Sitting of 19 July 1996

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

Science Policy and Human Genetics
[Relevant documents: the Third Report from the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1994–95 on Human Genetics: the Science and its Consequences (House of Commons Paper No. 41) and the Government Reply thereto (Cm 3061), the First Report from the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1995–96 on Technology Foresight (House of Commons Paper No. 49) and the Government Response thereto (Cm 3224), the Second Report from the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1995–96 on The Government Plans for the 'Forward Look' (House of Commons Paper No. 303), the Third Report of Session 1995–96 on Human Genetics: The Government's Response (House of Commons Paper No. 231) and the Government Reply thereto (Cm 3306), the Fourth Report of Session 1995–96 on the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (House of Commons Paper No. 249), and the Fifth Report of Session 1995–96 on the Prior Options Reviews of Public Sector Research Establishments (House of Commons Paper No. 643) and the Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics 1996 (Cm 3257–11).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
9.34 am
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I certainly welcome this opportunity to have a calm and constructive debate about science policy.
About a year ago, I took over the science portfolio, to add to the technology portfolio that I had been looking after for a year. The past year has been one of the most exciting, in which many things have happened. The coming together of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Science and Technology, which raised a few eyebrows at the time, has proved an unmitigated success. It is quite extraordinary how the vitalities of the two Departments have come together to deliver a series of constructive programmes that touch the entire spectrum of basic science, applied and industrial research and development and technology transfer.
As evidence of that, I would cite big programmes such as the continuing work on the space policy document, the launch of the crusade for biotechnology, the launch of the information society initiative, the further development of the technology foresight programme, to which I shall return, and the higher profile that is being given to EQUAL, the extend quality life initiative, which I announced in the first statement that I made a year ago. The considerable progress has been reinforced not least
1406
by the outcome of the OST's science budget which, in a context of restraint on Government expenditure, was positive and successful.
I have been heartened by the enormous enthusiasm in the many universities that I have visited around the country. Companies at the forefront of research and development have also shown me how much progress they are making. If I have one worry, it is that the bulk of British industry has not realised the challenge that it faces to increase research and development as it moves into the next century. I do not mind so much if it concentrates on development and leaves research to universities. That would be a start. Ultimately, however, given the rate of change in society, industry has to look further ahead.
I draw the House's attention to how science has focused quite strongly on the way in which the competitiveness agenda in this country has been developed. Science is top of our list of priorities and featured strongly in the competitiveness White Papers. That is crucial, because it reinforces what I said earlier about industry needing to engage in research and development.
In a series of lectures, I have attempted to show why the City and industry should take a greater interest in the excellence of our science base, which is widely understood outside this country. It is slightly galling that inward investors to whom I talk often say that one of the reasons why they have come to this country is the excellence—indeed, the accessibility—of our science base. Siemens has commented on the strength of the five universities in the north-east and Pirelli about its work with Southampton. In both cases, continental companies from fellow EU countries have come to the United Kingdom because our research base is so strong and accessible, and not as inflexible as it is increasingly suggested that it is in Germany. Those are strong points.
All that helps the wider society, too. Recently the LG project in south Wales was announced, representing the largest single inward investment, at £1.7 billion. The success of the negotiations was crucially tied in with the academic base. Imperial college was closely involved in the discussions about how to deliver the training programmes that will be so necessary, and the central laboratories of the research council were also involved. Professor Ron Lawes, who heads the central microstructures facility at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, has acted with the Welsh Development Agency on the issues at stake.
I pay tribute to that involvement, which may have been overlooked in all the excitement about inward investment opportunities and employment in south Wales. The relationship between the science base and inward investment is strong. I could have mentioned many other cases in which inward investors have given great impetus to R and D in this country—such as IBM's substantial Hursley software laboratory just outside Winchester, and Hewlett Packard's substantial telecommunications research laboratories at Stoke Gifford, near Bristol, both of which I have visited. There is also Hitachi's Cambridge laboratory, which is undertaking world-class research on single electron memories, and AT and T's considerable automated teller machine investments in Dundee and Dunfermline, in Scotland.

1407
When I speak of Scotland, I look across to the Opposition Benches and see two scions of Scottish Labour society—and indeed Scotland has done well as a result of Conservative Government—
Dr. John Reid: More than two.
Mr. Taylor: I confess that I must be a little short-sighted this morning; there are several scions present. It shows what is going on in Scotland today, when many Scottish Labour Members are here to discuss this subject—although on the present turnout, we might conclude that there was very little going on. Nevertheless, as a result of Conservative Government policies, to which I know Opposition Members are looking forward to paying tribute, Scotland has done extremely well out of the revolution that has occurred in high technology and science.
I have mentioned the worrying trends in industry, and I do not in any way resile from what I said. We must give a warning to British industry that the rate of change is incredible. Siemens, for example, has revealed the enormous rapidity with which it expects its products to have to change over the next few years. It is simply not possible for companies to expect to stay in business unless their overall target for innovation is clearly thought through and applied.
The overall impact of research and development on the economy has been reinforced by a Science Policy Research Unit study carried out for the Treasury, which I can announce is being published today. That study shows the importance of publicly funded basic science, and examines the contribution of basic science to the economy. I have had copies placed in the Library. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) will be able to hear a succinct summary of the report now. Persuading the Treasury to publish documents is quite an achievement, and I am sure that he will give me the credit for that.
The report acknowledges the difficulty of assessing the relationship, but concludes that publicly funded basic science seems to have had a substantial impact on national productivity, and that that is likely to continue.
Some of the report's key conclusions are as follows. First, it is difficult to estimate with any certainty the rate of return from R and D, but nearly all attempts have come up with positive values, in most cases comparatively high—between 20 and 50 per cent. The second conclusion is that the importance of skilled people as a product of the science base is often underestimated. I am happy to draw attention to that factor.
Thirdly, historically, most companies have carried out research in their home countries, but now, as I have illustrated already with some examples, there is an increasing trend to locate research in areas rich in scientific skills. The United Kingdom is seen to provide such skills, so we are getting the inward investment. I am pleased that the paper has been published, because it makes an important contribution to the debate.
There are one or two slightly wayward academics who do not believe that there is a role for Government in basic science. I happen not to share their views. In my judgment, industry should do more at the applied,
1408
close-to-market end, and should take a greater interest in what is going on in basic research. Wherever possible, we are trying to integrate that approach, such as through the ROPAs—the "Realising our Potential" awards.
However, the Government have an overwhelming interest in ensuring that blue-skies research is conducted at the highest possible level of excellence, and I am delighted that we have been able to maintain that pressure during the year that I have been the Minister responsible.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The publication of the report sounds like good news. But can the Minister tell me whether it is considered that basic research done in the research council institutes and the public sector research establishments is considered to be as valuable as that done in universities and other academic institutes?
Mr. Taylor: Excellent research that is done anywhere is of great value. I might have added to my list the industrial research laboratories. The vice-chancellor designate of Cambridge—the hon. Lady's home town—has said that some of the greatest ideas come out of industrial research laboratories.
I am talking about excellence in research. As for Government responsibility, I need to ensure that it is clear what the research laboratories' missions are. Although there has been much talk of mission drift in those establishments, an equal danger is mission stagnation. The prior options reviews that we are conducting there are designed to ensure that we get continued excellence in research from those organisations. We have already debated the matter in the House.
As the subject has been raised, I note at this point the Select Committee's report, which was issued yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) made some trenchant contributions to the exchange of letters that was published yesterday, but, as I said in a debate not long ago, I remain of the view that if research is to be excellent, it can be equally excellent whether it takes place in the private or the public sector.
There is no point in trying to freeze the relationship or the mission statements in any way, because we need constantly to react to changing circumstances and to the market as a whole. I spend one fifth of our money through the research establishments and I have to ensure that that money is wisely spent.
Mr. Adam Ingram: The Minister described the letters of his hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), which were published yesterday, as "trenchant". Would it not be more accurate if he recorded the fact that the conclusion of the report that he has mentioned says:
"We consider that the Department's policy on this matter is far from satisfactory"?
That is more than trenchant; it is condemnatory of the Government's whole approach to the public sector research establishments, which are an important ingredient of our research base.
Mr. Taylor: I do not deny that those establishments are an important base. Indeed, I have already said that they were. I am saying that they can be an important research base with the new freedoms provided by a period

1409
in the private sector—although we are not predisposed to ensure that every institute is in that sector. My words need to be listened to precisely.
As for the Select Committee's comments, now that they have been published, I can study them, and I shall respond in due course. None the less, my views are on the record, and they are clear. I believe that my objective and that of the Select Committee is the same—to improve the quality of research in this country. Where we differ is perhaps in the belief that the delivery mechanisms need to be assessed, to establish whether they are delivering proper science.
Mr. Ingram: I appreciate that we must make progress in the debate, and that the Government will respond to what has been said about the public sector research establishments in due course. But it is even more important that we should have another debate on the subject. The previous debate took place on an Opposition motion, and it would be much more appropriate to consider the report that was published yesterday in the same way as we intend to consider the report on human genetics. Can the Minister give me an assurance about that? The Government have a thin legislative programme, and there will be plenty of time to debate such matters.
Mr. Taylor: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman realises that we have plenty of time—right through until next May; there is no difficulty about that. I am glad that there is agreement across the Floor of the House about the likely date of the election. No doubt we shall return to such matters, because they are so important, but I shall not pre-empt the usual channels as to the appropriate forum.
We are all aware that the first tranche has already been announced, with further reviews of some elements, and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made some announcements yesterday. We expect to receive the second tranche report imminently, and further reports will be made later in the year. The process is on-going, and I am sure that the debate will move ahead in the same fashion.
The questions that I hear most often in universities relate to infrastructure, and I am aware of the animated debate on the state of universities—not least equipment. I have attempted to address that matter, and hon. Members will appreciate the work of research councils which, with the higher education funding councils, have taken the initiative in tackling the immediate problems caused by the reduction in the equipment budget.
The joint equipment initiative has been a great success. We have put aside £18 million for allocation, and I am pleased to announce that that has been heavily oversubscribed. Some 250 applications have been received for some £40 million, and that has been matched by funds from industry and other external sponsors. That tells us a variety of things, and we shall now analyse the situation and use technology foresight to make judgments.
I agree that one cannot carry out good research without good equipment, and the question is how we provide that equipment. Opposition Members will not immediately fall into the trap of saying that we should spend more money, because the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), has said that that is not an option. Therefore, we must look together for ways in which we can find money for equipment more effectively.
1410
There is too little discussion among universities of their equipment needs, too little understanding of whether equipment can be shared or phased and too little discussion about centres of excellence. Even the recent policy research in engineering, science and technology report had some worrying signs, and some of the figures were contradictory. For example, although many departments were worried about equipment, the survey showed that more than half believed their equipment to be on a par or better than the international average, while 80 per cent. of existing equipment was judged adequate or better. The report received responses from 91 universities, but I do not regard those 91 as research universities, so it is inevitable that the figures will be skewed.
The debate is about excellence, and we shall return to it as the Dearing committee continues its inquiries. There is no point in attempting to pretend that every university needs to reach a level of excellence in research. In my judgment, some universities' concepts of research excellence are up to international standards. Some universities will be more geared to development, and there are others that need to concentrate most on scholastic excellence.
In the circumstances, we can perhaps avoid spreading too thinly the amount of money that we have for research, but I do not want to stray into the territory of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I am speaking merely as the Science Minister, and I am concerned about excellence in research projects.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware of a letter from the chairman of the Engineering Professors Council, Professor John Spence—from my own university, Strathclyde—which states:
"It is true that in most universities 'the scientific equipment … budget has often been eroded by more and more of it being used for furnishings/minor works, rather than equipment"'?
Do we not also have to take into account the results of a turf fight between those who want more chairs and those who want engineering equipment?
Mr. Taylor: I am not surprised by that, as I have heard many apocryphal stories on similar lines. The point that my hon. Friend helps to underline is that, while there is a need for research equipment, we must not fall into the trap of assuming that the only way in which we can tackle that need is by increased funding. I want to look closely at ways of making sure that money is going to the right departments. If money is supposed to be going to grade 5 departments—the top rank in research assessment—I hope that it goes to them and not elsewhere.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that a university spends the available money in the right way? Does he further agree that discussions about the lack of funding for research equipment are made less impressive when they are conducted with the vice-chancellor, having visited his private bathroom with gold taps?
Mr. Taylor: There are a range of possibilities for expenditure on equipment, although I cannot comment on that individual example. Although most universities are dedicated to ensuring that their researchers get the

1411
equipment that they need, I have found that little logic is involved. Too much equipment that is not on display and is locked away in a cupboard could be better used in other universities. I am also looking at how we can use the secondary market in equipment.
There is much to cover in the debate, but I want colleagues to know that I am aware of their concerns. I want a much deeper understanding of where we are going and how we should look at universities, as we now have such a large number of them. We should examine their missions and see how we can get the best from the research budgets.
During the past year, I have been keen to bring forward and develop the debate on technology foresight. The foresight programme has achieved a great deal since it began two years ago, and we have no intention of letting it lose momentum. The 15 foresight panel reports have been bestsellers, and more than 10,000 people have been involved in consultation and networking. We have taken the concept into industries such as finance, retailing and leisure.
Over 300 foresight events have been held in the past 12 months, leading to widespread dissemination of the findings. The foresight findings have already led to important new initiatives from the public sector. I have already mentioned the research equipment initiative, and there are new link programmes worth £110 million that are being carried out jointly with industry. The Department for Education and Employment has a skills and training initiative, and the Royal Academy of Engineering has foresight awards. The information society initiative and the crusade for biotechnology, which I mentioned, also play a part in the developing foresight campaign.
We successfully launched a foresight challenge competition, which engaged business in collaborative research and development well beyond original expectations. There are now 24 projects worth £92 million, two thirds of which has come from the private sector—a remarkable success story. Many of the collaborative projects have been between companies that have not previously engaged in the foresight programme.
Altogether, some £1 billion from the public and private sectors is now directed at foresight priority areas—£300 million in new initiatives since the reports were published and £700 million within existing research council programmes. Awareness of foresight in industry is growing. A Confederation of British Industry survey showed that 48 per cent. of respondents from manufacturing firms were aware of or were involved in the programme.
We must build on that, because we need a culture change. Companies must engage in foresight out of self-interest, and use it to boost their competitiveness. The success of the early stages leaves no doubt that foresight must continue for years to come. Therefore, I have asked my officials at the Office of Science and Technology and the panels to do another survey of trends and opportunities in 1999—five years after the first baseline—to engage businesses in their area, to continue to identify markets and science, engineering and technology priorities and to promote partnerships between business, Government and the science base to take those priorities forward. We must
1412
also look at how we manage initiatives within the DTI to achieve common purposes. Link, the training company scheme, postgraduate training partnerships, the Faraday centre concept in the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council network for the exploitation of science and technology all have a part to play in the foresight programme. In all those areas, we have the foundation to develop foresight into the next millennium and I am delighted that so many people have taken part.
Sir Giles Shaw: I apologise to my hon. Friend for making a further intervention. We are all of the view that the foresight initiative is one of the most important that has been taken since the OST was established. However, I would express some anxiety about the extent to which one can presume that significant industrial management and directorates can make themselves available for the scale of activities that my hon. Friend envisages. I hope that he will be careful about that.
Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that. I mentioned the increasing focus in the Department of Trade and Industry on the delivery mechanisms of the foresight programme and on concepts that may well deliver those objectives in some way, because I recognise that foresight has been a success and we must find ways to take it forward effectively and properly.
I am also happy to be able to announce that the Office of Science and Technology is continuing the industry-academe collaboration prizes that were awarded last year. A total of £100,000 in prizes will be awarded. I was impressed with the way in which those collaborations developed, and it looks as if that competition will continue that success.
Biotechnology is one of the most exciting and promising new areas, as the foresight programme has underlined. Biotechnology offers great potential for health care, food, agriculture and environmental management, among many other applications. We have done much to stimulate it since the crusade was announced. A "SPUR plus" grant has been awarded to Proteus Molecular Design Ltd. The £406,000 grant is to research new class gene-targeted DNA-binding drugs with potential for the treatment of cancer, viral infections and other diseases.
A small but important part is played by the United Kingdom's microbial culture collections. Those are a high-quality resource and a vital national asset. They represent specialist living and preserved collections of bacteria, yeasts, fungi, algae and animal and plant cells. The organisms that they maintain act as references for scientists and are a significant repository of biodiversity, in the same way as botanic gardens.
The collections provide the academic community with the basis for important medical and scientific research, and support UK competitiveness through their potential for exploitation using modern biotechnology. I am convinced that that new strategy represents an exciting opportunity to create new partnerships between Government, industry and academia. Details of the strategy will be placed today in the Libraries of both Houses and will be published simultaneously on the Internet.

1413
The strategy for those collections, whereby the OST will provide £1.34 million over three years to help co-ordinate the activities of collections and encourage the use of modern molecular technologies, will be welcomed in the House.
Time is moving on and I know that human genetics is one of the subjects for debate. That is one of the most challenging and exciting areas of the debate. The Select Committee on Science and Technology is to be greatly complimented on all that it has done. It has drawn attention to some exciting areas. If we continue to make the sort of progress that we appear to be making in genetic sequencing, we could well be up with the timetable set for the human genome project. The benefits to mankind will be extraordinary, as we learn not only about individual genes but about the interaction between them and we get to know more about complex diseases that require us to understand how genes interact.
All that is going on apace and a lot of it is happening in the United Kingdom. There are wider implications, however, which we need to consider. In its first report, the Select Committee put pressure on the insurance industry to produce at least a framework that would give more confidence as to how it would react to some of the ethical questions about genetic testing and insurance. I was pleased that the Association of British Insurers announced on Wednesday that it would be appointing a genetics adviser and aims to draw up a code of conduct on handling genetic information.
I had hoped that the industry would also produce slightly more detail. It claims that several things have impeded its progress and has said how determined it is to make progress. My judgment is that progress must be made swiftly. I am in no way assuming that the industry is attempting to gain unfair advantage and I am not imputing bad intentions, but it is in the insurance industry's interests to reassure the public before the public start to worry about these matters.
Mr. David Alton: I strongly agree with the Minister, and underline his argument about the need to go further than the announcement earlier this week about the appointment of an adviser. The industry was asked to produce voluntary regulation and has failed to do so. Can he assure the House that if it continues to fail, he and his Department will produce proposals to ensure proper mandatory regulation by the House?
Mr. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am reluctant to go down that track. The Government would be the worst type of regulator in such a hugely complicated market. There are principles that need to be talked through. I gave evidence to the Select Committee, and I am not going back on anything that I said then—I do not have the time to go over it again. Insurance companies need to know what the person they are insuring needs to know. A balance of judgment is involved, and because genetics is a comparatively new area, we need to be very careful.
That is why, with a great deal of co-operation and inspired agreement as a result of further deliberations, the Government and the Select Committee are of one mind and have set up the new Human Genetics Advisory Commission, which will be considering such matters.
1414
If the commission expressed concerns to the Government, we would take them seriously, but I am not prepared to commit myself this morning.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the commission can consider that subject, but surely the Government's reluctance to hold that threat of ultimate statutory intervention over the insurance companies has led to them dragging their feet. They have had 12 months since the Select Committee suggested that they should generate a code of practice. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the industry made the announcement on Wednesday. It was deliberate, because it knew that there would be a spotlight on the insurance industry today. Are we satisfied that the industry has made the progress that it should have made during the 12 months since the Select Committee's report?
Mr. Taylor: I am not satisfied that the industry is making progress, but that is different from saying that Government legislation would assist in what is an extremely complicated market. Ultimately, the Government do not want to take over insurance risk, so they rely on insurance companies to assess that risk. The questions at stake are not legislative but ethical, and ethical matters need to be discussed.
In agreement with the Select Committee, we have set up the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, under the chairmanship of Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne. It will consider a range of issues. We also agreed to set up the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. I am putting pressure on the insurance industry. It is not a complete coincidence that it received a letter from me just before it made the announcement.
The issue is extremely complicated, so we shall have to discuss it further. I do not think that it would be wise for colleagues to assume that the legislative process would assist. The same problems need to be considered in terms of employment. We need further discussions on employment. Clearly, if people are applying for a job in such circumstances, there are ethical concerns.
I mentioned the importance of the initiative to extend quality life. That is one of the more exciting projects, because it pulls together so many diverse scientific matters. I was pleased to hear the remarks made by George Poste of SmithKline Beecham, not only welcoming the crusade for biotechnology as an important Government initiative, but on the importance of EQUAL, which pulls together so many diverse sectors.
The recent foresight challenge awards included projects totalling nearly £27 million, addressing health and life sciences issues. We need to take those further, throughout government and all academic sectors. I am delighted that my remarks a year ago have received such a general welcome and have been enthusiastically received in many of the research councils.
Many colleagues want to participate in the debate and I am only too keen that they should. Before I conclude, however, I must point out that Opposition Members are likely to say that a little more money would solve all the problems. I should like to know where that little bit more money might come from. I hope that we do not get into a debate across the Floor about something as simple as money. Money makes the world go round, as they say, but there is no doubt that we must be much more effective

1415
in the way in which we spend the money that we have, and look for new ways of ensuring the competitiveness and the more effective exploitation of the science base.
I hope that the hon. Member for East Kilbride does not give us wizard ideas that we are already working on. In a recent article, he said that Labour had deliberated for the past 17 years about the science base and had decided to introduce some pilot Faraday programmes. Actually, Faraday centres have been under review and are being tested by the Government. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is developing them and I have mentioned NERC's NEST programme, so give credit where credit is due. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that he has been much influenced by our work.
I hope also that the hon. Gentleman will not talk about regional centres of excellence. Look at what is happening, for example, at the university of Leeds, with a fascinating arrangement of virtual science parks, and at how the material science unit at Sheffield Hallam university is working extremely well with regional interests. We are making progress in each of those sectors.
Hon. Members share the view that research and development is an important part of the national economy. I have mentioned the report that the Treasury is issuing, by the way, at 10.30 this morning. The House has had a foretaste—a foresight—of it. [Interruption.] We got in first. I have mentioned many other sectors where the Government are doing an extremely good job.
In the past 10 years, the science base has increased in real terms by 10 per cent. and the science budget by more than 21 per cent., after correcting for dual support transfer. Those are excellent figures. Science is safe in the Government's hands. There is no question but that we have given it the priority that it deserves. I looking forward to listening to Labour Members' speeches. I hope that they give due tribute to the excellence of the work that has resulted from the Conservative Government's policies.
10.11 am
Mr. Adam Ingram: I share the Minister's general views in welcoming the debate, but it is worth pointing out that this is the first Government-sponsored debate on science policy issues since October last year. The landscape that the Minister covered is impossible to deal with in one debate. He mentioned a range of issues that would be worthy of special debates in the House. It is impossible to do justice to such a wide range of issues.
It is also worth noting that the debate's subject is science policy and human genetics. The Minister hardly mentioned the latter in his speech, other than in passing. He made great play of other issues, which I do not intend to deal with today. I hope that we can have a proper debate. If the Government wish to debate science policy across the issues, let them give us the time and those issues will be debated in full.
The Minister mentioned the Science Policy Research Unit report commissioned by the Treasury on related matters. In the end, he had to be advised that the report had not yet been placed in the Library of the House, so it is difficult for me even to begin to comment on it. I understand that the embargo has now been lifted and
1416
the report may be winging its way there at the moment, but I do not intend to try to absorb its information and respond to it. Again, however, we may have a debate on the report, although it is to be noted that the Treasury, not the Office of Science and Technology, commissioned it. Questions may be asked about that once we read the report's contents and remit.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I apologise to the House for being somewhat previous with my announcement, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, the embargo has been lifted. It is amazing what influence we Department of Trade and Industry Ministers can have when we try, but I urge him to realise the significance of the fact that the report was commissioned by the Treasury. I have a transdepartmental interest. He would be wrong to think that I am not pleased that the Treasury has done this work.
Mr. Ingram: I will wait to read the full contents of the report and its remit. It depends who has the responsibility for delivering any messages that arise from it. If it is to be driven by the Treasury, I am sure that many people in the science infrastructure will be somewhat concerned, but let us leave that for a later date.
I mentioned that this is the first Government-sponsored debate on science policy issues since October last year. It is questionable whether we would be having this debate if it had not been for the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on human genetics. I also suspect that, if the Government had not supported in broad principle the report's main recommendations, albeit after they had reconsidered the issue, this debate would not be taking place, but I do not want to appear to be too churlish as we now have a debate, and I know that Select Committee members and other hon. Members wish to comment, I suspect, specifically on the report and on wider science policy issues.
There is growing awareness of the increasing relevance of science and technology to our everyday lives. More and more, scientific issues are being discussed and reported in the national press and on television and radio. That is to be welcomed. All hon. Members would agree that not all the coverage is of high quality, but the standard seems to be improving in response to the public demand for more and better information.
The reason for that is simple. The media have picked up on the fact that we are living in a time of new and exciting scientific advance. We are on the threshold of a new scientific era. Let me give just three examples of where that is relevant. First, the capacity, application and potential of information technology is now plain for all to see. Advances in that sector have grown at an exponential rate, so fast in fact that even Bill Gates of Microsoft got it wrong. In 1981 he said:
"640K ought to be enough for anybody"
and he was not talking about Members' pay or his own executive pay. Even the random access memory of today's home computers is around 20 times or more what Bill Gates thought was ample in 1981.
I spent 10 years as a computer programmer and systems analyst. In the decade before 1981, I was working on 32K mainframe machines that would have filled half the Chamber. To work on a 64K machine was like winning the national lottery every week. The luxury of doubling the capacity was difficult to comprehend.

1417
Space science is the second sector of significant advance that is exciting the public and media interest. We have the capacity to understand at the deepest level the way in which the universe is created. That capacity—to begin to comprehend the beginning of time—is difficult to absorb fully, even for some of the space scientists working in the sector, but there can be no doubt that the pictures sent back by space probes such as Hubble and Galileo have generated much interest, especially among young people, and have contributed to greater interest in science generally.
Of course, the third sector of advance is the science of genetics and biotechnology. In many ways, the impact of genetic research and the role of DNA has captured the public's imagination like no other branch of science, as well as creating many worries and raising a range of moral and ethical questions with which, as a society, we must grapple and find answers to.
It is therefore an exciting time in science. Human knowledge is again at the point of lift-off, reaching new levels of understanding and application, with profound implications for all of us. It is no exaggeration to say that no one, anywhere in the world, will be unaffected by the process of change that we face. It brings to mind the words of William Wordsworth, who nearly two centuries ago, commenting on another era of revolutionary change, said:
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to he young was very heaven!"
When we consider the scientific horizons ahead of us, how appropriate those words are to the present day.
The debate is timely and it is right that the House should discuss the wide range of issues identified by the science and study of human genetics. I remind the House that that is the main subject of today's debate. I echo the Minister's comments in congratulating Select Committee members on their report. It was undoubtedly a mammoth task which they undertook. All of us should be indebted to them, to those who gave evidence to the Committee and to those who had the difficult task of servicing the Committee. The Committee has produced a detailed report to which I am sure people will return time and again when the subject of human genetics is discussed in the House and further afield.
The report is a first-class resourced document. It examines in a tightly argued way a range of complex matters associated with the science of human genetics. However, it is more than that. It has provided a framework for action to be taken now and in the future by the Government to allow the science to develop and to protect society's interest in the implications of the science.
It would be wrong not to note that it is fully one year since the Committee presented its report to Parliament for consideration. As a result of the Government's initial unwillingness to accept the main recommendation of the report, the Committee was forced to take the unusual step of reopening its examination of the subject. This further examination and the pressure from outwith the House forced a reluctant Government to change their mind. On that count, too, the Committee is to be congratulated on bringing about such a substantial U-turn by the Government.
We are now one year on from the publication of the report and more than a year and a half on from when the Committee commenced its task. Some progress has been
1418
made, but many questions remain about whether the Government are serious in their approach to applying the full conclusions of the report and providing a strong and vibrant scientific environment in Britain to allow the potential of genetic science to flourish for the benefit of all.
I wish to touch on some of the issues raised by the report and to place the opportunities afforded by genetic science within the context of the Government's policy on the nation's science and research base. The Committee correctly identified the need for a powerful independent commission to advise the Government and Parliament on the dimensions and implications of the science of human genetics. It strongly argued, again rightly, that one of the prime objectives of such a commission would be to foster public confidence and understanding of the science not only in its medical context but in the equally important non-medical context.
The Committee recognised the need to ensure that genetic science should be allowed to develop only within a proper regulatory and legal framework which would ensure the responsible exploitation of the science. We recognise that the Committee wanted a more powerful regulatory mechanism than that which the Government have agreed to establish. My instincts and preference would have been more in line with that recommended by the Committee, but I recognise that the Government have moved considerably towards the underlying principle of what the Committee sought to establish, and we must welcome that shift. It is a significant move in the right direction and it has been widely seen as such outside the House.
The important aspect of the need for such a commission is the recognition that the pace of developments in genetic science is faster than the machinery of government, so it is vital that we have a respected body such as the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, even with its restricted advisory role, which has the capacity to deal swiftly with the rapid pace of development in the science and advise Parliament where necessary on the need for and the possible shape of legislation.
The remit of the commission must, of course, be wider than that. I support the broad terms of reference which the Minister set out in his response to the Committee's report. They provide a coherent framework within which the members of the commission can act for the public good. However, while the terms of reference may be agreed, it is equally important that we explore and discuss the modus operandi. Therefore, before I move on to deal with other aspects of the Select Committee's report, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions on the function of the advisory commission that he intends to set up.
I shall deal first with a point raised with me by the Genetics Interest Group in a letter dated 16 July. As hon. Members and the Minister will be aware, the Genetic Interest Group is a widely respected body in the world of genetics. In its letter, it complimented the Government on setting up the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, but it pointed out:
"Government has detailed two principal reasons for establishing the Advisory Commission: to maintain public confidence; and to provide a cross-departmental overview of implications of scientific advance in the field. We note that the Commission lacks a statutory basis. In other words, there is no specific legislation for it to enforce. It is to be hoped, however, that its views will carry sufficient weight to influence decision-making in the field … In general, public confidence will be enhanced if the Commission makes clear that it will take action and recommend legislation where it feels this to be appropriate, and Government responds with a commitment to enact legislation promptly."

1419
I should welcome the Minister's response on that point.
The terms of reference of the commission include a requirement to report to Ministers periodically and to publish those reports. Will the Minister confirm that the reports will be published at the same time as they are submitted to Ministers and that the reports will be widely available and easily accessible and will not simply be placed in the Library of the House?
Mr. Alton: I am following with interest what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I strongly welcome his remarks. Does he agree that the independence of the new commission will be predicated on its membership and that, whether he or the present Minister appoints the members in due course, there will need to be a balance that recognises that there is a lay opinion to be put, and that philosophical opinion should be balanced between consequentialists and non-consequentialists?
Mr. Ingram: I agree fundamentally with that point. I was coming to the way in which the commission was to be formed. The Minister did not tell us much about that. In fact, he told us nothing about it. We need to ensure that lay opinion, which has a contribution to make in the examination of moral and ethical questions in genetics, is properly represented on the commission. I am sure that that will assist in the deliberations of the commission.
Sir Giles Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Select Committee urgently recommended that the majority of the persons who formed the commission should be lay persons.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for reminding me of that fact. I am sure that that point will be made by him, if not by others, during the debate.
We need a clear timetable for establishment of the commission. It is not sufficient for the Government to say that they accept the recommendations of a Select Committee report and then give no idea how they intend to go about implementing the main elements of it. Enough time has passed already. As I said, it is a year since the Committee commenced its investigation. Unnecessary delay would be unacceptable.
It is worth bearing it in mind that it took well over a year for the Government to set up the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing.
Dr. Reid: As someone who is struggling for the fourth time through "A Brief History of Time", I hesitate to intervene in such a specialist debate. The thing that strikes me, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, is that the capacity of science to change at a geometric rate of progress is running way beyond moral and ethical considerations. If it takes a year for the Government to respond to a Committee of the House, does my hon. Friend have any faith that the Government are in a position or willing to respond sufficiently quickly to the ideas that he is putting forward to catch up with some of the moral and ethical consequences of the changes that are taking place in science?
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way. I agree with those sentiments. If it is his fourth
1420
attempt to understand Stephen Hawking's book, I suggest that he gives up and tries the shortened version to see whether he can begin to understand that. I have read the book once, but I would not say that I begin to understand many of the deep philosophical points raised within it. I do not know whether it is worthy of debate in the House. I will not ask the Minister to provide time for such a debate because we all—certainly I—would be struggling. My hon. Friend is right about the unnecessary delay and the pace of change. We cannot wait for the commission to be set up. It needs to be set up as early as possible.
I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the reporting role of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. That is a vital matter. As we know, the commission will have a joint secretariat provided by the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Health. It will be required to report formally to the relevant Ministers in the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell the House which Department will be the lead Department in responding to the reports produced by the commission. We do not want internal departmental squabbles, which occurred in the consideration of the Select Committee's report. We cannot afford such squabbles when we are dealing with such sensitive and important issues. I appreciate that the Minister has to obtain the leave of the House if he wants to wind up, but assuming that that is granted, I hope that he will deal with those points.
I have dealt at some length with the setting up and functioning of the new advisory commission as I believe that it is important. The advisory commission undoubtedly has a vital role in creating the right climate for one of the most important sectors in medical science which is a key element in the UK economy. It will not face an easy task because it will have to deal with many complex issues. It will obviously be assisted in its role by the work of its sister committees, including the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. However, deciding what advice that it should give on the non-medical use of genetics, primarily in the insurance and employment sectors, will not be straightforward.
Some of the same problems will prevail in the resolution of the many ethical and moral questions that will be created by the science. The advice will prove essential to parliamentarians and law makers when creating the right level of public understanding of the issues involved. That public understanding involves both the general public and the media, which have a capacity to undermine and demoralise those who work in genetic research, whose main aim is to pass on the benefits of their work for the greater public good.
One such example is provided in the briefing issued for today's debate by the Alzheimer's Disease Society. It states:
"It has been known for some time that a small number of younger people with Alzheimer's disease inherit a rare form of the disease. However, in 1993 US scientists discovered a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease in older people. It is therefore likely that tests for diagnosis and risk prediction will develop in the future.
Alzheimer's disease must therefore be included in the current debate about who should be offered such tests, how the results should be interpreted and who should have access to the information obtained."

