282.7

  304.5

  1993–94

  306.6

  320.9

  1994–95

  319.5

  328.1

  Young Homeless (London)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from Shelter Scotland about young homeless in London. [7152]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  On its publication in November, Shelter sent me a copy of the Shelter/Borderline report, "When the Bright Lights Go Out: Young Homeless Scots in London 1995". I shall arrange for a copy of my reply to be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average number of patients per hospital bed in Scotland in each major speciality in each year since 1989–90; and what was the percentage change over the entire period. [7170]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  137

  NHS in Scotland hospitals—throughput by selected specialty: years ending 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Percentage change 1990–95

  Intensive therapy unit

  85.9

  94.7

  99.7

  99.1

  92.3

  93.9

  9.3

  Mental illness

  2.7

  2.9

  3.4

  3.8

  4.1

  4.4

  63.0

  Neurology

  28.8

  37.9

  41.7

  42.7

  43.0

  47.3

  64.2

  Neurosurgery

  31.5

  32.5

  32.4

  32.8

  35.1

  36.6

  16.2

  Ophthalmology

  43.1

  45.7

  50.5

  57.3

  61.8

  63.3

  46.9

  Oral surgery and medicine

  91.4

  88.5

  90.3

  99.6

  103.1

  99.9

  9.3

  Orthopaedic surgery

  25.4

  27.4

  28.1

  30.6

  32.3

  33.3

  31.1

  Paediatric medicine

  60.7

  65.2

  68.2

  69.4

  77.7

  77.7

  28.0

  Paediatric surgery

  57.0

  60.0

  58.9

  58.8

  61.8

  66.8

  17.2

  Plastic surgery

  34.8

  36.6

  40.1

  44.8

  46.9

  47.8

  37.4

  Radiotherapy

  29.9

  31.0

  32.1

  34.7

  31.9

  33.3

  11.4

  Respiratory medicine

  24.5

  25.7

  30.8

  31.0

  35.0

  37.7

  53.9

  Special care baby unit

  23.6

  23.3

  21.0

  21.5

  20.9

  21.5

  -8.9

  Specialist obstetrics

  52.5

  56.6

  58.1

  60.4

  64.1

  65.9

  25.5

  Urology

  50.4

  51.0

  53.7

  55.3

  58.6

  61.2

  21.4

  1 Comprises specialities of general medicine, cardiology, metabolic diseases, gastroenterology, poisons, nephrology, rheumatology, genito-urinary medicine, medical oncology, haematology, homeopathy and tuberculosis non-respiratory.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average length of in-patient hospital stay for each specialty in each year since 1989–90. [7171]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  NHS hospitals in Scotland—mean stay (days) by speciality: years ending 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Accident and

  2.1

  2

  1.9

  1.7

  1.3

  1.2

  emergency

  Acute mixed

  36.6

  0.7

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Adolescent

  109.4

  63.2

  59.9

  69.9

  70.8

  63.7

  psychiatry

  Cardiothoracic

  8.4

  8.7

  8

  8.1

  8

  7.5

  surgery

  Child

  112.1

  102.6

  106.4

  125.5

  79.4

  72.4

  psychiatry

  Communicable

  7

  6.5

  6.5

  6.3

  5.9

  5.7

  diseases

  Dermatology

  14.5

  14.1

  15.4

  14.7

  14.6

  14.1

  Ear, nose and

  3.2

  3.1

  3

  2.8

  2.7

  2.5

  throat

  surgery

  General

  8.4

  7.9

  7.5

  7.1

  6.6

  6.2

  Medicine1

  General

  16.2

  15.1

  14.7

  14.9

  15.4

  14.7

  practice

  General

  6.6

  6.4

  6.1

  5.9

  5.6

  5.4

  surgery

  Geriatric

  33.4

  31.4

  29.3

  28.2

  27

  26.8

  assessment

  GP obstetrics

  3.5

  3.2

  3.1

  3

  3

  2.6

  Gynaecology

  3.7

  3.5

  3.5

  3.3

  3.3

  3.3

  Intensive

  2.8

  2.6

  2.5

  2.5

  2.7

  2.7

  therapy unit

  Mental illness

  113.4

  106.1

  90.6

  83

  77.4

  72.2

  Neurology

  8.2

  7.4

  6.8

  6.5

  6.5

  5.6

  Neurosurgery

  8.4

  8.3

  8.3

  8.1

  8

  7.8

  Ophthalmology

  5.1

  4.7

  4.3

  3.7

  3.2

  2.7

  Oral surgery

  2.3

  2.3

  2.3

  2.1

  2.1

  2.1

  and

  medicine

  Orthodontics

  1

  1.7

  1.6

  1

  1.2

  0.9

  and

  paediatric

  dentistry

  Orthopaedic

  10.2

  9.5

  9.2

  8.4

  8

  7.6

  surgery

  138

  NHS hospitals in Scotland—mean stay (days) by speciality: years ending 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Other

  11.3

  11.5

  11

  11.8

  11.1

  6

  Paediatric

  3.9

  3.7

  3.5

  3.3

  3

  2.8

  medicine

  Paediatric

  3.7

  3.6

  3.6

  3.4

  3.2

  3.4

  surgery

  Plastic surgery

  6.7

  6.3

  5.8

  5.4

  5.2

  5

  Radiotherapy

  9.5

  9.3

  9.1

  8.4

  9

  8.7

  Rehabilitation

  24.9

  31.3

  24.3

  24.6

  28.3

  27.6

  medicine

  Respiratory

  11.3

  10.5

  9.2

  9.1

  8.3

  8

  medicine

  Special care

  7.8

  8.3

  9.2

  8.8

  9.1

  9.4

  baby unit

  Specialist

  4.4

  4.1

  3.9

  3.6

  3.5

  3.4

  obstetrics

  Spinal

  54.6

  50.6

  48.7

  46.1

  38.2

  41.2

  paralysis

  Urology

  5.5

  5.3

  5.1

  4.8

  4.6

  4.4

  Young chronic

  137.8

  120.9

  97.7

  97.4

  82.6

  62.1

  sick

  1Comprises specialties of general medicine, cardiology, metabolic diseases, gastroenterology, poisons, nephrology, rheumatology, genito-urinary medicine, medical oncology, haematology, homeopathy and tuberculosis non-respiratory.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the full terms of the contractual agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Skye Bridge Company, or its parent company. [7234]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The contractual agreements between the Secretary of State and Skye Bridge Limited which set out the terms for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Skye bridge project are commercial agreements. It is therefore not appropriate that they be treated in the way requested by the hon. Member. However, the key terms of the agreement are set out in the assignation statement made under the Assignation Statement (Prescribed Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, which was placed in the Library in December 1992 following an earlier request from the hon. Member.
  139
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for advance signs to be placed on the trunk road approaches to the Skye Bridge, indicating the level of tolls. [7236]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The levels of tolls for the Skye bridge are clearly displayed in the immediate approaches to the bridge. Signs more remote from the bridge area make it clear that the bridge is tolled. There is no reason for additional information on these signs which also convey a range of other route information.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the annual loss to the Treasury over(a) 15 years and (b) 25 years, of compensating the Skye Bridge Company, or its parent company, for removal of tolls from the Skye bridge, while retaining its maintenance responsibilities. [7235]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such estimates have been made. The Skye bridge was planned and promoted as a privately financed and operated toll bridge and it will continue on that basis.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the single crossing charge for cars on all toll bridges in Scotland. [7237]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The single crossing charges on all toll bridges in Scotland are as follows:

  Single car toll

  Regular user concession/discount

  Forth road bridge

  40p

  36p—available on

  purchase of 100

  vouchers

  Erskine bridge

  60p

  54p—available on

  purchase of 50

  vouchers

  Tay road bridge

  180p

  n/a

  Skye bridge

  £5.20 (high season)

  £2.44—available on

  £4.30 (low season)

  purchase of 10 tickets

  1Applies for travel north to south only; travel in other direction is untolled.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much each NHS trust in Scotland spent on non-NHS provision in each year since 1991–92. [7167]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current establishment of his Department; and what it was in each of the past five years. [6832]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: The number of permanent staff, full-time equivalent, in the Scottish Office core and its executive agencies is shown in the table. The figures relate to 1 April in the years from 1991 to 1995.
  140

  Core Scottish Office

  Scottish Office executive agencies1 including Scottish Prison Service

  1991

  5,475.00

  4,811.00

  1992

  5,147.50

  5,213.00

  1993

  4,923.00

  5,800.00

  1994

  4,835.00

  5,697.50

  1995

  4,217.00

  5,542.70

  1A number of agencies were created during the period in question. Prior to creation, their staffing would be counted under the SO core.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the projected cost of the nursery voucher scheme in 1996–97. [6833]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: The pre-school vouchers initiative will receive £3 million of new funding in 1996–97.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many workers were employed in the textile industry in Scotland in each of the past five years; and if he will provide a breakdown by district. [7265]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: Information for Scotland is as follows:

  Employees in employment in Scotland in the textile1 industry

  Year

  Number of employees

  1989

  27,300

  1991

  23,600

  1993

  23,200

  Note:

  1There is a discontinuity between 1991 and 1993. 1989 and 1991 figures are for class 43 of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification, the 1993 figure is for division 17 of the 1992 Standard Industrial Classification.

  Source:

  Census of Employment, Central Statistical Office.

  Information at district level, where it is available, is on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information if necessary. Confidentiality restrictions mean that employment information will not be available for districts with few textile employers.

  Dounreay (Nuclear Emergencies)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what emergency plans exist for the evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding Dounreay in the event of a nuclear accident. [7291]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: United Kingdom Automatic Energy Authority emergency procedures are exercised regularly, in liaison with the emergency services, the local authority, central Government and other agencies as necessary. The off-site response is co-ordinated by the police who, with other emergency services and Highland regional council, have plans for managing the off-site aspects of any civil nuclear emergency at Dounreay.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gross domestic product for Scotland for the past five years; and if he will provide a breakdown by sector. [7246]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: Provisional data for 1994, together with information for 1991–93, will be published in an article called "Regional Accounts 1994, Part 1" in the December 1995 edition of Economic Trends. This will be available in the House of Commons Library from 29 December. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing information for earlier years.

  Data covering years to 1993, now about to be revised, were published in the December 1994 edition of Economic Trends.

  Abnormal Loads
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abnormal loads involving railway locomotives and rolling stock have been notified to police authorities for escort on roads since the introduction of track charges by Railtrack; and how many of such loads were notified during the equivalent period before that date. [7735]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consistent information about such movements is available only for the area of Strathclyde police and is as follows:

  1995 (1 April to 20 December): 200

  1994 (1 April to 20 December): 107.

  Meat Inspectors
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meat inspectors were employed in each region since 1990.

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  At June 1995 the number of meat inspectors employed by the Meat Hygiene Service in each regional or islands council area of Scotland was as follows.

  Region/islands council

  Number of meat inspectors

  Borders

  5

  Central

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7

  Fife

  1

  Grampian

  34

  Highland

  1

  Lothian

  17

  Strathclyde

  19

  Tayside

  18

  Orkney Islands

  2

  Shetlands

  Nil

  Western Isles

  Nil

  Total

  108

  Prior to the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service such information was not collected centrally.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it 142
  is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answer questions and supply additional information through the Internet. [7572]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has made available to the public via the Government information service world wide web server information on a number of aspects of its work. The address of the Scottish Office home page is http://www.open.gov.uk/scotoff/scofhom.htm. The information available is extended and revised from time to time. It currently covers:

  The responsibilities and organisation of the Scottish Office;

  Summaries of the available Scottish Office factsheets;

  The structure of the new unitary local authorities;

  Higher education policy;

  Rural affairs and natural heritage policy with electronic links to the recently published White Paper, "Rural Scotland: People, Prosperity and Partnership";

  Links to information on educational research in Scotland;

  Outlines of the functions of the social work services group and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.

  There is provision for direct e-mail response within the rural affairs and higher education policy pages to enable Internet users to submit questions and seek further information. Replies may also be sent by electronic mail.

  Algrade Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payments were made by his Department from April 1981 to December 1994 to the Algrade Trust in respect of the care and accommodation of handicapped people at Humbie, East Lothian; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of that money which was spent on such care and accommodation by the Algrade Trust. [3261]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. H will reply to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Home Robertson, dated 20 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about what payments were made by his Department from April 1981 to December 1994 to the Algrade Trust in respect of the care and accommodation of handicapped people at Humbie, East Lothian; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of that money which was spent on such care and accommodation by the Algrade Trust.
  Details of payments for the period April 1981 to November 1986 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Appendices A-H give details of the amounts issued in respect of the period from 1 December 1986 to 30 January 1995. The payment made in January 1995 has been included as it covers the period from 1 November 1994 to 30 January 1995.
  Payments to the Algrade Trust were made in respect of care, accommodation, meals and personal expenses. It is not possible therefore to give details of the payments made for care and accommodation only.
  The Secretary of State discharges his responsibilities for the administration of benefit once he has made payments to the customer or appropriate body.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  143

  Payments made to the Algrade Trust during the periods January 1987–January 1995

  Appendix A

  Payment up to and including

  Amount paid £

  1987

  3 January

  £5,945.33

  31 January

  2,982.88

  28 February

  2,570.48

  4 April

  3,209.35

  2 May

  2,567.68

  30 May

  2,567.68

  4 July

  3,209.60

  1 August

  2,567.68

  5 September

  3,209.60

  3 October

  2,567.68

  31 October

  2,567.68

  5 December

  3,209.60

  Appendix B

  Payment up to and including

  Amount paid £

  1988

  2 January

  2,607.68

  30 January

  2,567.68

  5 March

  3,241.60

  2 April

  2,567.68

  30 April

  2,568.58

  4 June

  3,211.10

  2 July

  2,568.88

  30 July

  2,568.88

  3 September

  3,211.10

  1 October

  2,568.88

  5 November

  3,211.10

  3 December

  3,207.08

  31 December

  3,257.08

  Appendix C

  Payment up to and including

  Amount paid £

  1989

  4 February

  4,008.85

  4 March

  3,207.08

  1 April

  3,207.08

  29 April

  117,491.53

  3 June

  27,831.65

  1 July

  22,265.32

  5 August

  27,931.65

  2 September

  25,198.05

  30 September

  24,308.96

  4 November

  31,086.40

  2 December

  24,308.96

  30 December

  24,368.96

  1Increase in the number of residents from 5 to 35.

  Appendix D

  Payment up to and including

  Amount paid £

  1990

  3 February

  30,386.20

  3 March

  24,010.36

  31 March

  23,787.76

  5 May

  29,805.70

  4 June

  26,088.88

  2 July

  24,393.36

  144

  Appendix D

  Payment up to and including

  Amount paid £

  30 July

  23,651.16

  3 September

  30,039.66

  1 October

  24,285.44

  5 November

  30,356.89

  3 December

  23,470.44

  31 December

  23,410.44

  Appendix E

  Payment up to and including

  Amount paid £

  1991

  4 February

  29,263.05

  4 March

  23,410.44

  1 April

  23,410.44

  29 April

  23,482.75

  3 June

  29,928.00

  1 July

  23,942.40

  29 July

  23,942.40

  26 August

  23,942.40

  30 September

  29,928.00

  28 October

  23,942.40

  25 November

  23,280.32

  30 December

  28,896.00

  Appendix F

  Payment up to and including

  Amount paid £

  1992

  27 January

  23,942.40

  24 February

  23,942.40

  23 March

  23,942.40

  27 April

  31,737.60

  25 May

  26,355.20

  29 June

  32,944.00

  27 July

  26,355.20

  31 August

  32,944.00

  28 September

  25,446.40

  26 October

  25,446.40

  30 November

  31,808.00

  28 December

  25,506.40

  Appendix G

  Payment up to and including

  Amount paid £

  1993

  25 January

  25,446.40

  22 February

  25,446.40

  29 March

  31,808.00

  26 April

  25,101.90

  31 May

  33,271.00

  28 June

  26,616.80

  26 July

  26,616.80

  30 August

  33,271.00

  27 September

  26,616.80

  25 October

  26,616.80

  29 November

  33,271.00

  27 December

  26,686.80

  145

  Appendix H

  Payment up to and including

  Amount Paid £

  1994

  31 January 1994

  33,983.95

  28 February 1994

  26,616.80

  28 March 1994

  26,911.86

  25 April 1994

  27,639.02

  30 May 1994

  35,088.90

  27 June 1994

  28,071.12

  25 July 1994

  28,071.12

  29 August 1994

  35,088.90

  31 October 1994

  63,160.02

  30 January 1995

  90,740.94

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on progress on provision of nursery education for all four-year-olds. [4126]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 December 1995, Official Report c. 701]: I said that the Government had consulted on a number of issues related to the operation of the scheme and would publish their conclusions early in the new year.

  The Government are today publishing the document "Nursery Education Scheme: The Next Steps". In parallel with this, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is publishing its document "Nursery Education: Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning on Entering Compulsory Education".

  The two documents outline the quality assurance arrangements for the nursery voucher scheme. They cover inspection, including the frequency of inspection and an inspection framework based on the SCAA's learning outcomes; entry to the scheme; staff, qualifications and training; the length of sessions; premises and equipment; the publication of information for parents; and special educational needs.

  Copies of a pack containing the documents have been placed in the Vote Office and Library. Copies are being distributed to nursery education providers, local authorities, education bodies and other interests.

  The Government and the SCAA are grateful to all those who responded to the consultation papers. Careful consideration was given to all comments received.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost per pupil of existing local authority nursery education provision in the United Kingdom. [8277]

  Mr. Squire
  The average unit cost per full-time equivalent pupil for those categories of under-fives provision for which estimates are available for England are given in the table. Corresponding figures are not available on a United Kingdom basis.
  146

  1993–94 estimates; England only

  £

  Nursery schools

  3,250

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  2,660

  Primary classes including under 5s

  1,590

  Average

  2,040

  Student Loans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 119, on student loans, what timetable is expected for the tendering process for the contract to establish a new central database for the processing of student loans; and when a draft tender document will be drawn up. [5775]

  Mr. Forth
  The timetables for the tendering exercise and the draft tender documents for the provision of a central database have yet to be finalised.

  Ministerial Transport and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of the total cost for herself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6394]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  For expenditure under category(a) I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friends to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 5 and 6 July 1995, Official Report, columns 233 and 360 respectively. For expenditure under category (b) I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 8 November 1995, Official Report, column 934. No extra departmental costs have been incurred under category (c). Information on expenditure for the remaining category (d) is not collected in the format requested. However this information, together with planned expenditure for the current financial year in respect of all categories, is included in the running costs expenditure of the former Employment and Education Departments, which is published in the respective departmental annual reports.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of the cost of running her departmental office, and that of her predecessor, for each year since 1990–91, including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6393]
  147
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information on expenditure in each of the last five years, and for the current financial year, is not collected in the format requested but is included in the running cost expenditure of the former Employment and Education Departments, which is published in the respective departmental annual reports.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many officials she employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in her Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to her from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5613]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The Department for Education and Employment employs no staff exclusively to answer letters from hon. Members. Answers are prepared by a large number of officials as part of their normal duties. No estimate is readily available of the current overall cost of replies. In 1994, the former DFE Ministers received almost 13,000 letters—including all ministerial letters and those from hon. Members. In the same year, the former Employment Department received nearly 7,000 letters from hon. Members.

  Redundant Defence Workers
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when her Department's joint study into the experiences and prospects of redundant defence workers will report. [6346]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is expected to be available at the end of February.

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what calculation or estimate she has made of the percentage of employers to whom the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will not apply. [7426]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The employment provisions of the Act do not apply to those employers who employ fewer than 20 employees. This will therefore exclude about 96 per cent. of employers.

  However, it is more relevant that 80 per cent. of employees work for employers who will be within the scope of the employment provisions of the Act.
  Merseyside Training and Enterprise Council

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the budget of Merseyside TEC in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; [7931]

  (2) if he will list the members of the board of Merseyside TEC, their relevant previous experience and dates of appointment. [7932]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government office for Merseyside contracted with Merseyside training and enterprise council for expenditure of £42.44 million in 1995–96. Negotiations for the 1996–97 contract are due to start shortly and no figure is available presently.
  148
  The members of the board of Merseyside TEC are:

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Mr. L. Howell

  17 December 1990

  Mr. T. Atherton

  7 September 1995

  Mr. M. H. Bennett

  10 January 1991

  Mrs. L. J. Bloomfield

  19 November 1990

  Mr. I. H. Carnall

  4 July 1994

  Mr. M. F. Cogley

  23 April 1990

  Mr. R. Currie

  5 April 1993

  Mr. G. J Haywood

  13 September 1993

  Mr. D. G. Henshaw

  23 April 1990

  Mr. R. W. Lofthouse

  23 April 1990

  Mr. A. Lowe

  23 April 1990

  Mr. R. I. S. Meadows

  9 January 1992

  Mr. I. S. Parr

  28 February 1995

  Mr. L. Sterling

  12 November 1992

  The basic requirement for membership of a TEC board is that the person holds the office of chairman or chief executive or top level operational manager at local level of a company within the private sector or their equivalents from education, economic development, trade unions, voluntary organisations or the public sector. The members of the Merseyside TEC board meet this requirement.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mobile telephones have been supplied to her Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8034]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Teachers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many full-time teachers are currently employed in schools in England. [8077]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There were 353,717 full-time qualified teachers employed in maintained schools in England in January 1995, the latest date for which information is available.

  Advisers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many civil servants and educational advisers are employed in her Department. [8076]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total number of permanent civil servants and educational advisers employed in the Department for Education and Employment on 1 October 1995, the most recent date for which statistics are available, is 5,812.

  Local Education Authority Spending
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total discretionary award expenditure as a percentage of LEA spending for each authority in England and Wales. [7989]
  149
  Mr. Forth
  Information is not available in the form requested. the following table shows local education authority expenditure on discretionary awards in the academic year 1993–94 and total net recurrent local authority expenditure on education in the financial year 1993–94. Because the figures for discretionary awards expenditure and net recurrent expenditure are not directly comparable, it is not possible to calculate the percentage of total expenditure which is attributable to discretionary awards.

  Information on total local authority expenditure on education in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Expenditure by local education authorities: England and Wales

  £000s

  Expenditure on discretionary awards1,2 in the academic year 1993–94

  Total expenditure on education3 in the financial year 1993ߝ94

  Corporation of London

  24

  2,010

  Camden4

  —

  70,054

  Greenwich

  349

  110,016

  Hackney

  991

  119,730

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  178

  67,408

  Islington

  184

  95,862

  Kensington and Chelsea

  637

  48,861

  Lambeth

  127

  132,499

  Lewisham

  1,073

  112,439

  Southwark

  273

  110,026

  Tower Hamlets

  467

  128,142

  Wandsworth

  1,162

  90,517

  Westminster4

  —

  68,714

  London residuary body

  76

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  299

  63,996

  Barnet

  127

  106,941

  Bexley

  409

  78,360

  Brent

  497

  112,369

  Bromley

  714

  76,855

  Croydon

  609

  129,818

  Ealing

  204

  120,724

  Enfield

  357

  108,683

  Haringey

  16

  111,348

  Harrow

  103

  90,142

  Havering

  654

  78,692

  Hillingdon

  193

  66,271

  Hounslow

  386

  89,813

  Kingston upon Thames

  982

  47,035

  Merton

  397

  69,814

  Newham

  473

  117,182

  Redbridge

  455

  101,002

  Richmond upon Thames

  461

  51,921

  Sutton

  157

  50,665

  Waltham Forest

  246

  104,155

  Birmingham

  1,725

  444,977

  Coventry

  438

  143,835

  Dudley

  175

  104,926

  Sandwell

  198

  126,253

  Solihull

  343

  78,015

  Walsall

  537

  109,676

  Wolverhampton

  67

  113,059

  Knowsley

  816

  75,815

  Liverpool

  2,200

  215,497

  St. Helens

  507

  78,433

  Sefton

  958

  120,072

  Wirral

  2,066

  143,280

  Bolton

  985

  106,916

  Bury

  364

  71,109

  Manchester

  2,363

  206,603

  Oldham

  823

  101,566

  150

  Expenditure by local education authorities: England and Wales

  £000s

  Expenditure on discretionary awards1,2 in the academic year 1993–94

  Total expenditure on education3 in the financial year 1993ߝ94

  Rochdale

  819

  86,296

  Salford

  143

  87,880

  Stockport

  1,071

  108,433

  Tameside

  452

  82,741

  Trafford

  411

  78,788

  Wigan

  524

  122,115

  Barnsley

  412

  81,927

  Doncaster

  754

  128,186

  Rotherham

  1,002

  109,264

  Sheffield

  692

  187,044

  Bradford

  2,181

  216,312

  Calderdale

  399

  73,383

  Kirklees

  2,300

  167,279

  Leeds

  3,231

  280,208

  Wakefield

  504

  121,896

  Gateshead

  762

  83,661

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  890

  113,508

  North Tyneside

  1,031

  67,445

  South Tyneside

  647

  62,279

  Sunderland

  1,296

  120,975

  Isles of Scilly

  16

  1,306

  Avon

  2,738

  371,747

  Bedfordshire

  2,073

  216,199

  Berkshire

  1,825

  271,276

  Buckinghamshire

  924

  256,096

  Cambridgeshire

  920

  233,434

  Cheshire

  5,363

  394,667

  Cleveland

  2,027

  240,535

  Cornwall

  2,574

  184,286

  Cumbria

  9,523

  175,302

  Derbyshire

  3,491

  351,727

  Devon

  4,726

  366,006

  Dorset

  6,429

  206,766

  Durham

  2,381

  246,541

  East Sussex

  2,131

  242,739

  Essex

  4,830

  469,539

  Gloucestershire

  2,467

  165,592

  Hampshire

  8,219

  549,758

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,036

  247,999

  Hertfordshire

  2,549

  374,316

  Humberside

  3,462

  367,792

  Isle of Wight

  459

  49,584

  Kent

  8,728

  502,510

  Lancashire

  7,301

  594,252

  Leicestershire

  6,265

  371,638

  Lincolnshire

  1,739

  194,228

  Norfolk

  3,024

  253,887

  North Yorkshire

  4,419

  276,129

  Northamptonshire

  1,826

  215,087

  Northumberland

  1,409

  127,589

  Nottinghamshire

  2,896

  414,002

  Oxfordshire

  1,285

  215,518

  Shropshire

  1,702

  159,908

  Somerset

  1,912

  177,433

  Staffordshire

  1,114

  382,274

  Suffolk

  2,535

  240,229

  Surrey

  3,575

  330,929

  Warwickshire

  12

  183,502

  West Sussex

  1,856

  252,300

  Wiltshire

  1,820

  209,106

  Clwyd

  1,018

  163,025

  Dyfed

  817

  163,632

  Gwent

  3,393

  199,150

  Gwynedd

  1,189

  104,360

  Mid-Glamorgan

  1,584

  257,223

  Powys

  647

  56,220

  151

  Expenditure by local education authorities: England and Wales

  £000s

  Expenditure on discretionary awards1,2 in the academic year 1993–94

  Total expenditure on education3 in the financial year 1993ߝ94

  South Glamorgan

  1,236

  164,765

  West Glamorgan

  965

  157,389

  England and Wales(4)

  184,132(5)(6)

  19,901,208(7)

  — = not available.

  1Including major discretionary awards (paid at least 50% of the mandatory rate) and minor awards (paid at less than 50 per cent. of the mandatory rate).

  2Including expenditure on fees for discretionary award placement year sandwich students.

  3Net recurrent expenditure, i.e. total expenditure not including joint arrangements less capital charges, interest and capital expenditure charged to revenue account minus customer and client receipts and revenue for other LEAs for pupils and students educated by the authority.

  4 Camden and Westminster were unable to provide all of the information required on discretionary awards expenditure.

  5Total is grossed to compensate for incomplete returns.

  6Source: LEA returns on Form 503G.

  7Source: LEA RO1 returns to the Department of the Environment.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in her Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by her before they are sent; and if she will identify such letters to which amendments by her have been made in 1994–95. [7838]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has two executive agencies—the Employment Service and the Teachers' Pensions Agency. Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of the relevant executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document. The relevant Minister may see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters.

  No such answers were amended by Ministers in 1994–95.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the special educational needs code of practice arising from section 157(1) of the Education Act 1993 will be applied to small-scale voluntary daycare centres operating the proposed pre-school provision funded by education vouchers; and by what means she will ensure(a) that children with special educational needs will be considered for statementing and (b) that when statemented, full provision for their needs will be made available as a consequence. [8188]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The responsibilities of local authorities to identify and make a statutory assessment of those children who probably need a statement, to make a statement where appropriate and to satisfy themselves that provision is made available in accordance with the statement, remain unchanged.
  152
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering making it a requirement for all voucher redeeming institutions to have regard to the special educational needs code of practice.

  All nursery voucher redeeming institutions will be expected to include in published information for parents details of their special educational needs policy.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 403, what are the qualifications and current functions of those appointed to evaluate the first phase of the pre-school education scheme. [8193]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Evaluation of the first phase of the nursery education voucher scheme will be led by officials of the Department.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means she plans to ensure that additional facilities made available with the proposed voucher-based pre-school education scheme will not prejudice the operation of existing nursery schools and classes in the maintained system. [8189]

  Mr. Squire
  There is no reason why the voucher scheme should affect the operation of existing nursery schools and classes in the maintained sector. The proposed funding mechanism ensures that the maintained sector does not lose funding if recruitment of four-year-olds remains at present levels.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) for what purposes it is necessary to spend £5 million on the administration of the first phase of the pre-school education scheme taking place in four local authorities, and £20 million on the administration and inspection of the second phase of the pre-school education scheme which will operate in all local authorities in the United Kingdom; [8191]

  (2) if she will estimate the proportion of the £5 million cost allocated to the first phase of the new pre-school education scheme which she does not expect to arise in the further extension of the scheme. [8192]

  Mr. Squire
  For the first and second phases of the nursery education voucher scheme, £5 million and £20 million respectively has been set aside for the new educational inspection programme for voucher redeeming establishments and the administration of the scheme. The vast majority of this funding will be spent on the inspection programme; the greater proportion of funding for the first phase will be spent on the recruitment and training of inspectors to carry out the inspections in the second phase.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library the responses to her Department's consultation paper, "Quality Assurance Regime for Institutions which Redeem Pre-School Education Vouchers: Discussion Paper". [8194]

  Mr. Squire
  Yes. A summary of the responses will be placed in the Library.
  153
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means the payment of the proposed pre-school voucher system will be accommodated within the academic and financial year structures of local authorities with special reference to the times that children will start attending primary school full-time. [8190]

  Mr. Squire
  Local education authorities participating in the first phase of the scheme will receive voucher income in a number of installments over the year in respect of voucher-bearing children in their schools.

  Access to Work scheme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish the guidance notes issued by the Employment Service to disability employment advisers following the implementation of changes made to the access to work scheme. [8146]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Tom Clarke, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about publishing Employment Service guidance notes issued to Disability Employment Advisers.
  We do not as a matter of course publish our guidance notes. However, all guidance notes, including those issued to Disability Employment Advisers, are available to those who request them.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have benefited from support through the access to work scheme during its first year of operation; and how many and what proportion of these have been unemployed(a) at the point of making a request for support and (b) when receiving support. [8149]

  Mr. Paice
  Some 10,023 disabled people were successfully helped by the access to work programme in its first operational year—6 June 1994 to 31 May 1995. Of these, 1,652 were unemployed when they applied. This represents less than 20 per cent. Access to work was launched with the specific aim of helping disabled people into work.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action is being undertaken by her Department to monitor the effect of changes in the access to work scheme on disabled people. [8144]

  Mr. Paice
  The Employment Service will continue to monitor the access to work programme.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a disabled person reassessed for support under new arrangements for the access to work scheme will be entitled to retain existing equipment if it is of continued usefulness. [8143]

  Mr. Paice
  Each case will need to be individually considered. It is likely though that a disabled person who has been reassessed for support will be able to retain existing equipment if it is of continued usefulness.
  154
  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the level of cost saving which will result from the introduction of changes to the access to work scheme for the period between 18 December 1995 and April 1996. [8147]

  Mr. Paice
  We have to ensure that expenditure remains within the resources available and is equitably shared. Additional funds have, however, already been allocated to the access to work budget for 1995–96 to ensure that we can keep helping disabled people until the end of the year.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what grounds unemployed people can be supported through the access to work scheme. [8150]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 738, that, from 18 December 1995, help from access to work would be targeted on unemployed disabled people. Applications for assistance will be considered from disabled people who have not been in paid work for at least four weeks.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the eligibility for support under the access to work scheme between 18 December 1995 and April 1996 of(a) people who become disabled and wish to retain their present employment, but who have new needs, (b) disabled persons whose circumstances change due to changes in their present employment or to internal promotion, (c) disabled people in employment who apply for support under the access to work scheme for the first time, (d) disabled people who become self-employed, (e) disabled people in supported employment who develop new needs and (f) disabled people who have new needs stemming from changes to office systems and practices. [8145]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Tom Clarke, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about eligibility conditions for Access to Work.
  The Secretary of State announced on 14 December that from 18 December Access to Work would be targeted on meeting existing commitments; to applications to renew arrangements which fully satisfied the programme's rules and criteria prior to 18 December and which would otherwise have lapsed; and to people with disabilities who have been unemployed for at least four weeks.
  Disability Employment Advisers in Placing Assessment and Counselling Teams assess the work needs of disabled people and decide according to their individual needs and circumstances whether support can be given under Access to Work.
  Whenever possible they agree the decision with the disabled person and their employer or potential employer.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of unemployed people who will be assisted
  155
  through the access to work scheme between 18 December 1995 and April 1996. [8148]

  Mr. Paice
  Any reduction in the number of applications may be in line with research findings into access to work, which indicate that over 80 per cent. of all applications are from people already in paid employment.

  School Closures
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are her Department's guidelines for taking into account the environmental impact of the increased distances pupils must be driven to school when their local schools are closed. [8110]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's circular on the supply of school places, 23/94 says that proposals for school closure should include details of the schools to receive displaced pupils and the arrangements that will be made for pupil transport.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what extra resources the Government will be allocating to local authorities which already provide nursery education for four-year-olds to assist their transition to the nursery vouchers. [8278]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The transitional costs for local authorities will be minimal because most of the voucher administration will be handled by a private company specifically appointed for the purpose.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her latest estimate of the cost of introducing nursery vouchers. [8276]

  Mr. Squire
  Based on current data, the total cost of the nursery education voucher scheme in 1997–98 is estimated at £750 million, of which £185 million will be new money made available by the Government.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many qualified nursery teachers and nursery nurses are required to provide nursery education to all those in receipt of vouchers; and if she will make a statement. [8280]

  Mr. Squire
  The number of qualified nursery teachers and nursery nurses that will be required will depend on the way in which parents exercise the choice which nursery vouchers gives them.

  Educational Institution Governors
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the extent to which governors of educational institutions may become personally liable for acts of their institutions, making any required distinctions between governors of(a) schools, (b) sixth form colleges, (c) colleges of further education institutions and (d) universities. [8217]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The governing bodies of all these institutions are statutory corporations and there is no significant distinction between the different categories of governor. The exception to this is the small number of designated further and higher education institutions 156
  conducted by unincorporated governing bodies. With this exception, the liability falls on the corporate governing body rather than on the individual members of the governing body. In practice, members of governing bodies will seldom incur individual personal liability. Provided individual governors act honestly and without ulterior motive, showing reasonable care and common sense within the scope of their functions and procedures, they will in practice be protected against any risk to their own assets as a result of the governing body's decisions.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in the last five years to assess the extent of early retirement of teachers in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools from stress arising from their occupation; and what other measures she is taking to assess this problem. [8297]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No studies have been commissioned or evaluated in the last five years. My right hon. Friend is currently considering this issue.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the statistics for the retirement of teachers eligible for retirement pensions from her Departmental scheme for each year since 1985, showing for each year(a) the total number each year and as a percentage of those in the schemes, (b) the total number aged (i) 50 to 55, (ii) 55 to 60 years and (iii) 60 to 65 and (c) the number and percentage retiring through voluntary or other redundancy or ill-health, respectively, indicating separately the figure for head teachers. [8296]

  Mr. Squire
  This information is not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance her Department provides to local education authorities to assist them in(a) teacher recruitment and personal welfare, (b) inspection of and assistance to teacher and schools in their areas, (c) supply of equipment and materials for educational purposes, (d) in-service training for teachers and governors, (e) premises and services for special needs and (f) sports grounds and outdoor pursuits centres; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have for strengthening their capabilities and performance in respect of these roles. [8300]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department provides support for a variety of educational priorities through the, grants for education support and training, including in-service training for teachers and governor training. Coverage is reviewing annually. The Department makes capital funding available for maintained special schools through the annual capital guidelines which it issues each year to LEAs; it also assists non-maintained special schools through an annual capital grant programme. The DFEE and its agencies provide a wide range of advisory circulars, leaflets and other information offering guidance to LEAs every year. More details about the specific
  157
  assistance and funding the Department provides to LEAs are shown in the departmental report, a copy of which has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Secondary Schools (Entry Qualifications)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance or rules Her Majesty's Government will publish and forward to self-governing maintained middle or secondary schools concerning future entry qualifications of pupils other than those of domicile; what will be the minimum age of 158
  assessment; and by what means they will incorporate tests or estimates of (a) attainment and (b) future testable performance. [8295]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The governors of grant-maintained schools are responsible for their own admission arrangements. At present, however, those arrangements must be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She is now consulting on proposals to lift this requirement, so that grant-maintained schools have the same flexibility as that currently available to LEAs and to the governors of voluntary-aided schools.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers and amounts of rent rebate and rent allowance overpayments; and what percentage this was of local authorities' overall housing benefit expenditure for each district and island council in Scotland, in each year from 1991–92. [5054]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the Library.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security(a) how many individuals are currently entitled to a national insurance number and (b) how many such numbers have actually been issued and remain currently valid; and what factors underlie the discrepancy between (a) and (b). [5436]

  Mr. Heald
  There are approximately 65 million records held on the departmental central index database. All these numbers remain valid. Many relate to persons living abroad or to deceased persons whose dependants continue to receive benefits based on the deceased's national insurance contributions records.

  Income Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will express the value of disregards within income support for earnings and for maintenance in cash and real terms since 1985 and the real terms figures(a) with 1985 as the based and (b) with the figures most recently issued by his Department as the base. [5481]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 18 December,Official Report, columns 887–90, to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).

  There is no maintenance disregard in income support.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 248, how many of those estimated to qualify for the mobility component of disability living allowance at the (a) higher rate and (b) lower rate are in the age groups (i) 65 to 69 (ii) 70 to 74, (iii) 75 to 79 and (iv) 80 years or over. [5959]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The available information is in the table.

  Disability living allowance

  Higher rate mobility component

  Lower rate mobility component

  69 and under

  150,000

  10,000

  70 to 74

  340,000

  20,000

  160

  Disability living allowance

  Higher rate mobility component

  Lower rate mobility component

  75 to 79

  420,000

  10.000

  80 and over

  1,090,000

  20,000

  Total

  2,000,000

  60,000

  Note:

  Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000, they are speculative and subject to very substantial margins of error.

  Source:

  DLA statistics May 1995, OPCS Disability Survey 1985, Government Actuaries Department population projection 1992.

  Funeral Payments
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations funeral directors have been made to him in respect of bad debts since changes in social security rules affecting funerals were implemented. [6060]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Although funeral directors have expressed the view that the changes to social fund funeral payments will result in debts, no specific examples have been received.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the levels of state assistance available to meet funeral expenses. [6058]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The social fund funeral payment scheme covers all reasonable costs of burial and cremation disbursements and in addition allows up to £500 for the funeral director's services, up to £75 because of a requirement of the religious faith of the deceased and up to £25 for flowers from the person arranging the funeral. Everyone who is entitled to help with arranging a funeral through the social fund is able to choose either a burial or cremation. Payments can, especially in the case of burials, exceed £1,000.

  Local authorities in England and Wales have a duty under section 46 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to arrange for the burial or cremation of the body of any person who has died or been found dead in their area where it appears to the authority that no suitable arrangements for the disposal of the body have been made. Similar provision applies in Scotland under section 50 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the representatives of funeral directors he consulted before changing the amount of assistance given to people of limited means faced with funeral expenses. [6059]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Representatives from the Funeral Standards Council, the National Association of Funeral Directors and the Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what calculations underlay the sum of £500 as the maximum grant for funerals for relatives without means. [6057]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The average amount awarded for funeral directors' fees under the funeral payment scheme prior to June 1995 was £749. The current scheme restricts both the type of coffin and the number of cars which may be provided. Therefore, the amount awarded should also be
  161
  lower. It is reasonable to assume that, with the state meeting the cost of 12 per cent. of all funerals, there will be some price competition in the industry which will tend to exert a downward pressure on prices.

  Survey information collected by funeral directors' associations was also helpful. The Secretary of State took full account of that evidence when making final decisions on the precise specification for the new social fund funeral payments scheme. However, after careful consideration he concluded that £500 was a fair award for funeral directors' services,. balancing the needs of the funeral director, the customer, and the taxpayer.

  Child Care Allowance
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to monitor the end use of child care allowance. [6077]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  In claims for family credit and disability working allowance, allowance is made for child care charges only after the information given by claimants is verified by the child care provider.

  Child Support
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the Government decided to increase the minimum payment under the Child Support Act 1991 from £2.35 to £4.80; what additional savings he expects to accrue to the budgets for each of the benefits administered by his Department as a result of this policy change; and what are the purposes to which these savings will be applied. [6185]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The proposed change will reinforce a key principle of the Child Support Act 1991 that parents are responsible for providing financial support for their children. Absent parents who are sick or disabled, or who have responsibility for children in their new family, will continue to be exempt from this payment.

  Parents with care, and children, will benefit. Those parents receiving income support will build up a higher entitlement to the child maintenance bonus when it is introduced in April 1997 and others in work will gain straight away from the increased payment.

  The long-term benefit savings, arising from reduced expenditure on income-related benefits paid to parents with care, are expected to be £15 million. Most of the savings will be in respect of income support.

  The proposal forms part of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 29 November which will in total save around £1 billion in the long term and will help contain real annual growth in social security spending to 1.3 per cent. between 1996–97 and 1998–99.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of(a) fraud and (b) alleged fraud, have arisen from the application of the Child Support Act 1991 to absent fathers who are self-employed. [7174]

  Mr. Mitchell
  It is not a business requirement of the Child Support Agency to keep statistics centrally on allegations to fraud. Any such allegation in respect of a162
  self-employed absent parent is referred to the Contributions Agency for investigation.

  Consultants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the consultancies employed by his Department in the last five years, indicating(a) what the consultancies were for, (b) to whom the consultancies were awarded, (c) the total amount spent on each consultancy and (d) the total amount spent on each contract in the last five years. [6555]

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

  The Department's use of consultants is set against the background of a huge business with a major programme to deliver policy changes and business efficiencies.

  Among other things consultants have been used to contribute to:

  Increasing efficiency;

  Market testing initiatives;

  Major structural changes following the creation of executive agencies;

  Introduction of new benefits;

  Development of information systems; and

  Implementation of Departmental programmes.

  From July/August 1993, the DSS commenced using framework agreements for the procurement of management and IT consultancy. Framework agreements in respect of management consultancy and related services were awarded to the following companies:

  Andersen Consulting

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Ernst and Young

  EFD (Electronic Facilities Design)

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Merz and McLellan

  PA Consulting

  P-E International

  Price Waterhouse.

  Framework agreements in respect of IT consultancy and related services were awarded to the following companies:

  Admiral Management Services

  Andersen Consulting

  ASE Consulting

  Computer People Limited

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Cray Systems (P-E International)

  CSS Trident

  Easams

  EDS

  FI Group

  Hoskins

  IBM UK Ltd

  International Computers Ltd.

  Logica

  Methods Applications

  NEF Computer Services (Nesco)

  163

  PA Consulting

  Parity Solutions

  Price Waterhouse

  Sema Group

  Siemens Nixdorf

  Taskforce Group plc.

  Most contracts let since August 1993 have been awarded to suppliers on these framework agreements.

  The information requested on the total amount spent on each consultancy is considered commercial in confidence.

  The total amount spent on each contract in the last five years is also considered commercial in confidence. However, the total amount spent on consultancy and the number of contracts awarded in the last five years is in the table.

  Year

  Number of contracts

  Total cost (£ million)

  1990–91

  952

  83.2

  1991–92

  933

  69.7

  1992–93

  129

  136.4

  1993–94

  235

  34.0

  1994–95

  197

  26.1

  1 Figures for 1992–93 onwards refer solely to expenditure on consultancy services following work undertaken for the Efficiency Scrutiny into the Government's Use of External Consultants. Figures for earlier years include the cost of contracted services.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the proportions of men and women who will retire with a full entitlement to a basic retirement pension in(a) 2025 and (b) 2035. [6528]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. By 2025, the large majority of men and approximately two thirds of women will have entitlements to a full basic pension.

  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1996–97 of paying a basic pension supplement to all pensioner units whose total pension income from all sources is less than the level of income support plus £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for a couple, raising their pension incomes to the income support level plus £5 for single pensioners and £8 for pensioner couples; and what would be the annual cost of maintaining pensioners' pension incomes at that level in real terms for each year until 2001–02, assuming the 1996–97 income support regime and giving costs net of any effects on tax/benefit revenues. [6703]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The estimated cost in 1996–97 of raising the total pension income from all sources of all pensioner units to income support levels plus £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for a pensioner couple is £3.05 billion. It is not possible to give estimates of this cost to the year 2001–02 as reliable forecasts of future levels of pensioners' incomes are not available for this period.

  Notes:
  1. It has been assumed that the pensioner supplement would be paid as an increase in income support levels. Maintaining the current income-related benefit system involves aligning the thresholds and
  164
  income for assessment purposes in the other income-related benefits. As a result, there are increased costs in the housing benefit and council tax benefit included in the total.
  2. To raise pension-only income to the levels specified implies that other income would be disregarded. The costs reflect this assumption also.
  3. No account has been taken of any additional costs that would arise from the abolition of the existing capital limits in the income-related benefits which would be necessary to ensure that those above these limits also received any required increase in pension income.
  4. Income support is not taxable for claimants over 60 years of age so there are no net tax effects from the increased payment in income support.
  5. The costs have been estimated using data drawn from the May 1994 income support quarterly statistical inquiry and the 1991, 1992 and 1993 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels and rounded to £50 million.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1996–97 of paying a basic pension supplement to all pensioner units whose total pension income from all sources is less than(a) £69.20 and (b) £73.80 for a single pensioner and (i) £107.10 and (ii) £112.25 for pensioner couples, raising their pension incomes to those levels; and what would be the annual cost of maintaining pensioners' pension incomes at those levels in real terms for each year until 2001–02, assuming the 1996–97 income support regime and giving costs net of any effects on tax/benefit revenues. [6707]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The available information is in the table.

