Sitting of 26 January 1996

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

Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill
Order for Second Reading read
9.34 am
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Let me first thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and other animal welfare organisations that have helped me with the preparation of the Bill for its First and Second Reading.
As Members will know, this is the third Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill to be considered in the House in the past three years. The first was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and was considered on Second Reading on 14 February 1992. Clause 1 of that Bill would have made it an offence wilfully to inflict any suffering on or cruelly ill-treat any animal. Clause 2 would have outlawed all hunting with dogs. Members may recall that the hunting clause caused palpitations among some Conservative Members; however, no one appeared to object to clause 1.
History records that the Bill was defeated by 187 votes to 175 votes. That defeat was due in part to the unprecedented intervention of almost the entire Cabinet, none of whom had appeared in the Chamber that day until the Division bell sounded. Quite why Cabinet Members found it necessary to abandon Government business to intervene in a debate on a private Member's Bill has never been explained, particularly as the 1992 election was to be held within two months, so there was little chance of the Bill reaching the Statute Book.
The second Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill received its Second Reading on 3 March 1995. It was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who sits beside me today. Like the previous Bill, it received huge public support. It was estimated that Members received more than half a million postcards and letters of support from the public. I confirm that, during the past few weeks, Members on both sides of the Chamber have received a similar amount of correspondence.
Members will recall that the only part of that Bill to raise hackles was clause 2, which sought to ban hunting with dogs. Clause 1 sought to make it an offence to cruelly kick, beat or torture any wild animal. Many of those who regard the hunting and killing of foxes, deer and hares as a proud sport again declared no objections to clause 1. The Bill was passed by 253 votes to nil—the biggest ever majority for a private Member's Bill.
554
What followed, however, was a catalogue of parliamentary filibustering tactics to stop the Bill making any further progress. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, who is a devote and able campaigner on animal welfare, managed to get it into Committee but, because of time constraints, he was forced to give up the hunting clause. What remained was a much diluted Bill that sought to make it an offence to cruelly kick, beat or torture wild animals.
Amazingly, despite the assurances that had been given, fox-hunting supporters in the House announced that they could not accept the offence of torture, as their legal advice was that the hunting and snaring of animals would probably be interpreted in the courts as cruel torture. I have a feeling that that admission may return to haunt them.
The outcome was that hasty negotiations took place between all sides and resulted in my hon. Friend's Bill being reworded so that it would make it an offence cruelly to kick, beat, impale, crush, burn or drown any wild animal. In that form, it had the agreement of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), chairman of the British Field Sports Society, and passed Report stage and Third Reading without objection.
In the other place three months later, the vice-chairman of the British Field Sports Society, Lord Mancroft, and other fox-hunting supporters—knowing full well that even one small amendment would almost certainly cause the Bill to run out of time—insisted on tabling seven or eight amendments, to wreck the Bill's chances. Nevertheless, so desperate was the need to create legislation that would at least acknowledge that wild animals are capable of suffering cruelty, that amendments were agreed. However, the lack of just a few seconds of parliamentary time prevented the Bill from progressing further.
We are again searching for justice for wild animals. My Bill's sponsors, together with the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports, accept that the measure is not a vehicle for outlawing blood sports. The hon. Member for Wimbledon and I spent many hours discussing the Bill's wording. There have been intense negotiations with BFS officials and lawyers, the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. Discussions have been cordial, with a willingness to find solutions.
They led to considerable concessions on my part, and I reluctantly accepted one or two amendments in the other place. I waived the opportunity, after guarantees had been given, to resubmit the Bill in the form that it left this House last year. That would almost certainly have led, under the Parliament Act, to the Bill being passed without any fear of Lords amendments.
Sir Michael Marshall: Many hon. Members in all parts of the House wished to be present for this debate. Some of us may not be able to participate in any vote if these proceedings run the full length of the day, but the hon. Gentleman has much support and good will in principle. We understand his remarks about reaching a compromise. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give me two assurances, in case there is not another opportunity.
I am anxious to be clear why domestic animals are excluded from the Bill—many of us wished to see it broadened in that way. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Bill will assist the RSPCA in the difficulty that it has encountered in bringing prosecutions in the past?
Mr. Meale: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on both points. The RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports have been deeply involved at all stages. The Bill is about wild animals, and it replicates the protection given to domestic animals in the Protection of Animals Act 1911—although I agree that further legislation is probably needed to protect domestic animals.
I gave way in some of the negotiations because Conservative Members gave me their word that they would give the Bill a clear passage—including Government Whips, who are satisfied that I have taken into account the Government's technical amendments. After I met the Under-Secretary of State and civil servants and the amendments were passed to me, they were considered and included in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton accepts that there was a technical flaw in his Bill, and it was removed.
The RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports have recorded horrific offences not covered by the original list, and they were added so that they would be outlawed by the Bill. I believe that the Bill in its present form has the total approval of the Government, British Field Sports Society, RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports and many other organisations.
Hopefully, it will soon be illegal to mutilate, kick, beat, nail, impale, stamp, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild animal with intend. Other cruel acts should be examined, but that list is a good basis for protecting wild animals. I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon and other hon. Members who support blood sports will not view the Bill with cynicism, but will accept that its progress should not be halted. In that way, we shall establish a measure that outlaws brutal and sadistic cruelty to wild animals.
I refer hon. Members to recent incidents where such a Bill would have helped to bring offenders to court. Near Sittingbourne last summer, two walkers found the carcases of two foxes smouldering over a fire in a quarry. A post mortem revealed that one of the foxes had been thrown on the fire while still alive, after being half strangled with a wire. The other fox was so badly burnt that the remains could not be fully examined and the cause of death established. No prosecution could be brought, as no offence in law existed to deal with the culprits.
The same year, a vixen—having been dug out of its earth by a terrier gang—was nailed to a tree while still alive and left to die, with its cubs pathetically waiting at the foot of a tree. In Charlton in south-east London last summer, a gang of youths caught a fox on open ground, tied a rope around and dragged it behind a motor bike, causing it to die from horrific injuries.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report in yesterday's Daily Express about "graffiti yobs" who
"sprayed Kelvin the hedgehog with bright red paint.
Aerosol chemicals caused its spines to drop out and now, two months later, he is naked.
He would have died left out in the cold. But Kelvin is lucky."
Kelvin, whose photograph accompanies the report, is now being looked after and is healthy and well. Will the spraying of paints or other substances, which is sadly a growing trend, be made illegal by his Bill?
Mr. Meale: Yes, because spraying an animal with paint is an act of cruelty.
556
In July 1993, in Hollington, Kent, a hedgehog was killed when a man kicked it 40 ft against a wall. That hedgehog had recently given birth to five young, and was being fed by a family in their garden. In May 1995 in Portsmouth, a hedgehog was killed by teenagers, who pulled a slab from a wall, carried it across a field on their backs, placed it on top of a hedgehog and took it in turns to jump off a bench on to the slab until the animal was crushed to death.
Those are just five instances, and the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) described another. The RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and other animal welfare organisations have catalogued tens of thousands of similar cases every year in which charges cannot be brought.
Many of my friends and the majority of the public will be disappointed that my Bill does not outlaw the hunting and killing of wild animals using dogs or the strangulation of animals on wire snares. So am I—but the reality is that, if I had brought such a measure before the House, it would have stood little chance of becoming law at this time. My discussions with the relevant organisations took into account the possibility of a general election being held and opposition in the other place to a measure that tackled such heinous crimes.
We went for a Bill to protect animals as quickly as possible, because of the scale of the problem. I would have preferred a Bill that tackled other forms of animal cruelty, but it was in the interests of the animal kingdom to proceed as we did. Perhaps the House will soon have a meaningful opportunity to examine and change the unfair preservation of certain interests—particularly in the other place, together with an examination of their Lordships' mansions, tens of thousands of acres of land and privileged position in society. Public opinion is with me in that respect, as with animal welfare. I hope one day that we will be able to have a full and frank debate on that aspect.
If any Conservative Members are thinking about opposing the Bill today, I wish to point out that it is a genuine attempt by Members of Parliament of all parties, who care about the animal kingdom, to start to put proper legislation into place. I believe that if any Member of Parliament—of any party—allows this country to continue without proper legislation to stop thugs and hooligans horrendously and cruelly torturing and killing wild animals for sport and personal enjoyment, he or she does not deserve to be here at all. I commend the Bill to the House, and I ask for the support of every hon. Member in the Chamber.
9.50 am
Sir John Cope: I am a member of the British Field Sports Society and have been for many years, much longer than I have been a Member of Parliament, but I am glad to support the Bill today. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who moved the Bill in a measured way, was very sensible to limit the objectives of the Bill as he has described, and also to seek wide agreement before introducing it.
I took a little part in some of the negotiations that took place between the hon. Member for Mansfield and the British Field Sports Society. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), the chairman of the BFSS, who took part from our side.

557
We are all concerned about the cases of terrible cruelty that have been brought to our attention by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, some of which the hon. Member for Mansfield has described this morning, and for which the society has not been able to prosecute successfully those people who should be brought to book.
At the same time, I wish to make it clear that I would not have been able to support the Bill if it had also attempted to ban hunting and other field sports. I own no land, and I do not fulfil the other criteria mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I am a strong supporter of field sports. The properly conducted, traditional field sports of this country have my support. Many of my constituents take part in them, they provide considerable employment, and they continue to contribute to the preservation of wildlife and of the countryside as we know it.
I am therefore opposed to any attempt to ban hunting and other field sports, and will continue to oppose any such attempts vigorously. I could not have supported the Bill if, directly or indirectly, it threatened to do so.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Mansfield and many others take a different view. We have in the past debated whether certain field sports should be made illegal, and no doubt we shall do again, as the hon. Gentleman has previously suggested. I am ready to defend field sports again if necessary. However, the Bill is not intended to attack field sports. The hon. Gentleman made that clear, as has the RSPCA in its briefing on the Bill.
I entirely accept those assurances, but those of us who support field sports have to be vigilant not only against full frontal attack, as happens occasionally, but against possible incidental effects of the wording of Bills that may not have been intended by the promoters. That problem gave rise to the difficulties at the end of the discussion of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill last year.
I originally had three concerns about the possible wording of the Bill. The first was that farmers, gardeners, motorists or other people who accidentally maimed or killed a wild mammal in the course of perfectly legitimate activities might find themselves facing the same charge as someone who was deliberately cruel in the way described by the hon. Member for Mansfield. My second concern was that legitimate agricultural activities, such as pest control or the deliberate dispatching of wounded animals, might be affected by the Bill. My third worry was that traditional field sports might be threatened, not by the deliberate and stated intention of the RSPCA, but by the misuse of the wording of the Bill.
In the course of the discussions over the wording of the Bill, the hon. Member for Mansfield may have thought that we were sometimes overly concerned about the ways that the wording might be twisted and used, but we were right to be concerned. There are some fanatical people, who are viciously anti-farmer and anti-hunt, and sometimes both. This week, my local paper reported an outbreak of arson against local farms. Three separate farms have been attacked, and three barns full of hay and other buildings and machinery have been destroyed.
Anti-hunt activists also go far beyond mere protest on some occasions. In my constituency, they tried to dig up the grave of the late Duke of Beaufort, which is only a few yards from his family home, not long after his funeral. I regard that as disgraceful, and I am sure that every hon. Member would agree. I mention that incident only to
558
show the lengths to which some people will go, and not because I think that any hon. Member would condone such activities.
If some people were given even the ghost of a chance, they would be prepared to try to twist the wording of any Act of Parliament—whatever the intentions of the promoters—and chance their luck in court if they thought they could damage legitimate field sports. It is not acceptable to me that the lives and the jobs of my constituents who are farmers, fox hunters or both should be subject to that.
However, it would also be wrong for the House to accept a Bill if its wording was vague enough to be the subject of argument in court about its intention. Sometimes, of course, that can happen accidentally, and we all know the difficulties of drafting from our experience in the House. However, the courts would have to decide a case by trying to dig out a precise meaning from ambiguous wording, not on the objective merits of the issue. If we accepted a vaguely worded Bill, that would be a dereliction of our duty as legislators, and would not be the right way in which to make the law of the land.
However, the hon. Member for Mansfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, in their discussions, have made great efforts, with expert advisers from both sides of the argument, to achieve a satisfactory wording that would protect wild mammals from the cruelties that have been listed and described so graphically without damaging legitimate, properly conducted field sports and agricultural activities. I am reassured that a wide range of legal expertise has been brought to bear on the drafting of the Bill to achieve those aims. I welcome the agreement that has been reached and is expressed in the wording of the Bill.
On that basis, and with those reassurances, I support the Bill, and I am glad to help to advance protection for wild mammals.
9.58 am
Mr. John McFall: I am delighted that, within 12 months of my Bill, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, receiving—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) mentioned—almost the largest majority for a Private Member's Bill in the history of Parliament, he has taken up the issue and ensured the current Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill a Second Reading.
The Bill has massive support throughout the country. A MORI poll showed that 90 per cent. of the public favoured the 1995 Bill, but it stood little chance of getting through Parliament. Given that glaring cruelty is still occurring in the country, I felt that it would be worthwhile, if possible, to obtain some measure of agreement so that, for the first time, a wild mammals Bill could he passed.
I should like to thank my hon. Friends for their support in reaching that goal, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for his generosity in promoting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) who, throughout the discussions on my Bill last year, and during the past few weeks, has been straight and direct about the intentions of the British Field Sports Society and others. He deserves our

559
thanks for that. The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) served on last year's Committee and willingly helped to find points on which we could agree.
My Bill was number seven in last year's ballot, and stood little chance of going into Committee. Ultimately, less than a week before the expiry date for the Bill's Report stage in the House, I found a free slot for my Bill in Committee. That meant that the House had two days to examine the Bill. Hon. Members from both sides of the House put their heads together to find something everyone could accept. The then Minister had the support of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Home Office. In that time, we came up with what we thought was agreeable wording. The Bill was amended in the other place, however, and its chance of success was therefore limited.
I think that the public feel that the rules of the House of Commons are rather anachronistic, and perhaps a bit antique because my Bill needed only to be subject to effective orders and for its title to be read out in a few seconds for it to be passed by Parliament. Alas, that did not happen. I was determined, as a result of the many thousands of letters of support that I received, that the Bill would eventually become an Act. Hon. Members therefore deserve to be congratulated on that success.
The right hon. Member for Northavon mentioned the Bill's purpose. Since the landmark case of Pepper v. Hart of 1992, the courts and lawyers have been able to understand the intentions of Parliament. Our intentions will be made clear in this debate: to put legislation on wild mammals on the statute book for the first time, and to outlaw wanton acts of cruelty. That is the sum and the substance of our intentions.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend puts the case very well. Is he aware that tens of thousands of people were outraged by the acts in the other place, which virtually sabotaged his Bill and raised serious question marks about the role of the other place—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: We do not need to go over all that.
Mr. Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the current Bill? It reflects the good work that he has done, with support from both sides of the House—in spite of the sedentary comment just now. Will he join me in wishing good speed to the Bill, and agree that, if it is blocked in the same way at a later date, there will be further outrage out there, and that the people who block it will not be forgiven?
Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not want to spoil a good party this morning.
Sir John Cope: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is right to mention the case of Pepper v. Hart. That was a tax case, and I can never remember whether Pepper or Hart was the tax inspector, and the other one was a schoolteacher. It was an extremely important case, which is why I attach great importance to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the intentions of the Bill, and which I set out.
560
I think that last year's activities in the other place have been misrepresented. I do not want to refight the battle in detail, but some important issues were raised there. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world—as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged—we had not foreseen all the snags in the last-minute drafting of the Bill at this end of the Corridor. I believe that those in the other place made some sound points, which have been taken account of in the Bill, and which I hope will not cause further difficulties.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) continues, I should tell the House that this morning's interventions, though interesting, are getting rather lengthy. The House will know that I appreciate short interventions. While passing reference may be made to other Bills and actions, this is a Second Reading, to which primary attention should be directed.
Mr. McFall: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to know that I am taking the statesman's route this morning, and I will not focus on other issues. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments—
Mr. Paul Boateng: I am not obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker, to take the statesman's route, and do not hesitate to be a party-pooper. No one should be under any doubt—I hope that the right hon. Member (Sir J. Cope) will agree with me—that many hon. Members are absolutely opposed to the abominable cruelties that are associated with field sports, and we look to this Bill to deal with them. There should be no doubt in the minds of the promoters of the Bill that many us are here to ensure that that happens. Those cruelties should be brought to an end.
Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with the thrust of his comments, but I should like to see the Bill secure a successful passage today. We can then go on to debate the issues that surround blood supports.
I have mentioned the all-party support in the House. We also have all-party support throughout the country. A Scottish politician, Baillie John Young, a Conservative who has been in regular contact with me about this issue, said that he supported my original Bill, and that he would continue to support similar Bills. One of my Bill's strongest supporters was Diane Wilson, a Conservative who is involved in the Somerset anti-blood sports group. There has been tremendous support throughout the country for the provisions of my original Bill and today's Bill.
The reason for the support is that the public are perplexed by the 85-year wait, since the Protection of Animals Act 1911, for provisions to protect wild mammals. It was not only an anomaly but a glaring omission that an individual who had a pet fox and maltreated it could be prosecuted, while an individual who maltreated a wild fox could not be prosecuted. I believe, as do many of my hon. Friends who have contributed to this debate, that this matter one of social reform.
Last year, in the Second Reading debate, I mentioned "Roads to Ruin", by E. S. Turner, in which he dealt with a number of issues. He told of another book that was

561
about torture, and which was dedicated to the chief of the imperial general staff. He wrote that, many years ago, some in the House argued that it would not be a good idea to abolish the jobs of chimney boys, because that would endanger country houses. Thankfully, we have moved on since those times, but I view this issue in the same context as those which were debated 100 years ago.
The Bill reflects a feeling that has been running through British society for 150 years. We are on the verge of passing the Bill this morning because of the dedicated work that has been done throughout the country for those 150 years. We stand on the shoulders of social reformers throughout the ages. If the Bill receives passage through the House this morning, I can guarantee that many hundreds of thousands of British people will be happier for it.
On Second Reading of my Bill last year, I said that this sort of provision should be on the statute book before we enter the new millennium. There are many reasons for that, not least that it is only by securing such legislation that we can call ourselves a truly civilised society. We are taking the first step down that road today, and I think that the public will gain succour from the fact that, for the first time in Parliament's history, there is genuine harmony in the Chamber this morning for passing legislation to protect wild mammals.
10.10 am
Mr. James Couchman: I shall not detain the House for long, but, like the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), I should like to refer to history. For some time I was the co-licensee of a public house called The Castle in Cowcross street near Smithfield market. Two hundred years ago Smithfield was the centre of all sorts of rumbustious and nefarious activities, not least because it was the national centre for cock fighting, bear baiting and dog fighting.
The Castle is unique in that it holds two licences. The Prince Regent came to Smithfield for the cock fighting in those days. He lost all of his money on the first two fights and repaired to the nearest tavern where he was able to persuade the landlord that his watch was worth a few guineas. He then returned to bet on the other fights. The watch was redeemed by a palace courtier the following morning and The Castle in Cowcross street was granted a pawnbroker's licence in perpetuity.
We have come a long way since cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting—or have we? I understand that those unpleasant activities continue to flourish in certain parts of the country. I appreciate that today we are discussing wild mammals rather than domestic animals, but I shall relate one of the first constituency cases that I dealt with when I was elected to this place in 1983. It concerned a young gentleman who put his puppy in the oven and roasted it alive. That puppy could easily have been a hedgehog, a rabbit or another wild animal and it is incredibly sad that some people continue to indulge in those sorts of activities. One has only to read clause 1 of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) to realise how many forms of torture and unpleasant activities people inflict upon wild animals.
I have no hesitation supporting my guv'nor in the parliamentary beer club, the hon. Member for Mansfield—he is chairman to my vice-chairmanship of that excellent organisation—in his attempts to bring the
562
law regarding wild mammals into line with that which presently prevails for domestic animals through the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I support the Bill.
10.13 am
Mr. Eric Clarke: As a sponsor of the Bill, I stress the need for legislation to protect wild animals. I am a fisherman—there is no conflict of interest—and, as I travel around the country, I see wild animals in their natural habitats. We must have the will to pass legislation to protect wild animals and Members of Parliament would be very foolish to ignore that fact.
I receive a tremendous amount of correspondence from my constituents—particularly from young people—after the screening of television programmes about cruelty of any kind to any wild animal, including whales or dolphins. My postbag is always full on those occasions. The people are telling us that they desire this type of legislation and I believe that we would be very foolish as politicians and as humanitarians to ignore them.
I do not go as far as some who use violence to protect domestic and farm animals. Such people seem to think that it is all right to stick it to the police and others and to use violence in support of their cause. I do not believe that the use of violence is justified. One must put across one's point of view democratically and peacefully. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on introducing the legislation and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on raising the issue originally.
We are judged as a nation according to how we treat our children and our animals. I think that that is how it should be. If we have detailed legislation to protect youngsters and other vulnerable people, we should have legislation to protect wild animals also. I hope that the spirit of co-operation in the House this morning will be accepted and that there will be no recriminations or awkwardness at this stage.
10.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I take this opportunity to confirm the Government's very strong support for the aims of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill. The Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), seeks to add to the protections that exist already for certain animals and certain habitats and to fill an existing gap while protecting pest control and legitimate agricultural practices.
My Whip's training tells me that Fridays are not the time for Front Bench interventions, so I shall be brief. I shall make two points. First, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said: it is a sad reflection on our society that such a Bill is necessary. It is disappointing that a despicable minority of people are prepared to commit acts of cruelty against animals and it is appropriate that the Bill introduces imprisonment as the penalty for committing such acts. Those who are thinking of behaving in that way should be made well aware of that fact.
Secondly, I pay tribute to the two sides of the argument. There are very firmly held views about matters close to the Bill and there have been negotiations between those who represent the interests of agriculture, the British Field Sports Society and the Royal Society for the Prevention

563
of Cruelty to Animals. It is a tribute to all concerned that they have managed to achieve a consensus which I hope that the House will accept. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), to my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) for their work in negotiating with the hon. Member for Mansfield to agree the text of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps you appreciate better than anyone that we are a nation of animal lovers. The Bill reflects that fact and it is a credit to the House that we are witnessing the proceedings today.
10.18 am
Mr. Elliot Morley: I must state at the outset that I receive research assistance from the political animal lobby. I do not believe that that is relevant to the debate, but I make that point clear.
I begin by echoing the Minister's comments: it is a sad reflection on our society that a measure of this kind is necessary. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is long overdue. It enjoys the overwhelming support of the people of this country, and that is why I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) from the shadow Home Office team, give it our full support.
I also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) who have brought forward similar measures and who have advanced the campaign to ensure that there is protection for wild animals. I was privileged to be a sponsor of all three of those Bills, which were supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They were also supported by all the main animal welfare groups, including the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports, which have given considerable technical advice.
Despite all that support and advice, however—and the drafting help given by the Minister's private office—the Bill should be seen as only a first step in the removal of anomalies connected with the protection of wild animals. It would have been better if it had been based on the wording of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is tried and tested and has served animal welfare organisations very well when they have brought prosecutions relating to cruelty to domestic and captive animals.
The Bill's wording is not based on that of the 1911 Act, because the Act includes the words "torture" and "mistreat", which were not acceptable to the pro-blood sports lobby, including the British Field Sports Society. A justification of the society's attitude, contained in a briefing, is completely unconvincing. In fact, it would not accept the wording because, if a case involving dogs being set on other animals were brought to court, those responsible would almost certainly lose. That explodes the myth that setting dogs on other animals for entertainment is a humane form of pest control.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Bill should have been based
564
on the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It should be noted that the word "animals" rather than the word "mammals" appears in the title of that Act. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage an extension to cover wild birds and fish?
Mr. Morley: The Opposition have no argument with angling or, indeed, responsible shooting. Clearly, if the 1911 Act were amended, it would have to be amended in a number of ways to take that point into account, and also to take into account the legitimate needs of farming and pest control. Nevertheless, it would not have been difficult to amend the Act along those lines. We would then have benefited from a form of words that has been well tested in law.
The British Field Sports Society's conversion to support for a measure to protect wild mammals is a com-paratively recent enlightenment on the road to Damascus. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) shakes his head, but a leaflet distributed by the society at the time of the last general election, entitled
"Will your sport be safe after the next election?",
states:
"Fact three: Labour's plan for a bill to protect wild mammals is pure window dressing to create an opportunity for a free vote on hunting. There is no need for a new law. Since 1911 it has been an offence to cause suffering to a captive wild animal."
That ignores the facts: the Bill deals with wild mammals. Nevertheless, I suppose that we should be grateful for late conversions to the cause.
Although we believe that the Bill does not go far enough, it is welcome. For the first time, bodies such as the RSPCA will be allowed to take action against acts of gratuitous violence and cruelty to wild animals. We have heard a number of examples today. Hedgehogs seem to be prime victims, perhaps because they are common in densely populated areas. For some reason, there seem to have been some particularly bad cases in my region. A hedgehog in Hull was painted with spray paint, whereupon its spines fell out; in Pocklington, north Humberside, youths used a hedgehog as a football. They were taken to court, but the prosecution failed because there was no protection in law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has given me a petition organised by a Mrs. Blyth from the hedgehog care centre in Cleethorpes, which calls for this legislation because of the increasing number of cases of cruelty. I have also received a lengthy petition organised by a Mrs. Duran in Oxford.
Anomalies still exist. For example, it will be illegal to set a dog on a captive fox—and rightly so—but the Bill will not deal with the cruelty of sending terriers underground when a fox is trapped. That will still be legal.
Mr. Boateng: Not for much longer.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right there.
The public will be puzzled by the difference between the way in which captive and wild foxes are treated. We shall, however, have an opportunity to return to the subject of cruelty associated with blood sports, and I accept that this is not the occasion on which to discuss such matters. For the moment, let me repeat that we welcome the Bill and the measure of agreement that has been reached, and hope that the legislation will complete its passage through the House of Lords without further

565
amendment. It is a better Bill now: the Bill that came to us from the other place was a mess. Although I concede that there were anomalies in the original legislation, some of the Lords amendments were unhelpful and some were downright stupid—especially the one relating to beating, which would have wrecked the purpose of the Bill.
I know that there is widespread support in and, particularly, outside the House for measures to protect wild mammals from deliberate cruelty. Although the effect of the Bill will be limited, it will enable action to be taken against the appalling people who inflict cruelty on wild mammals.
10.27 am
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this civilised debate, whose tone was set by the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). What they said reflected the manner in which we have conducted negotiations over the past few months.
Let me declare my interest as chairman of the British Field Sports Society, which is recognised as the unifying body for political lobbying on behalf of all country sports. It represents the views and interests of hundreds of thousands of people of all political persuasions. In the present climate, I should also declare that the appointment is unpaid.
I welcome the Bill. It is a carefully targeted, sensible animal welfare measure that will help to prevent cruelty, and it will be strongly supported by the public. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield not only on his good fortune in securing the debate, but on his wisdom in introducing the Bill in this form. I am grateful to him for the trouble that he took in consulting me so that an agreed, workable measure, acceptable to those in the countryside, could be presented.
For the last 100 years, every piece of animal welfare legislation has been passed by the House on the basis of political consensus. That is a proud record, and the hon. Gentleman has been wise to follow it. Real progress has been made, because all of us who genuinely care about animal welfare were prepared to put aside our differences and identify the common ground represented in the Bill.
We have dwelt to some extent on the history of the matter, but a few points are worth recording. If the Bill had been introduced in its present form in the last Session and had been sponsored by the hon. Member for Dumbarton, it would now be on the statute book. It was clearly unwise to couple such measures with clauses to abolish hunting and attack shooting. We could never have accepted the Bill in that form, and its fate should have been perfectly obvious to anyone.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton and I did everything that we could to secure an agreed Bill after he dropped the anti-country sports measures at the eleventh hour. Unfortunately, there were real flaws in his Bill, as the other place soon pointed out. I am afraid that the drafting efforts of the hon. Gentleman and me, assisted by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), were found to be defective—perhaps we would not make a very good firm of lawyers; hence the amendments that were tabled in another place.
My noble Friend Lord Mancroft needs absolutely no protection, but the hon. Member for Dumbarton said that my noble Friend tabled vexatious amendments in the
566
other place. I absolutely refute that. The other place did its traditional job extremely well, and the expertise there was represented in the tabled amendments, which were accepted by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in that House. As a result, we ended up with a much better considered Bill.
It is a matter of history that, despite the joint efforts of the hon. Member for Dumbarton and me, it was simply not possible within the procedural framework to have those amendments considered here. However, if the amendments had not been sound, we would not now be considering a Bill that, to a large extent, incorporates all those amendments.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), to my right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to officials for all their help to ensure that the Bill was as near perfect as we could make it. It would be remiss of me not to pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), who, in his typically sound, able and measured way, played an important part in the negotiations with the hon. Member for Mansfield and the RSPCA, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).
Since the passing of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, Parliament has passed a succession of specific measures to outlaw particular forms of cruelty to wild animals. For instance—this is in direct contradiction to what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe maintains—the gin trap and self-locking snares have been abolished, and the gassing of some species has been outlawed with the support of the BFSS. There are other examples. Field sports are regulated under the game laws as well as by their own codes of conduct. If we want to deal with a specific form of cruelty, we should do it in the established way—incrementally and by consensus. The Bill falls into the category of sensible animal welfare as opposed to measures that are pursued by the animal rights lobby. It thus deserves to succeed.
I once again express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Mansfield for making it clear in the Bill and in his speech that, despite his personal views and those of his sponsors, of whom we saw a glimpse today, the Bill is not intended to attack country sports, pest control or farming activities. His reassurance may be a watershed in the ending of single issue politics on rural issues. He now rightly expects, as I do, that the Bill will have a fair wind through the House and, I hope, in another place.
The hon. Gentleman has spent many hours discussing the measure with us. Legal advisers from the RSPCA and the British Field Sports Society have worked together with the common aim of producing good and workable legislation. This is an excellent day for the House of Commons and for wildlife, and I wish the Bill well.
10.34 am
Mr. Michael Fabricant: In principle, one of the most elegant pieces of English law based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic is the duty of care. We owe a duty of care to each other, and this place has a duty of care to its citizens. In that context we cannot rule out the duty of care that we as mammals ourselves owe to other mammals. The Bill is long overdue.
How times change. John Evelyn recorded that just 300 years ago in 1690 in a debate in this very place a Bill failed to become law by just 10 votes because the majority

567
of hon. Members were away watching a pack of dogs baiting a tiger just two miles down the road. The situation has changed, although, sadly, it has not changed enough. Hon. Members have spoken about the way in which some hedgehogs and other animals have been treated. It is extraordinary that human beings can behave in that way towards other animals. It is almost as if they are psychopathic and have no empathy of feeling for other living creatures.
It is sad that it has taken so long for the Bill to come to the House, because the present law is riddled with loopholes. A hedgehog or a fox when kept as a pet is protected by law, but the same animals in the wild can be cruelly treated or tortured. The Bill will ensure that that cannot happen in future.
I noticed with a little distress that clause 7 of the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, cannot apply to Northern Ireland. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) could explain why that is the case.
Mr. Meale: It is quite simply that Scotland and Northern Ireland are covered by other Acts, and have to be dealt with by those mechanisms. Hopefully, the Bill's provisions will be repeated in the appropriate Acts.
Mr. Fabricant: If the Bill becomes law, I hope that the will of the House will be seen to be clear, and that a mechanism can he contrived, which happens if the will is there, to see that the Bill's provisions apply to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: That was an interesting exchange, and perhaps we could return to it on Committee. I think that the only requirement would be to find in Northern Ireland legislation words that are equivalent to those in clause 3.
Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which was as helpful as ever. If he is correct, it seems that there is no impediment to the Bill covering Northern Ireland.
As hon. Members have said, there is considerable public feeling in favour of the Bill. I have received many letters in my constituency, particularly from people in Lichfield, supporting it. A few months ago, the RSPCA conducted a survey which showed that some 94 per cent. of the population—I am surprised that the percentage is so low—are keen to see the Bill in force.
In the past, the police have tried to take offenders to court for wanton cruelty to wild animals. The RSPCA has dealt with cases involving hedgehogs being burnt, beaten and impaled on sticks, and of live fox cubs being nailed to trees or set alight with petrol.
As I said, I cannot believe that people behave in that way. What sort of minds they must have that they treat other living creatures in that manner. Prosecutions have failed because of the many loopholes in the law. I am pleased that political correctness and political dogma have been overcome to enable the Bill to come to the Floor of the House.
We all owe one another a duty of care. If we, as human beings, fail to accept that that duty extends also to the animal kingdom, it does not serve the human race well. Nor does it serve the human race well that it has taken so long for the Bill to come to the Floor of the House.
10.40 am
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the Bill, not least because it is based on the concept of compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) said, for 100 years, all measures in the House to protect animals have been based on consensus. That is the British way—the sensible way. This Bill will pass into law because it recognises that, in a free society, progress affecting the rights of minorities has to be based on consent.
The Bill last year, sponsored by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), was doomed to failure, because it sought to ride roughshod over that principle. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has told us today that the Bill is merely a first step, but the League Against Cruel Sports will, I suspect and hope, ultimately fail, because it seeks to criminalise the activities of hundreds of thousands of decent, law-abiding people. That is why there is an internal crisis and a sense of frustration in the league, and why I suspect that the Bill is the work more of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals than the league.
Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to many people why, under the Bill and existing law, it is illegal to set dogs on a tame fox, but why—even under the Bill—it will still be legal to set dogs on a wild fox?
Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, because I was coming to that matter.
James Barrington, the league's executive director, who has just been forced out by the extremists, sought to raise that point. He dared to suggest—as, apparently, the Bill, by its uncontroversial nature, suggests—that field sportsmen are perhaps respectable members of society with rights and views that need to be taken into account. He suggested simply that, if terrier work were abandoned by hunts, they could enjoy greater public recognition, and that the league could conceivably change its attitude towards them. I personally have some sympathy with that view. It may be a compromise that is worth investigating.
No doubt Mr. Barrington is right in saying—or perhaps the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is right in saying—that the case against hunting would be even weaker if terrier work were banned, although no doubt the hon. Gentleman and others would go on suggesting that hunting should still be banned. I should like to know his view on that point.
Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the preparation of the Bill, there has been equal partnership: equal advice has been given by the RSPCA and the League Again Cruel Sports. My advisers during the preparation of the Bill have been someone from the RSPCA and John Bryant from the League Against Cruel Sports.
I urge the hon. Gentleman not to dwell on the background of an industrial incident at the league because I know some of the background of that matter, which will be decided outside this place at an industrial tribunal. My impression is that I think the league was correct in what it did.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate continues, may I make the point that we are debating the