1421
The briefing continues:
"While welcoming the Government's decision to implement the Science and Technology Select Committee's recommendation for a Human Genetics Commission the Society is concerned that, notwithstanding this development, current Government proposals on long-term care insurance do not safeguard against the possibility that people with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's disease could he discriminated against by insurers either by charging higher premiums or by excluding them from taking out policies.
If the Government is to encourage self-provision for long-term care costs it must at the same time protect consumers through more robust regulation of the long-term care insurance market including measures to prevent the misuse of genetic information by insurers."
That is a definitive position for the society to adopt, and I do not necessarily expect the Minister to respond today to the society's demands. But he and the Government must take on board the fears contained in that expression of opinion.
The same view is expressed by the Genetics Interest Group, which states:
"The Genetics Interest Group is concerned that the trend towards shifting responsibility from the state to the individual has set policy already in a number of areas. As a result, people with a genetic condition or a predisposition to a condition face disadvantage. Recent proposals in relation to the funding of care in old age exemplify our concern: the assumption is that people with a higher risk will be expected to pay higher premiums. Given that the same people face higher premiums for other forms of insurance, the danger of cumulative disadvantage is a real one.
The Genetics Interest Group believes it to be inequitable that some people face disadvantage as a result of something over which they have no control. A solution to this problem will need to involve Government as well as the industry—since changes in welfare policy play their role in constituting the problem for certain groups of people."
The fact that the Government have only this week signalled that they are looking seriously at a move to a more extensive private insurance-based welfare policy and away from the current national insurance-based approach, can only serve to exacerbate the fears expressed by the Alzheimer's Disease Society, the Genetics Interest Group and others who have commented on the subject who represent people with a genetic condition or a predisposition to a condition.
Those issues were raised when the Select Committee reported a year ago. The Government's response was that they would encourage the insurance industry and geneticists to develop an industry-wide code of practice to regulate such concerns. But as we have already heard from the Minister—I am sure that we shall return to the subject later in the debate—the insurance industry has not yet come up with a code of conduct. But, as the Minister said, on Wednesday the industry issued a letter through the Association of British Insurers, which stated:
"Insurance companies do not require anyone to take a genetic test as a condition of their application for insurance and it is intended that this will not change in the foreseeable future."
Clearly, that must be welcomed so far as it goes, but that assurance has to be set against the ABI's previously declared position, when it stated:
"What is key for the insurer is that it has the same information as the person seeking insurance—it has to be able to cope with adverse selection."
We must place the insurance company's position in the context of those two responses.
I fully accept that it is a difficult problem for the industry to resolve, but we are being told that the industry is in a bit of a bind about how to approach the subject. We cannot let
1422
it dictate the rate of progress: we must find ways of exerting sufficient pressure on it that it comes up with a code of conduct. That is why the early establishment of the commission is important. The commission can help everyone—from those at risk because of a genetic condition, or a predisposition to a condition, to the industries involved, Government and Parliament.
Mr. Alton: I strongly welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said to the House. Before he leaves the subject of insurance, will he undertake to stress to the industry that if it does not introduce the voluntary regulations that the Select Committee seeks, he and a Labour Government will—if they are in a position to do so in future—introduce statutory regulations to require the industry to do what it has so far lamentably failed to do?
Mr. Ingram: I do not think that we need statutory regulations. The industry, like everyone else involved in the subject, is struggling to find answers. I am not necessarily criticising the Minister, but if criticism is due, I hope that he takes it on board. I do not believe that the Government have been forceful or strong enough with the industry in their attempts to bring it to the table.
The industry is still debating the issue; it has had a long time to consider it—it is not a new matter. While there are difficulties associated with the subject, the industry should be in a position to come to a conclusion at an early date. I understand that it was its intention to publish something more substantial in advance of today's debate, but that has not happened. However, that intention tells me that the industry is at the point of coming up with a code of conduct. We shall have to judge how effective that code of conduct will be in practice. I am concerned that the industry should not await the setting up of a commission and its deliberations before advancing its own proposals. We need clear guidance from the industry on the subject.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) recognises, the commission will deal with some of the issues. Earlier, I mentioned the importance of the way in which the commission will report to Parliament. It may be in a position to recommend statutory frameworks that we in Parliament would have to consider. It is a complex subject and I would not want to give a simplistic response. More progress needs to be made—so far, insufficient progress has been made.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I take my hon. Friend's point. But does he not agree that ultimately, if necessary, it would be relatively simple—and one hopes non-contentious—to introduce legislation to outlaw discrimination in insurance claims on the ground of an individual's genetic make-up?
Mr. Ingram: I take my hon. Friend's point on board—I think that it contains a bit of pre-judgment. I would welcome that debate taking place within the commission; Parliament could then consider it in greater detail. We must be careful. I appreciate that my hon. Friend thought that the commission, which we are setting up to advise Parliament, should have more wide-ranging powers, but that is not the case and we must proceed with what we have. We should wait and see how the issues are debated, then let Parliament make a calm decision. We should not rule that option out, but nor should we consider it the only, or preferred, course of action. I recognise the strength of opinion that prevails.

1423
I must make progress, but it was worth debating that issue, which I believed was the prime purpose of this morning's debate. I have a feeling that the Minister did not want to discuss the report in detail so he skimmed over it, but he will need to return to it repeatedly, as I am sure that other hon. Members will make relevant contributions.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I would not want it to be left on the record that we were uninterested, which was the allegation. We are profoundly interested. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the considerable evidence that I gave in oral session to the Committee. I have emphasised that I stand by that evidence, so I have been able to mention other matters of great interest to science as a whole.
Mr. Ingram: I suspect that we are drifting into the wrong type of debate.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that he made his responses through oral submission to the Committee, but our purpose today is to get this debate out into the wider reaches of the community. People do not have easy access to these reports and probably do not find it easy to work their way through the morass of Select Committee reports. The purpose of today's debate is to air those issues. People working in genetics, insurance, pharmaceuticals, other parts of industry and the research base have said that they want today's debate to draw attention to some of those issues.
What we are discussing in the insurance context also applies in the context of employment. If they were asked, "Should employers ever need to know anything about the genetic make-up of an employee?" most people would probably answer no, as it would obviously interfere with a person's civil liberties. There are circumstances, however, in which a person's genetic structure—for instance, in relation to disease susceptibility—may put other people's lives at risk or affect their work activities.
That is no easy matter to resolve. Other European nations have legislated in part on the use of genetic information in relation to insurance and employment, but I understand that the legislation has not been tested in the courts. Obviously, the commission will have to consider those issues soon, and it will ultimately fall on the House to consider whether to proceed with legislation.
Another area identified by the Committee requires some examination in the debate—the patenting of application of the results of genetic research. The Minister did not mention it. I appreciate that he has commented about it and recorded his written response, but we need detailed examination.
The commission must consider that area fully, but we are faced with a much more immediate demand on the issue of patenting of gene research, because the European Parliament is considering a draft directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. It is essential to provide a clear framework in which industry can operate at a European level in an increasingly competitive global market. I am surprised that the Minister did not want to mention that today if he is concerned about how industry should operate in that area.
1424
I place on record the fact that the Labour party supports the underlying principles and objectives of the directive. The directive's overriding aim is to harmonise national laws on the patenting of inventions with a biological component, with a view to achieving uniform national practices and national case law, to remove the current uncertainty that acts as a deterrent to investment and the proper functioning of the internal market. The directive does not reduce the patent protection currently available or render patentable anything that is currently unpatentable.
Companies will continue to attempt to patent biotechnological inventions in Europe regardless of whether the directive is agreed. Already, more than 200 patent applications have been published worldwide concerning inventions derived from human tissue where the criteria for patentability have been met. Adoption of the directive will, however, lay down ground rules as to what can and cannot be patented, to prevent uncertainty and distortion in the European sector of a global market.
The directive should not be regarded as a vehicle for discussing all the ethical issues relating to biotechnology. It explicitly recognises that it is not the correct forum for ethical discussions and provides for the interpretation of unpatentability on ethical grounds to continue to be determined nationally.
The directive instead fills a gap in the regulations of the European intellectual property system that has arisen as a result of recent advances in biotechnology. The awarding of a patent under the directive does not grant rights to ownership of biological material, nor does it necessarily grant rights for the patent-holder to exploit the invention without restriction. It simply grants the right to prohibit unauthorised use of a biotechnological invention for a specified period by third parties. It creates a legal relationship between different individuals or organisations working in similar areas. It does not create a legal relationship between people and genetic objects.
The directive states that the human body and its elements in their natural state shall not be considered a patentable invention, and takes the existing definition of an "invention" in European patent law and applies it to items with a biological component. Hence, only items that meet the standard conditions governing patentability—novelty, involvement of an inventive step, and potential for industrial application—can be deemed patentable. The notes to the draft directive make it clear that patentability applies only to something that is artificial in the sense that it is a technical solution to a technical problem and has been invented by man.
The directive will not allow an object or process consisting of biological material to be patented, even if it exists outside its natural state, unless industrial application of the object or process is clearly described in the patent application in a way that would enable a skilled engineer to exploit it. Hence genetic information, even if isolated in its natural state, can in effect be patented only if susceptible to international application. If a new use for a certain patented gene sequence is discovered, the directive does not prevent a new organisation from exploiting it.
On those grounds, the Labour party supports the draft directive. We do so with the express aim of creating a positive, supportive climate at European level for UK companies involved in genetic research. The Minister

1425
made no mention of that this morning, yet it is one of the critical issues confronting UK companies involved in that area of growth potential.
In this country we have some of the world's best genetic scientists and some of the best genetic research. We have the potential to remain at the forefront of leading edge research and development in biotechnology and related disciplines. However, that can be achieved only through a strong, well-supported science base.
Tragically, there are too many examples of that science and research base being eroded and undermined as a direct result of Government policy. When the Government are faced with headlines such as those that appeared following the publication of the UK R and D scoreboard, saying
"UK falls behind in R & D spending league",
who do they blame? They blame industry. They accept no blame themselves. They always have someone else to blame. The Minister did it again this morning. He did it in DTI questions earlier in the week. "Industry is to blame; we are not at fault because we have all these crusades and all these challenges, which industry is not taking up."
The Government's underlying strategy is to withdraw from the funding of near-market research and development, on the assumption that industry will fill the gap. That has not happened, but it has not deterred the Government from their headlong rush away from civil R and D investment.
The real extent of that retreat is alarming. The Government now spend£31 million a week less, in 1994 prices, on science and technology than was spent by the Thatcher Government in 1985. The UK is the only major country that reduced the proportion of gross domestic product that it invested in R and D in the period 1981 to 1993.
As the group Save British Science recently pointed out, Britain is the only major country where Government funding of civil R and D has fallen substantially in real terms. As a proportion of GDP, it has dropped from more than 0.7 per cent. in 1981 to 0.43 per cent. in 1994. That is now about half the figure for Germany and France and lower than that for Japan.
Using 1995–96 as a base and comparing with constant real terms funding, the Government's figures show a reduction of£1 billion in Government support for R and D for the three years to April 1999. The DTI's budget for R and D is set to fall to only £83 million by 1999.
What has happened to Government civil R and D spend is mirrored even more alarmingly in relation to the important sector of academic research facilities. Every major company that I have visited, and every leading university vice-chancellor to whom I have spoken, tells me that our university research base is in crisis due to underfunding and Government cuts. As I tour industry and speak to the university sector, I receive a different message from the one that Conservative Members send. The message that we had this morning that everything is rosy and that the vice-chancellor has gold taps in his bathroom diminishes this debate substantially. I shall be interested to hear what the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) will say if he enters the debate. Professors and researchers in our major university laboratories speak of a miserable collapse of morale throughout the sector.
1426
It is not all doom and gloom; there are areas of success. But one must listen to the overriding message that comes across.
The reason is not hard to find. Government statistics show that Higher Education Funding Council expenditure is on a steep downward curve. Next year, expenditure on capital investment in universities will be cut by £107 million—a decrease of 31 per cent. In 1998–99, it is proposed to cut it by a further 20 per cent. That amounts to a 50 per cent. cut in two years.
As the publication, "Research Fortnight", recently reported,
"The Wellcome Trust continues to refuse to fund new buildings for British academics as a direct result of the government's cut in capital funding for universities.
The Trust's governors have enforced the moratorium because they are adamant that the Trust's funding will not he used to replace government funds.
The stand could be a costly one for British universities: over the last three years the Trust spent £120 million on capital funding".
To anyone who cares about our university research base, that is a dismal message. It comes on top of the recent report by the PREST unit of Manchester university, which, based on an historical analysis, shows that the UK continues to decline in terms of adequacy of university equipment compared with our international competitors. No matter how the Minister seeks to distort those figures, be selective or downplay the issue by saying that only 91 university research centres were looked at, the facts are stark. Four out of five of the partners cannot perform critical experiments because of lack of funding of equipment. Even the leading research universities stated that more than 20 per cent. of equipment was over 15 years old, and 60 per cent. of stock had a useful life of less than five years. Nearly half the departments considered their equipment below average in international comparisons, with only 18 per cent. above average.
The Government's strategy as a way round that problem is through the private finance initiative. Not only do the universities find that response lamentable, but so does industry. Despite the fact that the Minister says that £18 million has brought in a further £40 million, industry has told the Minister and me that it is not its function to finance normal generic academic infrastructures. That message was given to me this week by SmithKline Beecham, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It does not believe, nor do many of the companies that depend on research facilities, that their function is to fill the infrastructure gap to make up Government cuts.
The universities have been deserted by the Government. The Wellcome Trust has placed a moratorium on them and now industry tells them to forget about the PFI because it simply will not work. We may still have excellence, but there is real fear for tomorrow. We face a difficult problem unless there is a change of direction.
This debate comes at a critical time, but it should be the beginning of a series of debates on the detail of Government policy. We stand at the threshold of a new technological and scientific era but are looking into the abyss of rapid research decline because of the Government's destructive policies towards this country's science and research base. No one in the science

1427
community or industry expects the Government to be perfect and able to do everything. In the words of the distinguished British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane:
"To create angels would be difficult since we have the genes neither for wings nor for moral excellence."
But if we want genetic science to take off and soar to the heights, along with other areas where we are at the leading edge of research, we require a Government who are committed to science and are prepared to work in genuine partnership with industry and academia, not a Government who blame them.
The Government have failed that test because they do not work in partnership with industry and academia. It is time for them to make way and let new Labour create a new life for Britain.
10.53 am
Sir Giles Shaw: I am sure that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) would not expect me to follow him precisely.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for East Kilbride but, unfortunately, owing to commitments in my constituency, I may be unable to stay for the wind-up to the debate.
Hon. Members are aware that this is the first time that we have had an opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report on human genetics. It does not surprise me that that has formed a major part of the speech of the hon. Member for East Kilbride and, in large measure, I welcome what he had to say.
The scientific excitement of genetic research and its implications for human health were beginning to attract attention when we set out on this research a considerable time ago. But the implications of the science go far wider than health care. They can touch virtually every part of our everyday life. Until recently, genetics was thought of as a fairly rare science dealing with fairly rare diseases, but today medical science has brought commonplace diseases within the remit of genetic identification. Hon. Members have already referred to Alzheimer's disease and diabetes.
When the Committee began its inquiry, we were under the conviction that this was a major international scientific exercise that brought together the talents of many researchers all over the world into mapping the human genome. But it rapidly became clear to the Committee that the mapping process accelerated by computerisation and intensive effort was becoming an achievement that would take not the decades originally expected but only a few more years to accomplish. I pay tribute to the scientists and technicians who worked all over the world and were able to accelerate the project beyond its founders' wildest expectations. It was an amazing scientific achievement for which we must all be extremely grateful.
Nevertheless, with the speed of the development and the extent of public interest in it came the question: how fast can therapeutic development carry out what the scientists had provided in genetics? The Committee became involved with international competition between major drug companies, with questions of patenting and what should be deemed appropriate to offer protection to developers of therapies.
1428
I remind the hon. Member for East Kilbride that the Committee arrived at a definition for patenting and published it in its report. It says that
"—only a combination of a gene and a known utility which is novel and not obvious should be patentable in the context of that utility; and
—a combination of the same gene and a further novel utility should also be patentable."
If the European directive allows that process as defined to continue, I am sure that the Committee will accept that. The hon. Member for East Kilbride was right to say that we need an international framework to enable that process of patenting to continue.
We also became involved in the question of insurance and the consequences of using those therapies and diagnostics. It would not be too dramatic to say that most of mankind in the major western countries, and many beyond in due course, will become exposed to the impact of human genetics and a range of consequences, some of which are beneficial while others are less so.
Within that range of consequences are the ethical issues. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is extremely exercised on that matter. The ability to identify a gene linked with a particular disease may come years before treatments for that disease are improved, and many questions are then raised. What use can or should be made of genetic information in those circumstances? Should family members who might also be at risk be told? Should insurers have a right to the information? Should it be protected by privacy legislation to ensure that it does not lead to newspaper stories shrieking, "Popular hero has gay gene"? How can the public be educated to deal with genetic information which may not be "good" or "bad" and which is likely to be expressed in terms of probability rather than certainty? Is it legitimate to collect information on genetic differences between different groups?
The Committee had something to say about and to learn from all those questions. Indeed, that matrix persuaded the Committee that there could be no sensible public policy on that area of genetic science and its development unless it was comprehensive. This was not just a matter of the science of genetics, nor just a matter of the provision of medical therapy—it was a matter of public education and awareness, and a sensitive application of genetic testing with the proper counselling that would enable both the receiver of the data and his or her family, if appropriate, to be made fully aware of the consequences of the test and the limits of the test before it was carried out. Genetic knowledge can raise false hopes and unfounded fears, and patients need a fair assessment of their individual situation.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman is providing the House with an intelligent list of the dilemmas that we shall face as a society if genetic testing proceeds. Will he confirm that, so far, gene therapy has led to no cures and that a person faced with the information that he has just described inevitably has only the so-called choice of allowing a developing child to proceed with its life or to destroy that life?
Sir Giles Shaw: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's views on the matter and I understand his question. I do not think that I am well enough equipped to answer his

1429
question in the stark terms that he put it. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that those genes can produce significant distortion, illness and death. Within the balance of those two opposites, a way has to be found—it cannot be ignored. This is the big issue of the debate.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Although gene therapy is in its early stages of development, I should like to correct the impression that may have been given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that there has been no progress in gene therapy. For example, there is evidence that gene therapy can have beneficial effects for cystic fibrosis. The point of the debate this morning is to discuss the tremendously exciting prospects that are in this science for curing illnesses and for improving the health and well-being of humankind.
Sir Giles Shaw: The hon. Lady is quite right on these matters, and I am glad to have had her correction on this issue.
The Committee's report pays full attention to the issues of patenting and the law and, to some extent, to the issues of insurance and employment. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for reminding us that the insurance industry has taken its first hesitant step to address the Committee's rubric on this matter, but there is no doubt that it will have to move considerably further before it provides the framework within which these issues can be properly handled.
The main theme of the Committee's report was that it is essential to provide a source of advice to the Government that is comprehensive in its scope. Therefore, it was intended for the Government to be better advised in health and in those aspects affecting employment, industry, patent law, insurance, and the sensitive monitoring and assessment of genetic testing. The Committee recommended the establishment of a Human Genetics Advisory Commission, which should seek to assure or to reassure the public that the wider social implications of this developing field of therapy are not being overlooked. Obviously, the Committee and I welcome the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, the membership of which the Government have recently announced. I would also welcome the Government's announcement of the membership of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission—that decision must not be delayed.
Genetic science has to be developed and used in a way that will carry public confidence. To some extent, we were influenced by the way in which the Government had handled the development of in vitro fertilisation. This stemmed from a thorough inquiry and resulted in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which was set up by statute to oversee the application of these particular therapies in a way that has commanded widespread public confidence. We believed that this problem was urgent because tales of square tomatoes and genetically induced monsters began to plague the public press.
Mrs. Lait: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the development of the advisory committee on embryology. It was preceded by a committee chaired by Lady Mary Donaldson, which she set up on a voluntary basis. The committee created the framework for the
1430
statutory body that followed. Does my hon. Friend envisage a similar process emerging in the area of human genetics?
Sir Giles Shaw: I hope that in due course the Government will find this so useful and essential that they will make it a statutory arm of government, as happened in relation to the embryology authority. We urge that as the ultimate correct solution.
When the Government responded to the Committee's initial report, they rejected the idea of an overarching commission, but they agreed that there should be a genetic testing advisory committee, to which I have already referred. Until the advisory committee was established, there was nothing to prevent anyone from offering genetic tests to the public—without counselling, without consideration of whether the test was desirable and without any associated scrutiny of laboratory standards.
One company had already begun to offer postal tests for cystic fibrosis to determine whether a person had carrier status. We know nothing against the company, but it is arguable that genetic tests by post are undesirable, since counselling standards are likely to be low. We do not know whether it is profitable, but less scrupulous operators might be tempted to follow that practice. We hope that the advisory committee will look at these issues straight away and rationalise this matter.
Useful as the advisory committee is, it does not have the breadth of responsibility necessary to ensure the intelligent and responsible application of genetic science, or to reassure the public that genetics will not make monsters. Somewhat unusually, the Committee refused to accept this as the last word on the matter and it began a short inquiry to try to persuade the Department of Health and the Office of Science and Technology to reopen the issue of a broad-based commission.
I believe that it is to the immense credit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that, after a further round of probing from the Committee, of evidence taking and of persuasive effort, they changed their minds on this fundamental point. I say to the hon. Member for East Kilbride that I do not regard that as a U-turn; I regard it as a persuasion of a Committee dedicated to achieve a certain purpose—it was well organised, well led, and well supported, and it achieved what it set out to do. I congratulate both Ministers on their courage and on the confidence that they showed in the arguments that were put forward. The debate allows me to pay tribute to the Ministers and also to the Committee, which recorded this achievement, aided by a quite outstanding service from its Clerks and assistants.
We look forward to the establishment of the commission, and I am confident that a statutory solution will ultimately be found. In arguing for a commission, one inevitably lists the abuses that it will guard against. These abuses could happen, but the potential benefits of genetic science are huge and should be welcomed by all hon. Members without reserve. The greatest danger to the use of genetic knowledge is public fear, and that is best allayed by the knowledge that potential abuses are likely to be identified and, therefore, more likely to be prevented. The advisory commission could and, in our view, should play a key role in ensuring that we can use to the full the immense potential for good that this scientific knowledge offers.

1431
I refer to the second research report that has come before the House and that is relevant to the debate. I refer to our inquiry into the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. This year, the Committee decided to undertake the first of its inquiries into the activities of research councils. We had at the back of our mind the duty to follow the progress of the Office of Science and Technology and its policies through all its major expenditures in public science.
We chose the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council for our first inquiry. The council has the responsibility for managing the United Kingdom's commitment to a great international collaborative research effort—namely, the development of the large hadron collider at the European Centre for Nuclear Research, or CERN. CERN comprises representatives of the 18 European Governments that pledged their financial resources to this particular endeavour, which is to explore the fundamental particles from which all matter is made. That attracts some popular interest, although it clearly has less application in the immediate future than the mapping of the human genome. It is far and away the biggest single scientific project that any of our research councils are required to manage. Owing to the international treaty under which it operates and the fluctuations in the currency—Swiss francs—in which subscriptions must be paid, it has a huge impact upon the financing of the research council's budget and creates a major distortion in the fields of astronomy and space science for which the council is equally responsible.
Although the PPARC will certainly have the money to pay its share of the building costs for the large hadron collider according to current projections, it will not have the money to fund the experiments that will run on the machine when it is completed. One member of the council told us that it was like becoming a member of an expensive health club only to find that one could not afford to rent a court to play squash or even to buy a drink at the bar. Therefore, our report concentrates on how that distortion can be reduced.
Over the past three years, Science Ministers have been concerned about the question of what resources should be allocated to that large experiment. However, the Committee believes that they must now make a decision. The large hadron collider has been agreed, and development work had already begun when we visited CERN. The Committee applauds the concept of international collaboration on major scientific research and co-operation on research projects such as this. However, it does not seem reasonable that the Government's science budget, in part or in whole, should bear the considerable costs caused by fluctuations in international subscriptions that have nothing to do with the scale of the scientific programme involved.
Accordingly, we recommend in our report that the Treasury should bear the costs of any fluctuations in subscriptions caused by movement in the exchange rate or those fluctuations arising from the improvements that follow the United Kingdom's welcome increase in relative prosperity. We generously recommend also that any notional gains made from such fluctuations should be returned to the Treasury.
1432
That will not solve all the PPARC's financial problems, but we believe that it should receive funding adequate to exploit the large hadron collider. We believe that there is a case for awarding the funding outright. We must take long-term decisions now about the active period of experimentation that the project at CERN will involve although we will not know the results of those experiments for several decades. We think it is right, both scientifically and in terms of expenditure, that the artificial factors that have such a huge impact on costs should be removed from the equation and that the PPARC should not be prevented from developing other scientific experiments purely because of the overheads attributed to CERN.
Mr. Ian Taylor: As my hon. Friend will not be present to hear my winding-up speech, I assure him now—I did not go into detail in my earlier speech—that I shall look closely at the interesting report that he has tabled. Particle physics is an extremely important area of science, and big science is difficult because of budgetary considerations. We shall endeavour to respond to the report as soon as reasonably possible and I welcome the work that has gone into it.
Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The Committee noted that he has been particularly strong in his dealings and negotiations with CERN and we trust that he will be equally firm in 1997 when the issues come up for review.
As to science policy issues, the Committee has not undertaken a recent inquiry into the entirety of that field. However, I suspect that Committee members agree collectively that science policy in the United Kingdom deserves a greater slice of national expenditure—as the hon. Member for East Kilbride argued cogently—than is at present devoted to it. We would say that.
In our relatively short life and that of the OST, there has been rapid development of new structures within which scientific research is pursued. The research councils have been reorganised since 1992 and placed on a new management structure under the director general of the research councils rather than the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. A new range of chairmen has been appointed and a new series of mission statements and major initiatives, such as technology foresight, forward look and many others, have been launched.
That has meant a sea change in the structure within which publicly funded scientific research must operate. The leadership of the director general of the research councils, the role of the OST as a department for science and technology, the injection of people from industry, and a greater thrust towards co-operation between science and technological development have provided a new and welcome impetus. However, I believe—as other members of the Committee believe—that such rapid change should be followed by a period of constructive and quieter progress, uninterrupted by shifts in policy. It does not seem sensible to start reviewing scientific institutes and organisations for reasons that do not seem wholly related to scientific endeavour. In my view, change for its own sake has no place in the firm establishment of basic scientific effort.
The United Kingdom has long held a jealously coveted place at the top of the world league of scientific resources. While all establishments—the scientific establishment is

1433
no exception—would prefer no change for as long as possible, I believe that they are rightly fearful about the changes brought about by the prior options review. The Committee had questioned the Government about those issues in correspondence, and at its meeting this week it decided that it would conduct an inquiry into some of those issues when Parliament returns in the autumn. I hope that the Government will be as amenable to reason on that issue as they have been in relation to genetics.
Finally, I emphasise the importance of science to our national welfare. The United Kingdom produces more graduate scientists and engineers than any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country, yet we seem to value science and engineering less. The House will recall that our second report traced the development of science into competitive technology in order to improve our economic competitiveness. The Committee's travels in the United States, Europe and Japan have convinced us that there is a gap in that area that is disadvantageous to the United Kingdom. Our good ideas are distressingly likely to end up as someone else's products.
Science is presented either as glamorous but remote from everyday life, or as a potential threat. We must learn to recognise science as part of our daily life—essential to the development or improvement of almost all things that we take for granted. We must recognise that learning, discovering and developing things is both intellectually exciting and essential for a successful future.
The Government are addressing those big issues. I am sufficiently persuaded that the native talent and probably the will is there, but we require a huge effort in order to generate the excitement and the endeavour that will again draw people to British science as the only real progenitor of British technological expertise. It is the essential driving force behind producing a competitive international economy.
11.17 am
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) gave a good presentation of the Science and Technology Committee's report on human genetics, which makes the task much easier for hon. Members who follow him in the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on his admirable first speech in a full science policy debate. He demonstrated powerfully the weakness of the Government's science policy, while addressing some practical issues raised in the human genetics report. He demonstrated a firm, practical grasp of the realities that he would face in government rather more briskly than the Minister did.
I shall refer mainly to human genetics, but I shall comment also on the Select Committee's recent report on the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the prior options review. I shall refer also to the inquiry that the Committee announced recently into the Natural Environment Research Council. As to human genetics, my personal starting point must be the amazement that I continue to feel, as one trained and experienced in other areas of science, at the astonishing world that molecular genetics has discovered in every cell of our bodies. I constantly ask other scientists—young and old, from microelectronic engineers to cosmologists—whether they have looked at a basic undergraduate textbook on the
1434
molecular biology of the cell and asked themselves whether they have anything comparable in their fields, either in the ingenuity and complexity of the systems they discover or in the power of relatively simple experimental techniques, that has been developed with so little abstruse theory. I am too often disappointed by the ignorance of other scientists about molecular biology. They have not read the basic texts. Molecular biology owes much to physics and chemistry, but it has carried us into a new world and towards a new understanding of ourselves, which we have yet to fathom.
Research in genetics is a huge, rapidly moving, complex field of research and, even more than in other areas of research, the nature, timing and results are unpredictable. There is, as the hon. Member for Pudsey said, a wide range of potential applications in medicine and a growing number of actual applications. But it is important not to exaggerate what has been achieved or the pace of future developments. That is why I am glad that our diligent specialist advisers were able to compile the table of disorders on page 34 of our report, with a note of their incidence, symptoms, and the state of play in the development of diagnoses and therapies. I commend that table to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). The complex predictors with five, 10 or more susceptibility genes are not yet with us, yet already—as well as benefits in the prediction, prevention and treatment of disorders and diseases—some ethical, social and economic problems are apparent.
We are in for a long period with immature fields in which susceptibility genes will be identified, with significant, but low, predictive values, and no therapies, ranging up to mature fields in which full and effective therapies are available. For a long time, we shall know about susceptibilities, but will be unable to do anything about them. The ethical and social dilemmas are obvious, not just for Government policy but for personal relations in the family.
Before the Select Committee reported, ad hoc advisers, committees and procedures were called for and set up as new fields and types of service were opened up and developed. More general problems were left to be tackled until they got worse, and that put a premium on sensationalising issues and inviting overreactions, disappointments and frustrations. I was afraid that human genetics might go the way of nuclear power—greeted first with enthusiasm and then rejected with as ill-informed prejudice. In human genetics, the stakes are much higher.
So I am glad that the Select Committee recommended, and the Government accepted, the setting up of an overarching Human Genetics Advisory Commission that will be able to examine and advise on—and, if thought necessary in a later Parliament, to regulate—issues across the board, supported by existing and new specialist committees and advisers. It is reasonable for the commission to start on an advisory basis and to be given regulatory powers when and if it needs them. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride said, the Medicines Commission and its Committee on Safety of Medicines and other matters is a good analogy.
It will be useful for the commission to set patenting issues against a wider background, despite the wish of the pharmaceutical industry to keep the commission away from that subject. I would not anticipate that the commission would ever have or need regulatory powers on patents. However, the consequence of the Patent Office

1435
and patent law ignoring wider opinion and failing to educate the public will be that ill-informed reaction will overwhelm sensible suggestions, as nearly happened to the first draft of the European directive.
When the Science and Technology Committee reported in 1995, the consideration of a European directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions was in disarray. The Select Committee considered that the imposition of a directive could be more harmful than the differences between countries. Since then, however, the draft directive has been revised.
On the crucial question of patenting genes, the present draft directive says in article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2:
"The human body and its elements in their natural state shall not be considered patentable inventions. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the subject of an invention capable of industrial application which relates to an element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process shall be patentable, even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element."
As the hon. Member for Pudsey pointed out, however, the Select Committee concluded:
"only a combination of a gene and a known utility which is novel and not obvious should be patentable in the context of that utility; and a combination of the same gene and a further novel utility should also be patentable."
The Select Committee was not drafting a statute, and to get round French law, the European directive had to resort to the distinction between unpatentable, naturally occurring, DNA and the patentable man-made cDNA derived from it, a distinction that the Select Committee found unconvincing and unnecessary. Given the differences in purpose and background of the Select Committee's recommendations and the European directive, the effects of the two proposals seem to be essentially the same. In the interests of harmonisation, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride that the new European directive, as it will work in the overall context of patent law, should be supported.
I hope that the meeting arranged by the Royal Society and the Institute of Actuaries on 25 September will advance the position on the use of genetic information in insurance. The intention of the Association of British Insurers to appoint a genetic adviser to keep insurance companies informed is welcome, but we need a William Beveridge or a Richard Doll, with good knowledge of the insurance industry, to devise an appropriate framework in which insurance can continue to play a useful role. I do not believe that. the House has yet fully understood that point, because a difficult task of systems design remains to be done and I see no sign of it coming from the insurance industry.
In some areas, it will be increasingly difficult for private insurance to cope as human genetics advances. Most important will be the growing areas of health insurance in which genetic information has an important role to play in tracing susceptibility. The universal insurance given by the national health service, when compared with the dilemmas faced in America caused by the impact of genetics on health insurance, shows that the national health service is a far more effective and efficient way to deliver health care in the days of genetic medicine yet to come.
The Select Committee was told that the domestic particle physics programme, costing £20 million a year, had been cut to level at which United Kingdom physicists
1436
could not gain the benefit of the £60 million subscription to CERN, even to the extent that the travel costs of graduate students to Geneva could be met only for occasional visits. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC—had asked for another £65.5 million spread over the next eight years for particle physics. That would enable the PPARC to finance UK participation in the detectors or experiments on the large hadron collider and to enjoy the benefits of CERN membership.
The Science and Technology Committee owes a duty to the particle physics community to give a clear political judgment, as experienced parliamentarians, that there is no chance that any Government will make available an additional £65.5 million for particle physics, either from the domestic programme; from astronomy; from the rest of the science budget; as an addition to the science budget; or from any combination of those. The physicists have to realise that if that extra money is what they need to gain the benefit of CERN membership, the United Kingdom will have to withdrew from CERN, just as the US cancelled the super-conducting super collider. There are similar difficulties between domestic and international programmes in other member countries of CERN, and CERN could collapse. The PPARC suggested that it could follow the period in which it was receiving the extra £65.5 million with a period when, effectively, it repaid the amount by accepting a 20 per cent. reduction in its programme. However, it has no assets, capital, earnings stream or entitlement to income from which it could repay the £65.5 million advance as it suggests.
Fortunately, it was possible to point to an alternative in the Select Committee's report. At the last minute, the Minister for Science and Technology sent the Committee a copy of a letter that he had sent to the chairman of the PPARC as recently as 4 July, in which he said:
"One important lesson to be learnt from the negotiations over the LHC is how much can be achieved by working with other states. The UK would never have achieved what it did without working so closely with our German colleagues. We will only achieve our objectives in 1997"—
on LHC funding—
"through this partnership. Of course we should also try to build support from other member states, but the new voting arrangements"—
on the CERN council
"mean that the budget can be blocked by the UK and Germany voting together."
Germany is facing budgetary constraints on its total public expenditure and its specific science budgets that are at least as severe as those faced in the UK. The ability of the UK and Germany alone to block the CERN budget had not been made clear to the Committee before it received the Minister's letter—at least, I was certainly not aware of it.
Against that background, it would be a reasonable objective for the UK to try to shift the balance of funding from £60 million a year in CERN's subscription and the £20 million domestic programme to £50 million for CERN and £30 million for domestic—a shift of £10 million, which is of the magnitude that the PPARC had asked for in additional funding, to enable it to take part in the LHC experiments. That would allow the UK to participate in the exploitation of the LHC and its detectors within the present overall science budget funding of particle physics.