  It is not possible to give estimates of this cost to the year 2001–02 as reliable forecasts of future levels of pensioners' incomes are not available for this period.

  Estimated costs of raising pensioner incomes to specified minimums

  Estimate Cost in 1996–97

  Specified pensioner income level

  £ billion

  (a) Single pensioners at minimum of £69.20

  0.8

  (b) Single pensioners at minimum of £73.80

  1.3

  (i) Couple pensioners at minimum of £107.10

  1.1

  (ii) Couple pensioners at minimum of £112.25

  1.5

  1. It has been assumed that the pensioner supplement would be paid as an increase in income support levels. Maintaining the current income-related benefit system involves aligning the thresholds and income for assessment purposes in the other income-related benefits. As a result, there are increased costs in the housing benefit and council tax benefit included in the total.

  2. To raise pension-only income to the levels specified implies that other income would be disregarded. The costs reflect this assumption also.

  3. No account has been taken of any additional costs that would arise from the abolition of the existing capital limits in the income-related benefits which would be necessary to ensure that those above these limits also received any required increase in pension income.

  4. As income support is not taxable for claimants over 60 years of age, there will be no net tax effects from the increased payments in income support.

  5. The costs have been estimated using data drawn from the May 1994 income support quarterly statistical Inquiry and the 1991, 1992 and 1993 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels and rounded to £50 million.
  165
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1996–97 of paying a basic pension supplement to all pensioner units whose total pension income from all sources is less than £67.05 for a single pensioner or £104.10 for pensioner couples, raising their pension incomes to those levels; and what would be the annual cost of maintaining pensioners' pension incomes at those levels in real terms for each year until 2001–02, assuming the 1996–97 income support regime and giving costs net of any effects on tax/benefits revenues. [6708]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The estimated cost in 1996–97 of raising the total pension income from all sources of all pensioner units to £67.05 for a single pensioner or £104.10 for pensioner couples is £1.9 billion. It is not possible to give estimates of this cost to the year 2001–02 as reliable forecasts of future levels of pensioners' incomes are not available for this period.

  Notes:
  1. It has been assumed that the pensioner supplement would be paid as an increase in income support levels. Maintaining the current income-related benefit system involves aligning the thresholds and income for assessment purposes in the other income-related benefits. As a result, there are increased cost in the housing benefit and council tax benefit included in the total.
  2. To raise pension only income to the levels specified implies that other income would be disregarded. The costs reflect this assumption also.
  3. No account has been taken of any additional costs that would arise from the abolition of the existing capital limits in the income-related benefits which would be necessary to ensure that those above these limits also received any required increase in pension income.
  4. As income support is not taxable for claimants over 60 years of age, there will be no net tax effects from the increased payments in income support.
  5. The costs have been estimated using data drawn from the May 1994 income support quarterly statistical inquiry and the 1991,1992 and 1993 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefits levels and rounded to £50 million.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1996–97 of raising the incomes of all pensioner units to at least the level of income support plus £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for pensioner couples; and what would be the annual cost of maintaining pensioners incomes at that level in real terms for each year until 2001–02, assuming payments were made through the income support system and assuming the most recent levels of non-take-ups. [6702]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The estimated cost in 1996–97 of raising the incomes of all pensioner units to at least the level of income support plus £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for pensioner couples is £800 million assuming the most recent levels of non-take-up. It is not possible to give estimates of this cost to the year 2001–02 as reliable forecasts of future levels of pensioners' incomes are not available for this period.

  Notes:
  1. It has been assumed that the pensioner supplement would be paid as an increase in income support levels. Maintaining the current income-related benefit system involves aligning the thresholds and income brought to account in the other income-related benefits. As a result, there are increased costs in the housing benefit and council tax benefit included in the total.
  2. It has been assumed that the income of pensioners is the current income for assessment purposes in income support.
  166
  3. No account has been taken of any additional costs that would arise from the abolition of the existing capital limits in the income-related benefits which would be necessary to ensure that those above these limits also received any required increase in pension income.
  4. The costs have been; estimated using data drawn from the May 1994 income support quarterly statistical inquiry and the 1991,1992 and 1993 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefits levels and rounded to £50 million.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1996–97 of raising the incomes of all pensioner units to at least the level of income support; and what would be the annual cost of maintaining pensioners' incomes at that level in real terms for each year until 2001–02, assuming the 1996–97 income support regime and the most recent levels of non-take-up. [6705]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Those pensioner units whose incomes are below income support levels are raised to that level if they take up income support. All other pensioner units are either ineligible for income support, by virtue of their incomes, or choose not to take it up. As a result, there are no costs in any year of raising the incomes of all pensioner units to at least income support levels assuming the most recent levels of non-take-up.

  Notes:
  1. It has been assumed that the income of pensioners is the current income for assessment purposes in income support.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the basic rate of retirement pensions. [8083]

  Mr. Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced his intention to increase the state pension by 3.9 per cent. in April 1996.

  Benefits (Deceased Claimants)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are the procedures for notifying his Department's agencies of the death of a claimant with particular reference to the Pensions Agency; [6267]

  (2) what safeguards exist to ensure Department of Social Security agencies do not continue to pay benefits or pensions after a claimant has died, when the payments are made to a bank account. [6266]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  When a death is registered with the registrar, the informant will be given a form BD8 along with the original death certificate. This is a free certificate to be used as a verified notification of death to the Department of Social Security.

  This form asks several questions about the deceased and if benefit was in payment. It also asks the person completing it to send it in to the local social security office. The BD8 has recently been re-designed and now asks for it to be sent into the Department regardless of whether or not benefit was in payment to the deceased.

  The registrars pass details of the deaths reported to them to the Office of Population Censuses and Survey. The details are then transferred to a tape which is sent to the Contributions Agency. The details from this tape are then passed to the departmental central index which then broadcasts the dates of death to every benefit computer

  167
  system. The broadcast automatically suspends payment of benefit, regardless of the method used to pay the customer.

  The notes in the retirement pension order books and the leaflet BR2215 which is given to claimants who receive their RP by automated credit transfer, contain a section on what to do if the claimant has died. The advice is simply to advise the agency of the details of death and return the order book where appropriate.

  Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information given in his answer of 27 October 1994,Official Report, columns 797–800, by substituting 1996–97 values for current values in columns 4 and 5 of the table, omitting items (i) and (q) and adding the lone-parent premium, one-parent benefit and the £50 earnings limit for invalid care allowance. [6435]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 18 December,Official Report, columns 887–90.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6566]

  Mr. Burt
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of combined employer and employee contributions necessary to achieve balance in the national insurance fund in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 2025 and (iv) 2035, based on the assumptions contained in "Equality in State Pension Age", Cm 2420. [6531]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The available information is in the table.

  Estimated level of combined employer and employee contributions necessary to achieve balance in the National Insurance Fund

  Year

  Contribution level (main rates)3

  1995–961

  19.55 per cent.

  1996–971

  19.25 per cent.

  20252

  16.9 per cent.

  20352

  16.7 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Based on the estimates underlying the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97".

  2. Based on the National Insurance Fund long-term financial estimates (Report by the Government Actuary on the third Quinquennial Review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975 (HC160-31 January 1995).
  168
  3. Estimated level (excluding employee and employer National Health Service allocations of 1.05 per cent. and 0.9 per cent. respectively) for there to be no Treasury Grant and for the minimum level of the fund to be maintained at the recommended one sixth of annual benefit expenditure.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Research Studies (Sunderland)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all DSS-funded pilots, trials and research studies which have been conducted since 1989 in(a) the city of Sunderland, (b) Wearside district and (c) Sunderland travel-to-work area identifying (i) title, summary and duration of the pilot/trial, (ii) target population and total number of participants and (iii) whether each pilot, trial or research finding was published and the date of publication; and if he will list all other non-DSS research bodies or organisations involved in each pilot, trial or research scheme. [6324]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no details available of any pilots, trials or research having taken place in prior to 1992 in the geographical areas specified.

  1992–95: Wearside District

  Pilot trial

  Title

  Annual Local Customer Survey

  Duration

  Several weeks

  Target population

  All district customers

  Participants

  10 per cent. of total customer base

  Publication

  Yes—results held locally (no results held for 1992 survey)

  Non-DSS involvement

  None

  1994: Sunderland North and Houghton-le-Spring (part of Wearside) Sunderland travel to work area (Durham and Tyneside)

  Pilot trial

  Title

  Benefit Review of Income Support (IS) and Unemployment Benefit (UB)

  Duration

  5 April 1994 to 8 May 1994 (Durham) 26 September 1994 to 25 November 1994 (Tyneside and Wearside)

  Target population

  Ail Benefits Agency (BA) customers in these areas

  Participants

  20 (Durham)—Pilot 280 (Tyneside and Wearside)

  Publication

  Main exercise 10 July 1995

  Non-DSS involvement

  Department of Employment

  Similar research for trials and full reviews of other benefits is likely to involve some BA customers in the relevant geographical areas.

  1995 City of Sunderland and Wearside

  Pilot trial

  Title

  Trial into Revised Standards of Identity during Encashment of Instruments of Payment (IOPs)

  Duration

  March-June 1995

  Target population

  All BA customers in these areas

  169

  1995 City of Sunderland and Wearside

  Pilot trial

  Participants

  Actual numbers not known. Would include all BA customers who presented an IOP for encashment at a Post Office during the period of the trial

  Publication

  Not for external publication. Information for internal use only.

  Non-DSS involvement

  Post Office Counters Ltd.

  In addition, the Sunderland travel-to-work area has been selected as one of the eight areas chosen to pilot earnings top-up. The pilot will start in October 1996 and last for three years. Proposals for earnings top-up—an in-work benefit for people without dependent children—were published on 5 July 1995 in the Green Paper "Piloting change in Social Security—helping people into work". The draft rules of the scheme, including the postcodes of the pilot areas, were laid before Parliament on 6 November 1995 and debated in the House of Commons on 25 November.

  Social Fund
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of applicants to the social fund for community grants or crisis loans are refused. [6935]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Information on the number of awards and refusals from the discretionary social fund for 1994–95 is contained in the latest Secretary of State's annual report on the social fund, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Community care grants may be awarded in a wide range of defined circumstances. These include assisting people who are leaving residential or institutional care to re-establish themselves in the community; helping people stay in the community rather than enter care; easing exceptional pressure on families; helping with certain travelling costs; and assisting people who are caring for prisoners who are released on temporary licence. The majority of refusals were because the applicant did not satisfy the basic eligibility criteria. However, 54 per cent. of those refused a community care grant in the current year were awarded a repayable budgeting loan.

  The information requested for the year to date (April to November) is in the table:

  Year: April-November 1995

  Applications received (thousands)

  Refusals (thousands)

  Refusals as a percentage of applications

  Community care grants

  853

  655

  77

  Crisis loans

  749

  160

  21

  1. The number of refusals overturned on review are not included.

  2. Percentages obtained from rounded figures.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the social fund in helping people on benefit or low incomes to meet intermittent or unexpected expenses. [6936]
  170
  Mr. Mitchell
  The Government believe that the social fund continues to work effectively, ensuring that available resources are targeted on those most in need of help with important expenses which are difficult to budget for. The discretionary fund provides particularly good value for money by recycling loan recoveries to help more people. Not every eligible person can expect to get a payment for every need they apply for, but the budgetary framework of the discretionary fund ensures that awards are made to help people with the highest priority needs. Social fund officers consider the individual circumstances of each application to the discretionary fund. Applicants who are dissatisfied with the decision in their case have the opportunity to seek a review. We will continue to keep the operation of the fund under close scrutiny, particularly in so far as it affects the help we are able to provide to some of our most vulnerable citizens.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Taunton of 13 December, POS(2)3446/179, what representations alleging that the introduction of disabled working allowance discriminates against self-employed people he has received; and if he will make a statement. [7172]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  There have been no representations. Self-employed people constituted 20 per cent. of the disability working allowance case load at 31 July 1995.

  Source:

  ASD Disability Working Allowance Quarterly Statistical tables.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what illnesses or diseases the War Pensions Agency recognises as being caused by being exposed to mustard gas in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down. [7295]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The war pension scheme does not involve the recognition or prescription of specific illnesses or diseases.

  A war pension may be awarded for any disablement which is attributable to or aggravated by service in the armed forces, including voluntary participating in any test programme at Porton Down.

  Housing Benefit (Sick and Disabled People)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed changes to housing benefit for private tenants on sick and disabled people who have an extra bedroom to accommodate an occasional overnight carer. [7562]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  No such assessment has been made. However, local authorities will have discretion to pay housing benefit above the level of the maximum rent in cases which they judge to involve exceptional hardship.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary for Social Security what web site his Department maintains on the
  171
  Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answer questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7574]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Department of Social Security currently maintains web sites for all its main agencies as part of the Government's centre for information systems' Government information service—address: HTTP://www.open.gov.uk. General background information on the Department's work and details of the Department's press releases are regularly updated. Internet is not currently being used to provide further information or answer queries from individuals. The Contributions Agency is conducting an evaluation project on the potential of Internet for communicating with its customers.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in employment are not currently members of(a) the state earnings-related pension scheme, (b) company pension schemes and (c) personal pension schemes; and what assessment he has made of the causes of this lack of provision. [7590]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available. Employees who accrue no SERPS entitlement and are not members of company or personal pension schemes will be earning below the annual lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. As employers are not required to provide details of such employees, no records are held centrally.

  Pensioners' Benefits
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the number and proportion of pensioners in each region of the United Kingdom who receive(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit. [7645]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the tables.

  Income Support Pensioner Recipients by the Government Standard Statistical Regions

  May 1994

  GSS region

  Number of cases in receipt of Income Support (thousands)

  As a percentage of the pensioner population

  South East (excluding London)

  227

  12.3

  London (Inner and Outer)

  204

  —

  North

  98

  14.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  153

  14.7

  East Midlands

  103

  12.2

  East Anglia

  53

  11.4

  South-West

  114

  10

  West Midlands

  169

  15.7

  North-West

  211

  16.1

  England

  1.577

  15.7

  Wales

  87

  13.4

  Scotland

  158

  15.3

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  172

  Housing Benefit Pensioner Recipients by the Government Standard Statistical Regions

  May 1994

  GSS region

  Number of cases in receipt of Income Support (thousands)

  As a percentage of the pensioner population

  South East (excluding London)

  256

  15.4

  London (Inner and Outer)

  283

  —

  North

  136

  20.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  205

  19.7

  East Midlands

  120

  14.2

  East Anglia

  66

  14.2

  South-West

  127

  11.2

  West Midlands

  189

  17.5

  North-West

  227

  17.3

  England

  1,609

  16

  Wales

  90

  13.8

  Scotland

  245

  23.7

  Northern Ireland

  42

  15.1

  Council Tax Benefit Recipients by the Government Standard Statistical Regions

  May 1994

  GSS region

  Number of cases in receipt of Council Tax Benefit (thousands)

  As a percentage of the pensioner population

  South East (excluding London)

  299

  20.9

  London (Inner and Outer)

  433

  —

  North

  187

  28.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  297

  28.5

  East Midlands

  192

  22.7

  East Anglia

  102

  22.0

  South-West

  213

  18.8

  West Midlands

  305

  28.3

  North-West

  362

  27.5

  England

  2,390

  23.8

  Wales

  135

  20.7

  Scotland

  304

  29.4

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  Notes for all Tables:

  1. London and the South-East regions have been added together for the population estimate.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and percentages to one decimal place.

  3. 1994 Income Support figures are not yet available for Northern Ireland.

  4. Council Tax Benefit does not apply in Northern Ireland.

  5. Figures for HB/CTB are for benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  6. Pensioners are defined as either a claimant or partner aged 60 or over except for figures for Northern Ireland where claimant or partner are aged 65 or over.

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Annual/Quarterly Enquiries May 1994. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid year estimate 1993. Housing Benefit Management Information Systems Annual 1 per cent. sample.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the main components of the training programmes which must be taken by all Benefits Agency medical services doctors carrying out the all-work test medical assessments. [6259]
  173
  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 20 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the main components of the training programmes which must be taken by all Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) doctors carrying out the all-work test medical assessments.
  All Doctors undergo a four day modular training course which can be tailored to meet individual needs. Elements of the course include the technical aspects of Incapacity Benefits, the requirements for the content of the medical report form, selecting and justifying the choice of descriptors which specify the level of a customer's disability in each functional area, and mental health problems. The course also has, and I attach great importance to this, elements on customer service and equal opportunities.
  All Doctors are required to pass a multiple choice test at the end of the course, the validity of which has been verified with the help of the University of Central Midlands. The Doctors must also successfully complete a supervised examination session. The first three reports they complete alone are also monitored by a more senior Doctor to ensure continuing high quality.
  In addition to this, all full-time BAMS Doctors have to undergo a two day residential course covering the clinical areas they are likely to encounter such as back pain and psychiatric disorders and those which are likely to cause particular difficulties, such as chronic fatigue states. Many of the sessions in these courses are conducted by internationally recognised experts in their fields. The Benefits Agency Doctors are then responsible for cascading this information to the part-time fee paid Doctors who are also involved in this work.
  I hope you find this helpful.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the levels of benefit savings stemming from the introduction of the access to work scheme; and if he will make a statement on the expected effect on these savings of changes to the access to work scheme between 18 December 1995 and April 1996. [8154]

  Mr. Paice
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Tom Clarke, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about benefit savings stemming from the Access to Work programme.
  We do not calculate the social security benefit savings accruing from disabled people making use of the Access to Work programme in order to take up work. Help is given based on ability to work rather than on entitlement to a benefit so the pattern of benefit savings, if any, will be dependent on the circumstances of the individual case. For example, people in employment continue to receive any in-work benefits they were entitled to as well as Access to Work help.
  For any labour market programme, simply setting the cost of the programme against possible gross savings in social security payments, is not an accurate indicator of net costs. Access to Work would present still further difficulties in any such calculation because it supports people when they are in employment, as well as those seeking work.
  174
  For estimates of the net cost to the Exchequer of any labour market programme, the cost of the programme has to be set against potential savings. This would require various assumptions about what unemployed people would earn in work, and how their gaining employment might affect employment and output elsewhere. Providing support in instances where it would have been provided anyway, or where it reduces opportunities for other people in the labour market, reduces net savings.
  For Access to Work even more sweeping assumptions would be necessary. The same problems would arise as for any labour market programme. In addition because Access to Work pays directly for the extra costs of disabled people who are in work, it would be necessary to make further assumptions about the likelihood and duration of these people continuing in work, in the absence of support from Access to Work.
  For these reasons, we do not believe that calculations of net benefit savings flowing from support under Access to Work would be especially useful, either for the period before 18 December or afterwards.
  I hope this clarifies the position.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8030]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table. Information for earlier years is not available in the form requested and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial year

  Number of mobile 'phones

  Number of suppliers

  1994–95

  2,146

  9

  1995–96 up to end November

  867

  7

  Carers
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefit home carers who ceased work to care for elderly relatives are entitled to when their caring duties end; and if he will make a statement. [8095]

  Mr. Burt
  Ex-carers may be entitled to a wide range of social security benefits, depending on their individual circumstances.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers lost their right to unemployment benefit following the 1988 legislation on social benefits. [7994]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Occupational Pensions (Fraud)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he will take to combat fraud in occupational pensions. [8205]

  Mr. Heald
  The measures in the Pensions Act 1995, which received Royal Assent in July, reflect the Government's commitment to safeguarding the security of occupational pension scheme assets.

  Parental Incomes
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of(a) the gross and (b) the net income of (i) a lone parent with one child under 11 in local authority accommodation and (ii) a lone parent with one child under 11 in owner occupation, each after one year on benefit, who are (1) without any paid work, (2) in part-time paid work and (3) in full-time paid work earning (A) £80, (B) £90, (C) £100, (D) £110, (E) £120, (F) £130, (G) £140, (H) £150, (I) £160, (J) £170, (K) £180, (L) £190 and (M) £200 per week; [8178]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the gross and (b) the net income of (i) a couple with two children under 11 in local authority accommodation and (ii) a couple with two children under 11 in owner occupation, each after one year on benefit, who are (1) without any paid work, (2) a woman in part-time paid work, (3) a man in full-time paid work, (4) a man in full-time paid work and a woman in part-time work and (5) both the man and woman in full-time work earning (A) £80, (B) £90, (C) £100, (D) £110, (E) £120, (F) £130, (G) £140, (H) £150, (I) £160, (J) £170, (K) £180, (L) £190, (M) £200, (N) £210, (O) £220, (P) £230, (Q) £240 and (R) £250 per week. [8179]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.

  It should be noted that a number of assumptions have had to be made regarding income, housing costs, hours of work and earnings. These are listed at the foot of the tables.

  Lone parent with one child in Local Authority Accommodation

  Gross weekly earnings £

  Part time or Full time work £

  a. Net income before housing costs £

  b. Net income after housing costs £

  0

  n/a

  126.19

  82.04

  80

  Part

  159.48

  115.33

  Full

  169.48

  125.33

  90

  Part

  160.43

  116.28

  Full

  170.43

  126.28

  100

  Part

  161.22

  117.07

  Full

  171.22

  127.07

  110

  Part

  161.95

  117.80

  Full

  171.95

  127.80

  120

  Part

  162.69

  118.54

  Full

  172.69

  128.54

  130

  Part

  163.42

  119.27

  Full

  173.42

  129.27

  140

  Part

  164.10

  119.95

  Full

  174.10

  129.95

  150

  Part

  164.78

  120.63

  Full

  174.78

  130.63

  160

  Part

  165.47

  121.32

  Full

  175.47

  131.32

  170

  Part

  166.34

  122.19

  Full

  76.34

  132.19

  180

  Part

  168.29

  124.14

  Full

  178.29

  134.14

  190

  Part

  169.83

  125.68

  Full

  180.24

  136.09

  200

  Part

  176.33

  132.18

  Full

  182.19

  138.04

  176

  Lone parent with one child in Local Authority Accommodation

  Gross weekly earnings £

  Part time or Full time work

  a. Net income before housing costs £

  b. Net income after housing costs £

  0

  n/a

  135.68

  82.04

  80

  Part

  147.29

  93.65

  Full

  157.29

  103.65

  90

  Part

  149.99

  96.35

  Full

  159.99

  106.35

  100

  Part

  152.25

  98.61

  Full

  162.25

  108.61

  110

  Part

  154.35

  100.71

  Full

  164.35

  110.71

  120

  Part

  156.45

  102.81

  Full

  166.45

  112.81

  130

  Part

  158.54

  104.90

  Full

  168.54

  114.90

  140

  Part

  160.49

  106.85

  Full

  170.49

  116.85

  150

  Part

  162.44

  108.80

  Full

  172.44

  118.80

  160

  Part

  164.39

  110.75

  Full

  174.39

  120.75

  170

  Part

  166.34

  112.70

  Full

  176.34

  122.70

  180

  Part

  168.29

  114.65

  Full

  178.29

  124.65

  190

  Part

  169.83

  116.19

  Full

  180.24

  126.60

  200

  Part

  176.33

  122.69

  Full

  182.19

  128.55

  Couple with two children in Local Authority Accommodation

  Gross weekly earnings £

  Part time or Full time work

  a. Net income before housing costs £

  b. Net income after housing costs £

  -0

  n/a

  174.08

  123.43

  80

  1 Part time

  181.15

  130.50

  1 Full time

  191.15

  140.50

  1 Part time, 1 Full time

  191.31

  140.66

  Both Full time

  191.31

  140.66

  90

  1 Part time

  181.56

  130.91

  1 Full time

  191.56

  140.91

  1 Part time, 1 Full time

  191.76

  141.11

  Both Full time

  191.76

  141.11

  100

  1 Part time

  181.90

  131.25

  1 Full time

  191.90

  141.25

  1 Part time, 1 Full time

  192.21

  141.56

  Both Full time

  192.21

  141.56

  177

  Couple with two children in Local Authority Accommodation

  Gross weekly earnings £

  Part time or Full time work

  a. Net income before housing costs £

  b. Net income after housing costs £

  110

  1 Part time

  182.21

  131.56

  1 Full time

  192.21

  141.56

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  192.59

  141.94

  Both Full time

  192.66

  142.01

  120

  1 Part time

  182.53

  131.88

  1 Full time

  192.53

  141.88

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  193.00

  142.35

  Both Full time

  192.98

  142.33

  130

  1 Part time

  182.84

  132.19

  1 Full time

  192.84

  142.19

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  193.40

  142.75

  Both Full time

  193.39

  142.74

  140

  1 Part time

  183.13

  132.48

  1 Full time

  193.13

  142.48

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  193.81

  143.16

  Both Full time

  193.79

  143.14

  150

  1 Part time

  183.43

  132.78

  1 Full time

  193.43

  142.78

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  194.15

  143.50

  Both Full time

  194.20

  143.55

  160

  1 Part time

  183.72

  133.07

  1 Full time

  193.72

  143.07

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  194.61

  143.96

  Both Full time

  194.94

  144.29

  170

  1 Part time

  184.01

  133.36

  1 Full time

  194.01

  143.36

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  195.00

  144.35

  Both Full time

  195.96

  145.31

  180

  1 Part time

  184.30

  133.65

  1 Full time

  194.30

  143.65

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  197.09

  146.44

  Both Full time

  198.06

  147.41

  190

  1 Part time

  184.92

  134.27

  1 Full time

  194.92

  144.27

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  199.04

  148.39

  Both Full time

  200.16

  149.51

  200

  1 Part time

  185

  135.09

  1 Full time

  195.74

  145.09

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  200.99

  150.34

  Both Full time

  202.26

  151.61

  210

  1 Part time

  187.69

  137.04

  1 Full time

  197.69

  147.04

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  202.48

  151.83

  Both Full time

  207.21

  156.56

  220

  1 Part time

  191.48

  140.83

  1 Full time

  199.64

  148.99

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  208.98

  158.33

  Both Full time

  214.21

  163.56

  178

  Couple with two children in Local Authority Accommodation

  Gross weekly earnings £

  Part time or Full time work

  a. Net income before housing costs £

  b. Net income after housing costs £

  230

  1 Part time

  197.98

  147.33

  1 Full time

  201.59

  150.94

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  215.48

  164.83

  Both Full time

  221.21

  170.56

  240

  1 Part time

  204.48

  153.83

  1 Full time

  204.48

  153.83

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  221.98

  171.33

  Both Full time

  228.21

  177.56

  250

  1 Part time

  210.98

  160.33

  1 Full time

  210.98

  160.33

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  228.48

  177.83

  Both Full time

  235.21

  184.56

  Couple with two children in Owner Occupied Accommodation

  Gross weekly earnings £

  Part time or Full time

  a. Net income before housing costs £

  b. Net income after housing costs £

  0

  n/a

  185.32

  123.43

  80

  1 Part time

  165.10

  103.21

  1 Full time

  175.10

  113.21

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  175.91

  114.02

  Both Full time

  175.91

  114.02

  90

  1 Part time

  167.26

  105.37

  1 Full time

  177.26

  115.37

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  178.31

  116.42

  Both Full time

  178.31

  116.42

  100

  1 Part time

  169.07

  107.18

  1 Full time

  179.07

  117.18

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  180.71

  118.82

  Both Full time

  180.71

  118.82

  110

  1 Part time

  170.75

  108.86

  1 Full time

  180.75

  108.86

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  182.78

  120.89

  Both Full time

  183.11

  121.22

  120

  1 Part time

  172.43

  110.54

  1 Full time

  182.43

  120.54

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  184.94

  123.05

  Both Full time

  184.86

  122.97

  130

  1 Part time

  174.10

  112.21

  1 Full time

  184.10

  122.21

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  187.10

  125.21

  Both Full time

  187.02

  125.13

  140

  1 Part time

  175.66

  113.77

  1 Full time

  185.66

  123.77

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  189.26

  127.37

  Both Full time

  189.18

  127.29

  179

  Couple with two children in Owner Occupied Accommodation

  Gross weekly earnings £

  Part time or Full time

  a. Net income before housing costs £

  b. Net income after housing costs £

  150

  1 Part time

  177.22

  115.33

  1 Full time

  187.22

  125.33

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  191.07

  129.18

  Both Full time

  191.34

  129.45

  160

  1 Part time

  178.78

  116.89

  1 Full time

  188.78

  126.89

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  192.90

  131.01

  Both Full time

  193.83

  131.94

  170

  1 Part time

  180.34

  118.45

  1 Full time

  190.34

  128.45

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  195.00

  133.11

  Both Full time

  195.96

  134.07

  180

  1 Part time

  181.90

  120.01

  1 Full time

  191.80

  130.01

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  197.09

  135.20

  Both Full time

  198.06

  136.17

  190

  1 Part time

  183.79

  121.90

  1 Full time

  193.79

  131.90

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  199.04

  137.15

  Both Full time

  200.16

  138.27

  200

  1 Part time

  185.74

  123.85

  1 Full time

  195.74

  133.85

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  200.99

  139.10

  Both Full time

  202.26

  140.37

  210

  1 Part time

  187.69

  125.80

  1 Full time

  197.69

  135.80

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  202.48

  140.59

  Both Full time

  207.21

  145.32

  220

  1 Part time

  191.48

  129.59

  1 Full time

  199.64

  137.75

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  208.98

  147.09

  Both Full time

  214.21

  152.32

  230

  1 Part time

  197.98

  136.09

  1 Full time

  201.59

  139.70

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  215.48

  153.59

  Both Full time

  221.21

  159.32

  240

  1 Part time

  204.48

  142.59

  1 Full time

  204.48

  142.59

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  221.98

  160.09

  Both Full time

  228.21

  166.32

  250

  1 Part time

  210.98

  149.09

  1 Full time

  210.98

  149.09

  1 Part time, 1

  Full time

  228.48

  166.59

  Both Full time

  235.21

  173.32

  1. Gross income is assumed to mean income, including benefit income, after tax and National Insurance but before payment of housing costs.
  180
  2. Net income is assumed to mean income after tax and National Insurance and payment of housing costs.

  3. Families in local authority accommodation are assumed to be liable for average council tax and local authority rent appropriate to the family size.

  4. Families in owner-occupied accommodation are assumed to be liable for average mortgage interest, based on families receiving Income Support, and average council tax appropriate to the family size.

  5. Families without any paid work are assumed to have no income other than Income Support, Housing Benefit (where appropriate), Council Tax Benefit, Child Benefit and, for the lone parent examples, One Parent Benefit.

  6. Examples for families in part-time paid work assume earnings are for 16–29 hours per week.

  7. Examples for families in full-time paid work assume that earnings are for 30 or more hours per week.

  8. Examples for couples where both partners are in full-time work assume that total gross household earnings are at the levels specified in the question and that earnings and married couple's tax allowance are apportioned equally between both partners. Examples where one partner works full-time and one part-time assume that part-time earnings are £50 per week and that the full-time earner receives the married couple's tax allowance. This assumption means that where total gross household earnings are £80 or £90, part-time earnings will exceed full-time earnings. Different allocations of earnings may result in different gross and net incomes.

  9, All examples assume that childcare costs are nil and that the families shown take-up full entitlement to relevant income-related benefits.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the cost and practicality of enabling SERPS rights to he split at the point of divorce; and if he will make a statement. [8159]

  Mr. Heald
  No detailed assessment has been made on the costs of splitting SERPS pension rights. Costs would depend on the specific requirements for splitting. There are also a number of difficulties which would have to be overcome before splitting of SERPS could be considered feasible, but it is clear that it would complicate administration. The Pensions Management Institute, in its report "Pensions and Divorce", acknowledged that there are real problems involved in the splitting of SERPS.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Missing Persons Helpline
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide public funding for the national missing persons helpline; [5994]

  (2) what representations he has received for public funding in respect of the national missing persons helpline; [5993]

  (3) which sources of public funds the national missing persons helpline can appeal to in the event of financial difficulties. [5999]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 18 December 1995, Official Report, column 958.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of deaths in prisons(a) involving restraint by prison officers, (b) in solitary confinement under body belt restraint and (c) involving other restricting methods, in each of the last five years. [7025]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: 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. David Chidgey, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about deaths in prisons in each of the last five years.
  The information, from 1 January 1990 to 15 December 1995, is given in the attached table. One of the deaths occurred while the prisoner was in the segregation unit in a body belt. In the other five instances the prisoners became ill or died while subject to control and restraint techniques.

  Year

  Numbers of deaths while being restrained

  1990

  0

  1991

  2

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1994

  1

  1995

  3

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent criteria used to determine whether asylum seekers are refugees recognise that refugees may attempt to gain entry to the United Kingdom otherwise than by claiming asylum. [7722]

  Miss Widdecombe
  All asylum claims are considered on their merits, but under paragraph 341 of the immigration rules failure to apply for asylum forthwith on arrival may damage an applicant's credibility unless the claim is based on events which have taken place since his arrival.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current weekly cost to the Home Office of detentions of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom; and what estimate he has made of the changes in the costs of the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Order as published in draft form. [7633]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Records relating to the costs of detention under immigration powers do not distinguish between people who have sought asylum and others.

  The current weekly cost of detaining a person within the Immigration Service detention estate is estimated at £540 per week. This figure includes the cost of administrative support from Immigration Service headquarters. Some asylum seekers are detained in Prison
  182
  Service remand centres or local prisons, where the average cost per place in 1994–95 was £449 per week. The latter figure excludes headquarters costs.

  The proposals contained in the draft Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Order would have no effect on the costs of detention under immigration powers.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to allow detained asylum seekers or their representatives to have written reasons for their detention upon request, in the form of(a) a photocopy of the bail summary or (b) in another form; and if he will estimate the cost of adopting such a policy; [7398]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the procedure for periodic reviews of detention of asylum seekers; what criteria are used in determining whether detention should continue; what written records are made of these reviews; and what steps he will take to ensure that written reasons are available to the asylum seeker and his representatives where the review determines that the detention should continue; [7399]

  (3) what written records are annually made in respect of the reasons for the detention of individual asylum seekers; [7396]

  (4) what criteria are used in Scotland to determine whether to detain asylum seekers. [7412]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Detention under immigration powers is authorised initially by an officer of at least the rank of chief immigration officer and is reviewed within 24 hours by an Immigration Service inspector. Thereafter. detention is reviewed locally at least every seven days. After one month the case is reviewed at Immigration Service headquarters monthly and at an increasingly senior level.

  Detained asylum applicants are already notified of the reasons for their detention. This is done orally, in a language which they understand. This provides the detainee with an opportunity to clarify anything which he does not understand. The detainee or his representative may seek further clarification of the reasons for detention at any time from the relevant immigration office.

  Each time detention is reviewed, all aspects of the case are considered, including any change in circumstances. The reasons for maintaining detention are recorded on the individual's file and a notification is sent monthly to the detainee, advising him of the progress on his case.

  It is not possible to estimate the cost of providing written reasons for detention as a matter of routine in all cases, but such a system would be cumbersome, time consuming and a poor use of resources. Bail summaries are already provided to the appellate authorities when a bail application is made.

  Criteria for the exercise of powers of detention and the procedures for notifying detainees of the reasons for their detention are the same for Scotland as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  I do not believe that changes to the present procedures are required.
  183
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum seekers whose claims have been refused by him in the last year have subsequently appealed to the special adjudicator. [7402]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In the 12-month period from December 1994 to November 1995 there were 20,520 initial decisions to refuse asylum. During the same period, 14,080 appeals against the refusal of asylum were lodged with the Home Office.

  Some of these appeals will have been lodged against decisions made prior to December 1994 and some of those applicants who were refused may have exercised more than one right of appeal. For these reasons, an accurate appeal rate is not readily available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in the last two years who claimed asylum after they had entered the United Kingdom claimed within(a) one week, (b) one month and (c) two months of entry; and if he will express each figure as a proportion of (i) the number of asylum seekers who claimed after entry into the United during that period and (ii) the number that did so, and did not rely in whole or in part on events which had taken place after they had left their country of origin. [7404]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information regarding the length of time between arrival date and application date, for those who applied for asylum in the United Kingdom after having been previously granted leave to enter or remain under another section of the immigration rules, is given in the table. Information on the number of applications which were based on events that occurred subsequent to their arrival is not recorded centrally.

  Average time taken1 to apply for asylum by persons2 previously granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom under another section of the Immigration Rules, December 1993 to November 1995

  Period of time between arrival and application

  Percentage

  Within 1 week

  15

  1 to 4 weeks

  15

  1 to 2 months

  10

  Over 2 months

  60

  Total

  100

  1 Estimated and rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  2 Excludes those in-country cases for which arrival dates are not known.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that the detention of asylum seekers under paragraph 16(2) of schedule 2 the Immigration Act 1971 in respect of whom he has not yet made a decision on their claim, complies with article 5(4) of the European convention on human rights; [7406]

  (2) if it is his policy to detain asylum seekers on the basis that (a) they are judged to have a weak case for asylum and (b) they initially applied to enter as a visitor. [7723]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am satisfied that detention under the Immigration Act 1971 of people who have sought asylum but whose applications have not been determined,184
  does not breach the United Kingdom's obligations under this article. However, powers of detention are used only where there is not alternative.

  Instructions to Immigration Service staff make clear that special consideration to release from detention should always be given to asylum applicants who have brought themselves to their attention at the first reasonable opportunity. In all cases, temporary admission/release is granted whenever possible, the overriding consideration being whether the person is likely to comply voluntarily with restrictions imposed. In making this assessment, account is taken of all relevant factors, including the likelihood of the person being removed from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average period between claim and decision for asylum seekers claiming during the last five years. [7401]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  During 1994, the average time taken to reach an initial decision on applications submitted after the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 was 5.9 months and 25.6 months for those submitted before the 1993 Act. In the first 11 months of 1995, the average decision times were 8.7 months for post-1993 Act cases and 37.8 months for pre-1993 Act cases.

  For the six month period between January and June 1993, prior to the implementation of the 1993 Act, the average time taken to make an initial decision was approximately 19 months.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently still awaiting a decision on their claim having claimed more than a year ago. [7403]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 4 December 1995,Official Report, column 20, which gave the number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as at 31 October 1995, by year of application.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to inform asylum seekers and organisations which represent their interests of the criteria which he uses in determining whether to detain asylum seekers. [7405]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Extracts from Immigration Service instructions to staff including criteria for detention have been provided to Amnesty International, the Medical Foundation and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of asylum seekers in the London borough of Lewisham at the latest date for which information is available. [7636]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the places of residence of people currently seeking asylum is not held centrally.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations led to the policy of allowing presenting officers to decide as to whether to allow the representatives of asylum seekers sight of the bail summary; what criteria they use in exercising their
  185
  discretion; if he will instruct presenting officers to allow the representatives of asylum seekers sight of the bail summary in all cases except when to do so would prejudice national security; and if he will estimate the cost of this procedure. [7397]

  Miss Widdecombe
  To improve the efficient and effective operation of the immigration appeals system we propose in future to supply both the adjudicator and applicant with a bail summary when the Home Office proposes to oppose an application for bail under the Immigration Act 1971. The summary will outline the reasons why the Home Office opposes bail. The operation of the system will be reviewed in six months. This information is already provided to presenting officers by immigration officers and it is not expected to lead to any substantial expenditure.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide details of(a) the number of applications by refugees seeking asylum, (b) the number of refugees accepted and (c) the number of refusals in each of the past five years for Bulgaria, Cyprus, India, Ghana, Pakistan, Poland and Romania (i) individually and (ii) collectively. [7056]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information for the years 1992 to 1994 on asylum applications from nationals of the requested countries, with the exception of Cyprus, and on decisions made, is given in tables 4.1 to 4.3 of Home Office statistical bulletin, "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. Tables 4.1 to 4.2 of issue 19/93 of this publication show equivalent information for all the requested nationalities for 1990 and 1991. Copies of both issues of this bulletin are available in the Library.

  Information on asylum applications from nationals of Cyprus for the years 1992 to 1994 is given in the table.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom from nationals of Cyprus, excluding dependants, and decisions2,3 made, 1992 to 1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total applications

  95

  135

  300

  Total decisions

  10

  40

  160

  Of which:

  Granted asylum

  1—

  1—

  —

  Refused asylum but granted exceptional leave

  5

  20

  —

  Total refused asylum

  5

  20

  160

  1Provisional and estimated figures rounded to the nearest 5= 1 or 2.

  2Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications submitted in the same year.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had previously sought asylum and then married in the United Kingdom have been refused leave to stay under the primary purposes rule for each of the last five years. [8174]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those seeking asylum at port of entry were granted temporary admission without being fingerprinted in each of the last five years. [8171]
  186
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications are withdrawn every month; and what happened to the applicants after withdrawal in each of the last five years. [8172]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  During the first 11 months of 1995, the average number of withdrawn asylum applications was 220 per month.

  It is not always known why asylum applications are withdrawn. It may be as a result of the applicant's being granted leave under another section of the Immigration Rules or because they decide to leave the United Kingdom. A statistical breakdown of such cases is not available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those seeking asylum at overseas posts in each of the last five years have been granted temporary admission without a pro forma interview being completed. [8173]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage change in the prison population for each year since 1979; what estimate his department has made of the change in the prison population over the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [7390]

  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. Alan Beith, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what was the percentage change in the prison population for each year since 1979 and what estimate has been made of the change in the prison population over the next five years.
  The percentage changes in the prison population are shown in the attached table.
  The most recent short-term projection of the prison population gives a projection for 1996 of 52,900. The most recent long term projections are given in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 4/95 "Projections of Long Term Trends in the Prison Population to 2002", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The next annual update of these projections will be published in the Spring.

  Percentage change in the prison population1 on the previous year

  Year

  Percentage change

  1979

  +1.0

  1980

  +2.1

  1981

  +0.8

  1982

  +0.7

  1983

  0.0

  1984

  -1.0

  1985

  +6.8

  1986

  +1.3

  187

  Percentage change in the prison population1 on the previous year

  year

  percentage change

  1987

  +4.4

  1988

  +2.0

  1989

  -2.7

  1990

  -6.1

  1991

  +0.6

  1992

  -0.2

  1993

  -2.7

  1994

  +9.5

  1 Population includes persons held in police cells.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total female prison

  Female prison population1 by type of prisoner, 31 December2 each year

  Year

  Untried

  Prisoners on remand Convicted unsentenced

  All remanded

  Adults

  Sentenced prisoners Young offenders

  All sentenced

  Non-criminals

  Total

  1985

  300

  45

  345

  906

  223

  1,129

  2

  1,476

  1986

  366

  54

  420

  985

  221

  1,206

  4

  1,630

  1987

  400

  67

  467

  1,046

  176

  1,222

  7

  1,696

  1988

  370

  73

  443

  1,085

  183

  1,268

  4

  1,215

  1989

  336

  70

  406

  1,087

  144

  1,231

  0

  1,637

  1990

  267

  83

  350

  966

  136

  1,102

  3

  1,455

  1991

  284

  62

  346

  992

  154

  1,146

  7

  1,499

  1992

  213

  86

  299

  939

  115

  1,054

  0

  1,353

  1993

  295

  93

  388

  1,013

  134

  1,147

  38

  1,573

  1994

  330

  126

  456

  1,120

  172

  1,292

  24

  1,772

  Notes:

  1Population includes 57 prisoners held in police cells in December 1986 who are assumed to be untried prisoners.

  2 Prison population at the end of the year is decreased by seasonal factors.

  Source:

  Prison Statistics England and Wales for years 1985 to 1993.

  Abnormal Loads
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many abnormal loads involving railway locomotives and rolling stock have been notified to police authorities for escort on roads since the introduction of rail charges by Railtrack; and how many such loads were notified during the equivalent period before that date. [7736]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Knives
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to control the sale of knives. [7650]

  Mr. Maclean
  The sale of a variety of knives and other weapons which include bladed or pointed components is prohibited under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to restrict the sale of knives in general. He will consider adding to the list of prohibited items any bladed item which has no legitimate use and which includes some feature which enables it to be defined in law in such a way as to distinguish it from knives which have legitimate uses 188
  population, by category and in total, on 1 January of each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [7409]

  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. Alex Carlile, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what was the total female prison population, by category and in total, on 1 January of each of the last 10 years.
  Historical prison population statistics are available for the last day of each month. Details of the female prison population by type of prisoner are therefore given in the attached table for 31 December for the years 1985 to 1994.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of firearm and shotgun certificates at present in force in Falmouth and Camborne. [7375]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Devon and Cornwall police that the number of firearms and shotgun certificates at present in force in the Falmouth and Camborne area is as follows:

  Firearm certificates: 404

  Shotgun certificates: 1,427.

  Ex-prisoners' Accommodation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the residential institutions for ex-prisoners which his Department(a) funds in full and (b) funds in part; and if he will make a statement; [7336]

  (2) what was the total expenditure on residential institutions for ex-prisoners for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [7337]

  Mr. Sackville
  Probation committees are now responsible for grants to the voluntary and private sectors to support the provision of accommodation for offenders,
  189
  including released prisoners, with the exception of the Langley House Trust which continues for the time being to receive a grant directly from the Home Office. Total grants have been as follows:

  1992–92: £7.4 million

  1992–93: £8.4 million

  1993–94: £9.8 million

  1994–95: £10.1 million

  1995–96: £10.0 million.

  In addition, approved probation hostels, while catering primarily for bailees and offenders serving community sentences, are also available to released prisoners who are subject to probation service supervision. Home Office current expenditure on approved hostels has been:

  1991–92: £18.2 million

  1992–93: £24.3 million

  1993–94: £26.2 million

  1994–95: £23.3 million

  1995–96: £24.3 million.

  Net operating cost per prisoner per week in cash terms (£)

  Type of establishment

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  11994–95

  Local prisons and remand centres

  388

  437

  526

  441

  448

  Contracted out establishments

  —

  —

  539

  385

  409

  Dispersal prisons

  616

  807

  816

  659

  678

  Category B training prisons

  368

  438

  518

  404

  416

  Category C training prisons

  297

  363

  387

  336

  351

  Adult male open prisons

  293

  316

  331

  269

  282

  Young offender closed establishments

  390

  452

  492

  415

  416

  Young offender open establishments

  550

  551

  634

  473

  456

  Young offender remand establishments

  —

  —

  —

  420

  450

  Female establishments

  563

  629

  657

  540

  512

  1 The figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are on a different basis from those for earlier years which include notional inter-establishment charges for goods and services and other non-cash costs (e.g. opportunity cost of rent and depreciation).

  Drugs Offences
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for(a) each court circuit area in England and Wales, (b) England and (c) Wales the number of convictions secured in cases involving drugs for each of the last three available years; and if he will make a statement. [6666]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1992 to 1994 (latest available) is given in the table.

  Number of offenders convicted of indictable drug offences at the Crown court by area 1992–94

  Area

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Crown court circuit

  Midland and Oxford

  777

  872

  954

  North Eastern

  778

  894

  903

  Northern

  1,126

  1,091

  1,051

  South Eastern

  3,007

  2,488

  2,790

  Wales and Chester

  406

  462

  488

  Western

  513

  513

  629

  England

  6,346

  6.011

  6,493

  Wales

  261

  309

  322

  England and Wales

  6,607

  6,320

  6,815

  Custody Costs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per week of custody for each category of prisoner for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [7368]

  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. Alex Carlile, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average weekly cost of custody for each category of prisoner.
  We do not collect information on the cost of prisoners according to their category but by type of establishment. More than one category of prisoner may be held in the same establishment. The attached table gives the average weekly net operating cost per inmate per type of establishment for the last five years.