569
Second Reading of the Bill, and that, although passing reference may be made to other issues that bear on it, we must not become diverted from the main purpose.
Mr. Leigh: I am happy to leave Mr. James Barrington—I have made that point. The Bill recognises what should be a cardinal feature of our debates: in a free society, we cannot suddenly legislate away in a private Members' time on a wet Friday afternoon rights that have existed since time immemorial. At the very least, a Government would need to be elected with such a provision in their manifesto. Perhaps a referendum would be required. It is interesting that the Labour party, which could take that course, chooses not to do so. It recognises, as we all do, that this is primarily a moral and not a political issue.
Do I then argue that, in a pluralist and liberal society, which, like everyone else here today, I support, people should be allowed to do exactly what they like? Of course not, which is why I support the Bill, and why we will all allow it to go through. People should not be allowed to derive gratuitous pleasure simply from torturing animals. I suspect that only a small minority do so, and I know of no respectable field sportsmen who derive such pleasure from any pain inflicted on animals.
There is another point. If, for some extraordinary reason, hunting with dogs had never been invented, it would have to be invented now, because sometimes it is not possible to control pests without dogs. Hunting, shooting and fishing as sports have been a feature of rural life for centuries. In those circumstances, it is neither morally right nor feasible to criminalise something undertaken every weekend by millions of people.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my previous guidance. We must consider what is contained in the Bill rather than do a general survey of other matters that, although they may be related, are not in the Bill.
Mr. Leigh: I am happy to take your guidance on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is worth saying, however—this is the point that I really wanted to make in my few remarks—that, if we are going to make any progress in these matters, as I believe we have to, we must recognise that there are people in this country who have alternative views.
Mr. McFall: As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not taken part in any negotiations on either my Bill or this Bill, unlike the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope). Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is coming across as shrill, partisan and out of keeping with the tone of this morning's debate, when we have focused solely on the issue of animal welfare. It would do the hon. Gentleman good to take a leaf out of the book of hon. Members debating the issue this morning.
Mr. Leigh: I am simply making the point that the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon have said, is a watershed, because it recognises that, when we are dealing with matters affecting city and countryside, we have to proceed with consent.
570
Like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who has moved the Second Reading, I was fortunate to come near the top of the private Members' ballot some years ago, and I introduced a Bill on footpaths. I was careful then to gain advice from the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and ramblers' organisations. That Bill became law—I think that it was the first Bill on footpaths to become law for many years—because it was based on consent.
The point that needs to be made is that, if we are going to make any progress in these matters, we must realise that there are differing opinions, that a large number of people hold strong views, and that we can make progress only on the basis of consensus. The hon. Member for Dumbarton did not recognise that with the proposals that he included in the Bill he introduced last year.
I see from the hon. Member for Mansfield today a realistic determination and understanding of our procedures, and a determination to achieve a Bill that becomes law. I hope that our proceedings this morning are a portent for the future, and that what happened last year and in 1992 will not be repeated. If it were, there would be a rather arid stand-off between two opposing and strongly held views.
However much the hon. Member for Dumbarton may disagree with some of my points, I am sure that he recognises that people who hunt, shoot or fish have a valid point of view that should be respected. They are part of the countryside. The hon. Gentleman is here to support the Bill, which does not affect the rights of those people. Indeed, it is based on the traditional British way of debate, compromise and consensus. That is why it will become law, and why I support it and wish it well.
I hope that, when the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe considers these matters in the coming months, he will draw some conclusions from this debate. If there were to be a Labour Government, I hope that he would take the view that these matters are better dealt with by private Members' legislation. If such Bills are to become law, the proceedings must be by consent. It would be intolerable if a Labour Government, not having included these matters in their manifesto, were then to change the traditional ways in which Parliament deals with them, by, for example, providing extra time to allow a Bill banning hunting to become law.
However, from what the hon. Gentleman said today and the measured tones he used, I think that he recognises that, in a free, pluralistic society, we have to proceed by consent, and that we need to conduct these debates on the rights of animals and country sports in a civilised way. We all recognise that animals do not have rights because they do not have duties, but we have a duty of care to them.
That duty is different for different animals in different sets of circumstances. For example, Labour Members may believe that they have to poison a wild rat because it is the only way to kill it. The rat may die a painful death, but it is the only way to deal with that pest. However, if somebody poisoned a domestic rat, he would justifiably attract the attention of the RSPCA. Animals do not have rights in the way that human beings do, and they should not he equated with human beings. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility not to mistreat, torture or harm them in any way.
Mr. Fabricant: Is not it a strange irony that, while we debate this issue, there are traps set to poison rats in the Palace of Westminster and other parliamentary buildings such as Norman Shaw North.
Mr. Leigh: No doubt such traps are felt to be necessary.
I find it extraordinary that the Bill contains nothing about cruelty to fish. Perhaps it would contravene the anglers charter—
Mr. McFall: Focus on the Bill.
Mr. Leigh: I am. This is a Second Reading debate, and I am entitled to speak on what is in the Bill. I am amazed that something of great interest to so many people is not included. Perhaps there are good political reasons why the Labour party does not wish to offend the millions of people who go fishing every weekend.
Mr. McFall: My tummy churns when I hear the son of Baroness Thatcher talking about consensus—something that was missing from all the Bills that have littered the past 15 years. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman, come off it.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman obviously needs educating. It is true that we cannot always proceed by consensus, unless the Bill affects the rights of minorities—not small minorities either, because they encompass millions of people who have enjoyed certain rights for hundreds of years or even from time immemorial. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, when dealing with the rights of those minorities, we should proceed by coercion, that would be a dangerous principle, and the House should not countenance it.
I may be wrong, but I cannot recall Lady Thatcher introducing legislation that affected the deeply held views and rights of minorities—[Laughter.] I shall be happy to give way to any hon. Member who can give an example.
Mr. Meale: I could mention trade unions, but I want to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the Bill, which has a consensus. I want us to proceed, so that we can get the Bill on the statute book.
Mr. Leigh: It is only 10.55 am. I understand that this debate can continue until 2.30 pm. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to speak until then—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman tried to do so, I would have to remind him not to be repetitive, and to keep to the subject matter.
Mr. Leigh: I shall be happy to keep to the subject matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The House can be at its most dangerous when hon. Members are being polite to each other. It creates dangerous legislation, such as the Dangerous Dogs Act. I sometimes feel that, on a Friday morning, I am the little hit of grit in the oyster, out of which a pearl of truth can come. We all know what is happening in the real world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said, unless the Bill is carefully drafted, some violently inclined people might use a weakly drafted clause to attack the traditional pursuits of millions of people.
I understand the difficulty of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. The only logical point of view is that taken by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and my right hon.
572
Friend the Member for Northavon—that we should ban gratuitous torture but not affect the rights of people to conduct themselves in the way that they have always done. The other view, which is taken by such people as Mr. Bryant, who is now the chief spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, is that all hunting, fishing, shooting, and any sport involving animals, is wrong.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is being hypocritical, and he knows it. He tried to skirt around the issues and say that the Bill was a first step. If he were honest, he would admit that he is opposed to angling, shooting, hunting and all the rest. However, he knows that he could not get away with that politically—
Mr. Morley: I am sorry that we seem to be going down this road, but as the hon. Gentleman is attacking both my position and the Labour party's agenda, I must put the record straight. The Labour party is committed to a free vote on the abolition of fox hunting, hare coursing and stag hunting. We will put that matter to all Members of the House of Commons, recognising the moral dimension.
On a personal note, I will always argue that there is a moral and philosophical difference between shooting and fishing and those sports that involve inflicting prolonged pain and stress on animals for no reason other than entertainment. This is not the place to argue those differences, but I am prepared to do so with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.
Mr. Leigh rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must point out that, although a fair degree of tolerance is given at Second Reading to discussion about what is or is not in the Bill, we cannot have a general discussion unrelated—or becoming unrelated—to the Bill itself. I offer that as guidance—very strong guidance.
Mr. Leigh: It would be a very brave hon. Member who tried to ignore your strong guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would never seek to do so. Your point has been made.
I wish the Bill well, and I hope that we will learn lessons from this morning. If there is a Labour Government and a free vote on the issue transpires, I hope that the House abides by the tradition of dealing with such matters in private Members' time—the way we have always dealt with them. We must ensure that minorities and their views—which may well be minority views, but are valid for all that—are protected by the House of Commons.
11 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The chances of that happening are slender. The chances of a Labour Government are not as great as some people may think, and the chances—if there were such a Government—of Labour leaving a private Member's Bill to find its own way to the dustbin are limited as well. But, as has been rightly said by most hon. Members, that is not what today's Second Reading debate is about.
I join in the tributes to the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and the compliments paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for

573
Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). It seems to me that we are back in the positive mood that existed in Committee in July. I had hoped at that time that a number of us had helped to create the conditions in which it would be possible for hon. Members to get what they agreed on through both Houses. Sadly, that did not happen.
When a case of deliberate cruelty to a wild animal came forward, people were shocked and horrified to discover that it is possible to torture a wild animal without committing a criminal offence. Essentially, the Bill's first clause proposes that those who deliberately torture a wild animal will suffer the same penalties if brought to a court and convicted as if they had tortured any other animal, and I welcome that.
I did have one question about why birds were left out of the measure, although they may be included in other legislation.
Mr. Morley indicated assent.
Mr. Bottomley: I understand from the hon. Gentleman that birds are dealt with elsewhere.
Everyone is saying that they expect that Parliament—albeit following a delay of a year—will pass the measure that was rightly brought before the House a year ago by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. I have raised the question of how to deal with Northern Ireland issues, but it might be sensible for the Bill to receive its Second and Third Readings in the House first, and then perhaps the Government could consult people in Northern Ireland to find the best way of making sure that any anomaly is blocked there in the same way as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sir James Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my part of the United Kingdom. There would be two methods of introducing the provisions in Northern Ireland. First, the Bill could be amended at a later stage to include Northern Ireland. After all, the exclusion of Scotland from two particular aspects of the Bill produces rather more real exclusions than could possibly apply in the case of Northern Ireland. Secondly, there could be a fallback position. If we were so inclined and thought it desirable, the Bill could be extended to Northern Ireland by the negative resolution order.
Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his positive suggestions. I hope that those dealing with the Bill, both here and in another place,
574
will be able to consult the Government and the interests in Northern Ireland to find a way forward. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that, as most of us would expect, there is widespread agreement in Northern Ireland that the provisions of the Bill should extend there as soon as possible, and in the same way as they apply to the rest of the UK.
The Bill rightly does not try to deal with other issues of concern. Clearly, there is disagreement in the House and in the country about country sports. In Committee last year, I stated that I would not go along with the abolition of fox hunting or attempts to do so, but that is not an issue for us today. I should, incidentally, declare my involvement with the International Fund for Animal Welfare, although that is presently an honorary association.
It would not be right for the Bill to deal with some of the crying shames in the European Union. I hope that other European countries come to understand that veal-crate breeding should be abolished, as that would solve the terrible problem of exporting calves for fattening in veal crates—a practice forbidden in this country.
There are a number of other issues, but I shall put them together: town and country; Labour and Tory; all those without political affiliation who care for Parliament's provisions to prevent deliberate cruelty to wild animals; they all want to see the Bill succeed. I am grateful to the voluntary organisations such as the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others for keeping the issues alive at a time when Parliament is not as concerned as it should be with taking action that will have broad support in the country. I hope that Bill has a better fate than its predecessor, and I pay tribute to those who have pushed it forward so far.
11.5 am
Mr. Meale: I am grateful to the House, and the only thing left to do is put the matter to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Meale.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Chair customarily deprecates a Committee stage being taken without notice, especially in a case where a Bill has been recently published.
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Employment (Homeworkers) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
11.8 am
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am glad of this unexpected opportunity to present a Bill on an important issue—the rights of one of the most neglected groups of workers in these islands, namely, home workers—and thank the National Group on Homeworking for its support in drawing up the Bill and campaigning for it.
I realise that the prospects of getting a "behind-the-Chair Bill", as they are called in this place, on to the statute book must be limited—indeed, as limited as time is today. I hope, however, that we can get the issue on to the agenda by virtue of this short debate, and I particularly hope that the Government will produce a Minister to listen to it—I am glad to see an instant Minister appear. I hope to secure indications from him that the Government are prepared to take the issues seriously and to make progress on them. I would also like the Bill to go into Committee, where we could explore the issues in greater depth. I thank hon. Members from every party in the House who signed early-day motion 335, calling for progress with the Bill.
Some people will ask why a Plaid Cymru Member of Parliament has introduced such a Bill. Hon. Members know that social issues have always been high on our agenda. At our conference this year, we were lobbied on the topic, and we promised to do everything we could to help those who are concerned with it.
In Wales, 69,000 people are identified as home workers and, according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, in 1991 there were 6,210 home workers in Mid Glamorgan, of whom 2,180 were identified as manual workers and 1,020 as intermediate and junior non-manual—in other words, way over half the total number of home workers were clearly employees. In my county of Gwynedd, more than 9,000 people were identified as home workers in 1991; two thirds of those may well be self-employed, but a substantial group fall into the category of employees.
Social justice has always ranked high on the list of political priorities in Wales—across party lines. This issue is a cause for concern for people, not only in Wales but in all parts of these islands. When we get our own Parliament in Wales, this is the sort of legislation that we will most certainly want to put on the statute book. I hope that some progress will arise from today's debate.
Who are the home workers towards whose plight the Bill is addressed? It is estimated that about 1.25 million people in the United Kingdom are paid to work in their own homes. About half those may be classified as self-employed, but nearly 700,000 work under the control of an outside employer and are known as home workers or sometimes as out-workers. They are mainly, but not exclusively, women and they work from their own home for a combination of reasons—mainly because they desperately need the money on which to live and cannot go out to work because of family responsibilities, usually young children and sometimes disabled or elderly relatives. In the larger cities and conurbations, many home workers are from the ethnic minority communities.
576
Home workers do a range of work, including assembly work for manufacturing industry, sewing and knitting work for the clothing industry, routine clerical and processing work, which increasingly includes data processing, and telecottaging. Home workers even manufacture Christmas crackers, for which the pay rate is abominably low.
We need to differentiate between a home worker, who is dependent on an outside employer for the work, and a genuinely self-employed person, who controls for him or herself critical aspects of the working pattern. In differentiating, there are large grey areas of definition. I must impress on the Minister that those are the areas to which I shall return, and that is why I regard the Bill, or a Bill along these lines, as necessary.
One aspect of the problem with which the Bill deals is that of definition and the plight facing many thousands of people who, while they are clearly dependent workers and not self-employed in any normal meaning of the term, are not treated as employees because of the interpretation of the law—although, if the work they do were done in a factory or an office and not in their homes, it would most certainly lead to their being categorised as employees. As a result, they suffer from the problems, frustrations and difficulties that arise from working at home: low pay, unfair remuneration systems, the unreliability of the supply of work, unreasonable deadlines, inappropriate working conditions, bad lighting and bad seating, and the lack of health and safety advice.
There are the dangers to health, not only for the workers but for their families, the lack of employee rights, training for the job and adequate supervision, and the lack of national insurance cover, which partly arises from the low pay. Their legal status is uncertain—investigations have shown that, while a third of home workers are clearly self-employed and another third may clearly be defined as employees, a third are acknowledged as being in a grey area. Finally, many home workers feel isolated. They have no one to whom to turn for help and advice.
Clearly, the Bill cannot solve all those problems, but it tries to deal with some. Home workers fall between the two stools of employee and self-employed. In consequence, they can face enormous deprivations. They suffer financially because of payment levels, which in some instances can be described only as scandalous. They suffer from an absence of legal rights, which they would have by virtue of employment law if they were properly recognised as employees. They suffer dangers, and would be protected under health and safety at work legislation if they were doing the same work in a factory. They miss out on entitlements that they would get under the national insurance system, if they earned enough to be above the lower threshold for contributions and were properly registered for national insurance purposes.
I must dwell on the financial plight of these people—not that the Bill can directly overcome that problem, but it can help indirectly. I shall give the House some examples. The National Group on Homeworking produced a valuable report in 1994, written by Ursula Huws, who is a leading worker in the area—her work is widely acknowledged, including, I believe, by the Government.
The report is entitled "Home Truths" and is based on a detailed survey. It shows that most home workers are paid on a piece-rate basis. The average weekly pay was found

577
to be £46 two years ago and the average hourly rate was £1.28.Only 15 per cent. of home workers got more than £70 a week and 35 per cent. were earning less than £30.
The report gives graphic examples. A woman known as Nasreen was sewing skirts and blouses and getting 11p per garment, which generated £10 a week for 50 hours' work. A woman called Jenny was earning £12 to £15. In her most successful week she earned about £30 for 60 hours' work, including working in the evenings and at weekends. That is the background to the issues with which we want to deal through the Bill.
Secondly, on health and safety, clearly there are potential dangers even in fairly light work undertaken at home. There are dangers in cutting canvas, sewing leather, soldering circuit boards and having chemicals in the home—certainly if there are children around. In that context the "Home Truths" report states:
"Employers' duties to self-employed homeworkers are fairly limited. However, where the homeworkers have the status of employees, their employers have a responsibility for ensuring their health and safety (under the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974) on the same basis as any other employees. However, the evidence of this survey is that few are exercising this responsibility.
Home workers said that they had been given health and safety advice by the employer in only 4 per cent. of cases, and the employer had only provided safety equipment in the same, tiny, proportion of cases. The percentage of employers insuring home workers against accidents was even lower, at 3 per cent. of cases."
That graphically demonstrates the problems faced by home workers and the degree to which, even where people are recognised as employees, employers are not fulfilling their responsibilities under the law.
In a factory, employees would be given firm guidance on how to do—and how not to do—jobs. There would be safety equipment, protective clothing and inspectors to keep an eye on how a job is done. The Health and Safety Executive would pay periodic visits. No such safeguards exist at home. Some may be impractical, but the safety of the workers still matters enormously, and the House should note that.
Thirdly, there is the lack of cover under the national insurance system. Many home workers do not currently pay national insurance contributions, and nor do employers on behalf of workers who are, or may be designated as, employees. Consequently, home workers miss out on national insurance dependent benefits. Non-contribution arises partly from the low earnings of home workers, who often earn less than the lower threshold of £58 per week.
If home worker status were clarified as fully equivalent to that of employees in factories or offices, that would at a stroke improve the home worker's financial lot. There could be an increase in wages of between 20 and 30 per cent. at the very least. That would bring around 200,000 people into the national insurance net. I put it to the Minister—I would be glad if he would respond—that if, by such a stroke, we brought 200,000 people into the national insurance net, that would generate at least £100 million for the Treasury. If the Government are turning their back on such resources, I want to know why.
Unfortunately, among home workers there is an element that is in the black economy. They may be earning more than £58 a week. Greater clarity in law will help many of them come openly into the system. Again, there is potential for substantial income for the Treasury.
578
I address the problem from the point of view of not only income for the Treasury but basic national insurance benefit rights for employees who most certainly need them.
The fourth problem is the main one dealt with by the Bill—the absence of legal employment rights for home workers compared with those for similar employees who do identical work in factories and offices. Two major enactments safeguard the rights of employees: the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as amended, and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. They provide, inter alia, rights for a written contract of employment, statements of itemised pay, appeal mechanisms against dismissal, redundancy entitlement and maternity provisions.
The stark truth is that home workers are, in practice, widely denied those rights. The survey that I mentioned showed that only 34 per cent. have itemised pay slips; only 18 per cent. have any form of employment contract; only 6 per cent. have redundancy entitlements; and only 6 per cent. are allowed maternity leave.
The overwhelming majority of home workers do not have the rights that are provided by law for other employees; nor do they have the rights of collective representation that are recognised by trade union legislation. If ever a group needed such rights, it is home workers. The effectiveness of the law as it stands can be measured only by the way in which it works in practice. Clearly, the law is not working in practice.
If the Minister tries to argue that the law regards every home worker who has not opted to be considered self-employed as an employee, he will have to explain why employee rights are being denied in case after case to the overwhelming extent shown by several surveys.
The problem of definition of home workers and whether they are classified as employees was highlighted by the Employment Select Committee in 1981. In paragraph 9 of its first report in 1981–82 on home working, it commented:
"There is an unsatisfactory area of doubt over the employment status of many homeworkers: it seems to be unclear whether many such workers are self-employed or are employees of the firms for which they work."
In paragraph 10, the Committee recommended:
"Homeworkers should be regarded as employees…Homeworkers should enjoy the same employment protection as other workers."
Patently, 15 years later, Parliament has failed to provide such protection for those workers.
Interpretation of the law by the courts and the agencies of Government is a hopeless mess. I have been advised that case law is contradictory. The recent case of Mrs. Vasanti Patel of Leicester shows the difficulties. She was an out-worker working from her home for a clothing company. Her company regarded her as a self-employed person, as did the Inland Revenue, but an industrial tribunal classified her as an employee. After the case, the Inland Revenue commented that the problem arose because no definition of employment, and hence of employee, exists in law. It said that the definitions are blurred.
In a publication endorsed and presented by the Government a few months ago, "A Manager's Guide to Teleworking", the Government themselves recognised the problem. The document stated:
"Whether someone is an employee or self-employed depends upon the terms and conditions on which he or she is engaged and works. There is no statutory definition of employment or

579
self-employment but the Courts have considered the question on a number of occasions and have identified a number of criteria as helping to determine someone's employment status. The conditions running through these judgments show that no one factor is conclusive."
The Government's own publication recognises that a problem exists. Mrs. Patel won her case, but we cannot expect every home worker to go to court to obtain what should be basic employment rights.
I have so far addressed the plight of the group of home workers who historically have been badly done by. I want to broaden the debate and look to the future.
Telecottaging is already a growth industry and modern technology such as fibre-optic links, the Internet and interactive digital systems open up the prospect of much greater home working, albeit of a nature different from that of the traditional groups that I have already described. The opportunities provided by telecottaging can be a major blessing, especially for scattered rural areas such as that which I represent. If it is to be an area of growth, it is vital that the employment rights of people who work from home by way of telecottaging are protected.
The development of telecottaging is important environmentally. It will reduce the need for car travel by employees, decentralise economic activity and sustain small local communities. That all points to the need to welcome telecottaging and the concept of home working, as do considerations of care in the community. If we are to go down that road, it is vital that we sort out the glaring anomalies in law for people who work at home.
The Government want to increase flexibility in the labour market. They want to encourage home working, especially teleworking. How can they do so honestly if those involved find that they are to lose out on their employment rights? Teleworking is a growing sector, but it has already encountered those problems. A survey undertaken by the Department of Employment in 1993, again by Ursula Huws, showed that 57 per cent. of teleworkers are considered permanent employees; 8 per cent. are temporary employees; and 32 per cent. are self-employed.
Last May, the Department of Employment launched a book entitled "A Manager's Guide to Teleworking", by Ursula Huws, to which I referred. In a section on advice to managers on the contractual arrangements that should be drawn up, it stated:
"Drawing up contracts for teleworking can seem a daunting task. But in practice it presents problems only in a minority of cases. Nine out of 10 telework managers report no problems at all in this area.
The ED Teleworking Survey showed that in half the organisations teleworkers have the status of employees, usually permanent employees. This means that they have normal contracts of employment to which extra clauses have been added to cover their situation as teleworkers."
The Government's publication goes on to detail the extra clauses that must be added to a contract of employment to look after a teleworker's position. It says:
"Extra clauses in an employee's teleworker contract might cover: the hours when teleworkers are expected to be at their desk or in the employer's office; any extra responsibilities or duties relating to being home-based, (e. g. procedures for regular reporting or for a safe delivery of work); health and safety issues; details of which expenses can be claimed from the employer and/or any additional allowances payable to the teleworkers to cover heating, lighting and other costs; and insurance."
580
That specific advice is given in a report presented by the Government to people intent on developing more home working by way of telecottaging. If that advice is relevant to employees working at home in that context, it is equally applicable to home workers in all other sectors of the economy where home working is undertaken.
It is worth reminding the House what the Minister said in a press release published when that document was presented. The press release, "Plug into teleworking—Ann Widdecombe tells UK businesses", says:
"To make a success of teleworking management arrangements must be adapted to new working arrangements. Teleworkers need to be clear about what is expected of them. Effective methods are needed for monitoring performance and giving workers feedback…
One of the main messages of the guide is that teleworkers should be as highly valued and integrated members of the organisation as any others. They should not be left out of consultation and planning. They should have equal access to training and promotional opportunities. These points do mean that managers need to give extra thought and care to teleworking arrangements."
Those are the words of the then Employment Minister, the current Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) —and those provisions should apply equally to all home workers. That position should arise from their status in law. That press release shows that at least one Minister recognises the problem and the fact that steps need to be taken in some circumstances.
A change in the law along the lines proposed in the Bill is needed to resolve the problem. Clauses 1 and 2 provide that the two basic Acts that deal with employee rights—the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993—should have the term "worker" inserted in place of the word "employee". Clause 3 adopts the definition of "worker" as that given in the Wages Act 1986, sections 8(1) and 8(2), which essentially say that a worker is
"an individual who works under a contract whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not that of a client or customer".
I am advised professionally that that is an appropriate definition because it already exists in law and that. by adopting it, we would close the loopholes in current legislation.
If the Government insist that, because of rulings such as the one on the Patel case, the law is adequate, there is a crying need for employers, the Inland Revenue, the national insurance authorities, the Department of Social Security and the health and safety at work people to be told that fact. There is a crying need also for mechanisms to be set up to enable home workers to secure their rights without recourse to courts or industrial tribunals in every instance.
Four steps now need to be taken. First, a formal Government circular should be sent to all employers of home workers, informing them that home workers have the same rights as the employer's other employees. Secondly, a body similar to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission should be set up to assist home workers to obtain their rights. Thirdly, local authorities should designate someone to advise home workers. I am glad to say that the new Caernarfonshire and Meirionnyddshire authority which comes into force on 1 April plans to do exactly that.

581
Fourthly, if employers contend that a home worker is self-employed and not an employee, the burden of proof should fall on the employer. Until and unless it is so proved, the home worker should be treated as an employee, with all the rights under the law that that entails. Those four steps are the minimum to which the Government should respond if they are not prepared to take on this Bill. However, it would be much easier if we gave a Second Reading to the Bill and went on to examine the details in Committee.
The law must be changed to accomplish that and, if the Government contend otherwise, they must explain why overwhelmingly in practice the law stands in contempt. Laws that are systematically ignored are bad laws and need to be amended. The Bill provides a mechanism and, if its detailed wording is inadequate, the Government can table amendments or new clauses in Committee.
This issue is on the political agenda here and in Europe. A draft European Commission recommendation on home working defines the term "home working" and calls on member states to review, revise and develop laws, regulations and policies to provide home workers with: contracts of employment; statements on pay and deductions; maternity and social security safeguards; health and safety provisions; a method of resolving disputes; and a number of other safeguards. It also highlights the need for local advice centres for home workers, and for collecting and collating reliable statistics on home working, which are clearly desperately needed, according to all the publications on which one can lay one's hands in the Library.
The draft European document also emphasises the need for employer organisations and trade unions to develop measures to implement the Commission's recommendations. I should have thought that it would appeal to the Government that the parties involved should sort out the problems. I urge the Government to approach the negotiations with the European Union in a positive frame of mind.
An International Labour Organisation conference on home working will be held in Geneva on 4 June this year, when the comprehensive home working recommendations will be considered. The proposed text, of which I have seen a copy, includes provisions for: first, a competent authority at national or regional level to keep a register of home workers; secondly, employers when they first give out work to a home worker, to notify the authority and keep a register of home workers employed; and, thirdly, employers to keep a record of the work assigned, the rate of remuneration, the time allocated, the allowable home worker costs reimbursed, the deductions from pay, the gross and net remuneration and the date of payment.
The Government must recognise that those basic provisions are necessary for home workers if they are to be fairly treated under the law, because home workers miss out on them at present. The ILO document could provide an excellent basis for securing fair treatment, and a source of reliable information.
In summary, the Bill will not increase the amount of employment protection legislation on the statute book; nor will it increase or extend employment protection. The Bill is about social justice and making it easier for workers to claim the rights to which they are legally entitled and which are set out as the statutory minimum in current law. The Bill will put no further duties on
582
employers. It will not extend rights to genuinely self-employed workers, but it will give protection to those workers who are wrongly classified as self-employed by their employers or are unsure of their legal status.
The problems and confusion created by the current wording of employment legislation make challenging employment status through the industrial tribunal system complicated, requiring great legal expertise. The current provision of accessible, free specialist advice to home workers is patchy. If the rights of home workers were more accessible, standard advice agencies would be able to handle their inquiries easily and effectively.
Parliament intended that workers should have statutory minimum rights at work. The present loophole means that employers can make a mockery of the basic rules that were laid down by the House of Commons. It is not just a home working problem. Increasing numbers of workers have been classified as self-employed by employers who seek to avoid their statutory obligations. That is particularly true in such sectors as construction and publishing. As the Bill could produce more money for the Treasury, it would be beneficial to the Government, as well as result in new benefits to employees.
I urge the Government to take the Bill seriously. I have outlined issues that often lie the below the surface. Home workers do not have strong organisations to speak on their behalf. Many are vulnerable people who are uncertain of their legal status as employees or their right to work in their own homes. They need help. It may well be that the Government and their predecessors considered the existing legislation to be adequate. The figures that I have quoted demonstrate that it is not. As the current law is not working, I appeal to the Government to say that they are prepared to change it to ensure that home workers in all parts of Britain can obtain the rights that they require and deserve.
11.42 am
Mr. Stephen Byers: I congratulate the hon Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the topic that he has selected as the subject of his measure. The plight of home workers is all too often ignored, and we should welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides to discuss it today.
More than 1 million people in Britain work from home. The majority are women and many are black or Asian. They are often isolated, and they have no collective voice to speak on their behalf. They are extremely vulnerable and they look to the House to defend and protect their interests. They are perhaps one of the least protected sections of the work force.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that home working is a growing sector. As the profile of the labour market changes, it is important that employment law is amended to reflect those changes. The traditional view of the home worker is someone working from a Victorian terrace, perhaps somewhere in the east midlands. That has changed dramatically. Many new home workers live in rural areas and often work in rather professional employment. Nevertheless, their needs remain clear.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor):I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the point that he is making. Does he accept that, since 1981, the proportion of home workers in manufacturing jobs has decreased from 21 per cent.

583
to 12 per cent. and that the real increases in home working have been in the better paid managerial, professional and secretarial occupations?
Mr. Byers:Yes. I accept that point absolutely. However, we should not ignore the employment needs of those individuals. Although there has been a change in the nature of home working, and many of the individuals concerned are in managerial and professional employment, they still need the protection of employment legislation; that issue is at the heart of our debate.
Although the nature of home working has changed, individuals working in that sector continue to be exploited. A recent survey by the National Group on Homeworking shows that many people work exceptionally long hours for as little as 30p a hour. The average home worker works 36 hours a week for £46.
In addition, we should reflect on the conditions in which those people carry out their work at home. Approximately eight out of 10 home workers have children. About 70 per cent. of them work in the same room as their children play. One in five care for a dependent relative while working at home. Many home workers struggle to provide a living for themselves, their children and their dependants, often in difficult circumstances. They are often vulnerable and open to exploitation, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the legal difficulties surrounding the definition of an employee, as opposed to someone in self-employment, are not helpful to people in those circumstances.
One would have hoped that the Government would recognise the vulnerability of many home workers and be prepared to take some positive steps to assist them. Unfortunately, in the last couple of months the Government have taken steps that will create difficulties for many home workers.
The Minister will be aware that on 28 November 1995 the Government repealed section 133 of the Factories Act 1961 as part of their attack on red tape, as they see it. That section required employers to notify the names and addresses of their home workers to the relevant local authority. The purpose was to allow authorities to ensure the observance of health and safety measures and to offer welfare advice. It was a key part of local authority strategy to tackle poverty among home worker families. The Government, in their infinite wisdom and as part of their bonfire of regulations, decided to remove section 133. That has created difficulties, because that modest measure was of benefit to many local authorities in helping home workers in their areas.
The Minister may say that the Health and Safety Executive was not a greater promoter of retaining section 133 of the 1961 Act. I was disappointed that the executive was not prepared to oppose the Government's repeal of that measure, but many sectors of society and organisations regret that the Government felt it necessary to repeal section 133.
At the heart of the Bill is the legal definition of "employee". The distinction between employees and the self-employed has, for a variety of reasons, become blurred. The Patel case is particularly significant.That
584
individual was regarded by many organisations and bodies as self-employed, but the industrial tribunal held her to be an employee. Government clarification is needed.
Mr. Wigley:Given the forthcoming ILO conference and European Union discussion document, and in the event of the Government failing to tackle this important problem, can the hon. Gentleman indicate whether an incoming Labour Government would tackle it as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Byers:That is always an interesting question. Later, I will outline Labour's approach.
Mr. John M. Taylor:Does it have anything to do with stakeholders?
Mr. Byers:Much of Labour's policy reflects our commitment to the stakeholder economy—and that covers home workers as well as other employees.
The Patel case has important practical and legal consequences. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that decision and say today how the Government view the blurring, legally, between employees and the self-employed. Given the changing labour market, it is in the employer's interests for people to be self-employed—although in practice they are employees. In journalism, teaching and the construction industry, people are increasingly encouraged—some might say forced—to seek self-employed status because of the benefits for the employer. It removes statutory obligations and offers substantial savings in terms of the employer's national insurance and tax payments. Employers should not be able to use a legal loophole to escape those liabilities—they are stakeholders too, and they have a responsibility and duty to the public purse.
Home workers are especially vulnerable. They are isolated and have no collective voice. The Government should not stand to one side and allow them to be exploited. Home workers need the protection of the House and the Government. Labour's approach to employment law is to provide minimum standards for all in the world of work, whether work is done in the factory, office or home. That principle, and our commitment to it, will affect our approach to home working as to other aspects of employment legislation.
11.54 am
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor):I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for his clear explanation of the concerns that led him to introduce the Bill. I have been most interested in what he had to say. May I also thank the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) for his balanced contribution? I am sorry in retrospect that I diverted him into the subject of stakeholding, but perhaps he feels at home with the concept even if the rest of us do not understand it.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke on behalf of a group of people whom he considers to be especially vulnerable. Today is not the first time that he has spoken in this place for the underdog. The hon. Gentleman is highly regarded in the House and I, having been the Welsh Whip for almost four years, also hold him in high regard. I recognise that this is a matter on which he feels

585
strongly, and I have listened carefully this morning. While I cannot make any promises, I hope that I may have some success in persuading the hon. Gentleman that the legislation already extends significant protection to home workers.
One difficulty is the definition of the group of people about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The technological changes that we have seen in recent years have meant that more of those people who work from home do so through choice. Furthermore, many are highly skilled, well paid and well trained. The term "home worker" can cover computer experts, local solicitors and accountants.
The spring 1995 "Labour Force Survey" revealed that nearly three quarters of those who work from home are in managerial, professional, technical, clerical and secretarial occupations. Only a small proportion are unskilled manual workers falling into the traditional view of the home worker who fills envelopes or sews eyes on to soft dolls. There is nothing wrong with those occupations—they need doing and are done. In any event, many home workers, whether they sew or write programmes for computers, are employees who are already covered by the full protection of employment legislation.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon will be aware, case law has established that just because people work in their own homes, rather than on the employer's premises, that does not necessarily mean that they are not employees like those who work in a factory. Like employees who work in a factory, home workers who are employees can complain of unfair dismissal if the employer stops giving them work. They can claim a redundancy payment if they are no longer needed, and they can also take maternity leave. While they are working, their employer should deduct tax and national insurance contributions as for any other employee. Those who are not employees can nevertheless benefit from protection against discrimination and unlawful deductions from their pay, and from health and safety provisions.
I recognise that it may not be easy to tell whether an individual is employed or self-employed. That is common ground between the hon. Member for Caernarfon, the hon. Member for Wallsend and myself. The individual home worker himself—or herself—may not always be sure. However, hon. Members may be interested to know that research has recently been carried out on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment, which will soon be published. It shows that only one third of unskilled home workers consider themselves to be self-employed and that they generally look after their own income tax arrangements. The research shows that those who consider themselves to be employees leave it to their employers to look after those matters.
Mr. Wigley:I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response. He has based his argument on the fact that a large proportion of the vulnerable people to whom I have referred are employees in law. If that is the case, why is it that 66 per cent. of them—according to the survey I have quoted—do not receive an itemised pay slip; 82 per cent. of them do not have a contract of employment; and more than 90 per cent. do not receive
586
the other benefits which employees should expect to have? If they are employees in law, the law is not delivering the rights that they should have as employees.
Mr. Taylor:I know the answer to that question, and I shall give it to the hon. Gentleman, although I know that it will not satisfy him completely. Employees such as those he mentioned are entitled to written particulars of their employment—what is commonly called a contract of employment—and to an itemised pay statement. There is no question about those entitlements. It is absolutely right that they are entitled to a statement of contractual employment terms and to an itemised pay statement.
The redress for an employee who does not receive them is to take the matter to an industrial tribunal—on that, I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would part company. I think that he is of the opinion that such tribunals are complex and legalistic. My opinion is that they are innately and culturally informal, and that people may be helped by taking their complaints or inquiries to tribunals. We might reach out and agree with each other on the desirability of doing everything possible to ensure that tribunals are simple and user-friendly and that they are not legalistic. That tribunals should be as informal and friendly and helpful as possible remains very much in my thoughts.
Mr. Wigley:The Minister will accept that many of those who work at home are among the most vulnerable. They do not have backing from any organisation, and find it difficult to pursue cases to industrial tribunals. Given that fact, and the fact that he is predicating his case on the basis that the overwhelming majority of those people are employees, will he consider, as a practical and serious proposition, drawing up guidelines for employers which make it clear that those home workers are employees, and that, without doubt, employers have a responsibility to provide such things as contracts of employment and itemised pay slips? If there is any doubt about whether a person is an employee or self-employed, the guidelines should make it clear that the onus of proof is on the employer.
Mr. Taylor:The hon. Gentleman knows that I will remain available to discuss the issues with him in the Chamber or elsewhere. I will go this far: I will ask my officials to consider carefully whether there is any way that the guidance material that is produced by my Department could be more helpful, not least in explaining who is likely to he considered as an employed or a self-employed person. I should like to be constructive, because the hon. Gentleman was entirely constructive in his arguments.
I accept entirely that there are people for whom obtaining legal guidance or determination can be difficult or hard to find, and a process with which they feel culturally ill at ease. As president of the citizens advice bureau in Shirley in my constituency, I recommend the wholly admirable—and often unsung—services that it provides. I am sure that, like mine, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will find that the advice that is available from their local CAB is better than they could ever have imagined. The culture, which is friendly and informal, is one that we seek to encourage for those who, by definition, are troubled and who come to the bureau burdened with a problem.
I shall develop my remarks further. I do not wish to trespass upon eternity, but there are more things to say. Those who are not employees can nevertheless benefit

587
from protection against discrimination, protection against unlawful deductions from their pay, and from health and safety provisions. I recognise that it may not be easy to tell whether an individual is employed or self-employed. That is a recurring theme, and the individual himself or herself may not always be sure.
In the final analysis, it will be for the industrial tribunal to decide whether the home worker is an employee and can complain of unfair dismissal or enforce other rights under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. In making its decision, the tribunal will consider all the circumstances surrounding the employment relationship to see whether there is any reciprocity of obligation between the two parties, which is the necessary condition of a contract of employment.
The Government's position has always been that it would not be right to require employers to carry the full burden of the legislation without the minimum degree of mutual obligation which must be present in any contract of employment. To add to regulation in that way would considerably constrain employers' freedom to run their businesses in the manner they think best. It would add to employers' costs, reduce work opportunities and inhibit the strong economy which we aim to encourage.
I hope that my remarks have in some way convinced the hon. Gentleman. While I have not found it possible to sign up to his proposed legislation, I have listened with great attention to what he has said and I shall continue to bear it in mind. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to consider those important issues.
12.7 pm
Mr. Wigley: I shall not detain the House unduly. I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I have noted the points that he has made. I am grateful also for his undertaking that he is prepared to look at the possibility of drawing employers' attention to their responsibilities under existing legislation. Those responsibilities may not be entirely clear to employers not for some malicious reason, but because there is a grey area that must be addressed. I shall be very glad if the Government can make progress along those lines.
I noticed a slight contradiction in what the Minister said—particularly in his closing remarks when he suggested that my legislation might impose additional burdens and costs on employers. However, earlier in his
588
speech he based his argument on the fact that employee rights exist already. Therefore, those burdens—if that is what they are—and costs should be on employers' shoulders already. I invite the Minister to ponder that point.
We are trying to ensure that all employees are recognised as such and have the reasonable protection of law when they are working in their own homes. In some circumstances, the provisions that apply in the factory or at the office cannot apply at home. However, there should patently be protection in other areas, and that protection does not exist at present.
I am glad that the Minister is prepared to look into the matter—particularly in light of the Patel case, which may provide a basis for insisting that people who are not receiving fair treatment should be treated fairly. I accept that the Patel case moves things forward in that direction. I also accept that the measures that will be introduced at a European Union level and in the International Labour Organisation in coming months may add dimensions to the considerations that the House should take on board in legislation, if legislation is necessary in that field. We may have to return to the matter in a year or so.
I urge the Government to act on the positive implications of the Minister's speech. I shall take advantage of any opportunity to discuss the issues further with him outside the Chamber on a formal or semi-formal basis. I hope that, as a result of Government action along the lines that he suggested, it will he possible for home workers who have missed out on their entitlements in the past to secure them in the future without having to resort to industrial tribunals.
If they need to go to such tribunals, I hope that they will note the Minister's assurance that assistance is available from, for example, citizens advice bureaux, and that local authorities will inform them of their rights. It would be better, however, if employers delivered those rights, because—as the Government say—that is the position in law. Employers should note what has been said here today, and recognise that responsibilities go with the employment of home workers.
I hope that this short debate, and the Bill, will at least promote that argument. If, in the fulness of time, we find that substantial progress is not being made, we shall want to table further legislation. I thank the Minister for his response.
Question put and negatived.