1437
That would be achievable if the United States and Japan participated as members—not visiting scientists—of a reconstructed CERN and a funding formula that immediately brought in —60 million a year from each of them. That would allow not only the completion of the present proposed LHC science programme within current total national particle physics budgets, but additions to the science programme.
CERN seems slightly embarrassed by proposing two general purpose detectors on the LHC and not one, justifying them as insurance and by the stimulus of competition. In addition, CERN has plans for two somewhat smaller special-purpose detectors. As an incentive to join CERN, the US and Japan could each be invited to construct one of the four LHC detectors. The nature and timing of the detectors could be considered, but it would be reasonable to think that participation in all detectors would be wider if those constructing some were able to learn from the use of others in a phased programme. The facilities would be greater value for money than the US, Japan or indeed CERN could achieve on their own.
While that may make good scientific and economic sense, the politics and negotiability have to be considered. UK particle physicists would of course rather get the extra money that they are asking for and carry on with present plans—we all would. They think that they have the powerful argument that, without additional support, UK scientists will not benefit from the CERN subscription after the large electron positron collider. To get the particle physicists to put the considerable effort needed into devising, considering and negotiating alternatives, they have to realise that additional funding for particle physicists will not be available.
There is an honourable parliamentary role in the advocacy of lost causes, and the Select Committee has chosen that role for particle physics. I want to save particle physics. If it is to be saved, there has to be reappraisal and redeployment of international efforts in research in particle physics. That has to be initiated now by G7 Science Ministers and completed before the 1997 meeting on the funding of the LHC.
After receiving the Minister's letter to the PPARC at the last minute, I redrafted the report's conclusions and moved them, as recorded in the archaic practice of Select Committee reports, on page lxiii, at the very back and in a quite undiscoverable form. I commend to particle physicists who want to know the facts of life—the reality, not the politics of lost causes—to read my redraft. I voted against the report, and I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will say that he will seriously consider my amendments as well as the report's final version. He has a much more practical course ahead of him if he pays serious attention to those suggestions.
All that needs to be said on prior options is that the Committee found the Department of Trade and Industry's policy far from satisfactory, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride said. The root of the problem is that the Deputy Prime Minister's residual influence in the Department simply does not understand that the customer-contractor relationship does not work in research. We have been learning that over and over again since Rothschild, and it is sad that so much time and energy should have been dissipated on such a damaging exercise.
1438
As we are reminded daily, and since the practical and political possibilities have dramatically changed over the past few days with US support for mandatory greenhouse gas targets, global climate change is perhaps the most important part of the Natural Environment Research Council's research programme. The work is inescapably international; indeed global.
The draft document, "The Climate Agenda: a Proposal for an Integrating Framework" from the international agencies concerned—the World Meteorological Organisation, the UN Environmental Programme, UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Council of Scientific Unions, which brings together the national academies of science of all industrial countries—says that the research needed could be carried out within existing structures if, and presumably only if, international organisations strengthened programmes, measured output against performance standards, and established an inter-agency co-ordination mechanism. Governments would have to increase support for national activities in international programmes, strengthen or establish national climate programmes, build scientific capacity in developing countries, fund international co-ordination programmes and endorse the overall programme.
There is no doubt much going on, but it sounds as if there is now at last a possibility of pulling it together. I trust that we shall find that the Government are encouraging and enabling the NERC and the UK to play their part. In one important respect, they are doing so, in that the chairman of the research committee of the intergovernmental conference on climate change is Sir John Houghton, the former director general of the British Meteorological Office, and the present director general, Professor Julian Hunt, is the technical adviser to the body that produced the key report on the climate agenda.
As this may be the last science debate in this Parliament, I should like to say that I hope that the Select Committee has shown, perhaps with one or two lapses, that there should be a Science and Technology Committee in the next Parliament. As this will be the last science debate in which I shall take part, I should like to say how much I have enjoyed working on the interface between science and politics and appreciated the interest of scientists and of parliamentary colleagues.
11.38 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am pleased to follow two such learned contributions on human genetics and CERN. I apologise for the fact that I shall not follow the previous speakers down those paths in detail, because I was planning to contribute principally on science policy.
However, I shall comment briefly on one or two points concerning human genetics that have been raised. First, I support the establishment of a body to oversee genetic research. I share what seems to be the view of everyone in the Chamber, that such an ethical body should be established. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he wanted lay people to be represented, but I know how difficult it is to establish a balance of representation within the lay community.
Secondly, several hon. Members raised the subject of insurance, as a real problem. Most of us would agree that within the United Kingdom, the national health service is the prime form of insurance for people who suffer from genetic diseases.

1439
An area in which I claim some small knowledge is long-term care. The Government, rightly—I thoroughly support them—suggest that people should provide more insurance-based policies for their long-term care. One of the strengths of the insurance industry is that over the years it has developed policies to cover almost any situation at a reasonable cost to people who need to purchase those policies.
I accept that as we become more sophisticated medically, there are extra costs associated with Alzheimer's disease and other such diseases of old age. But I suspect that the strength of the insurance industry, and its ability to adjust to those costs, means that in the long run people who suffer from genetic diseases associated with age will not necessarily find that their insurance policies are out of line with other people's. That is because as we get older and frailer, and as medical knowledge about how to care for people in old age increases, in essence the costs will almost balance out, and the insurance industry will be able to provide for them.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: One of the main advantages of the insurance industry is that it enables us to spread the risks, and therefore to spread the cost of the diseases that the hon. Lady is talking about. She mentioned Alzheimer's disease specifically, and I am sure that she will agree that the situation will change dramatically if a predisposition to that disease can be identified at an early stage in an individual's existence. How does she feel that private insurance would be able to cope with such a situation?
Mrs. Lait: If the hon. Lady is referring to the early onset of Alzheimer's disease—
Mrs. Campbell indicated dissent.
Mrs. Lait: —we agree that the NHS represents the best provision. If, however, as she indicates, we are talking about—dare one say it—the "normal" onset of Alzheimer's disease in retirement—
Mrs. Campbell indicated dissent.
Mrs. Lait: —medical research on treatment is already going on, which will of course be able to help. Furthermore, as we get older and frailer, the cost of long-term care for everyone remains much the same. The same number of staff is needed to look after somebody with Alzheimer's disease as for somebody who is incontinent. The long-term care community is used to dealing with those costs, and the insurance industry is equally able to cope with them.
Mrs. Campbell: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood my point. I was talking about people with a predisposition to Alzheimer's disease, which may even be identifiable at birth. That is now feasible. How does she feel that the private insurance industry would be able to cope if asked to insure such a person for long-term care?
Mrs. Lait: The insurance industry will not be insuring people because of Alzheimer's; it will be insuring people for the cost of their care. My point is that the cost of care
1440
for somebody who is frail is roughly the same, whether that person suffers from Alzheimer's or frailty in old age. That is where the strength of the insurance industry lies—not in specifying the costs of a disease but, as the hon. Lady said, in spreading the risks across the whole community. We are talking about how much it costs to care for somebody, and that means everyone, not necessarily only people with Alzheimer's.
Now I shall move on to the broader issue of science policy. I welcome the opportunity for the debate, as other hon. Members have done. One of the factors affecting the development of our science policy has been the need for change over the years. In any sector, that is difficult for the people who are involved to cope with. They have got used to the way in which things have always been done, but as our society becomes more used to change and innovation, anybody who works in any sector needs to get used to that process.
As the speed of innovation increases, I am afraid that even scientists are affected by the need to come to terms with speedy change. That applies to basic research as much as to near-market research. It is interesting to look round at the various universities that do so much of our basic research and see how they have come to terms with the different demands made of them.
If I may, I shall cite my own university, as I often do. Strathclyde has done extremely well in developing its basic research. It competes with the top 10 universities in America, including Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in terms of the royalties that it collects from its research, and has long connections with industry in relation to developing that research.
Strathclyde has also become infinitely more effective at fund raising. One of its most recent achievements was to raise money to put into one building—the health sciences building on the campus—a variety of different disciplines that in the past had been completely separate. Academics had been developing similar lines of research without realising that within the campus similar strengths were developing, and there was a potential for duplication.
That is where the importance of the Government's policy lies—not in looking at one university alone, but in looking across the whole of the science research industry to see where there is overlap, and in trying to ensure that there is networking to produce the most effective research outcomes.
Of course, universities are now complaining about their funding, for all sorts of reasons. Most of them welcome the Dearing review, as I do myself. So often, however, we are left with the fact that universities are still resistant to the opportunities open to them to investigate how they could fund their research in different ways.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) is so dismissive of the private finance initiative. The PFI provides opportunities for academics to raise money, and not necessarily from the industries with which they are linked. They can look in other directions to raise money that will help them buy the equipment and run the programmes that they are so keen to have.
For instance, one simple instance comes to my mind. I have already read out the letter from Professor John Spence referring to furnishings and minor works. In many businesses, furnishings and minor works are provided on a lease basis. The PFI could allow universities to continue

1441
their furnishing and minor works programmes on a lease basis, and could allow the equipment budget to be expanded, also by leasing. It is unfortunate that the Opposition dismiss those ideas out of hand.
Mr. Ingram: Can the hon. Lady give one example where the PH has worked in replacing the shortfall in Government expenditure?
Mrs. Lait: It is evident—not only from the hon. Gentleman's comments, but from the information that one receives—that academics have not yet grasped the opportunities offered by the PFI. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) gave the impression that he was trying to encourage scientists involved in particle physics to look at funding in a different way. That applies throughout universities in all disciplines.
Dr. Bray: The hon. Lady slightly misunderstood me. I cannot see any industry anywhere in the world being willing to contribute to the financing of particle physics research.
Mrs. Lait: I accept that, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman also stated that particle physicists must look further than to the Government and their standard forms of financing. I apologise if I picked up what he said wrongly. I thought he was very clear, and I enjoyed his speech.
Mr. Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Lady realise that she is advocating the replacement of Government grants with a mechanism that would require universities to meet the continuous revenue costs of that mechanism out of revenue budgets that are declining year on year as a result of the Government's policies? Does she not appreciate that there comes a point at which it is impossible to get a quart into a pint pot?
Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady is ignoring the fact that the Government set up the Dearing committee to look at the long-term funding of universities, and she has also missed my point. My university—and I accept that all universities are not as clever as Strathclyde—has raised enonnous amounts through fund-raising techniques and developing royalties from business to help finance research. That is a good example of how universities must respond to changing circumstances in the same way as business must respond.
I wish to move on to the more practical side of science policy. My constituency has very little in terms of the fundamental research base. I have one lovely company called Computing Devices in the defence industry, which has many people sitting in dark rooms, looking at computers and doing basic defence research. The bulk of the industry in my constituency is much more practical, and it is important to encourage those businesses to spend more on research and development. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members that British business needs to spend much more on research and development. I sometimes have my suspicions that many companies include in their research and development budgets quality control laboratories and other such facilities that I would not necessarily class as "research and development".
1442
Before I came to the House, I worked for the Chemical Industries Association. Although I am not in any way a scientist, I have as a result of my good Scottish education a science higher, and I like to think that I understand the basic elements of science. One of the problems that business has is the inability to explain to the wider population the scientific processes involved in the goods being produced. In my constituency, I have a company called CMR, which recycles used solvents, and it has done some good ground-breaking research in producing feedstocks for cement kilns. That has become a controversial area, particularly with the great debate on dioxins. The managing director of the company is one of the most articulate and practical scientists I have ever met. When I used to work for the Chemical Industries Association, one of the biggest problems was finding people who were enthusiastic about their companies and their business, and who were able to articulate that to the wider public. When the wider public are concerned about science that they do not understand, it is of immense value to find someone who can explain scientific processes simply to many people.
It is a shame that, so often, science has been misused and misquoted to stir up public fears and tenors. Dioxins is one such issue, and many of us are still scarred by the Brent Spar case. I hold very little brief for Shell's handling of that issue, but the science involved was mis-stated by those who had an interest in ensuring that the matter was blown up out of all proportion.
One of the issues relating to biotechnology that the Chemical Industries Association has pointed out to me, as well as the patenting and copyrighting issue—although that is of concern to it, and we must still resolve the question of how long a copyright should be, given the length of testing required—is an element of the common agricultural policy that means that sugars and starch, the basic feedstocks of the biotechnology industry, are not sold to the industries that can develop them at a basic market price. Although I hardly think that that matter is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister, I hope that he will communicate to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the need to ensure that the biotechnology industry has access to its basic feedstocks at market prices.
We must not ignore the fact that science is becoming more responsive to public pressure. I had an interesting meeting with Southern Water, which has a large waste water treatment infrastructure project in my constituency, part of which will be a waste treatment plant itself. There is a debate about whether there is a need for a secondary treatment plant on land, or whether that plant could be created in an environmentally friendly way by using the swift waters of the channel. That has become a debate about the value of the cost of the project versus the end result.
One of the areas that we as a nation are not well appraised of is risk assessment. The reaction to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis was exacerbated because it was clear that many people were not aware that the practical risk of their catching BSE was one in 5 million, while the chance of being killed while crossing a road is one in the hundreds. When people can appreciate the real risk that they are facing, they will adopt a sensible and rational response. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will collaborate with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that children are

1443
taught risk assessment, so that there will be a rational debate about the introduction of new technologies and a positive and realistic response when faced with a science-based crisis.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that he is involved in the developments within the European Community that affect our science base? So many of the issues are complicated and are often the responsibility of other Departments. Unless there is a rational scientific input into the decisions, we tend to find that businesses can be badly affected and, in some cases, can become unprofitable.
11.59 am
Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) said that it was unsatisfactory for us to link all these complex scientific questions with genetics in one debate and that it would have been better to have a series of debates. I entirely agree. In some ways, the disjointed manner in which we have moved from one question to another illustrates that.
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) made some interesting points about the funding of science and I would love to be able to spend the rest of my time talking about that. Both the universities in Liverpool have projects that link well with the private sector and on which the two sectors work in partnership. I would not want to be over-reliant on that as a source of funding, however. That is a danger and we must not see that source as a substitute for public funding of science, as I think the hon. Lady would agree.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) did the House a great service, in his usual way, by linking scientific and ethical questions. I had the pleasure of working with him during his chairmanship of the all-party mental health group and I know of the diligence that he has always shown in all matters that he has attended to in the House. He has been one of the foremost spokesmen on scientific questions and we would all do well to listen to what he has to say on such matters. In particular, I admire the fact that rather than fearing science he reminds us that it can make great advances, but that we must always view it in the ethical context. He has pointed us in that direction and he is right to have done so.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who has had to leave the Chamber, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South and other members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology have done those of us who are not members a great service in producing the report. It is a shame that it has taken so long for us to have this debate, but we are having it today and Parliament is at its best when it considers intelligently and in some depth these complex moral and ethical questions.
I disagreed with the hon. Member for Pudsey when he was talking about testing and mentioned the possibility of an organisation based on the model of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—I think that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye also mentioned it. That would not be the route down which I would want to go, for reasons that I will make clear, and I do not suppose that many hon. Members will be too surprised by that.
The hon. Member for Pudsey also said that we must be concerned with abuses. It is not just the abuses, but the assumption on which the genetics debate is proceeding
1444
that we must turn to today. The Minister said that the questions are not legislative but ethical. To some extent that is true, but an umbilical cord links legislative and ethical questions. Legislation cannot be value-free or ethically neutral. A dirigiste or disinterested approach—marketplace genetics—simply would not do. We have to view the genetics debate in the context of where society is today and of whether just because something is scientifically possible that makes it desirable or right.
When a society loses respect for life and the components that are at life's fountainhead, it loses everything. Public concern about civic dissolution, the lack of good stewardship of the environment, and about food production and animal welfare offer the ideal opportunity to reopen the bioethical debate and examine the implications of genetic manipulation. As a nation, we have a proper concern for animal welfare. I cannot help wondering whether, perhaps one day when some transgenic pigs or foxes march to Westminster holding placards saying, "Save the human race" or "Save the unborn child", we will realise some of the illogicality of the positions that we are taking. Through that opening, we can touch a public nerve, rather than through some of the positions taken by America's so-called moral majority. I find some of those positions odious.
Public concern about what we are doing to other species and our farming methods will radically alter the terms of the debates that we have been having on such questions in this country. In Britain, pigs weighing 55 stones—350 kg—have already been bred. Yes, they are certainly fatter, but they are arthritic and impotent. Commercially they have more value, but is that desirable? Human genes have been mixed with animal genes, producing more than 80,000 animals last year. Consumers have no idea what they are buying when they go to supermarkets. Chickens can be made to grow to their full size in 37 days, rather than 84. Cows that can yield 2,200 gallons of milk or 10,000 litres a year have been bred and can even produce human breast milk. Geeps, which are a combination of a goat and a sheep, have been bred. Brute force, mutilation and ruminants turned into carnivores: is it any wonder that the BSE crisis is upon us?
Dr. Bray: There are dangers in allowing the debate about transgenic animals to get out of hand. We have a great many genes in common with fruit flies and, indeed, with every species that lives on the planet.
Mr. Alton: Would the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that from the earliest times there have been injunctions on the mixing of species for good practical reasons? Although comparisons can certainly be made between genes of different stocks, we should weigh up the implications before we talk about the wholesale mixing of species. Existing agriculture and plant stocks are being eliminated as horticulture is displaced by genetically engineered plants. Ancient resistances and variations, which protected species, are being wiped out. New diseases and cancers in animals and people will escape this genie's bottle. All this in the name of money and an insatiable desire to dabble in the grotesque.
Those of us who do not understand the minute intricacies of genetics are regarded as unable to understand the implications. On the basis of what we have already done, why should I have confidence in those who claim to understand? Scientists are supremely ignorant

1445
about where the DNA highway will terminate. We are expected to trust them in their ignorance. I do not and the British public should not trust them either. The calamity besetting British agriculture should act as a timely warning of the dangers that we face in giving carte blanche to geneticists.
Therapeutically, gene therapy is going nowhere, despite the debate today. It is like all the claims that have been made about embryology over the years. Where have all the destructive experiments on human embryos led? 'To no scientific advances. I question the assumptions on which we accelerate a. process that will lead only to an increase in the number of abortions. If no therapy is available, people will be led into the so-called area of choice—a word that is frequently used in the Select Committee report considering the issue, but which has already led to about 40 million abortions in the world in the past 12 months and is frequently seen as a solution to the problems that genetic testing will in due course highlight and which have been highlighted by other tests in the past.
When Pandora opened her famous box, the one thing left inside was hope. There has not been one single case of a cure. There have been hopes of cures. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) intervened to point out the possibilities with cystic fibrosis. There is no hon. Member of the House who would not want progress in the cure of disability. I taught children with special needs before I came to the House and the last child I taught died four weeks after I arrived here. He was a little boy with cystic fibrosis and the pain and suffering that he lived with during the last two years of his life will remain with me always. But it is not our right and it is not even desirable to destroy the handicapped person. Yes, we should try to eliminate the handicap or disability, but if all that the testing leads to is a so-called choice of eradicating the disabled person, it takes us ethically nowhere. It will be a world of perfection tests and quality controls—a world in which we use testing as the first part of a search and destroy mission.
The English writer Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked that in modern western society it had taken only 30 years for a crime against humanity to become an act of medical compassion. He was referring to the great shift that has taken place in our society whereby euthanasia and other forms of medical killing have come to be widely and vigorously championed. Beneath the distinctive issues of bioethics and genetics lie the deepest matters of our humanity.
Dr. Bray: All members of the Select Committee well understand the importance of the sort of issue that the hon. Gentleman is raising. That is why we recommended that there should be a majority of lay people on the genetics commission. I certainly hope that they include people with views of the nature of the hon. Member's. The Committee decided that it could not tackle these issues and that we would work within the framework of the law. Paragraph 88 of the report says:
"If a test shows evidence of a genetic disorder and the parents decide on abortion, that is allowed under the present law and the decision should be respected. However, if parents decline the test, or decide to carry affected children to term, they should also be supported in their decision. Considerations of the costs a handicapped child may impose on the state should never be presented or taken into consideration when counselling is given and decisions are made."
Mr. Alton: In the context of British law, although not natural law, I can see the hand of the hon. Gentleman in paragraph 88 because, in the context—
Mrs. Anne Campbell: We all wrote it. It was unanimous.
Mr. Alton: I assumed that it was the hon. Gentleman's hand because it tried to reach the best possible position in the circumstances. I strongly welcome what it says about not taking into account the costs of someone being a handicapped person in deciding whether he should be allowed to live, but the hon. Gentleman will know that, in paragraph 90, the Committee says:
"providing a pre-natal screening test for a genetic defect, in the absence of any treatment for that defect, gives a signal that many people, at least, may consider the condition so serious it justifies termination of a pregnancy. If that is not the case, offering pre-natal screening is a waste of resources."
That is the point to which I am addressing my remarks.
Although political correctness and the ethically neutral language of "choice" still dominate political debate, they are being increasingly discredited. Public opinion has gently been turning, increasingly uneasy with the relativism that has created a culture of death. Freedom for the pike is increasingly seen as death to the minnow and it is increasingly recognised as a false freedom.
Western liberal society, with its emphasis on individualism and choice, has created a consumerist and materialist culture that insists that, "If it is right for me, it is right per se." It is summed up in the slogan, "My right to choose", all murderously loaded words. Rights must always carry duties, responsibilities and obligations. The origin of the word "choice" comes from the same Greek derivative as the word "heresy". It is a modern heresy to suggest that we can reduce every ethical and scientific question, especially crucial issues such as human genetics, to matters of individual choice.
G. K. Chesterton knew better when he wrote:
"To admire mere choice is to refuse to choose."
The choices are increasingly less about left and right than about right and wrong. As we survey the wreckage of our human ecology and widespread civic dissolution, more and more people question the assumptions on which we are proceeding.
Choices must be measured against consequences. Individual freedoms and rights without duties should be measured against responsibilities and civic duties. The flaccid language of rights and choice must be challenged at its heart. In the west of Ireland, where my mother comes from, people have a saying that, "It is in the shelter of each other's lives that the people live." The rampant progress towards individualism that has disfigured this nation in the past 20 years is the antithesis of that. The language of choice, which after all was the language of Thatcherism and marketplace economics, is the very thing that I am challenging.
Dr. Lynne Jones: May I mention my experience? When I was pregnant with my last baby, I was quite old for a woman having a baby and I had a chorionic villus sampling test. I knew when I had it that, if the foetus was shown to have some defect, I might face the decision of whether to terminate the pregnancy. That followed my experience of having had a miscarriage and losing a

1447
pregnancy. It would have been right for me to have had that information and to take that decision. I know that the hon. Gentleman disagrees, but the majority of people in this country do not agree with him. He talks about public opinion. People should have the right to that information, but the Select Committee report says that people, when they undertake the tests, should be counselled as to the likely consequences, should make their own decision about the matter and should not feel forced by any view that society may take.
Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Lady about the need for impartial counselling. The problem with counselling is that it is done by people who run the very clinics where terminations occur, so they have a direct, vested interest in offering that procedure. One doctor, speaking to a Committee that met in the House last year, said that he had undertaken 100,000 terminations in the past 25 years, which had generated for him and his clinic some £30 million, so serious money is involved. That is why counselling should be separated from terminations and should be impartial.
It is worth pointing out that CVS has been withdrawn in some countries because the test was shown to lead, in some cases, to disabilities. Three per cent. of amniocentesis tests lead to spontaneous abortions. The tests therefore have consequences. Ultimately, the only choice that is offered to people who have the tests is either to proceed to allow the baby to be born or to take its life. It does not offer therapy. That is the point that I wanted to underline.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Genetic counselling is done by people who are not involved in terminations and the hon. Gentleman's remarks may have been a little misleading.
Mr. Alton: I accept that point.
May I turn to the language that we have been using of individualism, of contemporary nihilism and disintegrated consumerism? A culture of life and an intrinsic respect for life would be the antidote to the fevers of our age. The twin pillars of Britain's older order were piety and pragmatic common sense. Everything had a place and value. Now everything has a price and nothing has a value.
It is not without significance that last month the National Consumer Council warned about the colossal price that ordinary people will pay if genetics continue to develop unchecked. The old economic clash of capitalism and collectivism will look increasingly sterile. Economic literacy is an obsession with politicians, but we must urgently become genetically literate—we would all, I think, agree about that. It will become central to the relationships between power and people in the 21st century. Arguments about abortion, for instance, will be given a new perspective, as we have just heard. The contexts in which we grapple with the problems will change as the implications of molecular genetics become more and more apparent.
Since James Watson and Francis Crick unearthed the molecular structure of DNA in 1953, scientific possibilities have come to overshadow our future patterns of reproduction. Watson described his breakthrough as
1448
"anti-religious". Frightening in their enormity, unthinkable in their depravity, the violations of the relationship between the creator and created could dispatch humanity into the obscurity of the dinosaurs.
Nowadays too many scientists argue that if something is scientifically possible, it becomes right. That approach has no foundation in true science or philosophy. It concocts a theory that would have monkeys and apes sitting at computers and PCs and it leads to racial theories, eugenics, episodes of genocide and corrupt medical ethics. The promise of "beautiful people" and the power that the new genetics will offer politicians is frightening in its enormity.
Mr. Ian Taylor: This is heavy-going stuff. When I was at Cold Spring Harbor laboratory only two months ago with James Watson, I found him to be an extremely caring and sensitive person. Many of the things that have been done there and in the other laboratories with which he has been associated, have provided not only scientific excellence, but immense benefit to the world.
Mr. Alton: My whole point is that, even if someone's impulses and motives in the first place may be good, they can lead to an abyss that we have not properly thought through. In this case, as I have said, Watson said what his impulses were in developing his ideas. I commend to the Minister an article that appeared, surprisingly, in The Independent yesterday morning. I say "surprisingly" because normally it would not even allow such an article to be published. It was written by Brian Appleyard, a distinguished commentator, and it examined carefully where the genetics debate is taking us. He said that, inevitably and inexorably, it would lead to more and more destruction of life. Already, 600 abortions are carried out every working day. We have destructive experiments on human embryos for the reasons that the Minister has just advanced: they will lead to great progress, to this happening and to that happening. Every day, unborn babies, human embryos, are experimented on in this country, with the full force of British law. Euthanasia is permitted by judicial decision, which feeble legislators leave uncontested.
The language of the production line is now freely applied to human reproduction. Total quality management and disposability are the buzzwords of modern repro-tech. The sheer scale of the disposal of early human life was graphically revealed in answer to questions that I tabled earlier this year. Almost half a million human beings have been manufactured in IVF clinics in the three years from 1991 to 1994, but only 7,000 resulted in live births. That is a death rate or rate of attrition of more than 98 per cent. Of the 491,482 not accounted for, 27,000 were used in destructive research and almost 70,000 remained frozen.
The 1990 legislation requires that human embryos be kept frozen for no longer than five years, which means that on 1 August thousands will be destroyed without parental consent because their parents are no longer in contact with clinics. We should act urgently to ban further freezing and to ensure that orphan embryos are adopted or given a respectful burial.
I welcome the European Union's bioethics convention, to which the Select Committee report referred, and which, if implemented by the EU, will require the repeal of those parts of our domestic legislation which are wildly out of

1449
step with what happens elsewhere. For example, in France and Germany destructive experiments on human embryos are banned. I hope that the convention will become a European directive and that the Government will implement it.
Mr. Ingram: I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his statistical analysis, but I got the impression that he sought to imply that geneticists were involved in creating conditions in which to destroy life. Every geneticist to whom I have spoken is working to improve life and create a more fulfilling life for our fellow citizens. Geneticists who work in the agricultural sector are working to find ways to feed more people because many people are dying of starvation throughout the world. Genetics is about enhancing, not destroying and undermining life. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that and is not seen to attack geneticists, who are trying to help all of us.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will recall that at the outset of my remarks I said that I was not frightened of science, but that it must be informed by a proper debate and ethical base.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which governs the very things that I have just described, is offered to the House as a model for the way in which we should deal with genetics. That authority, established by legislation passed by the House, comprises not one member who takes a dissenting view. Indeed, I heard Baroness Warnock, interviewed by Melanie Phillips on the "Analysis" programme, say that she deliberately excluded from her precursor committee anyone who took a religious view which was likely to be out of accord with the views of those on the committee. That is no way to proceed, yet it is the way in which the HFEA has proceeded.
Who finances the HFEA? Rather like the counselling to which I referred earlier, it is financed by the clinics. Instead of being an independent watchdog, the authority is financed by these people. Given what we have heard today about the way in which private money should be used to pay for science, I am sure that any new body which is established to oversee genetics will ask the industry and those involved in genetic advances to contribute towards the financing of that body. In that case, the policeman or watchdog will be far too closely identified with the burglar.
Mr. Ingram: We are going down the wrong route, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that all moral authority does not reside with those who are religious? People who are non-religious have just as high moral standards and can comment on ethical questions.
Mr. Alton: Of course they do. I would disentangle words such as 'moral" and "ethical". We need people who have a keen ethical sense. That includes people who have religious views as well as those who do not. The point that I am making is that the assumptions have been reversed. No one has been placed on the authority who has a dissenting view. That was justified on the basis that such people had maverick, quirky and idiosyncratic "religious" views. The whole of our science and medical practice was based for hundreds of years on Judaeo-Christian values. There is nothing wrong with that and people who have such values ought to be included in a pluralist society as much as anyone else.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alton: I must make progress. I have given way many times and the House will wish me to proceed so that others might participate.
I refer the hon. Member for East Kilbride to two cases in Scotland which demonstrate why we should rein in those who sometimes get carried away with their own enthusiasms. In Edinburgh two years ago a scientist wanted permission to abort little girls so that fie could use their eggs in fertility treatments. The mother of any resulting child would then be an aborted foetus. Its grandmother and doctor would be its mother's killers.
The scientist applied to the British Medical Association's ethics committee to proceed and the discredited HFEA went out to public consultation—as if there was anything to consult about. Parliament properly intervened and amended the criminal justice legislation to outlaw such practices. Another Edinburgh scientist recently cloned two sheep. In the self-congratulatory scientific review, he failed to reveal that all but one of the five sheep were at least 20 per cent. bigger than they should have been, that three died soon after birth with malformed organs and that one lamb grew to twice the normal size and had to be born by Caesarian section. Suppression of the full story—the truth—does not serve science; it serves tyranny.
One day, tissue engineering and genetic science will work hand in hand. By growing limbs and rearing whole bodies in artificial wombs, done by men such as our Edinburgh scientists, the automatons of science fiction will become the human slaves of tyrannical regimes unless a stop is put to it now. Dramatic reductions in male fertility—probably yet another side effect of oestrogen from the contraceptive pill—will inevitably hasten the process of scientific and political involvement in reproduction.
The state planners will have undreamt of and unparalleled power. They will dress it up to look like power for a parent or patient, but we know what will happen when genetic tests reveal instability, illness, homosexuality or low IQ. The nightmare kingdom will be governed by quality controls and perfection tests and the 21st century will see the emergence of a genetic underclass of uninsurable, unbreedable, unwanted and unmanned people. In this caste system, suitors, partners and predators of each person will eye his genes with either envy or contempt. Prisoners of heredity and slaves of a manipulated reproductive system, our British birthright will be replaced by the right birth.
Eugenics leads to the suppression of variation and difference. From laws which create a genetic database for the whole population, it is only a small step to laws requiring the data to be lodged with the state and on to compulsion and elimination of undesirables. Domestic eugenics will naturally be packaged with all the decorum that public relations specialists can muster and will lead to the routine screening of every pregnancy, raising ethical and therefore political questions every bit as complex as the bioethical and scientific ones.
Let me briefly make some suggestions. First, we should challenge the argument that genetic testing opens up phenomenal medical opportunities. The medical benefits of some genetic tests are far from clear cut, but the dangers are already apparent in the United States, where

1451
tests for breast cancer are being marketed direct to members of the public, with adverse consequences for health insurance cover.
The British health system and social care, which have traditionally been provided on a collective basis, have been systematically eroded. In future, fuelled by the west's declining populations and their reduced contribution to collective forms of care, more and more people will rely on private individual insurance cover. If genetic testing becomes routine, many people will find themselves excluded from the ranks of the insurable or asked to pay prohibitively high premiums for conditions that they cannot prevent and may not develop.
We must also urgently provide for greater confidentiality. The law does not make it clear who should and who should not have access to genetic information. General practitioners, the family and insurance companies may all claim rights of access, but who is to decide, and how? A privacy law is required.
I welcome the Government's response, albeit belated, to the Select Committee's recommendation that a human genetics commission should be established, but it will need teeth. It is not good enough for it to be merely advisory; regulation needs to be transparent. Too much of the debate has already taken place in the seclusion of rooms that close their doors to public participation. I have already said that the HFEA would not be a good model on which to build.
One of the first candidates for a going over should be the Association of British Insurers. It was asked to produce voluntary regulations and it has failed to do so. It will not be enough to rely on self-regulation—there is too much vested interest and too much money involved for that. People with inherited diseases, and their descendants, will be denied life insurance, health insurance and even, in the long term, mortgages, if we do not stop genetic tests being made available to insurers, employers, banks and building societies. That is why legislation will be required.
I shall conclude where I began, on the subject of animals. Last year I tabled a motion in the House asking for food products that have been genetically produced to be labelled. Consumers have a right to know that their bacon has been reared from an animal that has been commercially exploited and genetically engineered, with human genes inserted into its make-up. As far as I am aware, the Government are doing nothing to monitor the long-term effects on people who are unknowingly eating unmarked products on a daily basis. There should be an outright ban on the genetic manipulation of food. Millions of people are revolted by the obscenities of modern farming methods. The agricultural workhouses, sheds and factories are a disgrace and should be closed.
People also need to be alerted to the dangers of xenotransplants—animal to human transplants—which are now technically possible and likely to begin soon. The Government need to tell us when their technical report into those issues will be published. They need to address public alarm at the fact that, for example, pig pathogens will be transmitted to humans, which has horrendous implications. Following the Nuffield council's decision to approve such practices in principle, politicians need to raise serious questions about the possibility that
1452
cross-species transplants might lead to the introduction of dangerous new diseases into the human population. Possible infectious agents include viruses, bacteria, fungi and prion proteins—the agent thought to be responsible for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
There are alternatives to xenotransplantation. Only 18 per cent. of the population carry organ donor cards, but another 54 per cent. say that they would. As National Transplant Week approaches, would not that system be a better and more cost-effective approach? It would avoid all the dangers of under-researched and ethically dubious approaches. The Nuffield council states that
"species boundaries, in any case, are not inviolable."
I wonder how many hon. Members, or their constituents, would have agreed with that statement had anybody bothered to ask them.
Cross-species manipulation also has serious implications for biodiversity—the range of genetically different animals and plants available. Genetic engineering could lead to a decline in biodiversity, with unpredictable consequences through the unbalancing of ecosystems. As those effects are so difficult to predict, it is vital to have internationally agreed and enforceable rules for research protocols and field trials, especially in developing countries where there is often an absence of regulation. In 1992, the United Nations convention on biological diversity agreed that there should be a biosafety protocol—but, like so many much-needed international initiatives, it has simply never materialised.
Parliament must act decisively and urgently if we are properly to protect our sources of food and the welfare of both other species and our own. We must resist the hideous new world in which a pregnant woman who is genetically screened is pressurised into aborting a baby with a genetic disorder. We must protect those who could become a genetic underclass. Through proper regulation, we must provide confidentiality and privacy, prevent the misuse of treatments and insist on the highest levels of ethics and integrity.
Parliament does not have a good track record on respecting and protecting human life—170,000 babies annually disembodied through abortion bear testimony to that. So, too, do the 120,000 laboratory deaths of human embryos. We have trivialised human nature and denied natural law. Failure to check the geneticists, as we have failed to check the eugenicists, will, I fear, lead to the abolition of man.
12.33 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), not just because I agree with almost everything that he has said, but because in saying it he punctures the smug conspiracy of those who believe that people who hold the views that he and I do should not be allowed to express them. We are told that what we say is weird. We are told, "Good grief—you want to bring religion or morals into these things?"
Geneticists may be wonderful men, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) said, and doubtless they do terrific work. [Interruption.] I have met some of the people concerned and of course they do marvellous work, but once information is available and techniques have been pioneered, not only those men and women will do

1453
that work. I wish to identify myself with what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said. He is saying, not that the work is wrong, but that we must consider other aspects. I enormously welcome his brave, honest speech.
The round-up of the science position given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology justifies the fact that the Office of Science and Technology is now home where it should be, in the Department of Trade and Industry. It was a good move; my hon. Friend and his officials have made a great success of it and it is unlikely to be reversed by a Government of any colour because there is now a coherence that may have been lacking in the different places where the science department has been.
Until now, the hon. Member for East Kilbride has—at least so far as I have been able to read—avoided the Dutch auction that characterises most political debate, especially as we approach the general election, but I am afraid that he fell off that high wire today. He engaged in a Dutch auction—without figures, of course, but suggesting that the election of a Labour Government would usher in more money for the science community. It is not a very good idea to do that.
Mr. Ingram: I did not do that.
Mr. Hughes: You did not mention figures, but anyone listening to what you said would come away with the conclusion that that was what you meant, and if that was not what you meant—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. No pronouns: "hon. Members".
Mr. Hughes: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Anyone would believe that that was what the hon. Gentleman meant. It is not a good idea to make such a suggestion, because no one in the science community believes a word of it. No one believes that a Labour Government would do that, and people would worry about whether Labour would run the Department as efficiently and whether as much money would come out as does currently.
I want to talk about the willingness of companies to invest in science research and development. Before doing so, I apologise to the House for the fact that, on completing my speech, I must leave to go to my constituency. One of the pleasures of having a constituency so close to London is that one can take part in Friday debates and be in the constituency for a substantial part of the day. The irritation is that one must leave debates as quickly as possible to keep appointments.
I want to talk about the willingness of companies to invest in science research and development. A 1980 study of 16 major American oil and chemical companies showed, not surprisingly, that the more they invested in pure science, the higher their productivity grew. In 1986, a study of 911 large United States technology companies showed that the companies that performed pure science outperformed in their figures those that had neglected it. That will surprise no one.
British industry should learn that lesson. It cannot rely on the Government. Of course there will be a spat between both sides as to what is invested and how much money can be spent on science, but if companies want to
1454
succeed in not only British but global markets, they must invest in pure science research and development; it is in their interests to do so. I hope that that view will be expressed widely in the debate and elsewhere.
Mr. Ingram: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is quoting from an article by Dr. Terence Kealey. Does he accept Dr. Kealey's conclusion that the Government should not invest at all in basic research but should just let industry get on with it?
Mr. Hughes: No, I found the conclusions at the end of the article muddled, but thought that the quotations from the studies were interesting, so I lifted them out of the article. That is a usual thing to do for speeches. A balance can be struck between what Governments can and cannot do. What they cannot but may be tempted to do is to try to rig the taxation system to encourage that. It has been tried before, but it has never worked and it has always been misused. Against a background of neutral taxation, companies have to make those decisions for the right reasons for themselves.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the research that has been done in the United States on the efficacy of tax credits to encourage research and development there? If so, does he think that that research is wrong?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady and I have debated that matter in the House before. As I said at the debate last October or the previous October, that research is inconclusive.
I wish to discuss the opportunities and dangers of identifying human genes. The opportunities include curing and perhaps eradicating painful and debilitating diseases. The dangers include the point at which genetic screening becomes a guarantee of perfection, with designer babies and giving powers to the state, individuals or doctors that they should not have, as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill described.
The liberal view is that the state should control this entire matter. An article in The Sunday Telegraph dated April 1996 said that liberals
"believe in handing all decisions about things like genetic testing to the state, which was the institution that sterilised and murdered millions in the 1920s and 1930s in the name of eugenics. Conservatives"—
with a small "c"—
"believe in leaving such matters to the individual."
That is a much better way to go, for reasons that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill put much more succinctly than I could. The basic ethics of genetic engineering are, to say the least, suspect. Judaeo-Christian morality is based on the dignity, character and individuality of each human being, all of which are diminished if we arrogate the power of creation.
I agree with what the hon. Member for East Kilbride said about insurance companies. I do not quarrel with the fact that people may want genetic information for their own use, but it is essentially private information. The record of insurance companies on self-regulation and restraint—and, moreover, on keeping to what they say they will do in relation to Government wishes—is not good, so I am not sure that self-regulation is the way we should go.