  Fire Service
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the criteria for risk categories for firefighting; and if he will make a statement. [6923]

  Mr. Sackville
  The criteria for risk categories are an integral part of the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover. In response to a recommendation in the Audit Commission report. "In the line of Fire", these standards are being reviewed by the Central Brigades Advisory Council.

  Ms Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of rebuilding Downham fire station. [6920]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for the provision of fire services, including the cost of rebuilding fire stations, is a matter for the fire authority concerned—in this case, the London fire and civil defence authority.

  Marchioness Disaster
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the expected approximate length, in words and A4 pages, of the complete transcript of the re-opened inquest into the victims of the Marchioness disaster held in April 1995; and what plans
  191
  he has for making it available to the relatives of the deceased and to other interested parties. [7121]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the transcript is about 3,000 pages and approximately 900,000 words in length. The supply of such a document is entirely a matter for the coroner, in accordance with the Coroners Rules 1984.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) single entry and (b) multiple entry visit visas were (i) received, (ii) granted and (iii) refused at each post in the Indian sub-continent, Ghana, Nigeria, the Philippines and Jamaica in each quarter of 1994 and the first quarters of 1995; and what was the delay between application and interview for those whose applications were felt to need a second or long interview at each of the above posts in

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts under the Breeding of Dogs Acts

  England and Wales

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 Prosecutions

  1

  1

  5

  7

  1

  3

  11

  11

  23

  5

  2

  Breeding of Dogs Act 19911 Prosecutions

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1 Came into force on 25 September 1991.

  2 Not applicable.

  3Not available.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990ߝ91 including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6399]

  Mr. Howard
  The estimated cost of running my departmental office for the current year and for the previous two years are as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total staff costs

  1,326,343

  1,612,746

  1,771,631

  Press and communications

  11,083,793

  14,140,920

  10,958,900

  Running costs

  485,343

  510,988

  875,669

  These figures exclude the cost of telephone bills which is not available as a specific cost to my departmental office.

  The information on office refurbishment was given in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 18 December 1995, Official Report, column 968.

  Expenditure on the other items in each of the last three years is not collected in the format requested but is included in the running cost expenditure which is shown in the table.
  192
  (1) June 1994, (2) January 1995 and (3) June 1995 or the nearest available date. [7687]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information becomes available.

  Breeding of Dogs Acts
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been pursued for offences against the Breeding of Dogs Acts in the last 10 years; and what assessment he has made as to the efforts of local authorities to ensure that this measure is put into effect. [6730]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  The appropriate use of the powers contained in the Act is a matter for each local authority to determine according to local priorities.

  Figures for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 can be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the names, occupations and qualifications of members of the boards of visitors for HMP Lindholme and HMP Moorlands; [2233]

  (2) if he will list the occupations, qualifications and source of nomination of the members of the board of visitors of (a) Doncaster prison (b) Moorlands prison (c) Lindholme prison and (d) Hatfield prison. [1819]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Members of boards of visitors at each prison and young offender institution in England and Wales are appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend. Occupation is not a criterion for appointment and information about members' occupations is not held centrally and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost. There are no requirements for specific formal qualifications.

  Nominations for boards of visitors come from a variety of sources. Many candidates put themselves forward as a result of seeing advertised vacancies in newspapers and other outlets or are referred from a variety of other voluntary organisations. The only criteria for applying are that the candidate should live within about 20 miles of the prison or young offender institution to which they wish to be appointed, must not have an interest in any contract for the supply of goods or services to that establishment or other close link which would affect their impartiality, and have the time, interest and commitment to undertake

  193
  the duties of a board member. Applications to join boards of visitors are welcome from anyone who fits these criteria.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) decisions have been made to deport, (b) deportation orders signed and (c) deportation orders enforced against (i) British overseas citizens and (ii) other British nationals who are not British citizens in each year since 1990; to which countries it has been proposed to send these people; and how many such people against whom decisions to deport were made left the country voluntarily. [7685]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information available is given in the table. Statistics are not available on the countries to which British nationals have been removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process. Of the 27 British nationals removed in 1994, 26 were British dependent territories citizens or British nationals (overseas) from Hong Kong, and one was a BDTC from St. Helena.

  British nationals subject to deportation action

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  British overseas citizens

  Notices of intention to

  deport issued, and court

  recommendations for

  deportation made

  —

  —

  6

  341

  Deportation orders made

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Table A: Notices of intention to deport issued since 1 July 1993

  Category of case

  1993

  1994

  19951

  3rd

  4th

  1st

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  1st

  2nd

  3rd

  quarter

  quarter

  quarter

  quarter

  quarter

  quarter

  Year

  quarter

  quarter

  quarter

  Breach of conditions of leave to enter or remain 2

  987

  954

  1,173

  1,285

  1,445

  1,383

  5,286

  1,343

  1,187

  1,412

  Conducive to the public good3

  24

  15

  27

  46

  26

  26

  125

  19

  31

  16

  Dependants4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  58

  Total

  1,011

  970

  1,200

  1,331

  1,471

  1,409

  5,411

  1,362

  1,261

  1,486

  1Provisional data.

  2Under section 3(5)(a) of Immigration Act 1971.

  3Under section 3(5)(b).

  4Under section 3(5)(c).

  Table B: Notices of intention to deport issued, by nationality, 1994.

  Geographical region and nationality

  Number of persons

  European Economic Area

  Austria

  —

  Belgium

  3

  Denmark

  —

  Finland

  —

  France

  3

  Germany

  5

  Greece

  1

  Iceland

  —

  Ireland

  1

  Italy

  8

  Luxembourg

  —

  Netherlands

  15

  Norway

  —

  Portugal

  7

  194

  British nationals subject to deportation action

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Deportation orders enforced

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Supervised departures

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary departures

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Other British nationals2

  Notices of intention to

  deport issued, and court

  recommendations for

  deportation made

  67

  71

  105

  72

  77

  37

  Deportation orders made

  9

  11

  13

  4

  22

  11

  Deportation orders enforced

  4

  5

  9

  9

  11

  2

  Supervised departures

  31

  41

  57

  30

  16

  11

  Voluntary departures

  2

  1

  4

  2

  9

  4

  1January to June—provisional figures.

  2British Dependent Territories Citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British Subjects and British Protected Persons.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions to make a deportation order, by nationality of the potential deportee, where there is a right of appeal as provided under(a) section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 or (b) section 8(3) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 have been made in each quarter since 1 July 1993; and on what basis these decisions have been made. [7602]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on notices of intention to deport issued up to the third quarter of 1995 is given in table A. An analysis by nationality of the person, in respect of notices issued in the whole of 1994, is given in table B; the quarterly data requested for he whole of the period from July 1993 onwards could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table B: Notices of intention to deport issued, by nationality, 1994.

  Geographical region and nationality

  Number of persons

  Spain

  3

  Sweden

  1

  Total EEA

  47

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  26

  Cyprus

  33

  Former Czechoslovakia

  10

  Hungary

  3

  Malta

  1

  Poland

  199

  Romania

  33

  Russia

  16

  Other former USSR

  21

  Switzerland

  —

  195

  Table B: Notices of intention to deport issued, by nationality, 1994.

  Geographical region and nationality

  Number of persons

  Turkey

  130

  Former Yugoslavia

  51

  Other Europe

  —

  Total Europe

  523

  Americas

  —

  Argentina

  —

  Barbados

  8

  Brazil

  53

  Canada

  6

  Chile

  2

  Colombia

  47

  Guyana

  31

  Jamaica

  225

  Mexico

  1

  Peru

  8

  Trinidad and Tobago

  25

  USA

  39

  Venezuela

  —

  Other Americas

  49

  Total Americas

  494

  Africa

  Algeria

  127

  Angola

  1

  Egypt

  38

  Ethiopia

  25

  Ghana

  529

  Kenya

  52

  Libya

  10

  Mauritius

  42

  Morocco

  106

  Nigeria

  1,038

  Sierra Leone

  176

  Somalia

  —

  South Africa

  41

  Sudan

  23

  Tanzania

  24

  Tunisia

  11

  Uganda

  47

  Zaire

  2

  Zambia

  26

  Zimbabwe

  49

  Other Africa

  107

  Total Africa

  2,474

  Asia

  Indian sub-continent

  Bangladesh

  124

  India

  536

  Pakistan

  617

  Total Indian sub-continent

  1,277

  Middle East

  Iran

  29

  Iraq

  6

  Israel

  14

  Jordan

  8

  Kuwait

  —

  Lebanon

  6

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  Syria

  9

  Yemen

  9

  Other Middle East

  6

  Total Middle East

  87

  Remainder of Asia China

  30

  196

  Table B: Notices of intention to deport issued, by nationality, 1994.

  Geographical region and nationality

  Number of persons

  Hong Kong1

  69

  Indonesia

  —

  Japan

  18

  Malaysia

  97

  Phillippines

  116

  Singapore

  4

  South Korea

  13

  Sri Lanka

  49

  Taiwan

  1

  Thailand

  22

  Other Asia

  23

  Total Remainder of Asia

  442

  Oceania

  Australia

  25

  New Zealand

  26

  Other Oceania

  3

  Total Oceania

  54

  British Overseas citizens

  7

  Stateless2

  6

  All nationalities

  5,411

  1Includes Hong Kong stateless persons.

  2Excluding Palestine and Hong Kong stateless persons.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many operations against people alleged to be in the United Kingdom illegally involving both immigration officers and police took place during 1994 and 1995 to the latest convenient date; for each operation by date and by name how many(a) immigration officers and (b) police officers were involved; how many people were arrested and found to be (i) legally in the United Kingdom, (ii) in breach of immigration conditions, (iii) alleged illegal entrants and (iv) British citizens; how many requested and were granted legal advice before interview; and how many were detained for (1) one day or less, (2) between a day and a week and (3) over a week; and how many subsequently left the United Kingdom. [7427]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for facilitating the entry of illegal immigrants in each year since 1985. [8025]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of persons prosecuted for the offence of "knowingly facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant"1,2 1985–1994

  England and Wales

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1985

  21

  1986

  25

  1987

  41

  1988

  41

  197

  Number of persons prosecuted for the offence of "knowingly facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant"1,2 1985–1994

  England and Wales

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1989

  28

  1990

  46

  1991

  73

  1992

  63

  1993

  33

  1994

  124

  1Offence under Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2Principal immigration offence.

  British Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for registration as British citizens of children born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983 have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused since 1 January 1993. [7660]

  Persons applying for a special voucher for entry to the United Kingdom, 1994 and Q1–Q2 1995

  Persons

  Applications newly received1

  Vouchers issued

  Applications awaiting a decision at the end of

  1994

  Q1 1995

  Q2 1995

  1994

  Q1 1995

  Q2 1995

  Q2 1994

  Q41994

  Q2 1995

  India

  210

  100

  60

  170

  50

  50

  60

  60

  90

  Kenya

  150

  40

  50

  150

  30

  20

  90

  90

  120

  Tanzania

  10

  2—

  2—

  10

  2—

  3—

  60

  60

  40

  Malawi

  2—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  Zambia

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Rest of the world

  10

  3—

  2—

  10

  2—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  400

  140

  120

  350

  80

  80

  210

  210

  250

  1Includes applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2Five or fewer.

  3Nil.

  Waiting times for persons applying for a special voucher, Q2–Q4 1994 and Q2 1995

  Months

  Waiting times to main interview for persons at end of

  Persons applying at end of

  Q2 1994

  Q4 1994

  Q2 1995

  India

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Kenya

  0.1

  0.5

  1

  Tanzania

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Malawi

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  Zambia

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Rest of the world

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1Nil.

  Immigration (Temporary Admission)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the(a) passengers in total and (b) persons treated as illegal entrants who were granted temporary admission or release in 1994 and 1995 to the latest date for which information is available subsequently absconded; how many of these were (1) asylum seekers and (2) applying for leave on some other basis; and how many (i) later reported voluntarily to the immigration authorities and (ii) were rearrested. [7422]
  198
  Mr. Kirkhope
  A total of 4,817 children born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983 have been registered as British citizens since 1 January 1993. The number of such applications received and refused is not available.

  Special Quota Vouchers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting for special quota vouchers in(a) India, (b) east Africa and (c) the rest of the world in (i) June 1994, (ii) December 1994 and (iii) June 1995; when those issued with vouchers on those dates had applied; how many vouchers were issued in (a) India, (b) east Africa and (c) the rest of the world in (1) 1994 and (2) the first half of 1995; when those applying can now expect to receive vouchers; and how many applicants there were for vouchers in (a) India (b) east Africa and (c) the rest of the world in (1) 1994 and (2) the first half of 1995. [7421]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information which is currently available is given in the tables.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information relates to the number of persons who absconded, either from detention or by failing to respond to the terms of temporary admission or release, and is given in the table. The other information requested is not available.

  Absconders

  Category of person

  1994

  19951

  Passengers2

  1,240

  1,374

  Illegal entrants:

  Asylum seekers

  260

  132

  Others

  224

  89

  Total

  484

  221

  1 January to September.

  2 A breakdown between asylum seekers and other passengers is not available.

  Immigration Applications
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding immigration applications there are at Lunar house from(a) students, (b) family members in the United Kingdom applying for variation of stay, (c) settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts and (d) asylum seekers; and

  199
  what are the average times applicants in each category must wait before a decision. [7425]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information is that at the end of November 1995 there were in total about 68,500 asylum applications and some 20,500 other cases in the general immigration caseworking groups, including referred entry clearance applications, the majority of which were under consideration or the subject of further inquiries. The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision for cases decided in the general caseworking groups in the third quarter of 1995, was about eight weeks for students and about 12 weeks for all non-asylum applications. Information on average waiting times for family members in the United Kingdom for variation of leave and settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts is not available.

  For the average waiting times for asylum applications, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 22 November 1995, Official Report, column 219.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children were waiting in each queue at each post in the Indian subcontinent on (i) 1 January 1995, (ii) 30 June 1995 and (iii) the latest convenient date. [7420]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on waiting times to first interview for applicants in the settlement queues at posts in the Indian sub-continent is contained in table 2.5 of the

  Table 1: Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent applying for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom, 1994 and first two quarters 1995

  Number of persons and percentage

  1994

  1995

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Year

  Q1

  Q2

  HUSBANDS

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  90

  80

  50

  50

  280

  80

  70

  Applications granted2

  60

  40

  40

  40

  180

  60

  50

  Applications refused initially

  50

  40

  40

  40

  160

  40

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  45

  n/a

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  100

  40

  70

  60

  310

  90

  80

  Applications granted2

  70

  70

  60

  70

  260

  70

  60

  Applications refused initially

  50

  30

  50

  50

  180

  40

  20

  Refusal (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  33

  n/a

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  270

  300

  370

  470

  1,400

  300

  320

  Applications granted2

  230

  180

  220

  210

  840

  220

  170

  Applications refused initially

  130

  50

  160

  120

  460

  200

  260

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  33

  n/a

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  750

  670

  670

  630

  2,720

  790

  760

  Applications granted2

  440

  420

  420

  440

  1,720

  420

  480

  Applications refused initially

  430

  440

  430

  400

  1,690

  530

  460

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  42

  n/a

  n/a

  WIVES

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  320

  260

  200

  170

  940

  320

  280

  Applications granted2

  220

  190

  210

  130

  760

  190

  210

  Applications refused initially

  60

  70

  60

  60

  260

  80

  60

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23

  n/a

  n/a

  200
  Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 21/95 "Control of Immigration: Statistics UK First Half 1995" published on 19 October 1995, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance from(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiancés and (d) fiancées made at British posts in (i) New Delhi, (ii) Bombay, (iii) Calcutta, (iv) Madras, (v) Dhaka, (vi) Islamabad, (vii) Karachi, (viii) Colombo, (ix) Accra, (x) Lagos, (xi) Manila, (xii) Bangkok, (xiii) Washington and (xiv) Ottawa for each quarter since January 1994, and in total, were (1) received, (2) granted and (3) refused; how many refusals at each post were (A) wholly and (B) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration; how many refusals at each post were (x) wholly and (y) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the couple could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds; and what was the refusal rate at each post and what percentage of those refusals were (X) wholly and (Y) partly on primary purpose grounds. [7686]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information for the Indian subcontinent for each quarter of 1994 and the first two quarters of 1995 is given in the tables. Where numbers are small, figures for individual posts have been combined. Information on reasons for refusals is not compiled for periods shorter than 12 months. Corresponding information for Colombo, Accra, Lagos, Manila, Bangkok. Washington and Ottawa is not available centrally.
  201

  Table 1: Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent applying for clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom, 1994 and first quarters 1995

  Number of persons and percentage

  1994

  1955

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Year

  Q1

  Q2

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  330

  260

  220

  210

  1,020

  300

  340

  Applications granted2

  240

  210

  280

  210

  950

  220

  150

  Applications refused initially

  50

  40

  40

  30

  160

  50

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  n/a

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  330

  330

  390

  370

  1,420

  310

  410

  Applications granted2

  300

  280

  320

  280

  1,180

  220

  240

  Applications refused initially

  40

  20

  60

  60

  190

  80

  100

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  n/a

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  910

  790

  770

  740

  3,210

  980

  840

  Applications granted2

  600

  600

  540

  550

  2,290

  580

  710

  Applications refused initially

  160

  180

  180

  180

  710

  240

  210

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  19

  n/a

  n/a

  Male fiancés

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  30

  20

  10

  10

  70

  20

  20

  Applications granted2

  10

  10

  10

  10

  40

  10

  10

  Applications refused initially

  40

  10

  20

  20

  80

  4—

  4—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  66

  n/a

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  40

  20

  10

  20

  80

  20

  30

  Applications granted2

  20

  10

  20

  10

  50

  10

  10

  Applications refused initially

  20

  10

  20

  20

  70

  10

  20

  Refusal (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  45

  n/a

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  10

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  4—

  Applications granted2

  4—

  4—

  4—

  —

  4—

  —

  —

  Applications refused initially

  4—

  —

  4—

  —

  4—

  —

  4—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  50

  n/a

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  30

  30

  30

  30

  120

  20

  20

  Applications granted2

  20

  10

  10

  10

  40

  10

  10

  Applications refused initially

  20

  30

  20

  10

  80

  20

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  62

  n/a

  n/a

  Female fiancées

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  40

  30

  40

  30

  140

  40

  40

  Applications granted2

  30

  10

  10

  30

  80

  10

  10

  Applications refused initially

  20

  10

  10

  10

  60

  20

  4—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  41

  n/a

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  40

  20

  20

  20

  110

  30

  40

  Applications granted2

  20

  20

  30

  30

  100

  10

  10

  Applications refused initially

  10

  10

  10

  4—

  30

  10

  4—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20

  n/a

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  20

  4—

  —

  Applications granted2

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  4—

  Applications refused initially

  4—

  —

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  n/a

  n/a

  Isamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  30

  40

  20

  40

  140

  40

  20

  Applications granted2

  20

  30

  30

  30

  110

  30

  20

  Applications refused initially

  20

  10

  20

  10

  60

  10

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  32

  n/a

  n/a

  1Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 Applications refused initially, minus applications granted on appeal, as a percentage of applications decided.

  4Five or fewer.

  — = nil.

  n/a = not applicable.
  202 203

  Table 2: Spouses and fiancé(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom, quarterly 1994 and first half 1995

  Number of persons

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate/maintain themselves without recourse to public funds

  Quarter 1, 1994

  Quarter 2, 1994

  Quarter 3, 1994

  Quarter 4, 1994

  Quarter 1, 1995

  Quarter 2, 1995

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  —

  10

  2

  6

  1

  7

  2

  8

  3

  8

  4

  3

  Wives

  1

  13

  —

  16

  4

  12

  2

  16

  3

  21

  1

  2

  Male fiancés

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Female fiancées

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  —

  3

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Husbands

  —

  6

  —

  3

  1

  12

  —

  14

  —

  7

  1

  —

  Wives

  2

  4

  5

  5

  6

  8

  8

  3

  6

  8

  4

  2

  Male fiancés

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Female fiancées

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Dhaka

  Husbands

  48

  22

  24

  2

  77

  21

  59

  21

  109

  48

  172

  53

  Wives

  32

  2

  8

  4

  37

  —

  48

  5

  62

  3

  76

  1

  Male fiancés

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Female fiancées

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  74

  187

  71

  245

  99

  196

  103

  187

  123

  234

  112

  207

  Wives

  94

  25

  94

  24

  101

  34

  106

  29

  137

  30

  103

  53

  Male fiancés

  5

  9

  3

  17

  5

  11

  2

  6

  2

  4

  2

  8

  Female fiancées

  3

  3

  4

  3

  6

  3

  8

  1

  3

  —

  1

  5

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  122

  225

  97

  256

  178

  236

  164

  230

  235

  297

  289

  263

  Wives

  129

  44

  107

  49

  148

  54

  164

  53

  208

  62

  184

  58

  Male fiancés

  6

  13

  3

  20

  5

  16

  3

  12

  2

  6

  3

  9

  Female fiancées

  3

  5

  4

  7

  6

  5

  13

  4

  5

  8

  2

  5

  Table 3: Spouses and fiancé(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom, quarterly 1994 and first half 1995

  Number of persons

  Number refused because primary purpose of marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom

  Quarter 1, 1994

  Quarter 2, 1994

  Quarter 3, 1994

  Quarter 4, 1994

  Quarter 1, 1995

  Quarter 2, 1995

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  27

  10

  24

  6

  25

  7

  22

  8

  22

  8

  5

  3

  Wives

  40

  13

  46

  16

  41

  13

  31

  16

  42

  21

  20

  2

  Male fiancés

  23

  4

  5

  1

  11

  4

  10

  5

  5

  —

  —

  1

  Female fiancées

  15

  3

  6

  4

  7

  2

  9

  3

  12

  3

  —

  —

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Husbands

  28

  6

  15

  3

  21

  12

  21

  14

  13

  7

  7

  —

  Wives

  22

  4

  19

  5

  17

  8

  14

  3

  13

  8

  9

  2

  Male fiancés

  4

  —

  6

  2

  12

  2

  4

  2

  2

  2

  5

  1

  Female fiancées

  1

  —

  4

  —

  5

  1

  2

  1

  1

  4

  1

  —

  Dhaka

  Husbands

  43

  21

  18

  2

  47

  21

  37

  20

  34

  47

  29

  52

  Wives

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Male fiancés

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Female fiancées

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  131

  187

  105

  244

  106

  195

  84

  187

  127

  240

  87

  206

  Wives

  7

  19

  12

  21

  11

  32

  11

  29

  15

  30

  18

  53

  Male fiancés

  1

  9

  5

  17

  4

  11

  4

  6

  5

  4

  8

  5

  Female fiancées

  3

  3

  1

  3

  2

  3

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  4

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  229

  224

  162

  255

  199

  235

  164

  229

  196

  302

  128

  261

  Wives

  69

  36

  77

  44

  69

  53

  56

  49

  70

  59

  47

  58

  Male fiancés

  29

  13

  16

  20

  28

  17

  18

  13

  12

  6

  13

  7

  Female fiancées

  20

  6

  11

  7

  14

  7

  13

  5

  16

  7

  1

  4

  204 205

  Table 4: Spouses and fiancé(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom, quarterly 1994 and first half 1995

  Percentages

  Primary purpose refusals as a percentage of all refusals

  Quarter 1, 1994

  Quarter 2, 1994

  Quarter 3, 1994

  Quarter 4, 1994

  Quarter 1, 1995

  Quarter 2, 1995

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  56

  21

  65

  16

  64

  18

  63

  23

  59

  22

  19

  12

  Wives

  63

  21

  64

  22

  63

  20

  56

  29

  55

  28

  36

  4

  Male fiancés

  66

  11

  156

  111

  65

  24

  50

  25

  1100

  —

  —

  150

  Female fiancées

  71

  14

  155

  136

  178

  122

  60

  20

  71

  18

  —

  —

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Husbands

  58

  13

  50

  10

  40

  23

  40

  27

  30

  16

  35

  —

  Wives

  48

  9

  54

  14

  41

  20

  42

  9

  28

  17

  31

  7

  Male fiancés

  25

  —

  150

  117

  55

  9

  20

  10

  118

  118

  29

  6

  Female fiancées

  114

  —

  150

  —

  150

  110

  140

  120

  113

  150

  125

  —

  Dhaka

  Husbands

  32

  16

  38

  4

  29

  13

  31

  17

  17

  23

  11

  20

  Wives

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Male fiancés

  150

  —

  —

  —

  1100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Female fiancées

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  30

  43

  24

  56

  25

  46

  21

  47

  24

  45

  19

  44

  Wives

  4

  12

  7

  12

  6

  18

  6

  16

  6

  13

  9

  25

  Male fiancés

  5

  47

  19

  63

  17

  46

  131

  146

  29

  24

  42

  26

  Female fiancées

  20

  20

  19

  127

  13

  19

  17

  17

  143

  —

  —

  144

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  35

  34

  29

  46

  29

  35

  27

  38

  24

  37

  17

  34

  Wives

  22

  11

  25

  14

  20

  15

  17

  15

  16

  13

  12

  15

  Male fiancés

  40

  18

  33

  42

  43

  23

  34

  25

  36

  18

  33

  18

  Female fiancées

  44

  13

  37

  23

  39

  19

  38

  15

  48

  21

  6

  24

  1Percentages based on fewer than 15 applications refused.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for leave to remain for an indefinite period on the grounds of marriage to a British or settled spouse from(a) men and (b) women were (i) granted and (ii) refused in 1994 and 1995 to the latest convenient date; of those refusals, how many were refused because the Home Office was not satisfied that (1) the couple intended to stay together permanently as husband and wife, (2) adequate maintenance was available, (3) adequate accommodation was available and (4) how many were refused for other reasons; and of those refused for reason (1), in how many cases domestic violence was alleged. [7654]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information is given in the table. Allegations of domestic violence are not separately recorded.

  Grants and refusals of applications for indefinite leave to remain on the grounds of marriage 1994 and 1995 (January-June)

  Men

  Women

  1994

  1995

  1994

  1995

  Grants

  11,670

  6,090

  14,920

  8,440

  Refusals

  Intention to live together

  340

  240

  360

  220

  Maintenance, accommodation, other reasons

  20

  10

  10

  10

  British Overseas Citizens
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many minor children born to a206
  British overseas citizen parent outside the United Kingdom have been (a) registered or (b) refused registration as (i) a British citizen or (ii) a British overseas citizen in each year since 1 January 1990. [7601]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information is not available in the form requested. Minor children may apply for registration as British overseas citizens under section 27 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The number of grants made under this section, most of which will have been made to minor children born abroad to a British overseas citizen parent, are as follows:

  1990: 10

  1991: 12

  1992: 18

  1993: 7

  1994: 2

  1995: 1.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to commission a study to evaluate the performance of Premier Prison Services Ltd. at Doncaster prison; and if he will make a statement. [8057]

  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.
  207
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the performance of Premier Prison Services Ltd at Doncaster prison.
  There are no plans at present to commission a study to evaluate the performance of Premier Prison Services Ltd at Doncaster prison.
  Contract compliance is monitored by the on-site Prison Service Controller, who will as part of his function draw the Director's attention to any matters that need either to be rectified or merit further review. This will be done variously in writing, at formal meetings or through regular informal liaison and, if necessary, a default notice. This is part of the daily process of monitoring compliance with the contract for running the prison.
  208
  The prison is also subject to inspections by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, whose annual report on a prison is laid before Parliament and an independent Board of Visitors. The Board of Visitors has unlimited access to the prison.

  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compliance of the trading arm of the Victoria and Albert museum with the Charities Act 1992, in respect of the disclosure of the amounts donated to charity from the mail order business; and if he will make a statement. [7983]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Lord McNally
Tom McNally, Esquire, having been created Baron McNally, of Blackpool in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Addington and the Lord Tope.
Lord Broughshane Lord Broughshane—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

EC Jobs Study Proposal: Cost
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the European Commission proposal (COM (95) 250 final) for the establishment, at a cost of £47.2 million over four years, of permanent systems "for observing, monitoring and exchanging information on employment systems, and ways in which new jobs could be created".
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, there has been no substantive discussion of this proposal in the Social Affairs Council. When it is discussed in the Council, the Government will want to be satisfied that any programme that may be agreed is properly targeted and well managed and that the budget is no more than is necessary for any agreed purposes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Will he confirm
2
that over the next four to five years, depending upon which construction is placed on the Government's explanatory memorandum, some £47.2 million is to be spent on trying to classify, interpret, compare and evaluate the plans that each member state has for encouraging employment in their respective countries and to set up records for that purpose? In view of the fact that there are already 1.4 million fewer people employed in the United Kingdom than there were five years ago, does the noble Lord not agree that the money may well be better spent on infrastructure and investment rather than on a ridiculous search for further work for officials of the Commission?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by offering an apology to the noble Lord. The explanatory memorandum to which the noble Lord referred is somewhat misleading. At paragraph 10 it refers to "four years" whereas, as the noble Lord will be aware, at paragraph 1 it refers to "five years". I can assure the noble Lord that the period is in fact five years, not four years.
As Her Majesty's Government have said consistently, we believe that the Community has some role to play in helping to tackle unemployment. We believe that it has a role in promoting the exchange of information and in disseminating good practice. Therefore, I believe that many of our European colleagues have a great deal to learn from practice in this country and from the successes that we have had. I can assure the noble Lord that the programme of £47.2 million (57 million ecus) to which he referred is not one, as I made clear in my original Answer, that has yet been agreed to. It has not had any level of detailed discussion at the appropriate Council. Her Majesty's Government will not agree to it unless we believe that there is a rationalisation of existing activities which produces considerable savings. I can assure the noble Lord that we certainly would not agree to it unless we thought that it provided value for money.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is sensible lo try to devise EU-wide plans for dealing with unemployment

3
throughout the Community, especially in view of the fact that, in any case, the Government are committed by Article 2 of the Treaty to try to aim for,
"a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion among Member States"?
Does the Minister agree that other countries may also have something to teach us in that area?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe I have made clear on a number of occasions, employment policy is very much the responsibility of individual member states. I said that I thought there was a role that the Commission and the Community could play in disseminating good practice. That is why I believe that many European countries could learn from us. They could look at our deregulated and flexible labour market; they could look at our low non-wage labour costs; and they could look at the sustained, non-inflationary growth we are experiencing.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, when my noble friend the Minister or one of his ministerial colleagues attends the appropriate Council, will he suggest that a lot of money could be saved if, instead of all this spending on research, some of the more obvious lessons of the current situation, such as the excessive cost in Europe of employment as against other parts of the world and especially the Far East, were learnt? That is a far greater obstacle to the creation of new jobs than the sort of matters which those concerned would otherwise be investigating with all this Community money.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why I was keen to stress the relatively low non-wage labour costs that we experience in this country compared to our European partners. I believe that that is certainly something they could learn from us. And there are many other practices within the United Kingdom which could be usefully adopted by other countries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in his observations on 18th December, the Prime Minister himself specifically eliminated the level of unemployment as one part of determining convergence? Is the Minister also aware that the circular to which he referred was followed by another on 10th November which elaborated the whole affair? Is the Minister further aware that if the Government were to adopt the correct procedure of releasing local government funds they could make some dent in the case of the 250,000 construction workers, both skilled and unskilled, whose unemployment is costing the country at present £2 billion per annum?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's latter point has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper and I do not believe that it would be the right way to go about trying to stimulate economic growth. It is not the job of government to create jobs; it is the job of government to create the right conditions in which the number of jobs will grow. That is why we have been pursuing the policy—and I put it again to the noble
4
Lord—of a deregulated and flexible labour market, low non-wage labour costs and sustained low inflationary growth.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the most useful aspect of the programme the fact that it provides the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, with ammunition to keep us going for another five years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is really a question for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to answer. However, I shall certainly answer the questions put to me by the noble Lord.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that nothing much can be done to improve employment in the Community until the other countries agree to abandon the absurd social chapter—so favoured by the Benches opposite—and join Her Majesty's Government in the kind of policies that they promote?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers of the social chapter. I believe that even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would agree with me that if the social chapter were adopted by this country it would provide a great deal more scope for the Community to centralise and harmonise in areas where Her Majesty's Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to do so. Indeed, those are matters which should be left to the principle of subsidiarity. Further, I believe that if we pursued the policy of adopting the social chapter, the likelihood would be of Community legislation in those areas being imposed upon the UK whether or not Her Majesty's Government or Parliament wished it. It would also lead to the increased costs we have mentioned on many occasions; it would damage labour market flexibility and lead to a loss of jobs.
Lord Richard: My Lords, did I hear the Minister right? Did he say that it was not the function of the Government to create jobs? Is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it has never been the function of the Government to create jobs. It has always been the function of government to create the right conditions in which the number of jobs can grow.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as the noble Lord has been kind enough to address a question to me personally, I should, first, remind him that I am not yet a member of Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, I am not required to answer questions from him. However, as the noble Lord has been courteous enough to put the point, perhaps I may say in reply that I regard the social chapter in the same way that the Select Committee in another place regarded it—namely, as "much ado about nothing".
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's elucidation of his own particular beliefs about the social chapter. I suspect that they do not fall exactly in line with those of his noble friends on the Front Bench.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the Government can deny

5
responsibility for wasting public money by keeping people in the construction industry on unemployment benefit at a time when the private sector has spoken out and criticised them for failing to allow that money to be diverted instead into the necessary building, maintenance and repair of this country's infrastructure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another question. I do not believe that the answer to creating jobs in this country is one that the noble Baroness wishes to pursue, for example, simply throwing money at the problem. The answer to creating jobs is to create the right economic conditions in which employers take on people and feel it right and proper that they can take on people securely and pay them the right wage.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister accept that all this nonsense from his side about the social chapter is a kind of mantra? The social chapter itself is a set of very minimal and pious objectives. It does not include matters such as wages, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs. From our point of view, is not the noble Lord just creating a lot of nonsense here?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that I heard the noble Baroness refer to what was said about the social chapter on her side as being a lot of nonsense. If that is what the noble Baroness said, I totally agree with her.

Rough Sleepers' Initiative
2.59 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Department of the Environment will be revising the level of resources available for the rough sleepers' initiative in England from April 1996, in the light of the widely predicted rise in rough sleeping following housing benefit restrictions to be implemented this month.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government do not expect changes to the housing benefit scheme to increase the number of people sleeping rough. The Government plan to make available £73 million over the coming three years in order to continue the rough sleepers' initiative in central London beyond March 1996, when it was due to end. Development of a similar approach in areas outside central London will also be assisted where rough sleeping can be shown to be a major problem.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am pleased that he seems to have increased the funding to £73 million from the £50 million which appeared in the September Budget statement. While I accept that the rough sleepers' initiative has helped to reduce the numbers
6
of people sleeping rough in central London, I am sure he will agree that there is still a continuous flow of newly homeless people arriving on the streets. Sadly, far too many of them are from Scotland. The original RSI was funded for six years at £182 million. I understand that that has now been reduced to £73 million, which is almost a 50 per cent. reduction over the period. What research was done to justify the reduction of the provision by that percentage and were the anticipated effects of the changes in housing benefit taken into account, for instance the housing benefit restrictions; the withdrawal of benefits from asylum seekers; the reduction of benefits for the under-25s; and the payment of benefits in arrears? All those changes were bound to put more people on the streets. How did the Government's research lead them to the position they have taken?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has asked a number of questions. I shall do my best to answer them as succinctly as I can. He is perfectly right to say that the rough sleepers' initiative has been a great success. In 1990 about 1,000 people were sleeping rough and in November of last year it was determined that about 270 were sleeping rough, only three of whom were under 18. That is a reduction of some 75 per cent. Of course that was just a snapshot result on one night but it shows that the scheme has been successful. The noble Lord referred to the figure of £182 million. That was the amount of money that was spent over six years. Some £96 million was spent between 1990 and 1993. Some £86 million was spent between 1994 and 1996 and it is anticipated that £73 million will be spent between 1996 and 1999. I remind the noble Lord that out of the original £182 million over six years, 3,300 units of permanent accommodation have been built—that is, all but a few hundred have been built—and the rest will be completed in the near future.
As regards the important point on housing benefit, I remind the noble Lord that the new arrangements will only affect tenants in the private sector. They will not affect those in local authority accommodation. The new arrangements apply only to new claims and to existing claimants who change their address in the private sector. Housing benefit will meet in full any rent up to the general level of rents in the area. Above the local reference rent, housing benefit will cover half the difference between the reference rent and the full rent charged. I do not think those measures will be likely to result in an increase in those sleeping rough.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how many of those people will eventually become homeless as a result of the withdrawal of benefit from asylum seekers? What representations has the Minister received from local authorities, and from the London Borough of Westminster in particular, about the increase in costs

7
which they will incur as a result of this homelessness? Where will the additional sums of money come from to cope with this?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is directed principally at or about asylum seekers. As he will know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering the representations which are being made to him at the moment. I remind the noble Lord that in 1995 40,000 people were asylum applicants. There are 41,600 asylum seekers who are currently on income support. Of those who in 1994—those are the most recent figures—applied for asylum, 4 per cent. were granted refugee status, 17 per cent. were granted exceptional leave to remain and 79 per cent. were refused refugee status and yet those are the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seems to consider the Government ought to continue to give housing benefit.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome any financial resources being made available to deal with this problem? Has the Minister had time this weekend to learn of the appalling situation that has developed on the east coast of America where the kind of people we are now discussing are dying because of the horrendous snowfall there? History shows us that often the weather that hits America arrives in this country shortly afterwards. Will the Minister give an undertaking that if that happens the Government will have in place an emergency programme with increased funding to deal with that situation as regards the people we are discussing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have tried to point out that those who are normally caught under the rough sleepers' initiative have been dealt with. Those who are left are the most difficult to deal with as they have drink, drug and mental health problems. There is a cold weather shelter scheme in central London which operates from early December to the end of March and which is open to people who would otherwise be at risk from sleeping rough over the winter months. I suggest to the noble Lord that he does not let his imagination run away with him too fast as just because America has severe weather it does not always mean that it will happen here. If we do have that severe weather, it does not necessarily mean that we will have more people sleeping rough.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry that because I have mentioned people who are dying in America as a result of severe weather that could occur in this country, the Minister thinks I am letting my imagination run away with me. If that situation occurs here, it will be the Minister and his Government who are at fault.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is perfectly appalling that people in America are dying under the circumstances that have arisen there but that is something over which we in this country have no control. I was merely suggesting that we should not necessarily assume that that situation will be
8
transposed from America to here. I hope I may be permitted to say in parenthesis how glad I was to see the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the Chamber. He has lost none of his sting, fight and charm.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in spite of the improvements that have occurred under the rough sleepers' initiative which are widely recognised, there is still a huge problem which will never be solved until we build enough affordable rented accommodation to house people? In the meantime does he agree that those organisations and individuals who organise Crisis at Christmas deserve our thanks for that? Does the Minister realise that all the organisations in this field are strapped for funds at the moment for a whole number of reasons? Will he therefore initiate some review of the funding of the organisations involved in Crisis at Christmas so that they can maintain the improvement they have achieved throughout the year?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, makes a valuable point. People who operate Crisis at Christmas have done a tremendous job of work for the public good and for those who are in distressed circumstances, as have a number of other organisations such as the London Connection, Thames Reach, St. Mungo's and the Salvation Army. What we can do is to provide the money to enable those organisations to undertake outreach themselves. About two-thirds of the money that has been allocated pays for capital costs and about one-third pays for running costs. Having spent the money to build 3,300 units, there is obviously more money available for running costs.

Acid Rain: Monitoring
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will carry out a programme of continued monitoring of the ecological impact of acid rain in the United Kingdom.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Department of the Environment is in the process of formulating its research programme for 1996–97. No final decision has yet been taken on the composition of this programme.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer although I found it a little disappointing. Does he at least agree, on behalf of his department, that there is little value in continuing the monitoring of the quantity of acid deposition unless the end effect, which is the ecological effect, is also monitored'? Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—of the amount of money which has been spent by industry and by government on the monitoring of acid deposition? Surely this money will be wasted unless we know what is the final effect of what is happening?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is true that my department has spent about £3 million on the monitoring of acid rain since the programme began in 1988. We are having to evaluate our priorities. There are two ways of

9
approaching the problem. One is by sampling water from lakes after pollution from chimney emissions has returned to the ground. The other approach is to evaluate what the air and rain contain. Both are important areas for research. We are trying to decide how much we allocate to each.
Baroness David: My Lords, are the Government aware that the RSPB is very concerned that hundreds of SSSIs in the UK are at risk from acid deposition, and that some of the sites are of international importance? How can the Government be satisfied, without relying on scientific monitoring, that the targets for those sites are being met and that the UK is meeting the obligations agreed at the UN Economic Commission for Europe?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not say that we would not continue the monitoring of acid rain. One must remember that acid waters monitoring is only part of the overall acid rain research programme. There is no doubt that there has been acid rain and that it has an effect on the ecology of the country. That is why we want to see not only what effect it has on the ecology but what we can do to stop the pollution in the first place. It is those two matters which are being considered.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Earl indicate whether the emission of acid rain from power stations in the UK continues to decline and whether we are likely to meet the objectives agreed within the European Community in that respect?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, acid rain caused by emissions from generating stations comes from power stations using fossil fuels; in other words, those fuelled by coal or oil. Those generating stations which have transferred to gas do not have that problem. A great deal is being done in that respect, and many power stations are changing to gas.
We have achieved before the target date the 30 per cent. reduction in sulphur emissions which were agreed in the United Nations Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. The United Kingdom was one of the first to sign the United Nations Oslo protocol on sulphur emissions in 1994 which committed the United Kingdom to a cut of 80 per cent. in sulphur emissions by the year 2010. We are on target to meet the requirements of the European Community's large combustion plant directive.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, was not one of the problems the fact that we export acid rain? Can the noble Earl tell us whether the situation in Scandinavia is improving due to our efforts?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is generally agreed that all factories and power stations emit pollutants. It is therefore the job of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution to determine the levels at which those factories or power stations should emit their pollutants. Those levels are being reduced, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Pollutants go from one country to another, and come also to our own country. There is not much point in our
10
eliminating or reducing our levels of pollution if our neighbours do not do the same. That is why this is having to be done collectively among all member states.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should declare an interest in this Question as the sponsor of work on acid rain on Rannoch Moor, as my noble friend the Minister is aware. That work will lose much of its point if it is no longer part of a national and international network. That being so, does my noble friend agree that the power utilities are committed to spend some £6,000 million over the next 10 years on reducing their emissions? Surely it makes sense to have an irrefutable continuous scientific monitoring programme to discover whether the initiative has been worth while.
Secondly, can my noble friend say whether the Government have consulted the JNCCs and country agencies, such as Scottish Natural Heritage, to determine what they think the effects of any cutting of the continuous monitoring programme might be?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know of the work with which my noble friend has been involved. A great deal has been done there, and I congratulate my noble friend on the part that he has played. We have carried out the monitoring for some eight years. However, every government has to consider at every stage whether it is right to spend money on a particular form of research or whether there is something which has a higher priority. We are considering that at the moment. It is true that there is almost always an argument for research on one particular item to be increased in order to prevent the need for greater expenditure later. One has to keep these aspects in balance. We are trying to ensure that we are in the best position to know the effect of acid rain and acid pollution.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, to follow the previous question, perhaps I may ask whether the NRA was consulted, and is it satisfied with the proposed changes in monitoring? Does the Minister see any connection between the decline in amphibia in our countryside and the effects of acid rain? Is that not one of the reasons why proper monitoring, should continue and its effects on our wildlife should be ascertained?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, those are perfectly valid arguments and arguments which my right honourable friend is considering. I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether the National Rivers Authority has been invited to comment. I shall find out and let her know. The noble Baroness referred to specific cuts. I have said that it has not yet been decided whether there should be any cuts, what they should be or in what direction they should be made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, while the noble Earl's department is deciding whether to go ahead with the programme, will it consult with the Welsh Office as well as the NRA? There is a large re-survey being undertaken in Wales at the moment which uses data from the monitoring system, and it would he a great

11
mistake if that re-survey were put out of date or out of commission completely as a result of a decision taken in London.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that seems a wholly reasonable request, oddly enough, coming from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I shall see that it is fulfilled.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer to my supplementary question, although perhaps he did not quite meet my point. The programme to which he and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred has cost of the order of £3 million for the eight years' research which has been carried out. That is peanuts in terms of the total amount of money that is being spent on the problem. Yet that research is the end of the whole business. Unless we know the ecological impact rather than only the amount of deposition in water and on land, then the whole exercise is wasted. Will the Minister use his best endeavours to see that this is put into perspective when the programme is drawn up?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. It is a perfectly fair one. She wants the lakes and ponds to continue to be monitored. I tried to explain that they would only be likely to be affected by pollution because of what comes down through the atmosphere. If one monitors what comes through the atmosphere and in the rain itself, that could provide a more accurate measure of pollution than what is found in water, which could also have come from other sources. However, it is a perfectly valid point, and I shall see that it is taken into account.