Offensive Weapons
Order for Second Reading read.
12.11 pm
Lady Olga Maitland:I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Frances Lawrence, the widow of murdered headmaster Philip Laurence, made a very true statement when she said: "A knife is an inanimate object, and it needs a human being to invest it with murderous properties." Her husband was brutally stabbed to death before Christmas outside the gates of his school, when he bravely intervened to protect a pupil from a violent attack. The letter sent by his eight-year-old son Lucien to Santa Claus asking for his father back for Christmas was one of the saddest things that I had ever read.
But we also think of John Killick, the security guard who was stabbed to death in Scunthorpe last December. We think of pensioner Frank Dempsey, who died after being stabbed in the throat, and of the frenzied slaughter of Imtiaz Begum and her three children with a nine-inch kitchen knife. That happened only last weekend. I have boundless admiration for WPC Jill Spencer, who disarmed the attacker. Every act of mindless brutality produces a double tragedy—the loss of a life, and the distraught family that that person leaves behind.
I first came into contact with a family struck by such a tragedy in 1987, when I was a parliamentary candidate in Bethnal Green and Stepney. There I met Bill and Valerie Dennison, whose 17-year-old son John had been stabbed to death. He was a model son, liked by all, good at sport and with everything to live for. He became another innocent victim of mindless violence, and his death nearly destroyed his parents. Closer to home, only last Sunday my 20-year-old research assistant Jay Therell was the victim of an attempted knifepoint robbery in Paddington. The weapon was a flick knife.
Above all, we should remember the price that the police pay when trying to protect the rest of us while we are going about our business. It is a humbling experience to talk—as I have—to officers who have been viciously stabbed; they deserve all the protection that is going. We should include in the roll of honour Sergeant Derek Robertson, the father of two children who was stabbed to death after being called to the scene of a robbery at a sub-post office in Croydon in 1994. In that year, more than 1,000 police officers in England and Wales were seriously assaulted and injured.
Police officers who are in contact with the problem are in no doubt that it is getting worse. Worryingly, research suggests that the problem is at its worst among males in their mid-teens. A 15-year-old is currently being held facing charges in relation to Mr. Lawrence's death.
In the year to April 1995, 2,550 offences of violence against the person in the Metropolitan police force area involved knives or other sharp instruments. That compares with 2,332 during the preceding 12 months. In Sutton, which is hardly an area notorious for violence, there have been two stabbings and one knifepoint robbery, and two 13-year-old boys were found carrying knives in the past month alone.
Prosecutions for the offence of carrying a knife in public with intent to use it rose sharply, from nearly 1,000 to 3,367, between 1993 and 1994. Those figures may
590
show only the tip of the iceberg, because knife carriers almost always carry their knives concealed. Of the 677 people who were murdered in this country in 1994, 236 were stabbed. In London, 41 per cent. of all murders involved knives or other sharp instruments. The number of people who have been injured by knives probably runs into thousands.
Mr. James Couchman: Of the horrific number who died under the knife, as it were, how many of the assailants were not known to the victim and how many were so-called domestic murders?
Lady Olga Maitland:I thank my hon.Friend for his interesting question. I regret that, at this time, I cannot give precise answers, but perhaps I shall be able to do so later. It is worth looking into that matter.
It is salutary to note that the knives amnesty, which ended on Sunday, binned 38,000 knives across England and Wales. That was a worthwhile exercise, which I hope will be repeated. In Sutton, there was a haul of 100 serious weapons, which included carving knives, bayonets and machetes. Other weapons included knuckledusters, throwing stars, cut-throat razors and a gruesome array of flick
knives, lock knives, and stiletto-type knives that are known as widow makers make us realise how enormously important and valuable are such amnesties.
Scotland had a successful amnesty called Operation Blade, from which Strathclyde police had a haul of 4,569 knives. Such amnesties should be encouraged, because, although some people will maintain that the binned knives were probably not from criminals, who are we to know or guess? However, it is certain that the binning of those 38,000 knives means that 38,000 people are less likely to become victims of knife attacks. We owe it to Mr. Lawrence, Sergeant Robertson and all the other good, decent people who, one way or another, are the victims of stabbings to take tough measures against those who, for whatever twisted reasons, carry knives and are prepared to use them.
Mr. Alun Michael: It is a humbling experience to note the incidents mentioned by the hon. Lady, and the fact that police officers in ordinary community roles often face danger and actual injury. It may be helpful for the hon. Lady to be aware of our support for the measures in her Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has long urged, and to be aware also of my hon. Friend's offer to assist the Home Secretary in ensuring that these measures have a swift passage through the House. I hope that that is of some assistance to the hon. Lady in considering the way that the debate proceeds.
Lady Olga Maitland:I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind message, and I enormously appreciate his party's support. It is a wonderful example of where society can together work for a great and common good and it is deeply valued.
Mr. Michael Fabricant:Although my hon. Friend welcomes the Labour party's support, has she noticed that, apart from its spokesman, there are no Labour Members in the Chamber?
Lady Olga Maitland:I am disappointed about that, but I am sure that the Labour party will work to our

591
benefit. It says that we will genuinely together, but it would have been nice if more supporters had been on the Labour Benches.
It is worth noting the words of Cardinal Hume at Mr. Lawrence's memorial service earlier this week. He pointed out that violence cannot be separated from family life and the serious commitment of the marriage bond. Police report to me that the vast majority of the teenagers they arrest come from chaotic family backgrounds.
If for no other reason, I urge couples who plan to separate to think carefully about the effects that separation might have on their children, because no doubt exists that children with two parents—together, committed, living in one household, who know exactly where their children are, what they are doing and what they are carrying—are much less likely to end up in the sort of trouble that we have discussed today.
Many people have asked me whether there should be a ban on the sale of knives to youngsters. I have great sympathy with that, and I hope that, following further consultations, it might be brought within the scope of the Bill. I tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that many discussions have already taken place on that score between myself, the Home Office and parties outside. Such a ban would be a deterrent to some young people. Certainly it would make it more difficult to obtain the more vicious-looking knives, although I concede that, in truth, they can still turn to the kitchen drawer.
Such a ban, however, would send a powerful message of disapproval of such weapons. The more disreputable shops selling knives tell me that they will sell knives without thinking twice. The respectable ones will always quiz people carefully about their age. Often, they will sell them knives only if they are accompanied by an adult.
It should be remembered that there is already a ban on the sale of 16 types of knives and other offensive weapons. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 bans flick knives and gravity knives. An order made under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 bans a range of bladed and other offensive weaponry.
None the less, a ban on the sale of knives to young people is worth pursuing. Even as I was coming into the Chamber, the Police Federation sent a message saying that such a ban would send the right message.
Mr. Michael:I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady's comments. That is again the sort of thing which, if there is agreement across the House, should be dealt with quickly. Does she agree that the same should apply to advertising of some of these items? I refer to advertising not of ordinary knives or things that are used in sport, but of weapons that are referred to as "Rambo sidearms". Such advertising sends a horrendous message to young people who read it. If it is possible to have co-operation across the House, and in particular from Ministers at the Home Office, about knives, does she agree that it would be a good idea to speed control of such advertising through the House as well?
Lady Olga Maitland:I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important matter. He has my wholehearted
592
sympathy. I feel strongly about the whole question of advertising and the easy availability of commando and survival knives.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on her initiative in bringing forward this Bill. However, a high proportion of knife misuse involves kitchen knives, so, for a sales ban to be effective, it would have to include banning the sale of kitchen knives to those under, say, 16. Is there not a strong case for identity cards, so that people could prove that they were over the age of 16, or whatever is deemed to be the appropriate age? Will she bear that in mind in her discussions with the authorities?
Lady Olga Maitland:I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his remarks, with which I agree. An identity card would remove doubt for retailers, and make it easier for them to follow the law. When I meet my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, we will discuss that point in some detail.
I find the whole question of advertising worrying I have been looking at some of the advertisements in mail order catalogues. They contain language that could probably incite immature youngsters to buy knives. It includes such phrases as "Razor sharp stainless steel", "Nearly half a foot long when opened", and "Belt sheath keeps knife neat, safe, ready for action". One advertisement refers to a "viper knife". Another says, "Thumb-flick action, stylish". Yet another says, "Birds of prey—imagine a fantasy battle knife" and "commando dagger", which at £9.95 is described as "excellent value".
Mr. Fabricant:Although I share my hon. Friend's concern, I need some reassurance. I, like many others, carry a penknife. Would it be illegal under her Bill?
Lady Olga Maitland:No. A penknife that is less than 3 in long, especially if folded, is safe and can be carried in public without fear. Of course, if it were being carried in a threatening way—
Mr. Fabricant:Like this?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):Order. The hon. Gentleman must close his knife and put it away immediately.
Lady Olga Maitland:I want to continue dealing with the important point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, which we should discuss further in Committee. Should we, indeed, extend the ban to include, for example, Rambo and combat knives? I cannot imagine that they have any legitimate use; I would not use them to cut up onions.
There is a difficulty with legal definition. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wants to examine whether there can be a clear distinction in law so that those knives can be banned outright.
There are doubts about the strength of self-regulation in the advertising industry, but I am assured that the Advertising Standards Authority will investigate any advertisement that does offend, and will take action. It maintains that such action is effective. The ASA tells me that it receives relatively few complaints on the

593
subject, and I gather that it has received only a dozen in the past few years. It may be that the fact that the ASA has received so few complaints does not necessarily reflect the number of people who are concerned about the issue.
Mr. Michael:I am grateful to the hon. Lady for dealing seriously with this point. I raised the issue during a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the Minister referred then to the powers of the ASA. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised the issue with the ASA, it became clear that it was unable to take the sort of action that the hon. Lady, other hon. Members and I would want to see.
The problem is clearly that the ASA is unable to be pro-active. The association should see adverts such as those to which I and the hon. Lady have referred as the sort of thing that the public would want removed from the pages of magazines. The ASA should not need lots of letters of complaint to stimulate it into action in this area.
Lady Olga Maitland:One point that the hon. Gentleman and I have overlooked is that the ASA has recently undertaken a review of weapons advertisements in the printed media. Perhaps he and I could have a word with the authority to see what progress has been made in this regard.
To strengthen the House's determination to look carefully at a ban on the sale of knives, I shall read a letter from a headmaster to his local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight):
"Yesterday I gave this term's haul of weapons to the police for destruction. This included 3 air pistols, 7 knives, a large catapult and two screwdrivers; one of which was used to stab another boy in the chest during a fight in November…Please, please, please support Lady Olga Maitland's bill and urge your colleagues to curb the sales of these weapons, which have no obvious purpose other than to appear offensive. It would also be helpful to ban the display of knives too, as many youngsters are enthralled by such displays."
Another illustration of the importance of the matter is that the son of one of my constituents was recently threatened on a train by a 16-year-old with a knife. The boy is just 11 years old.
There are other examples: a 15-year-old pupil in Tyne and Wear, stabbed in the back after becoming caught up in a feud between his fellow pupils and a gang from a neighbouring school—in other words, his peer group; a 14-year-old, knifed in the leg during a playground argument in Birmingham; a 15-year-old boy, stabbed several times in Liverpool; a 14-year-old boy, knifed three times outside a school in east London; a 14-year-old girl, stabbed in the chest when a petty row at a comprehensive school in Cardiff exploded into violence.
All these are examples of young people who have somehow obtained knives are using them on each other. A ban on the sale of knives would go some way to dealing with the problem. I could carry on for some time on the subject of—
Mr. Barry Porter:On the problem of young people carrying knives, many years ago, when I was in the scout movement, I carried a sheath knife to whittle sticks, skin rabbits, or whatever scouts did in those days. Will members of respectable organisations, such as the scout movement, or perhaps Army cadets, who may
594
well carry a bayonet or something in the course of their activities, be affected by the Bill; or would the fact they are members of such highly respectable organisations constitute a "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse"?
Lady Olga Maitland:I can reassure my hon. Friend. Such people would be covered by having a "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse". The Bill applies to people who are clearly carrying knives without a lawful excuse. There is an enormous gulf between the two, and I would not want members of the public to fear that the Bill will interfere with the legitimate carrying of knives.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned banning the sale of knives. I have here some newspaper coverage from which we should take heart. It shows that many shop owners are calling for a clear ban on the sale of knives to youngsters, because it would make their lives easier. Both The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail have carried out extensive investigations in that regard.
Illicit knife-carrying is an unmitigated evil, but I recognise that some people may have a good reason to carry a knife, and their position is fully safeguarded under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. To clarify the matter, it is a defence to prove that one has a good reason or a "lawful authority" to carry a knife.
Perhaps a man needs one for his work. He may be a carpenter with a bag of tools containing a knife, or a carpet layer. He may be carrying a knife because he is on the way to his allotment to cut cabbages. Men carry knives for religious reasons, such as Sikhs, who carry ceremonial daggers, or as part of national dress—for example, a Scotsman in full Highland dress, bearing a skean dhu.
Interestingly, I received a letter from English Heritage, which pointed out that its members have a legitimate reason for carrying knives when historic battles are re-enacted. English Heritage is anxious that, when members and followers are dressed in full traditional historic costume, carrying a variety of knives and blades, it might be misunderstood and construed as a criminal act. The letter mentions that, when police officers stop participants, the fact that the knives are intended as part of a re-enactment of an old battle and that they are safe after all needs a bit of explaining.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that there were no arrests in Staffordshire in 1988–89 for offences concerning knives, which is reassuring, because, as she will be aware, every year the Civil war battles are re-enacted in Lichfield and knives are carried?
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is a good illustration of the fact that knives can be carried in a legitimate context.
We must arrest the culture of carrying and using knives. We must ensure that the police and the courts have effective powers to deal with the evil of carrying knives, which I regard with the same seriousness as carrying guns. We have to break the trend. There is already a range of legislation to cover that, but I trust that the Offensive Weapons Bill will strengthen it at certain vital points.
First, the Bill will make it easier for police to arrest people carrying knives. The police find it intensely frustrating when they find a person carrying a knife

595
without good reason and all that they can do is to issue a formal warning, a caution or, at best, a summons. Curiously, a police officer can arrest a suspected burglar carrying stolen property, but not a man with a knife that can kill. The police will find that the Bill will give them the power to arrest such people on the spot.
The Bill will give the police full powers to arrest people carrying knives or offensive weapons such as flick knives, coshes or knuckledusters without a good reason. I know from talking to the police that they very much want this power, which will allow them to be more proactive and demonstrates the seriousness of the offence.
In dealing with juveniles, the police will be able to insist that a responsible adult comes to collect him or her. Personally, I would make it mandatory for both parents to come to the police station and be made fully responsible for the actions of their child.
The penalties I propose, which are fully supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, reflect the gravity of the offence. First, carrying a knife or blade without good reason carries a maximum penalty of a fine of only £5,000 under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but in Scotland it is two years gaol, a fine or both. I propose to bring our law into line with that of Scotland.
Secondly, carrying an offensive weapon such as a cosh or knuckleduster with the intention of causing injury currently carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. As that is a much more serious offence, it deserves a stiffer penalty. I therefore propose that the maximum penalty under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 be increased to four years, or a fine, or both. That will apply to Scotland as well.
It is important to mention that the increase in penalties for knife carrying will also apply to Northern Ireland. From my recent discussions with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I can report that the problem of knives is making its appearance as drug and street crime develop. As a Unionist and a firm believer that Ulster is a part of the British Isles, I think that it is entirely appropriate for their needs to be dealt with in this Bill rather than in a separate, later one.
I was glad to learn that RUC officers already have the powers of arrest that the Bill proposes to introduce in England and Wales. My Bill, in its introduced form, will extend the two-year imprisonment penalty for knife carrying to Northern Ireland. I intend that it should be amended in Committee to extend to the Province the four-year imprisonment penalty for carrying an offensive weapon.
Powers of summary arrest and the introduction of much tougher penalties will send a clear message to thugs and bullies. If people carry knives without a good reason, they will get the full punishment they deserve. Serious crimes deserve serious punishments. It is time that we wiped the smirks off the faces of the hooligans who make other people's lives such absolute misery. Public opinion is firmly behind these measures, and the police want them. Once they are law, it will be for the courts as well as the police to use them to the full whenever the circumstances allow.
I urge parents to keep a more watchful eye on their children and to be tough if they find that their son is carrying a knife. Take it from him; warn him of the
596
dangers. I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting the Bill, and for the support that I have received from the Association of Chief Police Officers and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I commend the Bill to the House.
12.44 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate, which is important in terms of my constituency because Philip Lawrence was my constituent and his family—his widow, children and mother—remain my constituents.
I apologise to the House in advance for leaving the debate early because my former vicar will be enthroned as Bishop of London this afternoon in St. Paul's cathedral. I therefore ask for the indulgence of the House to allow me to be with him on this special day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has made a powerful and compelling case and I congratulate her on her initiative in introducing the Bill. I know how much it means to the Lawrence family and the whole nation.
I was in teaching for 23 years and had the pleasure ultimately of becoming deputy headmaster of a comprehensive school in King's Cross attended by 1,100 boys. Thereafter, I was deputy head and sometimes acting head of a mixed comprehensive school of 2,200 pupils in Lewisham. Children who subsequently went to Oxford and Cambridge universities were educated alongside those who would not succeed in that way. Trouble sometimes erupted outside the school but rarely inside. Like Philip Lawrence, I stood outside my school every day and I am amazed to think of what I did in my time. Without a thought, I disarmed boys of knives, huge sticks and other weapons, and I sorted out youths who had come to cause trouble outside the school. Many schoolmasters and head and deputy head teachers do that every day, and have done so for a long time.
Sadly, there now seems to be much more premeditated evil behaviour from a small minority of young people and others outside schools and elsewhere in our community. Earlier this month, I had a meeting with Superintendent Smythe, who is in charge of policing in a substantial part of my constituency. We discussed burglary and the good work that the police are doing. Superintendent Smythe and his officers, with the co-operation of the community, have reduced many forms of crime, including burglary and some crimes of violence. Another aspect of crime that we discussed was the problem that sometimes arises when children come out of schools. In my experience, the children coming out of school rarely cause the problem; it arises when people come to interfere with them, and all teachers must watch that carefully. Someone from another school or some ne'er-do-well from another area may come to pick a quarrel with a boy, and serious trouble can erupt quickly.
The problem for the school is that it is not suitable to invite the police along as a routine. It is not fair on the police, and it does not help the school to have a policeman standing outside the premises, as that creates its own difficulties. Schools themselves must deal with those problems and, most of the time, it works well when senior staff ensure that pupils leave in an orderly manner, do not provoke bystanders and do not accept provocation from people who have come to cause trouble.

597
Now and then there can be deep trouble. The Friday after I met Superintendent Smythe, there was trouble outside a school, not in my constituency but not far away. Rival youths aged 15 had a most ghastly set-to—one drew a knife on the other, stabbed him and killed him. That was only a few days ago, and once again it brought home to me the appalling violence that some 15-year-old boys can cause one another. A suspect for that murder has been arrested and awaits trial, so I cannot say much more about it.
Although I give my hon. Friend my warmest support for the Bill that she has introduced with such zest, it is clear that society must tackle the root causes. We shall not achieve much by simply seeking to chop off the trouble. Schools should provide proper moral and religious education. I believe passionately that children must be taught the difference between right and wrong and know why it is wrong to violate their neighbours. They must be told, "Your neighbour is made in the image of God. He or she is sacred, just as you are, and to attack him or her with violence is to attack a child of God." They should be told that it is wrong, wicked and evil, and that it should not happen. Children need to understand that.
I could not understand the concern expressed a few days ago by inspectors and others concerned with schools who were worrying about how to produce a moral code that children could be taught and accept. I see no basic difficulty in that. The ten commandments say it all. If every child understood the ten commandments and the moral behind them, that would be a very good start. I would like every child in education to know the ten commandments.
My hon. Friend calls for a ban on the sale of knives to young people below the age of 18 and says how difficult that would be. She is so right. It would not be easy to stop children going to Sainsbury and other stores and buying a set of knives. It should be considered and perhaps it should be tried, but it would not be easy. Therefore, we have to seek to deal with the carrying of knives. The Bill does that, and my hon. Friend has produced some answers.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. He mentioned the difficulty of young people going into stores to purchase knives. If stores had a clear ruling that there should be no sale of knives to young people below whatever age we agree, it would not be a matter for debate. The position becomes difficult when the matter is fudged and there are too many alternatives. If it were clear that there would be no sale of knives to young people, if a young person took some kitchen knives to a checkout, the sales girl would have to say no.
Mr. Greenway: I could go along with that. One would have to define young people as those below the age of 18 and they would have to carry identity cards to prove their age, but my hon. Friend would have to achieve that measure by persuasion, and it would not be easy. Although the basic concept behind the Bill is sound and right, its implementation would not be so easy, desirable though it might be.
Clause 1 tackles the subject very well. It would make it an offence to carry a knife or an article with a blade or point, and people could be stopped without warrant, searched and dealt with on the spot. That would go a long way towards solving the problem.
598
There was ghastly period in my time in teaching when flick knives were carried and it was legal to carry them. It was even more dangerous than the present situation. Young people and others could, by simply pressing the knife handle, be capable of inflicting great harm from a long blade. Flick knives were successfully banned. If a person is caught carrying one, he faces an enormous penalty. However, if a parliamentary question were tabled on the last time someone was prosecuted and convicted for carrying a flick knife, I am sure that the answer would be that it was some time ago. We have enacted legislation against flick knives, and my hon. Friend's Bill will enhance and improve law and order.
I want to say a word about my great constituent Philip Lawrence, who was person of the year in 1995, with nearly 24,000 votes across the land. That was a huge response by the people of our country to his courage. My early-day motion 191 was well supported on both sides of the House. It commended Philip Lawrence's courage and extended sympathy to his family. Unfortunately, that early-day motion was suspended under the sub judice rule, because charges have been brought in relation to Philip's murder.
I want to put on record my tribute to Philip's widow, Frances, and to his four children for their great courage in the way that they have borne that terrible death. It is one thing for a husband and father to die, but to die by murder is something that hon. Members will probably only properly understand if they are unfortunate enough to encounter such a tragedy in others. Philip Lawrence's family have been wonderfully dignified and the country was hugely moved, not least by the memorial service for Philip at Westminster cathedral last Monday. I include Philip's remarkable mother, who is 87, in my tribute. I spent some time with the Lawrence family the day after his death and since, and I know how wonderfully staunch they have been from the first moment.
I conducted examinations at St. George's school in Westminster, where Philip was headmaster, over several years, so I know the community and everything that the school has sought to do over the years. If the Bill had already been on the statute book, that murder might not have happened—who knows? The effect of that murder was to send the community reeling and to disorientate it. That was the effect of the other murder that I mentioned. Murder by knife is such a sudden thing. It may be premeditated, but not always. The damage to those who commit such murders and who are the victims of it, and to the community, is lasting. It is therefore especially incumbent on the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and find a way to tighten up the law in the way that the Lawrence family and all of us wish.
I had the honour, with the Abbot of Ealing, Laurence Soper of the Order of St. Benedict, to found the Philip Lawrence memorial fund, on the day after Philip Lawrence's murder. By last Monday, £104,000 had been donated to that fund, mostly in small donations of £5 or £10. From that evil, wicked act, great good has come. The abbot and I have had thousands of letters, as has Frances Lawrence. People have written to say that they could send only £2, £3 or £5, but they sent it with their love for the family, their love for our country and their hopes and determination that we will stand up to lawlessness in the brave way that Philip Lawrence did. That is so worth the saying, and if the Bill helps to achieve that it will achieve a great deal. It may do so.

599
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the dedication of the teaching profession. I doubt if there is any good teacher who would not do today what Philip Lawrence did on the fatal day on 8 December 1995, and stand up to trouble outside his or her school in defence of a member of the school. However, those teachers would not expect to suffer murder as a result.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the Home Office will consider my suggestion that people convicted of offences near a school should be doubly punished. That happens in other countries. For example, in New York, when a violent offence is committed within a reasonable radius of a school, the punishment is doubled. That has given substantial support to the teaching profession, heads of schools and those seeking to protect schools from invasion or the sort of violence that Philip Lawrence and others have suffered. I hope that that suggestion will be seriously considered.
I can do no better to conclude my remarks than quote a bidding prayer that 13-year-old Unity Lawrence—Philip and Frances's daughter—wrote and read at Philip's memorial service last Monday. Think of her situation—a small girl before a congregation of 2,500 under those circumstances. She said:
"Heavenly Father, bless those who dedicate their lives to teaching. Jesus, the greatest teacher of all, came to earth to teach us to love and respect each other. May his ideals inspire and his values endure."
1.2 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: As I mentioned in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), the Bill has the support of the Labour party. The hon. Lady was right to refer to individual cases, especially the murder of Philip Lawrence, which have shocked and horrified the nation and stimulated widespread public demands for action.
However, the dangers have been around for a long time. Debates in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 revealed some of the dangers and the need for action. It is unfortunate that we so often seem to trail behind events. For that reason, I congratulate the hon. Lady on taking the initiative and ensuring that this issue is before the House in this Session and has not been left as a promise for the future. The Home Secretary should have acted himself, but at least he is supporting the Bill, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary.
This is the second occasion in succession that I have spoken in the Chamber in a cross-party spirit. It might become a habit if we carry on like this. There can certainly be few topics that are more suitable for cross-party consensus—a clear and united message from the House.
The Bill rightly includes the offence of carrying an offensive weapon within the offences that entitle police officers to exercise the power of arrest. The absence of that power has been a curious anomaly, and provision for it is a welcome change in the law. Increases in penalties are important also because they give the courts additional power to sentence.
600
Increased penalties send a message of support to the police and to the public, who fear or are at risk of injury. They also send a clear warning, not only to those who perhaps go out intending to become involved in violence but to those who have got into the habit of carrying a knife. One of the greatest dangers is tolerance of carrying a knife and the idea that one does so for self-defence. The danger is always there that, if the item is carried, it will be used, and that the type of fatal incident that we have seen on too many occasions becomes almost inevitable. Violence may be inflicted not intentionally by those who carry knives—that lack of intent is bad enough—but almost by accident.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. Does he agree with me that we are trying to tackle the macho knife culture in which young people carry knives so that they feel big, masculine and one of the boys? They are drawn into that culture by peer group pressure. We hope that, if we make knives difficult to get hold of and pass stiff penalties, they will drop that habit. There is a playground practice of keeping up with the lads.
Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is no simple way to tackle this type of problem—one cannot suddenly turn off the tap and say that people's behaviour must change. One must tackle it by every means possible. The hon. Lady is right that we need the legislation and that a message should be sent by the House of Commons. We also need, however, the day-to-day work of so many people, unsung and unrecognised, whether they are teachers, police officers, youth officers or members of a family and the community.
One of the more difficult things that we must do is to turn the tide, from a vicious circle that allows such things to happen and tolerates violent advertisements and behaviour, into one that encourages more positive behaviour.
That change cannot be accomplished by edict of the House. We can send our message, but it must be done with the support of the individuals throughout the country who contribute their little bit to giving their local community a more positive culture. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has made that point because it removes the idea that a piece of legislation can be a magic wand that produces results overnight. The scope of the Bill, which the hon. Lady, with becoming modesty, said is limited, is a start in the right direction. It recognises that the developments that we have seen during recent years are unacceptable. There is common ground between us on that.
I refer to the approach that has been taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. He has clearly expressed to the Home Secretary the Opposition's wish to be constructive and supportive in passing measures in the House to toughen the law and to support the police in a crackdown on the carrying of knives. Last year, when he made the appeal to give the police the power of arrest, he also expressed concern—shared by the hon. Lady—about the number of convictions for certain offences, which is worryingly small. In 1994, there were 5,419 prosecutions for possession of an offensive weapon, but the conviction rate was only 61 per cent. of that number. There were 3,366 prosecutions for possession of an open blade, but the conviction rate was only 74 per cent.

601
We need to put across clearer messages. We hope that the number of convictions will be reduced because the carrying of weapons is reduced. That would be a good
result, and that clear message must be sent.
Last month my hon. Friend and Councillor Angela Smith visited Wickford police station in Essex. The police told him that they were finding an increasing link between drugs and knives and they showed him a small arsenal of weapons that had been seized in a single raid on a drug dealer. The items included a machete and a number of large daggers, none of which had any day-to-day lawful use. Those sorts of weapons—to which the hon. Lady referred in her speech—must be removed from our streets.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been increase in the number of knifepoint robberies? Knives are being used to intimidate and to terrorise ordinary, law-abiding citizens. That is a new turn of events and it is another reason why we must tackle the legislation energetically.
Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady is correct: we must highlight not only violence but the fear of violence and the use of threats.
I turn now to the issue of mail-order advertisements— I am pleased that the hon. Lady recognised their importance. It is most disturbing that knives called "Rambo Sidearm" and "Rambo Shortsword" are readily available to people of any age by mail order. During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill two years ago, the Opposition suggested that those sorts of advertisements should be regulated properly by the House of Commons. The Government responded that the Advertising Standards Authority has sufficient powers to ensure that the advertisements neither condone nor incite violent behaviour.
When we raised those important issues, I must admit that I was not entirely convinced by Ministers' responses on the subject. However, at least our debating point was recognised. The then Minister of State, Home Office commented:
"The British code of advertising practice includes special
provisions on the advertising of weapons so that advertisements for
weapons, such as knives, neither condone nor incite violent
behaviour. Where advertisements are found to contravene the codes, the Advertising Standards Authority can take steps to rectify the situation as appropriate".
I have referred to one or two knives. The "SAS shoulder holster knife"—which was among the sample advertisements that my hon. Friend the
Member for Blackburn sent to the Advertising Standards Authority—was depicted alongside Nazi memorabilia and a replica assault rifle called "Arnie's
Uzi". My hon. Friend provided those items to the Advertising Standards Authority, and the hon. Lady referred to examples of the same sorts of advertisements.
In view of the debates about advertising which took place two years ago, it is somewhat worrying that the response to my hon. Friend's approach to the Advertising Standards Authority is less than inspiring. The council of the ASA debated the issues earlier this month and it appears to have taken no action since the debates in this place. Those debates do not appear to have stimulated the concern and activity that one might have expected. In his reply to my hon. Friend, the chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority says:
602
"There are two principal questions for the Advertising Standards
Authority; first, can we ban such advertisements altogether; and, second, is there any provision in our Codes which enable us to regulate what they contain? As I explained in my previous letters, the answer to the first of these is 'No'."
Therefore, the authority does not have the power to implement the sort of ban that the hon. Lady and I would like to see. The chairman continues:
"Any ban must be a question for Parliament. The answer to the second question is 'Yes' but it is important to bear in mind that the very act of advertising such weapons, their appearance and any minimum description, might be seen by some people 'to condone or incite violent behaviour'. If, however, the ASA were to make that assumption, any ruling would be the equivalent to a ban."
Descriptions such as those to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have referred, and the juxtaposition of items in the advertisements, suggest that precisely such action should be taken. It is clear from that letter that the Advertising Standards Authority does not possess the power and freedom to act that were implied in the Minister's reply two years ago.
Mr. Fabricant: I share the hon.
Gentleman's views about the Advertising Standards Authority. Will he, however, pay tribute to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, which rigorously uphold the ban?
Mr. Michael: I am happy to do that. When
authorities are using the powers available to them, that is welcome. My point about the Advertising Standards Authority is that if, on investigation, we find that it has not exactly been proactive on the issue, and has not the powers to act even if it wished to, that is—as the chairman of the authority suggested—a matter for Parliament. If we can proceed in the spirit of today's debate, it may be possible—as the hon. Lady suggested—to agree amendments to the Bill.
The Advertising Standards Authority points out that millions of advertisements are published each year in a huge range of publications. That is true, but the authority implies that complaints from the general public are the grounds on which it should take action. Clearly, the general public do not look for advertisements for knives and other weapons; every member of the public to whom I have spoken is horrified that such advertisements are allowed. Those who will see them are people who are fascinated by violence or weapons.
The question raised by the authority is whether the very act of advertising might be seen as condoning or inciting violent behaviour. If so, it says, that will be a matter for Parliament. It seems that the ball is in our court, and I
hope that we as Members of Parliament, and the Minister as a representative of the Government, will accept the responsibility.
When we debated the matter two years ago, the Minister said:
"The advertisement of weapons by post is not the problem. The mischief lies with those who seek to obtain unauthorised weapons by whatever means."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1994; c. 1356.]
That is true, but temptation can encourage undesirable behaviour. Let me give an example. When I took a group of youngsters to Germany on an exchange visit, I was horrified to find when we returned to our minibus that one of them was showing his friends a knife with an

603
extremely long blade. I said, "Where on earth did that come from?" He had walked straight into a shop and bought it, because it was advertised. No questions had been asked, but there is no doubt that that young lad had no legitimate reason for having the knife.
We went back to the shop, and after some discussion the knife was taken back and the youngster's money refunded. I suspect, however, that at home he would not have gone into a shop of that kind, because he would have known that someone would ask questions. I am worried about places that people can enter anonymously—certainly in a large city—without the fear that others will ask questions. It is even more horrifying to think that young people could reply to advertisements and be able, impersonally and without scrutiny, to obtain such weapons.
As the Minister said, we should be worried about those who seek such weapons, but it behoves us to try to prevent their being available. We should end the encouragement, or tolerance, of availability of weapons that appear to incite violence. We have suggested four possible measures. The first is a ban on the sale of knives to people under a specified age. Perhaps 16 is a safe age but there could be a feeling that the age should be rather higher than that, possibly 18. However, there are complications with such definitions. We need to explore those issues to reach an effective conclusion, simply because that would
close some doors.
As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is not in his place, rightly suggested, one can do a great deal of violence with a bread knife. However, I do not think that an advertisement for a knife that is to be used for cutting bread encourages a macho image. It does not give rise to the same intolerance, the feeling that such weapons are around in society, that is engendered by advertisements for weapons that are clearly intended for violent purposes. That is an important matter.
The second element is the advertisement of knives, and the third is the proscription of military style knives and swords, martial arts weapons and deactivated and replica guns under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The other item was a warning label on all knives that are covered by section 139 of that Act. Should we not give an explicit warning that society does not expect such items to be carried and used?
In the context of the intervention by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, other measures need to be taken to help to break the knife culture which has affected parts of our society and which puts the police and public at risk. I agree that young people will use bread knives or screwdrivers, but so will adults who are inclined to violence. Some people will always be violent in any society, however perfect and stringent its laws. We must have the legislation and the action that are needed to tackle such people, and we must reduce the temptation or encouragement to others to be drawn into violent behaviour of any sort. We are obliged to do that, and we shall certainly seek to assist in the endeavour upon which the hon. Lady has launched us with her Bill.
We hope that good will on both sides will lead to some of those measures being included in the Bill. However, I make it absolutely clear that we do not wish to place
604
obstacles in the way of the Bill or to push amendments, however desirable, if they would delay or endanger the legislation. If the Bill has to have additional elements, they must be introduced by agreement and consensus throughout the House, which will allow us to move more quickly than appeared possible a short time ago. If there are difficulties, they must not be allowed to delay the Bill
in any way.
If some elements need further time the Home Secretary will have our assistance and encouragement in presenting measures at another time. The Bill provides a clear opportunity, and if it is possible to take it by agreement we should not allow the chance to pass. We must go as far as is possible. As I have said, we need to reduce the environment of violence in which the carrying of knives and their use can be tolerated.
I worked with young people for many years before entering the House. We neglect the positive side of young people and their potential for good at our peril. Just two years ago, the Prince's Trust published a report prepared by the accountancy firm of Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte. That report demonstrated that positive work with young people is cost-effective in preventing crime. It looked at crime in terms of its cost to society, but, of course, the wider cost to society cannot be measured so easily and it is an even greater threat to people's security and ability to enjoy their lives in the peace that they have a
right to expect.
The message of that Prince's Trust report was very much that the devil makes work for idle hands and that prevention is better than cure. We need to remove temptations and reduce encouragement. We need to change the present situation, in which all too often "Lord of the Flies" is the parable for our times—except that instead of a desert island, our young people are abandoned on the streets of our inner cities and, sadly, in small towns and villages as well. We need to provide positive encouragement to bring out the good in young people, to discourage the bad and to create a positive environment. Those things need to be done to supplement and complement the legislative action that the hon. Lady asks us to take by introducing the Bill.
I therefore support the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will do three things—and that we will have a positive response on them from the Minister—first, support the Bill in a speedy passage through the House; secondly, join in the cross-party consensus to take the Bill further with some of the measures that I and the hon. Lady have referred to; and, thirdly, take the initiative to provide support and encouragement across all Government Departments to support people at the sharp end at a local level: the police, local authorities, youth workers, teachers, local residents and those who work in many of our public services. It is the combination and partnership of all of us in society—at central Government level in Parliament and in such roles at local level—that will succeed in changing the culture, which certainly needs to change.
1.25 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: The Bill is timely, relevant and balanced. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on introducing it today, and on the excellent way in which she presented it.