1455
I agree with the Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics, which called for the insurance industry not to pry into the results of people's genetic tests. Last September, the Association of British Insurers told the Select Committee that it wanted to see all the results. One can see why: it wants to use them to avoid risk. I take the simple view that neither insurance companies nor employers have a right to what I regard as private information. It belongs to the individuals to which it refers.
At a conference on biodiversity, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales criticised the "confidence bordering on arrogance" of the developers of genetically engineered plants and animals and said that he was "profoundly apprehensive" about their products' possible effects. People are entitled to choose what they eat and to know what has been done to it. Parliament is entitled to ask what is being done and who is checking on what is being done. What is the safety in the long term? There have been too many scares and too many revelations of practices which, with the benefit of hindsight, would not have been countenanced had we known what the effects would be—BSE, salmonella in eggs and all sorts of other things. We cannot just walk blindly into allowing genetically altered food to be consumed by people without knowing what the effects will be.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Should we not be addressing the question of whether we need the technology of genetically engineered food? We have been producing large surpluses of a variety of foods for decades under the common agricultural policy. Before we allow this technology to become widespread, should we not ask whether we need it in the first place?
Mr. Hughes: That is a different question because it relates to economics; it is not a question for this debate because it does not alter the ethics, morality or practicality of what I am talking about.
There is another side to this: in some parts of the world, the technology may produce answers to the problems of starvation. By eradicating some of the diseases that regularly wipe out crops in Africa and in other parts of the world, we may be able to produce real answers to the problems of starvation. It is a huge moral dilemma, but it has to be tackled—and tackled carefully.
I conclude by referring to big science. Big science eats up big money and it has uncertain practicality. However, there are important applications and they are, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, projects that simply could not be funded by anyone other than a collection of Governments. The Ministers involved deserve credit for keeping us in these projects, which is not easy in view of the amount of money that they eat up. Loosely argued and rather generously funded schemes are not only bad economics; they can be bad science as well.
In relation to CERN and the hadron collider, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South has done a huge service to the science community and to the House. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is in agreement with my hon. Friend the Minister. I have read the letter from my hon. Friend to Peter Williams, the chairman of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. I hope that the hon. Member for East Kilbride will be able to join in the consensus between the parties.
1456
The whole of the science community should get a copy of Hansard and read what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said, because he summed up what should be written on its walls. If those people think that anyone is going to deviate from that and come up with the money for what I regard as fanciful schemes, they are profoundly mistaken. The money for this is limited and CERN has to understand that it has to bring in Japan and the United States, that it has to widen the scope of what it is doing, that it has to look afresh, if necessary, at the time scale of what it is doing, or the project will end up being cancelled. The words of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South are wise and pay tribute to the huge experience that he has brought to bear on science matters in the House.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I hope that members of the public will read the Hansard report of the debate today, including the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also commend to members of the public the report of the Select Committee on this matter, which the majority of its members were fully behind. The report shows that the process on which my hon. Friend suggests that we embark has already taken place. That is apparent from the letter from the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is printed in the report. The Committee report was agreed on the same day as the House voted to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament and Ministers at a cost of about £6 million. That is a far greater liability for the taxpayer than our report's proposals regarding the PPARC.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady's final point is rather fanciful.
Mr. Ingram: How did you vote?
Mr. Hughes: I voted the same way as most of the shadow Cabinet. That point is rather fanciful when one considers the financing of CERN. Whether the Select Committee is right or wrong, having played some part in negotiating the basis and funding of the large hadron collider, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South talks enormous common sense. Whatever the Select Committee may think, and despite the evidence that it received, I believe that the project will be in danger of collapse if the PPARC does not follow the hon. Gentleman's line. Most Governments who have made major contributions to the project would follow the same reasoning. That is an important point. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South is only now entering the Chamber, after I have praised him to the skies. He will be missed in future debates.
This morning's important debate has proved that, despite the cynicism of the press—I do not think that journalists like to work on Fridays—Friday debates on important science issues can work well.
12.51 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I begin by declaring my registered interest as a non-executive director of the Welding institute, which is a technology transfer organisation.

1457
Today I shall concentrate mainly on the subject of human genetics. Other hon. Members have touched upon many of the issues that I intended to raise, but there is no doubt that genetics is a big subject and that advances in that field will affect all our lives.
We shall be able to identify not only genes carrying diseases to which we have a predisposition, such as Huntingdon's disease, sickle cell anaemia or cystic fibrosis, but diseases to which we are susceptible. We shall be able to make better-informed choices about our life styles, knowing whether we are likely to suffer from heart disease, cancer or arthritis in later life. As we know our genetic make-up and that of our partners, we shall be able to assess the risks for our children.
The debate has illustrated the fact that the identification of genes and the knowledge of what they do sometimes present hard, new moral choices. I strongly believe that a woman who is carrying a child with a known genetic abnormality should be able to have the foetus aborted if she wishes. However, it is also very important that a newly pregnant woman who is offered a test realises at the outset that, if the test is positive, she will have to make an often uncomfortable decision about whether to opt for an abortion.
I know that many women who are offered amniocentesis tests are not told beforehand that, if they are found to be carrying a Down's syndrome child or a baby with another known abnormality, the only treatment that modern medicine can provide at present is an abortion. I am arguing for a woman's right to choose, but I believe that that choice should be as informed as possible. That is not a cheap option, because it means that anyone who is offered a test must also be given counselling. As more genes are identified with specific diseases, more tests will become available and counselling and advice will become more important.
The requirement must also apply to the commercial sector. It has already been mentioned that a company called University Diagnostics is offering genetic tests through the post to identify carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene. I believe that that company is reputable and it offers counselling and to send the results to the family doctor, but the law should be strengthened in that area and no company should be able to offer such a test without mandatory counselling, not only after the test but before.
The advice that is given must be impartial. I know that when the Select Committee considered the issue, great concern was expressed that hard-pressed NHS managers, trying to balance a budget, might be tempted to persuade women carrying children with disabling diseases such as cystic fibrosis to have their babies aborted. The temptation would exist because disabilities are expensive and the symptoms are not only distressing for the child and its parents, but time-consuming and difficult to alleviate. The manager of a health authority that had no such patients might find his or her budget stretching more easily. It is essential that women are able to make informed choices without pressures of any kind and I hope that the new Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, ably led by Professor Polkinghorne—who is, incidentally, one of my constituents—will examine that issue at an early stage.
The new genetics will not only tell us what diseases we shall get, but those that we would do well to avoid. When we can identify individuals who are susceptible to heart disease or cancer, they can be given much better medical
1458
advice about their life styles. Diet, exercise and avoidance of stress are more important to some individuals than to others. It is desirable that, once the tests become available, people should be persuaded to have them done, but if the information gained is used to discriminate against them at any stage, people might be unwilling to undergo the tests. The Government have introduced new insurance schemes, and the recent leaked letter from the kids in the Treasury suggests that that might be one of the ways in which they will try to reduce expenditure on the welfare state.
The new emphasis on private insurance to replace the welfare state poses many threats to susceptible individuals. At present, there is a consensus among insurers in the UK not to ask individuals to take genetic tests, and that has been confirmed by the most recent letter from the Association of British Insurers. However, they also demand that if an individual has had such a test, they are told the results. That demand has certain consequences. For example, if I had to disclose to an insurance company that I carried the breast cancer gene—I hope I do not, but I might—that would mean that any premiums for life insurance or mortgage insurance would be heavily weighted against me. That would make it much less likely that I would want to take the test, but my doctor would prefer to know and would want me to know that I was susceptible so that I could take preventive action.
The insurance companies' policy is against the population's interest as a whole. I can understand the reason behind the policy—the companies justify their behaviour through what they call adverse selection. They argue that if people know that they have a high risk of succumbing to a disease, they are more likely to insure themselves against such a calamity. The insurance companies say that they want to know everything that we know, which sounds reasonable, but is not conducive to sensible behaviour by the population at large. The Select Committee felt that that was an urgent problem, and our report suggests that the insurance companies should be given a year to solve the problem with consumer interest groups, such as the excellent Genetics Interest Group, which has been mentioned already today. We presented a possible solution and drew attention to the threat that a solution might be imposed if the groups did not manage to reach agreement.
I understand that talks were taking place and good progress was being made until the Government published their first response to our report, which said in paragraph 101:
The Government does not agree with the Committee that the deadline should be imposed on the insurance industry for the development of an acceptable solution on the use of genetic information for insurance purposes."
It all seems to have gone very quiet since then, with the exception of the letter that was most recently published, which told us nothing new at all. It contained precisely what the insurance companies said when they gave evidence to the Committee well over a year ago.
In the Government's response to our second report, they said that contact with the Association of British Insurers had been maintained and that it was understood that an announcement could be expected shortly. I know that the Minister is trying to maintain pressure on the ABI, but far greater pressure may have to be exerted. Too many people who are already disadvantaged because of their genetic predisposition are suffering discrimination, and it will rapidly worsen as more scientific discoveries are made.

1459
Not only insurance companies are discriminatory. Employers are guilty on occasions. If an employer discovers that one of his or her employees is suffering from a predisposition to a disease that may involve long periods off work, we must ask what the employee's rights are. I certainly find it alarming that another person, possibly my employer, could find out about my genetic make-up just by taking a hair off my shoulder and testing it for various genetic diseases. I find it even more alarming that someone might act on that information against my interest.
The Genetics Interest Group has pointed out that the combination of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the lack of regulation of the non-medical uses of genetic information might encourage discrimination. Under the terms of the Act, employers are under an obligation to make allowance for the special needs of disabled employees, which we all support. However, given that that is so, an unscrupulous employer might try to ensure that such obligations did not fall on him by refusing employment to presymptomatic individuals—those who will or might develop a genetic condition.
It is a pity, therefore, that the Government seem determined to refuse to extend protection to presymptomatic individuals in the same way that protection has been extended to people with disabilities. The Genetics Interest Group has expressed its disappointment at the Government's lack of action on that set of issues. During the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill, the Government said that the concerns would be addressed by their response to the Science and Technology Committee inquiry. They have blatantly failed to do that. In fact, their response to the Committee's suggestions on employment was totally inadequate. They suggested that employers might be encouraged to draw up a code of conduct. In other words, employers could do whatever they liked.
It is surely of fundamental importance that genetic information should belong only to individuals and their families. It should be a criminal offence to use genetic information without an individual's consent. Employers should not be allowed to demand that employees consent to a genetic test as a condition of employment, with, of course, certain exclusions that we all understand, where it is important for the health and safety of employees or customers of the company.
It has already been mentioned that we could create a society in which people are disadvantaged by their genes. Unless we take steps now and put proper protection in place, we could finish up with a genetic underclass. That underclass will be unable to take out life, health or mortgage insurance, which probably means that its members will not be able to buy a house. They may be unable to find employment, and may even be considered too expensive for a doctor to take on as a patient, so they may be denied medical help, too. Surely, instead of discriminating against people in that way, we should celebrate human diversity and do everything that we can to bring about social cohesion by including people in the general run of life.
1460
I am glad that the Government have had second thoughts about the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, as there are many serious issues to consider that cannot be adequately tackled by the multitude of groups that they had already set up.
The speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) illustrated well why such a commission is necessary. That speech was emotive and expressed a certain point of view—one that is not, I am pleased to say, shared by the population as a whole. The fears and prejudices that the hon. Gentleman expressed were those that I hope the commission will work hard to dispel.
I hope that the commission will work within a statutory framework to set regulation, to license commercial companies and groups within the national health service that offer genetic tests and therapies, and to consider in depth some of the difficult problems that the debate can treat only superficially.
So far, I have dealt with issues that are arising now. We are at an interim stage, in which we can identify gene sequences and are beginning to find out the effects that some of them have. We can already develop tests for some of the common genetic disorders. The next step will take us on to a much more beneficial phase, when we shall be able to use genetic therapies to cure the diseases themselves. Until now, the pharmaceutical industry has often provided us with medicines that treat the symptoms rather than the diseases. Gene therapists, however, offer us the exciting possibilities of making changes to the genes that will cure the diseases altogether.
When the Select Committee visited the United States, we were shown examples of research that had been done to reduce cancerous brain tumours untreatable by other methods. We know that there is a genetic therapy available for cystic fibrosis, and others will quickly follow. Pharmaceutical companies are investing millions of pounds in those areas of research, and those advances represent real progress for the human race.
SmithKline Beecham sent us a brief for the debate, which pointed out that in the United States £60 billion a year is spent on the care and treatment of people with Alzheimer's disease. If we could find a genetic therapy for that disease, it would not only relieve much personal misery, but enable many people to lead productive lives for much longer—and, of course, save a huge amount of money for the national health service. That investment would be money well spent.
The exploitation of intellectual property rights needs to take place within the correct regulatory framework. That framework must give protection to industrialists who wish to exploit their ideas and inventions commercially, without being undercut by a competitor who has not spent the resources on research. The regulations must be strictly defined for that purpose, but when we draw rings round the patent, they must not be drawn so widely as to exclude others who wish to research in related but different areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) has recently spent a great deal of time studying the European directive, and because I felt that it was safe in his capable hands, I have not examined it in detail. There have been discussions in the European Parliament, the United States and elsewhere about the ethics of patenting life.
We must tread carefully in that area, because the issues are so sensitive, but we must take note of what the industrial and commercial companies say about their need

1461
to protect their intellectual property. It is a question of getting the balance right, and the Select Committee's suggestion provides the right balance. I hope that the European directive will meet the conditions that we set.
I would like to mention the human genome project, a major international collaboration that I am pleased is progressing smoothly. Like many others, I was alarmed when some American scientists got the idea that genetic codes might one day be valuable, and so began to take out patent applications to try to make money out of them. It was decided that it was not legal to patent a gene that did not have a known utility, and the patent applications were dropped.
We then saw the ingenuity of companies such as Human Genome Sciences, which tried to make its database of genetic sequences available to researchers on the basis that if a researcher uncovered a utility, the company would be given first refusal to exploit it. That practice, I am glad to say, met with strong disapproval from other pharmaceutical companies, and another company decided to make its gene database completely open without any precondition. That seems to have put paid to Human Genome Sciences' idea, and we are all pleased about that.
I hope that the European directive will do as the Committee suggested. We felt that a new genetic test or therapy should be patentable, as that is the only way in which commercial companies could protect their investments in research. The gene sequence on which the research was based would also be part of that patent. However, we also felt that another company—or the same company developing a different test or therapy based on the same gene sequence—should also be able to take out a patent without having to pay a licence fee to the first company. I very much hope that our colleagues in the European Parliament will consider our solution to the problem to be correct, as it offers the best opportunity to derive the maximum benefit from the new genetics.
Others have spoken about the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council inquiry, but I do not propose to do so. I wanted to concentrate first on human genetics and secondly on science policy. The difficulty that we are all facing today is that this is such a wide-ranging debate and it is perhaps becoming a little fragmented. When the White Paper "Realising our Potential" was published, I was a little sceptical about some of its aspects. But I welcomed it as the first step for many years by the Government to try to put a structural framework around our science policy. That was lacking, and I believe that a previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), whose ideas expressed in our manifesto at the previous election led to many of the reforms that have been introduced by the Government since then. I also welcome technology foresight.
Despite the Minister's encouraging words about all the good things that are happening, the science budget is under pressure from all quarters. It is worth pointing out that the OST is responsible for only £1.1 billion out of a total annual budget within the Government of £5.7 billion. It is therefore impossible for us to ignore the pressures on the budget.
Other hon. Members have mentioned that university funding for science—not only through the research councils, but through the higher education funding
1462
councils—is suffering badly. That funding provides the basic infrastructure for scientific research in universities, and it is used also to pay for overheads for specific research projects. Over a three-year period, those overheads have been transferred to the research councils. But what has happened to the HEFCs' budgets is catastrophic in terms of the proposed cuts in capital expenditure of about 50 per cent. over three years, and cuts in funding per student. That funding has been cut by one third in the past 10 years, according to figures produced by the Association of University Teachers.
What is the reaction of industrialists? SmithKline Beecham has said that too little is spent on science funding and that there is a lack of trained personnel in the United Kingdom. The company also said that the pharmaceutical industry finds it difficult to recruit research and development candidates in the United Kingdom who are well trained on modern equipment. Surely that is symptomatic of the fact that the modern equipment is not available in university research laboratories.
I am cynical enough to believe that the sole purpose of the prior options review was to reduce spending. The statistics in the forward look show that the Government's total spend has come down from £6.4 billion to £5.3 billion a year in the 12 years between 1985–86 to 1997–98. The prior options review is a way of reducing expenditure by privatisation—selling off research laboratories—and has nothing to do with preserving the quality of the science that the institutes produce.
On industrial and commercial spending on research and development, from the recently published research and development scoreboard, we can see that United Kingdom firms are doing badly compared with our international competitors. The New Scientist had a headline, "Britain slides down the R and D league table". The magazine showed that the top 300 companies in the world ploughed back 4.4 per cent. of sales revenue into research and development. The 18 British companies mentioned averaged only 2.5 per cent., which was well below the general average, and only Glaxo was in the top 50 in the global league table. That is surprising and worrying in view of the fact that British companies have increased their profits in the past year or so. One would expect that if they had the right attitude and policy towards research and development, some of that increase in profits would have gone into research spending and not into the shareholders' pockets.
I could say many other things, but I do not want to prolong my speech as other hon. Members have valuable contributions to make. I must, however, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South. Until he said that this was likely to be his last contribution to a debate on science, I had not appreciated that we might not hear him speak in the Chamber on this subject again as he is due to retire at the next general election. I pay tribute to the work that he has done and to his enormously valuable expertise, from which we members of the Science and Technology Committee have benefited. Perhaps I have not always agreed with my hon. Friend, but the argument has always been extremely civilised and probably much better informed from his point of view than from mine. He has made a marvellous contribution in recent Parliaments, and I am sure that other hon. Members will join me in wishing him well in the future and hoping that he will continue to contribute to the important work that he has done on science.
1.17 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: I begin by associating myself wholeheartedly with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) about the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). I first met him at a Labour party conference meeting about science. Our relationship began at that point and I was pleased that he acknowledged that I might have some contribution to make in developing science policy. I can honestly say that my membership of the Select Committee on Science and Technology can be attributed to his involvement and I very much enjoyed being a member of the Select Committee, which has done some excellent work.
As I am starting off with warm words, I must also say that I agreed wholeheartedly with the Minister when he welcomed the commissioning of the report from the Science Policy Research Unit by the Treasury. It is a significant step forward that the Treasury should be starting to consider the contribution that public funding of basic science can make to a successful economy. I hope that that belated recognition may make life easier for the Minister as he embarks on negotiations in the public spending round. Until now—and he did it again this week during Trade and Industry questions—he has had to argue that the Government's commitment to basic science is demonstrated by the fact that, in the next few years, there is a cash-flat budget, which means, in reality, that the science budget is scheduled for further cuts. I hope that, armed with the report from the Science Policy Research Unit, he may be able to do better in future spending rounds. I wish him luck in that.
That will impinge on the Government's response to the Select Committee report on the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate that report and the Government response to it in full, so I do not propose to spend much time on it, but I point out that the report supports the argument for reversing the decline in Government support for research and development, which, sadly, as hon. Members have mentioned, means that Britain is now at the bottom of the G7 league in relation to expenditure on basic science.
Notwithstanding the report from the SPRU, there is other evidence to suggest how important such expenditure is. In Japan, and this is well recognised internationally, business investment in research and development has been well resourced. It is far higher than business investment in this country, to our regret. There is evidence, however, that Japanese firms have not got the best out of their business research and development because Japan lacks the basic science infrastructure that this country, fortunately, has built up over many years.
Far from having a cash-flat budget, the Japanese are planning to increase their science budget by 50 per cent. in the next few years, increasing their spending well above inflation and, interestingly, proposing large-scale expenditure on particle physics. There is nothing more basic than particle physics. It will have economic spin-offs, but, as far as we know, there are no obvious economic benefits from understanding more about how the universe was created or the structure of the atom. It creates that science infrastructure, trains well-educated scientists and excites public interest in science.
1464
The Japanese are recognising that. They are boosting their spending. There is every argument that we should follow suit and not allow the reverse trend to continue.
The report on human genetics is important. It is now 12 months since the Committee published it. It was welcomed with considerable acclaim. An editorial in the science journal Nature said:
"The British Parliament has been well-served by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology."
It said that the Committee's conclusions were "panic free" and its "arguments intelligent". It added that "the Government should listen."
Sadly, as we have heard in the debate, the Government did not immediately listen. There are welcome signs that they are beginning to listen and I hope that this debate will be the start of much more public interest in this sector of Government policy.
That quotation also demonstrates something that I have learnt in my short time in Parliament—that one of the most effective parts of the operation of Parliament is the Select Committees, in which we concentrate on educating ourselves, understanding the issues and generating a consensus, which generally means that there is unanimity on Committee reports. That was certainly the case for the report on human genetics. Conservative Members were able to go against the deregulation grain which seems to be engraved on the hearts of many Conservative Members and accept that if we are to develop the science of genetics and all its potential for human well-being, we must regulate it.
We heard the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) earlier. I have much to disagree with in what he says, but he expresses a view which has considerable support among Members of Parliament. I have here copies of early-day motions, some of which were tabled by the hon. Gentleman, on labelling of foods made using gene technology, gene technology and the threat to humanity, conservation of cocoa germ plasm and other issues relating to the development of genetics.
Perhaps most significant was an early-day motion signed by 106 hon. Members expressing support for the European Parliament in not agreeing to the directive on biotechnology. The fact that so many of our colleagues are concerned about the patenting of genetic material means that we must deal with those concerns. We have a new version of the directive and I very much hope that it will encompass the recommendations made by our Select Committee.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge explained, because it is tremendously important to encourage business to invest in genetic research, which has tremendous potential, the Committee agreed that human gene sequences should be patentable, but that the patent protection should be restricted to a particular application of that sequence. We said that if another discoverer came along with a separate application, he should also be eligible for a separate patent and should not have to pay royalties to the original holder. That proposal deals with the scope that should be allowed on the first patent of a gene. It is important that we do that if we are to generate public support and support among our colleagues in the House and in Europe for the patenting of human genetic material. Sadly, the Government did not agree that there should be specific provision to that effect.

1465
I hope that the Minister will reconsider, because there is widespread anxiety about genetics. There are scare stories about genetic determinism, an underclass, eugenics, designer babies and so on. The public mind tends to focus on those aspects of the science rather than the potential that it has to improve the lives of ordinary people, to save a great deal of money for our health service and to allow our companies to become world leaders in these technologies, with beneficial effects in terms of wealth creation in this country. That is why the recommendation to establish the Human Genetics Advisory Commission to examine all the ethical issues was crucial. The Government opposed that initially.
When we asked Ministers to come back and explain their reasons for rejecting our recommendation, I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Health say that he was concerned that he would be setting up an unelected quango. That was a bit rich coming from the Secretary of State at the Department of Health, which has a plethora of such bodies which have by and large replaced organisations that formerly included elected representatives who could participate in taking decisions. But, ultimately, some common sense prevailed. Perhaps there was also a recognition in Committee that when the chief scientist—who was adamant that there were mechanisms within government for co-ordinating responses to questions raised in our report—was asked to define those mechanisms, he was unable to give an answer. Nevertheless, as a result of those further hearings, the Government have now said that they will set up an advisory commission. We always accepted that, in the initial stages, any such body could well have only advisory functions. That was largely because we did not want its setting up to be delayed and if legislation was required, that would have meant a delay.
Although we are worried about delays, we are also concerned about the lack of priority that the Government seem to have given to setting up such bodies. In order to see that, we have only to refer to the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, which was first announced by the previous Secretary of State for Health in 1994. It is only in the past few weeks that there has been an announcement on that committee's composition—it has taken two years even to set it up. I very much hope that the Minister will give an assurance today that it will not take as long as that to set up the new commission that has finally been accepted.
Thankfully, insurance is not such an important issue for people in this country as it is for those in countries such as America because we have a welfare state and a health service that treat people on the basis of need rather than ability to pay. But there are moves, which I regret, to require people to take out more personal insurance, so it is important that we address the subject.
As we have heard, the Committee said that the insurance industry should be given 12 months to come up with proposals. The Government did not agree and 12 months later we seem to have made little progress. Professor Peter Harper of the Institute of Medical Genetics at the university of Wales college of medicine said in a letter to the Association of British Insurers:
"I have to say that during the five years that I have been involved with this topic and trying to persuade the insurance industry to consider the issues seriously, I have not met any willingness within the industry to modify its position or to have any meaningful dialogue with myself or other professionals in medical genetics."
1466
The only time that we seem to get a response from the insurance industry is when its position is highlighted in debates such as today's. There is also some consensus across the House that, ultimately, we may have to introduce legislation preventing discrimination on genetic grounds. In view of the laxity of the insurance industry's response, we may need to consider that—I hope that it will be one of the first issues that the commission considers.
There are similar considerations in relation to employment. I was pleased to note that in his opening speech, the Minister mentioned the need to look at discrimination against potential employees. There is little protection for people seeking to gain employment if they have a predisposition to a certain condition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has said, such information can be found merely by testing a hair taken from someone's shoulder.
One subject that has not been raised in today's debate involves the arrangements in the national health service for clinical genetic services. The Committee expressed anxiety that, because of the removal of the regional health authorities, the development of those specialist services might be placed in jeopardy because purchasers might not give them a high priority. The Government need to consider that, especially as they have not ruled out in their reply the possibility that such services be commissioned by GP fundholders.
The Committee had grave reservations about going down that path. We wanted the Government to set up a quality assurance scheme for national health services, very much along the lines of that for breast testing. I know that that does not fall within the Minister's responsibility, but it is an important issue and has resource implications for the development of those services.
The existence of the national health service is very beneficial in encouraging industry to invest in these areas. The fact that there is a national health service enables programmes to be developed with Government with proper safeguards. That is a great asset to the country in forging ahead in science. In this country we value the NHS highly, but we may not have valued it as a potential asset in relation to business development. I am baffled as to why we should not do so, given that our most successful industries are the pharmaceutical industries, which rely on demand from the health service, where they know that there will be a market for their products.
I welcome the tone of some of the Minister's remarks and I hope that he will take seriously the points made in the debate to the effect that we must generate public confidence. I hope that the commission will play an important role in that.
We cannot value highly enough the precious asset of our country's science base. I hope that the Minister and his Government will see themselves as safeguarding that asset, not allowing its decline.
1.36 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: It is a pleasure to follow two of my colleagues on the Select Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I thank them for their excellent discipline in allowing me plenty of time to develop my comments on the Science and Technology Select Committee genetics report, and on science policy.

1467
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge at the end of her speech about the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) to our science debates, and especially to the work of the Select Committee. I hope that it will not be his last speech in a major science debate.
I understood from what the Prime Minister said last night that the general election is likely to be held next spring—perhaps even in May—in which case we may well hold debates on prior options or our Natural Environment Research Council inquiry or science policy in general. The contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South to all our debates are extremely knowledgeable and well informed, and he is a heavyweight in the Select Committee. I echo the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that whenever we differ—as happens from time to time—we do so in the full knowledge that his factual base on those issues is often much stronger than mine.
I move on to our report on genetics. I found our 12-month study fascinating. I studied some genetics as part of my chemistry degree course when I was 20 or 21 and found it fascinating. During that course, I attended a lecture by Sir Francis Crick on his work of the early 1950s, elucidating the structure of DNA. That discovery is a great milestone in scientific history and Britain's contribution, particularly that of Cambridge's microbiology laboratory, has been significant. It was fascinating for me to revisit the subject 30 years on.
The progress that has been made, particularly on the human genome project, is incredible. The speed of elucidating the structures of DNA sequences is unbelievable. We realised back in the 1960s that there were 3 billion nucleotide units. In a sense, that is a bit like the Bible but times 100. It is a case of elucidating each of those initials right the way through, so I thought that it would take an eternity, but we are now well on the way to sequencing the whole of the human genome.
Part of my academic fascination is in looking at the nematode world, and at mouse, human and fish DNA. It fills me with humility to see that mouse and human DNA are so similar while fish DNA is superior to ours. I was startled to find that 90 per cent. of human DNA is junk and only 10 per cent. contains codes for useful genes. The other 90 per cent. is either redundant or fulfils some strange purpose—we do not yet understand why it exists—whereas 90 per cent. of fish DNA is useful. We tend to think of ourselves as the most evolved species and the cleverest by far, but that fact fills me with humility.
Throughout our work I have been impressed that Britain has such a good position in the league table on genetics research. On our visit to the National Institute of Health in Washington, we were told that, while the United States is well at the top of the world league and responsible for some 80 per cent. of all the international work on genetics, Britain takes second place and is responsible for some 10 per cent. of the work. So we certainly take the lead in Europe.
In terms of medical applications, this excellent debate has tended to concentrate on genetic defects and screening, and what can be offered in terms of choices, particularly for mothers who want to know whether their
1468
child will have a hereditary defect. I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) about the state of the science in 1996 but in 10 or 20 years' time we shall have the potential of developing gene therapies to help to ameliorate many of those conditions.
Complex questions surround genetic screening and counselling, such as how wide the provision is, and whether genetic tests should be available by post or with minimal counselling. That is why we proposed the establishment of a human genetics commission.
If we look 20 or 30 years ahead, we find within our genetic blueprint a predisposition to all sorts of diseases. I disagree with the hon. Member for Mossley Hill on this matter. Breast and colon cancer genes have been identified, and a strong familial component has been identified with schizophrenia. More generally, heart disease, obesity and diabetes have a strong genetic component and, as we learn more, they will become more predictable and individuals will be able to take preventive action. For example, if they know that they are predisposed to heart disease they can take more care in terms of weight, diet and exercise. That kind of knowledge of our own genetic blueprint can be helpful when we structure our life styles. That genetic information is potentially important and valuable in terms of human health.
However, that information is very much for the individual and it should not be available to insurance companies or to employers because it may lead to discrimination and a genetic underclass. I understand the complexity of the problems—this is part of the reason why the Committee wants a commission to look in detail at developments. In relation to insurance, we felt frustrated at the lack of focus by the Association of British Insurers. Professor Harper from Cardiff pointed out to the Committee the lack of focus and the lack of interest on the part of the insurance companies in detailed dialogue between them and the clinical geneticists.
There is a section in our report on adverse selection and on pooled insurance policies. I think that we have found sophisticated and possible answers to those questions, and they should be taken up by the commission and in discussions between the ABI and clinical geneticists. A number of hon. Members have referred to the possibility that in 20 years' time a lock of hair will be enough for an employer to post off in a matchbox and to predict who will be a good bet and who will be a bad bet and incur health problems if they are employed to the age of 60 or 65. This could lead to discrimination in employment. Matters of that kind should be looked at carefully.
Science holds great promise for mankind. In the 21st century, as we understand human illness and disease much more fundamentally in a chemical or molecular biological fashion, the drugs that we develop are much more sophisticated and better targeted. We are not developing the drugs blind, as has been the case in relation to HIV-AIDS and the development of AZT. Materials are being screened for possible use in the treatment of AIDS. A lot of that is not very well thought out, or cannot be, because of the state of science.
Within molecular biology and genetics there is the potential, in the next few decades, to design drugs much more effectively and to help to extend the range of diseases that can be cured. The Committee visited

1469
Maryland in the United States and saw a presentation where the so-called suicide gene was used to treat brain tumours and we saw some promising work in curing cancers.
Several hon. Members have referred to the Committee's discussions about patenting. Early in the inquiry, I was impressed by the evidence of Professor Martin Bobrow to the Committee. In reply to a question about patenting from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South on 23 November 1994, he said:
"My view is that I am certainly not against patenting; I am against patenting the natural sequence which is discovered and which is part of my body and yours. I am certainly not against patenting of processes, diagnostic procedures, therapeutic modalities or any sort of derivative use".
That paragraph served as my guiding light throughout the Committee's inquiry, and it remains my view on patenting. Gene sequences should not be patentable, but utility applications should. When we came to draft the report, we spent several hours examining the details of the evidence regarding patenting. The report's phraseology about patenting—it has been quoted several times today—is as follows:
"only a combination of a gene and a known utility which is novel and not obvious should be patentable in the context of that utility".
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak worked out those words very carefully and, following some disagreement in the Committee, we agreed unanimously to support them.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and the Government will bear those words in mind when it is time to renegotiate the European Community directive. They embody the directive's target. I examined the directive for about an hour yesterday and I am concerned that it is somewhat contradictory. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South mentioned earlier, articles 3 and 4 are not definitive. I read the background notes to article 3 and they are partly contradictory.
We make it clear that gene sequences should not be patentable. However, when it comes to applications, which are important to industry—that is how companies make their money—we must draw the line between discovery and invention. That issue is well explored in the background notes to article 3, but some contradictions remain. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that issue in the context of the report and our phraseology about patenting and utilities.
Dr. Lynne JonesPerhaps it is more important to consider the report's wording in relation to the attitude that is likely to prevail in the European Parliament on that issue. Many parliamentarians who were concerned about the drafting of the previous directive may have their fears allayed if our wording—or a similar combination of words—were used.
Mr. Williams: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. The Committee is delighted that, following a second report, the Government have embraced the principle of establishing the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. People have serious anxieties about genetics, more so perhaps in Germany and other European countries than in Britain, but we have concerns in Britain too. The Select Committee became aware of those concerns during our inquiry.
1470
The comments made earlier by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill represent a strand of opinion. It is not a majority view, but it is a strong view and I share some of his reservations. I am hostile to the idea of germ line gene therapy—our report reflected that hostility—and I am sceptical about the agricultural implications, such as genetic engineering and genetically manipulated organisms. It is important that the hon. Gentleman's views be reflected in the composition of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. As pointed out earlier, we want the majority of members to be lay people so that the commission carries public confidence. The more open the proceedings and minutes of the commission—its findings should be published simultaneously with submissions to the Government—the more confidence people will have that the public view will be properly reflected.
I found our inquiry on genetics fascinating and our report has been well received. I think it made an important contribution and I am delighted that the Government reconsidered their initial view after we published our second report and that the commission will be established as soon as possible. It should eventually become a statutory commission rather than purely advisory.
In my reading for this debate, I considered in some detail the research and development scoreboard that was published a few weeks ago. Many of the conclusions are disturbing and I shall mention two or three examples, mainly from the Financial Times. Among the top 300 companies in the world, investment in research and development in 1995 showed an increase of 5 per cent. in cash terms. The United Kingdom managed 4 per cent. while the United States forged ahead with 11 per cent. The United Kingdom increase was slightly ahead of Germany's 3 per cent., Japan and Switzerland saw zero growth and investment fell in Belgium, France and Italy. Our figure for that one year does not sound too bad because our investment rose by 4 per cent. and the average for the top 300 companies was 5 per cent., but the Financial Times commented:
"The UK scoreboard, published today by the Department of Trade and Industry, shows that British companies spent 4 per cent. more on R and D in 1995 than in 1994, while their sales rose by 9 per cent. and profits by 18 per cent."
It is a historic sadness of British industry that profits are not reinvested in research and development.
The Financial Times also points out:
"In 1995, the world's top 300 companies devoted some 4.4 per cent. of sales to R and D—compared to an average of 2.5 per cent. for the … UK companies".
In France, Germany, Japan and the United States, companies invest twice as much in research and development as a proportion of sales. The scoreboard examines various sectors in detail and, in the chemical sector, the top British chemical company—Imperial Chemical Industries or ICI—is 26th in the world investment league. In the electronics section, the top British electronics company is 21st in the world investment league. In engineering, our top company, Rolls-Royce, is 20th.
The performance of British companies is not quite so bad throughout the report. In vehicle engineering, Lucas Industries, our top company, is 21st in the world league table. Indeed, in some sectors, we do quite well. Unilever is top of the food companies, Shell Transport and Trading is second of all oil companies, BT is seventh in the world