Employment Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to employment rights. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Industrial Tribunals Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to industrial tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Treaties (Parliamentary Approval) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for parliamentary approval of treaties. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 10th January
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I wonder whether I can trespass on the good nature of the House, and use the opportunity to stretch the rules of order a little, in order to make a plea in regard to today's and tomorrow's business. This is, after all, the season of new year resolutions. I note—I have no doubt that a number of your Lordships have noted—that there are 35 names on the list of speakers in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I also note that on page 68 of the Companion it is set down that,
"The House has resolved 'That speeches in this House should be shorter'. Long speeches engender tedium and tend to kill debate".
I would be the last to suggest that any speeches in your Lordships' House do either of those two things; and I am very pleased to note that your Lordships agree with me.
In wishing your Lordships the happiest and most prosperous of new years, I wonder whether we might be able to set a good example this afternoon and resolve, as one of our new year's resolutions, to obey the injunction in the Companion. If speeches were indeed limited to about 10 minutes, it would even so not be before quite a late hour that my noble friend Lord Inglewood were able to reply to the debate. However, as always, I am in your Lordships' hands and I must leave these matters ultimately to your Lordships' good judgment.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley set down for tomorrow be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Henderson of Brompton set down for the same day be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BBC Draft Charter and Agreement
3.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) rose to move, That this House takes note of the drafts of the BBC's new Charter and the Agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the corporation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The Royal Charter is the instrument which establishes and defines the BBC and regulates the way it functions. The BBC's first Royal Charter was issued in 1926 and the document which we are discussing this afternoon will supersede the current Charter which has been in effect since August 1981 and which would otherwise continue in force until the end of this year. As is customary, I have made available to your Lordships the draft of the proposed new Royal Charter for which the Secretary of State intends to make a representation to Her Majesty following debate here and in another place. Once it has come into effect it will extend the life of the BBC until 31st December 2006.
The Agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State for National Heritage runs concurrently with the Royal Charter and complements it. It sets out how the corporation will meet its general objectives and describes in more detail inter alia the television and radio services to be financed from the licence fee and the World Service operations to be financed by grant in aid from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; the BBC's obligations in relation to programme standards; and the BBC's independence in matters of programme content, scheduling and management. The Agreement is required under Standing Order 55 to be approved by the House of Commons before it can take effect. As I have already pointed out, the Charter is granted under the Royal Prerogative and so is not subject to parliamentary approval. But this occasion provides an opportunity for your Lordships to debate the documents; and if it is clear that your Lordships' House finds either document unacceptable the Governmet will consider whether changes are necessary before proceeding.
As I shall explain, the Agreement that we are now considering is a largely new document. It will supersede the current combined Licence and Agreement. Licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 are now the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and a further licence is to be issued to run concurrently with the new Charter and Agreement. However, that licence is a largely technical document dealing with the broadcast of wireless telegraphy signals on specified frequencies and from particular sites and will not come before either House.
The new Charter and Agreement give effect to the policies set out in our July 1994 White Paper entitled The Future of the BBC. In formulating these policies we were able to draw on some 6,500 responses to our Green Paper and the report of the National Heritage Select Committee of another place, and have subsequently benefited from a further 200 contributions responding to
14
the White Paper, debates in your Lordships' House and another place and the work of a number of expert groups and individuals, including the painstaking and authoritative contribution of this House's informal Broadcasting Group chaired by my noble friend Lord Caldecote assisted by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I very much hope that what I have to say today will reassure them and satisfy my noble friend Lord Caldecote as to the position of the governors of the BBC.
The overwhelming view was that the BBC should continue to be the United Kingdom's main public service broadcaster; that it should keep the licence fee as the main source of finance for its public services for at least five years while developing its commercial activities separately; that the BBC's independence was paramount and that it should therefore continue to be established by Royal Charter but with clearer responsibilities to its audiences. We have been most grateful for all the constructive contributions we have received and, as a result, I believe that the new Charter and Agreement provide both a strong and secure framework for the BBC's public service broadcasting activities and the flexibility necessary to enable it to develop commercial services to meet the challenges of the revolution now taking place in broadcasting which will continue into the next century.
I should now like to explain more fully some of the principles behind the new Charter and Agreement. First, we have defined the role of the board of governors, led by the chairman, more clearly. In the past it has been argued from time to time that the role of the BBC board of governors is not clear. To an extent this must he so with a body such as this established under charter with responsibilities both for broadcasting and for regulating the standards of the programmes broadcast. That is inherent in this way of organising the corporation, which, as I have already pointed out, commands such wide support. But in the new Charter and Agreement we have sought to build on the BBC's own work in defining its internal arrangements and to set out the functions and responsibilities of the governors more clearly. It is made quite clear in Article 7(1) of the draft Charter that the governors exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the corporation. This, by definition, gives them very wide scope. In particular, Article 7(1) contains in addition to this general responsibility a number of specific functions.
Against this general overriding role as the persona of the corporation itself, we believe that the governors' principal roles are to represent the public interest and to regulate the BBC. The governors make key appointments to the board of management, which is subordinate to them and which must, of course, work harmoniously in partnership with them and set the strategy for the organisation. They ensure that the BBC meets its obligations and commitments to its licence-fee payers. To do this effectively they set the appropriate framework and then stand aside from day-to-day managerial involvement in programme-making decisions while exercising rigorous oversight. Management is held accountable for implementation of

15
the agreed strategy and for individual programming and editorial decisions. Indeed, the governors report on their compliance in the annual report.
As I have already mentioned, some of the key responsibilities of the governors are set out in Article 7(1) of the draft Charter. This establishes their responsibilities for setting the objectives of the corporation, for ensuring that the corporation, its employees and its staff comply with the BBC's obligations, including its obligations on programme standards and due impartiality, for overseeing strategy, for ensuring that the National Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are consulted on matters of interest to them and for ensuring the proper handling of complaints and other correspondence.
Secondly, we have enhanced the BBC's accountability. Separately from the Agreement with the Secretary of State, which specifies more detailed obligations, the Charter provides in addition for a further strand of accountability in a statement of pledges produces by the BBC. In the White Paper we recognised that the BBC's accountability to its audiences would need to continue to develop. Its establishment under a Royal Charter rather than by statute and its funding by the licence fee place a special obligation on the BBC to maintain a close relationship with the public and to respond to the public's views on its services. The BBC already does much to ensure that it knows its audience's views through the national and regional councils, through is own research and through the public meetings which it organises. But the new statement of pledges, an outline of which has been made available to your Lordships, provides a means by which the BBC can improve its responsiveness to the public and demonstrate its accessibility.
Against this background, the BBC will be consulting widely on the statement of pledges so that a more comprehensive set of commitments can be made at the time of the publication of its annual report. That statement would then form the baseline known to the public against which the BBC would regularly assess whether it was fulfilling its promises to its audiences. An annual assessment could then he made publicly available at the time of the annual report. This assessment would be another of the governors' responsibilities, and your Lordships will perhaps have noted that the BBC has already drawn a clear distinction in the last annual report between, on the one hand, the annual assessment by the board of governors and its report on compliance and the director-general's review, on the other. The statement of pledges will increase significantly the BBC's transparency and accountability to its audiences.
A third major characteristic of the new Charter and Agreement is clarification of the BBC's responsibilities for impartiality and for taste and decency and programme standards generally, placing the BBC under obligations equivalent to those placed on other broadcasters by the Broadcasting Act 1990. I know the importance placed on these issues in this House, in the
16
other place and in the country at large and I should therefore like to spend a little time explaining our approach.
It is axiomatic that our broadcasters must treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality and that they should abide by proper standards of taste and decency. On this latter point in particular I fully share the concern about the potential impact of unacceptable material on viewers, particularly the young. While portrayals of sex and violence may constitute only a small proportion of total output, they may equally well have a disproportionately greater capacity to influence impressionable minds. I know that the chairmen of both the BBC and ITC take these issues most seriously. Indeed, the BBC chairman last November convened a seminar which looked very frankly and critically at the difficult editorial decisions involved in this area.
Given the importance we place on the proper handling of these issues, we thought it right to clarify in the new Charter and Agreement the legal framework within which the BBC will act in the future and to spell out these obligations at the heart of the arrangements under which the corporation operates. We have done this by stipulating that the governors are under an obligation to ensure that the corporation, its employees and all programme makers engaged by them comply with certain codes and guidelines.
First, Article 7(1)(f) of the Charter provides that it shall be a function of the governors to ensure that the standards and practice of the corporation as applied to its programmes reflect the relevant parts of the Broadcasting Standards Council's code on the portrayal of sex and violence and standards of taste and decency for such programmes. The BSC code is drawn up under the provisions of Section 152 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and applies similarly to the independent sector. It refers to practices to be followed in connection with the portrayal of violence in programmes; practices to be followed in connection with the portrayal of sexual conduct; and standards of taste and decency.
In conjunction with this express requirement, the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Agreement, which spells out that the corporation shall do all it can to ensure that the rules are obeyed, also apply. In relation to taste and decency, these follow the policy in the Broadcasting Act 1990 applying to other broadcasters, specifying that the BBC should not do anything which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or be offensive to public feeling.
Secondly, under paragraph 5.3 of the Agreement the corporation is required to draw up a code covering accuracy and impartiality. The terms of the obligation are taken verbatim from the Broadcasting Act 1990, so that the BBC operates on the same formal basis as the independent sector. Paragraph 5.3(b) specifies that the corporation shall:
"do all it can to ensure that the provisions of the Code are observed in the provision of services and programmes".

17
But, as with the other codes and guidelines, the governors also have an obligation under Article 7 of the Charter to ensure compliance by its employees and programme makers.
Thirdly, the governors are to ensure that the corporation and its employees and all programme makers engaged by it comply with the provisions of any code or guidelines applicable to programme content. These reinforce paragraph 3 of the Agreement and echo Section 7 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. This is a wide-ranging provision which embraces compliance with the whole of the Producers' Guidelines, a document of over 250 pages giving detailed guidance to programme makers about the proper approach to the application of editorial and ethical principles. These guidelines (a copy of which is in the Library) deal with specific legal issues and obligations such as those relating to taste and decency. But they also require, for example, that warnings should be given about the dangers of imitating hazardous activities such as climbing in programmes children are likely to watch. There is discussion of the considerations programme makers must bear in mind when making editorial decisions and the requirement for upward referral to more senior members of staff in certain circumstances.
I know that in the past a number of your Lordships, Members of the other place and the public have stressed that there must be compliance with these guidelines, and that is exactly what we have provided for. This is a clear legal requirement on the corporation under the new Charter. The means by which the governors, led by the chairman, enforce these requirements are for them as those responsible. It has been suggested that such codes might be signed by programme makers to demonstrate that they had read them. Our view is that it must be for the governors to determine how they can most effectively carry out their responsibilities. They might well consider the suggestion, but it is a matter for them. The governors have no discretion as to whether or not they discharge duties placed on them. They do, however, have discretion as to how they fulfil their duties. We believe that that is how it should be.
We also recognise that the BBC's public service responsibilities extend not only to the content of programmes it broadcasts but also to their production. The BBC is a national organisation and we believe that the economic and cultural benefits of its activities should be shared across the United Kingdom. We have therefore provided at paragraph 3.2(h) of the new Agreement that the BBC must make a reasonable proportion and range of its network programmes in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and in the English regions outside London and the south east. Progress against production targets in each area is one of the key performance indicators noted in the outline statement of pledges.
In addition, we have set out in more detail the role of the National Councils for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The national councils have an important function in representing the interests of programme makers and audiences in each of the home countries. They report annually on how well the BBC is meeting the needs of the audiences in each country and
18
contribute both directly and by way of audience research to the formulation of the BBC's objectives for its services. Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter places a requirement on the corporation to consult the national councils on a range of issues related to the interests of each country.
The new Charter and Agreement fulfil the commitment made in the White Paper that the BBC should be able to develop commercial services, but in ways which are separate and clearly and transparently distinct arrangements from licence fee funded services. Commercial services will continue to require the approval of the Secretary of State, but there are clear obligations placed on the BBC not to fund such services from the licence fee and to carry out its activities in accordance with the corporation's fair trading commitments.
The BBC is renowned throughout the world for the quality of its programmes and its independence of political control must not be jeopardised. The reputation of the BBC brand name is a valuable asset and we believe that there are enormous opportunities in the expanding international media market for the BBC to exploit commercial opportunities for the benefit of its own investment in programmes. Much of the money generated will be spent on UK productions and to support the BBC's public service activities, thus benefiting licence fee payers without risking licence fee funds.
We have a recent example in the success of "Pride and Prejudice", which was greatly enjoyed by audiences in the UK—myself included—and which has been sold very successfully internationally. Its popularity looks set to bring further opportunities for international co-production of quality drama, thus producing a spiral of benefits.
There are two further areas of the corporation's work I should touch on. The BBC is a major patron of the arts and is the UK's main provider of arts programming. Last year it spent some £43 million on music and arts programming for television and £70 million for radio (excluding Radio 1). The corporation supports five orchestras and is the largest employer of actors and musicians in the country. In Britain we are blessed with a marvellous range and quality of performers in all art forms and the BBC's support for the arts enriches all parts of our cultural life. We believe that the BBC has a key role as a cultural patron and as an engine for cultural activity and we have therefore introduced a requirement that it should stimulate, support and reflect in drama, comedy, music and the visual and performing arts the diversity of cultural activity in the United Kingdom.
In its educational activities too the BBC is committed to strengthening and developing its programming. As well as generally educational programmes such as Sir David Attenborough's fascinating series on "The Private Life of Plants", BBC education produces a range of specifically educational material and will he broadcasting 4,200 hours of programmes this year. Nearly 80 per cent. of primary schools use BBC schools broadcasts, and, of course, the BBC works to great effect in partnership with the Open University. The

19
corporation therefore has an enormous influence on education in this country, not only at school age but for everyone the length and breadth of the land.
A recent NOP survey showed that 63 per cent. of those interviewed thought that the BBC had a good influence on life in Britain today, compared with only 11 per cent. who considered the influence bad. That is substantially higher than any of the other national institutions in the list and, since 95 per cent. of British households watch and listen to the BBC for at least two hours each week, it is something to be proud of. The BBC is a unique and hugely valuable national resource. Not all of its annual output of 13,000 hours of television programmes and 40,000 hours of national network radio is perfect, but it is good, and the BBC is getting better at accepting that things have gone awry when it falls below the high standards we all expect of it.
We intend in the new Charter and Agreement to move the BBC still further towards a responsive and accountable relationship with its audience. We have aimed to provide it with the flexibility to take new opportunities to develop and grow. We have balanced a firm commitment to its independence with clear obligations on programme standards. We believe that the new Charter and Agreement provide the right framework to secure the future of the BBC in a rapidly changing world.
Before sitting down, I should like to make a short statement for your Lordships' benefit which is very relevant to what we are discussing this afternoon. The Prime Minister's Office has just announced that Her Majesty has been pleased to approve the nomination of Sir Christopher Bland to succeed Marmaduke Hussey as the chairman of the BBC. It is intended that Sir Christopher will take up his post from 1st April, following formal approval of his appointment by the Queen in Council.
Marmaduke Hussey informed the Prime Minister early in 1994 of his intentions to stand aside before the end of his term of office to allow his successor to take up his post at the start of the new Charter period. I know that your Lordships will share with me our gratitude to Marmaduke Hussey for guiding the BBC through testing but necessary reform. He has ensured that the BBC's traditions will continue into the 21st century and that the BBC remains the world's leading broadcaster.
Noble Lords will also recognise that in Sir Christopher we have an outstanding successor. He has almost 25 years' experience as both a regulator and senior figure in the broadcasting industry. His experience and expertise will be invaluable in the development of the BBC. As a previous deputy chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority he has the regulatory experience in public service broadcasting which is central to the role of the board of governors as the public guardians of the BBC.
Moved, That this House takes note of the drafts of the BBC's new Charter and the Agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the corporation.—(Lord Inglewood.)
3.42 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert ("but regrets that these documents do not adequately clarify the responsibilities and authority of the governors of the BBC.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before speaking to the amendment I thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood and also his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for their unfailing courtesy, patience and co-operation in discussing aspects of these documents that some noble Lords feel are not satisfactory and require amendment and on which we have given my noble friend written proposals. I am most grateful.
Secondly, I must express my strong regret that this legislation—for that, in effect, is what the documents are—has been presented to Parliament in a way that prevents us going through our normal procedures with opportunities for discussion and, when necessary, amendment if the House so decides.
The main argument, as I understand it, in favour of a Charter rather than an Act of Parliament appears to be that a Charter makes the BBC more independent of government. But the existence of the Agreement with the Secretary of State giving him substantial powers in relation to the BBC makes the independence argument somewhat spurious.
Nevertheless, my noble friend and the Secretary of State have given assurances, on which of course we can rely, that anything said in debates in this House and in another place will he fully considered and amendments made to satisfy dissent clearly indicated by Parliament. However, since those assurances were given in slightly different forms on various occasions, it is of the utmost importance that my noble friend confirms them clearly today.
Broadcasting, and particularly television, is a very potent influence in our lives today. It can be a most valuable force for good and upward progress or a degrading factor in our national life. I have no doubt that public service broadcasting, as typified by the BBC, largely financed in effect by a ring-fenced tax, has over the years made a most beneficial contribution towards a fuller and more interesting life for millions of people and should continue.
I have had the good fortune to travel quite widely around the world. 1 have no hesitation in saying that our standard of broadcasting, led by the BBC, has been the best in the world—in creative drama, wit and humour, education and documentaries, and news and comment on public affairs.
But times have changed. Competition in broadcasting has vastly increased, together with the variety and quality of programmes available. Our task now in considering the new draft BBC Charter and Agreement is to ensure, to the hest of our abilities, within the limits imposed, that our BBC regains and retains its pre-eminent position and is not tempted to follow standards downwards in response to some erroneous theory of reflecting public opinion in the face of increased competition. Independent creativity, so often

21
rightly quoted as essential to lively broadcasting, need not be crude. Humour need not be offensive, nor comment destructive, to national institutions which have served us well for a long time.
Sadly, as I believe many noble Lords will agree, evidence has been accumulating that the high standards which should be expected, particularly from public service broadcasting, are being eroded and that these trends are contributing to violence and crime, to the degrading of sex, and to the corruption of young people before they are old enough to set their own standards. There has also been an unhealthy tendency to confuse comment with reporting of news, which should invariably be the truth and nothing but the truth with no risk of misleading innuendo by omissions dictated by limits of programme timing, nor indeed any departure from true impartiality on political and public affairs. Even more serious perhaps is that the governors seem powerless to prevent this decline in standards for it is hard to believe that they are willing participants in it.
These important issues all require a degree of regulation and control under the authority of Parliament. It is encouraging that the documents we are discussing today are a real improvement on present arrangements. Nevertheless, in many respects they do not go far enough and need to be further strengthened and improved without in any way infringing the principle of independence from government influence.
Independence is essential to creativity and variety in programmes. But independence, if it is not to lead to disorder, must be combined with responsibility. Its limits must be clearly defined at each level of the organisation, through rules and codes of practice consistent with the law established by Parliament. To enforce these rules, appropriate sanctions must also be available when they are transgressed. And there must be a well understood structure of leadership and direction at the top, backed up by a strong thread of confidence throughout the organisation.
The effect of the improvements in the two documents is clouded by the complex cross-references required between the Charter and the Agreement, leading in particular to confusion as to the precise meaning of rules, codes and guidelines, the latter being merely ways of explaining the codes to those who have to implement them.
As regards maintaining high standards of programmes, problems will arise, not least because the governors of the BBC are virtually judge and jury in their own case. The Broadcasting Standards Council can, and sometimes does, uphold complaints made against BBC programmes. But when a complaint is upheld, the BBC is under no obligation to take any further action except that, under paragraph 4.4(f) of the Agreement, it must publish in its annual report:
"The number of complaints made to and upheld by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council".
But no effective sanctions prevail such as exist in the differing circumstances of the commercial sector regulated by the ITC and the Radio Authority.
22
Effective sanctions in the case of the BBC are difficult to devise. However, a real improvement could be made by amending the Agreement so that the BBC was required not only to report the number of complaints upheld but also to report on the action taken within the corporation to prevent a recurrence of the subject of the complaint. That would give substantially more effective power to the BSC and the BCC. We shall be able to return to this issue when considering Part IV of the Broadcasting Bill, which provides for the merging of the BSC and the BCC. However, I must say that a first reading of that part of the Bill indicates that the new BSC will have hardly any greater powers of sanction than the existing bodies. But that is an issue for another day.
Further problems arise because programme controllers and other senior executives do not always regard as mandatory the codes and guidelines laid down and all too often interpret them as they think fit. In some cases, there is no doubt a genuine lack of understanding of the codes or ignorance of their importance. To avoid that kind of problem arising in the future, Article 7(1)(f) of the Charter needs to be strengthened so that the governors have an obligation not only to,
"monitor and supervise the corporation's fulfilment of its legal … obligations,"
but also to enforce them. A new obligation is also required to ensure that all controllers, senior executives and any persons having programme responsibility sign a copy of the relevant codes or rules laid down and published by the governors indicating that they have understood them and will abide by them. I am very sorry that my noble friend indicated that the Government do not share that view. It seems very odd. Surely, if we believe that this is an important matter, as I certainly do, it should, like the other important matters that are included in the Agreement and the Charter, also be included. So I hope that my noble friend will reconsider this matter and, most importantly, will be able to give assurances that the shortcomings that I have mentioned will be rectified.
Finally, I come to the position of the chairman and governors of the BBC. In Article 7(1)(a) of the draft Charter, they are required:
"to approve clear objectives … and monitor how far the Corporation has attained such objectives".
Those are normal functions of those responsible for the direction of any public body. But paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement states:
"The Corporation shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its programmes …and in the management of its affairs".
Noble and learned Lords may well be able to interpret the subtleties of the apparent contradictions between those two statements. But for the vast majority of licence fee payers it will he difficult to understand who really runs the BBC and where the buck stops. The interrelationship between the two documents causes difficulty and confusion. The two statements appear to establish a gulf between the governors and the management of the BBC which must be damaging and cannot be conducive to the smooth running of the corporation in accordance with its obligations. A recent

23
glaring example occurred in the case of the broadcast by the Princess of Wales when the director general failed to inform the chairman in advance that the programme was being made, apparently because he had no confidence in his chairman and presumably feared that the programme might be banned or interfered with in some other way.
I submit that the proposed framework for running such a great and influential organisation as the BBC is unacceptable in its present form in that the relationship is not clear between the governors, who must carry, and be seen to carry, ultimate responsibility, and the management appointed by them. The well-known question Quis custodies ipsos custodes is also very relevant. We know who are the custodians. But who will bring them to task if they fail in their duty? That is the nub of the problem and the cause of many of the lapses from the expected high standards of the BBC.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give firm assurances that this muddled situation will be clarified and that the other matters I mentioned will be rectified. The documents can then be resubmitted to Parliament, appropriately amended. I beg to move the amendment.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert ("but regrets that these documents do not adequately clarify the responsibilities and authority of the governors of the BBC.")—(Viscount Caldecote.)
3.57 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for laying the BBC Charter and Agreement before the House for debate and for meeting—as he made clear—several of the points of concern that we previously expressed. But several points remain and I propose to outline them. Since this is the only opportunity for us to discuss the future of the BBC, I hope that the House will bear with me if I cover several of the main issues. First, I must take the opportunity to thank the Minister for providing, before Christmas, the informal pre-debate discussion which many noble Lords attended. It enabled us to clarify several issues and so will save the time of the House today. I personally concluded that it was a helpful procedure which we might follow on other Bills and improve the quality of our debate.
Today's discussion of the BBC comes just ahead of next week's Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill. Taken together, they enable us helpfully to survey the whole British broadcasting landscape. In my view, our aim should be to set out a framework which encourages growth in what is one of our most dynamic and rapidly changing technological activities, while at the same time preserving and encouraging the best of traditional British broadcasting values.
Today's discussion is of great importance to the future of British broadcasting because the BBC is of such great importance. It is important, indeed, to the standards of world broadcasting. It is one of our great cultural assets. It sets standards which others try to follow and by which others are judged. It was because of the BBC's unique quality, representing the best of public service broadcasting, that we on this side for long
24
feared the destructive intentions toward it of certain neolithic Thatcherites who, in the 1980s, from a blind belief in ideological market forces and that the BBC was a nest of Marxist revolution, wished to kill off our public service broadcaster. We are greatly relieved that that virus—a kind of political mad cow's disease—has been contained, at least in relation to the BBC.
Therefore we welcome the fact that the Charter enshrines the public service broadcasting commitment for the BBC and that it retains the licence fee funding which is essential to it. I regret however that it does not extend the licence fee for the full 10-year term of the Charter, which would have been logical and would have assisted the BBC's long-term planning. We understand that in a fast-moving technological world the Government wish to retain some flexibility. But I must warn the House that the reality is that such flexibility, if utilised, will work only one way; that is, towards the end of the licence fee. This is therefore a reprieve and not a permanent guarantee of public financing.
Two aspects of the funding framework particularly concern me. The first is that, with the licence fee review in 2002, the BBC will feel pressures in pursuit of commercial survival to degrade quality and neglect minority interests such as education—to which I shall return later. In the recent past a previous Secretary of State said that the future of the licence fee depended on the BBC's capacity to maintain audience share. That suggests that, in order to obtain renewal of the licence, the BBC must focus on crude audience numbers and neglect minority quality. We would regret that.
The second funding aspect relates to the provision in the Agreement for other revenue sources—advertising, sponsorship, pay-per-view, and so forth. Such developments may erode the distinction between the BBC as a public service broadcaster and the other commercial broadcasters. It increases the competition for limited commercial revenues and may, in practice, reduce the independence of BBC programme producers to produce a wide range of quality programmes.
At this point I must mention an even more profound anxiety. The previous Charter allowed commercial funding—advertising and sponsored programmes—with the permission of the Secretary of State. The new Charter, in Article 3(c), is significantly different. It states that it is a Charter object of the BBC to provide programmes,
"funded by advertisements, subscription sponsorship, pay-per-view system, or any other means of finance".
That is a profound change of emphasis. Therefore, though the verbal commitment to the principle of public service broadcasting is clearly contained in the Charter and is very welcome, the accounting reality beneath the rhetoric is a full-speed-ahead drive towards commercialising the BBC, to prepare it for full commercialisation when the licence fee ends. That is the reality and I am not happy with it.
The appointment of a new chairman of the BBC has just been announced. For a long time he was head of a leading commercial TV company and, I note, a former Conservative counsellor on the GLC. Presumably therefore he will not delay the process of

25
commercialisation. I make two comments on that appointment. First, the Labour Party is totally committed to public service broadcasting and assumes that the new chairman will totally support that purpose and objective. Secondly, this is a sensitive appointment in what is in reality an election period. We are totally committed to the editorial independence and political neutrality of the BBC. We assume that the new chairman will see his role as totally to defend that neutrality and independence and not the electoral interests of the Conservative Party during the election campaign. We assume that is the case and on those standards Sir Christopher, for whom I have much respect, can expect to be judged.
I shall not bore the House by going through the whole long menu of specific sections of the Charter and Agreement. However, I shall try to focus on a few major items which particularly concern us on this side. In relation to the governance of the BBC, where the central question is the role and accountability of the governors—both the accountability of the broadcasters to the governors and of the governors to the British public—one sometimes feels that there is a degree of confusion between the roles of the board of management arid the board of governors. We welcome the fact that the role and accountability of the governors is spelt out more explicitly than hitherto. But we must point out that their power appears to be greater and more centralised, though not clearly more accountable, while the powers of the national governors and councils are reduced to advisory functions.
The key roles of the board of governors under the new Charter will be, first, to approve the clear objectives and promises for the BBC's services; and, secondly, to monitor and to report annually on how those objectives and promises are carried out. Of course, much depends on how precise and meaningful the objectives and pledges are. The published statement of pledges to audiences is not wholly reassuring because it reads so vaguely. Can the Minister say whether that document was seen and approved by the governors? I am told that it was not, which does not promise much for accountability in the future. Perhaps it could be redrafted more precisely in time for the debate in another place.
When one examines closely the two main functions of the BBC governors, one detects an inherent conflict of interest. They are responsible both for developing the BBC services and for regulating them. To some extent therefore they are both judge and jury. That situation is not satisfactory and we need—this whole new raft of government proposals would he an opportunity—an independent regulator to monitor the BBC and its governors and to hold them publicly accountable. After all, huge sums of public money are involved. I say that as a great friend and fan of the BBC. It would increase public confidence in the BBC. Such a body may also regulate the whole of broadcasting—commercial as well as public service—basically to protect the consumer of broadcasting, and I am sorry that the Government retreated from a related idea floated in the White Paper.
26
The situation in relation to the national broadcasting councils seems to reflect a degree of centralisation in the constitution. Previously those national councils had the power and duty stated in the charter to "control policy" in their own countries. That has been eliminated in the new Charter. The new role is to "advise and assist"; control of policy goes to the governors, though after first consulting the councils. It remains to be seen how that balance of power works out and much will depend on the membership of the national councils. Can the Minister say who selects those members? Can he confirm that it is the governors?
I remain troubled therefore about the accountability of the governors to the public and particularly the accountability of the corporation to the governors, though the situation is much improved. I am troubled also about the process of centralisation at the BBC which leaves the nations and regions within the United Kingdom with too little power in the BBC constitution. I am also troubled that the BBC is no longer required to appoint any advisory committees. Certainly we hope that the BBC retains from the old regime the particular advisory committees—the advisory councils—on education, science and religion. These, regrettably, are no longer specifically referred to in the new document.
I shall leave others in the House—I see the names of the usual list of distinguished suspects among our speakers today—to explore the highly subjective, and in my view ultimately insoluble, dilemmas concerning taste, bias, accuracy and so on in programme standards. Many of the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, derive from that area. I sympathise with a number of his points, though I would not vote for his amendment. These documents go further than previously, and in my view go better, to commit the BBC to the highest programme standards. It may be seen as a weakness that the Charter suggests only guidelines, which are ultimately unenforceable. In the modern media world, where the trashy gutter standards of tabloid journalism are increasingly infecting television, that may indeed he risky. Bad television drives out good. Perhaps that should be nailed down with an enforceable code, as with the Radio Authority. That would bolster good management against had journalists. But it is not desirable to be too nannyish. Ultimately good television is creative. To shackle its creativity excessively would be to inhibit its quality. Certainly in the fields of the broadcast arts, I would not want the BBC to be forced to conform, say, to the Cromwellian puritanism of the political right, or to the yobbo philistinism of the Sun newspaper, and I wish it would not conform to the neo-Stalinism of the politically correct thought police. The problem is to achieve balance between achieving creativity and avoiding too much offence. What is before us is not a bad balance—with a little more authority behind the code. After all, people can always switch off the television.
There are a number of particular points which concern me which I wish to raise with the Minister. The first is about the BBC's support for the arts. Currently its arts expenditure, at around £300 million, is vitally important to our cultural world. It is Britain's biggest patron and

27
sponsor. But the huge financial pressures on the BBC to go commercial, to go down market, to cut costs must put some of its arts support in doubt, especially the support for new music and arts, which are less popular, and for live performances, which are more expensive. In that threatening context I view with concern the alterations in the words in the Agreement referring to the BBC's crucial obligation to support the arts. In the previous Charter, in the so-called "governors' resolutions", there was an unequivocal commitment to new arts and to live performances. That is now weakened, with just a mention among the vague pledges. I would urge the Government, even at this late hour, to amend and strengthen that commitment.
There is also in that section a reference to the BBC's commitment to programmes of "an educational nature". That is not good enough. All kinds of programmes —general nature programmes—are generally educational. That is not enough. Indeed, it is worrying that programmes such as Esther Rantzen's chat show are alleged—I say "alleged"—to be funded under the adult education budget. We are particularly concerned that there appear to be cuts planned in the schools television and radio programmes. Because of that threat I believe that the Charter and Agreement should contain not weaselly words about "programmes of an educational nature" but specific commitments to a minimum output and guaranteed standard of specifically educational programmes, as indeed already applies to Channel 4.
The issue of the privatisation of the BBC's transmitters is bound to arouse concern on this side of the House. We will have a further opportunity to debate that in the Broadcasting Bill. Our approach will be influenced by the proposed arrangements to regulate the future transmission pricing costs to the BBC and for the proceeds of the sale to go to the BBC. I hope that the Minister will give us some details and some reassurances on that point.
I have two final points. On radio, with its new commercial character, could the BBC now launch a commercial radio station based on advertisements, competing with and indistinguishable from the commercial radio channels? It appears so. On the World Service, we are deeply concerned about the most recent savage cuts which threaten the range and quality of this unique broadcasting asset. But I should like to leave that very important issue to my noble friend Lord Dubs when he speaks later.
This Charter and Agreement are much better than we might have feared. I must congratulate Ministers on resisting the barbarians who were earlier at the gates. We still have concerns about the obligations on arts and educational programmes and about the provisions for borrowing and for the privatisation of the transmitters. We are not fully satisfied with the accountability of the governors or the role of the regions in the new constitution.
But my final concern is more general and is about the whole future of the BBC, whoever are in government. Looking at the dramatic changes taking place in the media, the immensely costly digital revolution in technology, the rapid expansion of satellite and cable
28
competition, the convergence of media forms, the huge multiplicity of channels to be on offer, the growing number and public acceptance of subscription channels, I actually worry about the real capacity of the BBC to survive in that immensely costly world. It will certainly and inevitably suffer a big decline in market share. It has already lost coverage of some of its precious sporting jewels. As the BBC is steered by the Government towards even greater commercialisation, and as it grows less distinct from other commercial broadcasters, I wonder whether it will be able to maintain the case for taking the licence fee from a public who is watching it much less. Personally, I am not too optimistic. It will be the responsibility of a future government to fight that important battle for public service broadcasting even more strenuously and to preserve it for this country.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should begin with a declaration of interest as a member of my family works for the World Service of the BBC.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in thanking the Minister for his explanation of the Charter and Agreement as an introduction to the debate, and particularly for his useful experiment of a preliminary briefing session which, like the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I hope might be repeated in other circumstances.
In democratic politics it is always a wise thing to count your blessings. So my starting point with the draft Charter must be a sense of relief that the Government have abandoned the ideas which attracted the previous Prime Minister of a commercialised and advertising-funded BBC. Instead the essential public service broadcasting role of the BBC was strongly endorsed by the Minister in his opening remarks, and the BBC is to continue to be publicly funded by the licence fee for at least the next five years.
The BBC is fortunate that its Charter did not fall at the time of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or it might have faced the kind of destructive change that was forced on commercial broadcasting, with its crazy system of auctioning franchises. We shall have the successor to that deeply flawed Act before us next week. It is sufficient at this stage to say that I regret in principle that the future of the BBC is not being dealt with as part of that Bill. There could then have been a consideration of the future of the BBC against the changing landscape of broadcasting as a whole.
I recognise that the Select Committee of another place came down in favour of preserving the existing ritual of the Royal Charter and Agreement. I certainly recognise the importance of preserving and protecting the distinctive character and independence of the BBC. Nevertheless, I hope that it is not too irreverent to say that I believe that the ritual of the Royal Charter for the BBC may have been appropriate in the years when the BBC was the single, dominating organisation in the broadcasting field, but now that the world of broadcasting has changed tremendously, I believe that that world should he seen as a whole. I find it a curious

29
anomaly that while the larger half now of British broadcasting should be subject to the normal parliamentary legislative procedures, the BBC—the traditional and well deserved centrepiece of excellence in our broadcasting—should be treated in isolation.
I believe that this situation puts a heavy responsibility on the Government to treat the draft Charter as truly a draft Charter and to be ready to make changes in it in the light of the brief parliamentary debates here and in another place—and in that respect I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said. Otherwise the institutions of the BBC for the next decade will have been largely determined behind closed doors in Broadcasting House and in the Department of National Heritage. There are some serious questions to be answered about the present proposals, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I do not wish to repeat unnecessarily, given the time constraints, what he has already said.
I remind the Minister as a starting point that in December 1994 the Government signed a ministerial resolution of the Council of Europe committing themselves in some detail to maintaining the principles of public service broadcasting. I believe that Parliament is entitled to be satisfied that this policy commitment is fully and adequately spelt out in the new Charter and that there will he adequate safeguards to prevent the BBC sliding increasingly into a purely commercialised organisation. One of the factors is this. While the Government are giving the BBC the obligations of a 10-year Charter of public service broadcasting, they are guaranteeing the licence income for only five years. I do not believe that that can be right. I do not know whether it is too late for that matter to be reconsidered, but for an organisation to engage in the kind of long-term planning that is required for broadcasting these days I would have thought that the licensing arrangements and Charter should have marched in hand with each other.
I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said about the new statement of pledges to audiences that were promised by the BBC, which the Minister mentioned at some length. Having read the document that we have at the moment, I can only say that it is so bland, imprecise and lacking in detail that it is worthless in practice. By the time that this matter is discussed for a second time in another place, I seriously say to the Minister that the Government really owe it to Parliament to get the BBC to put some substance into the statement of pledges.
There is the attempt to deal with the concerns about the role of the governors, which is the centrepiece of the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. Here at least I thoroughly agree with him in that the present situation is unsatisfactory. I rather regret that the Government were not ambitious and imaginative enough to produce some new independent regulatory organisation covering the whole field of broadcasting, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Certainly in the present circumstances I am not sure that there is any totally satisfactory solution to the role of the BBC governors. They are public trustees to the nation and simultaneously broadcasters, publishers and
30
employers of the programme makers, of whom they are naturally and properly proud. These two roles simply do not sit well together. Very often they are in conflict with each other, as I well recognise from my own experience in the past in rather different circumstances as the chairman of the old Independent Broadcasting Authority. However, the role of the public trustee undoubtedly comes first and must have priority over loyalty to the programme makers.
The independence of the governors from inevitable and perfectly legitimate pressures from government and opposition and a wide range of other interest groups is their most precious quality. The responsibility for ensuring that independence starts with the government of the day to appoint men and women of stature, integrity and independence of judgment and to resist absolutely the temptation to apply the pernicious doctrine of recent years of: "Is he or she one of us?".
We listened with interest to the announcement of the appointment of the new chairman of the BBC. I have reason to know well the work of Sir Christopher Bland in broadcasting and have a healthy admiration and respect for him. He will take on the post of chairman of the governors of the BBC, especially because of his own personal political background, where his showing of independence of character will be absolutely crucial, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has already said.
The governors in their turn in the present system have a duty to defend the independence of the programme makers but equally a duty to enforce the standards laid down in the various codes of conduct and guidelines. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, referred to Article (1)(f) of the Charter and the duty of the governors to monitor and supervise the corporation's fulfilment of its obligations. I believe that he should have perhaps read on further because it goes on to say in particular to,
"ensure that the Corporation and its employees … comply with the provisions of any code".
The real test is going to be whether the governors ensure compliance with the code.
I agree that there are special difficulties about what are effective sanctions for the governors of the BBC in the very different circumstances that they face from that of the regulators of commercial broadcasting. Personally, I believe that there is no higher duty on professional broadcasters than to strive to achieve, as far as possible over a reasonable period of time, of course, due impartiality on matters of controversy. Broadcasting more than any other media has a special responsibility because it has a special influence over the whole climate of opinion and culture in our society. My experience over a long life in public affairs is that controversial issues are rarely as black and white as crusading journalists would like to think—and I started life as a crusading journalist. Long before John Birt became Director-General of the BBC he championed the concept of "a mission to explain", which seems to me to he a sound doctrine.
Accordingly, I welcome the spelling out of these matters for the first time in the Agreement in paragraph 5. However, I do not share the degree of distrust of, and

31
almost a sense of hostility towards, the programme makers which underlay the speech of the noble Viscount. Perhaps I may say without offence that I recognise both the reality of the problems he has analysed and the strength of feeling that he and other colleagues have about these difficult problems: but it could very easily become an illiberal approach. Therefore, I believe that the noble Viscount and the House will not be surprised that on these Benches we prefer a liberal approach to these matters and have a greater degree of trust as regards the programme makers themselves than is perhaps wholly shared in some other quarters of the House.
There are other major matters of concern about the arrangements for the governors. I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said about the strange change of language which dilutes the responsibilities of the national governors of the BBC. I would like to add a point to that. The regions of England have no national governor or formal link with the board of governors. Perhaps as a Scot I may put in a word for the English in that respect.
I am told that the Government gave serious consideration to a proposal submitted by the Broadcasting for Scotland organisation which suggested that there should be four national broadcasting councils, one for each of the home nations, including England. That would put Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a equal footing with England and would end what has basically been a rather second-class constitutional relationship. More importantly, however, it would signal a serious new commitment to regionalism.
The English broadcasting council and its governor would be non-metropolitan in character and would prove a powerful force in countering what is undoubtedly the increasing centralism that arises from some of the changes to the present Charter. It is true that some effort has been made by the BBC to disperse programme-making out into the provinces, but not very much. Scotland is certainly a long way from enjoying anything like the Goschen formula in terms of its share of programme-making. There is a very long way to go indeed. I strongly press the Government to reconsider that point.
I also feel that it is important to strengthen the Charter and Agreement specifically in relation to educational programmes. The Minister commended the BBC's scale of programming, but I think that a production target needs to be written into the Agreement similar to that which Channel 4 has to face in terms of the Broadcasting Act.
Another new issue for the BBC is the expanding scale of its commercial activities. I regard them as welcome in themselves as an additional source of income. Indeed, they are essential if the BBC is to compete effectively in the new age of digital broadcasting. However, keeping the proportions right and ensuring that the public service, publicly funded side of the BBC remains dominant is of great importance. There are legitimate concerns that the BBC should not compete unfairly. As the Consumers' Association stated in its representation, there must be strict external controls in place to deal with those dangers. I should have thought that there is
32
a good deal to be said for the BBC doing what certain charitable foundations do, and setting up a separate but wholly owned subsidiary to carry out its commercial activities, transparently insulated from the public funding of the licence fee.
It is against that background that I should like to say a final word about the privatisation of the transmission services. I see that in the face of the Government's obsession with privatisation the BBC has decided to surrender, as the IBA was compelled to do at the tail end of the 1990 Broadcasting Act. Privatising terrestrial transmission raises the same issues as privatising the Royal Mail. Both have to provide the same universal service to remote listeners and viewers, whatever the cost. Two transmitters can reach the whole of Greater London, with its population of 12 million, but it takes 90 transmitters to cover the 1 million people who live in the Grampian region of Scotland.
I think that the existing terrestrial transmitter system is a silly one. It was silly when it was publicly owned both ways and it is still silly. The BBC and commercial broadcasting share the same transmitter sites and towers, each side acting as the other's landlord over half of the sites. A single public corporation serving both sides would always have been much more sensible, but I recognise that that is not going to happen. The logic is that if there has to be privatisation, National Transcommunications Ltd (NTL) should he able to bid for the contract for the BBC side of broadcasting and therefore be able to provide a single integrated service under effective and firm regulation by Oftel. I am happy that the BBC should receive funds from the privatisation, but I hope that when the matter is dealt with the Department for National Heritage will consider whether the public interest might be served by an outcome which provides a single integrated service.
The fact remains that, despite those various strictures on the new proposals, for all the BBC's flaws which at times irritate its admirers (of whom I am one) and for all its internal neuroses which must at times have driven its governors and senior management to distraction, it remains one of the Britain's greatest national treasures and one of our biggest national and international assets. Despite Royal Charters, it is ultimately Parliament's responsibility to enable the BBC to continue that role into the new digital age of multi-channel television and information technology.
4.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am delighted to have an opportunity of contributing to this debate and thank the noble Lord for tabling the Motion that stands in his name. I am delighted also to he able to agree with the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she says that the BBC "is a national jewel".
I particularly want to contribute to the debate because one of the responsibilities I have is to chair the Central Religious Advisory Council—CRAC for short—and it is CRAC's responsibility to offer advice to the BBC and ITC in connection with religious programmes.

33
There have been many changes in society since the days when Lord Reith saw the religious responsibilities of the BBC in such a particular way. Religious affiliation has declined as far as the Christian denominations are concerned and we now live in a multi-faith environment. Religion is an ever-broadening and ever-changing concept within society. Yet the broadcasters continue to have a responsibility to provide programmes that both celebrate religious faith and explore it in an intelligent and meaningful way.
When we compare the present output of the BBC and the ITV channels we find another significant change. The 1990 Broadcasting Act required the independent companies to provide sufficient time for religious programmes. The ITC has defined this as being two hours each week and this has been scheduled for Sunday mornings. There seems, on the face of it, some logic in that. Sunday mornings are perhaps the remaining time in the whole week when people are likely to feel slightly religious. The housebound and the sick who would have been in church are also able to join in the acts of worship. Yet for the vast bulk of the potential audience for religious programmes Sunday mornings are the least suitable time. After all, they are out of their homes and away from TV screens worshipping God with their fellow Christians. The fact is that the ITV companies now provide no programming of a religious nature on a regular basis at peak times that can meet the needs of this part of the audience. Sadly, ITV's average audience for its religious programmes has fallen to 0.6 million viewers. This is despite the programmes being of excellent quality and in many ways just the sort of thing that the Churches would want to see being broadcast.
This leaves the BBC as the only broadcaster providing programming of a religious nature at peak viewing times—and not just on Sunday morning. The continuing popularity of "Songs of Praise"—it had an audience of 6 million viewers the other week when presented by Sir Harry Secombe, who ironically used to front ITV's Sunday evening religious slot—and the passionate and committed nature of the correspondence regularly received by the religious broadcasting department, show that there continues to be a large demand and a real interest in something that is often dismissed as being very much of minority appeal.
I am pleased to see that once more the Agreement as presented to us requires the BBC to include in its home services,
"programmes of an educational nature—including specialist factual, religious and social issue programmes".
In doing so it gives a firmer commitment than before to the place of religious broadcasting within the BBC. It goes on to say that no programming should exploit or abuse,
"the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination".
I would ask, on behalf of the Christian community but also, if I might he so hold, on behalf of all faith communities in this country, that the religious programming as foreseen in the Charter and Agreement is viewed as being vital to the work of the BBC; that it is not sidelined as competition with terrestrial and satellite
34
broadcasters becomes ever more intense; and that quality is always foremost in the minds of producers and commissioning editors.
Some might challenge me by asking why religion should be catered for in such a way in this day and age. As I have already indicated, there is still a substantial audience for popular religious programming. As Grace Davey found in researching for her recent book Religion in Britain since 1945 over 70 per cent. of the people of this country still profess some faith in God, even though that faith may not be practised in an organised way. It is the real and deeply held spiritual needs of our people that must be catered for.
Religious broadcasting also has an educational role, particularly in teaching us about our neighbour. In my diocese of Southwark we have representatives of all faith communities and there is a pressing need for each of us to understand what our neighbour holds dear, to appreciate the deep beliefs that give them identity. Thoughtful broadcasting can help us to understand one another in such a way that the sense of community is enhanced. This is true within the Christian community as much as within the wider nation Many Roman Catholics will have had their only taste of Protestant worship from the TV or radio; many Protestants will have shared in a Catholic Mass through the same media. It can only be for the good.
The BBC has had a long tradition of drawing the nation together. We saw that demonstrated powerfully last year in the excellent coverage provided for the VE and VJ commemorations. In a remarkable way, the programmes caught the national mood and helped us all to share in events that were important for so many. Although this kind of coverage is not always solely or even mainly of a religious nature, there is often an element of worship there, and always present is the mission of building up community, something to which members of all faiths are committed.
I want to mention briefly two other factors that need to be considered as we look at the draft Charter and Agreement. The first is something that the membership of CRAC deems to be important but it is not solely the concern of those who would call themselves religious. I refer to standards of taste and decency.
I believe very strongly that the BBC', along with all broadcasters and media companies, has a responsibility to maintain standards of decency. The question is always: what is considered tasteful and decent? Watching television I sometimes ask myself what kind of dinosaur I have become. The standards we have always held as a family—and I speak personally—are not always reflected in what is happening on the screen in my sitting room. Yes, I use the on/off switch frequently but there are many young, vulnerable and impressionable people who do not and who, I believe, are deeply affected by what they see.
The debate on what is and is not acceptable on the broadcast media has to be ongoing and so I welcome the fact that this Charter clarifies and emphasises the responsibility of the BBC to uphold standards of taste and decency.