605
It is timely because it comes soon after the tragic killing of Philip Lawrence, which has been mentioned, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in a moving speech. The Bill also comes after a number of highly publicised knifing cases—sometimes bringing death, sometimes serious injury—including those of police officers. The whole nation's conscience has been jarred by those acts of crime, so the Bill also responds to a public demand for action. The Bill also comes at a time when the use of knives in crime has reached a high level, and when the sale of knives ensures that they still proliferate.
The Bill is relevant not just because it is a reaction to immediate popular concern, but because it comes in the wake of considerable examination of the problem of knife crime by the Home Office. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for their work in driving both study and action in the right direction to ensure that legislative steps are taken to deal with knife crime.
The Bill also responds to the concerns of the police force and chief police officers, who have been aware of this mounting problem, and who have rightly called for action. It is also relevant because statistics show that, in the past 10 years, knife crime has increased and is still a serious problem..
Taking murders in London, for example, about 74 of the 162 murders in the last year for which figures are available were caused by knives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, knives have played a part in about one third of total crimes of violence against the person, which shows the extent of the problem.
Another way of illustrating that point is to consider the national homicide figures. In 1994, the last year for which figures are available, 236 of the total number of homicides were stabbings. If we compare that with the other causes of death, we will find how much greater is the proportion caused by knives and pointed instruments. There were 111 deaths caused by being hit or kicked—the next category–106 stranglings, 63 shootings, 56
coshings and 23 poisonings. That shows the magnitude of the problem.
This is a balanced Bill. It is necessary to balance the need of society to protect the innocent against crime with the legitimate right of ordinary individuals to use instruments that, in other hands, could be deadly. The Bill is balanced in that respect. We would be wise to remember the complete lack of balance in the gun laws in the United States, where there is a direct correlation between the number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms and the availability of those weapons. Luckily, that has never happened in this country, because of our strict laws in that respect.
The Bill is balanced because it brings penalties and police powers more into line with what is needed. It does that in a sensitive way; it does not go over the top. It is important to keep the array of penalties and powers in line with those in other areas of the criminal law. To give the power of arrest to the police when they find people carrying weapons in public is relevant. To double the penalty for unlawfully carrying weapons is commendable.
The Bill is also balanced as a deterrent. Of course, deterrence is about balance. A person intent on crime has to balance the rewards from carrying out that crime with the penalties that might follow. The Bill will send out a
606
strong message to those who are tempted to buy and carry knives that there is a severe penalty for doing so, because society rightly will not tolerate it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam was right to raise a legal question about the sale of knives to under–16s. I hope that we can include in the Bill a much stricter regulation to control that. Where knives exist and can be purchased, inevitably they will be carried; where they are carried, inevitably there will be crime and a risk to innocent people.
I want to give an example of the availability of knives and pointed instruments and the balance between holding them legitimately and using them illegitimately. This morning, I went around my house and made an inventory of my armoury. I did not realise I had one until I did this.
I found that I had in my possession three swords, a sharp grafting knife, another extremely sharp garden knife, two Stanley knives, a bread knife, about six other sharp kitchen knives, four surgical scalpels, five chisels and a number of other sharp and vicious instruments. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not brought any of them with me today. I never take them out of the house.
I keep and use those instruments for legitimate purposes, most of which are obvious. However, in case one is not obvious I should explain that I hold surgical scalpels because they are useful for cutting pieces out of newspapers. I like to keep a collection of reports on what I have said, so that in my more lonely hours I can stare at them.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: What about the swords?
Mr. Merchant: Two of the three swords are Sikh scimitars, which were presented to me—one of them is engraved—for work with the Sikh community. A friend of mine, who happens to be an expert on knives, was fascinated by the swords and took one away because he wanted to know what metal they were made of and whether they could be sharpened. I allowed him to do it, and he came back and told me that not only was it blunt—as I knew—but that it could not be sharpened. The quality of the metal was so poor that the sword would snap if any attempt was made, and that reassured me. My third sword is an historical sword, which, I am glad to say, is also completely blunt and unusable.
I shall end by illustrating the difference between holding such weapons and using them. There would be cause for question if I were suddenly to be seen in the high street of Beckenham with my loins girded, waving in my hand one of my swords, or if I were to appear at the door of the prospective Labour candidate in my constituency, holding in my hand a scalpel. That shows the difference between the legitimate possession of weapons that could be and are dangerous, and their illegitimate carrying and use.
It is very important that the balance is maintained and—if I may make a pun—sharpened by the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on promoting it. It is slightly overdue, but I hope that it will form a part of the Government's very commendable tough stand against crime. I hope that the Bill will have a swift and successful passage through the House.
1.35 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: May I start by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for leaving the Chamber during this short debate? A number of villages in my constituency have had no electricity for the past four days, and they needed me to get involved to help them out.
It is important that we send the right message from the House on this issue. It is important that we make it clear to those who would carry weapons with the intention of harming or endangering anyone that we will enact laws that will make them pay a high price for doing so. The second most popular subjects of letters in my constituency post bag are matters related to crime and to law and order.
The Bill is very important, as it addresses some of the problems we face. The public need to be reassured that Parliament is going to take the issue very seriously. A number of hon. Members have referred to the tragic death of Philip Lawrence, and no one who witnessed the scenes on television or read in the newspapers of his terrible death could fail to be moved. The great trauma that these incidents cause to families and communities can be almost too great to measure.
My eldest daughter and son-in-law were mugged at knifepoint during a trip to Paris. My daughter, rather foolishly, chased after the mugger and demanded that the purse, which belonged to her mother, be returned to her, even if the mugger kept the money. The trauma and distress that that caused was immense for them and for the whole family.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was asked about exemptions for people who lawfully carry knives—such as scouts—and
said that provisions would be made for them. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred to the fact that he keeps scalpels in his house to enable him to take cuttings from newspapers.
I wonder whether it will be possible in Committee to highlight the fact that there are many safe and sharp cutting edges that cannot be used in an offensive manner. My second son, who is a student, has a part-time job at a cash-and-carry firm, and he carries a knife to open packages and so on. I am in possession of a very neat little plastic-covered instrument with a fine blade that can cut open all sorts of packages. I commend that instrument to the hon. Member for Beckenham as a much safer way to take cuttings from newspapers.
Perhaps that matter might be explored in Committee. We need an opportunity to show those companies and organisations which legitimately need staff to carry knives that they might find a safer method of doing so.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the real point is that there is a difference between people carrying something lawfully in the circumstances that he has described and people who have no good reason to be carrying a knife? For example, a person walking into a shopping centre with a knife in his jacket, which is open, clearly has no lawful reason or good excuse to be carrying that knife. That is quite different from someone who is going about their normal business or taking part in a hobby or some other activity. We are concerned about people carrying knives without a good excuse.
Mr. Touhig:Yes, I agree. We should provide for people who lawfully carry knives and weapons of that nature. I fully understand that. I was trying to point out that perhaps we should highlight the fact that there are safer ways to open packaging and so forth than with a sharp and dangerous blade, which could be used offensively. I hope that that will come out in Committee.
I warmly welcome the measure. If it is speedily enacted, it will be welcomed by the people I represent, and by people throughout the country.
1.39 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for bringing this Bill before the House. It is not the first time that she has brought legislation on law and order before us. She was successful with her Prisoners (Return to Custody) Act 1995.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke movingly and compassionately about Philip Lawrence, and said how important it was for us to transmit the right moral code to children. That is a role for parents as well as for teachers. My hon. Friend also mentioned the 10 commandments, and asked how many people can recite them, which is a reasonable question. I suspect that it is not many.
The spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), mentioned the Advertising Standards Authority, and he was right to say that it has not played a proactive role in preventing irresponsible advertising. I have been particularly disturbed to see advertising for Rambo knives and so forth, which are available by mail order.
I am also concerned that, while such knives are not generally or easily available in shops here—clearly there are instances in which they are
available—they can easily be obtained on the continent. A few months ago, when walking in Rouen and Dieppe—the latter is easily accessible from Newhaven and Rouen is a quick train journey from Dieppe—I noticed how easy it is to obtain knives and guns.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department can comment on the controls at border posts, particularly at ports, to ensure that knives—and, indeed, guns, although those do not come within the remit of this Bill—cannot easily be imported, perhaps unwittingly, by individuals attracted by some of the bright displays in the stores.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) mentioned his Stanley knives and swords.I am pleased to hear that those are blunt and would self-destruct if sharpened. In the wrong hands, knives can be a dangerous weapon, whereas in the right hands they are useful tools.
I seek reassurance that the Bill is broad enough to include screwdrivers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North mentioned the case of a schoolboy who had been attacked with a screwdriver. Judging from reports in the press, that is a growing trend. It also shows that the police must use discretion, as they usually do, when determining whether a tool is a tool or will he used as a weapon.

609
We know that Commissioner Bill Taylor, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, welcomes the Bill. On the "Today" programme on Radio 4 on 13 December, he said:
"We think these measures, that is essentially giving us a very clear power of arrest and indeed looking again at the sentences, this will reflect the concern that people have and the gravity with which society regards these offences and these are sensible steps and we support them".
It is good that the measures appear before the House.
While this Bill has been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, it follows on from tough legislation from the Home Office introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister. We have benefited in Lichfield from a grant of just under £100,000 for closed circuit television. We have additional police officers on Britain's streets. The Criminal Justice Act means that Britain is leading the world in the use of DNA technology to supplement fingerprinting. We have stop-and-search laws to anticipate violence, as well as laws on aggravated trespass. That shows the Government's clear commitment to law and order.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned the Advertising Standards Authority. In an intervention, I said that the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority have been exercising effective control to stop the advertising of knives and associated weapons on television and radio.
The Opposition spokesman was right to say that, even if the Advertising Standards Authority wanted to impose a ban, it could not enforce one except through the voluntary assent of its members, because it would have no force in law. Such bans exist under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and will be continued under the Broadcasting Bill which is currently in another place. For the sake of consistency and common sense, if the sort of bans currently in place under the Broadcasting Act are not in this Bill, they could be introduced in Committee. That would create no new precedent, and would reflect, to judge from today's debate, the will of the House.
As I have said, I am concerned about the sale of such weapons in Europe. I have already asked the Minister whether there can be controls to ensure that knives are not imported from Europe. Is there any possibility of the Home Office making representations at the Council of Ministers? Will my hon. Friend the Minister speak to his counterparts in the European Union about whether similar bans could be put in place throughout Europe?
The problems in the United Kingdom with the use of knives exist, too, in other parts of Europe. If Britain is introducing ground-breaking legislation, and it is ground-breaking legislation for Europe, I would like similar laws to be introduced in the rest of Europe. Otherwise, such weapons will be imported.
The Labour party has called for greater restrictions on the sale of knives. I welcome that. It has already been pointed out that hon. Members will still need to use kitchen knives and axes in their homes and gardens. Farmers will need machetes to cut down trees and scrub. Discretion will always have to be used.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam was able to reassure me on the use of penknives. I promise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to bring
out my penknife again, having received your strict admonition not to do so in the Chamber.
610
I am pleased, however, that the use of penknives will continue to be legal unless one uses them in a threatening manner. I understand that 3 inches is the maximum legal length for a blade. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep that measurement and not turn it into a complicated decimalised restriction of three times 2.54 cm. I do not know why the legal limit is 3 inches, because a 2-inch blade can do a lot of damage as well.
Three inches is also the legal limit in many states of the United States. If you will forgive my indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it strikes me as incredible that this country goes out of its way to metricate everything, whereas the United States, which is capable of sending satellites round the earth as well as unmanned missions to Mars, Venus and, most recently, Jupiter, operates happily with miles, feet and inches, pounds weight, and gallons, although the last are exactly seven eighths of an imperial gallon, for reasons that I shall not bore the House with now.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep the legal limit at 3 inches. The law should remain flexible enough so that a police officer can arrest someone for using a penknife blade shorter than 3 inches if it is
used in a threatening manner.
The use of knives in homicides is a growing trend, but statistics show that the trend is not even. For example, in 1994, which is the most recent year for which figures for England and Wales are available, 677 murders were committed, of which 236 involved sharp instruments. I have before me a schedule from 1985 onwards, which shows that the number of murders in this country is not necessarily rising. It is an uneven but nevertheless consistently high rate. In 1994 in England and Wales, 35 per cent. of murders involved sharp instruments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, Scotland already has legislation in place. The reason may be that, last year, there was a huge increase, with 52 per cent. of all murders involving the use of knives. It thus becomes clear that this Bill must be introduced quickly.
I welcome the fact that both main parties in the House support the Bill. Despite occasions like Question Time, when television and radio focus on the adversarial nature of politics in this place, when it is in the nation's interest to introduce legislation or discuss important matters, there is often co-operation between the parties. I hope that that, too, will occasionally be transmitted to the viewing public. I commend the Bill to the House.
1.53 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her good fortune in the ballot and the fact that she chose to use it for such a good purpose. Like other hon. Members, I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
It is important to explain what the Bill seeks to achieve because, since its publication, one or two myths have attached themselves to it. It is said that the Bill seeks to go much further than my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam intends, and that it somehow attacks civil liberties. As my hon. Friend said, English Heritage has raised concerns that it could no longer organise tournaments or historic battle replicas without its officials being arrested. That is nonsense, and it was never the

611
intention of the Bill. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) that his black Swiss army knife, which is most unusual, might be made illegal. His only worry should be that it appears to have a heart on the back of the blade, which might show that it was a free gift from Guinness; I hope that he has declared it in the Register of Members' Interests, or he will be in trouble with the Privileges Committee.
There are some dubious matters that we need to address. Earlier today, I spoke to a world-famous explorer. He is concerned that the ceremonial parang that was given to him by a Malayan chieftain would be subject to confiscation. It is important to destroy those myths. If they were true, if our own Serjeant at Arms were to walk out with his sword he would get nicked by one of the police officers as soon as he left the precincts of the Palace. However, I am quite sure that he is safe to continue his ancient duty.
Some concerns about the Bill have appeared in the press. One example is an article that appeared in Shooting Times and Country Magazine last week. Its readership includes fishermen and those who shoot. They have a legitimate use for knives and are concerned that any decision by the House may affect their perfectly legitimate use of such weapons.
The shooting community is always somewhat alarmed about knee-jerk reactions from Governments in the wake of tragedies such as the death of the headmaster. As a consequence of the massacre at Hungerford, when a deranged man, who was armed with a kalashnikov and had been given a licence to possess a weapon, killed so many people, there are now onerous restrictions on how those in the shooting world store and look after their weapons.
Once again the article has got it wrong. It states:
"The police could use this new power to harass anyone".
That is clearly not the case. There is a case for concern that anyone stopped by a policeman and found to be in possession of a knife has to show good cause for having that knife. When that was put into law, which I suspect was in 1984, there was considerable concern that the onus of innocence would be on the accused and not on the prosecution.
Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend
aware that there are strict rules governing the circumstances in which the police may conduct a stop and search? They cannot stop people because
they do not like the colour of their eyes, their long hair or the fact they may be wearing torn jeans. They may not stop somebody because he or she is known to have previous convictions. They must act only on receiving information that a certain individual is carrying a knife. There is no question of returning to the old and much disliked sus laws.
Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the police have strict codes, and I am certain that they will enforce them rigorously. However, certain cases have been mentioned, such as that of a farm worker who was arrested because he went into a pub after work with a knife in his bag. He was eventually acquitted on trial. There was also the case of the Scottish motorist who carried a knife in his car because there were many deer
612
on the road in that part of Scotland and he was continually finding wounded deer that he needed to dispatch immediately. When he was stopped by a policeman, that explanation was not accepted. A certain amount of good sense by the police is required to ensure that the Bill does not attack personal liberty.
On the advertising and mail order of weapons, I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). However, I have a natural reluctance to start banning anything, and if we ban advertising we shall move slightly in the direction of attacking the freedom of the press.
Mr. Fabricant: Following that argument,
would my hon. Friend reverse some of the rules in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and permit the advertising of knives on radio and television? Would he permit the advertising of cigarettes on radio and television, as that is currently banned?
Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are considerable restrictions on the broadcast media but not on the print media, which have a long history of freedom. I was making the point that a ban on advertising or on a particular form of mail order would be difficult and complicated to effect. There may be virtues in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but, if he tried to hitch it to the Bill, there would be a danger of causing
undue delay to the Bill's progress.
Mr. Michael: I made it clear that it was not our intention to delay the Bill, but I welcome the hon. Lady's wish to have such a provision in it. The issue has been around a long time. Advertisements of the kind to which hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have referred are unacceptable. As voluntary regulation has not succeeded, surely we should extend a control on the broadcast media that is regarded as reasonable and sensible and make it a hardly intrusive control on the printed media.
Mr. Atkinson: That idea would lead the Bill into difficult and complicated territory. If the Bill becomes a vehicle to impose a new form of censorship on the press, I suspect that it will progress more slowly. The Bill is simple and good as it is. I hope that it will serve as a deterrent, particularly as it increases fines.
Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman describe the nature of the threat that he makes? Does he mean that a ban on unacceptable advertisements would lead him to undertaking wrecking action? What is he getting at?
Mr. Atkinson: I do not intend to engage in any wrecking action. I am trying to tell the hon. Gentleman that the idea of introducing a form of censorship into press advertising is new and would open up a large issue, which would have to be seriously debated. I share the hon. Gentleman's offence at such advertisements, and I hope that the Advertising Standards Authority and others will take the message from the House that those advertisements are desperately unpopular. I urge my hon. Friend not to permit such amendments in Committee. If the Bill is kept simple, I am sure that it will travel swiftly to a satisfactory conclusion.
2.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I add my congratulations to those given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on the way in which she has brought the Bill before the House. Discussions between my hon. Friend, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, our officials and me have been extremely positive and constructive. I am pleased that we have been able to reach this Second Reading as a result of the work done between us.
The carrying of knives is a real problem, recently highlighted by Philip Lawrence's death. I was moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who knows only too well the effect of that tragedy on his constituents and constituency, and particularly on people who were close to Philip Lawrence as members of his family or as beneficiaries of his considerate and excellent teaching over the years.
All of us—parents, politicians and the police—must play our part in tackling the problem. Parents must teach their children from a very early age the difference between right and wrong, as hon. Members have said today. Carrying knives for no good reason is plainly and definitely wrong. Politicians must ensure that the police and the courts have the powers that they need to catch and punish those who will not obey the law, and the police and the courts must ensure that they use those powers to the full, when necessary.
The Bill will strengthen the powers of both police and the courts. It will send a clear message to the thugs and the bullies who carry knives. It is a statement: "Your crimes will not pay. You will be caught, and you will be punished."
I am very pleased by the success of the recent knife amnesty, which has been assisted by the Daily Mirror and fully supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and by me. More than 38,000 articles were handed in. The amnesty has been especially successful when forces have worked closely with their local media.
The police are not simply measuring the success of the initiative by the number of knives handed in. They also believe that the amnesty has helped to change attitudes. They hear anecdotes about knife sellers being more careful to whom they sell their knives. In one case, a dealer has stopped selling knives altogether.
The police have been impressed by the range of knives handed in. The majority of articles were not knives of the kitchen variety. Machetes, flick knives, gravity knives and at least one Samurai sword have been handed in. In addition, a number of replica firearms and the magazine from an automatic weapon have been handed in. That is encouraging, but in terms of a carrot-and-stick approach, the amnesty is clearly a carrot.
Since taking office, the Government have taken firm action on a range of law and order issues. In our projected White Paper, we intend to put before the House even tougher policies on sentencing and bringing criminals to hook. We took firm action on the problem of knife carrying in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which we banned 14 weapons, including sword sticks. We had already banned flick knives and gravity knives.
I have listened with interest to hon. Members who have suggested that we should have specific lists of weapons that should be banned. It was interesting to hear the story
614
about a screwdriver from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). The definition of a knife under our law is a bladed or sharply
pointed article. Therefore, in some circumstances, items that would not immediately be recognisable as knives could come under our penalties and our legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire also referred to border posts.
Our Customs and Excise officers are always vigilant and, although we cannot ban the importation of items that are legal in this country, we can and do prevent the arrival on our shores—as far as we are able—of those items that are banned here.
The Government have also made it clear that we would consider adding further items to the banned list of weapons. I share hon. Members' abhorrence of Rambo survival knives, commando daggers and the like. Those items have no place in a civilised society. I am sure, however, that the House will understand that it is genuinely difficult to compile a fully definitive list of items to ban. In many cases, it is very difficult to come up with a legal definition of them that would not also encompass ordinary kitchen knives. However, I can assure the House that we are continuing to examine that possibility.
I have noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said about the sale of knives to children. We are seriously considering proposals that would ban the sale of knives to youngsters. If the proposals are workable, they could perhaps be included in Committee. That would be a major change and would require careful consideration; but, frankly, young children do not need razor-sharp kitchen knives or commando-style daggers, and it is very hard to justify why they should be able to buy them.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), have spoken about the issue of advertisements. I urge anyone with a complaint about knife advertisements to take them up with the Advertising Standards Authority. I am glad to note that the ASA took exception to the use of the words "ready for action" in an advertisement, and had them withdrawn. Advertising regulation is, of course, done on a self-regulatory basis, but if it can be effective in cases such as the one I have cited, I have some confidence that it will be in other cases that, quite reasonably, cause concern.
I suspect that insufficient use is made of the ASA in relation to knife advertisements. I note with interest that the ASA investigates advertising without having received a complaint so that it can ensure that the British code of advertising is observed. It will do so if there is public concern about a certain issue, and considerable public concern has been expressed about knives.
One advertisement has been brought to my attention which causes me some concern. The ASA is aware of it, and I hope that it will take action. The wording of the advertisement includes the following:
"A well balanced weapon with a wicked double-edged 7" blade, made with one thing in mind."
That is the nature of the wording of the advertisement. If anything, that wording is more objectionable than the words "ready for action". I should be extremely concerned if the ASA were unable to take action in such a case.
Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he has responded to this part of the debate. My concern is the ASA's clear statement that it does not have the power to act in the way that he, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and I wish that it would. Does that statement not make it absolutely clear that it cannot act authoritatively, which we wish it to do, until legislation gives it that power?
Mr. Kirkhope: That is a matter for further discussion and debate. That power is not specifically related to the Bill, and it may not be appropriate that it should be. However, I am expressing my concern to the hon. Gentleman about one element of the issue in relation to the ASA.
There are many knives and other sharp instruments that have a legitimate, everyday use, such as machetes, carving knives and butcher's hooks. It would clearly he difficult to ban the sale of those, but we must ensure that people who use or carry them illegally are punished. Ultimately, it is not the knife that wreaks havoc but the hand that wields it. The police tell us that the majority of the knives that are carried and used in stabbings are domestic knives. Apparently, Stanley knives are much favoured by young thugs, and carving knives are used in a depressingly high number of stabbings.
It is an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 to carry an offensive weapon in public. Offensive weapons include knives, but the prosecution must prove that the accused intended to use the knife to cause injury. Of course, that may not always be possible. That is why the Government introduced a lesser offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of carrying a knife in public without good cause. In those cases, the prosecution does not have to prove intent.
The penalties for the two offences reflect their differing gravity. Where intent can he proved, the maximum penalty is two years in prison or a fine. Where intent cannot he proved, the maximum penalty is only a £1,000 fine.
By coincidence, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the Association of Chief Police Officers a few days before the tragic death of Philip Lawrence, asking if it believed that the penalty should be increased. In light of events that weekend, the association replied very speedily, agreeing that the time had come to increase the penalties. Illicit knife carrying—even when there is no evidence that the carrier intended to use his knife to cause injury—is a very serious offence. Knife-carrying yobs must be sent the clear message that they may end up in prison.
My hon. Friend's Bill will increase the maximum penalty for that offence to two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. Carrying an offensive weapon in public with intent to cause harm remains the more serious of the two offences and I agree with my hon. Friend that the maximum penalty in that case should be increased to reflect that fact. That is why the Bill raises the penalty to four years in prison or a fine, or both.
As I said earlier, many people carry knives for perfectly legitimate reasons. Carpenters may need to carry Stanley knives and saws, farmers may carry machetes, and ordinary men and women who have bought kitchen knives need to get them home. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, those who are engaged
616
in legitimate sporting activities—such as fisherman—may also have good reason to carry knives. I am sure that the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is not designed to affect them.
Knives are also worn for religious reasons—such as the kirpans worn by Sikhs—or as part of a national costume. For example, the Scotsman carries his skean dhu in his kilt stocking—as we have seen quite a lot in the past few days. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham need have no fears about the
wonderful tournaments that are held in his constituency and elsewhere by English Heritage.
Those people's position will not change. The innocent have nothing to fear from the legislation, but the guilty will have plenty to worry about. Anyone who is charged with carrying a knife in public will still have the defence that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the knife on his person. There are specific defences in relation to work, religion and national costume, as I mentioned. However, the onus is on the knife-carrier to prove his defence. It is right that, when there is any doubt, the courts should have the final say.
I congratulate the police service on the work it does catching criminals. The police have also made it clear that they would welcome the specific power of arrest without warrant in the case of offences of carrying an offensive weapon or knife in public. At present, the police must obtain a warrant, which is simply not practical in most cases. They may be lucky and find that the particular circumstances of the case allow them to use other powers of arrest that do not apply specifically to those offences, but that is too unpredictable. The police need clear powers of arrest.
The Bill will provide a clear power of arrest for those offences, which means that, rather than being sent on his way with a summons, the knife-carrier is likely to be taken to the police station. Importantly, it will also enable the police to investigate in a formal setting whether other more serious offences have been committed. In practice, the police will be more able to establish whether a knife-carrier intended to use his knife to cause injury and whether, as a result, a prosecution under the more serious of the two offences dealing with that activity would be appropriate.
Hon. Members have referred to the ACPO crime committee chairman, Commissioner Bill Taylor, and his remarks on the "Today" programme. It is perfectly clear that the police support such measures and it is clear that the people of this country support them also. I have, I hope, made it clear that the Government support and will assist the legislation, and I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has expressed his support.
The wholehearted backing of the Bill will send a clear message out into the community: people who illegally carry knives deserve to be caught and punished—and they will be. I commend the Bill to the House.
2.19 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I travelled through the snow that afflicted Kent this morning in order to support the Bill. I am one of its sponsors, because I believe that the carrying of offensive weapons is a continuing problem that must be tackled. Some of us, indeed, would argue that it is getting worse. I welcome

617
provisions to strengthen the powers that the police need to arrest without a warrant those suspected of carrying knives, and the introduction of heavier penalties.
The Kent county constabulary has gone to the lengths of purchasing stab-proof vests for officers, some of whom have gone further and obtained their own private equipment. In north-west Kent alone during the past year, the police have had to process 26 offenders, and there must have been cases of the use or carrying of other offensive weapons.
Just before Christmas, the police encountered a man attacking another with a machete at Dartford railway station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who is also a sponsor of the Bill. It turned out to be simply a case of the criminal fraternity sorting out their own problems. It may be thought that they deserved it, but any members of the public who were in the area would have been at considerable risk as well. The carrying of such dangerous weapons seems to be increasing.
I had some anxieties about the Bill. What about law-abiding people? For instance, there is a religious requirement for devout Sikhs to carry the kirpan, a short sword. The Bill does not deal with that, however, because devout Sikhs are law-abiding. Similarly, it has long been traditional for scouts who engage in woodcraft to carry and use sheath knives, and other similar knives. The scouts, however, are a responsible organisation, and have not worn the sheath knives in public for many years. The holding of them is subject to secure conditions: the knives are taken to camp, for example, where they are used in accordance with the strict regulations for which the scouts have always been well known. In this Bill we are talking not about law-abiding people, but about hot-headed youngsters who think it clever to carry and, indeed, use offensive weapons.
I strongly support the idea of banning sales of offensive weapons to those under 18, and I was encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister said about that. We are making progress, not least with the amnesty in regard to the return of weapons. In my constituency, a rather heavy container was taken from Gravesend police station to the Kent county constabulary headquarters in Maidstone; it was full of offensive weapons.
I look forward to the Bill's progress and hope that the House will be able to deal firmly with the upsurge in the carrying of offensive weapons.
2.24 pm
Mr. John Marshall: I apologise to the House for arriving late: my attendance at surgery went on for some time. I support the Bill because it deals with a problem that concerns a large number of
people. It has been brought to the fore by the tragic death of Mr. Lawrence, but it deals with part of a problem that has been around for a long time. I used to live in Glasgow, and I remember standing at a bus stop in Sauchiehall street on a Saturday night and being able to guarantee that not one knife but two, three or four would be seen by 10
618
o'clock. There is a great problem and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her success in the ballot and on her wisdom in presenting such a Bill.
2.25 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful to all
those hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. What I have heard leaves me in no doubt about its great importance. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for expressing his interest and his determination seriously to consider proposals banning the sale of knives to
youngsters. As he knows, I have privately been pressing him to do that. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) shares my wish to ban such sales.
Knifings have been growing, and a knife culture has been developing in the playground. Children from the age of 12 to 15 are buying knives because they find them attractive in the shops. They are more fun than a kitchen knife and some shopkeepers have no scruples about making money. Those facts lead to widespread tragedies. I hope that dealing with those issues will be an important
part of the Bill.
Powers of arrest are crucial. It is frustrating to the police to stop a young person whom they have reason to suspect is carrying a knife for no good reason only to find that they are impotent to deal with that serious matter. The legislation must incorporate heavy penalties that will convey the clear message to all the thugs and hooligans that if they carry a knife without a good reason they will face gaol. That is a serious penalty, but society wants to see justice and it is important to have sentences that reflect society's concern.
We need to ensure that a young person who carries a knife without a good reason will no longer get away with it. He will face a sentence of up to two years, but if he is carrying a knife and it can be shown that he intends to use it, he could face four years in gaol. Such powers are crucial and will change the culture of our society. I hope that we shall concentrate on the background of such young people and try to give them greater stability in their lives. They need secure homes, caring parents and schools.
Teachers, people in the world outside and political parties are all working towards one end—to create a society in which law abiding people can walk on the streets without fearing for their lives, and without the fear of suffering injury or intimidation or of being robbed at knife point. All that must stop, and I am
grateful to hon. Members for helping to bring that about.
I look forward to the opportunity of discussing the Bill in Committee where we can explore the ideas that we have been debating. I hope that the resulting legislation will benefit this country as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
That the Bill be read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
2.29 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: We had a long debate on the Bill last Friday, but I was not able to take part. In the remaining seconds, I wish to register my opposition to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). I oppose it because of the way in which it will affect my constituents, especially people who work outdoors: those involved in farming and forestry.
I have literally only a few seconds to register that point, which I was not able to do at the last debate. The Bill will cause tremendous hardship to people who work outdoors. It is not, as was suggested in the last debate, simply a question of—
Order.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 2 February.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
Ordered,
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee of Privileges on 1st November in the last session of Parliament and not reported to the House and the related Memorandum be laid upon the Table and referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges for examination by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 31st January, the Speaker shall not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Local Government Finance.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Scottish Newcastle and Courage
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this
House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
2.30 pm
Mr. John Heppell: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in the House.
My reason for asking for this debate is not just the effect that the matter has had locally, with all brewing, all bottling and all distribution to stop at the Home Brewery site; it is not just the fact that the decision brings to an end a tradition of brewing in the Nottingham conurbation that goes back hundreds of years; it is not just the loss of the Robin Hood logo, which clearly identified the beer as a Nottingham product, in a secret deal of which I have no details; it is not just the loss of consumer choice and pub closures; it is not even the loss of more than 200 jobs, especially those in my constituency, which has the highest unemployment rate in the east midlands-higher than anywhere in Scotland or Wales.
Nor is my reason just to attack Scottish Newcastle for the effect that its policies are having nationally, with nine breweries reduced to seven, with 41 distribution points reduced to 28, with more than 200 jobs lost in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), with the loss of consumer choice, with the effect on beer prices, and with the loss of more than 1,600 jobs nationally. If this matter concerned only Scottish Newcastle's actions, it would be a debate of little significance—we should know by now where Scottish Newcastle is coming from and where it is going.
What makes the debate so important is the fact that Scottish Newcastle has an accomplice in this affair, who aided and abetted it in obtaining a bigger share of the market, not by competition, but by acquisition. That accomplice must share responsibility for everything that has happened as a result of the merger; an accomplice who effectively drove a dray horse through the Government's policy of encouraging competition.
I am sorry to say that that accomplice is the Government, in the person of the Under-Secretary for Corporate and Consumer Affairs. He sealed the fate of Home Brewery, my local brewery and Nottingham's local brewery, when, on 14 August last year, he decided not to refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to concede that my predecessor in this office acted merely on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, who is an independent agent?
Mr. Heppell: I was coming to that point, and I am glad that the Minister has raised it.
The Department of Trade and Industry press release said that the decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, and listed undertakings from Scottish Newcastle and Courage breweries. What the press release did not mention was that that was not the director general's original advice. That was clearly set out in a DTI press release on 21 July 1995. I shall quote it for the sake of the Minister:

621
"The Director General of Fair Trading has recommended that the proposed acquisition should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because it would give rise to a significant concentration in the brewing industry with no compensating reduction in vertical links."
That seemed clear enough to me, but the then Minister rejected that advice. He took a political decision to reject the advice of the director general—advice that should have come as no surprise to him, as it came as no surprise to me.
Back in 1989 there was a similar attempted merger, which was referred to the MMC. I want to quote from the report on that. Paragraph 1.6 states:
"We consider that the loss of the independence of one of the major suppliers to the market would reduce consumer choice and competition and thus be detrimental to the public interest."
Paragraph 1.8 states:
"The creation of a second large group…would result in increased difficulty of supply for other brewers and distributors."
Even more significant and relevant are the comments in paragraph 5.10:
"The effect of the takeover would be not simply a reduction by one in the number of separate companies operating in the UK beer market but would constitute a major alteration in the structure of the market, reducing competitiveness in all sectors."
That was part of Scottish Newcastle's own evidence.
In paragraph 5.13, the report said:
"Scottish and Newcastle believed that it was against the public
interest that such entry"
to the market
"should be achieved by acquisition instead of competition."
I could continue quoting. The report is littered with arguments by Scottish Newcastle against the merger. It is clear that it changed its position to suit its own convenience.
As I said, Scottish Newcastle's actions should come as
no surprise. Just this week my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) told me about the sense of betrayal still felt in their constituencies following the takeover of Matthew Brown by Scottish Newcastle six years ago. Before the takeover, Scottish Newcastle wrote to all the employees in Matthew Brown guaranteeing that brewing would continue at the brewery in Blackburn. Within six months, the brewery was closed. If that can happen despite the guarantee, I have little doubt of the consequences of the merger for Home Brewery, my local brewery.
Scottish Newcastle's actions were predictable; indeed, I predicted them last July. What was not predictable was the action of the then Minister. He chose 21 July as the day to announce that he was considering accepting undertakings from the breweries, rather than referring the merger to the MMC. He allowed just seven days for interested parties to submit their views—hardly what anyone would call meaningful consultation. By the end of that seven days, the House was in recess and there was no opportunity for me or any other hon. Member to raise the matter.
Even with that tight time scale, I and several other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and members of the Nottinghamshire city council, wrote to the director gerieral saying that there was still a case for referral. I received a reply on 15 August. I was told that the Minister
622
decided to ask for representations on the text of the conditions for the undertakings on 4 August. On 14 August, he decided that he would allow the merger to go ahead. Effectively, I had no real opportunity to argue against that. The decision was taken despite the fact that 33 representations were made, and the overwhelming view was that the most appropriate action would be referral.
I have no doubt—and events bear me out—that the whole consultation exercise was a sham, and that Scottish and Newcastle had already received a nod and a wink from the Government that there would be no referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There will be no referral for a merger that will put 30 per cent. of total beer sales in the hands of Scottish Courage, and will mean that two brewers will have more than 50 per cent. of the sales in this country.
The three conditions set down were designed to have a minimal effect. The first related to the new retail estates and Scottish Courage's 7,500 pubs. The total is actually more than that, as a reply from the Minister informed me. The company has been asked to get rid of 115 pubs, but that merely gives it an opportunity to get rid of its less profitable pubs. When a firm is supplying 7,500 different pubs, 115 is not a great number to have to get rid of.
Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right, but only half right. To that extent, he is half wrong. It is true that Scottish Courage will be required to reduce its tied estate by 115 pubs, but—and this is the important second limb of the undertaking—a limit was set at 2,624 on the maximum number of tied pubs that it could own.
Mr. Heppell: I do not dispute what the Minister has said, and nothing that I have said contradicts that. In answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Minister replied:
"At the time of giving his advice to me on the Scottish and Newcastle/Courage merger, the Director General of Fair Trading estimated that the parties would between them have owned or supplied about 7,500 pubs, which included some 4,350 pubs owned by Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. and supplied by Courage. This figure is not complete as it does not include all supply agreements entered into by the parties as part of their normal commercial activities."—[Official Report, 6 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 559.]
I recognise that the tied estate is only 2,624 pubs, but in reality, the figure is 7,500. The Minister is clear on that as well; otherwise, something is wrong with his answer. It is still correct to say that 115 pubs is not a great number at which to set the ceiling, but even then there was a get-out. Scottish and Newcastle could apply for a review if it thought that the circumstances had changed, and there was a further get-out in that there would definitely be a review after three years. So that undertaking was not going to bite hard on Scottish and Newcastle.
The third condition—the release of thousands of IEL tied pubs—was not a new undertaking, as the company had already decided to carry that out in March 1998. An existing undertaken was merely to be brought forward, so that, instead of releasing 500 pubs in each of two years, the company would be releasing the pubs in one year. Even after that, I expect that the vast majority of pubs will still end up being supplied by Scottish Courage. The condition did nothing in terms of vertical competition, and it was supposed to offset the horizontal competition.