1471
league of telecommunications companies, and in pharmaceuticals, Glaxo Wellcome is second, SmithKline Beecham fourth and Zeneca sixth. To tie in with my earlier comments on genetics, it is no coincidence that we are world beaters in pharmaceuticals because, as the Committee found throughout its work on genetics, there is high investment in research and development and a very good return. Taking the scoreboard as a whole, only 18 of the 300 companies listed are British. That shows the historical decline in manufacturing industry in this country.
As a scientist, I am very concerned about what is happening in Britain to science in higher education and the industrial sector. The Clerk to the Select Committee is very good at finding us no end of press releases, and included in them in the past couple of weeks was literature on the decision in Japan to which my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak has referred. In Japan, they are planning to increase funding for research in basic science by 60 per cent. by 2000—a 12 per cent. growth in the science budget every year for the next four years. What a wonderful environment to be in. I know that historically Japan has rather ignored science and perhaps lived off international basic science, but it has now seen its importance and intends to invest heavily in it.
I read recently that 75 per cent. of school leavers in the tiger economies of east Asia enter higher education—not 33 per cent. or 35 per cent. or whatever it is in Britain. It strikes me that Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and the rest have rediscovered what we seem to have abandoned since the 1950s and 1960s: the terrific importance of offering higher education to a wide range of the population—such as 75 per cent.—and the importance of science, research and development and science investment. Tomorrow's prosperity comes from investing heavily in today's science.
2.2 pm
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: It is a privilege and an honour to speak in this debate. It is a privilege because being asked by my hon. Friends to draw together the different strands of this detailed debate and present a summary on behalf of the Opposition is to be granted a rare opportunity that most of us have an ambition to realise when we are elected but not all of us get. It is an honour because I am sensible of the fact that I am surrounded by hon. Members who have made the study of science and its applications their life's work. I associate myself and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench with the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). I include in those comments about scientists being present my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge, for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
I pay tribute to the Select Committee. As somebody who is not and would not claim to be a scientist, I found the lucidity and accessibility of the report on human genetics of great help in understanding the issues that have been debated.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and for Cambridge all dealt with the importance of
1472
achieving the right framework for patenting. The Minister owes it to us to comment on that when he responds, because he did not mention it in his opening speech.
The issue of the membership of the testing committee and of the commission was raised by several hon. Members. They spoke of lay representation, and said that the commission, in particular, should be weighted heavily towards lay representatives rather than professors of ethics. Even Members such as the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and myself, or even my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), might be qualified to serve on such a commission.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) talked about the need for a balance to be struck between what the Government can and cannot do. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) intervened earlier to ask whether regulation would be statutory or voluntary. My answer to him is that statutory regulation may be too inflexible to allow for good, well-founded and ethically sound use of human genetic research, and that the speedy development in that area needs a speedy response from the regulators. Parliament may be too slow to respond adequately to the demands of that industry. We shall have to return to that issue.
That does not mean that we are running away from the idea of regulation. Such activities must be carefully regulated, and setting up the commission will be an important step along that route. We must get the balance right between public trust in the work of the companies and scientists in the field, and the stifling of innovation that might result if the regulations are too rigid.
The Select Committee repeatedly returns to that subject in its report, saying that regulations need to be robust and well applied. It concludes that on the whole, the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom is good. None the less, as many hon. Members have said, the establishment of the new commission is to be welcomed.
I press the Minister to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride: which will be the lead Department of State in dealing with the commission? To which Department will it report? It is of overriding importance to establish the commission quickly, especially in view of the concerns expressed from both sides of the House today.
The Select Committee noted the Government's view that most of the important human disease genes are likely to be identified over the next five years. The huge range of information that will then be available to us needs to be dealt with sensitively, carefully and properly, in accordance with the range of concerns that have been expressed in the debate.
One of the commission's main objectives must be to foster public confidence, and public understanding of the scientific research on the subject, of its potential for enormous health benefits and of the United Kingdom's opportunity to capitalise on that. It is also important that we maintain our lead in Europe as a centre for innovation in biotechnology.
It is necessary to foster confidence, partly because public confidence, or lack of it, in the biotechnology industry can have a crucial effect on its success and its ability to grow. The knock-on effect on the knowledge and confidence of the financial institutions obviously has an impact on the availability of venture capital.

1473
The Bank of England's third report on finance for small firms, which was published in January, says that there is evidence that many high-technology small businesses in the United Kingdom are under-achieving in terms of innovation and subsequent growth. Providing management and marketing support, and corporate venturing, may be the way to satisfy the financial needs of such small firms.
Investment by large corporations in the equity of small nascent companies has not occurred in the United Kingdom to the same extent as it has in the United States. The Bank of England concludes that that difference is largely cultural, and calls upon policy makers to act as facilitators in encouraging the process.
In his opening speech the Minister said that he was worried that industry might not appreciate the importance of its role in fostering scientific innovation. He went on to quote from the press release accompanying the report that he published this morning—a press release whose message was, "British research in good shape".
The report discusses the relationship between publicly funded basic research and the United Kingdom's general economic performance. What is the Minister's response to the Select Committee's criticism that although overseas research and development in the United Kingdom may come in from Europe, United Kingdom investment in the industry often goes to the United States?
The report published today is a welcome tool to illustrate the creative tension that exists between academic and industrial research, and the academics involved in its production have suggested that the evidence is mixed as to whether new firms have been created on a significant scale as a result of the funding of basic research. Work on the topic has been based mainly on case studies of particular universities and fields of science. A previous review found little convincing evidence of major benefits from academic research in terms of generating spin-off companies.
Although it is certainly true that some universities are surrounded by a substantial number of firms—Cambridge is an obvious example of that—the growth rates of these companies is often low. All too frequently, academics do not make good entrepreneurs, and the effective exploitation of their technology usually requires that the ownership of the technology and its managerial control be taken out of their hands at an early stage.
The report refers to Europe, where biotechnology firms—of which Britain has the largest number—generally cluster in areas of academic excellence. However, most such firms in the UK have industrial and not academic founders, despite the fact that Britain has more star scientists in molecular biology than any other European country. Some of the best researchers in the world are working in the UK in our research institutes, universities arid hospitals, as many hon. Members have said. Our innovative biotechnology sector is currently hampered by a lack of venture capital funding and a generally cautious commercial environment. We are in danger of reaping the health benefits, but missing out on the industrial benefits that could accrue to the United Kingdom.
I am conscious that time is pressing, but I must say in conclusion that the Government have presided over the undermining of our scientific research base in the public sector, which will lead to further uncertainty in
1474
biotechnology industries. As a result of the Government's decision to slash capital spending on research and development, the Wellcome Trust has confirmed that it is to stop funding new capital projects. In the long run, that will cut perhaps a further £50 million a year or so from Britain's science base—doubling our losses. That money will go to research groups in other countries, strengthening their science bases and giving their companies the competitive advantage that we have thrown away. In the circumstances, the recent launch by the Department of Trade and Industry of a crusade for biotechnology in Britain is risible.
2.12 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity to return to the Dispatch Box to sum up this excellent debate. First, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), who made her debut at the Dispatch Box with great skill, calmness and precision. For her sake, I hope that the shadow Cabinet list is still open because, in my judgment, she would make a fine candidate—although I do not wish to intervene in the internal affairs of the Labour party.
As the hon. Member for Broadgreen arrives at the Dispatch Box, we regret the departure of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who has contributed to many debates such as this over the years. We have occasionally had a chance to chat in the Lobby, and I have always found his words interesting. We have not necessarily always agreed, and I was astonished to learn that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) also has not always agreed with him. These are the sort of revelations that one gets in these debates, and that is one of the most exciting things of all.
Having listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), I will now eat fish with greater respect than I did previously. Fish is clearly not a junk food, according to its DNA structure. There is a great deal of talent on the Opposition Back Benches, and I had not realised the hon. Gentleman's background in chemistry and environmental sciences. I enjoyed a rather jolly party with the Royal Society of Chemistry this week, and it is clear that chemists relish their role in pulling together all sorts of disciplines to make sure that we are able to understand some of the great breakthroughs. That is putting a strain on university departments. The vertical segregation of disciplines is breaking down, particularly in science, into new arrangements. The Cruciform project of University college, London is an interesting example and there are many others.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen made an important point that no one else mentioned. I tried to raise it in my evidence to the Committee. There are benefits in knowing one's own genetic structure. If one knows that one is likely to suffer from a disease, one can alter one's life style and possibly mitigate the effects or postpone the disease. There are many aspects of science that we must consider, but that is a beneficial impact.
I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), which contained many thoughtful points, not least her encouragement of the Treasury. Of course, I cannot comment on anything connected with the Budget, which is not yet decided upon, but I hope that the Treasury reads the text of Hansard and her speech in particular before we finalise the public expenditure survey round.

1475
We are not the only country facing pressures on the science budget and, indeed, on all budgets. Japan is the honourable exception. There are good, domestic economic reasons why Japan is looking for ways to spend more money, not least connected with the position of the yen. Nevertheless, when I talked to the Japanese on a recent visit—their scientific adviser has been to this country twice recently—it was clear that they are beginning to spend a considerable amount of money, but they are coming here to learn how to spend it. The structure of science is extremely strong in this country. The flexibility in the way in which our institutions, research establishments and universities work has greatly intrigued the Japanese and we are watching that situation closely.
All the other G7 countries face budgetary constraints. Consider the difference in Germany, where the largesse of recent years has turned into a need to constrain. The Germans are talking to us about ways in which we may co-operate. As I will not have time to return to that matter, I must immediately pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South about CERN. There is no doubt that we and the Germans have a common interest in ensuring that the CERN position is rectified. We cannot carry on as we are. It is absurd for us to have budgets that mean that we are effectively funding others to do research because we do not have enough left in our own budgets to carry out our national programmes, or to get involved nationally in some of the work at the large hadron collider. We should, therefore, take the opportunity presented to us because other countries are now becoming concerned about budgets and work closely with the Germans on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was involved with the earlier discussions when he was briefly the Minister responsible for science. He understands the pressures and I noted carefully what he had to say.
Not surprisingly, a considerable amount of the discussion has focused on genetics. My opening remarks could be much broader because many documents are tagged for the debate, not least the forward look, which gives us an opportunity to discuss all elements of science. Now I shall concentrate on the issues raised in the debate.
First, it is understandable that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) mentioned the ethical questions. I am not going to differ with him about the importance of ethics in this debate. We might well differ on how we segregate aspects of decision making from it. He mentioned xenotransplantation, which is the use of organs and tissues from genetically modified animals for the treatment of humans and which is causing great concern. There are ethical questions about that.
The advisory group has been set up to advise the Secretary of State for Health on that issue. The group is led by Professor Ian Kennedy, who is professor of medical ethics at King's college, London, and its terms of reference are that
"in the light of recent and potential developments in xenotransplantation, to review the acceptability of an ethical framework within which xenotransplantation may be undertaken and to make recommendations."
That is to the Secretary of State for Health.
1476
The hon. Gentleman raised other matters, including the discussion on novel foods in the European Union and, in particular, genetically modified foods. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which advises the Ministers with responsibility for health and agriculture on safety, is active. No genetically modified food has been marketed in this country without the committee's clearance. I do not have time to go into it now, but I accept his genuine concern, although we might differ on certain aspects of how we bring ethics into the debate.
I wish to be emphatic on one matter, and I am glad that I share the views of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) in saying this. By and large, the transformation of our horizons by the scientific developments that have come out of the genetic sequencing process, the human genome project and genetic analysis of many aspects of substances such as yeast, will benefit humankind. Because of that, we must recognise the hon. Member for Mossley Hill's ethical concerns and reconcile them as best we can. We must not, however, stop the progress with scientists who are minded to try to improve the quality of human life.
The hon. Members for East Kilbride and for Broadgreen rightly pressed me on specific points arising out of the Select Committee's genetics study. With the advisory commission, we will have to consider whether recommendations should turn into legislation. I will not pre-empt that. It will depend on what it recommends.
I would want to talk to the chairman, when he is appointed, about the terms of the publication of the commission's reports. We said up front that this should be transparent. If the process is to give the public greater confidence in what is happening, my instinct is to go in that direction, but, again, I should like to take up that matter with the chairman.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride mentioned the Genetics Interest Group. We watch its work closely and we understand and listen to its advice. At the end, we have to take it into consideration, but we have taken careful note of the work on care in old age, for example, and we will continue to do so.
Advisory commission members will be chosen on their merits. That is, in effect, set out in our response to the Select Committee. They will, however, represent between them informed opinion on developments in the science of human genetics, as well as social health, ethical and economic implications. The purpose is to take a broad perspective. I have listened to the comments of hon. Members about the balance between lay members and professionals. We have already said that we understand the reasons for that and we will go as far as we can to accommodate them and move as quickly as possible to ensure that the commission is appointed.
In view of its strategic role, the advisory commission will interest a number of Departments. I was pushed to clarify this point. Primarily, it will interest the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry, my own Department. Therefore, we have determined that the commission will report formally and jointly to Health and industry Ministers and that there will be a joint secretariat. Ministers' job will be to ensure that both Departments work closely together, but the secretariat will be based in the Office of Science and Technology and the secretary will be an OST official.

1477
I would not presume to take primary responsibility over the Department of Health because, as these things develop, clearly, mutual interests will be involved and it will depend to some extent on the issue we are discussing, but there is no doubt that my Department—which includes the chief scientific adviser—has, through the President of the Board of Trade, a transdepartmental interest. We will ensure that we carry out that responsibility.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the importance of testing. I understand the concerns, which were discussed during my opening speech. Several comments have been made on insurance. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Selly Oak about certain aspects of what could occur in employment and interviews in terms of genetic testing. Mention has been made during the debate in the context of insurance of Professor Peter Harper of the college of medicine at the university of Wales in Cardiff, who is a specialist in clinical genetics. I can confirm what colleagues know—that he is a member of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. It is intriguing that the committee had its first meeting this morning. We shall await the outcome of that. It is difficult for the moment to see how widely it will decide to go at the early stage, but having set the committee up as a result of the recommendations of the Select Committee, I am delighted that it has had its first meeting.
I confirm to the House that I hope that now that we have agreed that the Human Genetics Advisory Commission will be created, it will be set up and working as quickly as possible. I cannot stress enough how important it is to reassure the public. I am profoundly supportive of the moves to increase the range of knowledge of genetics, but I realise that it raises considerable anxieties.
The question of patents has been raised by several hon. Members. The directive that is being discussed in the European Union is welcome, but I hope that the European Parliament will not tinker with it too much. I am not instinctively opposed to that institution, but sometimes Members of the European Parliament seem to lack responsibility in the way in which they consider such matters. I urge them to realise that biotechnology is an industry which is extremely sensitive to false moves in terms of regulation.
There is a long gestation period between original research and potential availability of products. If companies feel that they live in a hostile regulatory environment, it is possible for the capital behind the research and the research to move offshore from Europe. That has already occurred in Germany. Some of the German Lander are so worried about the matter that they are offering vast sums of money to maintain research in their universities. However, money itself—this is an interesting point for Opposition Members—is not sufficient if the risk calculation of regulation means that the company or the people involved in the research do not see how they will ever be able to move sufficiently far and fast in a stable climate.
The exemptions in United Kingdom law for research and compulsory licensing, which help to ensure that patents do not stifle legitimate research, are not affected by the draft directive.
The present legal requirements for novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability make it unlikely that patents will be gained for genes of unknown function—an anxiety that was raised. Patents can be refused on the
1478
ground of morality, but that can be justified only in clear cases and, in my judgment, the directive is not a place for discussion of moral issues. That is not to say that moral issues do not impinge, but if we try to achieve a directive that embraces moral issues, it will be a pretty rum piece of law to enforce. Therefore, we must try to segregate morality from other issues without discounting its importance.
I was pleased to see that George Poste, whom I mentioned earlier and who has been mentioned by others, stated that the biotechnology patenting directive was to be welcomed. In the Financial Times this morning, he said:
"Without patents there will be no cures. I welcome the re-affirmation of the importance of this issue at the Florence summit at which the Council of Ministers was asked to expedite adoption of the legal framework for biotechnological inventions."
I heartily endorse that. We must give clear signals to industry if we are to get the best advances that we can.
Human genetic research has been mentioned by several colleagues. I particularly listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who made an important speech and said in a letter to the Financial Times recently that the United Kingdom would have the most sophisticated system in the world for considering issues raised by genetics. I agree with that.
There have been one or two interestingly waspish comments to the effect that the Government came to that view rather late in the day. I accept that Governments need to think through such matters carefully. I have thought them through carefully, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We were much taken by the fact that the Committee rethought through some aspects of the subject and decided that an advisory commission, rather than a statutory body, was the right way forward. There was a tremendous meeting of minds and we have come up with the present framework. Given the committees that have not been mentioned today—such as the Interdepartmental Group on Genetic Modification Technology—as the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, said, it is the best system available.
There is no doubt that human genetics research is crucial. If we are to get the best out of it, we must give industry the greatest possible stimulus. The crusade for biotechnology shows that we can do that. Another part of the Government's policy is to ensure the excellence of science in this country.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 24th July—

(1) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), the second Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the adjournment of the House shall lapse one and a half hours after it has been made;

(2) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to the draft Code of Conduct of Members not later than two hours after their commencement, such Questions including the Questions on any amendments to that Motion which she may have selected, which may then be moved; and

the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Dentistry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth]
2.30 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I should like to raise the topic of dentistry, particularly dentistry in my constituency of Nottingham, North.
It is important to place it on record that there has been a vast and quiet privatisation of dental care by the Government since 1979, which has gone unnoticed by the press and the public. Dentistry is one of those things that affects individuals only when they feel the need for dental care. In many ways, the Government have escaped proper public scrutiny of what they have done.
A local dentist in my constituency recently said to me:
"I am trying to remain in the NHS but quite frankly it isn't possible. There is a surplus of patients who … can't afford private treatment, which is putting me under increasing pressure. My list is now closed, I can't take any more NHS patients."
In talking to local dentists in my constituency, I am struck above all by their dedication. They do not want to leave NHS dentistry, but they are being forced out of it by Government policies. That fact became evident to me during the numerous meetings that I have had with local dentists; it has also become evident to the Select Committee on Health. In its fourth report for the 1992–93 Session, it concluded:
"For present and potential non-exempt NHS dental patients access to NHS services is becoming increasingly difficult".
That difficulty has, of course, affected everyone. In my region, a recent Harris poll commissioned by the British Dental Association stated that 25 per cent.—one in four people—in the east midlands had trouble finding a local dentist willing to treat them on the NHS. We are now reaching the position where about half the adult population of the UK is not registered with an NHS dentist. Probably even more tragically, 41 per cent. of children are not registered with an NHS dentist. In short, British dentistry is not safe in the Government's hands.
Denplan, the health and dental insurers, found that only 60 per cent. of dentists were treating any NHS patients. In 1989, that figure was 90 per cent. and it was probably even higher than that in 1979. We must confront the problem that as a result of Government policy the era of free, regular dental checks in constituencies up and down the United Kingdom is well and truly over. There has been a process of back-door privatisation of which people are not aware. I am afraid that we are looking at a dental—or oral—health disaster in the UK owing to the failure to take adequate preventive measures.
Since 1992, more than 1 million people nationwide have been taken off NHS dental lists. In the Trent area, which covers my Nottingham constituency, 65,000 people have been deregistered. These people are being denied treatment on the NHS because dentists can no longer afford to take on NHS patients. Instead, they must devote ever-increasing time to their private patients to balance their books.
Countless constituents of mine have been approached to go private. The regular mailshot for NHS patients is a common occurrence. I repeat that neither patients nor practitioners in Nottingham want to be in that position. The Government, as a matter of policy, have made a
1480
systematic attempt to force adults out of NHS dentistry, deliberately opting out of a service which we have taken for granted and which many of us believed that we had already paid for. The next toothache might be the stimulus that we need to consider whether the recent 1 p tax cut was really worth it. Even Conservative Members share my view. According to a recent Harris poll, 44 per cent. of Conservative Members of Parliament believe that NHS dental care will be restricted to children and those on low income if present trends continue.
The recent farce regarding the Government's contract with Nottingham dentists has aggravated many problems. Dentists have had to spend three years wrangling with the Government. Dentists' fees have only just returned to their 1991 levels, not allowing for inflation, following a fee cut of 7 per cent. in 1992. Now all but the simplest dental work must be referred, with a lengthy wait, for what is called prior approval. One third of all patients on dental lists, mainly children and those on low income, are still entitled to free dental treatment, but the two thirds of adults who pay some of the cost of their treatment contribute more than 80 per cent. of dental costs, so the Government pay only 20 per cent. of the cost of treatment.
Nottingham dentists, like those elsewhere, have a choice. They may choose the contractual confusion and mess of that 80–20 split between private and NHS funding and the requirement to fight through the bureaucracy and fight with Government about fee levels. Or they may choose the simplicity of charging 100 per cent. privately, avoiding the difficulties with the Government that have been so apparent in recent years—a Government who do not give a damn about NHS dentistry.
The Government have deliberately designed a policy to underfund NHS dentistry and drive dentists into private practice. Sadly, the policy has been a success. Increasingly, and reluctantly, many of the dental practitioners whom I have met in Nottingham are being forced by it into one of three categories: those who no longer take on NHS patients, those who no longer roll their patients' registration forward when it expires—even that period has been reduced from 22 months to 15 months—and those who are actively deregistering their patients.
None of the local dentists whom I have spoken to wants to make those choices, but when one dentist reduces the number of NHS registrations that they will handle, that demand does not go away. People look elsewhere for a dentist who will register them, putting increasing pressure on the declining number of dentists in the district until they, too, have little alternative but to limit the number of NHS patients, and so it goes on: a local snowball develops until most local practitioners move into the private sector, excluding vast numbers of people from effective dental treatment.
In recent years, there has been a massive but largely unnoticed switch. The 1994 survey by Denplan, which I mentioned, found that only 60 per cent. of dentists were treating any NHS patients compared with 90 per cent. in 1989. Wholly NHS dentists will soon be an extinct species, replaced by a tiny, overworked band of community dentists. Dentistry is becoming a safety net welfare service for the underprivileged and the very young rather than something that we have taken for granted ever since the modern dental service was established.

1481
The former family health services authority that is now the Nottingham health authority is swamped with people searching for an NHS dentist. In the Trent region. more than 20,000 people asked for help between July 1992 and September 1995. In less than six months last year, the corresponding national figure increased by 25 per cent. Put simply, the provision of NHS dentistry in Nottingham, like many other urban areas, is shrinking and patients are beginning to suffer. Health authorities have a duty eventually to find those people a dentist, but many of my constituents must travel 10 to 20 miles to reach dentists who will take them. It is not easy to travel those distances with children or shopping and it certainly does not encourage people, particularly children, to visit the dentist. Many of the vast improvements in oral health since the NHS was established 50 years ago are bottoming out as tooth decay, particularly among children, shows signs of increasing. That is what the Government will be remembered for as privatisation continues.
The Government estimate that the new rigorous prior approval proposals will reduce the amount of expensive complex work done on the NHS by about 5 per cent. According to the BDA, that will save £10 million this year alone. Knowing that prior approval is a lengthy and difficult process, dentists either prolong NHS treatment or do it quickly privately, which is yet another obstacle to people taking up effective NHS dental care. Once again, the screw is being turned on dentists as they are encouraged to shift patients to private contracts, a process that has taken place inexorably and as a matter of policy since the Government came to office in 1979. Incredible damage has been done over that period and it will be extremely difficult to halt and reverse it.
We must look urgently at how to attract more dental practices to inner-city areas and rapidly halt the privatisation of dental services. Once dentists have had enough of trying to wring sufficient funds out of the NHS and go private, it will be hard to bring them back. Sadly, that shows the success of the Government's agreed policy. The few remaining dentists who will take on new NHS registrations are in huge demand and can no longer cope. The Government's plans to introduce grants for new dentists in areas with specific problems are like sticking a plaster over a haemorrhage. We must prevent a further drift towards private dental work, and actively encourage and support NHS dentistry as the foundation of proper oral care. Decimating NHS dentistry, then throwing in a few extra community dentists, is no way to run a national health service for dental care.
This century has seen massive improvements in dental care for all, but that is now under threat. In the past half century, we have seen that oral health can be effectively tackled only through preventive medicine—free regular check-ups and easy, cheap and convenient treatment. That is the approach that must now be taken. I understand that the next Labour Government will work closely with dentists to establish how that can most effectively be done. We shall seek to make progress with voluntary fluoridation, which has been shown to be one of the best ways of preventing tooth decay.
Adults as well as children need to visit their dentists regularly for check-ups to prevent the development of painful and expensive work later. I am not about to pretend that anyone looks forward to trips to the dentist, which is all the more reason why the Government must
1482
stop making it increasingly hard for my constituents, particularly children, to have the NHS dental services that they need.
It is important that the public are aware of the crisis which the Government have deliberately engendered in NHS dental care. My constituents are suffering because of that systematic neglect over recent years. I hope that the Minister will tell the House and my constituents what he intends to do to deal with the problem, rather than just let it get worse and worse. If the Government are content to let this problem drift on, health care—and particularly dental care—will be set back 30 or 40 years. I hope that the Government will make it plain that that is not what they want and that even at this late stage they will reverse their policies to ensure that it will not happen.
2.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am delighted that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has raised this subject, even though it is close to the end of the Session, because it gives me the opportunity to point out that, contrary to the one-sided picture that he painted, the Government are committed to a comprehensive and effective national health service dental service. Our record speaks for itself.
On 31 March, the total number of dentists on family health services authority lists was 15,998, which is 3,900 more than it was in 1979 and the second highest figure ever. Since 1978–79, funding for NHS dentistry has increased by 54 per cent. in real terms. Over the same period, the number of adult courses of treatment rose by 7.82 million. At the beginning of this year, more than 6 million children were registered for capitation, helping to ensure that they receive regular care for their teeth at a critical age.
Our major investment in NHS dentistry has produced results—the oral health of the nation has improved. When seen over a longer period, that improvement is enormous. We forget all too easily the pain and discomfort that poor oral health caused in earlier generations. Perhaps hon. Members of my generation will remember the gloomy and inadequate dentists I visited. When the discipline of parental urging was removed when I got older, I forgot to go to the dentist for three or four years and, as a result, I have far more fillings than I should have for a man of my age. That is what it was like when we were young, and I do not believe that that would happen to anything like that extent today.
Our task is not to look back but to look forward. NHS dentistry cannot afford to stand still if it is to meet the challenges of the future, such as building on past improvements in oral health, targeting more accurately the groups of patients who are our highest priority and improving value for money. Those principles were underpinned in the recent wide-ranging statement on the future of NHS dentistry, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health made not so long ago. A key element in the statement was the announcement that a year of detailed and constructive negotiations with the profession had resulted in an agreement on the reform of the general dental services pay system.
The package has a number of elements and implementation will begin in September. First, it targets the substantial existing resources more effectively, with

1483
the aim of improving child oral health and giving value for money to the taxpayer. In addition to the capitation payment made for each child registered, a new set of fees for individual items of treatment will be introduced. That fee scale will replace the weighted entry payments that are currently paid where significant treatment is required. It will be a simpler system oriented towards children.
Secondly, for both adult and child dentistry, we are to harmonise the registration period at 15 months. That will provide a period of continuing dental care following each course of treatment, while streamlining administration procedures, reducing bureaucracy for dentists, and ensuring that the public secure the best value for money from the available resources. In other words, we are reducing administration, bureaucracy and waste—something the Labour party claims that it would do if it were in power.
The reforms also include an agreement to introduce more careful prior approval. That will ensure that all clinically essential services are available and are secured in the most cost-effective way. In view of the agreement with the profession, we have waived the overpayments that built up over a number of years to 1993–94. They amounted to some £16,500 per dentist and were the consequence of a remuneration system with a balancing mechanism that recovered overpayment in one year in subsequent years.
The British Dental Association has ended its long-running dispute with the Government as a result of the reform agreement, combined with the waiver of overpayments. Those developments remove the uncertainty that dentists have been under for several years and they should promote an atmosphere of stability and security in the NHS general dental service. More importantly, they draw a line beneath the past and allow us to concentrate on the future. That can be only beneficial for patients and dentists alike.
Accessibility to NHS primary care dental services is very important. I am aware that, despite a healthy national picture with the second highest number of dentists ever, patients experience difficulties obtaining treatment in some local areas. The hon. Gentleman referred to services in his area. It is particularly difficult to obtain treatment in rural areas, where the distances are greater and it is harder to find a dentist nearby. There also tend to be fewer dentists in the more affluent areas.
We must tackle those localised problems, so the Government have launched an access fund that will target local needs through local solutions. I look forward to seeing health authorities—wherever they may be located—working with the profession to devise innovative and effective schemes that help to improve access appropriate to their areas. In addition, health authorities are able to apply to the Secretary of State to appoint a salaried dentist, and they can use community dental services when there are shortages. As the hon. Gentleman will know, many salaried dentists have been appointed under the scheme.
Let me look further ahead. At present, dentists work within a fairly rigid national system. One of the lessons that we have learnt in other parts of the NHS is that bringing an element of local flexibility into service provision can prove invaluable in helping to targe
1484
resources to meet local needs and demands. That is why the Government intend to pilot and evaluate a system of local contracting for primary care dentists in several areas of the United Kingdom. Health authorities will be able to target local needs more effectively, using their knowledge of local conditions and of local patient needs.
The chairman of the general dental services committee of the British Dental Association has promised to work with us constructively—thus achieving the good, co-operative relationship between the profession and the Government that the hon. Gentleman called for. The pilots will require primary legislation, and the Government intend to seek an opportunity to introduce a Bill. I hope that the next parliamentary Session will be a long one, so that we may introduce that legislation. We hope that it will prove possible to publish a draft Bill for consultation this autumn.
We recognise that changes in organisation must be paired with measures that will secure the highest professional standards into the 21st century. Such a Bill would also provide an opportunity to make changes to the Dentists Act 1984. Those changes have been requested by the General Dental Council, which is charged with setting and maintaining professional standards. The changes include setting up new classes of auxiliaries and expanding the range of work that they can do. The aim is to allow dentists to manage their practices more effectively, to provide more professional opportunities for hygienists and other dental auxiliaries, and to increase the amount of patient care available.
The council also intends to create a statutory career redevelopment scheme for dentists who must improve their level of competence. It will introduce conditional registration in addition to the sanctions that are currently in place for disciplinary proceedings. In other words, rather than the current heavy-handed approach, we shall have a system that is much more conducive to ironing out the problems of dentists who are judged to be less than fully competent. The aim is to help rather than hurt.
Finally, the GDC wants to establish a complaints system for private patients. As hon. Members know, Parliament passed legislation this Session dealing with a new complaints system throughout the NHS. It is important to complement that with a complaints system for private patients. That would enhance the GDC's powers to deal with complaints against dentists providing treatment outside the NHS. The proposals mirror developments in the medical profession and will ensure that professional standards are maintained and developed.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that NHS dentistry is, and remains, a Government priority. The programme of initiatives unveiled recently is firm evidence of our commitment to effective and efficient NHS provision. We now have an agreed way forward, a constructive working relationship with the profession and adequate resources. Although I concede that there is still much work to do, I believe that we have taken the first important steps to strengthen the current service and to provide the firm foundations for future work.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Boards of Visitors)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, columns 141–42, concerning membership of boards of visitors, for what reasons the Minister proposes to remove those visitors who have served for longer than 15 years as of January 1997. [37454]

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is a general principle of public appointments that appointments should neither be renewed automatically nor renewed an indefinite number of times. This principle has recently been reaffirmed by Lord Nolan and by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of places left vacant on prison boards of visitors on 3 July; [37452]

  (2) what is the estimated average length of time that unoccupied places on prison boards of visitors remain vacant. [37453]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As of 3 July, 254 vacancies were recorded for boards of visitors serving prisons in England and Wales. Information on the estimated average length of time that unoccupied places on boards of visitors remain vacant can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Constituency Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and which constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [32337]

  Mr. Howard
  During the past three months, I have made official visits to the following constituencies:

  Derby, South

  Derby, North

  Maidstone

  Guildford

  Brighton, Kemptown

  Brighton, Pavilion

  Hove

  Worthing

  Wimbledon

  St. Albans

  Watford

  Scarborough

  672

  Eastleigh

  Arundel

  Crawley

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central

  Wallsend

  Hendon, South

  Leicester, South

  North-West, Leciestershire

  Bosworth

  Leeds, North-East

  Plymouth, Drake

  Manchester, Central

  Eccles

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  Blaby

  Vauxhall

  Dover

  Manchester, Withington

  Davyhulme

  Stretford

  South Dorset

  Poole

  Bournemouth, West

  Bristol, East

  Aldershot

  Basingstoke

  Ludlow

  Details of future visits are not given for security reasons.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37235]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department's plans to ensure that major publications are accompanied by simultaneous release on the Internet are quite well advanced. A departmental home page went live on the Internet last March. Two recent consultation documents have been loaded on to the site—"Proposed European Community (EC) Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC)"; and "Stalking: The Solutions—A Consultation Paper". The proposed EC directive will be taken off this week because the closing date for responses is 19 July.

  I support developments in publishing suitable information by electronic means and my Department plans to release through the Internet all future consultation documents and other major publications.

  The Department's immigration and nationality directorate and the research and statistics directorate have their own home pages. These include summarised background information.