35
This leads me to my third and final point. I support and agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. This Charter enhances and stresses the importance of accountability. The national jewel is the people's jewel. The BBC is there to serve the public, to respond to opinion, to need, to opportunity. This can be achieved only by real accountability at all levels. I welcome the fact that the needs and the opinions of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are to be represented directly to the Board of Governors through national broadcasting councils. This is an excellent proposal. I would simply ask: what about the people of England?
As a native of Northern Ireland I feel that I can justifiably ask this question. It would seem to me, from my time as a bishop in Yorkshire, that there are sufficient regional variations within England for there to be the need for proper regional and national representation.
I am aware that the regional advisory councils, many members of which come from particular faith communities, have already written to the Secretary of State registering their deep concern about the gaps and the shortfalls in the provisions for accountability within this draft Charter. They have a deep concern and feel no little alarm that although regional advisory councils are to be retained no mention is made of local radio advisory councils or of the English National Forum.
In each of the three national regions (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) there is a governor whose specific task is to represent the interests of the national region concerned. Would it not have been wise to make the same provision for England? This has to be put right if the BBC is to be responsive to the needs of the people of these islands into the next millennium. Therefore, I would ask that the Secretary of State look again at the whole structure of accountability as it has been proposed.
The BBC is very much a jewel in our national heritage. Its standards of programming, of production and of responsibility are exemplary. I would ask that the Charter and Agreement that are finally agreed should enhance and reinforce a commitment to religious broadcasting, to standards of taste and decency and to a realistic accountability to all our people.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, it would be right to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his admirable speech. We cannot hear too much from our Bishops. I know that they have many other things to do but we need to keep the flame alight in this House all the time. His presence and his participation in the debate helps us in that direction.
Some years ago when we debated the Education Bill we had a tremendous tussle about religious education. The Government's viewpoint was that one merely mentioned religious education but not Christianity. Many Members of your Lordships' House believed that the word "Christianity" should appear somewhere in the Charter. There is an obligation on the BBC but it just
36
mentions religion. We ended up with a compromise in the Education Bill which provided for mainly but not exclusively Christian education. That was a good compromise because the name is kept in front of the nation.
I was greatly interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I call him a good friend because for much of our lives we have been closely associated with television. I believe that the word "charter" is being slightly over used. I am not sure that it does not add to the unnecessary arrogance of some members of the BBC.
This morning I went to the Library and asked how many Royal Charters there are. Someone rang the Privy Council Office and then told me that there are now 449 Royal Charters. That is five more than when I asked the question six months ago. Therefore, a Royal Charter is not unusual and I wonder whether the BBC, as it becomes more intertwined with the commercial aspects and development of television, is right to continue to use that term. In particular, this House is very well equipped to debate such matters. I have checked and have discovered that there are 10 governors or ex-governors in this House, most of whom arc taking part in this debate. Therefore, their approach to the BBC, even if it is sometimes rusty, is enthusiastic and very solid. We should encourage them to speak in our debates. We are better equipped to debate such matters than is the other place and we do not have to look over our shoulders to see whether we are offending a few voters in the criticisms that we make. In this House, that consideration does not exist. In the other place I had a majority of 600 in a constituency of 10,000 Jewish people. I had to watch my step as regards what I said when I was dependent on that majority.
I am surprised that no regulatory authority has been established. I was extremely pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, mentioned a regulatory authority. The group of which I am a member discussed that matter over and over again and asked what sort of formula there should be for a regulatory authority. I hope that this House will ensure that the proposed regulatory authority has the powers that it needs when we begin our discussions on the Broadcasting Bill next week.
The monopoly was broken up some 40 years ago, when I was a Member of the other place. We had hoped that there would he no need for a regulatory authority in relation to public service broadcasting. However, there is now such a great deal of sex, pornography and bad taste that it is clear that there is a need for some improvement in the present organisation. We sought to solve that problem by strengthening the governors' responsibilities. I was going to say that that makes them bisexual but what I mean is that they are wearing two hats: one as a regulatory authority in charge of organisation: and the other, as regulator of programmes. That will he extremely difficult. We wish them well. When my noble friend replies to the debate, I ask him to say whether he will agree to the amendment tabled by my noble friend which seeks to give the governors extra strength and responsibilities so that they can carry out their duties and accomplish what we hope they will achieve.

37
During the past five years, tremendous regulatory powers have been granted to oversee public utilities. That started with Oftel. I believe that that was established in 1984 and it has been extremely successful. The first head of Oftel was Sir Bryan Carsberg who set the right standards. But in this one field of radio and television, we have never dared to create a regulatory authority. Because of the multiplicity of interests, the time is coming when a decision about that will he forced on both Houses of Parliament.
In 1988, in anticipation of the 1990 Broadcasting Act, I founded a group open to all parties. We had some extremely talented Cross-Benchers and some Tories from these Benches and one or two others. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was able to attend once or twice, which was particularly appropriate. I only wish that we had been able to attract more people because this is a cross-party matter. There is no point in trying to make this issue highly political because it cannot be, if we are to be realistic.
I do not know who were the fierce people quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who threatened the Government with the abolition of the licence, but that threat did not come from any members of our group. All 20 members of the group agreed that public service broadcasting should exist and that it should be preserved and purified in the process.
The Commons Select Committee made a very strong point that the new Charter and Agreement was of such importance that it should no longer be included as an annexe. It advocated that it should be part of the new Charter. That was not accepted by the Government who took the view that it should be part of the Agreement. Their view was that that would provide more flexibility and allow adjustments to be made in line with changing technology and competitive requirements. We submitted our recommendations to the Government. We had difficulty in ensuring that where producers and editors disregarded codes of conduct, sanctions were exercised. There is no purpose in levelling fines because they would be merely paid from the £1.8 billion which the BBC collects.
Some of us pointed out that sportsmen who disregard the rules may be suspended. For example, a footballer is shown first a yellow card as a warning and then a red card which means that he is suspended from playing football for some period of time—and sometimes quite a long period. We pointed out also that car drivers have a licence and if a driving offence is committed, that is marked upon the licence and ultimately, the driver may be disqualified. I cannot see why it is wrong to suspend editors and others in the BBC who make sound bites and nasty snide remarks which are not necessary and which do not add to the entertainment in any way.
There should be standards of morality in relation to sex, violence, pornography and personal abuse. In those areas, standards seem to be falling progressively and are not upheld although we still see some wonderful programmes, an example of which is "Pride and Prejudice". I understand that each programme in that series cost £1 million. Therefore, it is certainly necessary to watch the budget. All those demands will
38
put the BBC under tremendous financial pressure. I hope that my noble friend will tell us whether the BBC's finances will be open to examination by the House of Commons. I cannot see how else that can be done independently and I suggest that the House of Commons is the right place to provide that facility.
Some friends of mine who do not sleep easily listened to night-time radio on Radio 5—"Radio 5 Alive". They tell me that they were horrified on the night of 9th/10th January of last year to hear a regular broadcast asking people to telephone in if they thought that the Royal Family and their children were misbehaving. I hope that a fairly small audience heard that sound bite. But my friends tell me that on Radio 4 early that morning it was said that the BBC had conducted a poll during the night about the Royal Family and that 1,000 people had telephoned with their criticisms of the Royal Family. When I wrote to complain, I was told that no records were kept or something like that. But that is a totally uncalled-for smear on the Royal Family.
After that, I looked carefully at the Producers' Guidelines and they are meticulous on that subject. They say that one must be very careful in relation to polls. Polls should be conducted over a wide spectrum of people who represent all types in all parts of the country and they should not be used lightly. That poll on the Royal Family was used unnecessarily lightly. I asked what penalties had been exercised against Radio 4 and Radio 5 on that occasion and I was told that none was exercised.
That is not the only example. On 30th October at 5.30, during Radio 4's 5 p.m. programme, there was a sound bite which said:
"The Queen won't have had any difficulty recognising a fake Prime Minister. She has been dealing with John Major now for some few years".
That is both insulting to the Queen and to the Prime Minister of the day. Moreover, it was an unnecessary, nasty little sound bite. I hope that one can exorcise that situation. It does not come from the top division; it does not come from the second division: it comes from chaps and ladies in the third division. I am sure that they could be brought into line.
On an earlier occasion, Radio 5 broadcast a Sunday programme imitating the voices of Prince Charles and of Camilla in a telephone conversation to the effect:
"I'm divorced now, are you going to get divorced now darling?",
and so on. It epitomises bad taste when such comments are put into an entertainment programme. For example, we all know that almost every institution from the Royal Family to the Church, to Parliament, to our police, to our judiciary—indeed, almost every institution upon which the solid foundation of our nation has been built—comes in for derision and insults from time to time. But we so seldom hear a programme which is dedicated to the praising of those institutions upon which we are so dependent. I hope that the governors can influence the situation in the long run.
I have been reading various papers from organisations such as Mary Whitehouse's NVALA (the National Viewers and Listeners Association) membership of which is 180,000 which makes it a substantial

39
organisation. One reads in the papers about how listeners' branches will be started up in different parts of the country. That is all very well, but there are one or two very large organisations—for example, the Consumers' Association is another with over 150,000 active members—so why are they not used to deal with the feeling about the BBC?
Incidentally—and I must remind the House about this horrifying thing—Mary Whitehouse was suspended in the days of Sir Hugh Greene for 11 years because she criticised a programme as being not as she or her members would have wished it. She was suspended. A notice was put out, of which she received a copy, saying that any member of the BBC staff who invited her to take part in a programme or who attended one of her functions or organisations would find that his job with the BBC was at risk. That was written by the Director General at the time, Sir Hugh Carleton Greene. I find it surprising that that situation existed for 11 years and that not one of the 20,000 or so people employed there spoke up for her independence, whereas, if any politician makes any sort of reference to such a situation he is slain alive before he gets home. The Consumers' Association has sent me a brief containing very good material. I believe that the association should also be used as consultants.
I turn now to one more relevant function. It relates to a bad occasion when the Japanese VJ day was celebrated. It concerns a Mr. Gar Alperowitz who is a very Left-wing—that is to put it mildly—citizen of the United States. He is deeply anti-American and deeply anti-Europe or British. He was used as a main adviser. It all started in 1989 when the BBC's historical series "Time Watch" handed over its programme on the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Japan to this radical Left-wing American historian. Since 1965 he has been publishing books arguing that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were known to be militarily unnecessary because the Japanese would have surrendered anyway without the need of an atomic bombing by the allies. Instead, Mr. Gar Alperowitz claimed that the bombs were dropped to intimidate Stalin and for no other reason. The. 1989 programme ended with the claim:
"There is no doubt that the bombing of Hiroshima was also the beginning of the Cold War and of the arms race".
When the BBC was challenged on that preposterous claim the secretary of the corporation responded in July 1990 as follows:
"You contend that historians do not, in the main, accept that Hiroshima was the start of the Cold War and of the arms race. The BBC believe that it is fair to describe that particular claim as commanding general assent among informed historians".
I am glad to say that five historians came forward and said that that claim was outrageous and that history and every other reason and piece of evidence show that that action saved a great many British and American lives. Six leading British professionals swore to that effect and so, eventually; the BBC withdrew and said that it was probably correct. The awful fact is that when VE day was celebrated in 1995 six years later, the same gentleman was asked over here and given carte blanche
40
to make his claims yet again. Surely there must be some way of tackling people who insult the privilege that they have in the BBC and making quite clear that such views are unworthy.
I have mentioned the issue of arrogance which I am sure is not customary, but I should like to mention one other point which I believe to be important. I refer to the fact that the BBC still pick on certain people and will not use them. One of those people is Ian Curteis. His "Falklands Play", which many of us remember, was rejected by the BBC and replaced by "Tumbledown" which was a highly hostile play both to the British attitude and to the British troops who were serving in the area. Moreover, not only was it shown once; indeed, it was repeated three times. Incidentally, two other plays were then shown both of which were violently anti-Thatcher. So impartiality is nowhere there in that connection. We need to watch the situation much more carefully. I should add that Ian Curteis, who is a remarkably good playwright, had two further plays rejected because, presumably, they were too pro Margaret Thatcher. One was on "Yalta" which I would have said was a desperate disappointment and a fiddle. It was so arranged that we and America suffered as a result. Therefore, when a person of that type is taken on, care must be taken to ensure that the history is accurate.
I shall conclude with a summary of the matters which I believe need to be attended to. I have mentioned the financial aspect and the matter of supervision with which, perhaps, my noble friend the Minister will deal. There is also the need to keep in touch with organisations like the Consumers' Association, NVALA and the National Consumer Council. They arc all objective in the area. I wish the best to the governors of the BBC. They give us good service, but they must give us some firm action. They need to ensure that action follows the condemnation and upholds the complaints which are bound to arise. I give the BBC full marks for all that it is doing which is right, but I believe that some correction is needed in that area.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, we are of course wrestling with the familiar problem of the position of the governors both as the public watch dog and as the chief executive of the BBC. There is no doubt that the governors arc the chief executive in the sense that they appoint the director general and a number of other senior officials. Article 7 of the present Charter also imposes upon them numerous other managerial duties. Therefore, people ask, "How can they he the public watch dog at the same time?"
As a result of various things that have happened in the past, I believe that people have formed a new perception of the BBC; namely, that of a great public institution which is partially out of control. If a complaint is held up by the Broadcasting Standards Council, the governors appear to do nothing. No one is reprimanded. Even on the rare occasions when the governors apologise, no head, not even an assistant head, is ever seen to roll. The programme makers simply carry on as they have before.

41
Let me say at once that this new perception of the BBC is at best a half truth and perhaps not even that. There have been a number of hands-on chairmen of the BBC; Charles Hill was one; and Mr. Hussey was certainly another. Indeed, Mr. Hussey and his fellow governors went further than their predecessors ever dared to do. They sacked the director general when they thought he had gone off the rails. But of course that is not a sanction one can use week in, week out. One cannot go on sacking one's director generals; so where does responsibility lie? Of course it lies in the hands of the director general and his senior staff. How, then, arc the governors to ensure that the programme makers do not flout the rules which they themselves have laid down about violence, decency and impartiality? There is no doubt that the Government have taken this matter to heart and the drafts before us show major changes from the past, but are they quite major enough? Instead of requiring the governors merely to monitor and supervise the corporation's work, the Charter should require the governors to enforce the fulfilment of the corporation's obligations. Again, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said, the governors should ensure that the controllers, senior executives and programme directors should sign a copy of the codes and declare they will abide by them. When complaints have been upheld, the Agreement should state that they shall indicate what action has been taken to prevent a recurrence.
Anyone who has been at the head of any large institution knows that written directives have limited value. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said only the other day that there is only one way to ensure that the will of a governing body or a board of directors is accepted and acted upon, and that is by means of the managing director and his staff. First, the chairman and the managing director must work as one and conceal nothing between them. Secondly, the managing director must communicate with and obtain the consent and co-operation of his chief executives in carrying out the board's wishes. I have to say that that is not the case today. It was outrageous and it was an insult to Mr. Hussey that the director general did not inform him that. Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was to give an interview on television. I have yet to meet a producer or a programme maker who does not say that morale in the BBC is low today because of the director general's inability to communicate with and carry the staff with him.
Let me say at once that the director general was entirely right to insist on sweeping retrenchment in the BBC. If he had not done so, the BBC would now be bankrupt. He deserves praise for pushing through policies that were bound to be unpopular. Of course, the jury is still out as to whether those were the right policies. The policy of producer choice was designed to encourage producers to shop around to find the cheapest way to get their programmes made. As a result—if I may give one example—a large number of skilled cameramen were made redundant at considerable cost and whole departments were closed. What has happened is that the same cameramen are re-hired as independent operators, often at a higher cost. Whereas once the cry
42
was, "Go outside to independent companies and get your programmes made cheaper", today it is, "Get your programmes made inside the BBC because large areas of production are underutilised". I have no right at all to say whether these allegations are correct and what the right policies should have been. However, there is another matter which I think is much more important than these procedural matters and that is the question of impartiality.
The clause on impartiality in the Broadcasting Act 1990 is now incorporated in paragraphs 3.2(c) and 5.1(c) of the Agreement and it is referred to in Article 7(f) of the Charter. There is no more controversial topic in broadcasting than impartiality. Anyone who wants to enforce programme standards comes up against the same old problem. The words, actions and pictures that give offence to some do not give offence to others. Eighteen years ago the Committee or the Future of Broadcasting came down against establishing a tribunal of taste on the grounds that it would loom over the broadcasters if it were executive, or, if it were not, it would be ineffective. The Broadcasting Standards Council, which of course is not executive, so far from looming usually gives the benefit of the doubt to the broadcasters, in some cases so egregiously that it seems to be excessively wimpish. It certainly is ineffective. Its decisions are often ignored and I must ask where in the Charter or Agreement is it laid down that when a complaint is upheld the governors will insist that the BBC broadcasts an apology and states what action it has taken to prevent a recurrence?
I do not believe that the BBC is biased towards or against any political party but it is the nature of journalism—and perhaps of drama—to criticise government (with a small "g") and authority (with a small "a"). Impartiality cannot be achieved in every programme. However, while it is right—I will defend that to my dying day—that orthodoxy and those in power should be challenged and examined, it is essential that the established view and the problems that face those who take decisions should he put, as they certainly were not in the case of Professor Gar Alperowitz's programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing referred.
Dons are often accused of living in ivory towers. I sometimes wonder whether the broadcasters do not live in hothouses where the windows have misted up so that they are out of touch with what their fellow countrymen are thinking and therefore do not foresee the offence that their programmes cause. That is particularly true of drama. I remember Sir Charles Curran saying to me that the reason so many polemical dramas hostile to authority were shown was that there were no writers of a different viewpoint available. I suggested that it was up to the drama department to find them. The BBC used to excuse its choice of programmes by arguing that such plays which were anti-authority were balanced by the Trooping of the Colour broadcast. Today it cites "Pride and Prejudice". Both those explanations are puerile. In the report of our committee we stated,

43
"No writer or producer should have grounds for believing that there is a BBC ideology to which he has to conform if he is to be given a hearing".
Today there certainly are grounds for that belief. I am not referring simply to Mr. Ian Curteis. I have evidence emanating from the department itself that that certainly is so.
There is another side to this matter, and I must put it with all the force in my power. Broadcasters are always under pressure not to offend powerful interests. If pressure groups grow too strong they will kill the geese that lay the golden eggs, and they will mislead the public. The price of belonging to a society in which there is freedom of speech is that someone will always be offended.
I wonder whether the Minister remembers Alf Garnett. He may be too young. Alf was a genuine work of creative imagination. His language was true to his nature, and it was terrible. His appalling views were only too true to life and therefore, perhaps, induced some viewers to be ashamed, for instance, of their own suppressed racism.
Most of us know very little or nothing of what it is like to create programmes. The success of many excellent programmes is that their creators go right up to the frontier that divides a challenging programme from an offensive programme. However, good directors accept that there is a frontier and are willing—no doubt often with a sigh—to leave on the cutting floor sequences which go beyond that frontier. That was the secret of those like Sir Tony Jay and his collaborators who devised "Tonight" in the 1950s and 1960s and "Yes, Minister" in the 1980s.
Self censorship is by far the best and indeed the only way for broadcasters to avoid the governors imposing more rules and more codes, and still more to avoid an outside body doing so. I was deeply distressed to hear that both the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, rather hankered after a supra body with executive powers which would loom over the whole of broadcasting. If one creates such a body and it has executive powers it will be at best a fidget and at worst will inhibit the creativity that we have to nurture. It will consist of those who do not understand how artists work and would dislike them if they did.
That is why I found it impossible to go along with those noble Lords who wanted to add in paragraph 5.1(d) to the Agreement after:
"do not include anything which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage"
the words "violence or sexual immorality". If one did that, most of literature from The Iliad to Lady Chatterley's Lover would be ruled out on the grounds that it would encourage adultery, in one sense or another, particularly if visual images of the act were televised. One can imagine what Ken Russell would do with the rape of Helen.
If noble Lords doubt that, they should consider what happened when the Obscene Publications Act was passed and the Crown immediately brought criminal
44
proceedings against the publisher of D. H. Lawrence's work. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not add those words in paragraph 5, which would endanger creativity in broadcasting. We should remember that if one imposes over the creators of programmes a body which has no direct connection with them one will destroy the creativity that is needed for really exciting and interesting programmes.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with virtually the whole of which I agree. I also congratulate the Minister on his opening speech and on presenting the draft Charter and Agreement to us. Like my noble friend Lord Donoughue, I should like to thank him for the innovative idea of inviting us to a private session to discuss the Charter and Agreement in advance. That was a great help and I was delighted to be able to take part. The Minister was right to emphasise the vital nature of public service broadcasting and why it is essential that the BBC should be a central part of that.
I declare my past interest as vice-chairman of the BBC for seven years. I like to think that, together with the current chairman, Marmaduke Hussey, and two former governors who are present—the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady James—who were also a great help, I played a small part in ensuring the renewal of the Charter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for saying as much.
I see the new Charter as a vote of confidence in the future of the BBC. That is not quite what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said. I am in agreement with my noble friend Lord Donoughue in regretting that it is for five years only. I would have preferred a 10-year Charter.
As the current chairman will not serve his full term but will leave on 1st April this year, I should like to pay a personal tribute to him. It was a joy to work with him. He has been an excellent independent chairman of the BBC and has done a very good job, as all who know him will agree. I do not know his successor, but I wish him well in the job that he is taking on.
There are a few taking part in this debate who will always be unhappy about the BBC and any charter and any agreement. Those few are represented by those who have tabled the amendment—the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and one or two others. I have always considered the group as a kind of mafia, if they will forgive me for putting it that way. I mean it in the nicest possible way. I was invited to join them, but I have no intention of so doing. I have a feeling that I would not agree with them. They clearly want the guidelines to be strengthened. They refer to that as clarification. They would like sanctions to be available to the hoard of governors against the hoard of management. We do not usually use strong language in your Lordships' House, but, with the greatest possible respect, the amendment is not only unnecessary, as the Minister pointed out, but it is also absurd, for two reasons. First, the board of governors has the power

45
under the current Charter. Secondly, if we arc not careful we shall destroy the very independence of the BBC of which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, spoke so eloquently. Perhaps I may give one or two examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to an occasion which I remember well. Marmaduke Hussey and I had just joined the BBC as chairman and vice-chairman. We were in the room with the then director general. We gave him two pieces of paper, one sacking him and one tendering his resignation. I do not know how much tougher noble Lords want sanctions to be. That is what we did under the existing Charter, let alone under a new one.
In those circumstances I do not know how much stronger the mafia—or to put it in nicer terms, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—and even the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whom I certainly would not include in any mafia, would want sanctions to be. It is certainly not clarification that they are seeking. That is quite clear. Clarification is written into the draft Charter and Agreement. The board of governors has already asked for and sought strengthening of the Charter and Agreement. However, I suspect that what the mover of the amendment and its supporters seek is not clarification. In that sense, if I may put it bluntly, the movers, are, frankly, dishonest. That is not too strong a word. They seek to demand a BBC which no longer exists. It is true that the BBC was (I emphasise the word "was") complacent, arrogant, inefficient and bureaucratic. I accept that. But that is not the case today. It is leaner and fitter and, despite that, still produces quality programmes.
The second reason that the amendment is absurd stems from the first. If the board of governors, whoever its members may be—they will be neither saints, angels or whatever—constantly interferes, one will never gain or keep a decent board of management. That is a plain fact. Of course a board of management will make mistakes. That has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. It did so over the famous "Panorama" programme about Princess Diana. That was a major error. I think that it was right to make the programme; it was a great coup. But the board was wrong in the following respect. Normally it does not tell the chairman of the BBC in advance about programmes. However, this was not a normal occasion; nor was it a normal programme. The board certainly had every right to consult the BBC chairman in advance. That it did not do so, was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as an insult to the chairman. That is certainly true. It was also plainly stupid. The idea that the chairman would have gone rushing round to the palace when told that the Princess wished the programme kept secret until it was broadcast, means that those members do not know the man. Of course he would not have done that. It was therefore crazy of the director general and others who knew to keep the matter from the chairman.
The director general has been much criticised, not only on this but on many other occasions. Usually it has been over-done. On the whole he has been a great director general who has made changes on both financial matters and programme production which have been of great benefit to the BBC.
46
Perhaps I may add my views to those of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and my noble friend Lord Donoughue, about having a regulatory authority over the board of governers and board of management. If one is not careful, one will not have an independent BBC. One will have one regulatory authority over another. I hope that my noble friend Lord Donoughue, and any other friends to whom he talks, will drop that idea. It is a nonsense. We do not need any more regulatory authorities. I should have no objection to a House of Commons Select Committee, a Select Committee of the House of Lords or a joint committee.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, referred to terrible things that have been done. Members of the board of management, and its "underlings" inevitably will make mistakes over the years. When you are putting out thousands of hours of television and radio, both national and local, it would be unbelievable if no mistakes were ever made. However, the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, were one sided. I have not heard the response from the BBC; I should like to hear it. But the idea that the board will never make a mistake is a nonsense. Of course it will. However, the use of sanctions is not what is required. That would destroy the BBC as we know it and as we want it.
I refer briefly to the question of impartiality. The BBC has always sought to be impartial. From time to time it will have appeared to all of us that it has been lacking in impartiality. But on the whole that is usually in the eye of the beholder, or in the eyes of different beholders. In other words, one cannot please everyone all the time. That certainly applies, by the spadeful one might say, to the BBC.
We now have further safeguards written formally into the Agreement at paragraph 3.3. There is a requirement for impartiality in the daily account of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. If I have a complaint, it is that there is not enough broadcasting of the House of Lords. It is usually a much better broadcasting Chamber than the House of Commons. In normal circumstances we have a better quality of debate than in another place. With 20 years' experience, I can say that we have very good expertise here. But the requirement of an impartial daily account is vital and I am delighted that it is now written into the Agreement. Perhaps I may make a plea as regards Question Time: that there is a better selection of speakers, perhaps from the House of Lords. In the House of Lords we have a better selection than in another place. But that is another matter. I am obviously prejudiced.
I return briefly to the question of violence. Again one cannot please everyone. But the amount of violence on British television has been grossly exaggerated over the years, usually by those who do not watch it. Most recent evidence is from an independent survey in August 1995 carried out by Sheffield University. It indicates that violence on BBC. ITV and Channel 4 accounted for just 0.61 per cent. of programme output time compared with 1.1 per cent. in 1986. Therefore it is not a serious problem although any violence may offend many viewers.

47
My complaint is as regards the requirement in paragraph 3.2(d) of the Agreement to,
"provide wide-ranging coverage oporting and other leisure activities".
That is an impossible requirement. How on earth can the BBC do that if major sport activities such as the World Cup, national cup finals, major soccer and rugby, golf, cricket and, eventually I fear, Wimbledon, all go to the highest bidder; namely, Sky? I mentioned this issue to the Minister. I now understand from the Prime Minister that the matter is being considered. I do not normally agree with the Prime Minister, but if he does something about the matter he has my complete assurance that I shall agree with him.
Finally, perhaps I may revert to the need for a truly independent BBC. That does not mean that it can or should be able to do what it likes. The strengthening of the Charter and Agreement rightly puts clear obligations on the board of governors. It is for the board to ensure that public service broadcasting by the BBC sets standards for others to follow. Thus, for example, the BBC is already widely regarded as the most trustworthy of broadcasters. In an RI survey published in April 1994, 67 per cent. agreed that the BBC was excellent or very good at providing,
"a responsible, trustworthy and balanced coverage of news and current affairs".
The figures for ITV, Channel 4 and commercial radio were all significantly lower. That is the best answer to the critics.
There is little doubt that the Charter and Agreement are the best way to regulate the BBC rather than an Act of Parliament or an amended Charter along the lines moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. In the current way suggested by the Government, the BBC is given invaluable flexibility and independence while ensuring that it has to be responsible for setting high standards. Those are not just my views. The all-party House of Commons Select Committee said that it had,
"heard no decisive argument for changing a regulatory framework which has worked well for nearly 70 years".
That is why I congratulate the Government on their good sense in introducing this draft Charter and Agreement. I hope that they will not agree to any amendments.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, if everyone in the BBC always spoke with the lucidity, honesty and practical common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, probably we would not be expressing some of the concerns that I intend to express today. I wish to apologise in advance, as a former governor of the BBC, for being seen, after that very positive speech, to make some continually negative comments. I make them because I care.
I want to pay my tribute to the 99 per cent. of BBC output which is excellent and unique. I especially admire, as everyone does, the BBC World Service. I had the pleasure of seeing the World Television Service last
48
week in Hong Kong. I also admire the unique monitoring service at Caversham, to which I owe so much, the Summary of World Broadcasts.
I could talk, as we all could talk about brilliant TV documentaries like "The Death of Yugoslavia", the 1994 series on Russia, on Solzhenitsyn's return, and many of the "Horizon" and "Heart of the Matter" programmes and splendid programmes like "The Company"; wonderful entertainment like "Middlemarch", "The Last of the Summer Wine" and a hundred others. Of course, Radio 3 and Radio 4 are for me—except perhaps sometimes between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. in the morning—beyond praise.
It is precisely because of my pride in the BBC that I want to be sure that the Charter and the Agreement protect it and us from the damage that can sometimes be inflicted, out of all proportion, on the reputation of a great institution. It should be possible to value and protect artistic integrity and creativity and yet, as the Government do, to see that strict rules, not guidelines, are laid down where we are dealing not with an artist's creation but with documentaries about real people, with fact, not fiction.
The problem is faction. It is shoddy and unprofessional presentation, including such dubious practices as wallpapering and misrepresentation on many occasions. This has been coupled with a degree of arrogance on the part of those who produce such programmes which is difficult to accept. Rare as they are, those programmes shake public trust in an institution whose great glory has been and must he that it tries to tell the truth and to present the facts.
Of course the BBC, like all great institutions, changes all the time. The examples I intend to quote are history now, and in the past, except, I am afraid, that a recent "Panorama" programme suggests that it is not necessarily true that the leopard has changed its spots. I should therefore be surprised if some of the problems do not recur. I quote them only to illustrate our concerns.
The BBC management's treatment of the "Panorama" programme "Maggie's Militant Tendency" put out in 1984 is one example. In that case the management allowed flimsy so-called "evidence", "researched" by journalists (outside the BBC) who should have been recognised as tendentious and unreliable, to he presented to support some very serious allegations. They used what is known as "wallpapering"—unrelated library film which is cut into the text—to appear to offer visual evidence of those allegations. The management went on, when the MPs so libelled took legal action, to ignore the view of the BBC's own lawyers that the case was too weak to have any chance of success in court and to reject all proposals for a settlement with apologies. The director-general assured the governors that the evidence was "rock-solid". The case went to court in 1986 and the BBC was the poorer by nearly half a million pounds in damages and costs—money which could have been better spent on programmes. The case collapsed because it had rested from the first on flimsy evidence, unreliable witnesses and poor, if not disingenuous, research.

49
It is relevant to our concerns today that the NUJ then threatened to ballot for industrial action should any disciplinary action be considered against the BBC journalists involved. The managing director of television hastened to give a public assurance that there would be no internal inquiry.
In this and in other such cases there is always a dilemma for the governors. It is right for the BBC to do fearless investigative journalism, but it is wrong for it to permit itself to be thoroughly unprofessional in its procedures and then to he unwilling or unable to admit fault.
I do not intend to speak at length about the "Real Lives" affair in 1985—in which I was cast as a demon—except to cite three aspects which are relevant today. First, the governors would never have had to view that programme (unusually, but it was and is their right) if the guidelines had been observed. The Standing Instructions and Guidance for Coverage of Matters Affecting Northern Ireland said clearly that:
"interviews with individuals deemed to be closely associated with a terrorist organisation"—
in that case Martin McGuinness—
"may not be sought or transmitted"—
two separate stages—
"without the prior permission of the Director-General".
That was not done. Consequently, the governors were not told by the director-general—who did not know—that such a programme was about to be put out. However, the Radio Times knew well enough in advance to put out a long article beforehand and the press had a preview.
Secondly, confronted with a situation where the procedures of referral had been flouted and the director-general had not seen the programme, the governors decided that in his absence abroad they would have to see it for themselves. Indeed, they felt that it would strengthen their hand and that of the chairman in the political confrontation which they could then expect to follow if they had seen it and could say that, despite the breakdown in the rules, they were satisfied that it was a fair and proper programme. That is what we all expected to be the case. The governors expected to be able to defend it and they could not credibly do so without seeing it. It proved to be unacceptable in a number of ways, and even the board of management admitted that significant additions and amendments needed to be made.
Yet—and this is my third point—when the chairman, speaking for the board, recorded a vital interview with BBC Television to explain the governors' position—that we had taken a decision not to speak ourselves at all to the press—the BBC's own journalists did not transmit that interview. They did not tell the chairman that they had censored him. Only some eight to 10 lines of several other such statements recorded by the chairman for radio and television were transmitted. Ironically, the voice of the governors of the BBC was heard only on ITN's "News at Ten'". Meanwhile, the board of management failed to admit that they too had thought the film needed amendment, suppressed as far as they could any admission that the BBC's own rules had been broken
50
and within the corporation and publicly gave the credit for telling the Home Secretary that the BBC rejected censorship to the director-general and not to the chairman. It was the chairman who actually led the BBC deputation and spoke for the BBC.
It seems hardly credible, but it is true, that 12 BBC documentary features producers actually wrote to The Times to say that the guidelines had been followed,
"to the last comma and to the last full stop".
That was totally untrue and they had to know that it was untrue.
Noble Lords will say that those are old wars. They are, but the issues are perennial. I shall be very glad to be told that nothing of this sort happens now or could happen again. The corporation must in this new Charter and Agreement—in general, they are both admirable documents—be seen to be prepared to work by rules, not by guidelines, on certain sensitive issues and to have both provision for specific sanctions for those who break the rules and the readiness to accept that when the governors, the director-general or the board of management decide to use those sanctions they will be implemented. No one should be above the law in this as in other matters.
The governors, as I well know, care as fiercely as any member of the corporation for artistic integrity and independence, creativity and the fearless presentation of facts. But it must be facts and not faction. There must be the means to correct the damage done by unprofessional, dishonest or shoddy, ill-researched work by a handful of people who can often be as arrogant as they are incompetent—though I do not doubt their sincere conviction that they are always right.
The BBC needs to be seen now to face the fact that it is laughable to say that the governors are in charge of and responsible for the BBC and that they have the ultimate power of editorial control, as they do, if the policies and strategy for which they are responsible cannot be enforced because of a culture that rejects the idea of enforcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that we cannot sack the director-general every day. That is indeed true. Much of the uneasy relationship that at times exists between governors and management arises from that special ideology and a lack of trust and definition of respective rights and duties. Flexibility is all very well but not when it degenerates into fluidity and uncertainty. Some plain statements on where particular bucks stop—for this is very difficult anyway with the director-general as (to change the metaphor) the joker in the pack—would be more helpful than not. But the main thing is that the reputation of a great institution is too precious to be put at risk by fudge and compromise. I simply want to see the professionals drive out the unprofessional.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, there was always a danger that a debate on this subject would develop into a confrontation between two schools of thought: on the

51
one hand what might he called the BBC-bashers, who have the same view of Broadcasting House as the Ayatollah Khomeini had of the White House, and on the other those who speak reverently of the corporation as the greatest broadcasting organisation in the world and a paragon of all the virtues. The truth, as we used to say when I was a leader writer on The Times, probably lies somewhere between.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, the BBC World Service is certainly a unique and valuable institution whose standards and integrity we all have a vested interest in defending. On the other hand, it might be generally agreed, even by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that there is substantial room for improvement in some of the BBC's domestic services, both in radio and in television. I put it for the moment no more strongly than that.
As the noble Baroness just said, it would be deplorable if a small number of ideologically motivated producers and a few self-regarding interviewers and presenters were allowed freedom to damage the BBC's reputation for fairness, accuracy and objectivity. With this in mind, I express my strong support for the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote.
There is a great deal to be said for the two documents that we are debating today, much of it positive. However, their principal defining weakness is that they do very little to impose adequate disciplines on some of the more dubious activities of the BBC's programme makers. It is perhaps not altogether surprising that the corporation as a whole has welcomed this draft charter so warmly. The basic problem, as already advanced by several noble Lords in this and previous debates, lies in the dual role of the governors of the BBC. They are required to act in effect as the non-executive directors of the board of a large commercial organisation and at the same time to regulate the activities of its executives and employees. This would be a difficult enough responsibility if the product of the company were submarines or cuckoo clocks; but the product of the BBC is a stream of news, information and entertainment which has immense—I go as far as to say unparalleled—power and influence over the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour of millions of people of all ages.
It is pointless to debate this issue today since the Government have already decided, in my view regrettably, that the BBC is not, like the commercial broadcasting sector, to be bound by statutory legislation (the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, made reference to this) but is to be subject to the provisions of the Charter and Agreement of which we are invited to take note today; that is, in effect, to be self-regulating.
It would in theory be possible for a board of governors to resolve what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, called a conflict of interests and to impose its will on the programme makers in matters concerning taste, standards of decency, objectivity and impartiality. After all, in commerce and industry there is no reason why the non-executive directors of a company should not play a part in running that company as a profitable
52
organisation and at the same time act as the guardians and arbiters of the ethical standards and activities of the workforce as a whole.
Yet many would argue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that in the BBC that has just not happened. The governors have not achieved that resolution of the conflict of interest. No one who watches television or listens to radio needs to be reminded of the numerous occasions on which acceptable standards of taste, decency and objectivity have been deliberately flouted by producers, presenters and interviewers.
There is a strong impression—which I certainly share as I have personal experience of it—that when the corporation is subjected to criticism from outside the governors are more likely to close ranks with their executives than to ask whether it might be necessary to put their house in order. That may, of course, have something to do with the fact that under the present system the staff who formulate the recommendations to the governors are the staff of the BBC itself. Any suggestion that the governors of the BBC should exercise some form of firm discipline in these matters is met with protests—we heard them again several times in this House today—about the need to maintain the independence of the BBC.
I am bound to say that I fail entirely to understand how the independence of the BBC would be in any way diminished by requiring the corporation to accept the same obligations regarding its standards as commercial radio and television are required to accept under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the codes of the two authorities that flow from that. Under the provisions of the programme codes of the ITC and the Radio Authority, broadcasters who contravene the codes are subject to punitive sanctions, ranging from substantial fines to, in extreme cases, the withdrawal of a franchise or licence to broadcast.
Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I suggest that it is not enough for the Charter and Agreement to ensure that the governors have the necessary powers to require programme makers to abide by certain rules; they must also ensure that the governors use those powers and are made to use them, and that they apply sanctions (penalties or punishments, whatever they might be called) against those who break or ignore the rules.
The familiar argument against this approach is that the BBC cannot be expected to fine one of its own stations or networks, as the only money it has is licence payers' money, and that it is perverse to expect the corporation to close down one of its own programmes or stations. That may be so; but there is absolutely no reason, and none has been given during this debate, why programme makers and broadcasters should not be subject personally to public reprimand and, if necessary, to financial penalties or even dismissal.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, made a considerable amount of the fact that the board of governors had sacked one director-general. That was indeed a great cause célèbre. But I think it is generally agreed that a great number of other producers, directors, presenters,

53
interviewers and programme makers have got away with something very close to murder in the making of programmes.
Perhaps at this point I may express support for the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue—in spite of the powerful arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Barnett—for a single regulatory authority. There should be one single regulatory authority of some kind in this country governing the whole of broadcasting, both radio and television. I do not believe that there is any danger that this would become a board of censors any more than the ITC or the Radio Authority are a hoard of censors. They are perfectly capable of regulating the whole of the commercial sector, and I see no reason why a central regulatory authority should not regulate properly, in a balanced and perfectly democratic and liberal way, the activities of the BBC.
So in considering the Charter and the Agreement, it is important to ask, as does the noble Viscount with his amendment, whether the documents adequately clarify—I repeat "clarify"—the responsibilities and authority of the governors of the BBC. I suggest that they do not. I go further and say that, unless the Government undertake to put that right and undertake on the Floor of the House tonight that they will do so, I hope that the noble Viscount will press his amendment to a Division. I believe that sufficient concern has already been expressed in your Lordships' House.
It is my understanding from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who opened this debate with such skill and clarity and will reply at the end, that if there is a demonstration that this House and Parliament as a whole are not happy with the draft documents, the Government will reconsider them and possibly incorporate some amendments. I hope that he will repeat that undertaking formally in the House when he comes to reply tonight.
Because of the obvious shortage of time, I intend to limit my remarks to one aspect of the Charter and the Agreement. Perhaps I may take first the draft Charter and refer to page 8, Article 7(1)(f), which states that the governors are required to:
"monitor and supervise the Corporation's fulfilment of its legal"
etc. I repeat a feeling that has been expressed in other parts of the House that that is not enough. They must not only monitor and supervise these affairs but they must enforce them and make sure that anything laid down in any code is observed. The Charter goes on to say that they must:
"ensure that the Corporation and its employees and all programme makers engaged by the Corporation comply with the provisions of any code which the Corporation is required to draw up".
That may sound quite draconian and quite firm but when we compare it with the Agreement, we find at paragraph 5.3 a somewhat peculiar formulation and a somewhat odd form of words. It states that:
"The Corporation shall…draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance as to the rules to be observed".
I find it very difficult to know what that means—
"a code giving guidance as to the rules".
54
Surely all that we need say, and I hope that in any revision of the Charter the Government will ensure that it is said, is "draw up a code to be observed"—that is all that one needs to say—and if then that code is not observed, that simple consequences will ensue.
There are many other things that could be said about the two documents, but there is not the time to say them. I should, however, like to deal with one aspect of this matter, in which it has been argued that some of the weaknesses might be rectified when the new Broadcasting Bill comes before Parliament and by the requirement on the governors to comply with,
"any lawful directions given to the Corporation oy the Broadcasting Complaints Commission or the Broadcasting Standards Council",
or any body which succeeds them. But we should bear in mind that the Broadcasting Bill, which sets out the powers of the new body that is to take the place of both the BCC and the BSC. does not have its Second Reading in your Lordships' House until the 16th of this month. No one knows how it might be changed during what I feel might he a fairly long passage for this legislation. I simply do not believe that we should base our approach to the Charter and Agreement on any assumptions made about what the Broadcasting Act 1996 will look like after it has been through both Houses of Parliament. Certainly I expect that there will be numerous amendments to the Bill in its present form. Certainly, having read the Bill, on first impression I believe that there are serious defects in the section which deals with the new Broadcasting Standards Commission, especially as regards complaints about fairness and impartiality.
The documents that we are discussing today should be considered in isolation. They are documents of the first importance. They will govern the activities of the BBC, which is often described by the Government as the cornerstone of British broadcasting, into the next millennium. The BBC itself and today the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, welcomed the Charter as a vote of confidence in the future of the BBC. If, and only if, the Government will recognise the concern implicit in the noble Viscount's amendment and make the necessary changes to the documents, will it he a vote of confidence that we shall all, I am sure, he happy to endorse.
6.5 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to give a very warm welcome to the Government's draft BBC Charter and Agreement. They will take the corporation through the next millennium to the year 2006, when no doubt we shall again have a similar debate.
The BBC was founded by Royal Charter 70 years ago in 1926. It must be right that the principle of a Royal Charter continues. Although perhaps not perfect, it has fundamentally worked extremely well. But the BBC is not just a broadcaster. It has specific duties in its role as a public service broadcaster, funded by the television-owning public who, we must remember, pay whether or not they watch.
I do not believe that the BBC should be governed by an Act of Parliament. I do believe that the BBC should be fully accountable to Parliament. The proposed

55
Charter and the Agreement are not a Bill, as we all know, and therefore are not subject to amendment. But they are as important as any major Bill that comes before your Lordships' House.
Every parliamentary draftsman who produces a Bill always thinks that his or her words are the best ever, absolutely perfect and do not need changing. But, as your Lordships know, every Bill that comes before this House is studied carefully at Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. Amendments are inevitably made. Bills usually leave this House improved. That is the role of this House. We are a revising Chamber. I very much hope that the Government will not only listen carefully, but, where and if they are persuaded that improvements can be made to the Charter and the Agreement, will be prepared to make those improvements.
Ensuring that the BBC is accountable to Parliament means giving the governors sufficient power to ensure that the corporation not only sticks to the Agreement but also sticks to the spirit of the Agreement. Like other noble Lords, I also am concerned about the role of the governors. Are they to be responsible for the running of the corporation or are they to represent the public interest? As we heard, it is both. The vitally important question that must be asked is: Do the Charter and the Agreement give them the power and authority to do that? I believe that they do.
But there is a conflict of interest here. The commercial broadcasters are governed by the ITC, which is responsible for ensuring regulation. The governors are asked to do that for the BBC as well as be responsible for its management. Therefore they must wear two hats. I hope that the governors will look carefully at the ITC's codes on programmes and practices. They are strict about product placement, commercial relationships and standards; and are enforced by the ITC with warnings, fines and the ultimate sanction of withdrawal of the licence.
Certainly, in my mind, there is some confusion in the Agreement about the code giving guidance to the rules and about the rules themselves, referring in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, to Article 5.3 and 5.4. Article 5 states:
"The Corporation shall…do all that it can to secure that the provisions of the code are observed".
What does "do all that it can" mean? Whose code is it? Of course, it is the BBC's code. I believe that the governors should have an absolute duty to secure the provisions of the code, not a qualified one.
What happens when the code is broken, and perhaps broken regularly? As we know, the BBC cannot fine itself, so how can producers be reprimanded? The governors have an ultimate power to sack the producers, but that is an ultimate deterrent and so it can hardly ever be used. What can be done to prevent day-to-day minor infringements of the code? I hope that my noble friend the Minister can shed some light on that and explain. I am sure that when he winds up he will be able to deal with some of the anxieties of my noble friend Lord
56
Caldecote—shared by many in your Lordships' House—in relation to how the governors are to fulfil their responsibilities.
Perhaps I can turn to another area which would benefit from a clear statement from my noble friend the Minister. For some years, quite rightly, the BBC has built up its commercial ventures. They are now a successful and huge source of income for the corporation. The BBC has come to arrangements with satellite and terrestrial broadcasters; BBC books are always at the top of the publishers' list; videos and magazines based on BBC programmes fill the shelves of high street newsagents.
The Government have sought to maintain the split between the licence fee income and the commercial income in order to ensure fair competition by including Article 4 in the Charter and Paragraphs 4 and 10 in the Agreement. Those are admirable provisions and clearly set out the split between the two. But they do not demonstrate how that is to be monitored and checked. I understand that that is to be the role of the auditors. Will the Secretary of State give the auditors clear instructions, and a brief to check that the licence fee income is kept separate from commercial income? That is an important issue because we want the BBC to grow and increase its commercial activities. But the independent broadcasting industry—television, radio, publishing and others—must not find itself placed at a competitive disadvantage, particularly as sponsorship now plays such an important part in BBC programming.
I warmly welcome the planned sale of the transmission services and the fact that it will be an open bidding process to raise the most money possible. The funds arising from the sale will enable the BBC to invest in new digital production technology which will become so important in the future.
The BBC has an exciting future as a public service broadcaster. But I am sure that it will need continually to develop and be prepared to change where necessary. More competition out there will mean fewer viewers for each channel. More specialist services and programming will be needed. Does the BBC need to compete in every area? It is in effect using public money to compete with the commercial broadcasters who already make their service available free to the public. Let me give one small example. In London we have not only Radio 1, but also the local BBC radio pop station, GLR, as well as the commercial stations—all after the same audience.
I am not sure that the BBC needs to compete on every level. Of course it needs a mass audience to justify the licence fee; that is what the BBC is all about. But taken as a whole, looking at television and radio, the BBC needs to pick carefully where it should be in the market. The same must go for sports. Not every match or game needs to be on the box. It must be primarily for the sports bodies themselves to come to an arrangement with the broadcasters.
Sport in this country has benefited enormously from the huge rises in sponsorship and broadcasting income. It has made a big difference to sports clubs of all kinds—better stands and facilities which attract more spectators and more young people into playing and