623
I will quickly move on, as I recognise that I am running out of time. It seems to me that the Minister had no intention of referring the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If, in 1989, a similar takeover was referred to the MMC, why, in 1995, was this merger not referred? One of the significant reasons is the fact that, between 1989 and 1995, Scottish and Newcastle paid £320,000 to the Conservative party. Given the way that things have panned out, I have to think that that was a significant factor in the decision not to refer.
Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman dare not say that outside the protection of this Chamber.
Mr. Heppell: I have already said it outside the protection of this Chamber.
There has been much speculation locally about the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), because 10 per cent. of that donation went to his constituency. I do not think that that contribution made any difference to what has happened to Home Brewery. I said that to the hon. Member and I do not mind repeating it. The decision to close Home Brewery was not made locally, nor was the decision not to refer the merger to the MMC—it was made nationally and by the Minister. No pun is intended when I say that the fact that the merger was not referred leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
The hon. Member for Gedling has been lobbying to try to save jobs at Home Brewery. The problem is that he did not start his lobbying until very late on. In some respects, it was too late. My only criticism is that he gave people the false hope that the brewery would not close. According to an article in the Nottingham Evening Post of Tuesday 5 September 1995, the hon. Gentleman
"has made 'vigorous representations' to Scottish and Newcastle about the future of the Daybrook site. The brewer's response appears to have encouraged him because he told the Post last month:There is no commercial logic in shutting the site down. My responsibility is to look after my constituents who work at Daybrook and there is no reason to think that the future is not a good one.'"
My only criticism is that that made people think, "He is a Minister and part of the Government. He knows what is happening. The brewery is going to be safe." I know now that he is doing everything he can to ensure that, when those people are made redundant, they will have a chance to get back into training and employment as quickly as possible through the training and enterprise council.
But the decision that caused the closure of Home Brewery was the decision not to refer the merger to the MMC, and I am convinced that the Minister did not allow referral because it is a certainty that it would have turned it down. That is the evidence from the Director General of Fair Trading. In his report to the Minister, he gives enough reasons why it should have been referred.
I realise that I am not giving the Minister much time to respond, but I must quickly pay tribute to Gedling council, the local trade unionists and the work force for their efforts in trying to get something positive out of all this and to work towards the future, either to save the brewery or ensure that the site is used in a way that will ensure some employment is brought back into the area.
624
Finally, the Minister believes that his policy on competition is working. He has told me a great deal about how vertical competition has been stopped, but the policy has not stopped horizontal competition. In 1989, the six largest breweries controlled 77 per cent. of the market. By 1992, the five largest breweries—not six, but five—controlled 82 per cent. of the market. Today, the four largest—not the five or six largest—control 84 per cent. of the market. That is not dealing with competition and monopoly effectively.
2.49 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I would have liked to congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on securing this debate and to have had the opportunity to deal with him on terms and in good time. However, his bitterness, to which he referred, has soured the debate somewhat, and makes it necessary for me to defend, although he does not need it, my predecessor in this office, which I do 100 per cent. and wholeheartedly, notwithstanding the innuendoes of the hon. Gentleman.
I defend also the outstanding role of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). It is clear from even a cursory reading of the local press that he has played a leading role in trying to persuade Scottish Courage to stay on site, invest and expand—not only in recent months but in the years since the Home brewery was sold to Scottish and Newcastle by the Farr family. Everyone knows that he did everything he could as the local MP to fight for his constituents who work at the brewery. He has a well-earned reputation in the House for fighting for the interests of his constituents.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East leaves me with no option. Instead of turning to the arguments, I must deal with his outrageous suggestions
about donations.
Donations to the Conservative party are received each year from thousands of companies up and down the country. However, unlike in the Labour party, they do not buy any favours. Everyone knows full well that Labour is owned lock, stock and barrel by the unions, who provide 50 per cent. of the party's funds and sponsor two thirds of their Members of Parliament, including every elected member of the shadow Cabinet. In return, they get 50 per cent. of the vote at party conference, 50 per cent. of the seats on the party's national executive, and considerable influence in the election of the party's leader and deputy leader and the selection of parliamentary candidates.
Mr. Heppell: I agree with the Minister. There are clearly financial incentives. Does the Minister agree that all those things should be open to scrutiny? Will he go against the Prime Minister and say that all donations to political parties should be referred to Nolan or some other committee?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We ought to come back to the subject of the debate.
Mr. Taylor: In that spirit, I recognise hon. Members' concerns about the loss of jobs that will result from the recent reorganisation of Scottish Courage. Such losses are regrettable, but it is important to recognise that industry has to operate in a very competitive environment.

625
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East counterweighed his more unfortunate remarks with a candour for which I give him credit. I am not squealing, but as he has left me little time, I shall move to my conclusion. I shall have more to say, not least about theministerial decision that was based on the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading. In a spirit of candour I shall describe my position; to use a fashionable phrase, read my lips:
"I can't start interfering with the particular management decisions that have been taken… No politician, if he's honest, will sit here and. say they can prevent someone losing their job."
Mr. Heppell: I agree.
Mr. Taylor: That is as well, because I am quoting the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said precisely that in the Nottingham Evening Post last week.
Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister go further and say that no one should interfere with the decisions of the Director General of Fair Trading?
Mr. Taylor: I will not be unduly drawn on the matter, but I think that the ultimate responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. If I am mistaken, I shall rapidly return to the matter with a letter to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall put a copy in the Library.
We must now try to be constructive. I understand that Scottish Courage will take steps to redeploy staff wherever possible, and will work with local agencies to help staff who lose their jobs to find other work. The Government are well aware of the difficulties faced by those who may lose their jobs, and are fully committed to working with local partners to help ease the effects of the closures. Representatives from the local training and enterprise councils have already met local politicians, trade unions and other representatives to discuss how best to help those affected.
The decision taken by my predecessor not to refer the Scottish and Newcastle and Courage merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been criticised. It may help if I explain how that decision was reached.
Last August, my predecessor announced that he had accepted undertakings from Scottish and Newcastle and Courage and that he would therefore not refer the merger to the MMC. The undertakings addressed competition concerns, which the Director General of Fair Trading had identified. They weaken the link between Scottish Courage and its retail estate by requiring Scottish Courage to reduce its tied estate and by setting a limit on the maximum number of tied pubs that the company can own.
I immediately acknowledge that the director general's original advice was that the merger should be referred to the MMC, because it would give rise to a significant concentration in the brewing industry, with no compensating reduction in vertical links. But my predecessor asked him to consider whether those concerns could be remedied by enforceable undertakings as an alternative to reference. The final decision taken by my
predecessor was in accordance with the independent
626
advice of the director general, and followed two periods of consultation about the form that the undertakings should take. In addition, the final undertakings were published, together with the director general's advice.
The whole process by which the undertakings were secured was highly transparent. If hon. Members read the director general's advice, they will see that he carefully considered third parties' views. He took those very much into account before he advised that they addressed the competition concerns arising from the merger, and that they should be accepted instead of the merger being referred to the MMC. The House will recognise that the undertakings given by the companies are aimed at addressing competition concerns arising from the merger.
Since 1984, the Government's policy has been that decisions on whether mergers are referred to the MMC are taken primarily on competition grounds. That will continue to be the case. It is important to consider the decision taken on the Scottish Courage case in the context of more recent regulatory intervention in the brewing industry.
In 1989, the MMC completed a monopoly report on the supply of beer. That led to the Beer Orders, which sought to encourage competition in the market, primarily by reducing the extent to which licensed premises were tied to the national brewers. There have been three major mergers since that report: between Allied and Carlsberg; Courage and Grand Metropolitan; and Scottish and Newcastle and Courage. The first two of those mergers were referred to the MMC.
I recognise that it was expected that the third would also be referred, so the Government's decision to allow the merger to proceed without a reference seems to have shocked some people. Some seem to think that a merger should be automatically referred whenever the market share rises above 25 per cent. Let me explain that the 25 per cent. threshold only establishes jurisdiction under the Fair Trading Act 1973, but is no more that a jurisdictional test. Moreover, new legislation enabled enforceable undertakings to be attained in the Scottish Courage case, which meant that competition concerns could be addressed without a reference to the MMC, as Parliament had always intended.
It does not mean that future brewing mergers will never be referred to the MMC, or that vertical links will be the only aspect of a brewing merger that the Government seek to address. In considering the action to be taken, each merger case is considered on its merits. The competition authorities assess the effect of the merger on the market, and take views of third parties. That is true of all mergers. Nor should there be a general presumption—that the Government would always intervene in markets.
Perhaps I can end, as earlier stated, with a quotation. It is the only time ever that I have claimed the Leader of the Opposition in aid of my argument, and it may never happen again. It has been an interesting week. He said:
"obviously I can't start interfering with particular management decisions that have been taken… No politician, if he's honest, will sit here and say they can prevent someone losing their job. I can't.".
Nor can I.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Offenders
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost of a case in the juvenile court from first hearing to completion. [10867]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The unit cost for court time for criminal cases in the youth court is estimated to be £140 in 1995–96, or £180 where an application for legal aid is made. These unit costs are average costs, and cover both trials and guilty pleas. These figures are based on the total revenue provision for the magistrates' courts, including local authorities' 20 per cent. contribution, and case load figures and weightings derived from the management information system for magistrates courts which are currently being reviewed. They do not take into account capital costs.

  For defence costs paid through legal aid, it is not possible to identify separately the costs of proceedings in the youth court from all criminal cases dealt with in the magistrates courts. Most cases are remunerated under the standard fee scheme, and the level of the fee will depend on the nature and complexity of the proceedings. The average cost of a magistrates courts criminal bill in 1995–96 is £460.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what number and percentage of the English Bar are Queen's Counsel. [10869]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  At 1 October 1995, there were 891 Queen's Counsel in practice at the English Bar. This comprises 10.48 per cent. of all barristers in private practice.

  Capital Building Programme
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will list each law court's capital buildings programme, costing more than £1 million completed in each of the years 1979–80 to 1992–93 by or on behalf of his Department, or local magistrates' committees, together with the cost expressed in 1995–96 prices. [10861]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A schedule of all Crown, combined court and county court schemes is at annex A. The readily available information on magistrates court schemes is at annex B. The Department does not hold detailed records of all magistrates court schemes completed prior to 1992, when responsibility transferred from the Home Office.
  402

  Annex A: Crown County and combined court building projects

  £million

  Title of scheme

  Type of court

  Works cost cash

  Works cost 1995–96 prices

  1979–80

  0

  0

  1980–81

  Wood Green 1 CRASH

  Crown

  1.25

  2.71

  Leicester

  Crown

  4.42

  9.59

  Romford

  County

  1.03

  2.23

  Nottingham 1

  Crown

  2.23

  4.83

  Birmingham Newton Street

  County

  1.10

  2.38

  Snaresbrook

  Crown

  2.78

  6.03

  Total

  12.80

  27.77

  1981–82

  Burnley

  Crown

  1.50

  2.97

  Kings Lyn

  Crown

  1.12

  2.21

  Bolton

  Comb

  4.00

  7.91

  Total

  6.61

  13.09

  1982–83

  Portsmouth

  Comb

  7.00

  12.93

  Chelmsford

  Crown

  5.61

  10.36

  Leeds

  Comb

  9.68

  17.88

  Southwark

  Crown

  12.60

  23.27

  Total

  34.89

  64.43

  1983–84

  RCJ Crypt

  High

  2.47

  4.35

  Maidstone

  Comb

  10.20

  18.00

  Total

  12.67

  22.36

  1984–85

  Liverpool

  Comb

  43.44

  73.03

  Snaresbrook Rebuild (Fire)

  Crown

  1.40

  2.35

  Total

  44.84

  75.38

  1985–86

  Oxford

  Comb

  5.17

  8.23

  Swindon

  Comb

  2.36

  3.76

  Salisbury

  Crown

  1.18

  1.88

  Total

  8.71

  13.87

  1986–87

  Isleworth D. O. G. House

  Crown

  4.43

  6.86

  Milton Keynes

  County

  1.17

  1.81

  Guildford

  Crown

  4.70

  7.27

  Manchester Wood St.

  Phase 1

  Crown

  10.13

  15.67

  Peterborough

  Comb

  3.96

  6.12

  Southampton

  Comb

  7.08

  10.95

  Total

  31.46

  48.67

  1987–88

  Birmingham

  Crown

  8.87

  13.03

  Newcastle Moot Hall

  Crown

  1.68

  2.46

  Nottingham 2 and 3

  Crown

  6.18

  9.08

  Norwich

  Comb

  7.02

  10.31

  Swansea

  Crown

  5.15

  7.57

  Total

  28.90

  42.45

  1988–89

  Lambeth

  County

  1.14

  1.57

  Coventry

  Comb

  5.25

  7.23

  Telford

  County

  1.05

  1.45

  Snaresbrook CRASH

  Crown

  2.50

  3.44

  St. Dunstans House

  High

  1.67

  2.30

  403

  Annex A: Crown County and combined court building projects

  £million

  Title of scheme

  Type of court

  Works cost cash

  Works cost 1995–96 prices

  Truro

  Comb

  4.93

  6.79

  Middlesex Guildhall

  Crown

  6.9

  9.49

  Grimsby

  Comb

  4.84

  6.66

  Derby

  Comb

  7.4

  10.18

  Croydon

  Comb

  15.13

  20.82

  Total

  50.82

  69.93

  1989–90

  Doncaster

  Crown

  3.42

  4.41

  RCJ 12 additional

  HC

  11.36

  14.62

  Manchester Cr Sq/Wd St

  2/3

  Comb

  4.97

  6.39

  Taunton

  Crown

  2.79

  3.59

  Wood Green Ph2

  Crown

  15.26

  19.64

  Total

  37.8

  48.65

  1990–91

  Wolverhampton

  Comb

  9.17

  10.92

  RCJ Thomas More

  High

  2.54

  3.03

  Newcastle Quayside

  Comb

  17.13

  20.41

  Total

  Comb

  28.84

  34.35

  1991–92

  Northampton

  Comb

  11.49

  12.88

  Teesside

  Comb

  15.09

  16.92

  Hull

  Co-loc

  11.28

  12.64

  Stoke

  Crown

  9.5

  10.65

  Stafford

  Comb

  10.35

  11.60

  Harrow

  Crown

  17.61

  19.74

  Lincoln

  County

  2.31

  2.59

  Luton

  Crown

  9.96

  11.17

  Warrington

  Comb

  7.48

  8.38

  Newport

  Comn

  10.90

  12.22

  Total

  105.96

  118.79

  1992–93

  Carlisle

  Comb

  9.29

  10.01

  St. Albans

  Crown

  16.34

  17.60

  13–14 Park Crescent

  Offices

  1.62

  1.75

  Bradford

  Comb

  18.85

  20.30

  Chester

  Crown

  6.55

  7.05

  Borough

  Crown

  19.06

  20.53

  Dartford

  County

  2.16

  2.33

  Total

  73.87

  79.56

  Grand Total

  478.16

  659.28

  Annex B: Magistrates' court building projects

  £million

  Scheme

  Actual cost

  Cost at 1995–96 prices

  1981–82

  Lancaster

  1.925

  3.810

  1987–88

  Merton

  3.196

  4.695

  Lewes

  2.394

  3.517

  1988–89

  Lowestoft

  2.099

  2.888

  Brighton

  2.289

  3.150

  Port Talbot

  1.415

  1.947

  Stockport

  4.630

  6.371

  Bath

  2.098

  2.887

  Dewsbury

  2.394

  3.294

  404

  Annex B: Magistrates' court building projects

  £ million

  Scheme

  Actual cost

  Cost at 1995–96 prices

  1989–90

  Brent

  7.782

  10.015

  Cardiff

  7.401

  9.525

  Hertford

  4.0

  5.148

  Oldbury

  2.795

  3.597

  Woking

  2.66

  3.423

  Thames

  5.086

  6.546

  1990–91

  Bootle

  2.935

  3.496

  Bury

  3.541

  4.110

  Chester

  3.7

  4.407

  Basildon

  2.7

  3.216

  Great Yarmouth

  3.167

  3.772

  Harrogate

  2.351

  2.662

  Lincoln

  4.113

  4.899

  Milton Keynes

  4.587

  5.463

  Newton Aycliffe

  1.657

  1.973

  Wigan

  5.077

  6.047

  City of London

  3.99

  4.752

  1991–92

  Haywards Heath

  2.576

  2.888

  Kendal

  1.552

  1.740

  Wimbledon

  3.196

  3.583

  Leicester

  7.432

  8.331

  1992–93

  Bedlington

  2.848

  3.067

  Woolwich

  3.294

  3.548

  Newport (IOW)

  3.406

  3.668

  Taunton

  2.503

  2.696

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fireworks
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for changing the law on fireworks. [12486]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The control of fireworks in Northern Ireland is governed by the Explosives Act 1875 as amended, the Explosives Acts (Northern Ireland) 1924 and 1970, together with the Explosives (Control of Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1970. Fireworks in the Province also come under the scope of consumer safety legislation.

  The 1970 regulations were, introduced in special circumstances 25 years ago, and have remained unchanged since then. They were introduced primarily because of the security situation and the real fear that the setting-off of fireworks, particularly so-called "hangers" by young people, could be misinterpreted by security force patrols as terrorist action with potentially serious consequences for the innocent participants. There was also concern at that time about the rising number of accidents and injuries caused by fireworks. There seems little doubt that the present regulations have contributed to the low level of injuries from fireworks in Northern Ireland.
  405
  However, the present system is inherently bureaucratic and costly because it requires any person who wishes to purchase or use fireworks—with two minor exceptions—to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State. Failure to obtain such a licence is an offence. The present arrangements therefore consume an inordinate amount of police and administrative resources. This situation contrasts sharply with the legal position in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  I am aware that there have been criticisms levelled at the present law, to the effect that it was inadequate and should be strengthened. Paradoxically, I have also heard claims that the present legal controls are disproportionate and unnecessary and should therefore be repealed. Whatever the law on fireworks should be, it is clearly essential that it should allow for the efficient use of public resources; pay due regard to public safety yet be no more restrictive than absolutely necessary, and be capable of being effectively applied and not open to abuse.

  In the light of all these factors, I asked my officials in late 1994 to undertake a thorough, painstaking review of the law on fireworks, to see whether it was still relevant and effective in today's circumstances and to consider ways in which it might be changed. The proposals, which I am releasing today for wider public consultation, are the outcome of that review. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House. As the paper points out, before I make any final decisions about what changes are required, I should like to hear from those individuals, organisations and agencies which have an interest in the manufacture, retail sale, safety and use of fireworks in Northern Ireland. To that end, I am writing today to Northern Ireland hon. Members and my officials are similarly writing to the political parties, and other interested groups inviting comment and proposals on what changes to the law they would like to see.

  My intention would be to introduce the necessary amending legislation during 1996.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charter Marks (Police Authorities)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account he takes of the variation in the opening hours of police stations or their closure contrary to local police wish when considering the award of a charter mark to a police authority. [10868]

  Mr. Willetts
  Charter mark is an award for organisations that provide an excellent service to the public. Police forces may apply for a charter mark if they consider that they meet the criteria. User satisfaction and consultation and choice form two of the criteria that applicants have to meet.

  Deregulation Advisory Committee
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the members of the Deregulation Advisory Committee stating, for each member, the firm they are employed by; and how many people that firm employs. [11942]
  406
  Mr. Freeman
  There are 16 members of the deregulation task force, which is chaired by the right hon. Francis Maude of Morgan Stanley and Co Ltd.

  The other members are:
  David Band (Barclays de Zoete Wedd); David Campbell (Laporte Fine Organics Ltd); Maurice Denyer (Fowler Bros (Cowfold) Ltd); Michael Fallon (Quality Care Homes plc); Mike Fisher (Whale Tankers Ltd); George Goring (The Goring hotel); Teresa Graham (Baker Tilly); Janet Morgan (Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts); Archie Norman (Asda Group plc); Timothy Parker (C&J Clark Ltd); David Parry (formerly BP); Tony Rammelt (Regis Europe Ltd); Roger Singleton (Barnardo's); Dan Wright (Albion Automotive Ltd); and Peter Wyman (Coopers and Lybrand).

  Figures detailing the number of people employed by each of the firms mentioned are not readily available. However, members have been drawn from a wide range of firms which vary greatly in size, as well as from the charitable sector.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing (Backlogs)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the backlog of unmet housing need; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [10515]

  Mr. Curry
  The Department does not produce estimates of backlog of unmet housing need. It does, however, monitor a range of indicators of housing stress. These show housing stress has been falling. The Department has provided the Environment Select Committee with a note on this as part of the Committee's inquiry into housing need, and I have today placed a copy of this note in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities that have made oral representations to Ministers as part of the consultation on his proposals for local government finance for 1996–97, showing in each case the Minister seen by the authority, the duration of the meeting and the main topics raised. [11992]

  Mr. Gummer
  The table lists authorities which made oral representations to me and other Ministers in my Department on the proposed local government finance settlement for England for 1996–97. The main topics raised in the meetings are listed on the table. No note was made of the duration of meetings but I and other Ministers have sought to make time available for the fullest consultation.

  1996–97 Settlement meetings with local authorities

  Minister

  Main topics

  County councils

  Berkshire

  Sir Paul

  Flood, defence, Fire SSA,

  Beresford

  Landfill tax, reserves.

  Buckinghamshire

  Robert B. Jones

  Education, social services,

  council taxes, area cost.

  Derbyshire

  Robert B. Jones

  Education, landfill tax,

  reorganisation costs,

  capping, voluntary sector.

  407

  1996–97 Settlement meetings with local authorities

  Minister

  Main topics

  Devon

  David Curry

  Education, reserves, fire

  SSA, landfill tax, social

  services, capping.

  Hampshire

  Robert B. Jones

  Capping, landfill tax, social

  services, fire SSA,

  reorganisation costs, area

  cost.

  Hereford and

  David Curry

  Capping, area cost, fire

  Worcestershire

  SSA, social services,

  education.

  Nottinghamshire

  David Curry

  Teachers' pay, area cost,

  landfill tax, pensions, road

  accidents, capital

  allocations.

  Lancashire

  David Curry

  Area cost, deprivation,

  community care, capital

  financing, education,

  landfill tax.

  Oxfordshire

  David Curry

  Education, social services,

  landfill tax, capping, staff

  redundancies.

  Somerset

  David Curry

  Education, reserves, social

  services, benefits, area cost.

  Warwickshire

  David Curry

  Education, capping.

  West Sussex

  David Curry

  Landfill tax, pensions,

  additional educational

  needs, area cost.

  Shire districts

  Berwick

  Sir Paul

  Visitors, concurrent

  (Northunberland)

  Beresford

  services, capital financing,

  rent allowances, sparsity.

  Blaby

  Sir Paul

  SSA, council taxes.

  (Leicestershire)

  Beresford

  Braintree (Essex)

  Sir Paul

  Population data, interest

  Beresford

  receipts, rent allowances,

  concurrent services.

  Castle Morpeth

  Sir Paul

  Capping, sparsity,

  (Northumberland)

  Beresford

  concurrent services, capital

  financing, interest receipts,

  rent allowances.

  Castle Point

  Sir Paul

  SSA methodology, council

  (Essex)

  Beresford

  tax benefit, efficiency

  savings, pension costs,

  capping.

  Derwentside

  Sir Paul

  Deprivation, population,

  (Durham)

  Beresford

  density, capital financing,

  capping, reserves.

  Harlow (Essex)

  Sir Paul

  Population data, SSA

  Beresford

  methodology, new town

  issues, capping,

  non-domestic rates.

  Havant

  Sir Paul

  SSA, rent allowance data.

  (Hampshire)

  Beresford

  Horsham (West

  Sir Paul

  Population data, reserves,

  Sussex)

  Beresford

  efficiency savings, capping.

  King's Lynn

  Sir Paul

  Reserves, efficiency,

  (Norfolk)

  Beresford

  sparsity.

  Milton Keynes

  Sir Paul

  Population data, CCT,

  (Buckinghamshire)

  Beresford

  capital financing,

  reorganisation, open spaces.

  Newcastle

  James Clappison

  Social and economic

  (Staffordshire)

  conditions, scaling factor,

  concurrent services.

  Northampton

  Sir Paul

  Overnight visitors,

  Beresford

  concurrent services,

  recycling, capital financing,

  fixed plant leases.

  North Kesteven

  Sir Paul

  Council taxes, rent

  (Lincolnshire)

  Beresford

  allowances, RAF

  Poplation, single

  regeneration budget.

  408

  1996–97 Settlement meetings with local authorities

  Minister

  Main topics

  North

  Sir Paul

  SSA, concurrent services,

  Warwickshire

  Beresford

  capital financing, social

  deprivation.

  Nottingham

  Sir Paul

  SSA, day visitors,

  Beresford

  economic index, area cost,

  reorganisation.

  Plymouth

  Sir Paul

  Population, concurrent

  (Devon)

  Beresford

  services, reorganisation,

  capital.

  Purbeck (Dorset)

  Sir Paul

  Council taxes, capital

  Beresford

  financing, flood relief.

  Salisbury

  Sir Paul

  New burdens, council taxes,

  (Wiltshire)

  Beresford

  SSA methodology, rent

  allowances.

  South

  James Clappison

  Council taxes, capping,

  Bedfordshire

  reserves.

  South Lakeland

  David Curry

  Council taxes, sparsity, day

  (Cumbria)

  visitors, housing, national

  parks, area cost.

  Three Rivers

  David Curry

  Discretionary spending,

  (Hertfordshire)

  council taxes, capital

  allocations, staff costs.

  Uttlesford

  Sir Paul

  Rent allowances, concurrent

  (Essex)

  Beresford

  services, precepts, sparsity,

  reserves, Rural White

  Paper.

  Wansbeck

  Sir Paul

  Capping, social deprivation,

  (Northumbria)

  Beresford

  capital financing, sparsity,

  concurrent services.

  Watford

  Sir Paul

  Day visitors, area cost,

  (Hertfordshire)

  Beresford

  concurrent services, retail

  growth.

  Wear Valley

  Sir Paul

  Social and economic

  (Durham)

  Beresford

  conditions, reserves,

  pensions, council taxes.

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Sir Paul

  Council taxes, efficiency

  (Hertfordshire)

  Beresford

  savings, capital allocation,

  population data.

  West Devon

  David Curry

  Sparsity, day visitors,

  (sparsely

  population data.

  populated district

  councils

  Metropolitan

  districts

  Birmingham

  Secretary of

  Boundary change, data,

  State

  education, commutation,

  housing subsidy.

  Bradford

  David Curry

  Rent allowances, edcation,

  area cost, interest receipts,

  s. 11, capital

  Core Cities

  David Curry

  Children's SSA, social

  index, area cost, nursery

  vouchers, education, capital

  financing.

  Doncaster

  Robert. B. Jones

  Capping, other services

  SSA, capital financing,

  Met. rail grant.

  Kirklees

  David Curry

  Area cost, education,

  highways, rent allowances,

  capital financing, Met. Rail

  grant.

  Liverpool

  Robert B. Jones

  Council taxes, HRA

  subsidy, social index, social

  services, education, capital,

  area cost, Met. rail grant.

  Rochdale

  Robert B. Jones

  Education. social services,

  landfill tax, capital.

  Rotherham

  James Clappison

  Capping, inflation

  severance costs, PTA levy,

  Supertram, capital, social

  index.

  409

  1996–97 Settlement meetings with local authorities

  Minister

  Main topics

  St. Helens

  James Clappison

  HRA subsidy,

  superannuation, capital

  financing, landfill tax,

  waste disposal, Met. Rail

  grant.

  Sheffield

  David Curry

  Highways, capping, capital

  financing, waste disposal,

  capital pension and

  severance costs.

  Solihull

  Sir Paul

  Area cost, education, social

  Beresford

  services, levies, highways.

  South Yorkshire

  David Curry

  Sheffield Supertram.

  Districts

  Stockport

  James Clappison

  Waste disposal and

  passenger transport levies.

  Wigan

  David Curry

  Area cost. Landfill tax,

  receipts, supperannuation,

  non-domestiv rate relief.

  London boroughs

  Brent

  Sir Paul

  SSA reduction grant, waste

  Beresford

  authority, education, asylum

  seekers, sparsity, area cost,

  capital financing.

  Bexley and

  Secretary of

  Social services.

  Havering

  State

  Camden

  Sir Paul

  Education, damping,

  Beresford

  asylum seekers, receipts,

  capital financing.

  Enfield

  Sir Paul

  Education, social services,

  Beresford

  other services,

  non-domestic rates.

  Greenwich

  Sir Paul

  Education data, transitional

  Beresford

  relief, area cost, density,

  children's social services.

  Hackney

  Sir Paul

  SSA reduction grant, social

  Beresford

  services, independent

  schools, refugees.

  Hillingdon

  Sir Paul

  Homelessness, refugees,

  Beresford

  special educational needs.

  Kensington and

  David Curry

  Unaccompanied refugee

  Chelsea

  children.

  Kingston

  Sir Paul

  Area cost, rent allowances,

  Beresford

  social services, education,

  landfill tax.

  Lambeth

  Sir Paul

  SSA reducation grant,

  Beresford

  education.

  Merton

  Sir Paul

  Area cost, capital financing,

  Beresford

  concessionary fares, social

  services.

  Newham

  Sir Paul

  Area cost, capital financing,

  Beresford

  homelessness, social,

  services, refugees.

  Richmond

  Sir Paul

  Education, waste disposal,

  Beresford

  council taxes.

  Southwark

  Sir Paul

  Area cost, transitional

  Beresford

  relief, education data.

  Westminster

  James Clappison

  Education, refugees, counci

  James Clappison

  taxes, area cost.

  Fire authorities

  Cleveland

  James Clappison

  Chemical works,

  reorganisation, Fire SSA,

  capping.

  London

  David Curry

  Pay and pension costs,

  capital, staffing, capping.

  Mersyside

  Sir Paul

  Pensions, capping,

  Beresford

  population.

  South Yorkshire

  Sir Paul

  Reserves, pensions,

  Beresford

  capping.

  Tyne and Wear

  Sir Paul

  Capping, staffing, pensions,

  Beresford

  reserves.

  West Midlands

  David Curry

  Staffing, safety promotion,

  pensions.

  410

  1996–97 Settlement meetings with local authorities

  Minister

  Main topics

  Unitary

  authorities

  Avon unitaries

  David Curry

  Reorganisation costs,

  capping, area cost.

  East Riding

  Robert B. Jones

  Reserves, education, social

  Yorkshire

  services, transitional costs.

  Isle of Wight

  Sir Paul

  Area cost, fire, community

  Beresford

  care, education, waste

  disposal.

  Middlesbrough

  Robert B. Jones

  Capping, transitional costs.

  North

  Sir Paul

  Reserves, transitional costs,

  Lincolnshire

  Beresford

  social and economic

  conditions.

  North East

  Sir Paul

  Reserves, inherited

  Lincolnshire

  Beresford

  expenditure, capping,

  transitional costs.

  Redcar and

  Sir Paul

  Council taxes, reserves,

  Cleveland

  Beresford

  capping.

  South

  David Curry

  Disaggregation, community

  Gloucestershire

  care, education, transitional

  costs.

  Local Authority

  Associations

  Consultative

  Secretary of

  Pensions, capital, level of

  Council on Local

  State

  settlement, pay, social

  Glovernment

  David Curry

  services, landfill tax,

  Finance

  council taxes, refugees,

  district services, capping,

  education, area cost.

  Total: 84 meetings

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will public(a) the current cost of providing housing to asylum seekers broken down by type of landlord, numbers of people and by regional location and (b) any guidance or procedures issued which are currently in force on the housing of asylum seekers. [12107]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information about the cost of housing asylum seekers is not held centrally. Guidance on dealing with homelessness applications from asylum seekers is included in the "Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities" (revised third edition), a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on publication in December 1994.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the date of infringement, (b) the date of prosecution, (c) the nature of the offence with special reference to pollution, water abstraction and water quality infringements and (d) any resultant convictions, for each prosecution against a water company by (i) the drinking water inspectorate and (ii) the National Rivers Authority for each year since water privatisation. [9510]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The arrangements for privatisation introduced a much more comprehensive and effective regime ensuring that water undertakers and sewage undertakers adhere to the legal requirements and are subject to enforcement or

  411
  prosecution if they do not do so. This system has given greatly enhanced protection of water consumers and the environment. The figures demonstrate that this is so.

  When there is an infringement of a drinking water standard, the main weapon is enforcement to secure improvements to quality; prosecution is only available when the infringement is so serious that water unfit for human consumption has been supplied.

  Between 1990 and 1994, the drinking water inspectorate, on my behalf, has initiated almost 2,000 enforcement actions against the water companies. Many of these resulted in the companies concerned taking action very quickly to rectify the infringement and the remainder, where action could not be completed quickly, resulted in the water companies concerned giving legally binding undertakings to take action by a specified date to improve drinking water quality.

  Severn-Trent Water Ltd. pleaded guilty at Hereford Crown court on 24 April 1995 to three charges brought under section 70 of the Water Industry Act 1991 for the

  Table 1: Water pollution offences—Infringement dates

  Company

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995

  North-west

  —

  3.7.90

  19.5.91

  4.10.91

  27.8.91

  31.8.93

  23.11.94

  28.5.91

  28.1.92

  21.5.92

  21.9.93

  21.9.92

  27.4.92

  11.1.94

  23.4.92

  10.10.91

  30.3.94

  13.8.92

  5.2.93

  30.11.93

  8.8.92

  31.1.94

  11.5.93

  8.7.93

  17.8.93

  23.9.93

  3.7.93

  9.3.94

  19.9.93

  1.7.94

  8.8.94

  28.5.94

  Southern

  —

  4.1.90

  20.9.90

  5.4.91

  15.6.92

  24.11.93

  —

  7.11.90

  24.12.90

  7.11.90

  South-west

  —

  20.5.90

  —

  1.8.91

  —

  —

  —

  30.11.92

  Wessex

  —

  3.6.90

  —

  23.6.91

  29.6.92

  21.4.94

  —

  3.8.90

  24.2.92

  31.7.92

  8.6.92

  18.2.93

  Thames

  —

  8.3.90

  13.11.90

  1.7.91

  1.5.92

  3.11.93

  24.7.94

  12.3.90

  16.5.90

  27.4.92

  1.1.91

  20.4.94

  7.6.90

  30.7.90

  5.7.92

  6.5.93

  11.5.94

  10.12.90

  15.2.91

  4.5.93

  15.8.94

  30.1.91

  13.2.92

  5.7.93

  6.2.91

  24.9.93

  2.7.91

  21.6.93

  Northumbrian

  9.9.89

  3.5.90

  9.7 91

  13.12.91

  —

  —

  —

  7.5.90

  30.7.91

  22.5.92

  14.8.90

  22.9.90

  Anglian

  —

  15.5.90

  1.1.90

  18.8.91

  14.2.93

  23.11.93

  —

  23.3.90

  20.2.91

  29.7.91

  21.12.93

  12.7.90

  23.11.90

  27.6.91

  26.11.90

  22.8.91

  1.4.91

  3.1.92

  13.5.91

  412
  offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption and was fined £45,000. The prosecution was brought by me following an investigation by the drinking water inspectorate into a serious drinking water contamination incident on or about 15 April 1994 affecting a large number of consumers in the Worcester area and beyond following pollution of the River Severn.

  The number of prosecutions of the privatised water and sewerage companies by the National Rivers Authority for water pollution offences, their dates and the number of resulting convictions for each year since 1989–90 were set out in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 18 December 1995, Official Report, columns 914–16.

  The tables show the information on water pollution infringements, corresponding to that given previously on prosecutions and convictions, plus equivalent information for water abstractions.
  413

  Table 1: Water pollution offences—Infringement dates

  Company

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995

  Yorkshire

  28.9.89

  7.12.89

  27.9.90

  16.4.91

  18.10.91

  7.6.93

  —

  25.10.90

  24.11.92

  6.9.90

  26.8.91

  14.5.90

  26.8.91

  4.6.90

  9.3.92

  23.10.91

  20.8.92

  18.6.92

  28.7.92

  16.9.92

  18.11.92

  117.12.92

  Severn Trent

  —

  2.2.90

  5.10.90

  11.5.92

  27.5.92

  26.8.93 and

  16.8.94

  14.11.89

  23.10.90

  7.11.91 and

  7.11.92

  31.9.93

  28.11.94

  27.9.90

  3.5.92

  10.2.93

  13.10.94

  8.7.94

  29.7.90

  15.2.93

  28.7.91

  9.5.95

  14.2.91

  20.9.93

  27.9.91

  25.3.91

  Welsh

  —

  6.12.89

  23.5.90

  21.6.91

  18.3.93

  16.6.93

  15.9.94

  13.12.89

  10.11.90

  7.6.91

  11.9.89

  11.1.91

  16.7.91

  23.9.89

  14.9.90

  28.8.91

  8.3.90

  14.9.90

  5.8.91

  28.8.90

  6.12.90

  3.9.92

  5.11.90

  30.6.92

  31.1.91

  23.2.92

  31.1.91

  16.12.92

  31.1.91

  30.10.90

  28.9.90

  22.3.91

  3.6.91

  8.4.91

  1. The infringement dates shown correspond to those for prosecutions given O.R. 18 December 1995, cols 914–916. Eg the first infringement date shown for North West in 1991–92 relates to the first prosecution date shown for that company and year.

  1Indicates that the date of infringement could not be determined from the available data.

  Table 2: Water abstraction—Infringement dates

  Company

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995

  Southern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June 93

  14.6.84 to 20.6.94

  —

  Anglian

  —

  14.8.90 and 15.8.90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbrian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27 dates from 16.6.94 to 16.8.94

  —

  Severn Trent

  —

  —

  29.11.91 to 1.12.91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27.12.91 to 28.12.91

  1. The prosecution dates relate to the earlier infringements shown for each company.

  2. All prosecutions resulted in convictions.

  Table 3: Water abstraction prosecution dates

  Company

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995

  Southern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30.11.93

  24.11.94

  —

  Anglian

  —

  10.12.90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbrian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.5.95

  Severn Trent

  —

  —

  —

  9.2.93

  —

  —

  —

  1. The prosecution dates relate to the earlier infringements shown for each company.

  2. All prosecutions resulted in convictions.

HEALTH

  NHS (Management Costs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were(a) the management costs and (b) the establishment of the national health service in England in (i) 1988–89 and in (ii) 1994–95; and what estimate he has made of changes in those figures over the current planning period. [9827]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on management costs is not available on a comparable basis for 1988–89 and 1994–95.

  As we announced in October, we are requiring a cash reduction of 5 per cent. in the costs of running health authorities and trust management costs in 1996–97 compared with the 1995–96 planned spend. The savings generated from these cost reductions will be available for patient care.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the redundancy and early retirement costs per head in respect of his proposed reduction in national health service managers. [9828]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not possible centrally to estimate the redundancy or early retirement costs of staff who are made redundant or retire early as a result of reductions in the costs of running health authorities and in trust management costs.

  Doctors and Nurses (Recruitment)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a national recruitment campaign for doctors and nurses. [10749]

  Mr. Malone
  There is a long-term information campaign to young people aged 12 to 18 years, those over 18 and their advisers, providing materials designed to encourage a flow of suitably qualified, high calibre and well-informed applicants for training as nurses, midwives, health visitors and professionals allied to medicine, and to retain them in the national health service when qualified.

  Last year, we accepted the recommendation of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee to increase medical student intake to 500 to reach a target intake of 4,970 by the year 2,000. The overall number of both medical students and doctors has increased steadily and will continue to do so. Entry to the medical profession—medical students—is over-subscribed in terms of applications to medical schools.

  It is for local employers to determine their human resources strategies and to take appropriate action to recruit and retain sufficient qualified staff to deliver those services which they are contracted to supply.

  National Review of Contracting
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the 1995 national review of contracting will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [10930]
  416
  Mr. Malone
  The 1995 review of contracting will be finalised in March. We do not intend to circulate the review, but key messages will be incorporated in wider purchasing guidance. A copy of the review will be placed in the Library when it is finalised.