  All Home Office material on the Internet can be reached through the main home page on www.open.gov.uk/home_off/hofront.htm
  673

  Departmental Visits (United States of America)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97 on which visits to himself, his Ministers or officials within his Department were made by (i) advisers, consultants or academics from the United States of America, (ii) representatives of American federal or state prison services, (iii) representatives of American companies providing private prison or associated services and (iv) other Americans in connection with criminal justice policy; if he will list the names of those visitors, who they represented, and who they met; what was the purpose of each visit and the outcome of each meeting; and what was the cost to public funds of each visit. [37976]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers arriving at United Kingdom ports of entry during 1995 and the first quarter of 1996 were referred to port medical inspectors for examination; what were the most common diagnoses made; and how many people have been(a) refused entry (i) wholly or (ii) partly on medical grounds and for what medical reasons and (b) required to report for further medical treatment after entry, and for what medical reason. [38058]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Four passengers were refused entry principally on medical grounds in 1995 and four during the first quarter of 1996. The other information requested is not available centrally.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the past five years how many people have presented claims for asylum to a British embassy or high commission; and what the number of such claims has been by country of origin of the claimant. [38195]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: Aggregate information on the number of claims for asylum made at British embassies or high commissions is not available. However, details of applications made at specific British high commissions is given in explanatory note 14 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, 1995", issue 9/96, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the past five years how many people have been granted visas to enter the United Kingdom as a result of presenting a claim for asylum to a British embassy or high commission; and what the number of such cases has been by country of origin of the claimant. [38194]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The requested information is not available.
  674

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total sum of money paid in(a) legal aid and (b) legal advice services during 1995. [37193]

  Mr. Streeter
  Net expenditure on criminal and civil legal aid in 1995–96 was £1,141 million. In the same period, net expenditure on legal advice and assistance, including the duty solicitor scheme, was £250 million.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37236]

  Mr. Streeter
  My Department has published a number of documents on the Internet—recent examples include the legal aid White Paper, the Lord Chancellor's Department strategic plan and the charter for court users—and will continue to do so. Such documents are normally available via the Internet within a day of publication.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number, nature and value of contracts awarded by his Department to Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young, Deloitte and Touche, Arthur Anderson, Grant Thornton, DBO Stoy Hayward, Pannel Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37313]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested is as follows:

  Consultants

  Number of Contracts

  Nature

  Amount £000's

  Coopers and Lybrand

  nil

  —

  —

  KPMG

  nil

  —

  —

  Price Waterhouse

  nil

  —

  —

  Ernst and Young

  1

  External Audit

  179

  1

  Research and advice on civil fees

  193

  Deloitte and Touche

  nil

  —

  —

  Arthur Anderson

  1

  Training

  20

  Grant Thornton

  nil

  —

  —

  DBO Stoy Hayward

  1

  External audit

  3

  Pannel Kerr Forster

  nil

  —

  —

  Robson Rhodes

  nil

  —

  —

  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for four agencies; the Court Service, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. The question concerns operational matters on which the chief executives are best placed to provide answers. I have accordingly asked them to reply direct.
  675
  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1996:

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number and value of accountancy consultant contracts awarded in 1995 and 1996.

  Six contracts have been awarded to the firms referred to in the Question and these are listed below:

  Consultant

  Nature

  Value

  KPMG

  Provide advice on pay systems used in other organisations and help develop the framework for a Court Service pay system

  £60,000

  KPMG

  Pay and Grading Review—carry out scoping study and assist in preparation of final consultation document

  £82,735

  Price Waterhouse

  Provide expert advice on the framework and selection process for senior managers

  £10,692

  Price Waterhouse

  Develop methodology to identify the key performance drivers in the Crown Court trial process

  £91,000

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Financial advice on accruals accounting requirements

  £14,700

  Binder Hamlyn Fry (part of Arthur Andersen)

  Financial advice on accruals accounting requirements

  £13,165

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 11 July 1996, regarding the number, nature and value of contracts awarded to various firms and their subsidiaries and associates during 1995 and 1996.
  In 1995 a contract was awarded to Ernst & Young to provide consultancy advice on the Public Trust Office's Information Systems Strategy. Two payments were made in 1995 and 1996 in respect of this contract—one for £36,056.75 in 1995 and the other for £21,478.41 in 1996.

  Letter from Stuart Hill to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the number, nature and value of contracts awarded to specified companies during 1995 and 1996.
  Two contracts have been awarded to KPMG as follows:
  September 1995—Consultancy Services for Market Testing—£14,720.48 (inc.vat)
  April I996—Business Study and Market Research for National Land Information Service Project—£100,000 (plus vat)

  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Mr Austin Mitchell, dated 19 July 1996:
  In the absence on leave of the Chief Executive, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about contracts awarded to specified companies during 1995 and 1996.
  One such contract was let, to Ernst and Young, in 1995. It was for a logistical study and review of procedures in connection with removing 44 linear kilometres of historical records to a different site and subsequent services in making them available to users. The value was £99,500.
  676

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have now informed the Fees Office that they do not wish to draw the recently agreed increase in salary. [38245]

  Mr. Newton
  I am advised by the Fees Office that, to date, four hon. Members have informed them that they do not wish to draw the full increase in salary.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members claimed car mileage allowances during the year 1995–96 for a vehicle of(a) less than 1300cc and (b) less than 1000cc. [38443]

  Mr. Newton
  In the financial year 1995–96, 44 hon. Members claimed for vehicles of 1300cc or less. The information relating to vehicles of less than 1000cc is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will estimate the difference since(a) the 1987 and (b) the 1992 general election between the actual cumulative out-of-London parliamentary salaries of hon. Members and the total assuming the salaries were to be at the level recommended by the review body on senior salaries reduced for previous years by the national movement in (i) earnings and (ii) prices. [36850]

  Mr. Newton
  The estimated gross differences are:

  (a) (i): £60,000

  (ii): £120,000

  (b) (i): £40,000

  (ii): £70,000

  These figures are calculated to March 1996, as that is the latest available figure for the average earnings index, and to the nearest £10,000, that being the highest degree of accuracy obtainable on the basis of the published figures for retail prices index.

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibitions
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Still Moving After 100 Years" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [38611]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 9 December to Friday 13 December 1996.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the British Epilepsy Association to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [38696]

  Mr. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 16 December to Friday 20 December 1996.
  677

TREASURY

  Unfunded Pension Liabilities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the capacity of the United Kingdom economy to meet the costs of public sector pensions which are currently unfunded when such liabilities fall due; and if he will estimate the impact in billions of pounds and as a percentage of gross domestic product such annual costs will have on public finances for each of the next 30 years based on current trends. [36392]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Broadly speaking, unfunded public service pension liabilities rise in relation to GDP as schemes mature. Thereafter, the relationship should be relatively stable, depending on trends in public service pay and employment. Not all the schemes are similarly mature, and detail figuring on the basis proposed in the question is unavailable. Nevertheless, assuming pay rises do not exceed economic growth in the long term, the Government Actuary does not expect a substantial upward movement in unfunded public service pension liabilities in relation to GDP.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total value of service charges paid by Departments on contracts signed under the PFI in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how much has so far been committed in all future financial years for which figures are available. [36577]

  Mr. Jack
  This information is not held centrally.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Burundi
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take in response to the current political situation in Burundi. [38251]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain deeply concerned about the situation in Burundi and support the efforts of ex-President Nyerere to negotiate a political settlement. We welcome the decision of regional leaders at the Arusha summit to consider Burundi's request for security assistance, and we await concrete proposals.

TRANSPORT

  Expressways
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new traffic rules will accompany the designation of a road as an expressway; and to what extent(a) cyclists, (b) pedestrians and (c) other classes of road user will be prohibited from using these roads. [36579]

  Mr. Norris
  I see the designation of expressways primarily as a way of drawing to the attention of road users and business the existence of high quality roads of 678
  near-motorway standard. Restrictions on particular categories of road user are not part of my Department's plans for expressways.

  Marine Environment Protection Committee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what items are presently on the agenda of the marine environment protection committee at the International Maritime Organisation; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of each of them. [37567]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 19 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about items that are presently on the agenda of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at the IMO.
  The provisional work programme of MEPC was discussed at the Committee's recent meeting earlier this month. An agenda, as such, does not exist at present, but a list of the issues under consideration is attached to this letter. We take a positive approach to MEPC's work, intended to enhance the prevention and control of marine pollution. Our policy on a number of these issues is reflected in the recent United Kingdom contributions to the Committee, which are also included for your information.

  Cycling
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to take forward the proposals outlined in the national cycling strategy; and if he will make a statement. [38018]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already announced that the Department fully supports the national cycling strategy launched on 10 July. We shall take action wherever we can to implement the strategy, both on our own and in conjunction with others. The process of realising the detailed proposals in the strategy will be guided by the national cycling forum, and I expect a first meeting of the forum to be held this autumn.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which sections of the national cycling strategy it is Government policy to implement. [38005]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's policy towards cycling was set out in a statement in June 1994. This is relevant to all the sections of the new national cycling strategy. The Department of Transport will work with other Government Departments and organisations in the public, commercial and voluntary sectors to achieve the strategy's objectives.

  Tingewick Bypass
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the reasons for the delay to the Tingewick bypass in Buckinghamshire and act to expedite matters. [38229]

  Mr. Norris
  The reasons for the delay to the Tingewick bypass are set out in my letter of 16 July 1996. Officials will make every effort to expedite a decision on this important local scheme once these issues have been satisfactorily resolved.
  679

  Le Shuttle Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if X-ray security checks are undertaken on passengers and vehicles boarding Le Shuttle services at Folkestone. [38594]

  Mr. Watts
  All vehicles and passengers boarding Le Shuttle services at Folkestone are liable to security screening. It is not our practice to reveal details of the actual measures.

  Rail Regulator
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mechanisms the Rail Regulator has in place to ensure that competition between operators is encouraged after 31 December. [38528]

  Mr. Watts
  The Rail regulator has published a policy statement setting out his approach to competition issues for railway passenger services. He has concluded that no significant competitive new entry should be allowed before 31 March 1999 to allow the railway industry to settle down in the early period of restructuring. He believes the franchising process itself creates considerable potential for competition, even without allowing new entry by open access operators. Substantial restrictions will apply for three years after 31 March 1999—until 31 March 2002. The Rail Regulator intends to review the restrictions in 2001. He believes that these steps are necessary for the development of a more competitive environment for passenger services in the long term.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he plans to improve the helicopter search and rescue coverage in the Dover strait. [38556]

  Mr. Norris
  Following publication of the interdepartmental helicopter review group report, formal consultations are being held on, among other things, the location of the two Coastguard search and rescue aircraft on the south coast. The aim is to provide the optimum helicopter availability to meet the search and rescue requirements along the south coast including the Dover strait and mid-channel. We will await the outcome of those consultations before any decisions are made.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what negotiations he(a) has had and (b) proposes to have with Shell (UK) regarding the continued operation of its offshore-based helicopter used for air rescue; and if he will make a statement. [38445]

  Mr. Norris
  There have been no negotiations with Shell (UK) and none are planned. The helicopter referred to has been provided by Shell Expro as an additional service and is not a declared UK search and rescue facility. Local discussions have taken place with Shell Expro about the effects of its decision, and the extra cover it will make available for night medical emergencies.

  Radioactive Material (Road Accidents)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have been reported in each year since 1980 involving the transport by road of radioactive material. [38331]
  680
  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Accidents Reported

  1980

  0

  1981

  3

  1982

  1

  1983

  3

  1984

  1

  1985

  4

  1986

  1

  1987

  2

  1988

  5

  1989

  2

  1990

  0

  1991

  2

  1992

  2

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  3

  Part-time Employees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency within his Department and the Central Transport Group the number of part-time employees by grade employed in each of the last five years. [38595]

  Mr. Norris
  I have placed the information obtained from our Department's personnel systems in the Library of the House.

  Rail Services (Holyhead)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review on a regular basis under the Railway Acts the provision by the railway operating companies of adequate, prompt and clean railway through services between(a) Holyhead and London and (b) Holyhead and Cardiff; and if he will make a statement. [38565]

  Mr. Watts
  Under the Railways Act 1993, the franchising director has statutory responsibility for securing the provision of passenger railway services either through franchise agreements, or, where services are not yet franchised, through agreements with the British Railways Board or its subsidiaries.

  Levels of service are specified through the passenger service requirement, PSR, included in each franchise agreement. Each PSR is based on the British Rail timetable in operation at the time the PSR is drawn up by the franchising director. Holyhead-Cardiff services are included in the PSR for the South Wales and West franchise, which has now been finalised. This requires the franchise operator to provide on weekdays and Saturdays one through service in each direction between Holyhead and Cardiff. Other services between Holyhead and Crewe, where interchange opportunities exist with services to Cardiff and services between Holyhead and London will be considered as part of the consultation process on respectively the North West Regional Railways and InterCity West Coast PSRs.

  In respect of the quality of railway services, a principal objective of the franchising director is to improve the quality of services available to passengers, so franchise operators must have their own passengers charter which sets targets for operational performance. Where the

  681
  commercial impetus is weak, there are financial incentives to encourage better punctuality and reliability, and a customer satisfaction monitoring regime requires franchise operators to secure an improvement in customer satisfaction during the franchise term.

  Retired Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many retired permanent secretaries currently serve on the boards of(a) London Regional Transport and (b) London Buses Ltd. [38249]

  Mr. Norris
  (a) One. (b) None.

  Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the licences currently issued by his Department, indicating their function and the annual administrative costs for each. [37817]

  Mr. Norris
  Licences are issued by the Department in respect of the following:

  Driving licences—to ensure that drivers of cars, motorcycles, goods vehicles, public service vehicles meet the necessary standard of competency and maintain standards of road safety.

  Goods vehicle and public service vehicle operator licences—To ensure operators have sufficient financial provisions to maintain their vehicles properly, according to minimum safety standards.

  Testing and examining vehicles—MOT examiners/ tachograph testing centres—To ensure that vehicles are maintained according to the minimum safety and environmental standards, the latter following the recent requirement to test emissions, and that tachographs are properly installed.

  Approved training bodies—learner motorcycle testing—To ensure bodies have the facilities and expertise to provide instruction of learner motorcyclists.

  Approval of business to train for carrying dangerous goods—EU requirement which allows businesses with suitable premises and staff to run their own training courses.

  In-vehicle driver information system—allows access by private companies to public sector infrastructure, which would otherwise require special permission from each highway authority.

  Street works—allows any business to dig up the highway, other than utilities, which already have such powers.

  Marine licences—to ensure an appropriate level of competency for ship officers and crew.

  Although not issued by this Department, the Rail Regulator issues licences that allow businesses to operate networks, passenger services, stations and depots. Operators of stations, trains and networks must normally have an accepted safety case before the regulator will grant a licence for operation. The Civil Aviation Authority also issues various licences which affect air operators, carriers and travel organisers. A full list of its licences can be found in its publication, CAP 393. Similarly, taxi and
  682
  private hire vehicles licences are issued by the Public Carriage Office in London, and district councils outside London.

  Central records are not maintained of the administrative costs of the licensing regimes, but in setting the licence fees, the Department has regard to the Treasury guidelines on fees and charges which require the recovery of costs.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of the Rail Regulator are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [37911]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: (a) The central rail users consultative committee, CRUCC, and the rail users consultative committees, RUCCs, are not listed in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and hence their activities are not subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. However, where a committee acts on behalf of the Office of the Rail Regulator to conduct an investigation, its activities are subject to investigation.

  (b) The CRUCC and RUCCs are not subject to
  investigation by the Audit Commission.

  (c) The Office of the Rail Regulator, ORR, accounts, which include the CRUCC and RUCCs annual accounts, are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  (d) The CRUCC and RUCCs are not subject to the code of practice on access to Government information.

  (e) The CRUCC and RUCCs have developed their own performance indicators which are agreed by ORR. They are actively examining a wider range of performance indicators.

  (f) The CRUCC and RUCCs are not subject to the provisions under the citizen's charter.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of the Rail Regulator publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if he will indicate in each instance whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37913]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: It is a statutory requirement for the central rail users consultative committee, CRUCC, and the rail users consultative committees, RUCCs to publish annual reports. The CRUCC and RUCCs' annual accounts are included in the Office of the Rail Regulator's annual accounts as a statutory requirement. The total spending for each RUCC, broken down by committee and category, is also included in the CRUCC annual report.

  The minutes and agendas for meetings for the CRUCC and RUCCs are available to the public. The former is a voluntary action and is limited by the statutory requirement not to disclose without prior consent information with

  683
  respect to any particular business or individual. The latter is a statutory requirement but does not extend to matters from which the public will be excluded.

  There is currently no register of members' interests and there is no statutory requirement to produce one. A register is currently under consideration as part of the code of conduct for members of the committees.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the statutory base of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of the Rail Regulator; and if they(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) hold open meetings for the public, indicating in both instances whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37912]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The central rail users consultative committee and the eight rail users consultative committees are independent statutory bodies established under sections 2 and 3 of the Railways Act 1993. Under schedules 2 and 3 of the Railways Act 1993, the Office of the Rail Regulator provides finance from within its running cost out of money provided by Parliament, and administrative support and accommodation for the committees.

  Meetings of the committees are required by statute to be open to the public. Members of the public are excluded from meetings when confidential matters or matters the disclosure of which may seriously and prejudicially effect the interest of an individual or body are discussed. In addition, sub-committee meetings are held which are not open to the public.

SCOTLAND

  Computer Sciences Corporation
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to assess customer satisfaction with the performance of the company CSC; and what conclusions he has drawn from these assessments. [37375]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the terms of the contract with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) Ltd. the Common Services Agency of the NHS in Scotland provides a contract management service which includes, as a prime task, continuous assessment of CSC performance and customer satisfaction. This has been achieved through a combination of correspondence, meetings of groups of representatives of the health boards and trusts and by customer satisfaction surveys.

  From this survey work, it is clear that the CSC service has taken time to bed in over a period in which it has had to carry out a major reorganisation, concentrating now on two sites—reduced from six—in Scotland. However, a firm implementation plan is now in place and this is being closely monitored by both sides to ensure that the standard of service delivery continues to improve. There are welcome signs of improvement, a fact acknowledged by customers. It is expected that the level of satisfaction will
  684
  continue to rise and that the provisions of the contract will be met.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what savings were predicted to accrue from market testing of the computing services in the NHS in Scotland during the first year of the contract with the successful bidder CSC; and what savings are now projected for the first year of the contract. [37374]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The contract with CSC for central computing and IT services agreed for the first year that a static price would be set for the first six months on the basis of current price for current usage. Thereafter, a saving of 5 per cent. would be expected over the second six months. Expected revenue to CSC for the year was estimated to be £16 million and, therefore, expected savings were in the order of £800,000. From April to June 1996, a saving of £220,000 has been made against a revenue of £4.2 million. This represents a saving of 5 per cent. These are unaudited figures.

  Anti-drug Operations
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the application of challenge fund principles to anti-drug efforts. [39103]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  With the strong commitment of the leaders of all the main political parties in Scotland, we now have the ground-breaking and distinctive Scotland against drugs campaign. This reflects concern on all sides about the threat of drug misuse. We must keep on finding innovative ways of dealing with drug misuse—ways that counter its growth and acceptability to young people. I am therefore pleased to announce that I am offering £200,000 in the current financial year, on top of the £1 million already promised to the Scotland against drugs campaign, as a contribution to a new Scottish drugs challenge fund.

  Bids will be invited for projects that will help unite local communities and businesses in the fight against drug misuse. This new challenge fund, to be matched by business, will bring partnership with the private sector into local communities that seek to combat drug misuse.

  Young as it is, the Scotland against drugs campaign is already attracting a high level of business support. The campaign has much in common with the new challenge fund—partnership, local involvement and ownership, media and business participation, and changing the culture—and they will indeed be linked. I shall consider the best way of doing so, and from the autumn we can expect projects which put this money to good effect.

  Rural Land Use
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on projects dealing with(a) alternations to rural land use, (b) alteration to rural ownership patterns and (c) land management projects since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [38193]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: Information is not held in this form, but details of expenditure on the various grants and subsidies administered on behalf of my right hon. Friend are contained in the annual expenditure plans and

  685
  appropriation accounts for the Scottish Office and the Forestry Commission. Copies of these documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conditions are placed on grants and loans of public money made to private landed estates in pursuit of(a) environmental and (b) other strategic aims; and if he will make a statement. [37993]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The conditions placed on grants and loans of public money to owners and occupiers of land vary according to the nature of the scheme under which the assistance is provided. The conditions are specified in the explanatory literature for each relevant schemes, and, where appropriate, in declarations and undertaking set out in application and claim forms. They may also be set out in the legislation under which the scheme operates.

  Scottish Courts Administration
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the statutory base of the advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by the Scottish Courts Administration; and if it(a) publishes its advice, (b) publishes an annual report and (c) lays an annual report before Parliament; and if he will indicate in each instance whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37907]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The Scottish Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has an obligation under the 1965 Act to lay before Parliament any proposals for reform formulated by the Scottish Law Commission. The commission is required by the Act to make an annual report to the Lord Advocate which he likewise must lay before Parliament. The commission's reports on law reform and its annual reports are published and are available from HMSO.

  Hip replacements

  Cataract operations

  Median waiting times (days)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Hospital

  Aberdare general

  320

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Amman Valley

  1—

  1—

  20

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Breconshire War Memorial

  1—

  1—

  1—

  8

  22

  39

  Bridgend general

  1

  1—

  1

  312

  165

  150

  Bronglais

  2—

  40

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Caerphilly District Miners

  76

  145

  23

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cardiff royal infirmary

  128

  115

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cymla

  160

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Glamorgan

  2—

  2—

  2—

  211

  205

  79

  Glan Clwyd general

  245

  192

  173

  103

  68

  71

  Gorseinon

  308

  3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Llwynypia

  1—

  1—

  1—

  20

  19

  44

  Morriston

  178

  224

  1—

  30

  1—

  1—

  Neath general

  59

  78

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Nevill Hall

  107

  114

  1—

  182

  28

  1—

  Prince Charles

  355

  286

  162

  115

  278

  336

  Prince of Wales

  2—

  2—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Prince Philip

  8

  11

  18

  7

  7

  2—

  Princess of Wales

  43

  39

  32

  301

  148

  4

  Priory Street

  1—

  1—

  2—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Royal Gwent

  139

  147

  160

  360

  40

  326

  Singleton

  1—

  1—

  1—

  76

  93

  177

  686

WALES

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number, nature and value of contracts awarded by his Department to Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young, Deloitte and Touche, Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton, BDO Stoy Hayward, Pannel Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37323]

  Mr. Hague
  During the period 1 January 1995 to 30 June 1996, the Welsh Office has awarded contracts to four of the firms mentioned. The value of the contracts awarded cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Information on the number and the nature of the contracts awarded is as follows:

  Name

  Consultancy

  Accountancy

  KPMG

  1

  1

  Price Waterhouse

  1

  —

  Grant Thornton

  2

  —

  Pannel Kerr Forster

  1

  —

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current median waiting periods for patients needing(a) hip replacement treatment, and (b) cataract treatment at (i) each hospital where this operation is provided and (ii) in Wales indicating the equivalent waiting times for the two preceding years. [37500]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The median time between the date of decision to admit and the date of admission is given in the table for patients admitted in 1995–96 and the two preceding years. As some results are based on a small number of operations, there are some large fluctuations from year to year.
  687

  Hip replacements

  Cataract operations

  Median waiting times (days)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  St. Woolos

  1—

  1—

  1—

  196

  239

  289

  Tredegar

  91

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  University Hospital of Wales

  1—

  1—

  1—

  81

  113

  1—

  West Wales general

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Withybush general

  453

  400

  286

  31

  267

  2—

  Wrexham Maelor

  160

  133

  174

  360

  385

  228

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  124

  119

  96

  106

  210

  158

  Source:

  Patients Episode Database for Wales.

  1 Not applicable: the operation was not performed at this hospital.

  2 Not available: although the operation was performed by this hospital the relevant data were not supplied.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to commence(a) collection and (b) publication of statistics on total waiting times for treatment for patients referred on or after 1 April 1995 on an equivalent basis to the combined wait times published in the hospital waiting times bulletin. [38572]

  Mr. Jones
  Information about those patients who (i) were referred on or after 1 April 1995; (ii) are still waiting; and (iii) have a total waiting time of more than 18 months is to be collected on a quarterly basis from December 1996. Information on those with a total waiting time of more than two years will be collected from June 1997.

  The total waiting time is the time elapsed since referral by the patient's GP. It is not equivalent to the likely combined wait as given in the booklet "Waiting Times Information", published by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Publication of information about total waiting times is planned for the September 1997 issue of "NHS Wales: Quarterly Statistics".

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statistical information he has collated on the average wait between first out-patient consultation and a decision to admit a patient by(a) health authority, (b) hospital trust and (c) specialism. [38568]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations underlay his Department's decision to discontinue publication of the quarterly Welsh hospital waiting list bulletin; what consultations he undertook prior to this decision; what representations he has received on this matter; how many issues of the bulletin were published; and at what cost to public funds. [38451]

  Mr. Jones
  This bi-annual publication was discontinued in May 1995 as part of a package of improvements to the programme of health statistics publications which has been welcomed by the NHS in Wales.

  More timely aggregate waiting list figures are now published in "NHS Wales: Quarterly Statistics" which has been issued each quarter since June 1995.

  Detailed waiting list figures continue to be published annually in the new "Health Statistics Wales" series. As a single volume, this new publication provides a definitive official statement on health statistics each year.
  688
  The decision to discontinue the bulletin also reflected reductions to the frequency that hospitals were being asked to return detailed waiting list figures to my Department and the increased availability of alternative information on expected waiting times for individual consultants.

  The changes to the programme of health statistics publications were the subject of consultation with the NHS Welsh information managers group in May 1995.

  In total, 23 issues of the bulletin were published from March 1984 to March 1995. The cost of printing the last bulletin was £1,300, making an estimated total cost of around £30,000, at 1995 prices, for printing the complete series.

  Earlier this year, comments on the new "Health Statistics, Wales" publication were received from 62 respondents to a readership survey; 57 of these said that they used the waiting list chapter. None asked for more information on waiting lists to be published.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a patients charter standard for the length of time a patient waits between out-patient consultation and decision to admit. [38567]

  Mr. Hague
  It would be difficult to develop a standard that would allow for all the clinical factors that sometimes give rise to a delay between the out-patient consultation and the decision to admit. However, the total waiting times guarantee includes this period of time and encourages hospitals to adopt best practice.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the reasons for the fall in the number on hospital waiting lists for first out-patient appointments between 31 March 1994 and 31 March 1995; and what percentage of the change occurred because of increased number of patients seen by consultants. [38573]

  Mr. Hague
  The out-patient waiting list can fall for a number of reasons, including changes in the number of referrals to hospital clinics, the number of new patients seen at these clinics and patients being taken off the list as they no longer require a specialist opinion.

  During 1994–95, hospitals saw 25,000 more new out-patients than in the previous year, an increase of 4 per cent. Between 31 March 1994 and 31 March 1995, the total out-patient waiting list fell by 17,000. As information is held centrally only on the number of

  689
  new out-patients seen, it is not possible accurately to assess what proportion of the fall in the total list is due to the number of people seen by consultants.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish(a) hospital waiting list data for the year ended 31 March and (b) quarterly data for the period up to 31 December. [38571]

  Mr. Hague
  Information relating to the number on hospital waiting lists at 31 March 1996 was published in the release of "NHS Wales: Quarterly Statistics" issued on 12 June 1996. Copies were placed in the House Library and the Vote Office. The publication of releases including information on waiting lists for June, September, and December 1996 is planned for 18 September 1996, 18 December 1996 and 12 March 1997 respectively.

  General Practitioner Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has collated on the number of whole-time equivalent(a) GPs, (b) practice nurses and (c) other staff employed at GP surgeries at any date since October 1994. [38606]

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated whole-time equivalent number of unrestricted general medical practitioners, based on contractual commitment, was 1,628 and 1,632 at 1 April 1995 and 1 October 1995 respectively. Reliable information on practice nurses and other staff employed by GPs since October 1994 is not yet available.

  Disabled and Elderly People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources he plans to make available to county social service departments in Wales, following recent court cases, to ensure that they can respond adequately to the establishment needs of disabled and elderly people who require additional services to enable them to live in the community; and if he will make a statement. [38562]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government are considering the implications of the recent judgment by the Court of Appeal in Rv. Gloucestershire County Council ex parte Michael Barry and R v. Lancashire County Council ex parte (1) Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and (2) Beryl Gilpin.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what money is made available through his Department for implementing the rough sleepers initiative in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [38566]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There is not a rough sleepers initiative in Wales on the English model because the scale and distribution of rooflessness here requires a different approach. My Department can assist specific initiatives to tackle rooflessness under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 and we have agreed to support a project in Cardiff. An advisory group on rooflessness, which includes local authorities, voluntary organisations and the police, to help us to consider what further action is required to ensure that nobody in Wales needs to sleep rough, has also been established.
  690

  Gwent Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consolations he has had with the chairman of the Gwent health authority concerning the commissioning of specialist legal advice by the health authority between 5 and 11 July; and when he was notified of the reasons for commissioning such advice; [38457]

  (2) on how many occasions his special independent observer attended meetings of the working party of the non-executive directors of Gwent health authority considering the appointment of a senior manager in January 1996; how many meetings occurred in her absence; how many of these she was invited to attend; and what recommendation she has made to him. [38482]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has been kept informed of the inquiry's progress, including the views of the independent adviser which are of necessity confidential. Information on her attendance at meetings is not held centrally. It is a matter for the authority to decide on the legal advice it requires, and I have had no discussions with the chairman.

  Development Land (Caernarfon)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now take urgent steps to release the strip of land owned by the Welsh Office in the vicinity of Pool-side in Caernarfon, to enable this redevelopment plan for that area to go ahead. [38560]

  Mr. Hague
  I understand the land in question is in the ownership of Gwynedd county council. I have received an application from the authority under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 seeking my agreement to its disposing of the land at less than market value. My officials have written to the authority seeking information which will enable me to make a decision.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of Wales when he proposes to publish health statistics to bring his provisional 1994–95 hospital activity figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 new patients equivalent to those published for 1990–91 and 1991–92 and provisionally for 1994–95. [38607]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I hope that final information on hospital in-patient day case activity for 1994–95 will be published during September 1996. Figures on new out-patients for 1992–93 and 1993–94 have not been published due to inconsistencies in data definitions at NHS trusts in the former health authority area of Dyfed. These problems have now been rectified. In future, data for new out-patients will be published at the same time as in-patient and day case data, but it is not possible to amend past data.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurses have received back-dated pay awards following successful appeals against re-grading decisions(a) eight, (b) seven, (c) six, (d) five, (e) four, (f) three and (g) two years late. [38458]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  691

  Benefits Agency (Welsh Language Freeline)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will intervene with the Benefits Agency to safeguard the Welsh language telephone freeline. [38561]

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I understand, however, that arrangements have been made to ensure customers receive appropriate advice in the language of their choice from either their local office or the office which handles any existing benefits.

ENVIRONMENT

  Asbestos
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to provide assistance to Bermuda in respect of the disposal of asbestos waste. [37573]

  Mr. Clappison
  Decision on the disposal of Bermuda's asbestos wastes are matters for the Government of Bermuda. I understand that a number of options are under consideration, including seeking disposal on land in the United Kingdom, but no final decisions have been taken.

  Should Bermuda wish to export asbestos waste to the United Kingdom for disposal on land, this would require a formal agreement between the two Governments for the purpose of the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal.

  Any request from Bermuda for such an agreement would be considered on its merits, in accordance with the policies set out in the United Kingdom management plan for exports and imports of waste, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites in the United Kingdom licensed to take(a) blue, (b) brown and (c) white asbestos waste. [37571]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not held by my Department. The Environment Agency is required to maintain a public register of waste management licence applications made to it and of licences which it has granted. Whether or not a particular site would take asbestos waste would depend on the terms of the licence granted by the agency.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the imports of asbestos for disposal into the United Kingdom from(a) OECD and (b) non-OECD countries in each of the last of 10 years. [37572]

  Mr. Clappison
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Agency Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of his Department's agencies the cost of printing(a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the latest available year. [37808]
  692
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for three agencies of the Department of the Environment and for Ordnance Survey, a separate department and agency. For the four agencies, the information requested is set out in the table. The expenditure is in respect of the 1995–96 financial year.

  All publications £

  Annual report £

  Building Research Establishment

  21,000

  21,000

  Planning Inspectorate

  14,953

  3,295

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  12,263

  12,263

  Ordnance Survey

  425,000

  2,500

  The Building Research Establishment's technical publications are published by Construction Research Communications Ltd., CRC is a commercial organisation which is jointly owned by EMAP Architecture and the Secretary of State for the Environment. The cost of printing such technical publications is not included above.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the forms his Department issues annually to businesses to gather statistics, indicating the number of each distributed. [37809]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The forms the Department of the Environment issues on a regular basis1 to businesses to gather statistics and the number of each distributed are shown in the table.

  1The table excludes ad hoc surveys not repeated on a regular basis. The number of ad hoc surveys varies from year to year: 39 were undertaken in 1995.

  Survey title

  Number of forms distributed in a year

  Merseyside Development Corporation Employment and Investment Survey1 (Annual)

  2,000

  Plymouth Urban Development Corporation: Survey of Economic Activities1 (Annual)

  32

  Teeside Urban Development Area: Survey of Economic Activities1 (Annual)

  800

  Minerals Raised Inquiry (Annual)

  2,400

  Building and Civil Engineering Work Overseas (Annual)

  40

  Small Firms Enquiry—Construction Activity (Annual)

  150,000

  Making a Corporate Commitment: Top Management Campaign Evaluation (Annual)

  500

  Making a Corporate Commitment: Signatories Research (Annual)

  1,600

  ECO Management and Audit: Pre-Promotion Research (Annual)

  800

  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation Business Survey1 (Bi-Annual)

  2not available

  Building Materials Inquiries (Quarterly/Monthly)

  3,300

  Firm Based Enquiry: Construction Activity (Quarterly)

  66,000

  693

  Survey title

  Number of forms distributed in a year

  Quality of Service of the Rural Development Commission1 (Quarterly)

  1,440

  Project Based Enquiry: Construction Activity (Quarterly)

  9,200

  New Orders Enquiry: Construction Activity (Monthly)

  66,000

  Survey of Mortgage Lenders (Monthly)

  2,220

  1 Surveys undertaken by the department's agencies and non-department public bodies.

  2 In 1996 this survey will be undertaken as a sample rather than a census. Size of sample not yet determined.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that outline planning permissions over 10 years old which have been commenced only technically shall be permitted to go ahead only if(a) the local planning authority or (b) the Secretary of State confirms their validity. [38563]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government do not consider it reasonable to impose a general time limit for completion as there could be many valid reasons why development could take longer than envisaged.

  However, section 94 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 empowers a local planning authority to serve a completion notice in an individual case. Such a notice, which requires the confirmation of the Secretary of State, terminates a planning permission at the end of a specified period if the development is not completed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce the arrangements that will govern the handing over of Hong Kong to the Chinese authorities; and if he will make a statement. [37784]

  Mr. Hanley
  The 1984 Sino-British joint declaration provides the legal basis for the restoration of Hong Kong to China. We are still discussing with China arrangements to mark the handover at midnight on 30 June 1997.

  Working Holidaymakers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance as working holidaymakers have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused in (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh, (iii) Australia, (iv) Canada, (v) Nigeria, (vi) Ghana, (vii) Pakistan, (viii) Sierra Leone, (ix) Gambia and (x) Jamaica during 1995 and 1996 to the latest convenient date. [38056]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the letter I sent him on 30 January 1996.
  694
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance as working holidaymakers have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused in (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh (iii) Pakistan, (iv) Australia, (v) Canada, (vi) Ghana, (vii) Nigeria and (viii) Malaysia during 1995 and 1996. [38077]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the letter I sent him on 30 January 1996.