57
competing in sport. I never understood the argument that all sport should be free on the television. After all, one cannot go and see a match for free. Equally odd is the view that without all sport on the television being free, youth will be discouraged. It is the youth who are out there playing somewhere on pitches or watching in stands that have been built with the money generated from broadcasting.
We have the list that was established to protect major events. There is an argument that it should be extended. But we should take great care before rushing down that road. It would cut down moneys going to sport and be a restriction of trade. Satellite has meant that there is now more sport on the television which is of better quality and on for longer. I accept that for some it means buying a dish and the expense that that necessarily incurs. But one cannot have something for nothing. I watched the exciting Ryder Cup on BSkyB—the whole match. I should never have been able to do that if it had been on the BBC; it would have been taken off halfway through as "Neighbours" and the rest of the scheduled programmes took over.
Whether we like it or not, pay-to-view sport, whether on satellite or Cable, is here to stay, and it is the future. believe that we have the situation about right with the list intended to protect some of the major sporting events. Though the 1990 Broadcasting Act prevents the listed events going to pay-per-view television, it does not stop them going on subscription television. It is important that there is free competition for all those who wish to bid and any uncompetitive practices should be immediately taken up by the competition authorities.
As I said earlier, I welcome the new Charter and Agreement. I welcome also the announcement of the appointment of Sir Christopher Bland as chairman. I am sure that he will make a worthy successor to Marmaduke Hussey, who has been such an admirable chairman of the BBC.
I end with a confession. I shall not be able to stay to hear my noble friend wind up. Today is my 20th wedding anniversary and, though I risk incurring the wrath of my noble friend the Chief Whip, that would be nothing compared to the wrath I face if I am late for her Ladyship's dinner. I hope therefore that your Lordships will forgive me on this occasion.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I do not want to spoil the wedding anniversary of the noble Viscount, but I disagree profoundly with many of the points he made in his speech and hope to deal with them in the course of my remarks.
A number of noble Lords mentioned their interests in and connections with the BBC. Perhaps I should state that I have a considerable number. First, I was a BBC radio and television producer for some 15 years; I was a member of its general advisory council for six years; one of my daughters works for the BBC and, periodically, I work as a reporter in its programme "See Hear". That is the sum of my interests, which are considerable.
58
I was fascinated to watch the clash of views and opinions on this important subject of the BBC Charter and Agreement. One of my great pleasures as a producer in BBC television was working with the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I believe the programme in those days was the "Brains Trust". He certainly justified his intellectual kudos in today's debate with his magnificent speech, though I shall be disagreeing with both him and my noble friend Lord Barnett when I come to discuss regulation.
I welcome both the Charter and the Agreement. The main thrust of those documents is a justified endorsement of the BBC. The detail of the Agreement reminds us of the qualities and strengths of the BBC; of its provision of a wide range of services, all for general reception; of the high quality of programme standards and of course of its vital independence.
Naturally, we all tend to watch our favourite programmes. But on occasions like this we are reminded of the wide range of the BBC; of its important other roles of encouraging people such as writers and musicians; of supporting charities; and of broadcasting beyond these shores. To many foreign people the BBC is Britain.
I welcome the careful and cautious way in which the BBC is moving into the commercial sphere. Avoiding cross-subsidy is a tedious and complicated process but is essential. It is equally important to ensure that all BBC domestic programmes are available free to licence holders. I have no doubt that the BBC will do that. The new media world will be exciting but many people will not be able to afford to participate. That is regrettable.
The extension of the Charter is eminently sensible because we cannot see to the end of the decade, let alone beyond it. Any shorter period would make long-term planning impossible. It is deplorable that the licence fee system is guaranteed only for five years of the new Charter. I see the licence fee as a concomitant of the BBC's public service broadcasting. If the Government are edging—I suspect they are—towards forcing the BBC to adopt another main source of funding in five years' time, they will be reversing the Government's own commitment to public service broadcasting. That will meet with very strong opposition in this House and in the House of Commons.
On the licence fee, I strongly support the recommendation of the Select Committee of another place that payment should be made much less of a burden on those on low incomes, including many pensioners. Even if the licence fee is guaranteed for the length of the Charter, the BBC will be facing unprecedented challenges and difficulties in the complex media world which is changing at a fantastic speed. The erosion of the BBC's coverage of major sporting events is disturbing and must be stopped. It is certainly not in the interests of the viewers; and. in the long-term, if they could only see it, it will not he in the interests of the players, either.
To watch any television programme the viewer has to pay the BBC television licence fee, so the BBC has a very heavy responsibility. Is its accountability, its regulation and its reaction to viewers, and listeners

59
adequate? That is the real question. We have heard eloquent defences of the BBC today—I am one of its greatest admirers—but to what extent will the structures of today meet the consumer challenges of tomorrow? The BBC's Board of Governors has performed a useful function in the past and is rightly jealous of its autonomy and proud of its independence. Long may that remain so. I agree that the board's job is to look after the public interest in this vast corporation and not to manage it. I doubt whether the governors can effectively fulfil that function when the BBC is buffeted by the fast approaching whirlwinds of technological, commercial and consumer change.
In an increasingly open society this closed and in some ways closeted group of distinguished people must withstand the closest scrutiny. How were they selected? On what criteria were they invited? What kind of issues do they discuss? According to the Charter they approve clear objectives and monitor how far the corporation meets them and its pledges to its audiences. But how effectively will they be able to do that in the future? Why cannot we have more transparency? Those questions go to the very heart of the governance of the BBC. Even with the obligations laid down in the Charter it is questionable whether the present structure will be sufficiently powerful and transparent to satisfy viewers and listeners on the issues of accountability and regulation.
The proposed merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be a step forward. I believe that we should go further. A broadcasting consumer council with power to investigate complaints, publish reports and carry out research would be a most effective advance on accountability. Such a body has long been advocated by the Consumers' Association but the Government have rejected the proposal on the ground that interposing such a body between the BBC and its audience, as the Government put it, would undermine the BBC's close direct links with its audience. That is a feeble excuse. The policy ought to be that a complaint is made first to the broadcasting authority, and if the complainant is still dissatisfied it should go to the council. It is as simple, as honest, as plain, as straightforward and as comprehensive as that.
Finally, on the issue of regulation, I want to make these points. I have heard a number of criticisms of producers today implying that those few instances are general. That is nonsensical because the high standards of BBC producers are the strength and the power of the BBC. The producers are the BBC. It is absurd to try to tar them all with this brush with regard to the few instances of which we have heard. I am all for encouraging the independence and creativity of producers. But that does not mean that the structure of the governors of the BBC should remain untouched. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, put forward the hackneyed idea that the present structure has worked for 70 years and asked, "Why tamper with it?" He should recognise that we are not now dealing with the past 70 years and that we are not now living in the past 70 years. We are living in the present and we are dealing with the future.
60
Because we are dealing with the future and with the Charter of the BBC we should look carefully at the structure and see whether there are good reasons for change.
Are there good reasons for change? In the Broadcasting Bill which we shall debate next week it is made clear that the technological revolution has already started. We shall soon be immersed in controversies of cross-media ownership, multi-media services, digital terrestrial television, digital satellite broadcasting and the problems of multiplexes. In the debate on the White Paper my noble friend Lord Donoughue put forward a suggestion for a unitary authority. I believe that we now need a new unitary authority in addition to the Broadcasting Standards Commission which could integrate the ITC and regulate the BBC, ITV and satellite and cable television.
When my noble friend put forward that idea—he mentioned it again today—he was trying to cope with all the complex problems which are about to hit the BBC and the whole world of broadcasting. He was quite right. I hope that Members of this House will support the proposal for a new unitary structure for regulation. It is now the time to plan new structures which are flexible and strong and which are capable of coping with the new challenging problems of the future.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness James of Holland Park: My Lords, we are today debating the future of the greatest and most respected broadcasting organisation in the world and I make no apology for that description. We are considering the way in which, through the new Charter and revised Agreement, the reputation of the BBC for integrity, independence and excellence can be safeguarded to serve this nation and the world to the millennium and beyond. It is an important debate and I have listened with pleasure and edification to some distinguished speakers.
I was aged three when the corporation came legally into being and for over 70 years, like many of your Lordships, I suspect, I have looked to the BBC for information, education, entertainment, excitement and, indeed, solace in times of peace and through the turbulent years of war. The arrival of television greatly enriched my life, particularly my knowledge and appreciation of the natural world, and although much that it broadcast was trivial and ephemeral, I can recall with gratitude programmes of outstanding quality, particularly in current affairs, drama and the arts, which have left a lasting impression.
Television at its best enables us to know and better understand our world; to know and better understand each other; and to know and better understand ourselves. I have been privileged to serve the BBC, first, as a member of the General Advisory Council and then, from 1988 to 1993 as a governor under the chairman, Marmaduke Hussey, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as his deputy. It was a formidable combination. It is largely due to their wisdom, their vision of what the BBC had to do to ensure its future, and their resolution

61
in ensuring that it was done, that we are in the happy position today of considering the new Charter and the revised Agreement.
It is easy for some of us, particularly the old, to enjoy a nostalgic regret for the past and make frequent references to so-called Reithian values while overlooking the vast social and political changes which have occurred since the last war. We owe much to our founding father, but I very much doubt whether he would have made a successful director-general today. His job, in size, was roughly equivalent to that of the controller of Radio 4. He operated a monopoly without fear of competition and with an assured income. The BBC served a largely cohesive United Kingdom, which, although there were grave inequalities of wealth and opportunity, had a common heritage derived from the Judaeo-Christian tradition of Western Europe, and common allegiances; a nation more accepting than today of authority, both spiritual and temporal, and affirming moral principles which, although they might not always be followed, were seldom publicly questioned.
The BBC today serves a society which is pluralist; ethnically, culturally, religiously and indeed morally. It is a society in which an ever-increasing choice is available in entertainment as in other personal satisfactions, and people expect to exercise that choice. Lord Reith's paternalistic philosophy of giving his audience not what they wanted but what, under his benign education, they might come to want, would not be acceptable today. The statement in the BBC handbook of 1928 that the BBC is doing its best to prevent any decay of Christianity in a nominally Christian country would find no place in a 1996 mission statement.
But we have abundant evidence, most recently in the public response to the Government's consultation document, that the British public still value the moral and ethical principles on which public service broadcasting was established and expect the BBC to demonstrate these values in its programming and its conduct.
It is on this foundation of trust and integrity that we look to the new Charter and Agreement to provide a firm framework within which the BBC can with confidence meet the challenges and opportunities of the next decade. I believe that, with some small reservations, it does provide that framework.
The system of placing responsibility for the BBC in the hands of 12 governors has served the corporation well and it is right that it should be continued; but it has always had its ambiguities and tensions. The governors, as noble Lords have pointed out, are responsible for the good management of the corporation—indeed, legally they are the BBC—but are required at the same time to safeguard the interests of licence payers by monitoring, assessing and occasionally criticising the product for which they themselves are ultimately responsible.
There has, too, been much discussion over the decades about the different responsibilities of the board of governors and the board of management and where the dividing line between these responsibilities should properly be set. Article 7(1) of the Charter addresses
62
these problems and for the first time sets out in detail the role of the BBC board of governors and separates it from that of the board of management. The governors have the responsibility of approving clear objectives for the corporation's services, determining strategy, ensuring that the public's role is recognised by dealing properly with complaints and monitoring how far promises have been fulfilled. They are also required to ensure that the code, so clearly set out, is adhered to by BBC staff.
A number of noble Lords have expressed concern that this last obligation is not underpinned by a requirement that the BBC should report what action has been taken when there has been an infringement of the code. I have some sympathy with their misgivings. It has, from time to time, been a matter of concern that only too often offenders seem able to escape with their reputations and careers intact. But if the BBC is to be encouraged, even indirectly, to establish formal disciplinary procedures and to punish alleged infringement of the code with appropriate sanctions, then it must presumably include a provision for a formal appeal against the disciplinary findings. This might be effective in a few clear cases, but many complaints are in that difficult area of taste and decency, which is the hardest to define and which is often a matter of individual perception and judgment. The Charter and the Agreement set out unambiguously the responsibilities of the governors. Let us trust them to fulfil what is so clearly committed to their charge. We have, of course, a right to expect that appropriate action will be taken, will be seen to be taken, and will be made public.
The BBC exists for one purpose only: to broadcast programmes by sound and vision of the highest excellence to the largest number of people. Yet paradoxically it is in this area of programme-making that the governors have least power. By tradition they do not preview programmes and I think that that is sensible and proper, although they should retain the right to do so in exceptional circumstances. But they have a responsibility to ensure that the provisions in the Charter and Agreement relating to programme content and standards are met, and this involves full co-operation and trust between the governors and the board of management in the common pursuit of excellence, distinctiveness and impartiality. At the very least, where programmes of national importance or of possible controversy are concerned, the governors have the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn. I share the concern expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Barnett, that the recent "Panorama" by the Princess of Wales was arranged, as it were, behind the governors' backs and behind also the backs of the Palace. It was a programme of huge national and international interest and of constitutional importance. So far from the governors being informed, considerable care was taken to keep them in ignorance. Surely here there was a failure both of responsibility and of trust.
The new Paragraph 3 of the Agreement incorporates the BBC's undertakings on programme content and here I would like to make two comments: one in support of the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the

63
Bishop of Southwark. Religious programmes are included in Paragraph 3.2(e) under programmes of an educational nature and are linked with social issue programmes. I hope that this almost casual mention does not adumbrate a lessening of the BBC's commitment to specifically religious programmes, not necessarily always Christian, but including the broadcasting of Christian services, which I know are broadcasts which are greatly valued by the elderly and the housebound. The spiritual dimension of human life is important and interesting—and not only to those who are committed to a particular creed. Religious broadcasting should not be regarded as a necessary sop to an eccentric minority.
I should also like to see a reference in the paragraph to the BBC's responsibilities as a patron of the arts. The noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Donoughue, referred to that. By commissioning new works of music, the visual arts or the spoken word, the BBC provides a vital stimulus to the artistic, cultural and creative life of this country. We are in no danger of neglecting the classics. The recent highly acclaimed adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice" gave immense pleasure, but we need to encourage the new as well as celebrating and reinterpreting the old. I should have liked to have seen included in Paragraph 3 a duty on the BBC to continue its admirable policy of commissioning a proportion of original work in its artistic output.
The new Paragraph 5 of the Agreement formalises the BBC's undertakings on programme standards and places the corporation's duty on a par with that placed on the independent sector by Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act of 1990. This, although not welcomed by the BBC, is surely right. However, I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about the wording of Paragraph 5.3(a). The use of the three words "code", "guidance" and "rules" could smudge the clear responsibility set out in that paragraph. I agree that it is preferable simply to say, "a code to be observed".
The BBC is always in some difficulty in regard to ratings. The received wisdom is that if they fall below a certain percentage of the audience—and a figure is quoted from time to time—the public will question the justification for a compulsory levy in the form of a licence fee for services which so few listen to or watch. Nothing would be more fatal to the continuance of the BBC than a Gadarene swine plunging after high ratings. That would indeed be a slippery slope to disaster. Although BBC radio services are in general distinctive, I am afraid that there is a tendency for television to place mass-market appeal above those qualities of distinctiveness and excellence so clearly set out in the BBC's response to the White Paper. I have occasionally felt that if I covered up the channel headings in the day's schedule of programmes in the Radio Times, it would be difficult to know with certainty which programmes were from the BBC.
The issue of taste and decency has already been covered and I make only one point in regard to sexual explicitness. Television should come into our homes as a welcome guest, not a salacious intruder. Sexual indecency, as well as being publicly unacceptable, is artistically bad. "Pride and Prejudice" has shown that
64
one glance between a man and a woman across a drawing room can be more erotic than minutes of naked writhings and heavings on a rumpled bed. There is some hope that directors are beginning to learn that lesson.
I must just mention money. If we want the BBC, we must be prepared to pay for it. The biggest problem facing the corporation is, and will continue to be, finance. We have already seen how Sky television is acquiring rights to major sporting events which many licence payers feel they have the right to expect on terrestrial television. Could there not be a graded licence fee with four banks of income, with the richest people paying perhaps £250 for their licence fee? Many thousands could afford it and it would still be cheap at the price. I am sometimes a little distressed when I go into a post office and see with what care the poorer members of society are affixing their television licence stamps. For them, the licence—good value as it is—is indeed onerous. If we are to be trusted to complete our income tax returns, surely we can be trusted to pay a licence fee in accordance with our bank of income? The BBC would gain; it could not possibly lose.
I have one final point to make—indeed, it is an appeal. It echoes the concern expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Annan. I agree with every word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his distinguished speech, particularly his words on the dangers of a regulatory authority. Much of the best of the BBC's output in sound and vision is creative, particularly modern drama—and creativity can flourish only in an atmosphere of freedom. To attempt to circumscribe it by tightly drawn regulations or to monitor every step of the creative process and submit it to over-timid scrutiny will stifle the originality and creative vitality on which the BBC must depend if its programmes are to be distinctive. Of course, creativity cannot be exercised in a moral vacuum and artistic freedom does not imply artistic licence, but I would rather risk occasional offence if the writer's intention is honest than be subjected to a bland and unchallenging diet of conformity.
We are entering a decade in which communication technology will revolutionise broadcasting and open up almost limitless possibilities of additional services. The new Charter and Agreement will enable the BBC to exploit those opportunities and will ensure that the corporation remains in the forefront of exciting technical advances, including digital terrestrial television. But while we welcome this brave new world—and some of us wish that we could understand it—I should like to end by recalling the words of Lord Hill in a lecture given in March 1969:
"Technical advances, however astonishing, are only a means to an end. What counts is the way they are used. At all times and in all circumstances, the BBC will be judged on the quality of its programmes. To ensure that this quality is maintained and enhanced it must seek out new and exciting talents and provide the conditions in which they can work. It must continue to strive to create programmes which provide not only delight but something more. The BBC has a responsibility to broaden horizons, open up new interests and new areas of knowledge for its audience. It must encourage higher standards of discrimination and appreciation in all fields".
Those words remain as true today as they were when they were first spoken.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, I am feeling a little peculiar. I have studied the Charter and Agreement and responded to them and, of course, I share many of the anxieties that have been expressed about departures from impartiality and accuracy and about offensive material relating to sex and violence. However, there is a third aspect which needs to be considered in relation to the quality of programmes which seems to have received hardly any attention this evening. I refer to the cultural or aesthetic excellence of the product. The noble Baroness, Lady James, adverted to it and other noble Lords have spoken absolutely correctly about the wonderful work that the BBC has done over the years in sustaining orchestras and in bringing work that would otherwise have been confined to a relatively small circle of admirers to the notice of large numbers of people. However, as I have said, nobody has been much concerned about this other aspect of the BBC's work: its duty, as I see it, to purvey culturally excellent material.
The BBC has become a somewhat paradoxical institution. As we know, in order for it to discharge its role as a public service broadcasting institution it has to charge a licence fee; and in order to cover the extraction of the licence fee with some analgesic cream it has to put on "EastEnders" or material of mass entertainment of an undemanding and, I am inclined to suspect, coarsening variety. That tends to undermine the original purpose. And that is a paradox. The question is, in terms of the American formula for practical wisdom, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", is the thing broken enough to fix?
I was most touched by the testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady James, as to how much the BBC meant to her. Like the noble Baroness and others, I have a mass of recollections of all that the BBC brought to me and acquainted me with over the considerable span of my existence. However, I have assessed that it has somewhat deteriorated. Is that a normal feeling, a by-product of age? I will return to that point in a moment.
The affection that we feel towards the BBC—that is, those of us who have lived a long time and remember all that it has done—is somehow incarnated in the well known description used of the BBC, "Auntie". You do not start to recompose your aunt. Your aunt is a natural object who has come before you as a result of natural processes and is not a probable, possible or tolerable object for tinkering. But the BBC, despite the emotional warmth that it evokes, is nevertheless a human contrivance and is therefore open to tinkering. I shall for a moment suggest a large piece of tinkering and then cover it with a cloth and move on to a matter which may be regarded as more practicable. After all, there is a future and what I am about to say may come into existence eventually.
How is the phrase "public service broadcasting" to be defined? There is a minimal definition of public service broadcasting: it is broadcasting from which any person gets any kind of pleasure. After all, the person in question is a small portion of the general public and one cannot please all of the people all of the time. Indeed, it
66
is wonderful enough to please one person a little. If you are pleasing the public you are giving them a service. What more can there be to public service broadcasting?
I hope that I shall not be thought to be stuck in some ghastly Reithian block of ice, or even a Matthew Arnoldian block of ice, in saying that I do not think much of that definition of public service broadcasting. The instrument is too powerful and too influential as regards the cultural life of the community to he just a kind of automatic penny-in-the-slot ice-cream machine. The material in which it deals constitutes the spiritual fabric of the community. I am sorry to be rather pious about the matter.
An important aspect of that—to me it is as important as impartiality and decency—is excellence. I say that because I believe that there are all kinds of built-in feedback mechanisms in relation to impartiality and decency. If one finds something indecent, if one is disgusted or if one is hideously fascinated, the person to blame is oneself for being too weak or corrupt to turn it off. If it errs from impartiality—if it is grossly partial—it is highly likely, in the way that school masters usually are, to excite exactly the opposite attitude to the British Empire, or whatever it is, that someone is trying to inculcate into one. On the other hand, the second rate does not evoke feedback, a mechanism that corrects it.
One way of defining public service broadcasting is as providing information and education in a broad sense but not as a handy, ingenious, pleasing substitute for school teaching. It is actual enlargement of the mind; it is enlightenment. Of course, broadcasting has always done that. It should also be entertainment, but not mere entertainment. There is such a thing as serious, mentally enlarging entertainment. That is the Reithian formula and it is what I regard as public service broadcasting.
A particular reason for confidence in that rather exclusive, snobbish, élitist definition of public service broadcasting is the existence in the United States of the Public Broadcasting Service, which is a small and not significant manoeuvre with the words. The Public Broadcasting Service—it is Channel 13 in New York and there are other channels in other cities all over the United States, so it is a great network of organisations—restricts itself to an elevated Matthew Arnold-type diet. That does not mean that there is nothing funny on it, but the programmes that are funny have to be like "Dad's Army". They are not of some whingeing, thin-nosed youth in a bedsitting room wondering whether he is HIV positive and making his friends laugh. It is a defined and institutionalised form of public service broadcasting which seems to me to incorporate in itself a tradition of interpreting the phrase "public service broadcasting" to which I would wish to attach myself. That could he done by the BBC on its own and gradually the other mass entertainment aspects could be gently floated away.
People object to that suggestion and say that the result will be a cultural ghetto to which, with the full strength of the race relations authority behind me, I answer, "What is wrong with a ghetto as long as you are let out of it and other people are let into it?". If it is a cluster where mutually stimulated people work together, well and good. Of course, as anyone who has looked at the

67
intellectual and artistic history of the 20th century will know, an enormous animating force of the heady achievements which there have been in this domain has come from the ghetto. However, perhaps that is not a wholly satisfactory argument so I shall try another, very briefly.
Do we believe that the great research universities of the country ought to offer classes in knitting oven cloths and items of that kind in order to provide total educational coverage? That is nonsense. One specialises and gives various forms of broadcasting coverage. They are needed and perfectly decent in their own way. There is no absolute final reason for having a single system. Still, it is not at all in ruins, although there are things wrong of which noble Lords have spoken.
I wish to put a little flesh on the bones of a belief that I am not alone in holding. It is that the effect on the BBC of the concentration on ratings, in order to gain them, and on mass entertainment is not good. I took the little schedule supplied freely in my Sunday paper giving television and radio programmes for the week 30th December to 6th January. Broadly, I found out the following. Applying my Arnoldian-Reithian criterion, I found that on BBC1 there was no public service broadcasting, apart from news programmes, at prime time on Saturday and Sunday. On Monday I thought that Rumer Godden was perhaps just in over the boundary and the programme about her was repeated on Tuesday. There was a programme about which I did not find out much but which looked to me to be a bit of a weepy. It may have had a serious documentary aspect and it was about Great Ormond Street Hospital. On Wednesday there was a story about some identical twins who ended up in Broadmoor, which might have had some educational quality. On Thursday and Friday there was nothing.
The picture was utterly different on BBC2, which is now a cultural ghetto, in effect, and a very good one too. Thank God we have got it! On Saturday, for example, there was an hour-long programme on Robert Graves. There was an excellent programme on film history, and so it went on through the week. On Sunday there was a film about Louis Malle's journey in India. Not wholly successful, but a good try which showed fine aspirations, was a version of Hardy's The Return of the Native.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the record of the commercial channels is worse. At least there were one or two fragments of public service broadcasting on BBC1 but ITV was absolutely free of it. There was not a touch, not a trace, not a tincture of public service broadcasting on ITV, but there was quite a bit on Channel 4. It was quite distinguished. Every night apart from Sunday and Friday Channel 4 had something serious to offer.
How does one relate what your Lordships may consider to be an absurd emotional prejudice to the reality of the documents which we are supposed to be considering? In the pledges that the BBC offers it states that it will have a large proportion of factual programmes in prime time on BBC1. I define "prime time" as from the evening news until midnight. That
68
seems to me not unreasonable, although I am not quite sure what is the professionals' definition. That is roughly from the time at which most people come home from work to the time at which, if they are sensible, they go to bed. That was the area I was covering with those programmes.
Paragraph 3.2 of the Agreement contains a number of lists of types of programme. There is absolutely nothing about our general cultural heritage being displayed, preserved or made familiar to people through the medium of broadcasting. There is a rather sinister reference to the diversity of cultural activity which, if it does not mean morris dancing in Bodmin, probably means sheep in formaldehyde; all sorts of worthy or unworthy experimental activities. But it does not mean, as it should, a diversity of our inheritance. We are more than we are because of what we inherit. I should like to see that worked into the list of responsibilities of broadcasting institutions.
There is also a matter which has been mentioned so I shall not labour the point. It is vitally important that the BBC should report on the extent to which and manner in which it meets its standards and objectives. That should be done not just for its own self-regarding purposes or to be looked at by a small group of distinguished people but so that it is publicly visible. For example, it should be possible to see what proportion of programmes of this, that or the other kind has been produced in the year, and the categories should not be too broad. Associated with that would be publication of proved offences by broadcasters and publication of what reaction those offences produced. That is coming down to rather small beer from Matthew Arnold. But in thinking about all this I keep asking myself: what would Lord Reith have made of "EastEnders"?
7.2 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, into Matthew Arnold because obviously I am a disciple of Raymond Williams. Therefore, my understanding of the word "culture" would be rather different from his.
However, I think we agree that public service broadcasting as a cultural organisation must reflect the diversity of cultures. It is increasingly difficult to do that within a context in which a major public service broadcaster is a major programme producer operating both within public funding but also operating within a market which is increasingly world-wide and dominated by all kinds of technological changes as we rapidly drift into a multi-media century.
In a sense, that is what the dilemma facing the BBC is about. I speak as someone who took part in most of the debates on broadcasting in another place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that our form of debating the future of the BBC by Royal Charter is certainly out-dated and ineffective in terms of parliamentary scrutiny.
This evening which should look for some assurances from the Minister that he is treating the debate, as I think he indicated at the beginning, as though it were a debate on an amendable text; that he is not just listening to

69
comments on a text which is set in stone or concrete; and that he is prepared to respond to arguments that are put forward.
I must declare my own financial interest as part-time paid chair of Screen Wales, a media development agency and film commission in which the BBC is a partner, and also as a director of Marches Sound independent local radio, and an occasional professional contractor for the BBC. I was also a member of a now disappeared body—the General Advisory Council.
Before I move on to specific national and regional issues, I wish to make one international point. In the programme contents section of the draft Agreement, there is reference to the importance of the home services containing:
"authoritative comprehensive, and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world".
I wish to emphasise that international aspect of the BBC's role. I am not just talking about the World Service which we all value and in particular because we can listen to it all night domestically if we are that way inclined. But having that World Service is of crucial importance both domestically and internationally.
But it is equally important that there should be documentary output on international topics on all our channels. It is a matter of concern that a recent study indicated that there has been a 40 per cent. decline across the terrestrial channels in the UK in the category which I have described under documentary output on international topics. That includes a decline on the BBC in its peak-time viewing category, and similarly on ITV and on Channel 4. That is a matter which broadcasters and the Government should address and strengthen in the draft Agreement.
I turn now to the national and regional aspects. Again, paragraph 3.2, to which I have just referred, contains a requirement to:
"stimulate, support and reflect … the diversity of cultural activity in the United Kingdom".
We must be concerned about the structure through which the BBC can deliver that.
The same paragraph goes on to emphasise the importance of containing programmes which reflect the lives and concerns of both local and national audiences. There is also a new commitment clearly stated in the Agreement to contain:
"a reasonable proportion and range of programmes for national audiences made in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and in the English regions outside London and the South East".
It is the extent to which both the Charter and the Agreement can fulfil those objectives of cultural diversity which concern me. I am sure that that concerns other Members of this House. It is important to stress that the BBC is not merely a British institution or a national institution in the English sense. It is also an extremely important cultural institution in its own right in the national regions. BBC Wales has a long history of development in dialogue and debate and occasional regular conflict with the centralising tendencies of the BBC. It was thus at the beginning of the organisation. There is a famous reference in the papers of the BBC to Lord Reith receiving a request to receive a deputation
70
from Wales. He replied, "I thought I dealt with Wales last week". Such an attitude of centralisation as opposed to the attempt to decentralise is evidenced throughout the history of the organisation and has been so well documented recently by John Davies in his history of BBC Wales which is available also—it may interest some multi-media buffs in this House to know—from BBC Wales on CD-ROM.
The issue of the BBC as a valued cultural player in both the nations and regions of the Kingdom is one which I wish to address. It occurs to me that the present structure of national councils and their appointments does not allow the BBC to be sufficiently accountable to the cultural diversity of its nations and regions. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I do not think that the present way of appointing members of the National Broadcasting Council is at all democratic or accountable.
I did that as a member of the selection panel of the General Advisory Council. I was partly responsible for selecting members of the Broadcasting Council. We attempted to recruit from a wide base and we even advertised. That is preferable to what is set out in the present Charter where it is not clear how the nomination process as regards the proposals of possible candidates is to be put in place. I am not saying that the old system of the GAC panel was the only way to do it but it at least provided a mechanism for nominations which had some objective base to it. It should be possible to look for an independent element in the appointment procedures. Such an independent process should he written into the Charter.
As we have heard before, that does not just apply to the NBCs in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is still a strong argument, which we have heard this evening, for a national broadcasting council for England to strengthen the present English regional forum and the roles of the regional advisory councils in England. It is important to recognise the autonomy of England as a cultural nation. I believe that that has been long neglected by the structures of the United Kingdom. The sooner that we get away from conflating England with London or with the United Kingdom, the easier it will be for all forms of diversity in this kingdom to be recognised. As always, I like to speak up for England.
The functions of the broadcasting councils are the next matters with which I wish to deal. I have looked briefly at the way in which they are nominated. Here again, I have some severe problems with the present draft Charter as compared with the previous structure. I understand that the Government have made an effort to look for ways of setting out more clearly the role of the NBCs; but my view is that that role falls far short of what was set out in the original White Paper. I say that because, at paragraphs 6.16 to 6.22 of that document (which all deal with the roles of national governors and national councils), it seemed to me that the Government were moving towards a structure of accountability for BBC policy and strategy—especially strategy—within the national regions which is no longer set out in the present structure.

71
Perhaps the Minister could explain—either in writing if he has time to do so after tonight's debate or, if not, in his concluding speech—what process has occurred to lead to the Government watering down the powers of the NBCs which appear to be set out in those paragraphs of the White Paper. I do not believe that "making arrangements", "advising", "assisting" and "ensuring" represent real powers. Indeed, those are the definitions in Article 12 of the draft Charter of the powers of the national broadcasting councils.
The previous Charter referred to the councils' power,
"to control programme policy and content".
Although that was perhaps a more vague bottom line, it was a stronger bottom line than what is now set out. It is important for us to hear the Government's thinking on the issue of the powers of the broadcasting councils.
I am also concerned about the way in which the description of the television services which are to be provided is set out in the draft Charter. To specify two television services for the BBC and refer to one service as a service which, "may include regional variations", hardly does justice to the quality of the English language national service provided by BBC Wales, and by the BBC in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I believe that the regional variations of the channels of the BBC should be written into both the Charter and the Agreement.
It seems to me that we are in danger of moving back to a period of further centralisation within the BBC which may be imposed upon it by greater financial stringency. We have already had reference to the importance of maintaining a balance between the BBC management structure and the accountability of the governors. The same balance has also to be delivered at the national regional level. It is no good having a balance set up at the UK-BBC level and not having that balance maintained also at the national regional level. I know that we have this rather cumbersome mechanism in Article 7(d) of the Charter whereby the corporation has to take note of advice proffered by national broadcasting councils. However, that does not seem to me to amount to genuine, decentralised accountability and certainly not to genuinely decentralised management.
The Minister will recollect that in the White Paper the Government noted that the Broadcasting Council for Wales considered that the BBC's management in Wales should be accountable to the national council rather than to the BBC's senior management. I shall not go so far as that in the proposals that I put forward this evening, but I do say that the whole issue needs to be reviewed and that the Government should take the matter away between our debate here and that in another place on the Charter and consider whether or not there are mechanisms to strengthen the national regional management and accountability both within the Charter and the Agreement. It is only thus that we can ensure that public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom genuinely represents the cultural diversity of this kingdom.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we have had a most fascinating debate thus far, but we are not even halfway through as yet. Therefore, I shall do my best not to impose upon the generosity of the House. I should like to thank the Minister for the way that he approached his task and especially to welcome some of the new proposals being laid upon the governors, in particular as regards determining strategies.
I shall talk mainly about sport this evening. It has not had much of a look-in so far, although it has been mentioned here and there. I shall also talk about how we finance sport on the BBC, which in fact has had no look-in whatever in tonight's debate. I suppose that most of the sporting public—for example, the 16 million who watched the Cup Final—will regard our debate as having had an extraordinary absence of reality. I say that because, apart from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who, if I may say so, dealt with his subject extremely well in a splendid speech, we have not got down to talking about what people actually see on their television screens. I wonder what all those millions of sporting viewers would actually think of the debate if they happened to read a report of it. They might think that it was academic, intellectual and almost esoteric in parts.
How can we have a debate on the future of BBC sport without mentioning the name of Mr. Rupert Murdoch? Indeed, his name has not been mentioned in today's debate. Nevertheless, he will determine what the future of BBC sport will be. As I said, I welcome the fact that the governors will now have to develop a strategy. I wish them well. Indeed, some of us would be happy to try to assist them, because it is essential for them to develop a strategy in respect of sport.
In his opening speech the Minister said that the Government were determined that the BBC should maintain its position in public service broadcasting and that it should do so mainly on the licensing revenue. The noble Lord looks puzzled; if he did not say those words, I am well pleased. If we are to rely on the licensing revenue to enable the BBC to broadcast sport, I have to that that is an impossible proposition. I do not direct those remarks just to the Minister; indeed, I do so also, with great care, to my noble friend Lord Donoughue who also talked about some of the difficulties of financing public service broadcasting without becoming too commercial. I am sure that that is an aim which we should all like to achieve.
In my view, BBC sport faces a catastrophic situation unless we can face up to the financing crisis which is afflicting it. Indeed, not a week goes by without us finding that the BBC has lost yet another vitally important sporting contract. The FA Cup has now gone to independent television, but that is a terrestrial channel so we cannot complain too much about it. However, it raises the question as to whether the BBC has the finances to compete even against independent television. Moreover, in many other sports that I shall mention shortly we find that the same story applies.

73
We shall be discussing the Broadcasting Bill next week. In that respect, it will be absolutely vital in the interests of the BBC, and, indeed, of the other terrestrial channels, to discuss such questions as the listed events which we have to protect or expand if we are to be fair to the large number of viewers. It is our duty to protect those viewers through this Charter and through this debate.
I am particularly saddened that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is not in the Chamber at the moment because I wanted to take issue with him as he wished to sell 40 million viewers down the river as regards their television licences. He said they could all afford to pay for the licence and that he could afford to do so. Obviously some of us can afford to pay for it. I declare an interest as a director of a Birmingham cable company. I have two subscriptions to cable television, one in Birmingham and one in Westminster. My bill for the Westminster subscription arrived this morning. The bill for the sport and news channels, which is all I have, is £18.71 a month. That kind of figure is not within the reach of the 40 million people who do not have access to Sky Television or to cable television. It is our duty to defend their rights today.
We cannot allow the coverage of certain events to fall, one after another, to Mr. Murdoch. The situation will get worse with the arrival of digital television and pay television. That will aggravate the problem. One will only be able to watch first-class sporting events if one can afford to pay more than the normal licence fee. The BBC is starved of cash and therefore it cannot carry out its responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and my noble friend Lord Donoughue referred to the matter of revenue. I think all of us would agree that the present BBC licence fee must be the best value for money in the land when we consider what we get for it in terms of radio, the World Service and television. Now the BBC must confront the high costs of technology and the threat of Mr. Murdoch and Sky Television.
We have to face the fact that new income is desperately needed. Therefore I do not rule out some form of pay television on the BBC that is available to the broad mass of people. However, I am much more interested in the development of sponsored programmes. I am not sure that all of my colleagues would go along with this line, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the BBC is not allowed to sponsor specific sports programmes, because the truth is that that is what it is doing now. Hardly a sports programme appears on our television which is not sponsored by someone. The people who receive the money are the leagues or associations, the governing bodies of the sport, the clubs and the players. All that is being broadcast by BBC Television as sponsored sport. The only people who do not get a penny out of it are the BBC, who are broadcasting the programmes into our homes. That seems to me to be rather a ludicrous situation.
We must ask from where the BBC can obtain more money, particularly for sports coverage. There should be a modest increase in the licence fee. That is important to protect public service broadcasting. However, it would seem to me that we should examine the matter of sponsored programmes producing an income for the
74
BBC rather than for everyone else who is receiving the income now. As I have said, we have sponsored programmes now. We must consider how to finance the BBC in the new technological era of Sky Television and Mr. Murdoch.
We only have to consider what the BBC has lost. It has lost football coverage. Rugby League and Rugby Union have both been lost. Mr. Murdoch is on the prowl. I am told that he is after the Olympics and he is willing to negotiate for them. I would certainly want to protect the Olympic Games if we extend the list of protected events. The BBC has coverage of Wimbledon pretty well to the end of the century but let us make no mistake about it, Mr. Murdoch and Sky Television have set their sights on that too. Athletics coverage moved from the BBC to independent television a year or two ago and has now found that it has been left in the lurch by independent television, which will no longer televise those events. I hope that coverage of those events will return to the BBC if the BBC has the resources to pay for that. The same story applies to golf.
I would cite as an example of the competition that the BBC is up against the fact that Mr. Murdoch is trying to bid for the Five Nations rugby competition for a fee of £25 million a year. That is five times what the BBC can pay for the same event. That gives us an illustration of the size of the problem that is facing us. As I say, Sky Television and Mr. Murdoch ate determined to devour BBC sports coverage first and independent television sports coverage next.
I wish to say a few words about the duties of the governing bodies of sport. That matter has quite rightly already been mentioned. The governing bodies of sport have responsibilities to the public, as have the BBC and the Government. However, in my judgment, many of those governing bodies of sport are not carrying out those duties in the way they should. They are selling their sports short for the highest amount of money they can get. They do not have enough sense to see that when Mr. Murdoch has gained coverage of all the sports he will drop his fees. They are making themselves hostages to fortune. Financially it is shortsighted nonsense for sporting bodies to have regard solely to the financial attractions offered by Sky Television.
Quite apart from the financial side, if anyone has responsibility for the broad mass of supporters of a sport it is the governing bodies just as much as the Government. I am told that often members of the governing bodies of sport find that their rights have been signed away, in many cases without any debate. I urge them to ask themselves what their duty to the nation is. An elementary consideration that does not seem to have occurred to many of those bodies is that, if coverage of all sport is on Sky Television, masses of young people may well be deprived of the opportunity of viewing a sport, getting excited about it and becoming future adherents of that sport. It is self-defeating nonsense to go down that road.
A balance needs to be struck. Of course the governing bodies want to earn as much as they can from television coverage of sport and of course the BBC does not pay them as much as it should. I urge the Government and

75
everyone else to address that problem and to consider how the BBC can address that problem. However, at the end of the day, the governing bodies have a responsibility to ensure that their sport is broadcast to the nation and is available in the homes of those 40 million people, many of whom cannot afford Sky Television but have supported sport throughout their lives by attending sporting events in person. When they are elderly and perhaps infirm they are entitled to expect the governing bodies to think of their interests as viewers as well as their own financial interests.
I have tried to speak as briefly as I can. However, I should add that the precious quality of BBC broadcasting is being eroded before our eyes. We in Parliament in discussing this Charter, and the Government when we debate the Broadcasting Bill, have a duty to protect that quality for the broad mass of people in this country.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like so many of your Lordships I have been drawn to those particular sections of the draft Charter and Agreement that seek to deal with the issue of impartiality, and particularly in so far as they relate to current affairs and documentary coverage. By way of introduction it seems to me that there is a sense of unease that the traditional values of balance, integrity and objectivity, for which both the BBC and the UK media generally are justly renowned, are becoming a little frayed at the edges. Indeed, to varying degrees many of your Lordships articulated that concern today. However, in rationalising that I do not believe that there is any profit to be derived from seeking to apportion blame. As my noble friend Lord Moyne intimated in our debate on cheque-book journalism:
"It is a cliché to say that we are all guilty, but we are".—[Official Report, 20/12/95; col. 1658.]
I stress that I do not seek to indulge in any gratuitous bashing of the BBC. Furthermore, the weight of my arguments will, as a generality, apply to the media as a whole, although they will be especially pertinent to the corporation on the basis of its unique and arguably pre-eminent position in the field of broadcasting both on a national and global basis.
I should perhaps also stress that I am broadly satisfied with the current drafting of the impartiality clauses in the Agreement, albeit that I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in saying that to my mind they fail to address the fundaments of the dilemma we are facing. It is my belief that codification of the concept of impartiality, as in the draft Agreement, is an inappropriate means of achieving and sustaining principles of balance and objectivity in our information age.
One of the central pillars upon which the edifice of our democracy is based is an essential and interdependent trinity of the people (as the nation's body and substance), of Parliament (as its mind and intellect) and of the press (as its voice and conscience or, as expressed by my noble friend Lord Burnham, its
76
watchdog). The creed of this trinity is embodied in the three essential freedoms of speech, of the sovereignty of Parliament and of the press. The status of our democracy, its robustness and its health can only be sustained by the relationships within that trinity being ones of mutual respect and trust each unto the other. Indeed, it is upon that precept that the imperatives of integrity, balance and impartiality of the press are built, for without them that mutual trust and respect cannot exist.
As I have already implied, there is a palpable sense in which our modem age would seem to be eroding and undermining those fundamental principles. How is that so?
It could justifiably be argued that in times past the primary manifestation of the media was its role as a mechanism for the dissemination of information. However, I question whether that remains the case now that the media have had the opportunity to embrace the technology of the information revolution—ENG, satellite, video, cable, the Internet, multimedia and so on. Of course that has produced benefits, not the least of which is the immediacy with which information and news coverage can be communicated to a mass audience. However, it is all too easy to let those benefits disguise some of the latent and very much more harmful effects of not only IT but also our responses to it.
My first perception in that regard is that the modern media now tend to attach greater significance to their role as a mechanism for the expression of opinion than to that of the dissemination of information. Nowhere is that phenomenon more apparent than in the ever more important role of the commentator or pundit, of whom it has to be said there are a goodly number in both the corridors of the BBC and Parliament. Their stock in trade is their own opinion, fuelled to a greater or lesser extent by the gossip, the innuendo, the inside or second-hand information, the rumour, and the leaks emanating from whatever field in which they claim expertise. Factual news and current affairs broadcasts are now liberally sprinkled with their influence and interpretation. They bring with them their own peculiar brand of gravitas from which exudes a spurious authority and credibility and upon which both their own reputation and the commercial edge of their employers depend.
Lest I be misunderstood, and while admitting that I am not enamoured of them as a breed, I maintain that commentators nonetheless perform a useful and important function. What I find disquieting is the subtle way in which their opinions are increasingly masqueraded to a wider and wider audience as fact. That is undoubtedly a cause for both regret and concern, especially in so far as it relates to principles of impartiality. However, it would be both naive and wrong to blame the media alone for that development. Rather, it is an inevitable consequence of the commercial climate in which the media operate and of our—the people's—voracious appetite for more than pure reportage can deliver.