  Public Information Lines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 812, if he will list the eight main information lines under the jurisdiction of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the information given out by these information lines. [11146]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the eight main information lines are as listed. Unless stated otherwise, all these services are available free of charge and are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

  Health information service 0800 66 55 44
  The health information service is a national network of local telephone helplines. By dialling the national telephone number callers are automatically routed through to their local helpline service. The helplines give information and advice about NHS services, waiting times for treatment, common illnesses and treatments, maintaining and improving health, NHS complaints procedures and local NHS charter standards. The helplines are open 10.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday, but may vary locally. Calls are confidential. The health information service cannot give a medical diagnosis.
  National drugs helpline 0800 77 66 00
  The national drugs helpline offers a complete range of confidential advice, information and support. Callers are able to speak to trained, experienced advisors who will respond to requests for basic information about drugs and solvents, through to information about local services and to helping those concerned about their own or others drug problems.
  Leaflets and literature are supplied to callers on request. The service is also available in a range of other languages.

  National Aids helpline 0800 567 123
  The national AIDS helpline offers advice and information about HIV and AIDS. Callers can also request free leaflets on aspects of HIV and AIDS. Calls to the helpline are confidential.
  Health literature line/organ donor telephone service 0800 555 777
  The health literature line is the telephone ordering service for free Department of Health publications on a range of health issues. Publications available free of charge include "The Patient's Charter", "A Traveller's Guide to Health" (a guide to fee or reduced cost emergency medical treatment abroad), and the NHS league tables.The organ donor telephone service issue registration forms for the NHS organ donor register and answer some related questions.
  Blood donor telephone service 0345 711 711
  The blood donor telephone service offers advice to people who would like to become a blood donor or who want to know where their nearest blood donor centre or session is. Calls to the service are charged at local call rates.
  Drinkline 0345 711 711 (UK only): 0171 332 0202 (London only)
  The drinkline service informs callers about alcohol, helps callers who are worried about their own drinking, supports families and friends of people with drinking problems and puts people in touch with local alcohol advisory services where appropriate. Calls to the service are charged at local call rates.417
  Sexwise 0800 282930
  The sexwise telephone service offers advice and counselling on sexual matters for young people. Calls to the helpline are confidential. The line is open from 7am to midnight seven days a week.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995 when implemented on the private cosmetic surgery industry; and if he will make a statement. [11593]

  Mr. Malone
  None. The European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order implements the United Kingdom's obligations under European Council directive 93/16/EEC. This sets minimum standards for specialist medical training and facilitates the free movement of doctors throughout the European community through the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications. It was implemented following a full consultation exercise and extensive discussions with representatives of the medical profession and the General Medical Council.

  Temazepam
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of medical conditions for which treatment using temazepam is essential and where no alternatives are available. [11259]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  GP Co-operatives
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the quality of service provided by general practitioner co-operatives. [11868]

  Mr. Malone
  I have been impressed by the quality of service in the general practitioner co-operatives I have visited. GPs, whether providing services individually or as members of co-operatives, retain full responsibility for the quality of care they offer.

  NHS Staff Assaults
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many attacks against NHS staff have been reported in each of the last five years. [11870]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 18 December 1995, column 948.

  Human Embryos
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific research has been commissioned by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority concerning the freezing of human embryos; when the research was commissioned and published; and if he will list the actual and expected dates of completion and publication. [12160]
  418
  Mr. Horam
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has no powers to commission research. The authority's report to United Kingdom Health Ministers on the statutory storage period for embryos refers, at paragraphs 24 to 25, to work done to review current scientific knowledge.

  Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the research material considered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in relation to its report on the statutory storage period for human embryos. [12158]

  Mr. Horam
  I have placed in the Library a copy of a bibliography, supplied by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which was prepared by its working group on embryo freezing.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's responses given by clinics to the Authority's Survey to questions concerning the freezing of human embryos. [12159]

  Mr. Horam
  I shall be writing to the hon. Member following my meeting with him on 24 January 1996.

  Manchester Health Commission
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 21, if he will publish in the Official Report the joint press statement issued by the Under-Secretary following his meeting of 17 January with representatives of the Manchester Health Commission and the city's community health councils; and when he expects to be able to announce the outcome of his consideration of potential solutions to the problems raised with him in respect of health councils. [11994]

  Mr. Horam
  The text of the press statement, issued on 17 January, is as follows:"Mr John Horam, Parliamentary Secretary of Health, today met representatives of Manchester Health Commission and the three community health councils which cover the city of Manchester.
  The visitors gave a presentation on their criticisms of the current formula for weighted capitation, under which the level of funding received by the commission is adjusted to take account of the age and needs of the local population.
  The Minister also heard an account of the health needs of the people of Manchester, as measured against the targets set out in the Government's "Health of the Nation" initiative.
  He was told that the city has some of the worst figures in the country for cervical cancer, lung cancer, coronary heart disease, psychiatric illness, dental decay and infant mortality.
  The Minister heard about intense pressures on community and acute hospital services throughout the year.
  He was told that the city's health service continues to make vigorous efforts to make the best use of resources available, but was nevertheless one of only two authorities in the entire country to receive no growth money for 1996–97.
  Mr Horam listened sympathetically and said he respected the fact that the commission and the three community health councils had joined forces to represent Manchester as a whole.

  419
  He said he fully understood there was an exceptional problem in Manchester which needed to be addressed. Further work was in hand to try to refine the weighted capitation formula and he hoped that any subsequent refinement would deliver a good result for Manchester from 1997–98.
  He also said that if there was anything that could be done in a transitional way, he would certainly be sympathetic to Manchester's problems."

  The representations form Manchester were mainly concerned with the impact on their funding of certain elements of the weighted capitation formula. Work is in hand to review the elements of the formula concerned and the results should be ready to inform 1997–98 allocations.

TREASURY

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the tax year 1996–97, what the mortgage tax relief will be for home income plans. [11045]

  Mr. Jack
  Tax relief for interest paid by someone over 65 who takes out a loan, secured on their home, to buy and life annuity, often called a home income plan, is given at the basic rate of income tax. For the tax year 1996–97, this will be 24 per cent.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the redeployment of staff from corporation tax pay and file to self-assessment development within the Inland Revenue on the collection of corporation tax arrears. [11120]

  Mr. Jack
  There has been no impact on the collection of corporation tax arrears as a result of the redeployment of staff from CT pay and file to self-assessment development.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the extent to which EDS has complied with conditions set out in the original contract on the Inland Revenue's corporation tax pay and file system; and what changes to the terms of that contract were subsequently made by the Inland Revenue. [11122]

  Mr. Jack
  Since taking over computer operations in July 1994, EDS has complied fully with the relevant condition in the original contract which required it to deliver the existing levels of service.

  Subsequently detailed service levels have been agreed for each system and EDS has met or exceeded the key performance criteria in relation to CT pay and file. These contractual service levels have recently been enhanced to reflect the increased stability and maturity of the system.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) Inland Revenue staff and (b) contracted staff have been transferred from corporation tax pay and file to computer environment for self-assessment in each quarter of 1995. [11119]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue and EDS—its private sector information technology partner—have managed a team of appropriately skilled people in the development,420
  implementation and subsequent maintenance of CT pay and file alongside the development of self assessment. Those people have been deployed in line with the priorities from time to time.

  The table shows the broad balance of movement of staff from CT pay and file to self-assessment as the former moved from its development and implementation phases into live running.

  Revenue staff

  Contractors

  Total

  Quarter January 1995 to March 1995

  0

  0

  0

  Quarter April 1995 to June 1995

  8.5

  5.5

  14

  Quarter July 1995 to September 1995

  5

  2

  7

  Quarter October 1995 to December 1995

  12

  9

  21

  Total

  25.5

  16.5

  42

  Taxation
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was, in constant 1995 figures, the value of tax receipts from lifetime transfers in each year 1974 in respect of(a) capital transfer tax and (b) inheritance tax. [11124]

  (2) what was, in constant 1995 figures, the value of tax receipts on death in each year since 1970 of (a) estate duty, (b) capital transfer tax and (c) inheritance tax, indicating when each type of tax replaced another. [11123]

  Mr. Jack
  The available information is as follows:

  £million at 1994–95 prices1

  Net receipts from transfers chargeable at death

  year

  Net receipts from lifetime transfers chargeable when made

  Estate Duty

  Capital transfer tax/inheritance tax

  1970–71

  —

  2,775

  —

  1971–72

  —

  3,214

  —

  1972–73

  —

  3,023

  —

  1973–74

  —

  2,536

  —

  1974–75

  —

  1,746

  —

  1975–76

  5

  870

  480

  1976–77

  77

  449

  861

  1977–78

  74

  277

  917

  1978–79

  94

  132

  830

  1979–80

  77

  79

  908

  1980–81

  66

  56

  815

  1981–82

  57

  32

  851

  1982–83

  68

  21

  814

  1983–84

  53

  15

  958

  1984–85

  95

  10

  962

  1985–86

  81

  9

  1,260

  1986–87

  87

  10

  1,373

  1987–88

  64

  —

  1,450

  1988–89

  53

  —

  1,356

  1989–90

  44

  —

  1,472

  1990–91

  44

  —

  1,418

  1991–92

  48

  —

  1,369

  1992–93

  46

  —

  1,224

  1993–94

  29

  —

  1,328

  1994–95

  24

  —

  1,387

  1Converted using the GDP market price deflator.

  421
  For deaths on or after 13 March 1975, capital transfer tax—CTT—replaced estate duty and applied to transfers made after 26 March 1974. CTT was replaced by inheritance tax—IHT—for transfers on or after 18 March 1986. The figures for estate duty exclude receipts in Northern Ireland before 1973–74. Small residual amounts of estate duty receipts from 1987–88 are included with receipts from inheritance tax and capital transfer tax, separate estimates of which are not available.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10974]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The information requested for the Chancellor's Department, expressed in thousands of pounds, is as follows:

  £000

  (i) Legal fees

  —

  (ii) Publicity costs

  4

  (iii) Accountancy fees

  —

  (iv) Management consultancy fees

  75

  Total

  79

  The overwhelming majority of the expenditure was incurred in the last financial year, so the difference between real and cash terms is insignificant. Conventional procurement often involves such costs too.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10975]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The information requested for the Chancellor's Departments, expressed in thousands of pounds, is as follows:

  £000

  (i) Staff costs

  61

  (ii) Information technology

  —

  (iii) Other costs

  —

  Total

  61

  The overwhelming majority of the expenditure was incurred in the last financial year, so the difference between real and cash terms is insignificant.

  In the case of individual projects, if the private finance route had not been the route preferred, traditional public sector procurement methods would, in any case, have incurred tendering costs. The important issue is that the chosen method should be that which provides best overall value for money for the taxpayer.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total revenue accruing to the Treasury from all national lottery operations so far. [11903]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The total amount of lottery duty accruing to the Exchequer was £559 million at the end of December 1995. Lottery duty was set at a level that should ensure that the displacement of consumer spending by spending on lottery tickets is neutral in its effect on Government revenue. The total amount of funds received by the national lottery distribution fund was £1,374 million over the same period.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Museums
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what method is used by non-charging national museums to count the numbers of their visitors; and what assessment she has made of(a) the accuracy of the method and (b) the auditing of the figures. [7055]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is for the trustees of each national museum to determine how to assess the number of visitors, and the different methods used for this purpose by different museums. In the context of the review of museum policy which I am currently undertaking, and given the importance of having accurate figures for visitors, my officials will be writing to each of the national museum and galleries that the Department sponsors asking them what methods they use to count visitors, what arrangements they have for ensuring accuracy of the figures, and how they conduct their audit of figures.

  National Lottery (Disbursements)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the disbursements made by the National Lottery Charities Board to organisations in(a) Heywood and Middleton and (b) the Greater Manchester area. [11054]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has written to all hon. Members on each occasion that the National Lottery Charities Board has made grants, enclosing a list of the grants. I understand that the charities board has also written to individual Members whenever a grant has been made in their constituency.

  This information is available in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  CD-ROM Industry
  Mrs. Ann Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of developments in the United Kingdom CD-ROM industry. [11127]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This is an active and fast-moving market for which reliable and comprehensive data are sparse. A number of reports have been commissioned by
  423
  my Department, either alone or in conjunction with the European Commission, analysing specific aspects of the CD-ROM market. The reports reached various conclusions. I am placing copies of them in the Library of the House.

  Gas Consumer Council
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received as to how this year's allocation to the Gas Consumer Council will affect its safety advisory service. [11721]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have received no such representations.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those organisations where trade unions have been de-recognised each year since 1985; and how many employees were involved in each case. [11943]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government do not hold records on organisations where trade unions have been de-recognised or on the number of employees involved in each case.

  Viners of Sheffield plc
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from businesses in Sheffield regarding Viners of Sheffield plc; and if he will make a statement. [10835]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have received representations which my hon. Friend passed to me from eight businesses and one trade association objecting to the company name "Viners of Sheffield public limited company". My officials will be writing to the company seeking its comments.

  Training
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the development of training for young entrepreneurs. [10900]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the measures outlined by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment in his reply of 25 January 1996,Official Report, columns 336–37.

  Anglo-French Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list on a quarterly basis the ratio of electricity supplied via the cable link to and from France and the United Kingdom for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95. [10628]

  Mr. Page
  In 1993–94 and 1994–95, the interconnector was exclusively used to import electricity from France.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost during 1996 of industrial tribunal proceedings under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [11676]
  424
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No firm estimate of the cost of industrial tribunal proceedings in 1996 can be made until a commencement date has been set for the employment provisions contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. However, it is likely that these provisions will come into effect around the end of the year and, if so, the costs of proceedings (if any) in 1996 will be negligible.

  Public Sector Research Establishments
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the timetable for the prior options reviews of public sector research establishments outlined in the Government's response to the multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments (Cm 2991). [12682]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government's response to the efficiency scrutiny announced our intention to carry out a programme of prior options reviews of public sector research establishments, with a view to the major part of the work being completed by the end of 1996.

  Each review will address the relationship of establishments to others in similar or related fields and consider, amongst other things, the potential for privatisation or rationalisation. The results of these reviews will be considered by Ministers collectively.

  The reviews will be carried out by the parent or sponsor Department or research council and are being phased as set out in the timetable. Each review will be announced and there will be an opportunity for interested parties to comment. Some of these announcements have already been made.

  I am placing a copy of the guidelines for the conduct of these reviews in the Library of the House.

  Period 1: Reporting to ministers by March 1996

  Establishment

  Parent or sponsor department/research council

  ADAS R and D

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Central Science Laboratory

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Directorate of Fisheries

  Ministry of Agriculture,

  Research

  Fisheries and Food

  Horticulture Research

  Ministry of Agriculture,

  International

  Fisheries and Food

  Fisheries Research Services

  Scottish Office

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Scottish Office

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Scottish Office

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Scottish Office

  Institute of Arable Crops

  Biotechnology and Biological

  Research

  Sciences Research Council

  Institute of Grassland and

  Biotechnology and Biological

  Environmental Research

  Sciences Research Council

  John Innes Centre

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Silsoe Research Institute

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Forestry Commision Research Laboratories

  Forestry Commission

  Daresbury and Rutherford

  Office of Science and

  Appleton Laboratories

  Technology/Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  Building Research Establishment

  Department of the Environment

  425

  Period 1: Reporting to ministers by March 1996

  Establishment

  Parent or sponsor department/research council

  Health and Safety Laboratory National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Health and Safety Executive Department of Trade and Industry

  Police Scientific Development Branch

  Home Office

  Period 2: Reporting to ministers by July 1996

  Establishment

  Parent or sponsor department/research council

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Moredun Research Institute

  Scottish Office

  Hannah Research Institute

  Scottish Office

  Babraham Institute

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Institute for Animal Health Roslin Institute

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Roslin Institute

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  British Geological Survey

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences (comprising: Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory)

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (comprising: Institute of Freshwater Ecology, Institute of Hydrology, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology)

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Period 3: Reporting to ministers by December 1996

  Establishment

  Parent or sponsor department/research council

  National Institute for Biological Standards and Control

  Department of Health

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Department of Health

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Department of Health

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Office

  Institute of Food Research

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Dunn Nutrition Unit Radiobiology Unit

  Medical Research Council

  Reproductive Biology Unit

  Medical Research Council

  Toxicology Unit

  Medical Research Council

  Virology Unit

  Medical Research Council

  BMARC
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has anything to add to his answers of 19 June 1995,Official Report, column 59 and 14 July 1995, Official Report, column 797, about BMARC. [12681]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The work of licence recovery, examination and cataloguing undertaken since the start of the BMARC affair has led to the identification of a number of export licence applications whose existence was not known at the time of the answers given on 19 June 1995,Official Report, column 59, and 14 July 1995, Official Report, column 796.
  426
  The problem of retrieving export licence documentation is complicated by the large volumes of papers involved, and the fact that the archived papers are not stored by company name. In order to retrieve papers it is necessary first to use various databases to identify the individual applications made by any given company; then to establish the individual reference numbers relating to the applications concerned; and finally to use these to identify the relevant archive locations. It is only following these steps that the papers can be called back and inspected.

  While verifying and cataloguing the new findings, an unrelated search of licence application papers carried out towards the end of last year showed some weaknesses in the systems used for indexing applications. A wider search was then put in hand, with the aim of seeing whether the identification and recovery of any of BMARC's licence applications might have been hindered by similar problems. This further work led to the discovery of an additional batch of applications.

  In the light of all these findings, it is necessary to update the figures provided in the answers given on 19 June 1995 and 14 July 1995. The figure for the number of export licence applications made by BMARC—including the period when the company was known as Astra Defence Systems—for which papers have been recovered from my Department's archives and which were dealt with under the military list between 1985 and 1990, should be increased in total by 43 over the figure which was given on 14 July 1995. The breakdown by year is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1985

  148

  1986

  133

  1987

  186

  1988

  134

  1989

  105

  1990

  174

  Total

  880

  In addition, over the same period, a further five cases have been identified of index records apparently relating to BMARC export licence applications, but where the absence of any surviving documentation makes it impossible to confirm this.

  I am bringing these new findings to the attention of the Trade and Industry Committee in view of its current inquiry into the granting licences to BMARC for the export of naval guns to Singapore.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent by his Department on publicity and media relations for each year since 1990. [12482]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Expenditure from centrally managed budgets on publicity and media relations, excluding staff costs, has been as follows:

  1990–91:£16,413,000

  1991–92: £10,918,000

  1992–93: £10,633,000

  1993–94: £9,377,000

  1994–95: £8,931.000

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92 (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11390]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]Details of departmental telephone costs prior to 1991–92 are not readily available. Comparison of the figures for successive years must be treated with caution as they are affected by major accommodation moves and, for the DTI agencies and regional Government offices, only include the use of the Government telephone network, other charges being met from local budgets.

  1991–92: £3.2 million

  1992–93: £4.2 million

  1993–94: £3.9 million

  1994–95: £2.9 million

  1995–96: £3.3 million(anticipated)

  Internal telephone directories are available to staff in the Department and its agencies. Non-departmental public bodies are not listed in these but can receive copies.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations [11388]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]Total Departmental expenditure on publicity is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Total advertising expenditure from centrally managed budgets for the years in question is as follows:

  1979–80: £1,554,000

  1989–90: £10,492,000

  1991–92: £966,000

  1993–94: £784,000

  1994–95: £561,000

  1995–96: £530,000 (spend to end December 1995)

  The budgets for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not broken down by media.

  Press and public relation costs, as reflected through the costs associated with the Department's press office, are as follows:

  1993–94: £1,987,000

  1994–95: £1,766,000

  1995–96: £1,212,000 (spend to end December 1995)

  Budgets for 1995–96 and 1996–97 do not specifically separate out press and public relations costs. For the comparable expenditure in earlier years, I refer the hon.
  428
  Member to answer given by my hon. Friend the then Minister for Energy on 2 June 1992, Official Report, column 492–93.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11389]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The sickness absence database of the Occupational Health and Safety Agency shows the average number of days sick leave per employee for the Department is:

  Calendar years

  Number

  1990

  8.5

  1991

  8.4

  1992

  8.2

  1993

  8.9

  1994

  7.0

  Comparable statistics are not available for earlier years. The 1995 figure is not expected to be published until August 1996.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 22 and 23 January; and if he will make a statement. [11850]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No decisions were taken at this short meeting. The only substantial item was a further discussion of the Commission's proposals for changes to the arrangements for bananas. The Commissioner expressed his intention of making some additional proposals with a view to securing agreement: but member states' views remain deeply divided. I underlined the need to protect the interests of the African, Caribbean and Pacific suppliers of bananas, in line with the Community's commitments.

  The presidency held a dinner at which there was "informal" discussion of the use of hormones for fattening beef cattle, in the light of the scientific conference organised by the Commission last year.

  During the Council, I took the opportunity to question the Commissioner about his promised proposals on the welfare of calves reared for veal. He said he expected to be able to table these very shortly.

  Oil Dispersant Policy
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the conclusions of the review that the Government have been carrying out into oil dispersant policy; and if he will make a statement. [12065]
  429
  Mr. Baldry
  The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) announced to the House in April 1993 that the Government would conduct a review of oil dispersant policy. Two scientific reports were commissioned and published and we prepared a consultation paper setting out proposed improvements which was circulated to over 600 bodies. Sixty-four responses were received. We have responded on issues where suggestions were made; in general, there was broad agreement to our plans and we have now prepared a final report completing the review. We have concluded that it would be fully justified to retain oil dispersants as the UK's primary means of combating oil spills at sea in order to protect economic and environmental resources, although oil dispersants may not be appropriate in all instances. All products will continue to be required to pass efficacy and toxicity tests. These tests will, in future, incorporate some minor improvements designed further to protect the marine environment. I have initiated the development of protocols, in conjunction with the industry, that will enable bioremediation products to be licensed in the UK. These could, in due course, make an important contribution to clean-up operations. There will also be new arrangements for labelling products in line with our policies on openness. In carrying out the review, I have also managed to achieve modest deregulatory gains by enabling manufacturers to submit their own test results. Finally, I intend to publish a booklet explaining the approval process which will include a code of good spraying practice. A copy of the final report has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Set-aside Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount paid in set-aside payments in each year since its inception; and what is the average amount paid each year per farm. [11256]

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the five-year set-aside scheme—and, in 1992–93 only, the one-year set-aside scheme—the Agriculture Departments made total payments of:

  1989–90: £9,846,000

  1990–91: £19,110,000

  1991–92: £25,102,000

  1992–93: £31,111,000

  1993–94: £25,078,000

  1994–95: £15,108,000

  For set-aside under the arable area payments scheme, the Agriculture Departments paid £142,080,000 in 1993–94 and £200,440,000 in 1994–95.

  Payments under both schemes for 1995–96 are not complete but at the beginning of the year were estimated as £225,125,000 for the arable area payments scheme and £7,483,000 for the five-year set-aside scheme.

  Under the arable area payments scheme, payments are made against claims which may relate to more than one agricultural holding. Under the five-year set-aside scheme, more than one payment per farm could be made as separate agreements were allowed for different areas of land on the same farm. Hence, it is not possible to calculate an average amount paid each year per farm.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the Benefits Agency offices in Seaham and Peterlee. [10913]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Cummings, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will make a statement on the future of the Benefit Agency (BA) offices in Seaham and Peterlee.
  As you are aware, the North Durham District is undertaking a long term review of its organisation. There is, however, no intention at present to close the Seaham and Peterlee offices. The aim of the Benefit Agency is to provide a high standard of service to all our customers and any organisational changes in North Durham District will be made with the assurance that this standard will be maintained.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Hardship Allowance (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people are currently claiming hardship allowance in the Greater Manchester area. [11036]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many young people are currently claiming hardship allowance in the Greater Manchester Area.
  The District offices that cover the Greater Manchester Area are Oldham, Manchester Central, Manchester South, Manchester Trinity, North Cheshire, Sale/East Cheshire, Salford, Stockport, and Tameside.
  The total number of young people who claimed hardship allowance in these offices in November 1995 was 482. This figure is provisional and may be subject to change. This is the latest figure available.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Habitual Residence Rules
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest calculation of the numbers and percentage of the total of appeals against decisions by his Department on the habitual residence rules that have been successful. [12203]

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

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) adults and (b) children in receipt of disability living allowance mobility component are

  431
  estimated to lose benefit for a period in hospital exceeding four weeks and 12 weeks in each of the next three years. [11995]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table.

  Losers

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Adults

  35,000

  35,000

  40,000

  Children

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Total

  40,000

  45,000

  45,000

  Estimates rounded to nearest 5,000 and should be treated with caution.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of the disability living allowance mobility component have arrangements with firms other than Motability for the hire or purchase of(a) cars and (b) wheelchairs. [11996]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the expected savings to his Department of(a) removing and (b) reducing the disability living allowance mobility component for hospital stays in respect of (i) children and (ii) adults in (x) 1996–97, (y)1997–98 and (z) 1998–99.[11998]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is in the table

  £million

  Cash

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  (i) Children

  (a) Removing

  1—

  1—

  1—

  (b) Reducing

  5

  5

  5

  (ii) Adults

  (a) Removing

  5

  15

  20

  (b) Reducing

  20

  20

  20

  Total

  30

  40

  45

  1Denotes an estimate less than £2.5 million. Estimates rounded to nearest £5 million. Totals may not sum owing to rounding.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional cost or savings which will be made to the Exchequer as a consequence of the implementation of clause 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill; what representations he has received on the implementation of clause 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill; and if he will place copies of all such representations in the Library. [12105]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Estimated savings

  5

  15

  25

  1. Costs rounded to nearest £5 million. 2. It has been assumed that the average award of Child Benefit is £18.85 per week.

  One letter has been received concerning the implementation of clause 10, and several from members of the public in support of the principle that child benefit should not be paid to people coming from abroad. Correspondence is not normally published without the express permission of the writer.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Saudi Arabian Government on(a) the detention of 70 members of the Indian Christian Fellowship followed by the imprisonment of seven leaders at Alkhobar on 22 December and (b) the imprisonment of three Filipino Christians in Riyadh last October; and if he will make a statement. [10322]

  Mr. Hanley
  We and our EU partners discuss human rights regularly with the Saudi Arabian Government. However, we have made no representations to the Saudis on the specific cases referred to by the hon. Member which we understand did not involve British citizens. We understand from the Indian embassy in Riyadh that those of its citizens who were being detained in connection with their attendance at a religious gathering have now been released.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for his Department and each of the agencies for which he is responsible if it uses the Employment Service's positive about disabled people symbol for(a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion. [11915]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its agencies are not currently users of the positive about disabled people symbol. However, we implement many of its recommendations on external and internal recruitment and promotion.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11382]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The information requested is not readily available and could be partially provided only at disproportionate cost. But the annual telephony cost figures are available for:

  Diplomatic wing£

  Aid wing £

  1989–90

  —

  452,070

  1991–92

  6,077,642.00

  458,224

  1993–94

  5,947,217.00

  511,399

  1994–95

  6,088,960.71

  489,796

  1995–96

  15,335,000.00

  1486,000

  1996–97

  14,986,789.00

  486.000

  1Estimate.

  433

  Agencies

  Wiston House £

  NRI £

  1991–92

  2,462.00

  193,251

  1993–94

  2,797.00

  188,765

  1994–95

  3,714.00

  217,506

  1995–96

  14,000.00

  1191,785

  1996–97

  14,000.00

  1185,000

  Estimate.

  Our department makes use of CCTA's Metropolitan Telephony Service—MTS—which provides us with fully managed telephony and directory services. The MTS service provides an annual estimate of telephony charges.

  Internal telephone directories are available to all staff in the United Kingdom and at major UK diplomatic missions overseas.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11379]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Consultants are employed in a number of roles, including contracted services and the design and management of projects. The work of external consultants is only one factor to be taken into consideration in assessing the results of such projects.

  The table contains figures for expenditure on consultants for the years 1993–94,1994–95 and 1995–96. The table also contains estimates for 1996–97. Figures exclude the cost of consultants engaged on projects under the bilateral aid programme. The bulk of expenditure within the diplomatic wing was for technical expertise on capital projects and information technology.

  Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Body

  Rank

  Number

  Salary £

  Minimum annual time spent

  New Town Development Corporations

  D/Chairman

  3

  10,578

  52 days

  Members

  9

  4,777

  26 days

  Scottish Homes

  Member

  1

  6,830

  24 days

  Mainland Health Boards

  Members

  7

  5,000

  36 days

  Mainland NHS Trusts

  Members

  16

  5,000

  36 days

  Scottish Examination Board

  Members

  6

  Nil

  4 days

  Scottish Enterprise

  Member

  1

  7,600

  14 days

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise1

  Member

  1

  7,595

  14 days

  Scottish Community Education Council1

  Member

  1

  Nil

  4 meetings

  Scottish Sports Council

  Member

  1

  Nil

  11 meetings

  SCOTVEC

  Member

  1

  Nil

  5 days

  Scottish Arts Council

  Members

  2

  Nil

  4 days

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Members

  3

  5,000

  24 days

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers

  Members

  2

  3,000

  24 days

  Council

  2

  5,000

  48 days

  1Same Person.

  434

  Diplomatic wing £ million

  Aid wing £

  1993–94

  14.2

  618,700

  1994–95

  13.6

  505,300

  1995–96 (to date)

  10.5

  621,500

  1995–96 (estimated outturn)

  15.8

  869,000

  1996–97 (estimate)

  13.5

  530,000

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which decisions have been taken by qualified majority voting under title V of the Maastricht treaty on European Union; and if he will make a statement. [11260]

  Mr. David Davis
  No decisions have been taken using qualified majority voting under title V of the Maastricht treaty. The common foreign and security policy operates by unanimity. Article J.3.2 allows for use of qualified majority voting only in the implementation of joint actions and after prior unanimous agreement.

SCOTLAND

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which members of which non-departmental public bodies are current local authority councillors; how much time annually each spends on each body; and what is the salary paid for each position. [8473]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Fifty-five local authority councillors currently hold Secretary of State appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies, health boards and NHS trusts. These appointments are made on an individual basis, and not as a representative of any particular interest or group. The details are as set out in the table. The time spent is the minimum required and appointees usually will spend additional time, for example, in preparing for meetings or serving on sub-committees. The figures exclude appointments by local authorities to bodies on which they have statutory representation.
  435
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the helplines, or schemes which include a helpline service, for which his Department provides any funding, stating which are(a) independent organisations, (b) run by his Department or agencies of his Department or (c) of another classification; how many calls each received in each of the last five years; and how much money each received from his Department in each of the last five years. [9801]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office contributes to two UK-wide national helplines. The Scottish figures recorded by financial year are set out in the following table:

  Helpline

  Year commenced

  Amount paid by The Scottish Office to operating Company £

  Number of calls

  National

  AIDS

  1990–91

  143,000

  91,371

  1991–92

  156,000

  170,184

  1992–93

  193,000

  11,543

  1993–94

  197,000

  73,442

  One Scotland-only Helpline in contracted out by the Scottish Office to an operating company:

  Helpline

  Year commmenced

  Amount (£)paid by the Scottish Office to operating company

  Number of calls

  NHS Helpline

  129 October 1992

  90,188

  2,143

  1993

  225,738

  12,521

  1994

  215,338

  24,017

  1995

  196,982

  14,736

  1Figures recorded by calendar year.

  The Scottish Office runs an inquiry line operated by its own staff:

  Helpline

  Year commenced

  Scottish Office costs £

  Number of calls

  Inquiry line

  October 1993

  1171,000

  1,989

  1994

  5,000

  3,594

  1995

  5,000

  3,459

  1Includes establishment and initial publicity costs.

  Generic Support Workers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) guidance and (b) information relating to generic support workers has been issued by the NHS management executive in Scotland to NHS trusts and health boards. [10335]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No guidance or information has been issued.

  Garage and Motor Repair Businesses
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce provisions for garage and motor repair businesses to register with local authorities in Scotland. [10428]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
  436

  Year

  Year commenced

  Amount paid by The Scottish Office to operating company £

  Number of calls

  1994–95

  197,000

  60,021

  11995–96

  137,100

  145,108

  Drugline Scotland

  1992–93

  294,000

  23,800

  1993–94

  158,000

  17,604

  21994–95

  164,000

  19,649

  31995–96

  —

  —

  1Integrated National AIDS and Drugs Helpline commenced 1 April 1995.

  2Drugline Scotland integrated into National Drugs Helpline.

  3See National Aids Helpline Figures.

  A joint "Get Qualified" campaign was run for two periods of three months in 1995 with the Department of Education and Science. The Scottish Office figures are:

  Year

  Amount(£ paid by the Scottish Office to operating company

  Number of calls

  1995–6

  1,680

  6,935

  Ancillary Health Workers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of ancillary workers employed by in-houses teams at(a) Edinburgh royal infirmary, (b) Western general hospital, (c) Lay hospital and (d) Hairmyers Stonehouse hospital. [10336]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Queen's Counsels
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what number and percentage of the Scottish Bar are Queen's counsel. [10870]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 135 Queen's Counsel, who represent 22.3 per cent. of the membership of the Faculty of Advocates.

  Census
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make representations to the language sub-group of the 2001 census working group on content and question wording regarding the inclusion of a question relating to the Scots language in the 2001 census; [11167]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the uses of information which could be obtained through the inclusion of a question relating to the Scots language in the 2001 census; and if he will make a statement. [11168]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 15 January,Official Report, column 805.

  Maternity Services (Lothian)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his office requires a response from Lothian Health on its proposals in respect of maternity services; and what the consequence of Lothian Health failing to meet that deadline would be. [11616]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for Lothian health board to bring forward its proposals on the future configuration of maternity services when it has completed its considerations. I understand that the board is currently undertaking a further public consultation until 28 February 1996 on its proposals for maternity services. I look forward to seeing the board's final proposals as soon as possible thereafter.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the proportion of families in Scotland which have state nursery education available to them in each education authority for children aged(a) three to four and (b) four to five years. [11089]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  We do not hold information on the basis of families. The table shows the number of children at education authority nursery schools at September 1994 expressed as a percentage of the General Register Office's mid-1994 population estimates for three and four-year-olds.

  Percentage of children attending education authority nursery schools at September 1994

  Education authority

  Percentage of pupils aged 3

  Percentage of pupils aged 4

  Scotland

  19.8

  55.9

  Borders

  2.4

  36.0

  Central

  19.5

  71.8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10.1

  74.4

  Fife

  16.8

  83.4

  Grampian

  10.1

  64.5

  Highland

  4.6

  29.6

  Lothian

  27.4

  75.4

  Strathclyde

  22.6

  43.3

  Tayside

  23.0

  63.4

  Orkney

  17.4

  61.6

  Shetland

  20.4

  51.2

  Western Isles

  0.0

  0.0

  438

  Percentage of children attending education authority nursery schools at September 1994

  Education authority

  Percentage of pupils aged 3

  Percentage of pupils aged 4

  Strathclyde divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  2.2

  4.9

  Ayr

  15.0

  38.8

  Dunbarton

  14.5

  35.1

  Glasgow

  42.1

  62.9

  Lanark

  13.5

  31.1

  Renfrew

  16.8

  42.3

  Sources:

  GRO(S) Mid year population estimates 1994 Annual School Census 1994.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each regional authority in Scotland the number of nursery places provided, broken down by(a) part time and (b) full time, for (i) the year before statutory schooling and (ii) the period before that. [11549]

  Mr. Robertson
  The latest available information in respect of education authority nursery schools and classes is given in the table.

  Number of children attending education authority nursery schools and classes, September 1994

  Aged 3 and under1

  Aged 4 and over1

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Scotland

  530

  12,919

  2,444

  33,867

  Borders

  —

  31

  —

  457

  Central

  1

  735

  21

  2,410

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  207

  4

  1,322

  Fife

  27

  788

  74

  3,700

  Grampian

  15

  683

  240

  4,210

  Highland

  —

  125

  —

  807

  Lothian

  116

  2,596

  740

  6,202

  Strathclyde

  352

  6,484

  858

  11,845

  Tayside

  18

  1,142

  507

  2,542

  Orkney

  —

  61

  —

  189

  Shetland

  —

  67

  —

  183

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Age at 31 December 1994.

  Other pre-school care providers such as private nurseries, playgroups and day care centres may also provide education, but there will be no clear way of establishing this until the quality assurance arrangements planned under the Government's pre-school education vouchers initiative have been set up.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much each regional authority in Scotland spends on nursery education. [11550]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The total gross revenue expenditure on nursery education in 1993–94—the last year for which figures are available—by each region and islands council was as shown in the table. The figures cover revenue expenditure directly related to nursery education, and do not include any apportionment of administration or miscellaneous services attributed to nursery education.
  439

  Gross expenditure on nursery education 1993–94

  Nursery education £000

  Borders

  61

  Central

  3,109

  Dumfries and Galloway

  936

  Fife

  4,238

  Grampian

  5,209

  Highland

  969

  Lothian

  11,305

  Strathclyde

  31,126

  Tayside

  4,697

  Orkney

  138

  Shetland

  409

  Western Isles

  0

  Scotland total

  62,197

  Source:

  Local Financial Returns (1993–94).

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current grant-aided expenditure for nursery education for each regional authority; and how the figures are calculated. [11551]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There is not a separate grant-aided expenditure assessment for the total cost of nursery education. There is, however, an assessment for the cost of nursery teaching staff. Its distribution for the current year is shown in the table.

  Grant-aided expenditure (£)

  Borders

  399

  Central

  1,082

  Dumfries

  585

  Fife

  1,479

  Grampian

  2,211

  Highland

  860

  Lothian

  3,017

  Strathclyde

  9,599

  Tayside

  1,545

  Orkney

  92

  Shetland

  108

  Western Isles

  127

  Total

  21,104

  The total amount for this assessment is decided each year by the Secretary of State. It is apportioned between relevant authorities pro-rata to the population aged three and four in each authority, based on the most recent available mid-year population estimate provided by the General Register Office of Scotland.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in Scotland currently receive some form of nursery education in the year before statutory schooling, broken down by(a) the different types of provision and (b) region. [11559]

  Mr. Robertson
  The latest available information in respect of education authority nursery schools and classes is given in the table.
  440

  Number of children attending education authority nursery schools and classes

  Children age 4 and over1

  Scotland

  36, 311

  Borders

  457

  Central

  2,431

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,326

  Fife

  3,774

  Grampian

  4,450

  Highland

  807

  Lothian

  6,942

  Strathclyde

  12,703

  Tayside

  3,049

  Orkney

  189

  Shetland

  183

  Western Isles

  0

  1Age at 31 December 1994.