  Immigration
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children were waiting in each queue in respect of entry into the United Kingdom at each post in the Indian sub-continent on (i) 1 January (ii) 30 June and (iii) the latest convenient date. [38063]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person applying for entry clearance on 31 March or the latest convenient date at each post in the Indian sub-continent could expect to wait, in each queue, for(a) a first interview, (b) referral of the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (c) a decision after first interview and (d) for the explanatory statement prepared by the post in the case of appeal against a refusal to be dispatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom. [38057]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the letter that I sent him on 30 January 1996.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present waiting times to first interview for each category of applicant in respect of entry into the United Kingdom in(a) each country and at each post in the Indian sub-continent, (b) Bangkok, (c) Manila, (d) Lagos, (e) Accra, (f) Kingston, (g) Addis Ababa, (h) Sana'a, (i) Moscow and (j) Warsaw. [38064]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the letter that I sent him on 30 January 1996.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person applying for entry clearance for settlement at the British post in(a) Manila, (b) Accra, (c) Lagos, (d) Kingston, (e) Nicosia, (f) Cairo, (g) Bangkok, (h) Rabat and (i) each post in each country of the Indian sub-continent on 30 June or the latest convenient date could expect to wait for (i) interview, (ii) referral of the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (iii) decisions and (iv) an explanatory statement

  695
  prepared by the post in the event of an appeal against a refusal to be dispatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom. [38055]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the letter that I sent him on 30 January 1996.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, columns 423–24, when decisions are to be taken on the passport applications made by Tahira Jabeen, Fazal Ur Rahman Hussain and Noor Ur Rahman Hussain by the post in Islamabad; if the report requested from the Home Office was received at the post in November 1995; and if he will make a statement. [38449]

  Mr. Hanley
  The report has been received from the Home Office. However, the passport officer in Islamabad is not yet in a position to take a decision on these applications. Further inquiries are necessary it is hoped that the matter can be resolved before the end of the year.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have not supported self-rule for the Serbian minority in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [38002]

  Mr. Hanley
  We fully support the general framework agreement for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, under which Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two entities—the Federation and the Republika Srpska. Each entity has extensive governmental functions and powers, as set out in article III of the constitution agreed at Dayton.

  DNA Tests
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his Department's funded DNA tests to prove family relationships for immigration purposes have been carried out, by country, in each country apart from those of the Indian sub-continent, in each year since the inception of the scheme; and in how many tests the applicant was found to be related as claimed to(a) both parents, (b) one parent and (c) neither parent. [38062]

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

  Burundi
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the proposal of the United Nations Secretary-General for a United Nations contingency force for Burundi. [38247]

  Mr. Hanley
  Contingency planning on Burundi is continuing in New York arid in the sub-regional area. The most likely option appears to be a sub-regional peacekeeping force, though it is not yet clear on what terms. We are considering how we might help with planning.
  696
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on plans for the expansion fo the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda to enable it to prosecute in Burundi. [38250]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are not aware of any initiative within the UN to expand the remit of the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda to include Burundi.

  Any extension of the Rwanda tribunal's mandate would require a Security Council resolution.

  Burma
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current policy of Her Majesty's Government towards imposing sanctions against the Burmese junta. [38248]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on 10 July,Official Report, column 396.

  Dalai Lama
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to promote dialogue between the Chinese and the Dalai Lama. [38252]

  Mr. Hanley
  We consider that the best way forward for Tibet is through dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions. We have consistently urged both sides to enter into such a dialogue without delay.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the value for money of the new structures in the BBC in respect of World Service programming relative to those that they replaced. [38484]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are in consultation with the BBC about the implications for the World Service of the proposed reorganisation of the BBC, including the financial implications.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council and the intergovernmental conference ministerial meeting of 15 and 16 July. [38630]

  Mr. David Davis
  The A points in documents 9021/96—add.1 and add.2—which will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they are available, were approved.

  The Council noted the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament in documents EP 8001/96 PE-RE45, 8162/96 PE-RE51 and 8751/96 PE-RE56.

  The Council began with a televised debate on the Irish presidency programme. The President of the Council, Irish Foreign Minister Dick Spring, presented

  697
  his priorities, including preparation for European monetary union, employment, EU enlargement, the intergovernmental conference and work on the third pillar. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs highlighted the need to get down to discussion of specific IGC treaty language to press ahead with reform of the common agricultural policy and the structural fund which is necessary for enlargement, and the importance of progress in the middle east peace process.

  The Council acknowledged Slovenia's letter of application for EU membership.

  The Commission gave a progress report on relations with Switzerland. The Council reaffirmed the EU's wish to conclude negotiations as soon as possible.

  The Council had a wide ranging discussion on the Former Yugoslavia, including an exchange of views on the future of the EU's presence in Mostar. The Council approved a joint action on Mostar and agreed the appointment of Sir Martin Garrod as EU special envoy in Mostar.

  The President of the Council and Commissioner Van den Broek reported on their recent visit to the region.

  The Council agreed conclusions on Former Yugoslavia which note among other things that the requirements of the Florence European Council declaration on the peace process, including that for the removal of Radovan Karadzic from the Republika Srpska political scene, had not yet fully been complied with.

  The Council reached political agreement on the MEDA regulations on aid to countries in the Mediterranean.

  The Council adopted conclusions on the US "Helms-Burton" legislation on companies trading with Cuba, calling on President Clinton to waive the provisions of title III of the Act and identifying possible counter measures.

  The Council held an exchange of views on the political situation in Russia, and adopted conclusions welcoming the successful conclusion of the presidential elections. The Council also reaffirmed its readiness to continue to contribute to the reform process and to complete ratification of the partnership and co-operation agreement, but decided to convey its concern about the recurrence of violence in Chechnya to the Russian authorities.

  The Council discussed the middle east peace process.

  The Council declared its concern over the continuing deterioration of the political situation in Burma and urged the State Law and Order Restoration Council to restore democracy and respect human rights. The Council reiterated its call for a full and satisfactory explanation from the Burmese authorities of the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death in custody of James Leander Nichols.

  The Council agreed a declaration welcoming the 10 July resolution of the Organisation of African Unity Heads of State and Government on Burundi.

  The presidency announced the appointment of Ambassador Kester Heaslip as the presidency's special representative on Cyprus.
  698
  There was a general debate on preparation for the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Singapore in December. The presidency drew procedural conclusions: the Council will return to the subject in the autumn.

  On 15 July there was an IGC ministerial meeting. Foreign Ministers had a brief discussion on handling of the IGC. The Irish presidency confirmed that there would be a special European Council in October, and that it would prepare a draft revised treaty text for the second European Council in December.

  There was also the customary briefing session with representatives of the European Parliament.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37246]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service makes press notices available to the public on the Internet via the Central Office of Information. The Department has commissioned an internal study to assess the benefits of developing a separate connection to the Internet.

  The Serious Fraud Office is exploring with the Central Computer Telecommunication Agency the use of the Government information service website.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department will assess the appropriateness of simultaneously releasing on the Internet the text of future major publications.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a list showing the number, nature and value of contracts awarded by his Department to Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young, Deloitte and Touche, Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton, BDO Stoy Hayward, Pannel Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37314]

  The Attorney-General
  The information with respect to the firms used by the departments and agencies for which I am responsible is as follows. It related to the financial year 1995–96.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  On behalf of clients:

  Coopers and Lybrand: 41 (1)

  KMPG: 1 (1)

  Binder Hamlyn: 4 (1)

  Administration:

  Pannel Kerr Forster: 19 (1)

  699

  Government Property Lawyers: Nil

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers: Nil

  Crown Prosecution Service

  KPMG—for training: 44(1)

  Price Waterhouse—for consultancy: 8(1)

  Ernst and Young—for market testing/consultancy: 18(2)

  Touche Ross and Co.—for contract advice: 8(1)

  Serious Fraud Office

  For fraud investigation and the secondment of accountants to the SFO:

  Coopers and Lybrand: 335

  KPMG: 170

  Price Waterhouse: 1

  Ernst and Young: 14

  Arthur Andersen: 4

  Grant Thornton: 85

  Panel Kerr Forster: 66

  Robson Rhodes: 541

  Notes:

  1. Figures before the brackets represent expenditure in £000, to the nearest £1,000, on contracts both new and continuing—new contract only in the case of the CPS—during the financial year 1995–96.

  2. Figures in brackets represent the number of new contracts entered into during that financial year. Information about the number of new contracts entered into by the SFO is not available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Banned Feed
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how his Department plans to enforce legislation making it illegal for farmers to have outstanding stocks of banned feed on their premises when that legislation comes into force; and if he will make a statement. [37354]

  Mrs. Browning
  On 29 March, the sale or supply of any mammalian meat and bone meal, MBM, for the purposes of feeding to farmed animals, including poultry, horses and farmed fish, was prohibited. From 4 April, it has also been an offence to use any MBM, or feed containing it, for feeding to farmed animals.

  The 4 April ban was set around a fortnight after the feed compounders announced an immediate voluntary ban on the incorporation of MBM in farmed animal feed. Advice from the industry supported our understanding that little MBM would, accordingly, be left on farms by 4 April.

  Our enforcement strategy in ensuring that the prohibition from farms, feed mills and feed merchants of MBM and feed incorporating it from 1 August has three primary strands.

  First, on 10 June we launched the Government-funded feed recall scheme to give farmers, feed compounders and feed merchants every opportunity to dispose of MBM and feed containing it before its presence on their premises became illegal.

  By the end of this month we shall have collected over 10,000 tonnes of this material, mostly, as we expected from feed compounders, with only small residual amounts to be collected from farms.
  700
  Secondly, since the Government introduced temporary financial assistance to the rendering industry from 1 April, we have detailed information on the disposal or incorporation into pet food of all the MBM produced in the UK. Continued access to this information is to be confirmed in law from 1 August with the establishment of record keeping requirements on MBM produced in the UK or entering the UK from elsewhere, covering dispatch, transportation and receipt.

  Finally, the State Veterinary Service inspects all rendering plants at least weekly which, combined with extensive inspection and sampling of feed compounders, should provide every confidence that no MBM is going to farms, feed mills or feed merchants and that no feed being produced contains MBM.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many beef meat animals, under industry defined categories, separately, were exported(a) live and (b) in carcase form to each (i) European Union country and (ii) non-EU country in each of the last two years. [29618]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: I very much regret that the hon. Member has had to wait so long for a reply.

  Provisional figures for exports of live beef meat animals as recorded in the overseas trade statistics are as follows:

  Number: Thousands

  1994

  1995

  EC Countries

  France

  238

  227

  Netherlands

  161

  138

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  79

  55

  Irish Republic

  1

  1

  Non EC countries

  0

  0

  The number of beef meat animals exported in whole carcase form are not separately available. However provisional figures for the weight and value of exports of whole and half carcases as recorded in the overseas trade statistics, are as follows:

  1994

  1995

  Tonnes

  £000s

  Tonnes

  £000s

  EC countries

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  87.8

  101.3

  181.3

  379.1

  Denmark

  137.9

  301.7

  132.0

  321.8

  France

  2,755.7

  5,108.9

  6,466.6

  14,267.8

  Germany

  79.3

  154.6

  37.2

  87.1

  Greece

  3.3

  7.6

  11.6

  28.4

  Irish Republic

  6,563.5

  13,326.2

  8,457.1

  16,658.3

  Italy

  4,816.7

  10,774.0

  7,358.1

  17,565.9

  Netherlands

  103.5

  237.8

  516.1

  1,119.0

  Portugal

  861.7

  1,956.4

  2,038.5

  4,829.6

  Spain

  1,457.9

  3,275.6

  2,001.9

  4,283.4

  Non-EC countries

  Albania

  0.0

  0.0

  16.0

  8.1

  Japan

  2.5

  5.6

  0.0

  0.0

  New Zealand

  0.0

  0.0

  35.8

  44.3

  Pakistan

  0.0

  0.0

  2.0

  2.6

  Russia

  0.5

  2.3

  0.0

  0.0

  701

  1994

  1995

  Tonnes

  £000s

  Tonnes

  £000s

  Singapore

  0.1

  1.6

  0.0

  0.0

  Sri Lanka

  0.2

  2.2

  0.0

  0.0

  Switzerland (including Liechtenstein)

  0.2

  0.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Trinidad and Tobago

  0.4

  1.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Venezuela

  0.4

  0.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Phosmet
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which other(a) EU and (b) Organisation for Economic Co-operation countries (i) have used and (ii) continue to use phosmet. [37717]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The Government do not hold any information on the use, either in the past or at present, of veterinary medicines in other countries. This is a matter for the appropriate regulatory authority in any particular country. However, we understand from the industry body, the National Office of Animal Health Ltd., that phosmet is currently authorised for use as a veterinary medicine in several countries including France and the Republic of Ireland,

  Product name

  Marketing authorisation holder

  Authorisation number

  Dosage and administration

  Poron 20

  Young's Animal Health Ltd.

  PL 1447/4007

  For use in cattle

  1. Treatment of warble fly infestation or mange— 10ml/100kg bodyweight up to 350kg; over 350kg bodyweight—40ml. To be given as single dose.

  2. Treatment of lice infestation only—5ml/100kg bodyweight up to 350kg; over 350kg bodyweight—20ml. To be repeated after 10 to 14 days.

  3. Treatment of warble fly, lice and mange infestation— treat first at the warble/mange dose followed 10 to 14 days later by the louse dose.

  Porect

  Pfizer Ltd.

  PL 11061/4001

  For use in pigs to treat and control mange and louse infestation.

  This product is in a ready to use form and should be applied at a dosage rate of 1ml/10kg bodyweight.

  Vet-Kem Sponge—On For Dogs

  Sanofi Animal Health Ltd.

  PL 12501/4003

  To be used as a solution containing 30mls of sponge-on with 3.8 litres of water. Repeat treatment may be necessary after 14 days if treating for sarcoptic mange, or 16 days for the control of flea infestations.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of fishing vessels in England and Wales have been(a) permanently transferred to a third country and (b) permanently reassigned for purposes other than fishing in the waters of the European Community since 1993; how many of these would have been covered under article 8 of European Council regulation 3699/93; and if he will make a statement. [38343]

  Mr. Baldry
  No record is kept of the destination of vessels leaving the fleet without Government assistance. Under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Schemes 1993 to 1996, no decommissioned vessels have been
  702
  which are members of both the EU and the OECD, and Australia and New Zealand, which are also members of the OECD.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what veterinary products(a) phosmet has been used since 1966 and (b) continues to be used. [37718]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: There are currently three authorised veterinary medicinal products available in the United Kingdom containing phosmet. These are listed below with their marketing authorisation numbers. Information on products which are no longer authorised is not readily available.

  Poron 20 PL 1447/4007, Porect PL 11061/4001 and Vet-Kem Sponge-on For Dogs PL 12501/4003.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what times of the year, at what strength and at what frequency phosmet has been used in veterinary products in the United Kingdom in the last 20 years. [37719]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: Listed below are the veterinary medicinal products, currently authorised for use, that contain phosmet, with their recommended dosage rates. These products can be used at any time of year as required. Information on products which are no longer authorised is not readily available.

  either permanently reassigned for purposes other than fishing in the waters of the European Community or have been permanently transferred to a third country.

  Service Delivery Targets
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in meeting service delivery targets set out in "Commitment to Service". [39008]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The table sets out the performance achieved by regional service centres against the targets set in "Commitment to Service", second edition.
  703

  RSC performance data (percentage) for financial year 1995–96 unless otherwise specified

  Total1

  Arable area payments scheme2

  Payments

  86

  Beef special premium scheme3

  Advance payments (1994)

  97

  Balance payments (1994)

  99

  Applications (1995) CID return

  99

  Claims (1995) CID Return

  99

  Suckler cow premium scheme

  Balance payments 1994

  99

  Advance payments 1995

  99

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances4

  Claims 1995

  83

  Sheep annual premium scheme5

  Claims marketing year 1995

  99

  Agricultural improvement scheme

  Plan claims

  94

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  Applications

  99

  Claims

  99

  Environmentally sensitive areas conservation plan

  Applications

  97

  Claims

  96

  Farm and conservation grant scheme 1989

  Plan claims

  99

  Non plan claims

  99

  Farm and conservation grant scheme 1991

  Plan applications

  100

  Plan claims

  99

  Farm diversification grant scheme (capital items)

  Claims

  100

  Farm diversification grant scheme (feasibility and marketing)

  Claims

  100

  Farm woodland premium scheme

  Applications

  96

  Claims

  99

  Injurious weeds

  Complaints

  99

  Pilot nitrate sensitive areas scheme

  Claims

  100

  Nitrate sensitive areas scheme

  Applications

  96

  Claims

  99

  Protection of Badgers Act 1992

  Licence applications

  93

  Five year set aside scheme

  Claims

  100

  Short-term lettings

  Applications

  95

  Strychnine permits

  Applications

  99

  Agricultural wages

  Complaints

  100

  704

  RSC performance data (percentage) for financial year 1995–96 unless otherwise specified

  Total1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act

  Applications

  95

  Correspondence

  95

  Nine complaints were received by the MAFF adjudicator, all of which were resolved.

  1 The total percentage has been calculated by setting the entire number of applications or claims cleared within the target time against the total number received. Applications and claims not cleared due to reasons beyond our control—such as incorrect information supplied by applicant—are not included as failures to meet target.

  1 The total percentage has been calculated by setting the entire number of applications or claims cleared within the target time against the total number received. Applications and claims not cleared due to reasons beyond our control—such as incorrect information supplied by applicant—are not included as failures to meet target.

  2 The failures resulted from unforeseen administrative complexities in checking all claims to the exacting standards required under the integrated administration and control system—IACS—rules.

  3 The period covered is January to December 1995.

  4 The period covered is November 1994 to June 1995. The high number of failures was due to the payment round being initially delayed due to the regulation coming into force later than usual and because of problems with the digitisation of less favoured area land from 1994 IACS records which required the manual checking of over 35,000 individual fields.

  5 Final payments made by 30 April 1996.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed BSE cases in England for each of the past 36 months. [33306]

  Mrs. Browning
  [pursuant to her reply, 10 July 1996, c. 245]: The number of confirmed BSE cases by date of confirmation in England for each of the last 36 months is:

  Month/year

  Cases

  July 1993

  1,876

  August 1993

  2,322

  September 1993

  2,210

  October 1993

  2,228

  November 1993

  2,762

  December 1993

  2,013

  January 1994

  1,678

  February 1994

  2,655

  March 1994

  2,754

  April 1994

  2,141

  May 1994

  1,634

  June 1994

  2,140

  July 1994

  1,223

  August 1994

  1,338

  September 1994

  1,612

  October 1994

  1,757

  November 1994

  1,642

  December 1994

  1,004

  January 1995

  1,441

  February 1995

  1,746

  March 1995

  1,434

  April 1995

  967

  May 1995

  1,220

  June 1995

  1,098

  July 1995

  1,080

  August 1995

  894

  September 1995

  827

  October 1995

  920

  November 1995

  945

  December 1995

  655

  January 1996

  785

  February 1996

  1,000

  March 1996

  736

  705

  Month/year

  Cases

  April 1996

  545

  May 1996

  515

  June 1996

  939

  Total

  52,736

  There is a delay of several weeks, while diagnostic tests are completed between the slaughter of BSE suspect animals and the confirmation of the case as being BSE. Procedural changes within the veterinary investigation service significantly reduced processing capacity from March to May, and the subsequent increase in June represents clearance of the backlog. A similar backlog resulting from public holidays and Christmas was cleared in February.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the number and value of(a) mandatory awards, (b) discretionary awards and (c) educational maintenance allowances provided by each individual education and library board since 1988–89; [37207]

  (2) what would be the cost of introducing education maintenance allowances at the same rates as (a) income support for young people and (b) training allowances paid to 16 and 17 year-olds on job skills programmes; [37169]

  (3) what are the present administration costs of educational maintenance allowances. [37480]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information on mandatory and discretionary awards is:

  Year

  Numbers (thousands)

  Expenditure

  Tuition fees and maintenance

  Academic year

  Financial year

  Mandatory

  Discretionary

  Mandatory

  Discretionary

  1988–89

  19.7

  1.9

  37.4

  3.8

  1989–90

  21.0

  2.0

  42.1

  4.2

  1990–91

  22.6

  2.5

  256.2

  4.6

  1991–92

  128.5

  2.8

  191.2

  5.0

  1992–93

  30.5

  3.2

  110.9

  5.8

  1993–94

  33.9

  3.1

  3117.2

  6.2

  1994–95

  36.6

  2.7

  4102.1

  6.8

  1995–96

  37.2

  2.7

  592.1

  6.8

  Source:

  Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities 1994–95–1996–97 and 1996–97–1998–99.

  1 Includes teacher training and EC students from September 1991.

  2 Shift in institutional funding towards the fee introduced in September 1990.

  3 Shift of fees towards institutional funding from September 1993 and reduction of 10 per cent. in maintenance grant with effect from 1 September 1994.

  4 Reduction of 45 per cent. institution fees across fee bands and reduction of 7.7 per cent. in maintenance grant with effect from 1 September 1995.

  5 Reduction of 8.5 per cent. in maintenance grant with effect from 1 September 1996.

  706
  The information requested in part (c) of question 37202 and in question 37480 is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member when it becomes available and place a copy in the Library.

  The information requested on the possible introduction of education maintenance allowances is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the advice of the working groups which evaluated the practicality of providing a range of education and library board services on a regional basis. [37218]

  Mr. Ancram
  Copies of the report of each of the six working groups which were established to examine the practicalities of providing a range of services on a regional basis have been sent to the education and library boards and the NI public service alliance, which had requested copies. Further work has been commissioned on grants and awards and on capital planning and construction services.

  I will arrange for a copy of each report and the Department's response to be sent to the hon. Member and placed in the Library.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, columns 140–41, on cattle exports from Northern Ireland, how many of the cattle exported to Italy were calves under six months of age; and if the cattle exported to Spain were born in the United Kingdom. [37082]

  Mr. Ancram
  All of the cattle exported to Italy were calves under six months of age; 101 cattle exported to Spain were born outside the United Kingdom. The remainder of the cattle exported to Spain were calves under six months of age which were born in the United Kingdom.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the percentages of students in further education who received student financial support in the form of(a) discretionary awards, (b) mandatory awards and (c) educational maintenance allowances in each of the last three years. [37215]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available in the form requested. Available information is that 6 per cent., 9 per cent. and 11 per cent. of students in further-education institutions received mandatory awards in the years 1993–94 to 1995–96 respectively.

  Information on the percentages who received discretionary awards and educational maintenance allowances could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the funds received by each individual further and higher education student union over the past five years. [37216]
  707
  Mr. Ancram
  Grants paid by the Queen's University of Belfast and the University of Ulster to their student unions over the past five academic years are:

  Academic year

  Queen University £

  University of Ulster £

  1990–91

  630,000

  632,000

  1991–92

  599,000

  686,000

  1992–93

  683,000

  751,000

  1993–94

  731,000

  877,000

  1994–95

  757,000

  807,000

  The information is not readily available in respect of colleges of further education as they are currently closed for the July vacation. I will write to the hon. Member when this information becomes available and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he applied policy appraisal and fair treatment processes to his decision to withdraw grants from students studying at private colleges in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [37200]

  Mr. Ancram
  No formal policy appraisal and fair treatment appraisal was undertaken, though PAFT principles, with other factors, were considered in reaching the decision.

  Postgraduate Awards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of postgraduate awards and expenditure thereon in each of the past five years. [37210]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number per academic year

  £ millions expenditure per financial year

  1991–92

  878

  4.6

  1992–93

  825

  5.6

  1993–941

  730

  5.0

  1994–95

  682

  4.8

  1995–96

  645

  4.5

  1 Awards to NI students for postgraduate studentships in higher education institutions in GB became the responsibility of the British Academy and the research councils.

  Incorporated Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the annual administrative costs of incorporated colleges; and what are the equivalent present administration costs under education and library boards. [37166]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department, in conjunction with the education and library boards, is identifying current administrative and other costs associated with all aspects of further education. These resources will transfer to the colleges on incorporation.
  708
  It will be for the colleges to determine their management and other structures and to meet the costs from within their overall budgets.

  Agency Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the agencies for which his Department is responsible and the costs incurred by each for printing(a) all publications and (b) its annual report in the last year for which figures are available. [37462]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]:

  The information in respect of the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office is as follows:

  Printing costs

  Agency

  Year

  All publications £

  Annual reports £

  Department of Economic Development

  Training and Employment Agency

  1995–96

  293,214

  23,650

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  1995–96

  108,229

  22,102

  Department of Environment

  Construction Service 1

  1996–97

  12,455

  —

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland

  1995–96

  7,865

  2,196

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  1995–96

  12,977

  8,129

  Environment and Heritage 1 Service

  1996–97

  15,000

  —

  Land Registers of Northern Ireland1

  1996–97

  7,183

  —

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  1995–96

  10,106

  4,390

  Planning Service

  1996–97

  2,000

  —

  Public Record Office for Northern Ireland

  1995–96

  10,500

  5,500

  Rate Collection Agency

  1995–96

  8,500

  3,700

  Road Service1

  1996–97

  12,000

  —

  Water Service1

  —

  —

  —

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Social Security Agency

  1995–96

  20,963

  8,500

  NI Child Support Agency

  1995–96

  63,763

  211,228

  Health Estates Agency1

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Office

  Compensation Agency

  1994–95

  3,200

  2,100

  Northern Ireland Forensic Science

  1995–96

  16,970

  —

  Northern Ireland Prison Services

  1995–96

  43,999

  24,480

  1 These agencies were established recently therefore no figures are available for printing costs of the annual report.

  2 1994–95.

  The Department of Finance and Personnel has three agencies, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Valuation and Lands Agency, and Government Purchasing Agency. The chief executive in each of these agencies has written directly to my hon. Friend.

  709
  Letter from D. J. Court to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 16 July 1996:
  You recently tabled a question asking the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the agencies for which his Department is responsible and the costs incurred by each for printing (a) all publications and (b) its annual report in the last year for which figures are available.
  In answer to your question the Government Purchasing Agency has incurred £5,028 on the printing and publication of its Framework Document and Corporate and Business Plans. As the Agency was launched as a Next Steps Agency in April this year it has not yet produced an Annual Report.

  Letter from D. J. Bell to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 16 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked that I write to you in my capacity as Commissioner and Chief Executive of the Valuation and Lands Agency to give the information requested in your Parliamentary Question of 11 July 1996.
  This Agency has relatively few publications each year. However last year, the latest for which figures are available, the Corporate & Business Plan and the Annual Report were based on a single design format. I have apportioned this design cost between the two publications. The following is the specific information which you requested:

  (a) all publications (excluding Annual Report)—£9,978.76

  (b) Annual Report—£7,175.00

  I trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, however if I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from Edgar F. Jardine to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 16 July 1996:
  Sir John Wheeler has asked me to reply in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency to your Parliamentary Question on the printing costs incurred in the preparation of Agency publications.
  The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency was established as an Agency within the Department of Finance and Personnel on 1 April 1996. The role of the Agency is to provide statistics and social research services to inform Government and the wider public, undertake the census of population in Northern Ireland and to administer the civil registration of births, deaths and marriages.
  The cost of printing the Agency's Framework Document, Corporate and Business Plans and Charter Statement in 1995–96 was £7,760. The Agency will publish its first Annual Report after 31 March 1997.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to require the Department of Health and Social Services to supply social security information to(a) the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, (b) education and library boards and (c) private firms under the education voucher scheme; and what information will be supplied and for what purpose. [37793]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the provisions in the proposal for a draft Education (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the(a) extra staffing and (b) full financial costs to (a) DENI and (b) education and library boards of his Department's education voucher scheme. [37794]
  710
  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Education proposes to make one permanent and four temporary additional appointments to the education and training inspectorate for the purpose of inspecting providers who wish to register under the scheme. No estimate has been made of the financial costs of the administration of the scheme to DENT or to education and library boards: it is expected that the scheme will be implemented through existing and projected administrative staff complements.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the administrative costs to the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment of his education voucher proposals. [37795]

  Mr Ancram
  It is estimated that costs of approximately £17,000 will be incurred by the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, NICCEA, in preparing and consulting on a pre-school curriculum for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the roles of the inspectorate and the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in respect of his Department's education voucher scheme. [37796]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the proposals set out in paragraphs 4.3 to 4.6, and in paragraph 5.3 of the publication "Pre-School Education: The Voucher Scheme in Northern Ireland", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent private providers of nursery education under the voucher scheme will have to meet the(a) staffing and (b) health and safety requirements of the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Social Services. [37797]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is proposed that the staffing regimes of private providers of pre-school education under the voucher scheme will be subject to the requirements of the Department of Health and Social Services under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. All providers of pre-school education will be subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) educational and (b) other differences between present courses of nursery education in Northern Ireland and those provided under the voucher scheme. [37798]

  Mr. Ancram
  No courses of nursery education have yet been provided under the voucher scheme. An assessment of any differences between current and future practice cannot be undertaken until after the completion, approval and implementation of the pre-school curriculum currently being prepared by the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the cost differences per place between present nursery education and the proposed nursery voucher scheme. [37799]
  711
  Mr. Ancram
  The average cost of a full-time nursery place in a nursery school based on education and library boards' planned expenditure for 1996–97 is £2,130. The value of a voucher under the pre-school voucher scheme will be set at £1,100 and is intended to cover the cost of five half-day sessions per week for three terms.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the education and training inspectorate will require the same standards from the providers of places for voucher holders as it does for present provision of nursery education. [37800]

  Mr. Ancram
  All providers who wish to register under the pre-school voucher scheme will be required to meet specified standards, some of which will be specific to particular types of provision. Private and voluntary sector providers will not therefore be expected in all respects to meet the standards required from nursery schools.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Earnings Disregard
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support are in receipt of part-time earnings at the level of the earnings disregard, where the disregard is(a) £5, (b) £10 and (c) £15. [36903]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Claimants/partners with part-time earnings

  Number of cases with earnings

  Part-time earnings of £5 per week

  5,000

  Part-time earnings of £10 per week1

  nil

  Part-time earnings of £15 per week

  3,000

  Source:

  Income support quarterly inquiry, August 1995.

  Notes:

  1 There is no disregard at this level at the material date.

  1. There are no cases on the August 1995 inquiry where both the claimant and partner have earnings of £5 each. Where a claimant and their partner are both working and have been in receipt of benefit for less than two years, they qualify for a £5 disregard on both sets of earnings.

  2. The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding, totals may not sum.

  3. Part-time earnings includes cases with self-employed earnings, and may be the claimant's earnings, their partners, or both.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of(a) adjudication officers and (b) clerical officers employed to work with the Benefits Agency medical service in each disability benefit centre. [36911]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  712
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 18 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary questions asking if he will give the number of (a) Adjudication Officers and (b) clerical officers employed to work with the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS) in each Disability Benefits Centre (DBC).
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because BAMS staff, both medical and clerical, work at Medical Services Centres (MSCs), most of which are located with DBCs. In the circumstances I have interpreted your question as asking for details of BAMS staff, rather than for staff at DBCs.
  Adjudication Officers are not employed by BAMS, but by the Benefits Agency. Their relationship to BAMS is that of customers, for whom BAMS provides medical advice across a range of benefits.
  Details of the number of BAMS staff in MSCs are in the enclosed table. I should explain that the Benefits Agency no longer employs clerical officers. The present equivalent is staff in Pay Band A4.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Staff in pay band A4 employed in medical services centres

  Medical services centre

  Pay band A4

  Birmingham

  34

  Bootle

  29

  Bristol

  19

  Cardiff

  27

  Edinburgh

  20

  Glasgow

  33

  Leeds

  12

  Manchester

  27

  Newcastle

  27

  Nottingham

  23

  Sutton

  35

  Wembley

  36

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his estimates of the average difference between actual housing costs and the amount of eligible housing benefit as a result of the proposed Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996. [35687]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The proposed regulations would not have affected housing benefit eligibility as they were intended to import relevant case law into legislation. The representations that have been received indicate that significant amounts of housing benefit may be being paid in respect of personal services in supported accommodation. Sudden removal of this income would cause significant difficulties for vulnerable people in supported accommodation.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many students, for the academic years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, who did not attend their course for part or all of the academic year due to ill health were refused (i) income support and (ii) housing benefit during their period of absence, because they were treated as still attending a full-time course for the purposes of the Income Support (General) Regulations and the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations. [38570]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.
  713

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the forms his Department issues annually to businesses to gather statistics, indicating the number of each distributed. [37807]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department carries out one annual statistical survey which involves business—the Contributions Agency's customer satisfaction survey. This year, some 6,500 customers will be interviewed, of whom is expected that approximately 60 per cent. will be self-employed or employers. From this year, this survey will no longer be carried out on an annual basis, but will instead take place every two years.

  Agency Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of his Department's agencies the cost of printing(a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the latest available year. [37806]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is as follows:

  Cost of printing external publications by agency in 1995–96

  Cost £

  Benefits Agency

  3,814,497

  Contributions Agency

  2,961,502

  Child Support Agency

  365,669

  Information Technology Services Agency

  11,933

  War Pensions Agency

  162,597

  Resettlement Agency

  8,835

  Cost of printing 1995–96 annual report

  Cost £

  Benefits Agency

  8,765

  Contributions Agency

  13,013

  Child Support Agency

  18,562

  Information Technology Services Agency

  7,950

  War Pensions Agency

  16,720

  Resettlement Agency

  17,718

  1 Estimated figures.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the suitability of the Mumbles weather station in assessing cold weather payments for pensioners; and on what proposals he has decided in respect of next winter's assessment. [38483]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Representations have been received from two hon. Members, one borough council and one member of the public.

  The review of last winter's scheme is under way and will be concluded shortly. Any proposals to change the existing weather stations or post code links will be laid before the House in the autumn.

  Benefits Agency (Welsh Language)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will undertake an investigation into the manner in which the Benefits Agency has published a consultation document on its Welsh language policy, with 714
  particular reference to the accuracy of its description of current policy; and if he will arrange to meet the chairman of the Welsh Language Board to discuss this matter. [38564]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I am satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Benefits Agency, BA, for publishing a consultation document on its proposed Welsh language policy was carried out in accordance with the guidance provided to the agency on 22 May 1996 by the Welsh Language Board.

  The consultation document does not cover the BA's current voluntary Welsh language policy, which has been in operation since 1990, but states its intended policy under the requirements of the 1993 Welsh Language Act.

  Since publishing the document on 14 June 1996, the BA has decided to withdraw all its freeline services from 15 July 1996. This decision has impacted on that part of the proposed scheme which refers to general benefit advice and information available from the Welsh language freeline service. The BA's policy statement that all customers who contact the agency by telephone may use the language of their choice—either English or Welsh—is unchanged, as are the arrangements for providing this service.

  All other measures outlined in the consultation document accurately state the proposed Welsh language policy to be adopted by the BA.

  I will be happy to meet chairman of the Welsh Language Board.

  Widows (Child Benefit)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many widows with(a) one child and (b) two children are currently in receipt of child benefit. [38447]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:As at 30 September 1995, there were 27,880 widows receiving an increase of widowed mothers allowance for one child, and 16,160 widows receiving an increase of widowed mothers allowance for two children. To receive an increase of widowed mothers' allowance, the widow must be entitled to child benefit.
  Of all widowed mothers allowance recipients, about 10,000 have a youngest child aged 16 or over.

  Note:

  Figures exclude the small number of widowed mothers who receive child benefit but do not qualify for widowed mothers allowance.

  Departmental Efficiency
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures he is planning to improve the efficient running of his Department. [38987]

  Mr. Lilley
  In February, I launched the change programme to achieve a step change in the effectiveness of the Department of Social Security and all its agencies. It will involve streamlining benefit processes, introducing new information technology and greater involvement of the private sector.
  715
  I have today approved three initiatives involving greater collaboration with the private sector as the next stage of the Department's drive to review and improve the delivery of social security.

  The first initiative will involve an invitation to the private sector to submit proposals for taking over the operation of the child benefit centre in Washington, Tyne and Wear. This will involve the administration of child benefit, one-parent benefit and guardian's allowance. The intention is that staff working in these areas will be taken on by the appointed contractor.

  The second initiative will involve three private companies, or consortiums, appointed following open competition to work in conjunction with the Benefits Agency in running benefit delivery in three of its 13 areas—Yorkshire, west country and east London and Anglia area directorates—for 12 months. All three companies will assist the Benefits Agency with the development of new business processes and information technology. They will be invited during the 12 month period to submit proposals for any elements of the agency's business which could be run differently, including the possibility of further parts of the operation being run by the private sector.

  The third initiative is to launch the procurement process for an information systems/information technology strategy to enable greater sharing of data between benefit systems, working closely with the private sector to provide the most up-to-date technologies, expertise and funding.