77
That leads me to my second perception. Many of your Lordships who spoke in the debate of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith alluded to the priorities that drive the media industry. My noble friend Lord Moyne expressed it thus:
"The primary desire of press readers at every level is far more for entertainment than for information".—[Official Report, 20/12/95; col. 1658.]
I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, contributed a similar observation. It is pure folly to imagine that the media are not cognisant of that fact. Indeed, I contend that as a direct response to the public's requirements in this there is a discernible trend away from pure reportage towards an increasingly entertainment-based style and content of current affairs delivery and presentation. That is clearly evident in the tabloid press—all fluff and no substance—but it is also showing signs of permeating the broadsheets as well as television and radio.
The way in which the device of the interview has developed over the years serves to illustrate the point. With hindsight we can recognise that television and radio, in their infancy, may have accorded their interviewees too much respect, perhaps even verging on obsequiousness. As the broadcast industry matured, it shrugged off that lack of sophistication. Quite rightly, in view of its role as the public's watchdog, it developed a more antagonistic approach as the means of holding public figures more readily and properly to account while retaining the dual priorities of affording respect—however grudging—to, and eliciting information from, the interviewee.
Today's interviews have refined and evolved the antagonistic approach yet further to an extent whereby, to my mind, they have become almost totalitarian in character. The primary aim of the interviewer is that of embarrassing, discomfiting and undermining the credibility of the interviewee because it is perceived that that is what the audience wants. The means whereby that is achieved—hostility, confrontation, bullying, intimidation and perhaps even flattery—are an irrelevance provided only that the interests of "entertainment" and of "good" television are adequately served. More than that, the reputations, the very careers of interviewers are measured against their abilities in that regard. Of course there is validity in the argument that "if you cannot stand the heat you should get out of the kitchen"—it has long been the case that public service, especially high office, is not a province for the faint-hearted—but we should not let that blind us to the fact that, to all intents and purposes, any message that the interviewee may wish to convey is becoming more and more subordinate to the demands of the medium. Moreover, I cannot help feeling that an inevitable consequence of that trend has been a breeding of discord and distrust in the relationships between the people, the political process and the press.
A further aspect of this is the role now played by investigative journalism and the documentary. Again, I have no complaint here. Both have very worthy traditions of performing useful and valuable functions. They demystify and debunk, and in so doing, have an innate capacity to reveal ills and wrongs that we would
78
all like to see righted. However, that is a process which can be, and has been, taken too far. Any documentary, whatever its subject, starts from the premise that there is something worthy of investigation therein, that there is a fault to find, regardless of whether that is indeed the case. Our media, imbued with the commercial imperative of satisfying and entertaining their audience, are not in a position to accede to bland guided tours of whatever is the documentary focus of their attention. That would not engender saleable product and would not produce "good" television.
I recall the words of my noble friend Lady Young in this context:
"Every British institution is now subject to denigration of one kind or another".—[Official Report, 7/6/95; cols. 1360.]
She went on to say at col. 1363:
"One of the most dangerous aspects of politics nowadays is that … allegations are made unsubstantiated by any evidence whatever and they are then assumed to be true".
Nothing and no one in this world is perfect. It seems to me that, to an ever-increasing extent, the documentary and investigative journalism, even news coverage, in the absence of more substantial hooks on which to hang their story, seek to portray imperfections as transgressions. As it were, controversy is born of consensus. The fate of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill in the last Session serves to illustrate the point. Again, as with the way in which the broadcast interview has developed, what is undermined above all else in this process is mutual respect and trust.
My third perception is that we are living in an ever more propagandist age. It could be argued that society's perspectives are becoming more and more individualistic, more specialist and more focused. To a degree, the concept of the "greater good" has fallen by the wayside and is playing second fiddle to society's growing enthusiasm for sectional interests. That has given rise to the growth in importance of the cerebral equivalent of the "pick-n-mix", the single issue. Of course single issues have merit. However, in our era of mass communication there are considerable dangers in their narrow focus, in their exclusivity. It seems to me that, as perhaps in Greenpeace's campaign against deep sea disposal of the Brent Spar oil platform, there is an overriding aspiration to achieve the desired end in blissful ignorance of how that may interact with and have repercussions on the wider context—as it were, an unbidden sense of the end justifying the means. Clearly any reliance upon part or half truth, however inadvertent, has about it the character of misinformation.
However, to my mind the apogee of this particular phenomenon is the use of "spin" and the "sound bite" as the means whereby the political process communicates with the electorate. At best these practices are a deception. At worst, they arc quite literally the seedlings of propaganda which, elaborating upon a recent thought of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is the pit-bull of totalitarianism. It is both ludicrous and dangerous for a weighty message to be wrapped in the tinsel of "pretty" phraseology, for a punchy headline to be considered a legitimate substitute for content. And yet it would seem that "spin" and

79
"sound bite" are entering the psyche of the medium as entirely acceptable and legitimate means of manipulating factual substance to the advantage of vested interest. Thus there is a very real sense in which distortion, bias and prejudice may already have taken root in the media.
As I say, I do not attach opprobrium to the BBC or the media alone for those developments. It is as much a case of the message being shaped to fit the medium as it is of the medium shaping the message. It is also the case that individual members of society have their own prerogative in this, their expectation, à la Andy Warhol, that they will have the opportunity to enjoy their 15 minutes of fame. But we should be ever mindful that in our information age the media have the power to reach a constituency of millions in the blink of an eye. In this context, it is sobering to reflect that mass communication is but a step away from mass hysteria. The 1940s radio production of Orson Welles's The War of the Worlds comes to mind.
All of this bespeaks considerable feelings of mistrust which exist between the people, Parliament and the press. Notwithstanding the sterling work of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Nolan and Lord Griffiths, to redress the balance, disaffection with the political process, which we must all appreciate is entirely distinct from any apparent unpopularity of a government, is rife. Even in my short time in your Lordships' House I have felt a tendency of many of us in Parliament towards greater insularity—a putting up of the barricades against a disrespectful press. By the same token, the media are increasingly driven to entertain, divert, shock or titillate by both the commercial constraint of retaining audience share and by what my noble friend Lord Moyne described as "our unpleasant curiosity", our insatiable appetite for more than that which pure reportage can deliver.
In musing about this over the Christmas break, a somewhat seasonal analogy came to mind. We can characterise the current status of our democratic trinity as being akin to Peter Pan having lost his shadow. The innocence of trust and respect has been supplanted by an adolescent and world-weary cynicism. I suspect, and fear, that this process is irreversible: that there is no Wendy who can sew the shadow back on. I would further suggest that this is a primary cause of the attitudinal malaise, the degeneration of traditional value systems with which society seems currently to be infected.
But what is the relevance of all this to the issue of impartiality? It is simply this. If there is no faith in the median against which impartiality is measured, any attempt at its codification is utterly meaningless. Indeed, I suspect that to do so would at best serve to sustain the abrasive friction which has developed between the public, the press and Parliament each unto the other, and at worst would ultimately lead to a complete breakdown of that tripartite relationship. In this context, I do not think that we should be misled into believing that the media or the BBC in particular exhibit any less probity in this than in times past. However, in our information age we can recognise the immense power that the media
80
now have at their disposal but cannot see objectively where responsibility and accountability are to be achieved.
That combined with the devaluation of the principle of impartiality is symptomatic of the way in which I believe our democratic process is being mercilessly, perhaps even fatally, wounded. In my view our challenge is not to redefine or reinvigorate the concepts enshrined in paragraph 5 of the draft Agreement. Rather, we need to find the means to rediscover mutual trust and respect in a format that is in keeping with our modern idiom. We all have our part to play in this. Should we fail to meet this challenge, we shall continue to stumble blindly on with our judgments of impartiality riddled with increasing dissatisfaction and scepticism.
But the Charter and Agreement are not appropriate mechanisms to resolve this dilemma, although I find it salutary to reflect that the majority of noble Lords who have spoken today have indicated, if not outright suspicion, certainly reticence about the way in which the principle of impartiality is currently exercised. Perhaps naïvely, I simply hope that we all, but especially the BBC and the media, have the courage, the wisdom and the capacity to find the means to rediscover mutual trust and respect as the means to see a renaissance of true impartiality.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, many of us appreciate the trouble that the Minister took shortly before Christmas in arranging a very well attended and thoughtful meeting on these matters which I hope was of value to all who took part. It certainly was to me.
It is also proper to pay tribute to the Minister's right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State, for listening to the concerns of many of us from all sides of the House, in particular relating to the implementation and enforcement of standards of taste and of impartiality and on the future role of the governors. But with regard to the last matter, I have to say that I believe that more still could be done, and I accordingly support the terms in which the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, is expressed. I hope, however, that by the end of the debate sufficiently cast-iron assurances will have been made by the Minister to overcome those reservations.
As a wholehearted and unreserved supporter of public service broadcasting, I applaud warmly the Government's commitment to it and what I hope will he the end of some of the sillier free market theories—or viruses, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, charmingly described them—being peddled in the 1980s. The corporation stands for a very great deal both here and overseas; and it is for that reason vital that we seize this opportunity to get things right, for a similar chance will not recur for some years to come.
The chief concerns voiced in the months preceding the appearance of these drafts, certainly in the informal broadcasting group to which I belong, have related to three issues: matters of taste and decency, including of course violence; impartiality; and the role of the governors.

81
So far as concerns the first point, the right balance has to be struck between the preservation of artistic freedom and the need to adhere to certain basic standards of propriety. As one who in the vernacular of today can now safely be described as a "wrinkly", I appreciate only too well that my standards may be very different from those of, say, a young man in his 20s. But I can, just about, remember what it was like then arid I dislike prudery as much as the next person. But we know very well in our hearts, do we not, what is acceptable and what is not. All too often what is not is included by programme makers who have neither the talent nor the imagination to convey, for example, eroticism more subtly. It is of course an admission of artistic inadequacy, but one which unfortunately may offend some people as a side effect.
I am, frankly, not as worried about present standards of impartiality as some, although adherence to the principle is of prime importance. In my experience the BBC has always tended to be agin the government of the day. The late Lord Wilson was as concerned about its perceived bias as some Ministers are today. However, what is clear is that in both those areas the playing field should be a level one and the corporation should be subject to the same criteria as independent broadcasters. To date that has not been the case and the corporation has been able to act as its own judge and jury in policing what in any event has hitherto been an imprecise code of conduct.
The new arrangements bring me to the third area of concern namely, the future role of the governors, who will now be obliged, as has already been quoted today, to monitor and supervise the corporation's legal and contractual obligations. In this context, reference is made to guidelines and codes. Many would prefer the word "rules" to take their place. Rules are invariably harder to circumvent, even by the most ingenious expert in semantics. But like my noble friend Lord Chalfont, I would settle for "codes", thereby bringing the BBC into line with the independent broadcasters. To complete the circle, can we add a third requirement after monitoring and supervising, namely, action taken?
At present, the regulatory bodies, the BCC and the BSC, are happily shortly to be merged in a single agency. I agree with noble Lords who have been asking for a single regulatory body to cover the whole area of broadcasting. The current two regulatory authorities report on complaints, their nature and whether they have been upheld or not. After that, however, all is silence—unless, that is, the transmitting company concerned roundly and publicly rejects the findings with angry contempt. What an extraordinary state of affairs and what a false promise of regulation.
I suggest that there should always be a third and final stage in the process, whoever is conducting the regulation. It is really quite a simple one: detailing action taken and seeking assurances that the offence will not recur. I accept that BBC governors are already, and will be even more so in the future, in an unenviable position. They will have to have split personalities. They will, at second hand as it were, have to run the corporation as well as regulate it. But what sanctions will be available to them in the event of departure from
82
the code or rules—call it what you will? This lies at the very heart of the matter. Clearly, as the Government have already made plain, financial penalties will not be appropriate as they are for independent broadcasters. No one has yet come up with any viable alternative—let us be clear about that. Perhaps a warning system involving penalty points for transgressors would concentrate minds wonderfully. But whatever sanction is adopted, it is essential that it should have teeth and that it is also one which governors themselves should devise.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to three other points. I am pleased at the unreserved commitment to regional programming and to the production of local language programmes, but in the Secretary of State's briefing paper it seems odd to refer specifically to gaelic programmes in Scotland and Irish programmes in Ulster without any mention of the most popular non-English programmes of all—those, of course, in Welsh in the form of the all-Welsh national programme enjoyed by so many in the Principality. I am sure that on this occasion Homer or the draft writer nodded. In any event, my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas has spoken out nobly in favour of BBC Cymru.
Secondly, in view of the reduction in this year's capital budget of £5.4 million for the World Service and the plan in the following year for further cuts amounting to £8.6 million, it is unfortunate that the proceeds of the sale of World Service transmission assets are to be returned to the Exchequer—from whence it is true they originally came. It is, however, a mean, penny-pinching sort of logic which will inevitably diminish a service which is held in high esteem throughout the world. It is one which the present Governor of Hong Kong, no less, has rightly called,
"a unique ambassador for Britain".
Lastly, it is very pleasing to read of the Government's resolve to protect and maintain the. BBC Archive. I would welcome the Minister's assurance that funds for that purpose will be made available, even during times of financial stringency. It is an important asset.
With the advent of digital television and the world-wide explosion in global communication, it is difficult to see more than a few years ahead. Increased competition and the sheer size of the sums involved have already provoked fears that the BBC will become the poor man at the feast. It will be unable to compete for listed events, for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, and be pulled down to lower levels in order to compete for market share. It seems inevitable that the public will have to pay more for their licences in future, but probably at the very time when fewer viewers are watching the corporation's programmes. Never mind; I agree with my noble friend Lady James of Holland Park that those who could afford to pay more for the service get it at a ridiculously cheap price at the present time and that more money could safely be gathered in—that is provided, of course, that it is clear that I am in the lower bracket!
I am sure that many would agree that there must be a limit to the free interplay of market forces, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, said. Some things are worth preserving, even if the cost is high. In the cultural life

83
of this country, the BBC is one of them. It is a priceless asset which those who follow us would not thank us for neglecting or destroying.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I wish to focus on the interface between the BBC's activities as a public broadcaster and its ability to undertake commercial activities. We know from the Charter, Article 7, that the Governors,
"shall determine the strategy for … Commercial Services in such a way … that they are funded, operated and accounted for separately from the Public Services".
We also know from the Agreement, paragraph 10.10 that no sponsored or subscription programme may be broadcast without the prior approval of the Secretary of State. Separately, the Broadcasting Bill currently states that the BBC will be licensed for commercial broadcasting by the ITC but that the Secretary of State requires to be consulted before any licence is granted.
It is clear that commercial broadcasting by the BBC is conditional on the Secretary of State's agreement to BBC proposals. What is not clear, and what I cannot find anywhere, is any indication of the boundaries for the BBC between acceptable and unacceptable commercial broadcasts. The criteria to be used by the Secretary of State and the regulator, the ITC, ought in my view to be stated. The BBC governors are required to make clear objectives. We do not know what objectives they will set for commercial broadcasts. Indeed, we may wonder how they can set objectives at all without government guidance on what, if anything, will he commercially unacceptable.
One aspect is laid down. Commercial funding must he kept separate from public funding. The BBC makes income from commercial resale abroad of public programmes. I wonder which set of accounts will benefit. Clearly the BBC, when it broadcasts commercially, has intangible assets at its disposal which are of value. It has expertise in programme making; it has available trained human resources which can be switched from public payroll to commercial and back to public at a moment's notice. It has much else in administration besides.
I see nothing necessarily wrong with this. I think that the BBC is to be commended for wanting to make use of its expertise to achieve profits, and thus, I hope, to reduce the size of the licence fee needed for its public service. But just where and when would BBC activities become competition which is deemed unfair to those holding private sector licences? What criteria will lead to a BBC commercial licence?
I suggest that it is in the interests of both the BBC and the private sector that high level guidelines should be laid down now, should there be certain commercial activities which when practised by the BBC are considered undesirable. I hope that the Minister will respond to this suggestion and also that he will not tell me that the answer must come from the ITC, since clearly the Secretary of State has retained the power to make policy decisions.
84
Next I should like to draw attention to paragraphs 3 to 6 of the BBC's Agreement which refer to the high general standards which the BBC will maintain for its "Home Services". That title is undefined, but by inference it seems to me to distinguish UK public broadcasts from those of the World Service. If "Home Services" are intended to include UK commercial broadcasts, it would be sensible so to specify.
My final point concerns responsibilities which only a public broadcaster may be expected to bear. Indeed, I wish to put the case for one such responsibility. Noble Lords will be aware that some EU nation states desire programme quotas in order to protect programmes in their national languages from cheaper American-speaking products. This is currently supported by the Culture Committee of the European Parliament. Such proposals have not found favour here in the UK.
Recently, the parliamentary association, EURIM, with which I am connected, considered the EU call for quotas and came to the conclusion that this is not a matter for the Commission to decide; rather it is something which each nation state ought to resolve for itself. It added that, in its view, the best way to protect cultural diversity is to make such protection an obligation on national public broadcasting services. I believe that the Minister may agree with this, but it has implications.
The concept that the licence fee gives the public the right to view a minimum of nationally made programmes and certain national type events which ought to be available for all to see is certainly one that is popular with the UK public and one in which there is a good deal of logic. I find it hard to know from reading the BBC Charter and its associated Agreement whether this concept is actively supported by government. If it is, then it adds to the responsibilities which apply only to the public broadcaster.
To conclude, I hope I have demonstrated two aspects of the BBC's responsibilities which ought to be further clarified. First, the advantages it has gained over many years as a monopoly public broadcaster suggest the possible need for some limitation on the extent of commercial competition by it. If so, this ought to be expressed now rather than be determined as competition ensues. Secondly, any special obligations on the BBC in its role as a public broadcaster should also be identified now, at the start of the new Charter.
8.2 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, Reith was my friend. We were members of the same club. On occasion we could be seen enjoying post-prandial cups of coffee. My noble friend Lady James suggested that Reith would not have been the man for today. But if he had been born 70 years later, and if he could be rejuvenated now as the BBC is being rejuvenated with this Charter, the conclusion might he rather different. His integrity and determination would have shone through, as would the other qualities that helped him make the BBC what it was.

85
I do not skip 70 years; but to skip 33 years, I was a governor of the BBC. 'Ten years earlier I had been a participant in various popular programmes on the BBC: the post-war "Brains Trust", for example. In the ambience in which I moved, I became aware of what might be called the sub-gubernatorial sub-culture in the BBC of people who deluded themselves into thinking that, because they belonged to a chartered body, they were absolutely independent of everything and could do as they pleased. How wrong they were! I consider it a good thing to point this out to them by inviting the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to incorporate in the Agreement a clause to the following effect, headed "Interpretation": "Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as prejudicial to the sovereignty of Parliament". That would add absolutely nothing to the terms of the Agreement, since Parliament is already sovereign; its powers are unlimited. But it would rather spike the guns of that particular sub-culture, which does the BBC no good.
We have heard many speeches, some short and some long. I have managed to put my point over in a couple of minutes. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will take it to heart.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Earl. We have been friends in this House for many years.: I have no idea today where the noble Earl stands politically; and he may not know where I stand. However, on matters deeper than politics we have much in common.
I shall raise one question, of which I gave notice to the Minister. As the number of speakers seems infinite, he may not have time to reply to my particular point. I would refer to the Minister as "my noble kinsman", except that it might do him infinite damage. It might destroy a very promising political career. I was once invited by a very promising young Conservative to address a gathering of young Conservatives. After I did so, that gentleman was sacked! He was no longer allowed to belong to the party. Therefore I hesitate to mention a family connection.
I am sure that the question I want to put to the Minister will appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, as a strong Christian. Will the Minister agree that Christianity should be specifically included in the BBC Charter? I gave him some short notice, and he had time to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister. I read in the newspaper recently that the Prime Minister was in close consultation with evangelical leaders, including, I am glad to think, the PPS in this Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Perhaps the Prime Minister will take an interest in this question.
Some noble Lords will remember the strong initiative some years ago taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and supported by members of all parties, and notably by the. then Bishop of London, for the inclusion of Christianity in the most important education Bill of recent times. If it was included in the Education Bill, why should it not be included in the Charter? Perhaps
86
the noble Lord will have time to reply. Even if he has to write to me, I hope he will give me an answer of some kind.
Let us ask what are the disadvantages of the present situation. Here I must be very careful since I was warned that my brief experience of BBC religious programmes is not representative. I am told that 90 per cent. of programmes have a strong Christian flavour. Certainly I listen on Sundays with great enjoyment and profit to "Songs of Praise", so I am ready to believe it.
I speak from personal experience. Although I cannot remember any other occasion on which I was asked to take part in a religious programme, I was invited to take part in "The Moral Maze". The title is bad in itself, with its idea that morals are in a state of confusion. It is supposed to be a religious programme; it is not some ethical nonsense. Who were the panel? They were a couple of humanists, an eminent rabbi and a lady who was said to be progressing from Judaism to Christianity—which I suppose is considered a movement forward. Is that what we want to see in a religious programme sponsored by this country, where, as we well know, the vast majority of people are Christians? The number who belong to some other religion is negligible.
What went on in this programme? I do not want to be discouraging to the members, but I happened to sit outside and I listened to the other guests being interrogated. We formed the idea that they were a ghastly crew. Perhaps we were a little biased. So when we went in we were prepared. Frankly, to say that the atmosphere was non-Christian would be rather to understate the position. I quoted Jesus Christ—and I felt like a member of the Oxford and Cambridge Club who said he once mentioned politics in the presence of Clem Attlee, who then curtly revoked him with the words, "Don't talk shop in mess." That was the way Christianity was treated on that programme. And it comes under the auspices of the Religious Affairs Authority. To the best of my belief the Religious Affairs Authority would welcome my suggestion. To say the suggestion is put forward in humility is to be slightly bogus. It is not put forward with humility at all; it is put forward in a rather dogmatic spirit, as I do not believe there is any answer to the question. In an overwhelmingly Christian country, if Christianity is included in the main education Bill, why should it not be included in the BBC Charter?
8.10 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, with the wording of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, I find it impossible to quarrel. I cannot see how anyone could quarrel with it. If clarity be a good, then greater clarity must be an even greater good. Nevertheless, I have listened to the speeches this afternoon, and I shall find it impossible to vote for the amendment. I believe in the crucial distinction, which I was so pleased to hear the Minister enunciate at the outset of the debate, between telling the governors the objectives that we want them to attain—I do not mind

87
into how much detail these documents go in telling them that—and telling them how to do it. I was very pleased to hear the Minister setting out his stall, as it were, on that basis.
I should not be opposed to any further refinement in describing the governors' responsibilities. I suspect that that could be done and I should probably want to support it, if I saw the wording. I feel that it is crucial to the success of the BBC in future that we maintain that approach. We have to trust the governors to decide how to enforce the code on the rules that they establish and that we tell them to establish.
When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, ask what kind of a management we would get if we hemmed the governors around with rules and penalties, my mind went back to the many years I served on the board of the Financial Times, for a time as chairman. I asked myself what kind of an editor we should have secured if we had hemmed him about in that way and what kind of paper we would have produced. I remember very well the late Lord Drogheda, who told the editor almost daily what to do. But the editor, Sir Gordon Newton, was himself a strong character and there was a creative tension between them which produced a very fine newspaper. I do not for a moment want to suggest that a newspaper like the Financial Times, or indeed any other newspaper, is remotely comparable with the BBC. The complexity and size of the BBC make it an entirely different matter in many ways. But in my judgment the operating principle is the same. I feel that very strongly.
I have much sympathy with these problems and the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lords, Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Chalfont, and appreciate the stories that they told. My reaction to what they told us is almost exactly the same as theirs. However, I do not believe that by hemming the governors around and telling them how to run the operation we shall achieve the objective. I believe that we have to trust them. That is the only point that I want to make.
I do not believe that legislation is the answer to this difficulty. The only way we can achieve our aim is by choosing the right governors and the governors choosing the right director-general; and, particularly, by the chairman building up a working relationship of trust and comprehension with the director-general. I hope and believe that the new chairman will set out with that intention. It was certainly the intention of Mr. Hussey, who has been a very good chairman. It sometimes breaks down, of course, as it did the other day over the broadcast of the Princess of Wales, which, in my judgment, was a disgraceful act on the part of the director-general. These things will sometimes happen and misjudgments of that kind will occur, but certainly the trust is greater than it used to be, and I hope that it will get even greater in future and that the results will be much better.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, this is a very important debate. As so many noble Lords have said,
88
the British Broadcasting Corporation is highly respected in many ways and by many countries worldwide for the quality of both its radio and television programmes. There are many programmes on both radio and television that are outstanding in their coverage of national events, such as the recent VE and VJ days, which contribute positively to the morale and unity of our nation. On many occasions we admire the courage and persistence of outside broadcasting radio and television teams in transmitting direct to our homes the drama of international, dangerous events, such as those of the Gulf War. The World Service radio is a tremendously important link with home for British residents abroad and very much appreciated by citizens of other countries for the quality of its news reports. I hope that it will continue to retain that quality.
I personally very much enjoy the classical music broadcast on Radio 3 and feel that it is a great privilege to hear concerts given by internationally renowned orchestras and soloists without having to leave my fireside. I could do with less talk and more music and less "concrete" music, but I accept that a national service has difficulty catering for all tastes and that I must give and take.
I pay great tribute in particular to two television programmes over Christmas. "The Voyage of Charles Darwin" and the Royal Institution lectures illuminated fields of development of our Earth, its geology and its human, animal and plant inhabitants in a most clear and exciting way. The photography and visual aids enabled us to visit the volcanic rock of the Galapagos and see the tortoises and lizards, as if we could stretch out our arms and touch them, although they are half a world away. The rapt attention of the school children to the complex facts presented with such clarity in the Royal Institution lectures was a clear expression of their admiration of the lectures.
Those are the good things. In seeing them, one has often to see excerpts from other television programmes which are to be presented later that day. I can only feel thankful that I do not have to watch. There seems to be too much violence and much of the material appears to be of very low quality. I cannot claim to be an expert, as I watch so seldom, but I believe that too much violence on television desensitises the viewers to pain and suffering and its depiction should be strongly regulated. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood stated, this Charter gives the BBC's governors a somewhat stronger role in regulating broadcasting and television services. I believe that programmes play an important role in influencing our national life and have become too lax in their standards.
I like the idea put forward by my noble friend Lord Caldecote of senior staff having to sign a code of practice on appointment, indicating that they have read and understood the rules and will abide by them; and that they should be subject to sanctions if rules are transgressed. I support the wish of my noble friend Lord Caldecote for stronger authority for the governors in ensuring that those rules are obeyed throughout the corporation.

89
I want to speak about a particular but vital part of the BBC's radio transmission which nevertheless occupies a very small period of the broadcasting day. I must declare an interest as chairman of the Meteorological Office advisory committee, but I do not speak on its behalf today. My husband and I are members of the House of Lords' yacht club. I would not describe myself as a yachtswoman but, I am aware of such needs due to longstanding family involvement in sailing small boats. Suddenly, last summer, without previous consultation with shipping authorities, the late night shipping forecast was changed from 12.30 a.m. to 12.45 in the morning to allow for a novel to be read at bedtime. Noble Lords may feel that a quarter of an hour difference is not long. But, if a fisherman has tuned in to listen for a possible gale warning, it is most disconcerting not to find the forecast at its long accustomed time and it could endanger life at sea.
The man responsible for that change stated that the BBC, under the terms of its present Charter, had no duty to consult individual organisations on changes to the time of programmes. That clearly should be put right in the new Charter and Agreement. In October, suddenly, with less than a week's notice and again without consultation, the inshore waters forecast on Radio 3 at 0655 hours was stopped. The Royal Yachting Association, in its letter of horrified protest, pointed out that some 5 million people regularly take their recreation afloat, that stress of weather remains the second most frequent cause of distress at sea; and that the inshore waters up to 12 miles offshore account for approximately 90 per cent. of the search and rescue tasking.
As a result of influential protests by yachting associations, the BBC restored the broadcast, but at 05.55 on Radio 3 which, incredibly, clashed at exactly the same time with the shipping forecast on Radio 4. So no yachtsman or fisherman could either listen to or record both forecasts.
As the Royal Yachting Association said, again in its letter to the BBC, those forecasts, which are of high quality, can be a matter of life and death. I know from long experience that the prudent yachtsman listens to both forecasts early in the morning so as to assess the developing weather situation and decide whether to go to sea, and in what circumstances. As a result of further protests, from 1st January this year, the BBC is now broadcasting the inshore forecast at 05.50 on Radio 3 and the shipping forecast, as before, at 05.55 on Radio 4. It recognises that it is not ideal as it cannot be recorded because it is on two different programmes. But, with a quick flick of the wrist, if one is up early in the morning and by the radio set, one can listen to both programmes.
As a result of all that ham-fisted change, the BBC is now to review all weather services on Radios 3 and 4. All I hope is that in doing so it consults the sailors, yachtsmen, fishermen and lifeboatmen who really know what is necessary, and takes careful note of their views. It is their lives which will he at risk if they are not able to receive that vital weather information; and to a maritime nation like our own, safety of life at sea is vital.
90
In the Charter and Agreement the BBC is to have a duty to provide information, education and entertainment. Comedy and music ate mentioned. We have just been through a period of severe weather on land and know how important severe weather warnings or flood warnings are to local authorities and others to mitigate the worst effects. I submit that the BBC Charter and Agreement should also stipulate a duty to provide daily and regular weather forecasts for the safety of those both on land and at sea. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will be able to assure me that that will be the case.
The hopes of my noble friend Lord Cranborne presented earlier this afternoon have been dashed, and so have mine. I had every intention of staying until the end of the debate, but I am afraid that I shall now have to leave before the end in order to catch my train. I apologise to your Lordships and will read Hansard with great care.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I add my expression of gratitude to the expressions of those who preceded me, to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for being kind enough to provide the informal meeting on 14th December to enable us to have a dummy run of airing our criticisms, if any, of the White Paper followed by the Charter and the Agreement. He kindly circulated a record of what took place at that meeting. The following statement was accurately attributed to him:
"The BBC, with its tradition of public service broadcasting, occupied a key role in our society. This status rested on the quality of the BBC's programmes, its editorial independence and its integrity".
It is in relation to integrity and accountability that I wish to address my short observations. Integrity is a matter which is much more easily decided upon than standards of decency, courtesy and the like, which have already been the subject matter of debate.
Before I make my observations, I remind your Lordships of the debate on the White Paper which took place on 6th December 1994. I refresh your Lordships' memories of two observations. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, the then Minister, said,
"The BBC's position is significantly different from other broadcasters in this country. The BBC is a public body, established solely to serve the public. It has no other object. By contrast, the commercial broadcasters are primarily motivated by the requirement to make a return for their shareholders, subject of course to their licence conditions".—[Official Report, 6/12/94; co1.849.]
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in a slightly more robust manner as perhaps one would expect—I am delighted to see him, though not in his place, within earshot—said this:
"Given that supreme commitment to public service broadcasting and given the financial stability to support it, the BBC does not need—unlike the rest of the commercial media facing, as they do, intense competitive pressures—to descend into the sewers of contemporary tabloid journalism."—[Col. 857.]
That brings me to my substantive point. A few months ago, with almost a cry of triumph, the BBC announced a scoop; namely, the obtaining by it of a leaked copy of part of the draft of Sir Richard Scott's

91
report. The purpose of a draft report is to provide to Ministers and others who may be subject to criticism, the provisional view at which he had arrived in order to give them the opportunity to answer that provisional view in the "arms for Iraq" inquiry.
The BBC proceeded to publish those preliminary critical views, to the considerable embarrassment of those affected. By no stretch of the imagination could there have been any weighing up of the public interest against the serious damage which would inevitably occur, because there was no public interest in divulging to the public that draft report.
At an informal meeting with the Secretary of State, Mrs. Bottomley, and the informal group of which I am a member, I asked in terms, "What action have you taken to call to account those responsible for this utterly indefensible conduct?" In due course, on 28th November last, the Secretary of State wrote to me giving me the following information:
"The Prime Minister made it quite clear in the House that he deplored the malicious leak of this material. I understand that the Secretary to the Scott Inquiry made strong representations to the BBC prior to the broadcast and that subsequently he wrote to make it clear to the Director-General that Lord Justice Scott regretted the course of action which the BBC had adopted and that he believed that the BBC's conduct had demeaned its status and reputation".
She went on to add these observations:
"Whatever one's own view of a particular case, it must be right that the BBC, acting within the law and the proper processes of editorial responsibility and decision-taking which are established, should be free to report news without constraints which would not apply to other broadcasters or other media".
I found that an astonishing observation to make and in due course, in replying to the Secretary of State's letter, I said:
"Surely we are entitled to expect from the BBC higher standards than one would expect from, say, The News of the World and other such publications".
We have been concerned with accountability. As far as I can understand from correspondence, no one at the BBC was called to account for this behaviour. I ask the Minister this question: would anything be different now under the new Charter and the new Agreement? Unless the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, can say, "Ah, it would be quite different today. This is the procedure which would be adopted. This is what would happen", I would submit that we need an independent regulatory body. We certainly need the very mild amendment suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, which I support.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, as I sat waiting to speak, my mind went back to just gone three o'clock this afternoon and the words of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House when he asked us to keep our remarks brief. He will probably think twice before he gives us that encouragement again. The only consolation the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has is that it is good training for the Broadcasting Bill which lies ahead of us and on which I think there will be quite a number of late nights.
92
I generally welcome the Charter and Agreement for the BBC. The ones that finish this year were concluded 15 years ago. Fifteen years ago the BBC was a very different organisation, and certainly Britain as a society was a very different place in which to live, work and view. Therefore it is important that what we have now takes us forward for the next 10 years, and within that there needs to be some flexibility. The requirement on the BBC to provide public service broadcasting is essential and is central to its role and place within our society.
Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that we seemed to be splitting into two camps—those who thought the BBC was wonderful and those who thought it was terrible—and that perhaps somewhere down the middle was where we really were. I should like to declare where I am. I am a friend of the BBC. I hope that I am a true friend because I have always been brought up to believe that friends are people who can criticise you constructively, tell you where you are wrong and tell you where there are shortcomings. Certainly there are a number of those within the BBC and, indeed, within this Charter and Agreement.
I must declare a retrospective interest. For a time I was a member of the General Advisory Council of the BBC. I hope that continues but I hope that it continues in a different way because its present role should be reformed. Until the end of last year I was also a member of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
There is no doubt that the BBC plays a central role within our society. It is different from the other broadcasting companies. Over the past 70 years there has not been a national event of any importance to the British people when the BBC has not been there with us. Within that central role one has to look at accountability. To survive and thrive today, any organisation must be accountable. Therefore one must welcome the reference for the first time in the Charter to the BBC board of management. I would suggest—I should like the Minister to address this point when he replies—that there is a confusion within the Charter and Agreement in the sense that the remit of the national broadcasting councils has been diluted to one of advising and assisting. We are seeing a centralisation of the roles but no complete clarification of the split between the board of management and the board of governors. That is a great weakness in the Charter.
The educational aspects of the BBC are important. They are one of the three roles of the BBC: education, information and entertainment. Indeed, £47 million is ring-fenced to provide education programmes. My concern is that we now have a remit for programmes of "an educational nature". My noble friend Lord Donoughue referred earlier to the Esther Rantzen programme. Perhaps I may mention "The Antiques Road Show", "Going for a Song" and Ruby Wax's "Health Quest". Are those programmes educational? The making of them does not come out of the education budget but the packs that go with them for which the public ring in do come out of the education budget. That is very questionable indeed. If we have an education budget which is ring fenced it should be for education.

93
With multi-media and the interactivity of education the education role of the BBC should widen. It will become different—and not in the entertainment area. It will become different in the sense of providing entertaining education which is not necessarily an entertaining programme.
I wish to touch briefly on two areas. Touching on them briefly does not mean that I do not regard them as being of crucial importance. In paragraph 3.2(d) of the Agreement regarding programme content there is a requirement on the BBC to,
"provide wide-ranging coverage of sporting and other leisure interests".
Without the back-up requirements and protection for the BBC to be able to broadcast those programmes, how can it meet that remit? My noble friend Lord Howell touched on that point and I am sure that we will return to it when we come to the Broadcasting Bill. I do not accept the logic of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he said that one cannot see football for free—one has to pay. That is an illogical argument. One does not see plays for free; one does not hear music for free; but one does see them for free having paid the television licence fee. And so should the British public be able to see sport.
The World Service is of concern to many noble Lords. In moving his amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, spoke of the complaints being reported within the annual report of the BBC and the requirement to publish. It is insufficient to require the BBC simply to publish the number of complaints and the number of those upheld. There needs to be far more detail.
I close by saying that the impression created is that what we are facing could be a creeping privatisation and commercialisation of the BBC. At the end of the five years of the licence fee—I ask why it is just five years—will we end up with the BBC not being one thing or the other, not knowing whether it is a commercial organisation or a public service broadcasting organisation? The Minister may say that that is protected within the Charter and Agreement, but I have some concerns about that.
Where is the public interest in the sale of the transmitters? It has been said that the Government are determined to sell off the transmitters and that the money will go to the BBC. I cannot find reference to that anywhere—in either the Charter or the Agreement. I should like the Minister to take up that point when he replies. Are we correct in understanding—do we have an assurance—that the money from the sale of the transmitters will go into the BBC? As regards the licence fee being determined on the size of the audience, there is the old argument about driving down quality in order to drive up the viewing figures. It is an imponderable. It is a problem with which the BBC is increasingly confronted.
The BBC is central to our society. That does not mean to say that we have to protect it like a delicate plant. It has to be robust, efficient and open and it has to provide a good public service. That is what the Charter and Agreement should provide. I would suggest that in a number of the areas I have covered it does not.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I am extremely conscious of the time. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, predicted that in the year 2006 there would be another debate like this. I confess that there have been moments today when I wondered whether it might still be this one! If I do not touch on any of the big issues of the day it is not because I do not share your Lordships' concern. I am as happy as everybody else that the BBC should be preserved as a public service, which is what it is and must remain. I yield to no one in my admiration for the World Service, as so many of your Lordships do, and that too must remain. I am not quite as alarmed about the commercial future as some of your Lordships although if the gloomy prediction of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is fulfilled that this is only a stay of execution and that by early in the next century it will have become a commercial organisation, I shall be as appalled as he would be.
Sponsorship and private sources of all sorts can help to provide programmes that the budget ordinarily would not. I sometimes wish that the BBC would be a little less po-faced about giving credit to its sponsors. It is always thought as being slightly infra dig to admit that something has been sponsored. The situation is getting better, but I believe that it can get better yet in that direction.
I am delighted as regards the independence of some of the programme makers for the BBC. It is very valuable that the independent sector should contribute programmes to the BBC. I wish that occasionally the BBC were a little more efficient about dealing with applications from the private sector. Some of my friends in the film industry find it extremely frustrating to deal with the BBC. The intention at least is there.
There have been so many big issues debated today such as integrity, responsibility, accountability, decency, impartiality and Christianity. I am sure that your Lordships will be relieved when I say that I do not intend to add my pennyworth on those. There are two seemingly small but very important matters that have not been mentioned today. One of them is contained in the stimulation of the artistic variety of this country, which is one of the duties laid on the BBC. I was so thrilled when the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, reminded us with pride that the BBC runs five orchestras. It is essential that it continues to do that. I say that not just because they are good. I am not thinking only of the BBC Symphony Orchestra; I am thinking of the wonderful BBC Philharmonic Orchestra in Manchester and the orchestras in Wales and Scotland and indeed all the orchestras. It is not just that they are wonderful musicians who play well, and indeed the orchestras provide very welcome employment, but the fact that those orchestras can programme in a way that other more commercially-minded orchestras cannot. If one has to fill a hall with 3,000, 2,000 or 1,000 seats all the time, one cannot programme with the same freedom and imagination as the BBC. Those orchestras represent something which is vital to the musical culture of this country. I beg the BBC to make sure that they remain so.

95
The other important matter is archives. The draft Agreement makes much of the archival services of the BBC. Perhaps I should declare an interest here. I am chairman of the National Sound Archives Advisory Committee. I do not mention that because we are in any way a rival of the BBC because we have had long and happy co-operation with them. But from time to time I have had the unworthy thought that the BBC's idea of what to preserve is dictated more by what it might use again in the future either to make income or to save itself from making a new programme, than genuinely archival things. It is wonderful to have far-sighted salesmen in an organisation, but their job is not the same as that of an archivist who is concerned with history. Unless the archival duties of the BBC are taken very seriously, we shall be doing a disservice to history and to ourselves because it is only history which will point out how wise we have been in preserving the BBC as a public service.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the BBC is the only public service broadcaster and is uniquely the trustee of the national culture and character. Our culture and character have a spiritual dimension referred to as yet only by, I believe, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I hope that my noble friend will add my name to those in support of that being recognised and maintained in the future functioning of the corporation.
This amendment arises from a genuine concern that this trusteeship shall remain a principal motivating duty of the corporation as it can never be to a purely commercial broadcaster. That concern is sharpened by the fact that in a list of no less than 26 objects in the Charter the third is to have a commercial function. The BBC now, as its third priority, is to be given a commercial function.
My noble friend the Minister has given assurances to your Lordships and to many others outside the House, that if there is sufficient agreement between your Lordships and another place, everything that is said in the debate in this House and in the other place will be taken into account. As he has been invited by my noble friend, the Mover of this amendment, to place that assurance on the record perhaps he can possibly go a little further. It would be nice if he could assure your Lordships that where specific points pressed on him in this House are supported unequivocally in another place, they will not just be taken into account but will be reflected in changes to the text of either or both of the documents now before us.
The points I have in mind arise principally from the lack of clarity in the interaction of those two documents, as my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, have all pointed out. For example, where a programme breaches a code of conduct, the governors shall publish not merely the fact of the breach, but the remedies that they have applied to prevent a repetition. That was something that seemed to fill the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, with
96
apprehension. It was part of that process of horror which led him to refer to the unofficial group as the Mafia and at one stage to verge on saying that it was dishonest in a phrase which I am sure, when he reads Hansard, he will wish that he had not uttered.
It cannot really be so alarming that the undertakings required to be given by the governors on standards which are to be known to the audiences which they address, are to be set out in a code of which the audience will be aware. It cannot be such a threat that the governors shall then be required to tell the audience what steps have been taken to see that those undertakings are fulfilled.
That implies a duty not merely to monitor and supervise the corporation's fulfilment of its legal and contractual obligations, but to enforce them. Speech after speech has endorsed my noble friend's plea for that. All that seems to me to be needed to clear it up for all of us, and not just for the lawyers, is to add the word "enforce" to the introduction of Article 7(1)(f) of the Charter. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my noble friend Lord Astor, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby and others, have supported that in particular.
That enforcement should not just consist of the nuclear deterrent of the dismissal of the director-general, which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, rightly cited as an example of the determination and tenacity of Mr. Hussey, which I also endorse. My noble friend proposes, as a means of securing that, that the employees of the governors should be required to sign up to the rules or whatever it is they are to be called. I commend to my noble friend the Minister the example of the Press Council which, I understand, has persuaded newspaper proprietors to require their editors to have in their contracts of employment an undertaking to abide by the Press Council code. I understand that that has already led to the abortion of a number of proposed publications, which would have been improper under that code. Something similar should be applied in the corporation although it may not he necessary to place it on the face of the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, proposed that Paragraph 5.3 of the Agreement should be reduced to simple English. That view was widely echoed—and I echo it now. The noble Baroness, Lady James, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, also referred to that. We have to have some clarity and not a sentence which embraces simultaneously the words "code", "rules" and "guidance".
Leaving those three points on which my noble friend has asked for assurances as the price of the withdrawal of his amendment, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister to take note also of the threat to the BBC not only of the cost of going digital which, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, pointed out, will he tremendous, but also of the growing cost of covering national sporting events. That cost was pointed out by many noble Lords, most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. Will my noble friend please assure his and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister of the strong arguments in favour of legislation to ensure that such events remain accessible to all television and radio audiences and not only to those with particular sorts of

97
equipment which they may not be able to afford? I see heads nodding all around the Chamber as I say that. That is in the public interest. It is also in the interest of the BBC which, in turn, is a public interest. That case seems to me to be unanswerable.
I cannot sit down without mentioning again in this forum the admirable standard of the work of the BBC World Service, to which I can attest from conversations in English with Chinese people from mainland China who have learned English solely from the BBC World Service.
I believe that the present chairman of the governors has had a horrendously difficult job to do. He has done it with distinction. He could not do it without criticism—some no doubt valid—but I think that we are now all tending to beat him with the difficulties that he has had. So I should like to conclude by saying that we should not forget the achievements that are to his credit.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as the 28th speaker in this debate and almost coterminous with the nine o'clock news, I feel rather like somebody on Radio 5 news who is constantly regurgitating an item for hours on end simply to make up the programme. I trust that what I have to say will not be just a regurgitation of all that has been said so splendidly and clearly by your Lordships during this debate.
Those of your Lordships who were present at a meeting across the road on 14th December in the Millbank Parliamentary Offices may recall my intervention, which was, so to speak, the prologue to what I want to say today. I have criticisms to make, but I think it fair to remark that even in the troughs of British broadcasting we have cause to be thankful that we live in the United Kingdom, with the BBC as our standard bearer. The delicate balancing act between the responsibilities of the "Right Trusty and Well Beloved" Secretary of State for the time being (and there is a form of words we might all hope to see in our obituary columns) and the independent corporation must have some credit for the good things in this particular public service.
It is tempting to pursue the issues of semi-commercialisation or alleged politicisation, or the debate about new material versus re-runs—in which I have a particular interest as a life member of Equity—but I wish to target my remarks on Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Draft Agreement and to refer to the publication by the Broadcasting Standards Council towards the end of last year of Perspectives of Disability in Broadcasting, which was issued on 28th November 1995 and is many pages long. I have only one page of it with me today.
The BBC carries a large responsibility for the messages it conveys to and about people with disabilities. MENCAP, of which I am the chairman—I am prompted to repeat that in deference to our new Standing Orders—has long had links with the BBC and its local and specialist manifestations in seeking to get people with learning disabilities featured positively, to get issues debated objectively and to get to people the information that they need. I have to say that it has
98
sometimes taken an unconscionably long time to get our ideas taken up, or even acknowledged, but the collaboration has over the years been creative and indeed pioneering. This year marks 70 years of the BBC and 50 years of MENCAP, and we hope for good things from that particular juxtaposition.
Perspectives of Disability provided an in-depth analysis of the substantial work that had been done, and the even more substantial task that remained undone, in creating positive images to match positive realities. I put images and realities side by side because I see little advantage in images unrelated to reality. It is possible to be so positive about disability that the audience concludes there is no such thing as disability. That helps nobody. I would boldly claim that disabled people are a good thing. I would not claim that being disabled is of itself a good thing.
So to specifics. I would like to suggest that 6 million disabled people are justification enough for writing disability as a particular issue into Paragraph 3 of the draft Agreement—that dealing with programme content—a view backed by the Broadcasting Standards Council in its key findings. First, the content analysis revealed a low representation of disabled people in television and radio programmes, accounting for only 1 per cent. of all speaking roles in the sample period. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly from MENCAP's point of view, that representation gave most emphasis to people with physical disabilities, yet the greatest cause of disability in the United Kingdom, excluding old age, is mental handicap or what is now known as "learning disability".
Now to Paragraph 5 of the draft Agreement, which deals with programme standards. I should like to see a requirement to respond to substantiated criticisms of accuracy and balance within a given time limit and, where appropriate, by means of a response slot at a peak viewing or listening time. The principles might go in the Agreement and the detail in the code.
Perhaps I may illustrate what I mean with this true story. Earlier last year there was a tragic incident when a stabbing took place in a community hostel in Oxford. The next day a totally unrelated story concerning the MENCAP Homes Foundation in Birmingham came out. The BBC chose to join the two stories together in its news bulletins and the terrible incident in Oxford was linked by some extraordinary journalistic osmosis to some perfectly peaceable people with a learning disability living many miles away in Birmingham. In spite of complaints from us on the day of the broadcast, the two stories, slightly filleted, continued to be linked on both radio and television from the one o'clock news until the news at midnight. Letters to the chairman of the governors—I wrote personally—and to the BBC news editor in Manchester—that letter was from our chief executive, Fred Heddell—elicited no clarification of that unfortunate journalistic juxtaposition and the miasma of misapprehension and muddle was allowed to continue.
Such stories are then linked to the community care debate, and ill-informed and hostile reactions are, perhaps not unnaturally, the result. The damage can be

99
disastrous. I believe that if a valid complaint about journalistic opportunism is made by a responsible body or individual, that complaint should be acknowledged within a week and fully responded to within, say, a fortnight. Furthermore, the damage needs to be corrected without having to go through all the hoops of the broadcasting complaints procedures. The easiest way is to have perhaps a programme on both radio and television—I will call it a balancing act—during prime time which sets the record straight. It should be a serious programme which focuses on genuine points at issue rather than light heartedly dismissing them as eccentric. After all, every responsible newspaper has its correspondence columns to which one can write without jocular editorial comments. Paragraph 5 of the draft agreement should take note of that.
I call to mind the words of the famous Manchester Guardian journalist, C. P. Scott, which apply equally to all the media, including the BBC. No, especially the BBC because of its central place in our national life and at the forefront of our broadcasting media. C. P. Scott wrote:
"Its prime office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation, must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred".
9 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am anxious about the future of educational broadcasting, as were my noble friend Lord Donoughue, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. They were not happy with the part of the Agreement relating to programme content, Paragraph 3.2(e); that the Home Service should contain programmes of an educational nature. They thought that that was weaker than what we have had before and I would agree with that.
We should never forget what a magnificent contribution the BBC has made to educational broadcasting. This is of long standing, going back as far as when many of us, certainly our children, were at school. The BBC was a pioneer setting the standard and breaking new ground in the devising of suitable formats which were interesting to young people but also serving an educational function. It reached a large audience of young people and continues to do so; but audience size is not the only thing that matters. There is the question of quality to be taken into account and I believe that many of us are afraid that that might be slipping. My concern, whatever the new regime turns out to be, is that, first, the BBC should stay in educational broadcasting on an least the same scale as it is today, if not more. Secondly, it should have the funds to continue with innovative approaches and, thirdly, it should concentrate at all times on quality.
I have referred to young people but it is a mistake to ignore those who are older, whether we are discussing the housewife at home or the retired. Here, too, the BBC has had and should continue to have an important role. Think of the Open University. I am aware that with
100
computers, and something called multi-media, there are other points of entry to education at home but they do not replace the BBC.
The importance of broadcasting to education and training is the fact that it delivers free, at the point of use, without additional financial cost to those whose educational and social needs are greatest. The country is committed to life-long learning and the need for a learning society and has set ambitious national training and education targets to achieve this. It will not be achieved through conventional means. Neither will many of those in need be able to afford subscription services or be aware of night time services, which are out of sight and out of mind, even if they are glamorously wrapped around as the "learning zone". Such services are okay for those who already know what they want and have the resources to obtain it. They are not adequate for those with basic skill needs.
As regards schools' broadcasting, I do not object so much that the broadcasts are at night because the schools can video them and can play them at times which suit them. However, we must remember that a lot of old people do not have videos and probably cannot manage to use them either. It is very important that these services should go out at a time when old people are able to listen to them and to pay attention. I think that that is extremely important and I hope that it will not be forgotten.
The multi-media services and so forth do not replace the BBC. After all, the existence of libraries did not make the broadcasting of educational programmes irrelevant. I, of course, strongly support the renewal of the BBC's charter. My point today is to emphasise the traditional role of public service broadcasting in this country, especially in the field of education. I hope that that will be remembered very strongly and I hope that the draft agreement can be strengthened in the words that it uses in Paragraph 3, which is about the programme content. I think that that is of great importance.
9.5 p.m.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I am very glad that it has been possible to take note of the drafts of the BBC's new Charter and Agreement. The BBC is an organisation which has immense power and influence for good, and equally the same power and influence in the opposite direction. There is a television in the living room of almost every home and also a radio in most homes and cars. On the credit side, the BBC produces some extremely good programmes, in particular those concerned with nature and animals in the wild.
However, I have serious reservations in regard to the ethos of the BBC, particularly in respect of news and current affairs. Why cannot the BBC give us straight news in the manner of the broadcasting station, CNN? I suggest that the manner in which the news is presented by the BBC is open to question. I do not mean the manner in which the newsreader reads the news. I mean the script as presented to be read by the script writers. The news becomes convoluted, distorted, twisted and slanted in such a way as to reflect the current thinking of the corporation on any particular subject. Surely that cannot be right?