  Other pre-school care providers such as private nurseries, playgroups and day care centres may also provide education, but there will be no clear way of establishing this until the quality assurance arrangements planned under the Government's pre-school education vouchers initiative have been set up.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of children whose parents are currently paying for nursery education in the year before statutory schooling. [11561]

  Mr. Robertson
  I have made no such estimate.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures he has received from each regional authority for the cost of a part-time nursery education place in its area. [11556]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: These costs are not collected routinely. Participation in the pilot will give authorities an impetus systematically to collect such data, which would be part of our overall review of the initial phase.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to make the implementation statement on the nursery vouchers scheme, foreseen in the consultation paper issued on 15 August. [11548]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I made it on 11 December 1995.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the impact of the proposed nursery voucher scheme on nursery provision for three-year-olds. [11552]

  Mr. Robertson
  The nursery voucher initiative is not intended to have any impact on nursery provision for three-year-olds. I shall, however, keep this issue under review in course of the pilot year.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many extra nursery places he expects the nursery voucher scheme to create in its first year. [11553]

  Mr. Robertson
  The scheme will be driven by parental choice and parental demand.
  441
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of how children with special needs will be affected by the nursery voucher scheme. [11554]

  Mr. Robertson
  The powers and duties of local authorities to make provision for children with special educational needs will not be affected by the Government's nursery education initiative.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received concerning the proposed nursery voucher scheme; and how many of those representations were(a) in support of and (b) opposed to the scheme. [11555]

  Mr. Robertson
  In response to the formal consultation launched in August, my Department received over 170 replies.

  Without exception, consultees welcomed the Government's commitment to extend education for children in the pre-school year, but there was concern about the implications of the voucher initiative. These concerns will be addressed in the pilot year.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the planned cost of the nursery voucher pilot project. [11558]

  Mr. Robertson
  Some £3 million of new money is being made available in 1996–97 for the pilot phase. There will, in addition, be funding which was hitherto part of participating authorities' nursery education provision.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money he plans to withhold from local authority settlements in consideration of the nursery voucher scheme; and by what mechanisms. [11560]

  Mr. Robertson
  In the 1996–97 pilot year, each participating local authority will be asked to agree to pay to the Scottish Office, or have deducted from grant, a sum equal to the voucher value multiplied by the base number of places provided by that authority and filled in the previous year. The mechanism for future years will be discussed with authorities.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has nursery vouchers. [11562]

  Mr. Robertson
  A range to guard against dishonesty cannot be made public.

  EC Nitrates Directive
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about implementation of the EC nitrates directive (91/676/EEC) in Scotland; and when he expects to announce the decision regarding the designation of nitrate-vulnerable zones. [12171]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In June 1994, the Government consulted publicly on two areas proposed as candidates for designation as nitrate—vulnerable zones in Scotland—the catchments of the Balmalcolm groundwater borehole in Fife and the River Ythan in Grampian. Some 189 replies were received.
  442
  Following careful consideration of the responses and the extent to which each of these areas meet the criteria laid down in the directive, it has been decided to designate the catchment of the Balmalcolm borehole as an NVZ.

  Since a final link between higher levels of nitrate and the increased growth of the algae enteromorpha has yet to be determined scientifically, the Government have decided not to designate the catchment of the River Ythan as an NVZ on this occasion. There will, however, be continuing research into the extent of any link between the growth of the algae in the estuary and nitrate from agricultural sources in the catchment. A further review of the case for designation of NVZs throughout Scotland will take place, as required by the directive, by 19 December 1997 and this review will take account of the additional research.

  The Government will now make it a priority to promote good practice in the use of nitrates by farmers throughout the Ythan catchment in line with the code of good practice "Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity".

  I can also announce that the Government have today issued a consultation paper on regulatory proposals and the action programme necessary to give effect to the directive's requirements in NVZs in Scotland. A copy of the proposals is available in the Library of the House. Comments are sought by 25 March 1996.

  Local Government Reform
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the preparation of notional budgets for the new unitary authorities. [12172]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I have today laid before the House, in terms of section 94A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992—as inserted by section 24 of the Local Government, etc. (Scotland) Act 1994—the notional amounts report 1996. Subject to the approval of the report, the amounts specified therein for each of the new councils will be used as the baseline for considering any capping action in 1996–97. I announced my provisional capping principles for that year in my reply to a question from my right hon. Friends the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 28 November 1995,Official Report, columns 585–87.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what agreements his Department and its executive agencies have with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones; and if he will list the companies having these contracts, the duration of the contracts, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to public funds of each agreement. [9764]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: Mobile phones and car phones are purchased on an as-required basis. Agreements are entered into with the supplier for the provision of airtime for a 12-month minimum period with 90 days notification of cancellation thereafter. The number of mobile phones

  443
  held by the Scottish Office and its executive agencies is 454. These have been provided by the following suppliers:

  Vodaphone; Cellnet; BT Mobile; Vodac Direct; HSW Systems;

  Mobile Direct; Veecom; Woodend Communications;

  Woodend Cellular: Comware.

  The total operating cost per annum is approximately £135,000.

  Elderly People (NHS Services)
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of changes in the costs of providing NHS treatments and services to elderly people in Scotland(a) over the last 10 years and (b) over the next 10 years. [11041]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The aim for all groups is to secure the most effective package of health and social care services, both in hospital and the community, that meet the specific needs of individuals and where appropriate, their carers.

  Assessment of needs for care services for the elderly is primarily a matter for health boards and local authorities. Demographic change has led to the cost of providing NHS care and treatment for this age group increasing over the last 10 years by approximately 1 per cent. a year. On the same basis, the forecast to year 2005–06 is for an increase of about 0.9 per cent. per annum. In practice, these cost pressures will continue to be offset by further improvements in efficiency and quality of care.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department has issued to 444
  Scottish health boards in respect of retention of surpluses in their budgets at the end of the 1994–95 financial year. [11102]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance is contained in the "Scottish Accounting Manual" which is issued to all health boards. This states that an underdrawing of up to 1 per cent. of a health board's cash limit may be carried forward from one year to another and that any overdrawing will be carried forward as a first charge against the following year's cash limit. There is, however, flexibility to allow a larger carry forward. Requests from health boards for carry forward in excess of 1 per cent. are considered on their merits.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1995,Official Report, column 367, (1) if the under-drawings in the 1994–95 budgets of Greater Glasgow health board and Borders health board were carried forward into the 1995–96 budgets of these bodies; [11148]

  (2) what was the outcome of his Department's discussions with the senior management of Greater Glasgow health board and Borders health board, concerning these bodies' under-drawing of their budgets for 1994–95. [11149]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Final agreement has been reached with senior management of Greater Glasgow health board and Borders health board concerning the carry forward of underdrawings in 1994–95. Borders health board carry forward is £815,925 which is the same amount it underdrew. Greater Glasgow health board carry forward is £8,043,180 which is £1,837,000 less than its underdrawing. The difference relates to ring fenced funds which cannot normally be carried forward.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what total payment(a) has been and (b) is projected to be made to Strathclyde regional council to provide for the additional costs of supporting rail services arising from the privatisation of British Rail. [11316]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1994–95, £79,103,000 was paid to Strathclyde regional council to cover the additional costs to it in that year resulting from rail restructuring. The Scottish Office expects to pay about £60 million to cover comparable costs in the current financial year. With effect from 1 April 1996, future costs will be met through provision in the annual local government finance settlements for the constituent authorities in the Strathclyde passenger transport authority.

  Charge for a fixed price meal at January of each year shown

  Pence

  Education Authority

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Borders

  35

  35

  40

  42

  44

  46

  48

  50

  Central

  35

  35

  35

  40

  45

  45

  50

  55

  Dumfries and Galloway

  35

  40

  45

  50

  50

  52

  55

  58

  Fife

  35

  35

  40

  45

  48

  50

  52

  55

  Grampian:

  Primary

  35

  35

  42

  42

  45

  50

  55

  58

  Secondary

  n/a

  n/a

  45

  45

  55

  60

  65

  68

  Highland

  35

  41

  50

  50

  50

  55

  55

  65

  Lothian:

  Primary

  35

  35

  35

  45

  45

  50

  50

  50

  Secondary

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  55

  55

  55

  Strathclyde

  35

  40

  45

  50

  53

  55

  58

  61

  Tayside:

  Primary

  35

  40

  45

  50

  45

  50

  55

  60

  Secondary

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  50

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Orkney:

  Primary

  35

  35

  40

  50

  50

  50

  55

  60

  Secondary

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Shetland

  35

  35

  35

  35

  45

  50

  50

  55

  Western Isles

  35

  35

  40

  45

  60

  60

  65

  65

  n/a = not available.

  Pence

  Education Authority

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Borders

  50

  50

  50

  55

  60

  65

  65

  70

  Central

  58

  60

  62

  68

  72

  75

  80

  85

  Dumfries and Galloway

  61

  60

  60

  165

  165

  165

  365

  365

  —

  —

  —

  255

  255

  255

  470

  470

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  255

  —

  Fife

  50

  50

  50

  60

  n/a

  60

  65

  65

  Grampian:

  Primary

  60

  63

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  83

  87

  87

  Secondary

  70

  73

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  97

  100

  n/a

  Highland

  65

  70

  74

  80

  85

  90

  90

  100

  Lothian:

  Primary

  50

  55

  55

  60

  70

  75

  80

  90

  Secondary

  55

  60

  60

  65

  75

  80

  90

  100

  Strathclyde

  63

  64

  67

  79

  n/a

  83

  89

  93

  Tayside:

  Primary

  60

  65

  65

  65

  65

  65

  65

  65

  Secondary

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  70

  Orkney:

  Primary

  60

  60

  70

  70

  70

  70

  70

  80

  Secondary

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  75

  80

  80

  90

  Shetland

  60

  60

  65

  75

  75

  80

  85

  90

  Western Isles

  65

  70

  70

  70

  75

  80

  85

  n/a

  n/a = not available.

  1Standard meal.

  2Mini-meal.

  3Primary.

  4Secondary.

  School Meals
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each regional and island council in Scotland for each academic year since 1979–80 the average price of a school meal in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [11103]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The average cost to pupils of school meals is not collected centrally. Pupils can obtain either a fixed meal at a set charge or a cafeteria style meal for which the charge will vary depending on the individual pupil's choice. The table gives details of the fixed price meal charge levied by each education authority in each year since 1979. The level of the charge made is at the discretion of the education authority.
  447
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each regional and island council in Scotland and for each sub-division within the Strathclyde regional council area for each academic year since 1979–80 for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools (i) the total number of children in education, (ii) how many children are in receipt of free school meals and (iii) the percentage of children in receipt of free school meals. [11104]

  Mr. Robertson
  Information on the uptake of free school meals for the school sessions 1979–80 to 1992–93 is not available for separate primary and secondary sectors. Information by sector has been collected only from 1993–94 school session onwards.

  Table 1: Number of pupils in Education Authority primary schools at September in session

  Session

  Education Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  Sector

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Scotland

  545,161

  518,492

  492,645

  467,971

  448,009

  437,538

  435,454

  433,459

  Borders

  10,135

  9,643

  9,156

  8,686

  8,353

  8,219

  8,246

  8,213

  Central

  29,737

  28,559

  27,258

  25,850

  24,897

  24,287

  24,158

  23,754

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15,069

  14,223

  13,457

  12,799

  12,480

  12,285

  12,313

  12,321

  Fife

  36,766

  35,103

  33,733

  32,257

  31,388

  31,005

  31,105

  30,602

  Grampian

  49,831

  48,352

  47,128

  45,767

  43,827

  43,274

  43,156

  42,941

  Highland

  22,000

  21,275

  20,568

  19,822

  19,460

  19,168

  19,290

  19,394

  Lothian

  71,816

  68,112

  64,688

  61,461

  58,327

  55,745

  54,964

  54,386

  Strathclyde

  261,721

  247,143

  232,691

  219,231

  208,934

  204,311

  203,521

  203,337

  Tayside

  39,694

  37,925

  35,964

  34,278

  32,757

  31,871

  31,335

  31,298

  Orkney

  2,000

  1,923

  1,886

  1,910

  1,910

  1,866

  1,825

  1,826

  Shetland

  2,711

  2,705

  2,681

  2,564

  2,478

  2,388

  2,386

  2,387

  Western Isles

  3,681

  3,529

  3,435

  3,346

  3,198

  3,119

  3,155

  3,000

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  6,880

  6,484

  6,215

  6,094

  5,898

  5,708

  5,727

  5,687

  Ayr

  43,074

  40.924

  38,380

  36,045

  34,686

  33,927

  33,711

  33,689

  Dunbarton

  36,923

  35,235

  33,744

  32,275

  31,064

  30,602

  30,581

  30,514

  Glasgow

  75,160

  69,773

  64,682

  60,602

  57,123

  55,593

  55,553

  55,593

  Lanark

  60,175

  57,303

  54,284

  50,743

  48,491

  47,324

  46,941

  46,884

  Renfrew

  39,509

  37,424

  35,386

  33.472

  31,672

  31,157

  31,008

  30,970

  1Estimated figures due to teacher industrial action.

  at September in session

  Session

  Education Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Sector

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Scotland

  430,919

  432,760

  437,072

  440,591

  440,808

  438,974

  438,401

  438,011

  Borders

  8,164

  8,327

  8,411

  8,525

  8,520

  8,551

  8,613

  8,610

  Central

  23,516

  23,520

  23,682

  23,709

  23,428

  23,388

  23,249

  23,100

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12,302

  12,405

  12,733

  12,848

  12,772

  12,936

  12,882

  12,820

  Fife

  30,554

  30,555

  30,908

  31,206

  31,188

  31,140

  31,082

  30,965

  Grampian

  43,041

  42,985

  43,374

  43,898

  44,203

  44,566

  44,795

  45,006

  Highland

  19,278

  19,331

  19,527

  19,549

  19,653

  19,369

  19,152

  19,001

  Lothian

  54,363

  54,588

  55,201

  55,898

  56,270

  56,560

  57,514

  58,007

  Strathclyde

  201,508

  202,713

  204,628

  205,873

  205,614

  203,152

  201,762

  200,980

  Tayside

  31,108

  31,375

  31,769

  32,312

  32,467

  32,658

  32,684

  32,846

  Orkney

  1,787

  1,827

  1,783

  1,787

  1,801

  1,832

  1,821

  1,841

  Shetland

  2,370

  2,338

  2,257

  2,230

  2,244

  2,189

  2,206

  2,231

  Western Isles

  2,928

  2,796

  2,799

  2,756

  2,648

  2,633

  2,641

  2,604

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  5,721

  5,705

  5,742

  5,770

  5,664

  5,375

  5,402

  5,389

  Ayr

  33,441

  33,633

  34,093

  34,171

  34,263

  34,013

  33,771

  33,667

  Dunbarton

  30,321

  30,281

  30,396

  30,505

  30,244

  29,663

  29,332

  29,161

  Glasgow

  54,759

  55,307

  55,887

  56,588

  56,985

  56,699

  56,303

  55,846

  Lanark

  46,355

  46,565

  47,067

  47,171

  46,702

  45,875

  45,328

  45,043

  Renfrew

  30,911

  31,222

  31,443

  31,668

  31,756

  31,527

  31,626

  31,874

  448
  The following tables show at table 1—the number of pupils registered in education authority primary schools; table 2—the number of pupils registered in education authority secondary schools; table 3—the total number of pupils in education authority schools, including nursery and special schools, taking free school meals at the annual January census; table 4—the percentage of all pupils in education authority schools, including nursery and special schools, taking free meals at the annual January census; and table 5—the numbers and percentages of primary and secondary pupils taking free school meals for the 1993–94 and 1994–95 school sessions.
  449

  Table 2: Number of pupils in Education Authority secondary schools at September in session

  Session

  Education Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  Sector

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Scotland

  410,242

  407,844

  404,575

  399,075

  390,368

  376,071

  360,645

  344,369

  Borders

  7,351

  7,411

  7,423

  7,501

  7,417

  7,140

  6,907

  6,684

  Central

  22,236

  22,283

  22,209

  21,910

  21,479

  20,866

  20,120

  19,300

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11,403

  11,611

  11,838

  11,814

  11,569

  11,181

  10,747

  10,204

  Fife

  26,624

  26,792

  26,847

  26,665

  26,194

  25,208

  24,371

  23,606

  Grampian

  34,471

  34,444

  34,603

  34,866

  35,366

  34,635

  34,216

  33,247

  Highland

  16,113

  16,128

  16,119

  16,021

  15,958

  15,629

  15,183

  14,853

  Lothian

  52,720

  52,316

  51,515

  50,240

  48,981

  47,685

  45,415

  43,328

  Strathclyde

  203,995

  201,712

  198,957

  195,428

  189,219

  180,499

  171,505

  162,258

  Tayside

  29,666

  29,248

  29,064

  28,667

  28,131

  27,293

  26,388

  25,221

  Orkney

  1,496

  1,541

  1,521

  1,496

  1,464

  1,443

  1,414

  1,376

  Shetland

  1,618

  1,631

  1,702

  1,715

  1,797

  1,760

  1,740

  1,709

  Western Isles

  2,549

  2,727

  2,777

  2,752

  2,793

  2,732

  2,639

  2,583

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  4,881

  5,073

  5,080

  5,183

  5,065

  4,940

  4,797

  4,518

  Ayr

  31,467

  31,607

  31,710

  31,627

  30,927

  29,954

  28,615

  27,322

  Dunbarton

  27,448

  27,333

  27,320

  26,884

  26,331

  25,562

  24,797

  24,072

  Glasgow

  61,666

  59,690

  57,665

  55,438

  52,752

  48,540

  44,959

  41,184

  Lanark

  47,445

  47,280

  47,016

  46,644

  45,072

  43,308

  41,088

  39,026

  Renfrew

  31,088

  30,729

  30,166

  29,652

  29,072

  28,195

  27,249

  162,258

  1Estimated figures due to teacher industrial action.

  at September in session

  Session

  Education authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Sector

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Scotland

  327,056

  311,563

  298,453

  293,569

  296,455

  303,056

  311,255

  314,904

  Borders

  6,326

  5,990

  5,846

  5,814

  5,905

  5,989

  6,182

  6,296

  Central

  18,379

  17,641

  16,817

  16,537

  16,699

  17,017

  17,212

  17,285

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9,802

  9,345

  9,015

  8,889

  8,922

  9,105

  9,400

  9,464

  Fife

  22,454

  21,727

  21,026

  21,035

  21,247

  21,652

  22,413

  22,699

  Grampian

  31,790

  30,831

  29,589

  29,402

  29,988

  30,610

  31,386

  31,831

  Highland

  14,348

  14,043

  13,663

  13,640

  14,015

  14,516

  14,995

  15,212

  Lothian

  41,187

  39,132

  37,361

  35,988

  36,091

  36,647

  37,641

  38,020

  Strathclyde

  153,292

  144,548

  137,574

  135,040

  136,193

  139,722

  143,606

  145,307

  Tayside

  24,001

  22,985

  22,272

  21,962

  22,045

  22,380

  22,986

  23,343

  Orkney

  1,338

  1,281

  1,332

  1,329

  1,386

  1,412

  1,448

  1,439

  Shetland

  1,663

  1,643

  1,623

  1,635

  1,651

  1,757

  1,761

  1,766

  Western Isles

  2,476

  2,397

  2,335

  2,298

  2,303

  2,249

  2,225

  2,242

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  4,421

  4,255

  4,098

  4,013

  4,083

  4,092

  4,180

  4,244

  Ayr

  26,182

  25,004

  23,815

  23,351

  23,330

  23,855

  24,622

  25,028

  Dunbarton

  22,918

  22,375

  21,638

  21,216

  21,527

  22,465

  22,927

  23,256

  Glasgow

  37,907

  34,623

  32,303

  31,594

  31,659

  32,140

  32,728

  32,993

  Lanark

  37,074

  34,889

  33,085

  32,561

  32,969

  33,805

  34,933

  35,335

  Renfrew

  24,790

  23,402

  22,635

  22,305

  22,625

  23,365

  24,216

  24,451

  Table 3: Number of pupils in Education Authority schools taking free school meals at January in session

  Session

  Education Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  Sector

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Scotland

  122,618

  114,711

  124,547

  132,953

  129,335

  136,669

  136,627

  143,194

  Borders

  1,365

  773

  966

  1,097

  1,113

  1,136

  1,065

  1,203

  Central

  4,708

  5,084

  5,853

  6,584

  6,443

  7,311

  6,975

  8,046

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,851

  2,017

  2,265

  2,705

  2,718

  2,765

  2,950

  2,826

  Fife

  6,443

  6,146

  6,935

  7,263

  6,719

  8,639

  8,172

  9,025

  Grampian

  5,935

  3,225

  3,709

  4,117

  4,318

  4,704

  4,800

  5,593

  Highland

  3,674

  2,339

  2,813

  3,415

  3,438

  4,312

  4,355

  4,643

  Lothian

  14,655

  13,162

  14,145

  12,854

  12,413

  14,201

  13,711

  14,689

  Strathclyde

  72,881

  74,565

  79,406

  85,426

  82,348

  84,096

  84,659

  87,362

  450 451

  Table 3: Number of pupils in Education Authority schools taking free school meals at January in session

  Session

  Education Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  Tayside

  8,208

  5,610

  6,597

  7,380

  7,702

  7,854

  8,154

  7,921

  Orkney

  385

  412

  389

  520

  512

  477

  429

  438

  Shetland

  155

  163

  189

  183

  236

  246

  232

  270

  Western Isles

  1,358

  1,215

  1,280

  1,409

  1,375

  928

  1,125

  1,178

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  1,497

  1,336

  1,443

  1,563

  1,525

  1,469

  1,510

  1,560

  Ayr

  10,592

  10,579

  10,801

  12,295

  12,690

  13,202

  12,540

  13,266

  Dunbarton

  5,734

  5,823

  6,838

  7,972

  7,385

  8,103

  8,622

  9,340

  Glasgow

  31,743

  32,913

  34,156

  36,045

  33,791

  33,947

  34,059

  34,671

  Lanark

  15,135

  15,885

  16,631

  17,172

  17,316

  16,959

  16,759

  16,823

  Renfrew

  8,180

  8,029

  9,537

  10,379

  9,641

  10,416

  11,169

  11,702

  1Contains some estimated data.

  at January in session

  Session

  Education Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Sector

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Scotland

  145,219

  105,232

  99,303

  101,915

  107,186

  107,709

  121,479

  121,123

  Borders

  1,184

  522

  779

  650

  751

  683

  721

  750

  Central

  7,740

  5,448

  4,985

  5,170

  5,402

  5,476

  5,931

  6,176

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,994

  1,755

  1,656

  1,769

  1,889

  2,017

  2,102

  2,155

  Fife

  8,927

  6,227

  6,123

  6,432

  7,017

  7,080

  8,065

  8,283

  Grampian

  5,967

  4,068

  4,099

  4,375

  5,177

  5,695

  5,721

  6,182

  Highland

  4,960

  3,395

  2,967

  2,881

  3,024

  3,270

  4,015

  3,918

  Lothian

  15,773

  12,219

  11,710

  12,330

  12,857

  13,551

  15,190

  15,358

  Strathclyde

  87,147

  63,905

  59,853

  61,169

  63,682

  62,436

  71,981

  70,595

  Tayside

  8,720

  6,562

  6,121

  6,199

  6,396

  6,520

  6,732

  6,723

  Orkney

  432

  193

  183

  179

  208

  201

  220

  232

  Shetland

  263

  146

  142

  160

  210

  226

  236

  250

  Western Isles

  1,112

  792

  685

  601

  573

  554

  565

  501

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  1,555

  950

  861

  896

  1,040

  1,150

  1,224

  1,210

  Ayr

  12,899

  8,718

  8,512

  8,887

  9,460

  9,942

  10,451

  10,016

  Dunbarton

  9,027

  6,806

  6,046

  6,184

  6,486

  6,477

  7,568

  7,595

  Glasgow

  35,337

  27,053

  25,188

  26,243

  27,093

  25,040

  29,948

  29,196

  Lanark

  16,585

  11,450

  10,865

  10,861

  11,137

  11,843

  13,663

  13,660

  Renfrew

  11,744

  8,928

  8,381

  8,098

  8,466

  7,984

  9,127

  8,918

  Table 4: Percentage of pupils in Education Authority schools taking. free school meals at January in session

  Session

  Education Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  Sector

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Scotland

  14.0

  13.2

  15.1

  16.3

  17.1

  18.2

  18.6

  19.6

  Borders

  8.4

  4.8

  6.5

  7.3

  7.6

  8.1

  7.7

  8.7

  Central

  9.9

  10.6

  13.0

  14.8

  15.2

  17.6

  17.1

  19.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11.8

  8.4

  10.1

  12.0

  12.4

  13.3

  13.8

  14.1

  Fife

  10.7

  10.3

  12.1

  12.8

  12.8

  16.4

  15.4

  16.9

  Grampian

  7.5

  4.1

  5.0

  5.6

  5.9

  6.5

  6.8

  7.9

  Highland

  10.4

  6.8

  8.4

  10.2

  10.8

  13.3

  13.4

  15.0

  Lothian

  12.6

  11.5

  13.0

  12.1

  12.5

  14.2

  14.2

  15.3

  Strathclyde

  17.3

  18.0

  20.3

  22.1

  23.4

  24.1

  24.8

  25.7

  Tayside

  12.7

  8.6

  10.4

  11.9

  13.5

  13.7

  15.1

  15.1

  Orkney

  11.9

  13.0

  13.7

  15.9

  16.0

  15.3

  14.8

  14.4

  Shetland

  3.9

  4.0

  4.6

  4.5

  5.9

  6.3

  5.9

  6.9

  Western Isles

  23.6

  20.9

  23.4

  25.7

  24.5

  17.4

  21.9

  23.7

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  14.1

  12.6

  13.9

  15.3

  15.7

  15.3

  16.1

  16.9

  Ayr

  15.5

  15.9

  17.6

  19.6

  21.3

  22.9

  22.1

  23.4

  Dunbarton

  9.9

  10.2

  12.5

  14.8

  15.1

  15.6

  17.0

  18.1

  Glasgow

  26.2

  27.1

  30.0

  32.6

  35.0

  35.9

  36.6

  38.5

  Lanark

  15.7

  16.7

  18.4

  19.2

  21.1

  21.2

  21.8

  21.6

  Renfrew

  12.5

  12.6

  15.7

  17.3

  17.6

  19.0

  20.6

  21.7

  452 453

  at January in session

  Session

  Education Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Sector

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Scotland

  19.9

  14.8

  14.1

  14.6

  15.4

  15.7

  16.7

  16.6

  Borders

  8.5

  3.8

  5.7

  4.7

  5.5

  4.9

  5.1

  5.1

  Central

  18.9

  14.1

  12.8

  13.5

  14.3

  14.4

  14.8

  15.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  14.5

  8.8

  8.1

  8.8

  9.4

  9.9

  9.7

  10.1

  Fife

  16.9

  12.0

  12.0

  12.6

  13.7

  14.0

  15.1

  15.2

  Grampian

  8.3

  5.7

  5.3

  6.1

  7.5

  8.0

  7.7

  8.2

  Highland

  15.8

  11.1

  9.5

  9.4

  9.8

  10.5

  12.4

  12.0

  Lothian

  16.6

  13

  12.8

  13.6

  14.0

  14.9

  15.5

  15.8

  Strathclyde

  25.8

  19.4

  18.8

  19.2

  20.1

  20.4

  21.8

  21.7

  Tayside

  16.4

  12.5

  11.9

  11.9

  12.2

  12.2

  12.9

  12.1

  Orkney

  14.5

  6.6

  6.1

  6.0

  6.9

  6.3

  7.0

  6.9

  Shetland

  6.8

  3.8

  3.8

  4.1

  5.6

  5.9

  6.1

  6.2

  Western Isles

  22.9

  18.0

  14.7

  13.1

  12.3

  12.6

  12.1

  11.2

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  16.4

  10.4

  9.6

  9.9

  11.6

  13.5

  13.8

  13.5

  Ayr

  22.5

  15.8

  15.9

  16.5

  17.5

  19.7

  19.5

  18.8

  Dunbarton

  17.6

  13.5

  12.3

  12.9

  13.7

  13.3

  15.5

  15.6

  Glasgow

  39.6

  31.7

  30.9

  31.5

  32.4

  32.2

  34.0

  34.1

  Lanark

  21.4

  15.3

  14.9

  14.8

  15.6

  17.0

  17.9

  18.1

  Renfrew

  22.1

  16.6

  16.3

  15.9

  16.6

  15.8

  16.8

  16.5

  Number of pupils in education authority schools taking free school meals at January in session

  Session

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Education Authority

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Scotland

  84,970

  20.5

  30,286

  11.3

  84,645

  20.6

  30,578

  11.3

  Borders

  578

  7.0

  130

  2.4

  590

  7.1

  137

  2.4

  Central

  4,155

  19.0

  1,312

  8.7

  4,219

  19.5

  1,505

  10.2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,539

  12.6

  546

  6.4

  1,599

  13.1

  540

  6.5

  Fife

  5,642

  19.1

  1,951

  10.1

  5,832

  19.9

  2,018

  9.7

  Grampian

  4,174

  9.8

  1,295

  4.8

  4,378

  10.3

  1,487

  5.3

  Highland

  2,797

  15.4

  1,107

  8.3

  2,747

  15.2

  1,085

  7.9

  Lothian

  10,951

  19.9

  3,200

  9.8

  10,963

  19.9

  3,361

  10.4

  Strathclyde

  49,664

  26.3

  19,058

  15.6

  48,805

  26.3

  18,677

  15.3

  Tayside

  4,786

  15.4

  1,392

  7.4

  4,868

  15.6

  1,484

  7.4

  Orkney

  158

  9.2

  47

  3.8

  161

  8.9

  46

  3.5

  Shetland

  174

  8.4

  47

  3.0

  180

  8.5

  53

  3.3

  Western Isles

  352

  14.0

  201

  9.4

  303

  12.2

  185

  9.3

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  806

  15.8

  396

  10.8

  776

  15.2

  410

  10.9

  Ayr

  7,325

  23.0

  2,832

  13.3

  7,343

  23.3

  2,466

  11.6

  Dunbarton

  4,891

  17.8

  2,313

  12.3

  4,771

  17.5

  2,559

  13.2

  Glasgow

  21,158

  41.2

  7,035

  26.4

  20,656

  41.5

  6,708

  25.6

  Lanark

  9,435

  22.1

  3,737

  12.3

  9,355

  22.1

  3,821

  12.5

  Renfrew

  6,049

  20.2

  2,745

  12.9

  5,904

  19.9

  2,713

  12.8

  1. Contains some estimated data.

  Schools Development Programme
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to require the provision of resource material relating to leaving home education as part of the social development programme in schools. [11177]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government have no plans to require the provision of such material.

  In 1993, the Scottish Office education department published national guidelines on personal and social development 5–14. Among other things the aims of this document include helping pupils to develop life skills to enable them to participate effectively and safely in
  454
  society and to take increasing responsibility for their own lives. This document provides a basis for school managers to include leaving home education in the curriculum if they should consider it to be appropriate for their schools.

  Housing Education
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to instruct Scottish Homes to take steps to(a) provide funding for and (b) promote a national housing education development unit. [11178]
  455
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.

  Students
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women from (i) the Irish

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  Total

  Irish Republic

  Northern Ireland

  Irish Republic

  Northern Ireland

  Irish Republic

  Northern Ireland

  Male

  104

  19

  542

  234

  646

  253

  Female

  102

  15

  417

  279

  519

  294

  Total

  206

  34

  959

  513

  1,165

  547

  Parole
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he held in respect of, and what estimate he has made of the costs of, the parole restrictions on early release which he recently announced. [11636]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is consulting now on his proposals for changes to the arrangements governing the early release of prisoners in Scotland. A consultation document—"Making the Punishment Fit the Crime"—was published on 15 January and has been circulated to a wide range of interested parties in Scotland. We look forward to receiving responses which have been requested by 15 March.

  In the light of responses, we shall then publish a White Paper containing specific proposals and an assessment of the financial implications.

  Health Finance
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the capital allocations to (i) Scottish health boards, (ii) national health service trusts, (iii) the Common Services Agency and (iv) the state hospital in each of the most recent five years. [11199]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is detailed in the table:

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Health Boards

  214,292

  112,216

  27,680

  9,398

  13,155

  NHS Trusts

  13,416

  77,632

  159,075

  203,297

  194,380

  CSA

  21,673

  17,403

  19,420

  6,800

  2,930

  State Hospital

  5,388

  3,053

  4,435

  6,280

  4,715

  Total

  254,769

  210,304

  210,610

  225,775

  215,180

  Efficiency Savings (Health Boards)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the efficiency savings targets, expressed both in percentage and cash terms, set for Scottish health boards in each year since they were first introduced. [11147]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:456
  Republic and (ii) Northern Ireland were studying at universities at the latest date for which figures are available as (1) undergraduates and (2) graduate students. [11516]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The latest available, but provisional, figures are for those studying at Scottish higher education institutions in 1994–95, and are as follows:

  Year

  Target Percentage

  Efficiency savings target £000

  1985–86

  1

  13,488

  1986–87

  1.5

  21,600

  1987–88

  1

  15,554

  1988–89

  1

  17,259

  1989–90

  2

  37,003

  1990–91

  1

  20,051

  1991–92

  1

  22,620

  1992–93

  1

  24,191

  1993–94

  2

  48,629

  1994–95

  2

  50,584

  1995–96

  2.75

  71,386

  1996–97

  3

  83,000

  Total

  425,365

  The savings made from efficiency measures are all retained by health boards to enable them to make further improvements in patient care.

  Housing Finance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was for each district and islands council area for each of the years between 1989–90 and 1994–95, the total public expenditure within the Scottish Homes approved development programme by(a) housing association for rent, (b) housing association shared ownership, (c) housing association improvement for sale, (d) grants for rent and ownership grant for rent and (e) grants for rent and ownership grant for home ownership; [11598]

  (2) what is the average per unit cost of land acquisition for rural schemes within Scottish Homes approved development programme of housing association grant for rent in the years 1992–93 to 1994–95; and what proportion of total average scheme costs was accounted for by land acquisition; [11610]

  (3) what was for each district and island council area for each of the years 1992–93 to 1994–95 (a) the number of rural home ownership grants awarded by Scottish Homes and (b) the expenditure on rural home ownership grants; [11599]

  (4) how many dwelling completions there were for each district and islands council area for each of the years between 1989–90 and 1994–95 inclusive within the Scottish Homes approved development programme

  457
  by (a) housing association for rent, (b) housing association shared ownership, (c) housing association improvement for sale, (d) grants for rent and ownership grant for rent and (e) grants for rent and ownership for home ownership. [11611]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved since designation in the Shetland islands environmentally sensitive area. [11169]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: As at 19 January 1996, 84 farmers and crofters have been offered agreements under the Shetland islands environmentally sensitive area scheme.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved, since designation, in the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area. [11170]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: As at 19 January 1996, 123 farmers and crofters have been offered agreements under the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area scheme.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved in the Shetland islands environmentally sensitive area, since its designation, involving payments under tier 2 in year 1 of the plan of(a) 0 to £1,000, (b) £1,001 to £2,000 and (c) £2,001 to £3,000. [11171]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: The number of agreements offered under the Shetland islands environmentally sensitive area scheme involving payments under tier 2 in year 1 of the plan is as follows:

  Number

  (a) 0 to £1,000

  44

  (b) £1,001 to £2,000

  21

  (c) £2,001 to £3,000

  19

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm conservation plans have been approved in the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area, since its designation, involving payments under tier 2 in year 1 of the plan of(a) 0 to £1,000, (b) £1,001 to £2,000, (c) £2,001 to £3,000 and (d) £3,001 to £3,500. [11172]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: The number of agreements offered under the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area scheme involving payments under tier 2 in year 1 of the plan is as follows:

  Number

  (a) 0 to £1,000

  9

  (b) £1,001 to £2,000

  12

  (c) £2,001 to £3,000

  10

  (d) £3,001 to £3,500

  92

  458
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total area of land entered into the grassland birds management option in the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area. [11173]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: As at 19 January 1996, the total area of land entered into the grassland birds management option in agreements offered under the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area scheme was 292.48 hectares.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the allocated budget for(a) environmentally sensitive areas and (b) other agri-environment schemes in (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95. [11174]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: The supply estimates provision for (a) the environmentally sensitive area scheme and (b) other agri-environment schemes is set out in the following table.

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  3.905

  5.285

  4.500

  Other agri-environment schemes

  —

  0.050

  0.095

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total area of grass for hay and silage recorded in the June agricultural census within the boundary of the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area. [11175]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: In 1994, the total area of grass for mowing for hay and silage production within the boundary of the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area was 4,129.9 hectares. This figure includes an estimate for minor holdings.

  Media Contracts
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contracts have been awarded by the Scottish Office to monitor media coverage in Scotland over the past three years; to whom the contracts have been awarded; what were the dates on which they were approved; and what are their durations and their value. [7272]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: No such contracts have been awarded. Tenders have been invited for the provision of a press cuttings service; the deadline for submission is 5 January 1996.

  Optoelectronics
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many workers are employed in the optoelectronics industry in Scotland; and what action he is taking to encourage the transfer of research findings from Scottish universities into high-tech companies. [7266]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: The Scottish register of employment shows that 41.800 persons were employed in electronics in 1993. The register does not take account of companies with fewer than 11 employees and there is no separate category for optoelectronics. A survey carried out in 1992 by Scottish Enterprise estimated that there were at that time 1,300 people employed in optoelectronics in Scotland.
  459
  There are a number of schemes available to assist collaborative research, product development and transfer of technology and skill. These include the SMART and SPUR schemes administered by my Department, and LINK and the teaching company scheme for which the Department of Trade and Industry has lead responsibility. The issue of how to improve the commercial exploitation of academic research is being addressed in an inquiry being undertaken by Scottish Enterprise and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list management and management employee buyout teams which have received funding from the British Railways Board for advisory costs as qualified bidders for train operating franchises, indicating which private companies collaborated in each bid; and how much funding was received; [11712]

  (2) what was the total amount of funding made available by the British Railways Board to management and management-employee buy-out teams for (a) financial advice in the pre-qualification stage of bidding for train operating franchises and (b) advisory costs as qualified bidders for train operating franchises; and how much of this funding was provided to consortia including private companies; [11711]

  (3) if he will list the management and management employee buyout teams which have received funding from the British Railways Board for financial advice in the pre-qualification stage of bidding for train operating franchises, indicating which private companies collaborated in each bid; and how much funding was received. [11710]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 9 January,Official Report, column 28.

  Ferries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the speed with which an Indonesian ferry capsized on 20 January; and what design characteristics this vessel shared with ferries operating from United Kingdom ports. [11753]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have made no formal assessment of the accident because it did not involve a United Kingdom-flagged ship and did not occur in United Kingdom waters.

  Bicycle Lights (Epilepsy)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in the last five years into the effects on drivers who suffer from epilepsy of LED bicycle lights. [11869]
  460
  Mr. Norris
  None. We are, however, in the process of initiating a research project to look into the effects of flashing LED bicycle lights.

  Networker Trains
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received recently regarding the safety of Networker trains on the South Eastern trains network; and if he will make a statement. [11940]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety implications of locking connecting compartment doors on Networker trains on the South Eastern trains network; and if he will make a statement. [11941]

  Mr. Watts
  Certain Networker, class 465, trains were withdrawn from service following an incident at the Slade Green depot in south east London, in which a train separated whilst undergoing maintenance. These trains are being examined and will be returned to service only if their couplings are found to be in a satisfactory condition for use without restrictions, such as the locking of connecting compartment doors.

  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has requested the result of these examinations and will discuss the remedial measures to be implemented.

  Socially Necessary Rail Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the criteria for determining that a rail service is essential for the purposes of designation as a socially necessary service; and if he will make a statement. [11973]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 22 January,Official Report, columns, 28–9. The Secretary of State's instructions to the franchising director require him to develop specific criteria for evaluating the benefits of loss-making but socially necessary services. These criteria are being developed and will be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval in due course.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–.95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11350]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The answer is as follows:

  (a) £

  (b) £

  (iii) 1991–92

  Actual

  5,389,147

  3,722,495

  (iv) 1993–94

  Actual

  5,747,307

  4.439,161

  461

  (a)£

  (b)£

  (v) 1994–95

  Actual

  5,621,188

  4,158,987

  (vi) 1995—96

  Forecast

  5,357,874

  4,271,187

  (vii) 1996—97

  Estimate

  5,323,600

  4,277,700

  The information requested for earlier years (i) and (ii) and for non-departmental public bodies (c) is not available.

  Internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas.

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Testing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last year for which records are available (i) the number of heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes which were given an annual inspection for road worthiness, (ii) for how many of these it was the first test, (iii) what were the 10 most common test failures by(a) numbers and (b) percentage of the total, (iv) how many vehicles failed on re-test (y) in total and (z) as a percentage, (v) how many of the failures related to braking (a) in total and (b) as a percentage and (vi) of brake failures how many were in respect of (1) service brakes, (2) secondary brakes, (3) parking brakes and (4) brake components and how many were determined (A) visually and (B) otherwise; what consideration he has give to reducing the period between tests; and if he will make a statement. [11694]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer, 25 January 1996]: The tables show:

  Table 1 The total number of heavy goods vehicles tested in 1994–95

  Table 2 (a) The 10 most common failure items in each category for motor vehicles

  Table 2 (b) The 10 most common failure items in each category for trailers

  Table 3 the number of vehicles failing retests and the percentage failure rates

  Table 4 the total number of failures for each braking item and the percentage failure rates.

  There are no plans for more frequent testing. The existing system is effective in relying on three complementary forms of control: roadworthiness testing,

  Table 4: The total numbers of failures for each braking item and the percentage failure rates

  Testable item

  Failures far braking items

  Motor vehicles

  Trailers

  Failure rate percentage

  Number of failures

  Failure rate percentage

  Number of failures

  Trailer emergency brake

  Not applicable

  —

  0.042

  95

  Pressure/vacuum warning

  0.364

  1,629

  Not applicable

  —

  Build up of pressure/vacuum

  0.146

  654

  Not applicable

  —

  Hand lever operating mechanical brakes

  0.033

  148

  Not applicable

  —

  Service brake pedal

  0.052

  233

  Not applicable

  —

  462
  operator licensing and its maintenance conditions; and enforcement checks carried out both at the roadside and in operators' premises.

  Table 1a: The total numbers of heavy goods vehicles tested in 1994–95, (the last full year for which figures are available)

  Type

  Total tests

  First and annual tests

  Retests

  Motor vehicles

  573,074

  447,660

  125,414

  Trailers

  267,443

  225,648

  41,795

  Separate figures are not available for First Test volumes but estimated volumes are 48,000 for motor vehicles and 16,000 for trailers.

  These figures are for all Heavy Goods Vehicles subject to testing under the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988.

  Table 2a: The 10 most common failure items in each category for motor vehicles

  Motor vehicles

  Testable item

  Number failed

  Percentage failure rate

  Headlamp aim

  49,064

  10.960

  Service brake performance

  48,450

  10.823

  Secondary brake performance

  33,785

  7.547

  Parking brake performance

  21,076

  4.708

  Braking systems components

  19,921

  4.450

  Rear position lamps/fog lamps

  19,357

  4.324

  Direction and hazard warning lamps

  12,087

  2.700

  Steering linkage

  7,955

  1.777

  Exhaust emissions

  7,042

  1.573

  Suspension pins/bushes

  7,006

  1.565

  Table 2b: The 10 most common.failure items for each category for trailers

  Trailers

  Testable item

  Number failed

  Percentage failure rate

  Service brake performance

  22,470

  9.958

  Parking brake performance

  15,439

  6.842

  Braking system components

  6,699

  2.969

  Rear position lamps/fog lamps

  5,018

  2.224

  Trailer parking brake

  3,112

  1.379

  Mechanical brake components

  2,778

  1.231

  Suspension units (attachment)

  2,306

  1.022

  Condition of tyres

  2,207

  0.978

  Stop lamps

  2,026

  0.898

  Reflectors

  1,925

  0.853

  Table 3: The numbers of vehicles. failing retests and the percentage failure rates

  Type

  Number of retests

  Number of failures

  Percentage failure rate

  Motor vehicles

  125,414

  17,308

  13.80

  Trailers

  41,795

  5,668

  I3.56

  463

  Table 4: The total numbers of failures for each braking item and the percentage failure rates

  Testable item

  Failures for braking items

  Motor vehicles

  Trailers

  Failure rate percentage

  Number of failures

  Failure rate percentage

  Number of failures

  Service brake operation

  0.053

  237

  0.454

  1,024

  Hand operated brake control valves

  0.177

  792

  0.038

  86

  Mechanical brake components

  0.937

  4,195

  1.233

  2,782

  Brake actuators

  0.624

  2,793

  0.768

  1,733

  Braking system and components

  4.452

  19,930

  2.971

  6,704

  Trailer parking brake

  Not applicable

  —

  1.380

  3,114

  Service brake performance

  10.822

  48,446

  9.958

  22,470

  Secondary brake performance

  7.549

  33,794

  Not applicable

  0

  Parking brake performance

  4.708

  21,076

  6.844

  15,443

  These figures relate to first and annual tests. Detailed figures on failures for retests are not available.

  It should be noted that the figures relate to the number of vehicles failing for a particular item. In many cases vehicles will fail for more than one item.

  The inspection for all items other than brake performance—(the last three items in the table—is essentially a visual inspection. The brake performance is determined with the use of a roller brake tester.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been allocated to the crew relief costs scheme, the Government assistance for training scheme for British officer trainees and the development certificated seafarers scheme for 1996. [12467]

  Mr. Norris
  Allocation for the financial year 1996–97 have yet to be finalised.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many surveyors have left the Marine Safety Agency in the last year; and how many have been recruited. [12194]

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

  Letter from R. Bradley to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 26 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of surveyors who have left the Marine Safety Agency and the number who have been recruited in the last year.
  Between 1 January and 31 December 1995, 22 surveyors left the Agency, and 9 new recruits joined. A recent recruitment campaign for marine surveyors selected 20 successful applicants. These will be appointed to current vacancies, and any forthcoming vacancies over the next year.

  Lorry Drivers (Convictions)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department takes in respect of British lorry drivers who are convicted in other member states of the European Union of carrying prohibited substances or articles of which they claim to have no knowledge. [12096]

  Mr. Norris
  Such matters are the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs advises that any British citizen convicted of an offence in a foreign country will have full access to normal consular support. However, the British consulate has no authority to interfere with the due process of law in a sovereign state.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which sites of special scientific interest in England will he affected by trunk road and motorway schemes for which preferred routes have been announced. [11229]

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

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 26 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) in England that will be affected by trunk road and motorways schemes for which preferred routes have been announced.
  I enclose a list of Trunk Road and Motorway schemes in England, for which preferred routes have been announced, that are likely to involve permanent or temporary landtake from a SSSI, a list of schemes that may have an impact on a SSSI but do not involve landtake and a list of those schemes which remain under review following the 1995 Review which may affect a SSSI.
  You will, I hope, appreciate that the lists are therefore dynamic and will be subject to change as, and when, scheme, designs are developed.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Schemes which may involve permanent or temporary landtake from SSSIs

  Scheme

  SSSI

  ROAD PROGRAMME SCHEMES:

  Main programme:

  M4/M49 Second Severn Crossing1

  Magor and Undy Severn Estuary

  M5 Widening J18–191

  Severn Estuary

  M6 J20–21a Widening1

  Woolston Eyes

  A13 Thames Avenue—Wennington1

  Inner Thames Marshes

  A249 M2—Iwade Bypass1

  The Swale

  A34 Newbury Bypass2

  Snelsmore Common

  Kennet River

  Lambourne River

  A1(M) Ferrybridge to Hook Moor

  Brockade

  A2/M2 Cobham—J4 Widening

  Shorne and Ashenbank Woods

  Cobham Woods

  A2/A282 Dartford Improvement

  Darenth Wood

  A31 Poole Harbour Crossing

  Poole Harbour (Holes Bay)

  465

  Schemes which may involve permanent or temporary landtake from SSSIs

  Scheme

  SSSI

  A31 Poole Link Road

  Slop Bog and Uddens Heath

  Canford Heath

  A43 Geddington Bypass

  River Ise and Meadows

  A120 Stanstead to Braintree

  High Wood, Dunmow

  (S. 272)

  A249 Iwade—Queensbrough

  The SwaleMedway Estuary and

  Marshes

  A259 Bexhill and Hastings

  Combe Haven

  Western Bypass

  Pevensey Levels

  Marline Valley Woods

  A259 Pevensey—Bexhill

  Pevensey Levels

  Improvement

  Birmingham Northern Relief

  Chasewater Heath

  Road

  Longer term:

  A5 Dunstable Eastern Bypass

  Blows Down

  A35 Chideock-Morcombelake

  Morcombelake West Dorset

  Bypass

  Coast

  A259 Dymchurch—M20

  Lympne Escampment (The

  Improvement

  Roughs)

  A259 Rye Bypass

  Walland Marsh

  Camber Sands and Rye

  Saltings

  Rye Harbour

  A449/A456 Kidderminster,

  Hurcott and Podmore Pools

  Blakedown and Hagley

  Bypass

  NETWORK ENHANCEMENT

  PROGRAMME:

  A13 West of Heathway—Mar

  The Wennington and Rainham

  Dyke

  Marshes

  A46 Upper Swainswick—

  Monkswood Valley

  Pennsylvania Improvement3

  1 Scheme under construction on 30 November 1995.

  2 Scheme expected to start main works during Spring of 1996.

  3 This scheme was transferred to the Network Enhancement Programme as part of the 1995 Review and the Preferred Route will be reviewed.

  Schemes with possible indirect impacts on SSSIs which do not involve landtake

  Scheme

  SSSI

  ROAD PROGRAMME SCHEMES:

  Schemes which are part of Design Build Finance and Operate Contracts:

  M1—A1 Lofthouse-Bramham

  Hook Moor

  A21 Kipping's Cross-

  Brookland Wood

  Lamberhurst

  A65 Hellifield and Long Preston

  Long Preston Deeps

  Bypass

  Pan Beck Fen

  A303 Wylye-Stackton Wood

  Stackton Wood and Down

  A419 Latton Bypass

  North Meadow, Cricklade

  River Churn

  Main programme:

  A1(M) Ferrybridge-Hook Moor

  Fairburn and Newton Ings

  A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle

  Dark Peak

  Bypass

  A303 lllminster-Marsh

  Long Lye

  A556(M) M6–M56 Imp

  Rostherne Mere

  Birmingham Northern Relief

  River Blythe

  Road

  Longer Term:

  A5 Dunstable Bypass

  Houghton Regis Marl Lakes

  A10 Wadesmill High Cross-

  Plashes Wood

  Colliers End Bypass

  466

  Schemes with possible indirect impacts on SSS/s which do not involve landtake

  Scheme

  SSSI

  Western Orbital Route

  Hurcott Pools

  (Birmingham)

  NETWORK ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMME:

  A3 Thursley to Milford

  Thursley Hankley and Frencham

  Commons

  Schemes under review which may involve temporary or permanent landtake from SSSIs or with possible indirect impacts on SSS/s which do not involve landtake

  Scheme

  SSSI

  ROAD PROGRAMME SCHEMES:

  M6 J11a-16 Widening

  Doxey and Tillington (Indirect)

  A27 Lewes to Polegate

  Southern Grey Pit

  Improvement

  (Possible Landtake)

  Milton Gate Marsh

  (Possible Landtake)

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the minimum requirements for the refurbishment of the west coast main line(a) for signals, (b) for track and (c) for rolling stock. [11632]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack is developing modernisation proposals for the west coast main line which include the introduction of an in-cab signalling system and improved track and power supply equipment. All enhancements will be carried out in accordance with Railtrack's statutory duties, its rigorous safety standards, and its contractual obligations to the train operating companies. All new or altered works, which includes rolling stock, have to he approved by HM railways inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, under the Railway and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994, before they can be used on the railway.

DEFENCE

  F16 Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) the Prime Minister and (b) the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the proposed leasing of American F16 aircraft. [12115]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 January,Official Report, column 430. Discussions between Ministers are confidential.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the remit of Mr. David Hart in respect of providing advice on the proposed leasing of American F16 aircraft. [12116]

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 October 1995,Official Report, column 360, and that from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 15 January, Official Report, column 430.

  Super-computers
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the name and addresses of the independent advisers appointed by him, or by the relevant agency, in the procurement of(a) the department of experimentation and research into Aviation Farnborough's most current super-computer, (b) the Meteorological Office Bracknell's current super-computer and (c) the atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston's recent super-computer. [12157]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The competition for a super-computer for the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston is being run by the AWE operating contractor. It is being assisted in the competition by an independent consultancy company, details of which are commercially confidential.

  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the Meteorological Office are executive agencies and matters of this nature fall to their chief executives. I have asked the chief executives of both agencies to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Michael Stern, dated 26 January 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the appointment of independent advisors on procuring supercomputers. I am responsible for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which through its Defence Research Agency (DRA) division has recently procured a supercomputer at Farnborough, Hampshire.
  The procurement of a massively parallel supercomputer by DERA acting on behalf of the members of the Farnborough Supercompter Centre (FSC) followed from a feasibility study carried out by Smith System Engineering Limited, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey GU12 5YP.
  The FSC, which was opened in January 1995, is a Dual-Use Technology Centre (DUTC) with members from leading defence manufacturers together with DERA.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from Julian Hunt to Mr. Michael Stern; dated 25 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the procurement of the Meteorological Office's current supercomputers this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office.
  The Meteorological Office's current supercomputer has been procured in accordance with normal Ministry of Defence practice. The procurement was agreed with the Department's DGICS organisation, in the course of which advice was taken from appropriate independent sources.
  The identity of the provider of the relevant advice must remain commercially confidential.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States Department of Energy will share with the United Kingdom the data derived from the planned subcritical nuclear tests, Rebound (1) and Holog (1). [11720]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Rebound (1) and Holog (1) are the names which have been given to subcritical hydrodynamic experiments planned by the US for later this year. As regards the arrangements allowing for the exchange of nuclear weapons-related information, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 23 November, 1995,Official Report, column 261.

  Surplus Equipment Sales
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what conditions tanks, armoured personnel carriers and mobile guns are sold to private individuals and dealers; and how many have been sold in each of the past five years. [12200]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Current practice is to scrap surplus tanks and armoured personnel carriers. A limited number have been sold recently in a restricted access auction. Mobile guns are not now sold to individuals and dealers, and the majority of declarations have been the subject of a Government-to-Government sale. Previously, armoured vehicles have been sold by invitation to tender to approved individuals and traders, including collectors and museums; to UK defence companies; or they have been scrapped.

  Where fighting vehicles normally carry armaments of any sort, the status of the final user will determine whether the vehicle is deactivated or not. Only those individuals or companies, including scrap dealers in the UK, who hold an appropriate licence under the Firearms Act 1968 may receive an active vehicle. Otherwise, the vehicles are demilitarised, (and officially certified or confirmed as such) in such a way as to render their ordnance unserviceable or inoperative—by barrel slotting, breach cutting/welding etc. The acquisition of parts which are essential to a weapon being fully operative are themselves the subject of the Firearms Act and current departmental policy is not to offer them for sale within the UK. Vehicles sold on the express condition that they are to be broken up or smelted are subject to confirmation that this has been done.

  Buyers of MOD's vehicles for other purposes are required to formally seek my Department's permission before on-selling.

  The following quantities of vehicles have been sold in the last five years:

  1991: 15

  1992: 205

  1993: 403

  1994: 583

  1995: 758

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what precautions his Department takes to ensure that surplus tanks, armoured personnel carriers and mobile guns sold to dealers and the public are not used for criminal or other anti-social acts. [12202]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The sales process requires either deactivation of residual ordnance or production of an appropriate firearms licence. After-sale responsibility lies with the purchaser to observe the law concerning ownership and use of the vehicle.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average original cost of(a) tanks. (b) armoured personnel carriers and (c) mobile guns sold by the services in each of the past five years; and what was the average price for which they were sold. [12201]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Vehicles declared for disposal have been in service for many years and records of original costs have been destroyed. Prices achieved depend on
  469
  market forces. It is not MOD's policy to reveal individual prices achieved. The value of receipts for armoured vehicles and guns for each of the five years is:

  Number

  £

  1991

  15

  16,250

  1992

  205

  255,685

  1993

  403

  390,477

  1994

  583

  4,384,079

  1995

  758

  984,523

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the British bases as part of the implementation force operating in(a) Bosnia and (b) Croatia; and how much Britain is charged for these bases to be situated in each of those areas. [12114]

  Mr. Soames
  British forces contributing to the IFOR operation in Bosnia and Croatia occupy 34 major sites and a number of smaller buildings. Some of these sites are transitional and may be relinquished when the dispositions of troops within the British area of operations is finalised. Others have been occupied only recently and in many cases, negotiations with owners, where known, are continuing. The details of the bases and the charges so far agreed, are as follows:

  Monthly charge

  Location—Croatia

  Split—Divulje Barracks

  No charge. Croatian

  Government property.

  Split—port sites and facilities

  Remains under UN lease at

  present.

  Split—port warehouses

  £17,045

  Split—Dalma warehouse

  £83,681

  complex

  Split—workshops and

  £44,545

  warehouse

  Split—factory

  £42,610

  Location—Bosnia

  Tomislavgrad—factory and

  £25,000 for warehouse, charge

  warehouse

  for factory not yet known.

  Lipa

  Not yet known.

  Kupres

  £34,090

  Gornji Vakuf—3 factories

  £15,909 for one factory, others

  not yet known.

  Sipovo—3 factories, sawmill

  Not yet known.

  and hotel

  Bugojno—factory

  Not yet known.

  Glamoc—sawmill and transport

  £2,272 for saw mill, charge for

  depot

  depot not yet known.

  Sanski Most—2 factories

  Not yet known.

  Mrkonjic Grad—2 factories,

  Not yet known.

  sawmill and dam

  Banja Luka—factory and offices

  Not yet known.

  Vitez—bulk fuel installation

  £636 for BFI, charge for school

  (BFI) and school

  not yet known.

  Jajce—factory

  Not yet known.

  Kljuk—depot

  £909

  Bosanski Petrovac—depot

  Not yet known.

  Krupa—factory

  £2,500

  Overseas Units (Media Visits)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost in each of the past five years of 470
  visits by journalists to service units abroad funded by (a) the armed services and (b) his Ministry. [11622]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In the majority of cases, journalists travelling abroad to visit service units/naval ships are expected to fund their costs.

  However, financial assistance is given, principally to journalists from provincial or regional media who could not otherwise afford to travel and where coverage is considered to be in the interest of the armed service.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what journalists, from which(a) newspapers and (b) other media organisations, were guests of (i) his Department and (ii) the armed services on visits to service units abroad in each of the past three years. [11623]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  RAF Turnhouse
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the timing of his plan to close RAF Turnhouse; how many civilian staff are still employed there; and when he intends to notify redundancies. [11991]

  Mr. Soames
  Our proposal to close RAF Turnhouse by 1 April has been the subject of formal consultation. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Super-computer (Nuclear Weapons Simulation)
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek a second and independent opinion on the advice that no United Kingdom-designed and sourced super-computer could perform the task required for nuclear weapons simulation at atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston. [11617]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: The technical assessment of the responses to the statement of requirement was made on purely technical grounds by AWE assisted by an independent firm of technical consultants. The SOR had been issued to all known massively parallel processor suppliers and placed in the MOD contracts bulletin. The SOR made it clear that the mini-proposal was not a tender, nor would it guarantee suppliers the right to tender.

  Only one bid came from a United Kingdom company. It was based on a design not in manufacture and which did not reach the required specification; it was; therefore, rejected. The tenderer was de-briefed to this effect in May 1995.

  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when it is planned that new landing platform dock ships, replacing HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid; will enter service; [11852]

  (2) when he plans to place an order for the ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. [11871]
  471
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence is currently in no acceptable price, no contract—NAPNOC—negotiations with VSEL to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. The size and timing of any order, and therefore the exact date of entry into service, depend on a satisfactory outcome to these discussions. Assuming this can be achieved, we would envisage entry into service around the turn of the century.

  Trident
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he intends to publish the annual report on progress of the Trident programme; and if he will send a copy of the report to all right hon. and hon. Members; [11705]

  (2) what plans he has to inform Parliament of the updated progress of the Trident programme. [11706]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The annual report on the progress of the Trident programme will be published shortly and, as usual, copies will be placed in the Library of the House. It would not be sensible use of resources to send individual copies to all right hon. and hon. Members as not all may wish to receive one.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Gaming Laws
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish his consultation document on his proposals for reforming the gaming laws. [12110]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are reviewing the present controls on bingo clubs and casinos as part of the Government's deregulation initiative. The review is well advanced and we hope to consult on proposals shortly.

  Identity Card Scheme
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in respect of the feasibility studies for the introduction of a nationwide identity card scheme. [11464]

  Mr. Sackville
  We received over 3,000 replies to the Green Paper on identity cards (CM 2879) and have placed in the Library a copy of the Home Office memorandum of evidence to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry on identity cards which contains a summary of the responses.

  The Government have yet to reach a final decision on whether an identity card should be introduced and, if so, what type of card scheme to propose but all of the options set out in the Green Paper remain open.

  Gambling (Fruit Machines)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of(a) the population and (b) 16 to 24-year-olds who are addicted to gambling on fruit machines. [11754]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There are no official statistics on the use of gaming machines.
  472
  Research has tended to focus on machine gaming by adolescents. It is not possible to estimate from existing research the incidence of problem gambling specifically on amusement-with-prizes—fruit—machines in the national population or in young adults.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the level of addition to gambling on fruit machines, with particular reference to young people. [11755]

  Mr.Kirkhope
  Following consultation, on 11 December 1995, I laid in draft the Deregulation (Gaming Machines and Betting Office Facilities) Order 1996. This measure, which is currently being scrutinised by the deregulation committees, would, for the first time, give local authorities power to impose an age limit in arcades which install proposed all-cash amusement-with-prizes machines with a maximum payout of £10. Young people under 18 would not be allowed access to these new machines in arcades. Elsewhere, these machines would be allowed only in premises to which children have restricted access—liquor licensed premises, bingo clubs, casinos and betting offices.

  It is expected that most arcades will switch to the cash machine which should go some way towards alleviating the problem of addiction amongst those under 18.

  Local authorities already have powers to ban fruit machines from premises such as cafes and leisure centres.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) of 16 January,Official Report, column 483, if he will set out the reasons for the unreliability of the information requested on the route of arrival of applications for asylum. [11723]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information in question is not available because many port asylum applicants destroy or dispose of their travel documents and it is often not possible to establish from which country they have travelled to the United Kingdom. Where the information is known in individual cases, it is not recorded centrally.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Minibus Safety
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the guidance issued by local education authorities on minibus safety with particular reference to the meeting of agreed safety standard. [11099]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Schools and local education authorities which own minibuses must comply with vehicle safety standards, as determined by the Secretary of State for Transport generally in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. LEAs are responsible for any advice they may give in relation to construction standards and other safety issues, and are not required to submit it for assessment by the Secretary of State.
  473
  New regulations will be introduced by the Department of Transport next month to require the compulsory fitment of seatbelts on minibuses and coaches used specifically for transporting school children.

WALES

  School Governors
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of vacancies which will arise on school governing bodies when the present period of office comes to an end; and of these how many will be parent governor vacancies. [10026]

  Mr. Richards
  According to a survey of school governors commissioned by the Welsh Office in 1994, there are around 24,300 school governorships in Wales. Of these, the term of appointment of approximately 60 per cent. will come to an end this year. No estimate has been made as to how many of these are parent governors.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many seats there are on school governing bodies(a) in each county and (b) in Wales; what is the number and

  £ million

  1993–4 Outturn

  1994–95 Outturn

  1995–96 Outturn

  Cash

  1994–95 prices

  Cash

  1994–95 prices

  Cash

  1994–95 prices

  FEFCW

  145.841

  148.583

  172.518

  172.518

  178.463

  173.687

  HEFCW

  179.200

  182.569

  232.497

  232.497

  242.496

  236.006

  Full time equivalent student numbers

  FE

  46,000

  51,200

  53,500

  HE

  57,239

  62,700

  64,500

  £

  1994–95

  1994–95

  1994–95

  Spending per head

  Cash

  prices

  Cash

  prices

  Cash

  prices

  FE

  3,170

  3,230

  3,369

  3,369

  3,336

  3,246

  HE

  4,912

  5,004

  4,978

  4,978

  4,734

  4,607

  The spending plans for further and higher education announced on 13 December assume the following:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Students

  Cost per student £

  Students

  Cost per student £

  Students

  Cost per student £

  FE

  56,000

  3,097

  58,500

  3,001

  60,900

  2,794

  HE

  65,200

  4,737

  65,000

  4,725

  65,600

  4,655

  The spending per head in higher education includes tuition fees paid directly to higher education institutions by local education authorities.

  Metticillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of metticillin-resistant
  474
  percentage of such places known to be vacant at the last available date; and if he will make a statement. [10619]

  Mr. Richards
  According to a survey of school governors commissioned by the Welsh Office in 1994, there are around 24,300 school governorships in Wales. Of these, it was estimated in the report that 22,375, or 92 per cent. were filled. The figures are not broken down by county.

  Further and Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the finance made available in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 to (i) the Further Education Funding Council for Wales and (ii) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales; and what is the number of students being financed in each of the years and the spending per head in (1) cash and (2) real terms; [10024]

  (2) what estimates he has made up to 2000 of the number of students to be financed by (a) the FEFCW and (b) the HEFCW; and if he will give the cost per head in each sector over these years. [10025]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is included in the table.

  staphylococcus aureus there have been in Welsh hospitals in each of the last five years. [10295]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 22 January 1996,Official Report, column 102.

  Sea Fishing Industry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individuals were employed in the sea fishing industry within(a) the boundaries of the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee, (b) the South Wales sea fisheries committee, (c) Wales and (d) the boundaries of each of unitary authority within (a) and (b). [10558]

  Mr. Richards
  An estimated 1,623 fishermen were employed in the sea fishing industry in Wales in 1994, which is the latest available figure. Statistics are not recorded in the format requested.

  Fishing Permits
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many permits for all types of fishing activities were granted each year since 1990; and how many permits are extant within(a) the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee, (b) the South Wales sea fisheries

  475
  committee and (c) each of the unitary local authorities within the boundaries of (a) and (b). [10557]

  Mr. Richards
  We have no information on the number of fishing permits issued by local authority sea fisheries committees.

  The number of fishing vessels which were licensed in Wales during the period 1990 to 1996 were:

  1990: 70

  1991: 173

  1992: 172

  1993: 158

  1994: 5891

  1995: 583

  1996: 553

  Note:

  1A licensing regime for vessels of 10 meters and under, was introduced in 1993, and these vessels are included in the figures for 1994 onward.

  Licence details are not recorded in the format requested.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the chairmen and chairwomen and members whom he appoints of each NHS trust, indicating the length of time for which each is appointed and when each appointment is due for renewal. [10908]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is detailed in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales", which is updated quarterly. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  GPs (Child Immunisation)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from general practitioner practices in Wales on the subject of payment for child immunisation; and if he will make a statement. [10717]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has received eight representations, but none of these was made directly by general practitioner practices. Childhood immunisation target payments were introduced to provide incentives for general practitioners to encourage and increase patient take-up of childhood vaccinations. The success of the immunisation programme has resulted in the incidence of childhood diseases being at their lowest ever levels and the Government have no plans to review the criteria GPs have to meet in order to qualify for target payments.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidelines his Department has issued since 1994 to(a) Cadw and (b) non-departmental public bodies in Wales on the use of the Welsh language in the day-to-day conduct of its business; and if he will make a statement; [10704]

  (2) what (a) guidelines and (b) instructions his Department has issued to (i) Cadw and (ii) non-departmental public bodies in Wales on the use of the Welsh language in their official publications. [10703]
  476
  Mr. Richards
  Guidelines as to the form and content of Welsh language schemes, prepared by the Welsh Language Board, were approved by my right hon. Friend and by Parliament in July 1995. Welsh language schemes are intended to specify measures relating to the use of the Welsh language in connection with the services they provide to the public in Wales. The Welsh Office has issued no guidelines or instructions additional to those statutory guidelines; it will be for each non-departmental public body to agree a language scheme with the board in respect of its services to the public in Wales.

  Agricultural Holdings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered agricultural holdings there were in Wales in(a) 1966, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d) 1994; and if he will make a statement. [10700]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no process of registration for agricultural holdings but the estimated number of such holdings in Wales for the years requested are as follows:(a) 1966: 48,000; (b) 1974: 32,800; (c) 1984: 36,100 and (d) 1994: 37,800.

  These figures include both major and minor holdings. Over the period 1966 to 1984, there were minor definitional changes which tended to reduce the number of holdings recorded. In addition, in 1968 about 6,400 holdings were deleted from the records because of their negligible agricultural output.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives his Department is pursuing to assist small businesses in Wales. [10730]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office, together with others, is supporting small businesses through a variety of new start-up and business development initiatives, including financial assistance, training and consultancy support, grants for innovation and help with exporting. Information is available through business connect which is designed specifically to help small firms access quickly and effectively the business support network.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the 12 biggest spending Welsh Office public bodies, giving their spending in cash and real terms in each year since 1990–91; [10910]

  (2) if he will list the chairmen and chairwomen and members of the 12 biggest spending Welsh Office public bodies, indicating the length of time for which each is appointed and when each appointment is due for renewal. [10909]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is included in the following table.
  477

  Total gross expenditure for the 12 biggest NDPBs was as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Arts Council of Wales

  cash

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.9

  real terms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.9

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  cash

  34.3

  35.8

  48.0

  47.5

  66.7

  real terms

  39.7

  39.0

  50.3

  48.4

  66.7

  Countryside Council for Wales

  cash

  10.0

  14.5

  17.5

  19.9

  21.2

  real terms

  10.1

  15.8

  18.3

  20.3

  21.2

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  cash

  19.6

  21.5

  23.6

  24.9

  27.2

  real terms

  22.7

  23.5

  24.7

  25.4

  27.2

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  cash

  —

  —

  22.0

  143.1

  172.5

  real terms

  —

  —

  22.1

  145.8

  172.5

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  cash

  —

  —

  20.5

  179.0

  232.5

  real terms

  —

  —

  20.6

  182.3

  232.5

  Housing for Wales

  cash

  116.0

  172.6

  187.4

  161.2

  139.5

  real terms

  134.5

  188.3

  196.4

  164.2

  139.5

  Land Authority for Wales

  cash

  6.0

  6.1

  6.3

  12.3

  23.0

  real terms

  7.0

  6.6

  6.6

  12.5

  23.0

  National Museums and Galleries of Wales

  cash

  17.9

  18.1

  16.1

  16.8

  14.1

  real terms

  20.8

  19.7

  16.9

  17.1

  14.1

  Sports Council for Wales

  cash

  7.1

  7.5

  8.2

  8.6

  9.1

  real terms

  8.3

  8.2

  8.6

  8.8

  9.1

  Wales Tourist Board

  cash

  13.3

  13.0

  13.7

  13.8

  14.4

  real terms

  15.4

  14.1

  14.3

  14.1

  14.4

  Welsh Development Agency

  cash

  149.2

  158.2

  165.2

  151.7

  157.1

  real terms

  173.0

  172.6

  173.2

  154.5

  157.1

  1. The cash figures have been extracted from the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies".

  2. The real terms figures have been derived by the application of the latest GDP deflators at market prices with a base year of 1994–95.

  3. In some cases, figures are not available for the earlier years because the relevant NDPBs had not then been set up in Wales.

  1Support for the establishment of the Countryside Council for Wales, which came into existence on 1 April 1991.

  2Support for the establishment of the Further Education and Higher Education Funding Councils for Wales, which came into existence on 1 April 1993.

  The information requested about the chairmen and women and members of these bodies is given in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales", which is updated quarterly. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals against decisions of local planning authorities were disposed of in(a) 1966, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d) 1994, respectively. [10726]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information for 1974, 1984 and 1994 is given in the table. Information for 1966 is not available.

  1974

  1984

  1994

  Appeals under the Town and Country

  Planning Act 1990 (and corresponding

  earlier legislation):

  Section 78

  514

  631

  877

  Section 174

  47

  126

  136

  Appeals under the Town and Country

  Planning (Control of Advertisements)

  Regulations 1992

  44

  117

  90

  All other appeals

  1—

  1—

  261

  1 Figures are not available.

  2Includes appeals under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (cases "called in" by the Secretary of State).

  Dentists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many dentistry practices there were in Wales in(a) 1966, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d) 1994, respectively; [10724]

  (2) how much dentistry practices in Wales undertook NHS treatment in 1992; and if he will make a statement; [10756]

  (3) how many dentistry practices there are in Wales; [10760]

  (4) how many dentistry practices undertaking NHS treatment there are in Wales. [10761]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of dentistry practices is not available centrally. However, the number of principal dental practitioners treating some NHS patients is given in the following table—a principal dental practitioner would be the head of a practice although two or more may practice together.
  479
  Number of principal dental practitioners, treating some NHS patients in Wales.

  30 September 1966: 396

  30 September 1974: 493

  30 September 1984: 705

  30 September 1992: 792

  30 September 1994: 801

  30 September 1995: 817 (latest available).

  Ministerial Visit (Indonesia)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations were made on human rights issues during the recent visit to Indonesia of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). [10939]

  Mr. Richards
  I visited Indonesia and Singapore with a trade mission to help Welsh companies increase their exporting activities. Human rights issues are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the chairmen and chairwomen and members whom he appoints of each training and enterprise council, indicating the lengths of time each person is appointed and when each appointment is due for renewal. [10911]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend does not appoint either the chairmen or the members to the boards of training and enterprise councils. TECs are private companies limited by guarantee.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations over the past 18 months his Department have undertaken on the subject of the amalgamation of ambulance services in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [10731]

  Mr. Richards
  Public consultation on a joint application from West Glamorgan and East Dyfed ambulance services to form the West Wales Ambulance NHS trust ended on 4 December 1994 and the trust was established on 16 January 1995.

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received recently on the subject of the budget allocation to the North Wales police; and if he will make a statement. [10727]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have received one representation, from the North Wales police authority, about funding in 1996–97.

  Healthy Eating
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives his Department is currently undertaking to educate people in healthy eating. [10723]
  480
  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office does not itself undertake initiatives to educate people in healthy eating, but provides financial and other support to a large range of organisations which carry out such work, including the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, local authorities, health authorities and voluntary organisations.

  Health Authority Members
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the chairmen and chairwomen and members of each health authority or commission and each family health services authority, indicating the length of time for which each person is appointed and when each appointment is due for renewal. [10907]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is detailed in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales" which is updated quarterly. Copies are available in the Library of the House. All the appointments will be terminated on 31 March 1996 when the district health authorities and family health services authorities will cease to exist. I will be announcing the membership of the five new health authorities soon.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on recent developments in respect of the provision of nursery education for four-year-olds in Wales. [11057]

  Mr. Richards
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the relevant provisions of the Nursery Eduction and Grant-maintained Schools Bill, the nursery voucher scheme in Wales will come into effect from April 1997. I announced on 9 January our decisions on funding, payments for redeemed vouchers and the arrangements for inspecting participating establishments. Welsh Office officials have written to all local education authorities, primary and nursery schools and interested organisations detailing these decisions and clarifying some common misunderstandings about the scheme. I am placing a copy of this letter in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales opted out of local government control in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [10692]

  Mr. Richards
  Eight schools became grant-maintained in 1993; five in 1994; and none in 1995.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for the last three available years and for 1996–97(a) for each county and (b) for Wales the funding made available by his Department to combat drug abuse; and if he will make a statement. [10686]

  Mr. Richards
  Following the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny of health promotion in Wales, those
  481
  Welsh Office resources for combating drug misuse provided through the central funding initiative were built into district health authorities revenue allocations. For 1993–94, the last year the CFI operated, the amounts allocated to each county in Wales were:

  £

  Clwyd

  323,202

  Dyfed

  250,649

  Gwent

  274,295

  Gwynedd

  244,165

  Mid Glamorgan

  379,826

  Powys

  160,517

  South Glamorgan

  283,047

  482

  £

  West Glamorgan

  306,075

  The Welsh Office provides separate resources for national activity: the amounts for 1993–94 to 1995–96 were £243,944, £360,918 and £259,737 respectively.

  In addition, other central funding mechanisms such as the revenue support grant, the strategic development scheme and the grant for education support and training programme provide funds to combat drug misuse. It is not possible to identify separately the relevant amounts within those schemes.