101
Over a period of many years, I have never heard the BBC utter one single word of praise or encouragement in respect of anyone or anything. If it is ever a question of right and wrong, it never comes down on the side of what is right; rather the reverse. Why does it find it necessary to knock the Monarchy, the Church, Parliament and the judiciary? Having knocked everything down, what would it put in its place? My Lords, nothing. That seems to me to be a form of nihilism.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, with enormous respect, I venture to suggest to the noble Viscount that he is talking total nonsense about the BBC. Now that I have become partially sighted, I depend upon the "Nine O'Clock News" to keep up with the world. It is quite wonderful and I depend upon it totally.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his intervention.
As your Lordships will know, the dictionary says that nihilism is, among other things, finding nothing to approve of in the established order. How did that come about?
Some years ago there was a director-general, now no longer with us, who announced his intention, soon after taking up his office, of disparaging, denigrating, deriding and undermining all the so-called pillars of the establishment. That is exactly what he proceeded to do. In time of war, such a person would have been likened to the Fifth Column. Later on, we had another director-general who said, "I tried this; I tried that; and then I joined the BBC".
As with any other organisation, if the right lead is given at the top, all is likely to be well throughout the whole organisation. I have no doubt that the present governors are all very worthy, highly respected people. But as has been mentioned by other speakers how much governing in respect of the BBC do they really do? Their role is extremely important for, as the Charter tells us, they appoint the director-general and the board of management.
The director-general, in his turn, has great responsibilities. He can be a power for great good; he can be a power pulling in the opposite direction; or he can do nothing. In that case, all those below him will do exactly as they like.
With great respect, I come back to the governors. I can only hope that they will take note of the views which have been expressed in your Lordships' House today and, for the good of the country, do their best to improve the current situation.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that if my noble friend Lord Caldecote decides to divide the House on his amendment, I shall certainly support him.
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I believe that this is a good Charter and a good Agreement which are basically acceptable to all parties, although we all know that more could be done. to strengthen them.
As a member of the informal group of Peers interested in broadcasting, I support the views expressed by noble Lords who have been considering the draft
102
Agreement and Charter for some time now. On more than one occasion we have met the Minister and he has assured us that full account will he taken of the views expressed. He has already repeated those assurances today.
There has always been an argument that quality and popularity are fundamentally opposed. That is simply not true. The BBC has always produced good quality programmes. The most recent example of that is "Pride and Prejudice", which has already been mentioned. That will soon be sold all over the world. Another programme "Persuasion" is already in profit in the USA. The BBC frequently tops the ratings at home. But, unfortunately, every now and then quality takes a dive in a particular battle with another channel, often unsuccessfully.
I hope that the BBC as a public sector broadcaster will not allow its desire for competitiveness to deflect it from its responsibilities to all of us. Looking into the future, I hope also that it will not move popular programmes from free-to-air to subscriber channels. I should be unhappy to see the BBC following that route. To me that is not what public broadcasting means, and I suspect that it is not what it means to most of its licence fee payers. The BBC should continue to set standards rather than follow them. Even if quality on all channels has declined generally, the BBC's drama and documentary series programmes, often co-produced with international networks, are the envy of many, as are its current affairs programmes. After all, it is important for Britain that the BBC not only maintains but strengthens its position globally.
Picking up a point made earlier about the cuts in the education budget, I should like to add that I thought that there had actually been an increase of £1.5 million. I should like clarification in that respect. Clearly it is an outstanding service from which we all benefit.
Living in South Africa, my introduction to the BBC was through the World Service. I can still hear, "This is London calling", followed by the chimes of Big Ben. My favourite programme then was "Much Binding in the Marsh" and no Sunday was complete without it. For English speakers abroad, the World Service is a life-line as it keeps them in touch with what is going on both at home and internationally. It is our flagship. It has always been impartial and accurate in its reporting.
The World Service made its first Empire broadcast on 19th December 1932 using its new Daventry transmitter. Through government funding the service has come a long way in 63 years, now reaching over 133 million people and broadcasting in 40 languages to 111 countries. World Service television came on stream in 1991 funded by advertising rather than public funds, but those public funds for World Service Radio are now being cut at a time when the service is expanding and new transmitters are badly needed to improve audibility. The government agreed sale of transmitters here and abroad will benefit only the domestic service but not the World Service as its original transmitters were paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its receipts will now return to the Treasury.
One solution put forward is private finance. What would happen if the World Service were then pushed in a commercial direction? Would services to some of its

103
more vulnerable areas suffer? After all, much of its broadcasting to the third world is educational and specifically tailored to each region. I presume that private finance would rightfully expect a return on its investment. The World Service, already faced with a £6 million shortfall, will then have to lease those privately-owned transmitters overseas. Will that cost be controlled, and can the quality still be maintained, particularly in sensitive areas? Could some of the profits be channelled back to the World Service, thereby easing the cuts which have come at a crucial stage in its history?
The Government appear to have withdrawn their support for the final year of the triennium agreement and set the figures for the next one without consultation. The shift from analogue to digital broadcasting will take up to 20 years and will be very expensive for both BBC and viewing public alike. Clearly the BBC cannot afford to upgrade and build new transmitters itself and continue to put money into developing the new digital technology required. In a debate last year I ended my speech by saying that the privatisation of any of the BBC's assets was wrong, but I now accept that it makes sense for it to rent or lease as opposed to owning and maintaining the transmitters.
I had intended to ask the Minister for clarification on paragraph 5.3 of the Agreement, but he has already gone into the matter in some detail so I look forward to reading the Official Report of the debate tomorrow. However, I should like to refer to the last few lines of paragraph 5.3 which suggest that the corporation may be allowed to make changes to the code for different cases or circumstances. Does that mean that any stated rule need not necessarily be binding? Can the Minister reassure me that that is not just an escape clause?
My final query concerns paragraph 5.4(b) which appears to me to be a question regarding what constitutes a series of programmes for the purpose of paragraph 5.2, which in turn applies to paragraph 5.1(c) being parliamentary business. What does that mean? Can the Minister also give me clarification on that point?
9.17 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, towards the end of an interesting but, I believe, lengthy debate, I shall not detain your Lordships over long. It seems to me that the crux of the debate stems around the definition of the corporate governance of the BBC. I fear that words ranging from "pledge" and "guidance" to "reflect" and "follow" call to mind—to me at any rate—the words of Sam Goldwyn: "such verbal assurances are not worth the paper that they are written on".
I can see no reason why the same rules—and I mean rules—should not apply to the BBC as they apply to all independent broadcasters. Rules are enforceable as are contracts. Breaches of the rules should be regarded as a breach of employment contract by the BBC's employees and of a commercial contract by independent producers.
Tonight's debate must have made clear to my noble friend the Minister that, unless he can give the House those specific assurances asked for by my noble friend
104
Lord Caldecote and incorporate the textual amendments submitted to him by—dare I say it—the Mafia, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I among others reserve the right to introduce new clauses into the Broadcasting Bill to ensure that the BBC is no more and no less accountable to Parliament and the public as other broadcasters.
I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that accountability should not stop with the governors but should apply to all involved in the production of radio and television programmes. The BBC has been in the forefront of research and engineering, I refer to the move to 625 lines, colour television and digital broadcasting. Therefore it was with some disquiet that I learnt recently that for the first time in its history engineering and research are not represented on the top line of the management team. I trust that Sir Christopher Bland, whose appointment I welcome, will rectify this.
As a book publisher it would be invidious of me to do more than endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Astor—who I trust is by now at least at the main course stage of his celebrations—on the issue of cross-media promotion of BBC products. Like many other noble Lords, I believe passionately in the rights of editorial independence and the role of broadcasters, and indeed all art, to push at the frontiers of creativity, as championed so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady James. However, I urge my noble friend to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward; a spirit, as my noble friend Lady Park has so succinctly shown, of constructive criticism.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, having the honour to be the vice-chairman of the BBC I did not put my name down to speak in this debate because of our Addison Rules. However, in view of the announcement this afternoon that the BBC chairman, Marmaduke Hussey, is soon to stand down, I hope that your Lordships will grant me a moment's indulgence.
Any BBC chairman has a difficult task. He must win the respect and the allegiance of governors, management and staff, and yet command the confidence of the public, the politicians and every group and organisation in the United Kingdom. The task for Marmaduke Hussey has been particularly difficult for he has had to achieve these things at a time of necessary and sometimes painful change. The BBC today is a better organisation, demonstrably equipped to challenge the coming century. Although the credit is due to many people, much of it is due above all to Duke Hussey, and to the response which he has drawn from staff and colleagues. He not only set the direction; he never lost sight of it. He has led the BBC with bravery and determination to Charter renewal. If the BBC is today more efficient, it is because he insisted that the standards of efficiency in the private sector could and should be achieved by a public corporation whilst retaining the integrity of a public corporation.
If the BBC is now more accountable, it is because he saw that the licence payer should be at the heart of its affairs. Above all he has stood for broadcasting

105
excellence in radio and television for every section of the audience. He is farsighted. He plays a long game—not always the same thing—and for sheer will power and guts he can scarcely be matched. These are qualities we value very highly. It is because Marmaduke Hussey possesses them in such measure that we are today debating how the BBC can flourish into the next century. He has been a great public servant in this post and I am sure that the whole House will wish him well for the future and will thank him for his efforts in the past.
9.23 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I had intended to make a normal wind-up speech this evening but the length of the debate and the variety of the contributions have made it difficult for me to do that in the way that I should have liked. Therefore I crave the indulgence of your Lordships, and particularly of my colleagues, if I make a bad job of it.
Like a number of others who have spoken, I feel that the BBC is part of my life in the way that a relative or an old friend is. As a boy I was sent off to school during the war. On one of the rare occasions that I came home I listened to "ITMA" as hundreds of American daylight bombers flew overhead. The impression of those two phenomena has never left me. In the post-war years when I was anything but a perfect student and had an uneven scholastic record I spent many happy evenings illegally listening to "Saturday Night Theatre" and supplementing my rather poor education—which was entirely my fault—in that way. Therefore, like other noble Lords, I have a deep affection for the institution. Over the years I have been aware of the changes in the BBC's constitution and the changes that have been wrought by changes in society, which have not been mentioned much in the debate today.
The main theme is that introduced in the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. I found his speech interesting, and I agreed with almost everything that he said. Like my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I share his anxieties concerning the difficulties facing broadcasters in deciding the limits to which they can go in terms of decency and good taste, and particularly in relation to violence, which is especially worrying.
I have a problem with the amendment. Imperfect though the two papers are, and despite the difficulty of relating one to the other so cogently expressed by the noble Viscount, I do not believe that it is possible to say that they do not adequately clarify the responsibilities of the governors. The responsibilities and authority of the governors are clearly stated. The question is in what measure they can apply that authority. It is the absence of an objective guideline in terms of morality which governs not only the BBC but many other aspects of our life. It governs parenthood and all kinds of activities. It is a very difficult issue. Therefore, I would not, like my noble friend Lord Thomson, follow the noble Viscount through the Lobbies if he decided to divide the House on that subject at this late hour. However, I have enormous sympathy with his concerns.
106
There have been some very interesting speeches in the debate, some of which were delivered while there were very few people in the Chamber, Some noble Lords went out for refreshment at half time, as I did. It would be invidious to choose any speech, but the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, made a most interesting and serious speech in which he drew attention to an important development in broadcasting. It is one which particularly concerns the BBC in respect of its news and public affairs programmes. The noble Earl highlighted the tendency for interviewers, pundits and commentators to adopt an approach which puts the content into the shade and places all the attention on their style, which has become more aggressive and trivialising.
That is one area where the French do better than we do. French television is infinitely inferior to our own except in certain regards. They have one of the best political programmes in the world. In my view they have the best political interviewer, Madame St. Clair, who appears every week on TFI, which I watch on the satellite channel TV5. She conducts an interview of about three-quarters of an hour relating to events of the week. Interviewees are prominent persons, from the President of France downwards. The interviews are conducted with a seriousness, elegance and respect which arc totally lacking in our country. I would advise anybody who visits France to watch French television on satellite, on which the best Francophone programmes are put together and beamed out to the rest of the world. It is extremely good. I would say that the French television world service is better than ours.
To turn to other concerns which have been raised by noble Lords, in terms of sound broadcasting our World Service is second to none. I have fond memories of it from when I spent time in darkest Africa and various other corners of the globe. My feelings about the value of the World Service are reflected by friends. Over Christmas, I was told that listeners in Turkey were extremely impressed by the World Service of the BBC and anxious about possible cut-backs which they hoped would not affect them.
Several noble Lords expressed concern about various programmes. In what was one of the most delightfully incorrect political speeches that I have ever heard in 12 years in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, brought out most elegantly some interesting points. I could not get away with being so politically incorrect. I shall not list what may be highlighted tomorrow as being very close to the wind; I wish that I could get away with it. However, he made one very important point which was reinforced by other contributions. We seem to have become somewhat over-concerned with impartiality and the problems of indecency. I do not refer to violence, about which I feel very sensitive. But what is most dangerous is a slip towards a second-rate and third-rate broadcasting output by the BBC. I do not believe that we have yet reached that point, but there is always that danger.
I do not know whether any noble Lords have spent time in Italy. I spent Christmas in Italy. It rained for seven days. Having read the John Betjeman letters twice, I felt that I could turn on the television set. I came across some of the most incredibly had television that I

107
have ever seen. I am sorry if I offend anyone in this House who has Italian ancestry. I shall put that right tomorrow when we discuss restaurants. I do not understand why the Italians have such bad television. "EastEnders" is the equivalent of "Panorama" in comparison with their most serious programme. On Christmas Day a show was broadcast which was so awful that it held a certain fascination. Actors paraded as the entire Royal Family. The imitations were grotesque but extremely good. After initial outrage, I thought that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was right. If we were not setting the example of ridiculing our Royal Family, some of our neighbouring countries might be less inclined to do so. Perhaps that is just fanciful thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is absolutely right as regards the role which the BBC plays in terms of artistic output—orchestras and so forth. I am surprised that he did not mention film. If we still have a film industry—I hope that we shall again have a film industry—we must thank the BBC and Channel 4 for that. Through Mr. Mark Shivas of the BBC we have seen some extraordinary and dedicated work which has produced a product suitable for television and theatre. He has done that under extreme difficulties of budgetary constraints. We have to be grateful for the high quality that he has been able to maintain over a very difficult period.
Being British, we appreciate comedy. I mentioned "ITMA". Over a number of years I have seen the progress of comedy on sound broadcasting subsequently on television. It is a remarkable record. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, few noble Lords mentioned what goes out on screens or what we hear. One thinks of the extraordinary effect of programmes such as the "Goon Show", followed by "Monty Python's Flying Circus", which perhaps slightly strained the bounds of decency but was done with such skill and innovation that anyone who tried to imitate it probably went over the bounds of good taste; and that is a problem. We went on to more innocuous but nonetheless wonderful programmes such as "Dad's Army" and "Fawlty Towers".
I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, was unnecessarily severe on the BBC. With the pressures of changes in society generally, and pressures to go down-market, the BBC has kept up a remarkable standard. It is true that it has gone down-market in many respects, but I have faith and am optimistic that the Government will support its continuation and its funding. I am encouraged by much of what the Minister said.
The BBC is still a serious institution. Publications have been mentioned in the two documents but no one has mentioned The Listener, so I wonder whether noble Lords remember it. Back numbers of that magazine are almost a record over scores of years of the intellectual and cultural life of our country. I do not know why The Listener folded or why no one was able to continue such a publication. It was a great loss as a serious element of the BBC's function and it was sad to see it disappear.
108
This has been an interesting and varied debate. We come here again next week to discuss the Broadcasting Bill when I dare say a number of today's points will be raised again. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has sat through the debate with the utmost patience. I hope that she is not on duty next week—but I see her indicating that she is and I shall try to make my speech then shorter. It has been a fascinating debate and I shall read it in the Official Report with the utmost attention.
I cannot say that I have much hope for sport on the BBC in competition with Sky because that organisation covers it so well. However, perhaps I could ask the Minister to comment on that and say whether the BBC could be encouraged to develop the highlighting of sport rather than seeking to compete with the satellite channels and their enormous commercial power. It might be able to work with them to supplement the in-depth coverage which we receive so well from the satellite channels. This has been an excellent debate and I hope that we shall return to these matters in happier times.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest as I am the Deputy Chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council. However, I shall leave specific comments about the work of that body to the debate on the Broadcasting Bill next week rather than becoming too involved in the details today. That applies particularly because by my calculations I am the 35th speaker in the debate and there is not much new left to say.
I believe that in the BBC we still have the world's best public service broadcasting. As a result, standards in our broadcasting, particularly in our television, have been maintained at a high level. But I am not so complacent as to suggest that that will necessarily continue. Having listened to many of the contributions to the debate, I wonder whether we expect a great deal—perhaps too much—of the BBC, after all the suggestions, points and criticisms that have come forward. Perhaps I may deal with some of the specific points that were made and try to pull the strands together. I shall not be able to refer to most of the speeches made by noble Lords simply because it would take too long. I am sure that will be understood.
The first point is that the BBC is facing a period of enormously rapid technological change. It is so rapid that within a few years, with the development of digital television, there may well be 40 or 50 channels instead of the small number now, the four main channels for the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. That itself will change the face of television in this country. It may not develop in quite the way that some people have suggested and it may well be that the BBC will lose out to satellite. I hope that it will not do so in the development of digital television, but there is the fear that it and other terrestrial channels might lose out to satellite digital technology. If that is not the case, then it is likely that the BBC will have a large number of channels at its disposal. Therefore, it will have the luxury of a wider range of

109
programming, with all the difficulties that that involves, than is possible at present. That is the technological background.
However, there is one other point. I support the BBC's view that in the rapid development of digital technology—and I understand Britain is the world leader in the movement towards this technology—it is important that the measures for which it has argued must he carried and put in place. Such measures would ensure that channels funded by the licence fee are available via all distribution systems. Otherwise, we may well find some other operators in a virtual monopoly position in relation to digital television, to the serious detriment of the BBC and the other terrestrial channels. The BBC explained that threat to us at a series of presentations which I am sure other Members of this House attended in late November or early December.
I regret that the licence fee is now guaranteed only for the next five years although the Charter is guaranteed for 10 years. In terms of digital development, I understand that in the Bill that we shall discuss next week, multiplexes will be granted for 12 years, with the fairly easy possibility of renewal for a further 12. That seems to put the BBC at a disadvantage in terms of some assurance as to its future operations. I also understand that a previous Secretary of State said on more than one occasion that the future of the licence fee depends on the BBC's ability to maintain the size of its audiences. That is surely the nub of many of the concerns expressed today. If the BBC licence fee is to be jeopardised by a possible fall in audiences in such a competitive environment, the danger is that in attracting audiences the BBC will be obliged to drop its standards. If the BBC maintains its high standards, it will be penalised on the licence fee side. Anything the Minister can say by way of assurance on that matter, will be much appreciated.
In general terms, the Charter and the Agreement are welcome developments. It is the longer term threat to public service broadcasting in this country that gives rise to concern, not what will happen over the envisaged five-year period of the Charter.
The difficulty with the public service concept, which many Members of this House have applauded, is that there is not, or may nor, be, a level playing field in the longer term. That is a difficulty, and it is why the BBC is probably nervous about its future and may feel under pressure to move towards other sources of income such as advertising revenue, which in itself would have an effect on the public service broadcasting standards of the BBC. Certainly the justification of the right to a licence fee is being called into question by the possible emphasis on the use of advertising.
I turn very briefly to sport, something which my noble friend Lord Howell developed very clearly when he made his speech. The difficulty is this. I heard a person from the satellite channel say on terrestrial television that it is not much money to pay, and if people want sport it does not cost that much. The problem is that everybody is obliged to pay the licence fee. I support that. Everybody is obliged to pay the licence fee as a tax to watch any television at all. To have then to pay
110
more for some key national sporting events bothers many people in this country. It is surely wrong in principle that this should have happened. I understand why we have got into this difficulty arid I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is looking into the matter to see what can be done. There is a basic tradition that we watch our Test Matches, and the Cup Final, on BBC or ITV. If that is no longer possible without the payment of what is for some people quite a large sum of money, it will be a retrograde step.
I turn very briefly to the role of the BBC governors. They are in a difficulty. They have to represent both the management, in terms of the way the BBC operates, and the interests of the licence payer. That is an inevitable conflict. They have dealt with it in the past, and I am sure they will deal with it in the future; but it is a difficulty that we impose upon them of which we should be aware.
As the BBC develops its commercial activities, there is a difficulty that if the commercial and non-commercial activities are not kept Fairly separate, it will call into question the public service concept underlying the non-commercial side of the BBC's activities.
Perhaps I may say just a brief word about regulation, to which many noble Lords have referred, some wanting an overall regulator and others taking the view that there is perhaps too much regulation. The Broadcasting Standards Council is involved in issues of sex and violence, taste and decency, and so I have had some experience in that area over the years. I should like to take issue with my noble friend Lord Barnett, who referred to violence on television and said that it was not important or significant because only 0.61 per cent. of the time of television is devoted to scenes of violence.
I think that that statistic, which I am sure is accurate, misrepresents the real position. When there is an item on television, particularly a film which has in it a very violent scene, it is the threat of violence throughout the programme which gives a sense of violence for perhaps 60 minutes or whatever the duration of the programme is. Therefore, one cannot simply say that it is 0.61 per cent. of all television time. If one referred to the amount of television time that is devoted to programmes which have violent incidents in them, the percentage would indeed be very much larger. I believe that the way in which I have described the situation is how most viewers see it. I believe that we must be concerned about violence on our television screens and the possible effect that it may have on young people. I do not want to develop that argument any more because it is well understood by all Members of this House.
I turn to one issue which has barely been covered, except by one noble Lord, and it is dear to my heart; namely, the coverage of third world issues. I shall mention it very briefly. The majority of the British public—I believe it is 70 per cent.—cite television as the main source of their information on international issues. Our television channels have had a good record on that in the past. News coverage on the third world and international issues has remained good. But research carried out by the third world and environment

111
broadcasting project revealed that in recent years there has been a decline in international coverage, especially of developing countries, and that between 1989 and 1994 there was a 30 per cent. overall reduction by the BBC in its documentary coverage of third world issues; if one took peak time coverage, that decline was 40 per cent. That is important because our understanding of what happens in the third world is critical for our whole position in the world. An educated public opinion ought to understand what is going on in those countries. It would be a matter of regret if there were to be a further decline in the coverage of third world issues.
Before Christmas, I attended a meeting of the All-Party Group on Overseas Development. It was suggested that the BBC's board of governors should be asked to monitor the BBC's coverage of international topics, especially third world issues, in documentary programmes—not in the News of course; that the annual review of the BBC should report on it; and that it might be helpful if the Government were to make explicit in the draft Agreement that the specific programme items covered in paragraph 4.4(e) could include third world programming. I think that would be helpful.
I turn to the last main issue that I want to cover; namely, the World Service. One does not like to boast that things in this country are the best in the world. We used to do that, but, alas, it is not true in many instances. However, I believe that we can hold our heads high and say that the quality of our World Service is the best of all the international programmes in the world. I once spent a holiday in a part of the world where all I could get was the World Service, Radio Moscow (in Soviet days) or Voice of America. I am bound to say that, after listening to Voice of America and Radio Moscow, which were remarkably similar in the propaganda that they churned out, it was a relief to be able to get the World Service.
But of course the importance of the World Service does not lie in what we "Brits" listen to on holiday. That is not what it is for, although it is a nice bonus. What it is for is to inform people in other countries who do not have access to free, honest, objective news reporting. It is no wonder, given the quality, that there are 130 million listeners a week to the World Service all over the world, and that may well he an under-estimate. The World Service has been fully approved. The National Audit office has praised it for its flexibility and for the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation.
The key beneficiaries are people who are suffering under oppressive regimes. About two years ago I visited a very repressive regime. It was illuminating to find that the people there hung on to the one hour a week that they heard in their own language. It was the only news that they had of the outside world. It was the only way in which they kept going against a regime that was oppressing them and, if they were captured, torturing them.
We should remember that there are people in the world who are grateful to the World Service because it is the voice of freedom and democracy. It is an
112
enormous aid to those of us in this country who believe that democracy is a cause we want to spread around the world.
There are to be cuts in the World Service and I deeply regret that. By the time we look a couple of years ahead to 1997 and 1998, the total effects of the cuts may be as much as £10 million. That is an extremely serious blow; not to the BBC World Service; not to those of us who want to listen while we are on holiday; but to those people who are suffering under dictatorships.
It is a matter of regret that, having had an agreement on a three-year basis, last December's announcement undermined that agreement and put in doubt the basis of longer term funding for the World Service. The World Service has been approved and applauded by people as diverse as Chris Patten, the Governor of Hong Kong, Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev when he saw the World Service as the one bit of news he had when he was taken prisoner in the Crimea.
I conclude by saying, first, in relation to the World Service, that dictatorships the world over hate the free flow of information. It is the World Service more than any other which provides that free flow of information which helps to undermine dictatorships. But, within this country, an educated democracy also requires an informed electorate. Our public service broadcasting, led by the BBC but copied effectively by ITV and Channel 4, has helped and is helping our electorate to be an informed one. Anything that weakens the public service concept of the BBC undermines us and our democracy.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that all those who have listened to and participated in our debate today will agree that it has been a constructive and worthwhile one. I thank noble Lords for that. We shall think extremely carefully about everything that has been said. There has been a lot of it; it has been very diverse and it will take a little digesting. As I have already said, if the House finds either of the two documents we are discussing unacceptable, the Government will consider whether or not changes are necessary.
We have covered a lot of ground and heard a number of sometimes conflicting views about the BBC, which is an institution—albeit a relatively new one in our country's history—which is now deeply embedded in the fabric of contemporary life. In considering the BBC it is important that we are clear both about the radio and television broadcasting that it does. There is a tendency sometimes to overlook radio and I should not like anyone to do that.
It is one of the most widely recognised characteristics of the British way of arranging our national affairs—I am tempted to say our constitution, but I think it goes further than such a narrow definition—to explain that the key to understanding our way of doing things is to focus on the manner in which institutions work rather than to seek a clearly defined theoretical model of how institutions function in a purely abstract way.

113
Probably that is nowhere more true than in the case of the BBC. Historically, the links between broadcasters and Parliament have required a careful balance, between maintaining the broadcasters' own independence and placing that freedom within limits set by public acceptability.
In order to ensure its independence, the BBC has, since its inception, been deliberately kept at a distance from close regulation by government or Parliament. The constitution of the BBC by Charter rather than by statute establishes and reiterates that the BBC is not a creature of Parliament or an instrument of party or partisan political activity. As the present chairman put it, the Charter gives the BBC flexibility and supports its independence. It has served us well for almost 70 years. The Government agree that the BBC should continue to he regulated within a Charter framework, an opinion which is widely shared, though we heard a number of different opinions expressed this afternoon.
But with that independence the BBC has a responsibility to take account of and reflect public attitudes; to function in a manner which is consistent with due impartiality and with proper standards of taste and decency; and to carry on its work in an ethical fashion, using those words in their widest sense. And it must be answerable to the public for the results.
We believe that we have achieved a structure for the corporation which will enable the chairman with the governors, and beneath them the board of management, to achieve such a result, in line with what Parliament and the public want. Parliament cannot direct that an independent BBC behaves in a particular manner. It can merely arrange matters so that the chairman and the governors, with the assistance of the board of management, can, and we believe will, attain what is sought.
Your Lordships have made a large number of helpful contributions. Were I to respond to each and every one of them we would shatter irrevocably on the first day of the new session the new year resolution of my noble friend the Leader of the House, which would hardly be a good start for the House or for me. Indeed, were I even to list all the points I would probably spend all the time I should spend on this winding-up speech. Instead, what I shall do is confine my remarks to a few topics, which I hasten to add in no way demeans all the other points made. I shall be writing to your Lordships with responses to the points and questions that have been raised. If any noble Lord feels that I have missed a point, please feel free to write and chide me. In addition, a great deal of what has been said today goes beyond me to the BBC itself. Equally, much of what we have been talking about will be the subject matter of the debates we shall have over the next weeks and months on the Broadcasting Bill. Bearing in mind the constraints under which we are operating and the time of the evening, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I leave some of the points aside and deal with them later.
Lord Donoughue: Hear, hear!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
114
Reference has been made to the public service broadcasting characteristics of the BBC. I should like to emphasise at the outset that it is no part of this Government's agenda that the public service broadcasting character of the BBC should he transmuted into something else. This character will remain at the core of the BBC's activities. Concern has been expressed about the period of the licence fee and about the possibility that commercial services may in some way mean a change in the BBC's core nature. That concern is misplaced. As has already been mentioned, the new digital world, about which we shall hear a good deal more in the foreseeable future, will provide opportunities for BBC commercial services. The fact that they are referred to in the objects of the corporation—in Article 3 of the Charter—no more means that the BBC will become a purely commercial broadcaster than that Article 3(t) means that it will become a property developer.
Against the kind of challenge that the future holds it is clear that the tasks facing the BBC governors and their leader, the chairman of the. BBC, will be very great. We believe that the qualities required of a chairman are manifold and that the experience and qualifications which Sir Christopher Bland brings make him an excellently qualified successor to Marmaduke Hussey, to whom quite rightly such generous tributes have been paid today.
I should like to emphasise that Sir Christopher's appointment has been conducted precisely according to all the previous precedents in this regard. The kind of qualities that Sir Christopher brings, which are ideally suited to the BBC chairmanship, indicate the nature of the challenges. He has an understanding of the broadcasting industry and major business, financial and technological subjects. He was the deputy chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority between 1972 and 1979 and has experience of carrying out the role of safeguarding the public interest. He has already guided public sector organisations—health authorities—through periods of change. Indeed, I understand that he has known some Members of your Lordships' House. His independence in this regard is well recognised. He has been involved in the management of large international and commercial organisations. He is in a good position to advise on the generation of new sources of funding and he has experience of working with Westminster and Whitehall, the media and public interest groups. I very much welcome the respect that was displayed for Sir Christopher by both the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. Reference was also made to the independence of the chairman of the governors. It seems to me that he must, as chairman—and indeed I am sure he will be—the very epitome of the impartiality that the BBC itself must display.
In my opening remarks I mentioned the question of the clarification of the governors' role within the BBC, which has been one of the themes that has been woven throughout the debate this afternoon and this evening. We must be clear: it is certainly the case that the BBC itself has been at the forefront in wishing to clarify the

115
governors' position, because this process of clarification, which has led to the new arrangements that we are discussing this evening, probably goes back to the BBC's document An Accountable BBC of 1993.
It may be helpful if I briefly spell out the express responsibilities which are placed on the governors' shoulders in Article 7 of the Charter, excluding the fact that they are the persona of the BBC itself. They are to approve the objectives for the BBC services; to monitor the performance of those services; to ensure compliance with statutory and other obligations; to ensure probity, propriety and value for money; to ensure that the BBC's services reflect the needs and interests of the public; to ensure proper consultation with the BBC's National Broadcasting Councils; to ensure the proper handling of comments, proposals and complaints from the public; to determine the strategy for the commercial services; to establish an audit committee and to appoint the Director-General and other senior staff. There it is spelt out in terms what are the specific functions of the governors. We believe that it is helpful both to the BBC, the governors themselves and to the wider public.
There was a considerable amount of debate about the whole question of codes and guidance. One of the functions of the corporation is to do all that it can to bring about the achievement of the content and programme standards which are specified in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the draft Agreement. In addition to that, as I have already just mentioned, the governors are under a duty, as part of this wider process, to ensure that its employees and programme makers adhere to certain codes whose content is intended to enable the corporation to achieve the content and programme standards contained in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Agreement.
These codes in themselves provide guidance for the employees and the programme makers to assist them to meet the requirements of the rules relating to content and standards. But they are also in themselves binding by virtue of Article 7(1)(f) of the Charter, to which a considerable amount of reference has already been made this evening. I very much hope that this explains the wording of Article 7(1)(f) of the Charter and Paragraph 5(3) of the Agreement, which has caused such an amount of comment not only during the debate this evening but on previous occasions when this matter has been discussed.
There has also been a considerable amount of discussion about enforceability and accountability. We must be clear in this context that the BBC is subject to directions in respect of those matters made by the Broadcasting Standards Council (BSC) as regards apologies. It is also the case that the governors are under an express duty under Article 7(1)(f) of the Charter to ensure compliance with the directions which are given. The provisions of the Broadcasting Act do not in themselves require any additional reinforcement from the documents that we are discussing this evening.
116
Reference has also been made to the words "monitor and supervise" in Article 7(1)(1) of the Charter. A number of noble Lords have expressed the view that the wording here is insufficiently strong. Looking at the words in the text, it seems to me that that is a very strong form of words, because the function of the governors in this respect is to monitor and to supervise the corporation's fulfilment of its legal and contractual obligations. We are talking about the achievement of something—in other words, the governors will see that it happens. We believe that the form of words used provides the degree of certainty for which many noble Lords are looking.
An associated point is the issue of what steps should be taken once it has been found that something has gone wrong at the BBC. As has already been mentioned, we plan changes in the Broadcasting Bill to ensure that where a finding against a broadcaster has been established, the steps taken by that broadcaster in response to the finding will be made public. As I have already said, it is the duty of the governors to ensure that the corporation discharges its duties in accordance with the Charter. It must follow that if there is a finding against the corporation, a breach has occurred and, if a breach has occurred, that means that the BBC has not been performing in accordance with the terms of its Charter. Therefore, there is an overriding obligation on the governors to put that breach right. It is important that we are clear about that.
Another important point which has been mentioned is the governors' role in dealing with problems. After all, the governors are the persona of the BBC as well as its regulator. Concern has been expressed, particularly about a number of incidents sometime in the past, that the governors have perhaps not exercised properly their responsibilities as regulator. In that context, we should again look at the Charter. I refer particularly to Article 20, which provides a kind of long stop position, where it is stated that the Charter is made upon the basis,
"that the Corporation shall strictly and faithfully observe and perform …the provisions prescribed therein".
That is then elaborated upon. Those provisions are backed up by possible action by the Secretary of State, who, after all, is answerable to Parliament. There are some steps which the Secretary of State may take to make inquiries about what is happening at the corporation. Finally, it is possible as a very long stop—as the nuclear option or the equivalent of withdrawing the ITC licence—for the Queen in Council to withdraw the BBC's Charter.
Nobody embarks on a project on the basis that it will fail. We do not believe that the proposals that we are discussing will fail. However, I think that it is wrong to approach this matter on the basis that the governors are completely insulated from any consequences were they to act—I believe that they will not—persistently in dereliction of their duty.
There still remain an enormous number of points which I should like to address, but I have now been on my feet for a considerable number of minutes and feel that in the circumstances it would be appropriate to

117
respond by letter to the individual points raised. I hope—and sense—that that meets with your Lordships' approval—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am delighted that my performance gains such approval from the Opposition Front Bench.
The composition of your Lordships' House may once more be on the political agenda, but what is not and never has been at issue is the breadth and range of view that it can bring to bear on a matter of significant public consequence. The debate this evening is an excellent example of how this House brings expertise to a national debate: not merely have we heard from ex-governors of the BBC, members of the ITC and Radio Authority and other experts in the field of broadcasting, we have also had most useful comments and contributions from those whose experience and high achievement have been in different areas, none of which can escape the influence of the BBC, and from others who bring a more private perspective which is normally lost for ever once one steps out upon the hustings.
There has been disagreement and differences of view and emphasis. That is the basis of democracy. But there is agreement that the BBC is important and that it matters to everyone that we get its future structure right.
The present Charter and Agreement were debated in Parliament some 15 years ago. Since then cable and satellite television have become much more widely available. Channel 4 has come on air and flourished. Channel 5 is due to start in 1997. We have a new national BBC station in Radio 5, three new independent national radio stations and over 150 new independent local radio services. These changes are dramatic and revolutionary enough; but the pace of change is set to increase still more over the next decade with the advent of digital technology. We shall debate the issues arising from this in the Broadcasting Bill in the next few days and weeks.
Through all these changes—indeed since its inception—the BBC has been a fixed point of reference at the heart of broadcasting both in this country and around the globe. The BBC is one of the most highly regarded broadcasters in the world. It is one of the glories of contemporary Britain. Its purpose and indeed its achievement have been to aspire to and to succeed in attaining the highest standards of excellence, and I very much hope that your Lordships, and in particular my noble friend Lord Caldecote, will all agree that the new arrangements in the Charter are the right ones for the chairman and the governors to take the corporation forward, carrying its high aspirations and achievements onwards into the rapidly changing world of the next millennium.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he take this opportunity to tell your Lordships what would be his reaction if the other place were to concur with your Lordships in their interpretation of the document and the suggested changes which might be made?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that we are jumping the gun to the extent that the view of your Lordships' House is far from clear as regards the detail of some of the nuances that we are debating. If this House and the other place clearly indicated that what was being proposed was unacceptable, we would have to consider very seriously what steps to take next. I believe that I made that point clear in my winding-up speech and for that matter in my opening speech some hours ago.
10.12 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I too am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this long debate, in particular to the many who supported the amendment in various ways. By way of clarification, perhaps I may comment briefly on three speeches. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that I had no intention of suggesting mistrust as regards all programme makers in the BBC. I meant only to criticise a few programme makers who bring disrepute on the BBC by lowering its standards.
Secondly, naturally the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as a former vice-chairman of the BBC, believes that there is nothing much wrong with the BBC either in its standards or organisation. If there is, he clearly believes that the new Charter and Agreement will put all things right in the best of all possible worlds. Fortunately, my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth took a very different view and was a good antidote to the complacency of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
We all agree that the BBC is a jewel in the crown of our national life. But the jewel has lost some of its sparkle. Some believe that it needs only a little polishing through the new Charter and Agreement. Others, myself included, believe that more extensive repairs are needed lest we risk losing the sparkling jewel altogether.
In this wide-ranging and well-informed debate my noble friend Lord Inglewood dealt with many of the criticisms that were raised. I believe that he has gone as far as we can reasonably expect in the assurances that he has given, in particular as we in this House have had the first bite of the cherry. No doubt important issues will be raised in debate in another place and in our forthcoming debate on the Broadcasting Bill.
In all the circumstances, we should have confidence that my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will do their utmost to implement all the changes to the draft Charter and Agreement which have been supported widely today and of which we hope at least some will be supported in another place.

119
Taking all that into account and in view of the lateness of the hour, I do not think that it would be reasonable to divide the House on this amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
120
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.

  OSCE Assistance Group, Grozny
  OSCE Assistance Group, Grozny
  UN World Conference on Women, Beijing: Interpretation Facilities
  UN World Conference on Women, Beijing: Interpretation Facilities
  Rwanda: Prison Conditions
  Rwanda: Prison Conditions
  Former Yugoslavia: Psychological Rehabilitation
  Former Yugoslavia: Psychological Rehabilitation
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Treaties: Parliamentary Approval
  Treaties: Parliamentary Approval
  European Communities Act 1972: Section 2(2) Orders
  European Communities Act 1972: Section 2(2) Orders
  Bulgaria: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  Bulgaria: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  Cyprus: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  Cyprus: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  Ghana: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  Ghana: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  India: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  India: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  Pakistan: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  Pakistan: Diplomatic and Consular Representation
  ABM Treaty
  ABM Treaty
  Former Yugoslavia: Lifting of Arms Embargo
  Former Yugoslavia: Lifting of Arms Embargo
  Former Yugoslavia: Command Chains
  Former Yugoslavia: Command Chains
  Bosnia: Arms Provision
  Bosnia: Arms Provision
  Hyperbaric Chambers
  Hyperbaric Chambers
  Berkshire Local Government Reorganisation Costs
  Berkshire Local Government Reorganisation Costs
  Water Charges and Rateable Values
  Water Charges and Rateable Values
  EC Habitats Directive: Further SAC Proposals
  EC Habitats Directive: Further SAC Proposals
  HMSO Supply and Service Agreement
  HMSO Supply and Service Agreement
  Complementary, Alternative and Herbal Medicines: EC Consideration
  Complementary, Alternative and Herbal Medicines: EC Consideration
  Paediatric Intensive Care Units
  Paediatric Intensive Care Units
  Malnutrition Screening
  Malnutrition Screening
  H2 Inhibitors and Diazimon
  H2 Inhibitors and Diazimon
  Public Transport Seat Spacing
  Public Transport Seat Spacing
  European Aviation Safety
  European Aviation Safety
  War Widows' Pension Reinstatement Applications
  War Widows' Pension Reinstatement Applications
  Income Related Benefit Savings from Pensions Split after Divorce
  Income Related Benefit Savings from Pensions Split after Divorce
  Social Security Policy: Implications for VAT Revenue
  Social Security Policy: Implications for VAT Revenue
  Social Security Policy: Implications for Inland Revenue
  Social Security Policy: Implications for Inland Revenue
  Social Security Policy: Cost Implications for the Department of Health
  Social Security Policy: Cost Implications for the Department of Health
  Social Security Policy: Implications of Housing Benefit Proposals
  Social Security Policy: Implications of Housing Benefit Proposals
  Benefits: Instrument of Payment Fraud
  Benefits: Instrument of Payment Fraud
  Benefits: Savings from Student Disentitlement
  Benefits: Savings from Student Disentitlement
  Social Security Policy: Implications of Proposals on Asylum Seekers
  Social Security Policy: Implications of Proposals on Asylum Seekers
  International Trade: Unit of Price Measurement
  International Trade: Unit of Price Measurement
  Money Laundering
  Money Laundering
  Swiss Banks: Acceptance of Funds
  Swiss Banks: Acceptance of Funds
  WEU: Use of NATO Assets
  WEU: Use of NATO Assets
  Defence Procurements
  Defence Procurements
  H. Silver and Associates (UK) Ltd
  H. Silver and Associates (UK) Ltd
  EDS: Contracts
  EDS: Contracts
  Category A Prisoners: Monitoring of Visits by non-English Speakers
  Category A Prisoners: Monitoring of Visits by non-English Speakers
  Special Security Unit Prisoners: Telephone Call Translation Costs
  Special Security Unit Prisoners: Telephone Call Translation Costs
  Official Report: On-line Availability
  Official Report: On-line Availability
  Civil Service Code: Entry into Force
  Civil Service Code: Entry into Force
  Theatr Clwyd: Funding
  Theatr Clwyd: Funding
  Potatoes: Brown Rot Infection
  Potatoes: Brown Rot Infection
  Organophosphorus Pesticide Ingredients: Synergistic Properties
  Organophosphorus Pesticide Ingredients: Synergistic Properties
  Top Clip Gold Shield Sheep Dip
  Top Clip Gold Shield Sheep Dip