  These initiatives are designed to improve the administration of the benefit system. They will not change any individual's benefit entitlement.

  Income Support
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to review the income support direct payments scheme for fuel and water. [39007]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have asked my officials to consider with the regulators the fuel and water companies and with appropriate consumer bodies the scope for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the direct payments scheme.

  The scheme was introduced for fuel in 1976 and for water in 1991 as a last resort measure to help prevent disconnections. The number of direct payment deductions has steadily increased, from around 100,000 in the late 1970s to over half a million now, yet in recent years, although water prices have increased, fuel prices have fallen or remained stable. There have been significant improvements to the range and quality of payment schemes provided by all the utility companies and there has been a vast reduction in the number of disconnections. Technological advances, such as the benefit payment card due to be launched later this year, create new opportunities for providing alternative methods of payment for customers. I believe it is time to review the operation of the scheme to ensure that, in protecting the supply of fuel and water for people receiving income support, the right balance is struck between the companies' own payment and collection schemes, the responsibility of the individual, and the role of the state.
  716

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will list all the members, past and present, of the United Kingdom Sports Council together with the number of times they have attended meetings, including those who have not attended a meeting; [37087]

  (2) how many times the United Kingdom Sports Council has met. [37086]

  Mr. Sproat
  The formal establishment of the UK Sports Council is subject to the granting of a royal charter. In the meantime, a UK sub-committee of the Sports Council has met formally nine times. Sir Ian MacLaurin, chairman, has attended all nine meetings, Mr. O. Wheatley, eight; Mr. C. Reedie, Mr. G. Simmers and Dr. S. Springman, seven; Sir Rodney Walker, six; Mr. D. Allen, five; and Mr. C. Lloyd, one. Mr. R. Andrew and Mr. G. Lineker have been unable to attend any of the meetings. Official of the Sports Council were present as necessary. An observer from the department of National Heritage and observers from the home country sports councils and the British Olympic Association have also attended.

  World Heritage
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what financial contribution Her Majesty's Government have made to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation as a participant in its world heritage programme; what contributions will be made in the future; and if she will make a statement on the value for money to the UK of such contributions; [37970]

  (2) if she will list all sites and monuments in the United Kingdom which have been preserved as part of the world heritage convention; [37969]

  (3) what action Her Majesty's Government have taken to establish Greenwich as a world heritage site under the UNESCO convention concerning the protection of world cultural and national heritage; what advantages would attach to Greenwich of such recognition in terms of preservation and culture; and if she will make a statement. [37971]

  Mr. Sproat
  Last month, my right hon. Friend submitted a formal nomination to UNESCO to have maritime Greenwich inscribed in the list of world heritage sites. Inscription in the list is essentially honorific and no additional statutory controls follow. It does, however, highlight the outstanding international importance of a site as a material consideration to be taken into account by those deciding planning and listed building consent applications. A full statement of our policy for world heritage sites is set out in planning policy guidance note 15 "Planning and the Historic Environment" UNESCO's world heritage committee places great importance on the production of management plans for all inscribed sites, and the Government will shortly be consulting interested parties about the development of such a plan for Greenwich. The Government pay an annual subscription to UNESCO's world heritage fund; in 1996, this was
  717
  £126,000. Our contribution helps UNESCO support endangered sites throughout the world. There are currently 16 sites for which the UK has responsibility.

  Durham cathedral and castle

  Fountains abbey, St. Mary's church and Studley royal park

  Ironbridge gorge

  Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites

  Blenheim palace and park

  Palace of Westminster, St. Margaret's church and Westminster
  abbey

  City of Bath

  Hadrian's wall military zone

  The Tower of London

  Canterbury cathedral, with St. Augustine's abbey and St. Martin's church

  Castles and towns walls of Edward I in Gwynedd

  Edinburgh old and new towns

  St. Kilda

  Giant's causeway and causeway coast

  Henderson island, south Pacific ocean

  Gough island wildlife reserve, south Atlantic ocean

  Sport in Schools
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what priority she attaches to competitive sport in schools; and if she will make a statement. [38219]

  Mr. Sproat
  Competitive sport in schools is extremely important. It teaches valuable lessons which last for life. Last July, we published "Sport: Raising the Game" which aims to promote sport, especially competitive sport, in schools and beyond. The revised physical education curriculum, introduced last August, places greater emphasis on team games. From this summer, in all standard inspections, Office for Standards in Education inspectors will report on games, including competitive team games, which are offered as part of the physical education curriculum. The inspectors will also report on extra-curricular sporting activity.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to call together representatives of the governing bodies of the four home nations rugby unions to discuss the threat to the future of the five nations championship; if she will list the five nations championship as listed events under the Broadcasting Acts; what representations she has received on the matter; and if she will make a statement. [37982]

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will take steps to resolve the dispute over the financial arrangements for the broadcasting of the five nations championship. [37917]

  Mr. Sproat
  The five nations championship is an historically important event in the sporting calendar, which is enjoyed by many. However, the sale of broadcasting rights is a matter for the relevant governing bodies to determine, and it is not appropriate for my Department to become involved in what is a private contractual matter. The question of listing the five nations 718
  championship cannot arise until the future of the tournament is clearer. I have received no recent representations on this matter.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if, pursuant to her answer of 11 July,Official Report, columns 250–51, relating to export licences for works of art and museum objects temporarily withheld by her, she will provide equivalent information in respect of the final five cases listed as unresolved in her answer of 16 January, Official Report, column 512. [38196]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Description of item

  Valuation (£)

  Outcome

  A painting The Holy Family with the Infant Saint John, by Fra Bartolommeo (1472–1517)

  14,000,000

  Export licence granted

  A painting Lord Willoughby de Broke and his family at breakfast, by Johan Zoffany, c. 1766

  3,500,000

  Export licence granted

  A lady's secretary by Thomas Chippendale (1718–1779)

  570,000

  Acquired by the National Trust

  An archive of manuscripts relating to the editing of Principia Mathematica by Sir Isaac Newton, c. 1726

  400,000

  Export licence granted

  A collection of architectural drawings for Trentham Hall signed or annotated by Sir Charles Barry and others, 1834–1914

  75,820

  Acquired by Stoke on Trent City museum

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 250, if the valuations of the works of art listed are equivalent to the figures which have to be offered by a United Kingdom museum or gallery in order to warrant a definitive withholding by her of an export licence, or whether the sums required may be varied; and if she will list the items where the figure may vary indicating the factors underlying the variation. [37805]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The valuations listed in the answer of 11 July are the fair market prices accepted by Ministers following recommendations made by the reviewing committee on the export of works of art. The principle behind each price is that the vendor should receive a compensating offer from a UK buyer which should not put him in a worse position than had he sold to a foreign buyer. Offers to purchase by a UK museum or gallery must accord with this principle. The listed valuations exclude any value added tax liability, and they may be varied by additional elements including the buyer's premium, the dealer's commission and reasonable conservation costs. They may also be varied by agreement between the parties. My Department is aware that there is a VAT liability to be added to the valuation of the "ideal" bust by Antonio Canova. A private treaty sale may also be negotiated between a vendor and a UK museum or gallery for a figure different from that listed. My Department is aware

  719
  of negotiations for such a sale in the case of the Il Guercino painting "Erminia finding the wounded Tancred".

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grant-maintained schools there are in each London borough. [37862]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The requested information is in the table:

  Borough

  Number

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  12

  Bexley

  8

  Brent

  16

  Bromley

  23

  Camden

  3

  Corporation of London

  0

  Croydon

  12

  Ealing

  9

  Enfield

  6

  Greenwich

  1

  Hackney

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  Haringey

  0

  Harrow

  1

  Havering

  4

  Hillingdon

  22

  Hounslow

  2

  Islington

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Kingston upon Thames

  5

  Lambeth

  16

  Lewisham

  1

  Merton

  1

  Newham

  1

  Redbridge

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  Southwark

  10

  Sutton

  11

  Unfilled places on initial teacher training courses 1988–89 to 1995–96

  Numbers

  England and Wales

  England

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total

  326

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  632

  286

  Maths

  429

  395

  636

  167

  —

  —

  300

  472

  English

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Science

  229

  146

  410

  —

  —

  242

  340

  608

  Geography

  12

  27

  51

  —

  —

  —

  27

  4

  Religious education

  109

  74

  136

  67

  34

  54

  59

  16

  Modern foreign languages

  177

  211

  344

  37

  —

  123

  288

  302

  Where no number is given, target was met or exceeded.

  Percentage

  England and Wales

  England

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total

  1.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.1

  1.0

  Maths

  27.3

  25.7

  36.8

  9.7

  —

  —

  13.5

  20.8

  English

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Science

  12.8

  8.3

  19.9

  —

  —

  9.3

  10.6

  17.9

  Geography

  3.4

  7.5

  12.9

  —

  —

  —

  4.2

  0.6

  Religious education

  29.4

  19.8

  35.1

  16.5

  8.4

  12.8

  11.8

  3.1

  Modern foreign languages

  18.0

  20.4

  25.0

  2.7

  —

  7.4

  14.0

  14.5

  Where no number is given, target was met or exceeded.

  720

  Borough

  Number

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Waltham Forest

  4

  Wandsworth

  8

  Westminster

  0

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report, columns 397–99, from which funds allocated by his Department local education authorities award discretionary educational maintenance allowances; on what occasions such allowances have been independently assessed in respect of value for money over the last five years; what conclusions were drawn; and if he will make a statement. [38444]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities pay discretionary educational maintenance allowance from the general funds available to them, including revenue support grant.The Department does not make any specific payments in support of such allowances, although we take account of them in education standard spending assessments.

  I am not aware of any assessment in the last five years of the value for money of educational maintenance allowances.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the(a) actual number and (b) percentage of unfilled places on initial teacher training courses for each year since 1987–88, including 1996–97 (i) in total and (ii) for (1) maths, (2) english, (3) science, (4) geography, (5) religious education and (6) modern foreign languages. [37865]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number and percentage of unfilled places on initial teacher training courses for the academic years 1988–89 to 1995–96 are given in the table. Data for 1996–97 are not yet available.
  721

  Teacher Training Agency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much was spent on administration, separately identifying staff costs in cash and real terms(a) by the Teacher Training Agency in the current year and (b) by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in discharging its teacher training functions in the final year before the transfer of those responsibilities to the Teacher Training Agency; [38334]

  (2) how many (a) full-time equivalent staff have been employed by the Teacher Training Agency in the current year and (b) full-time equivalent staff were employed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England involved in discharging its teacher training functions in the final year before the transfer of those responsibilities to the Teacher Training Agency. [38336]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1995–96, the latest year for which accounts are available, the Teacher Training Agency, TTA, spent £2.414 million on administration costs, of which £1.303 million was spent on staff costs. The average number of full-time equivalent—FTE—staff employed by the agency in 1995–96 was 42.

  The academic year 1993–94 was the last complete year in which the HEFCE had responsibility for the administration of teacher training allocations and quality assessment. The HEFCE estimates its administration costs for the allocation intake targets and funding in respect of teacher training were some £80,000, of which £66,000 relates to staff costs. The FTE of staff involved in work on teacher training in 1993–94 was 2.5.

  In addition to developing the functions transferred from the HEFCE, the TTA has taken on tasks which were previously the responsibility of the teaching as a career unit, the Council for the accreditation of Teacher Education and the then Department for Education, as well as a number of new functions under the Education Act 1994.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the efficiency of the Teacher Training Agency in discharging its duties under the Education Act 1994. [38333]

  Mr. Squire
  The Teacher Training Agency's objectives and targets are published annually in its corporate plan and progress on them is recorded in its annual report. The Department will carry out a financial management survey during the current financial year, in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, to consider the agency's system of financial management and control. This will include an examination of performance measures, targets and other indicators of efficiency in accordance with standard practice. The results will be published.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the working groups established by the national committee of inquiry into higher education chaired by Sir Ron Dearing, and the members and chairmen of each group. [38335]

  Mr. Forth
  The national committee of inquiry into higher education expects to announce details of the working groups and their membership at the end of July. I shall place a copy of that announcement in the Library.
  722

  Teachers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the target and (b) the actual intake for teachers in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools, broken down into subjects, in each year from 1990–91, with such figures as are available for 1996–97. [37782]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The number of teachers who entered teaching in mainstream nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Wales for the first time each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94 are given in the table. The Secretary of State does not set targets for entrants into teaching.

  New entrants into full-time and part-time teaching in the nursery, primary and secondary sector

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Subject (1)

  Maintained nursery and primary sector

  Maths

  267

  303

  296

  362

  English

  1,232

  1,315

  1,501

  1,734

  Science

  1,002

  1,008

  1,042

  1,302

  MFL

  218

  202

  235

  253

  Technical

  127

  168

  227

  265

  History

  558

  587

  624

  771

  Geography

  418

  429

  485

  542

  Art

  451

  445

  555

  610

  Music

  288

  329

  300

  323

  RE

  277

  270

  237

  328

  PE

  172

  232

  253

  319

  Other

  2,141

  2,409

  2,082

  1,768

  Not known2

  1,115

  784

  847

  867

  Total

  8,266

  8,481

  8,684

  9,444

  Maintained secondary sector

  Maths

  675

  665

  832

  1,055

  English

  846

  939

  1,044

  1,138

  Science

  1,137

  1,149

  1,311

  1,512

  MFL

  669

  742

  930

  1,071

  Technical

  755

  693

  778

  1,112

  History

  332

  393

  433

  536

  Geography

  264

  259

  375

  416

  Art

  311

  301

  349

  368

  Music

  237

  249

  293

  320

  RE

  209

  202

  243

  275

  PE

  538

  580

  624

  608

  Other

  348

  309

  327

  372

  Not known2

  421

  329

  261

  413

  Total

  6,742

  6,810

  7,800

  9,196

  1 Subject of ITT where known otherwise subject of first degree.

  2 Includes non-graduates.

  3 Figures as at March of each year.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students, in the academic years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 under provisions of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulation 26 (3) (a), (i) had their student grant withdrawn, (ii) had their grant reduced and (iii) had their grant continued at the rate awarded, because they were unable to attend their course due to illness. [38569]
  723
  Mr. Forth
  The information required is not collected centrally. The administration of mandatory awards is a matter for local education authorities, who make decisions on individual cases according to the relevant regulations.

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to take a decision on the submission from Bradford local education authority to the schools renewal challenge fund; and if she will make a statement. [38094]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: I expect to announce decisions on all the 400 bids which were submitted to the schools renewal challenge fund very soon.

HEALTH

  HIV
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the infectivity of HIV. [37190]

  Mr. Horam
  Most Government-funded HIV research is commissioned by the Medical Research Council. The Department has not commissioned any recent research into HIV infectivity as the main transmission routes for HIV are well established. HIV is transmitted by unprotected intercourse, through infected blood—which in the United Kingdom is usually a result of injecting drug use—and from an infected mother to her child.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that effective controls are in place to protect mental health patients from injury or death while undergoing(a) electroconvulsive therapy and (b) powerful drug therapy; and if he will make a statement. [37180]

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidelines have been issued by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the second report of the special committee on electro-convulsive therapy and in the consensus statement on the use of high dose antipsychotic medication. Copies are available in the Library.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) of 2 July,Official Report, column 371, if he will list (a) the names, qualifications and affiliations of the members of the advisory panel for the interim report on residential provision for people with learning disabilities, (b) the criteria used to choose the advisory panel (c) the number of times the advisory panel met; and what assessment he has made of the degree of unanimity in agreeing the report. [37433]

  Mr. Bowis
  The members of the advisory panel were:Professor David Felce PhD. Professor of Research in Learning Disabilities, University of Cardiff;
  Dr. Margaret Flynn BA Hons. Psychology, PhD, Assistant Director, National Development Team, Prince of Wales Fellow Royal College of General Practitioners;
  724
  Professor Sheila Hollins MB BS FRC Psych, Head of Department of Psychiatry of Disability, St. George's Medical School; Chair of the Learning Disability Executive of the Royal College of Psychiatry;
  Professor Martin Knapp BA, MSc, PhD, Professorial Fellow and Director of the Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science; Professor of Health Econometrics and Director of the Centre for Economics of Mental Health, Institute of Psychiatry;
  Professor Jim Mansell MSc.(Econ) AFBPsP CPsychol, Director of the Tizard Centre, Professor of the Applied Psychology of Learning Disability, University of Kent at Canterbury;
  Professor Norma Raynes, BA MSc PhD, Professor of Social Care in the School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield;
  Professor David Sines PhD, BSc (lions), RMN, RNMH, FRCN, Department of Nursing and Health Visiting, University of Ulster; Chair of Learning Disabilities Coalition; and
  Dr. Lorna Wing MB BS FRC Psych, Psychiatric Consultant to the National Autistic Society.

  Members of the panel were selected on the basis of their academic standing and expertise in learning disability. They were asked to help ensure that the literature review took account of all research studies on the topic published since 1980. The advisory panel was not asked to meet formally, nor was it essential for members to reach unanimity on all aspects of the research findings. The researchers were able to look to the panel for professional and academic input into the wide range of issues covered. This has been an important strength of the research.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) of 2 July,Official Report, column 371, if he will set out the terms of reference for the report on residential provision for people with learning disabilities; and what was the cost of the report. [37428]

  Mr. Bowis
  The first phase of the evaluation of the costs and outcomes of various types of residential provision for people with learning disabilities was in two parts. First, a review of literature on residential provision for people with learning disabilities. The terms of reference were:"to assess the state of knowledge about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different forms of residential accommodation for people with learning disabilities."

  Secondly, an analysis of available information on the costs of village communities. The terms of reference were:
  "to analyse and compare any information which is readily available on the financial costs of village communities and other forms of residential provision for people with learning disabilities".

  Phase one of the evaluation cost £26,471.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the relationship between the NHS executive and community health councils; and if he will make a statement. [37843]

  Mr. Malone
  The position is set out in guidance issued by the Department last year as EL(95)142, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  725

  Health Advice Telephone Lines
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what health advice services are offered by the NHS over the telephone; and what best practice the Department recommends on the use of health telephone lines to reduce pressure on general practitioners. [38016]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities have a responsibility to ensure that a freephone health information service is available to their local population. The service must be provided in line with health service guidance HSG(5)44, copies of which are available in the Library. Additionally, the Health Education Authority sometimes provides for helplines on health promotion issues in its campaigns.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 585, by what date the NHS executive has asked for returns about patients between 16 and 64 years (a) discharged within the previous 90 days and (b) re-admitted to hospital within 90 days of discharge to be provided; and when the information will be published. [38435]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 18 July,Official Report, column 650.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with prior options reviews of public sector research establishments which his Department sponsors. [38988]

  Mr. Horam
  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his announcement of the timetable for prior options reviews on 26 January 1996,Official Report, columns 421–23, the outcome of the reviews of the National Radiological Protection Board, National Biological Standards Board, and the Public Health Laboratory Service are due to be reported to Ministers by December 1996.

  Work is drawing to a close on the first of these reviews relating to the National Radiological Protection Board. Reviews of the National Biological Standards Board, and the Public Health Laboratory Service have recently commenced, and will be formally announced in the August edition of "Government Opportunities". Views are being invited from any interested parties, with a direct approach being made to key organisations and individuals.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the annual report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to be published. [39051]

  Mr. Horam
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will be publishing its fifth annual report on Monday 22 July. Copies of the report will be available in the Library on that day.
  726

  Operations (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hip replacements, (b) hysterectomies, (c) cataract extractions, (d) tonsillectomies, (e) kidney transplants and (f) hernia operations were carried out by the NHS in England and Wales in each of the last three years; and what was the average waiting time for each operation in each year. [37496]

  Mr. Horam
  Figures for kidney transplants are set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of kidney transplants performed in England

  1992–93

  1,445

  1993–94

  1,401

  1994–95

  1,461

  Source:

  The United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  Waiting times for kidney transplants depend on the availability of suitably matched kidneys and information on average waiting times is not comparable with other waiting times available.

  Questions relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average cost to the NHS of(a) a hip replacement, (b) a hysterectomy, (c) a cataract extraction, (d) a tonsillectomy, (e) a kidney transplant and (f) a hernia operation. [37499]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received open-heart surgery within(a) one month, (b) three months, (c) six months, (d) nine months, (e) 12 months (f) 15 months and (g) 18 months in the most recent year for which figures are available. [38042]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on times waited for various cardiac procedures is given in "Hospital Episode Statistics, Volume 2". The latest year for which information has so far been published is 1993–94. Copies are available in the Library.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by charging procedure the costs for personal social services that were recouped through charging in the last year; and what proportion of personal DSS expenditure this entailed. [37996]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1993–94, the latest year for which information has been published, approximately 10 per cent. of gross current expenditure by local authorities on personal social services was recouped through fees and charges, including charges to clients. Data on amounts raised for each charging procedure are not held centrally.
  727

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the forms his Department issues annually to businesses to gather statistics, indicating the number of each distributed. [37813]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested in respect of forms for which the primary purpose is statistical is given in the table. This does not include administrative forms that can be used in preparation of statistics.

  Annual statistical surveys of businesses carried out in 1995 by Department of Health

  Survey

  Business type

  Number of forms issued

  Dentists' status—non associates

  Dentists

  1,500

  Dentists' status—associates

  Dentists

  10,500

  Discount inquiry

  Pharmacies

  325

  Container cost inquiry

  Pharmacies

  300

  Study of GP accounts

  GPs/accountants

  700/100

  Sight tests volumes and manpower

  Optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners

  1,400

  South Manchester University Hospital
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will urgently reconsider the question of access for the South Manchester community health council to the findings of the inquiry report of an investigation into the recent financial difficulties at South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust; and if he will make a statement; [37879]

  (2) what representations he has had from the South Manchester community health council in relation to obtaining the findings of the inquiry report of an investigation into the recent financial difficulties at South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement; [37878]

  (3) what fees have been and are being paid by South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust to the Audit Commission; what role the Commission played in finding the financial accounting error that led to the trust's recent financial difficulties; what role was played by the trust's own audit; and if he will make a statement. [37881]

  Mr. Horam
  I responded on 9 July to a letter from the community health council, stating that the question of access is a matter for the trust itself to decide, taking legal advice into account. The Audit Commission played no part in discovering the recent financial error.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently waiting for open-heart surgery in each health region. [38041]

  Mr. Horam
  Waiting list information is collected on the basis of clinical specialities and not individual procedure level.
  728

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have received backdated pay awards following successful appeals against regrading decisions(a) eight, (b) seven, (c) six, (d) five, (e) four, (f) three and (g) two years late. [38459]

  Mr. Malone
  Almost all the 100,000 appeals against clinical regrading lodged in 1988 have now been resolved. Information held centrally does not record the time at which payments were made.

  Ethnic Minority Staff
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of NHS trusts and health authorities have included in their business plan a local objective to increase the proportion of ethnic minority staff in areas and grades where they are under-represented within a specified time scale; [37095]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress made towards the eight goals set out in the NHS executive publication, "Ethnic Minority Staff in the NHS: a Programme of Action"; [37040]

  (3) what guidelines for training for NHS employees he has issued relating to particular needs of members of ethnic minorities. [37028]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: It is for trusts and health authorities to implement the goals of "Ethnic Minority Staff in the NHS: a Programme of Action" locally, in accordance with advice issued by the national health service executive and as set out in the priorities and planning guidance, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Racial Harassment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys he has conducted into the extent of racial harassment in NHS workplaces. [37139]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The Department of Health commissioned the Policy Studies Institute report "Nursing in a multi-ethnic NHS", which was published in autumn 1995. Copies are available in the Library.

  Extra-contractual Referral Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what revisions he proposed to the extra-contractual referral scheme; if he has issued a consultation paper to trusts and health authorities; and when he proposes to make a formal announcement. [37609]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: The efficiency scrutiny into the burdens of paperwork in national health service trusts and health authorities consulted trusts, health authorities and general practitioners on ways in which the extra-contractual referral system could be streamlined.

  We have consulted and will continue to consult, health authorities, trusts and other interested parties as detailed proposals for implementing the recommendations are developed.
  729

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average expenditure per head for each health authority, and the average for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the current financial year. [37515]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: The average per capita expenditure figures for the current financial year will not be available until all health authorities have completed their annual accounts after the end of the financial year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Economic Development (North-East)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much(a) his Department and (b) the European Community provided to (i) south Tyneside borough council, (ii) North Tyneside borough council, (iii) Gateshead borough council and (iv) Newcastle upon Tyne City council in terms of funding for economic development in each of the last three years. [37740]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: The figures are as follows:

  (a) Nil;

  (b)

  Financial year

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  (i) South Tyneside borough council

  2,549,274

  1,533,604

  224,890

  (ii) North Tyneside borough council

  2,039,790

  2,394,670

  1,542,919

  (iii) Gateshead borough council

  2,054,573

  1,947,557

  448,802

  (iv) Newcastle-upon-Tyne city council

  4,313,249

  3,115,628

  1,091,056

  My Department is not the primary source of funding for local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment makes provision for the local authorities in his estimates.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of his Department's supervisory bodies have responsibility for(a) Jersey and (b) other Channel Islands. [37830]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The recognised supervisory bodies for auditors and the recognised professional bodies for insolvency practitioners have no responsibility under UK law for Jersey and the other Channel Islands. However, the bodies are responsible to the Secretary of State for supervising the audit and insolvency work of their members in matters relating to the Companies Act and the Insolvency Act 1986 respectively, regardless of the location of those members.

  South-West Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report,
  730
  column 458–59, if Mr. A was a member of his Department's south-west regional office at the time of (i) the regional selective assistance grant to company L for the second project and (ii) the grants to company N since 1991; if Mr. A was a director of these companies at the time of the offers of financial assistance; and if Mr. A subsequently became a director of these companies. [35265]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Mr. A's period as a member of the south-west industrial development board spans the dates of the grants mentioned. Mr. A was a director of company L when the application for assistance for the company's second project was considered and therefore saw no departmental papers relating to the application and absented himself from the relevant discussion by the industrial development board. Mr. A has also been a director of company N since 1987, but none of the grants to that company—because they were not regional selective assistance—were considered by the industrial development board.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those employees and external advisers that took part in the assessment of the regional selective assistance grant offered to Porthcurno Management Company Ltd. in December 1993; how many of these subsequently acted as directors of this company; and on what date they became directors. [35221]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Departmental officials principally involved in the assessment were John Bowder, Mike Twomey and Nalem Iqbal all of the south-west office; Margaret Nimmo, economics and statistics division, and lain Osborne, industrial competitiveness division. As I explained in my answer of 29 April, Official Report, columns 363–64, Kenneth Holmes, an external accountancy adviser, was also involved in the assessment.

  The case was also considered by the south-west industrial development board.

  Of the individuals named, one—Mr. Holmes—subsequently became a director of the company on 22 February 1994.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates his Department's south-west industrial development board has met since 1990. [37641]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: The south-west industrial development board has met on the following dates:

  1990

  30 January

  27 February

  27 March

  24 April

  22 May

  26 June

  30 October

  27 November

  731

  1991

  19 March

  30 April

  25 June

  30 July

  24 September

  26 November

  1992

  31 March

  28 April

  30 June

  27 October

  15 December

  1993

  23 February

  30 March

  27 April

  25 May

  29 June

  27 July

  28 September

  26 October

  30 November

  21 December

  1994

  26 January

  23 February

  23 March

  27 April

  25 May

  29 June

  27 July

  11 August

  28 September

  26 October

  16 and 30 November

  30 November

  21 December

  1995

  25 January

  22 February

  12 April

  28 June

  26 July

  30 August

  27 September

  25 October

  29 November

  20 December

  1996

  10 and 24 April

  26 June

  732
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 461–64, what potential conflict of interest obliged Messrs Jordan and Harris to absent themselves from the meeting of his Department's south-west industrial development board discussing the application of Magrathea (Pendennis) Ltd. for financial assistance. [37648]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 16 July, Official Report, column 463.

  Insolvency Practitioners
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints against insolvency practitioners were received by his Department and the regulatory bodies sponsored by his Department since 1990 if he will indicated the outcome of each complaint. [37338]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Detailed information about the number of complaints to my Department and the recognised professional bodies about insolvency practitioners is not available prior to 1992. Since that date, the figures are as follows:

  Year

  Complaints

  1992

  391

  1993

  532

  1994

  587

  1995

  567

  Information about the outcome of each complaint is not available. However, in the period from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1995, 21 insolvency practitioners had their authorisations revoked or their application for renewal of their authorisation refused. The recognised professional bodies also took appropriate regulatory action in other cases, but the majority of complaints, after investigation, revealed no evidence of misconduct.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for(a) 1975, (b) 1979 and (c) 1995 in terms of current and constant values United Kingdom imports and exports of footwear with (i) leather soles and (ii) uppers of leather or composition leather. [38174]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in the real value of sterling since the second half of 1973 on the reduction in output and employment in the footwear industry. [38173]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To isolate the effects of currency movements from other influences on the output and employment of individual industries would be a major research task, which the Department has not undertaken.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value in constant prices of United Kingdom imports and exports of footwear in 1975, 1979 and 1995. [38172]
  733
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information in constant prices is not available. Current price figures for United Kingdom imports and exports of footwear are published by HM Customs and Excise in "overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom" which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the effect on the level of(a) imports and (b) exports of footwear of the change in real value of the pound since the second quarter of 1993. [38175]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on the levels of United Kingdom trade in footwear, and the real effective exchange rate since the second quarter of 1993 are given in the table. To isolate the effect of exchange rate movements from other major influences on UK trade would be a major research tasks, which the Department has not undertaken.

  UK trade in Footwear

  Imports £ million

  Exports current price

  Real effective exchange rate (1990=100)

  1993

  Q1

  323

  97

  86.6

  Q2

  278

  84

  88.7

  Q3

  310

  107

  90.2

  Q4

  323

  131

  90.2

  1994

  Q1

  395

  130

  90.7

  Q2

  335

  107

  89.1

  Q3

  363

  122

  87.9

  Q4

  348

  117

  89.1

  1995

  Q1

  409

  130

  87.2

  Q2

  345

  107

  84.3

  Q3

  389

  143

  84.3

  Q4

  385

  130

  83.5

  1996

  Q1

  470

  156

  83.5

  Sources:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

  Economic Trends, Office for National Statistics.

  Financial Services Practitioners
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when members of his Department last met representatives of(a) Price Waterhouse, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Bank of Credit and Commerce International depositors and (d) Maxwell pensioners to discuss auditor liability. [37826]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Members of my Department have had no such meetings. Investigations of the auditors' role in the BCCI and Maxwell cases are in the hands of the joint disciplinary scheme, and my Department is kept informed of progress regularly.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many practitioners are regulated by each of the bodies acting as regulators under the Insolvency Act 1986; and what plans he has to merge them. [37827]
  734
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of practitioners authorised by each of the recognised professional bodies as at 31 December 1995 was as follows:

  Number

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  112

  Insolvency Practitioners Association

  283

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  914

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  78

  Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  185

  Law Society

  195

  The Law Society of Scotland

  27

  In addition, the Secretary of State also authorises 145 practitioners.

  There are no plans to merge the regulatory responsibilities of the bodies in relation to insolvency practitioners.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on limitation of liability for partners in audit firms; what further limitation he proposes in respect of(a) those firms and (b) other businesses; and what safeguards will be put in place to protect consumers. [37831]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department has recently carried out a consultation into the law of joint and several liability as it affects providers of professional services, including auditors. The 134 responses to the consultation represent a wide range of views and are currently being analysed. Any proposals arising from the consultation will of course take into account the balance of interests between all concerned, including the preparers and users of accounts as well as the auditors.

  Directors' Remuneration
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals to allow employees to vote on the size of director remuneration. [37225]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government do not intend to require companies to allow employees to vote on directors' remuneration arrangements.

  Output Increases
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the average annual increase since 1972 in output per head in(a) manufacturing and (b) non-manufacturing in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Germany. [37486]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  For the UK. the average annual increase since 1972 in output per person employed is 1.8 per cent. for manufacturing industries and 3.2 per cent. for the whole economy. Comparable information for Germany is not available.

  Auditing Requirements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the average annual cost to British businesses as a percentage of turnover, of the annual auditing requirements. [37381]
  735
  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have made no such estimate. To extract this information from the audited accounts of even a statistical sample of companies could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Guarantees Advisory Council
  Mr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Export Guarantees Advisory Council(a) publishes its advice to Government and (b) publishes an annual report; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37903]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The Export Guarantees Advisory Council is a purely advisory body appointed under the terms of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. Its function is to advise the Secretary of State, at his request, in respect of any matter relating to the exercise of his functions under the Act. Its members receive no remuneration.

  The answers to both the specific questions are no.

  Agency Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each of his Department's agencies the cost of printing(a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the latest available year. [37811]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am asking the chief executive of each DTI agency to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 19 July 1996:
  The President of the Board of trade has asked me to reply to your request for details of my Agency's cost for printing (a) all publications and (b) the Annual Report in the last available year.

  (a) The cost of printing all publications in the financial year 1995–96 was £402,959.26

  (b) The cost of printing the Agency's Annual Report for 1994/95 was £9,218 (in addition the Agency produced a Business Review for 1994/95, the cost of which was £10,735).

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 19 July 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to rely on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the cost of printing (a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the latest available year.

  In 1995/96 this Agency's costs of printing were:

  (a) Publications £2,420.00

  (b) Annual Report (1994/95) £5,426.00

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr Anthony Steen, dated 19 July 1996:
  I am responding in relation to the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the cost of printing of publications and annual reports. The information requested is set out in the following table:

  1995–96

  £ thousands

  Publications for sale and office use such as the official journals, reports on patent cases, and specifications

  435

  736

  1995–96

  £ thousands

  Free literature distributed by our marketing and
  information service

  211

  Annual report and accounts

  16

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 19 July 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the cost to The Insolvency Service of printing its publications, including its Annual Report, in the latest available year.
  During the 1995–96 financial year The Insolvency Service spent £9,897 on the printing of its Annual Report and £19,325 on the printing of its other publications.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 19 July 1996:
  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information about printing costs. I am replying in respect of Companies House.

  The figures for the financial year 1995/96 are as follows:

  Overall printing cost for publications: £257,000

  Cost of printing 1994/95 annual report and accounts: £14,300

  I should explain that the annual report figure is included in the overall print figure. It may also help if I explain that over three-quarters of the remaining printing cost are accounted for by notes for guidance that Companies House issues free of charge to help people understand their obligations under the Companies Act, and various aspects of our procedure.

DEFENCE

  1238 Anti-tank System
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement regarding the contract for the 1238 anti-tank system. [38454]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I expect an announcement to be made shortly.

  Burundi
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military equipment Her Majesty's Government have sold to the Government of Burundi in the last 12 months. [38246]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Disposal Sales Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, dated 19 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about sales of military equipment to the Government of Burundi. This matter falls to me as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.
  There have been no sales of military equipment by my Agency to the Government of Burundi in the last 12 months.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total number of(a) members of the public, (b) civilian employees of his Department, (c) defence contractors and (d) service dependants who at

  737
  present come into contact each week with the Ministry of Defence police based at (i) Chilwell and (ii) Chetwynd. [38340]

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

  Letter from A. V. Comben to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 19 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Ministry of Defence Police at Chilwell/Chetwynd Barracks, as it falls into the area of responsibility of the Chief Constable and, in his absence on duty, I am responding on his behalf.
  The MOD establishment at Chilwell was renamed Chetwynd Barracks on 10 June 1995. Currently some 300 civilians are employed by the Ministry at the site and there are about 550 Service dependants in the Quarters there. At weekends there are approximately 300 Regular and Territorial Army soldiers additionally accommodated at the Barracks. Visitors to the site vary in number and include members of the public, MOD employees from other sites and contractors, who are estimated to total around 150 each week. The Ministry of Defence Police could come into contact with all of these people as the officers go about their various duties. Records are not kept of every contact between MDP and other individuals.

  Greenham Common (Accident)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the study conducted in 1987 by W. N. Saxby at the safety division of the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston, into the accident that took place at Greenham common on 28 February 1958. [38238]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no record of any study of this kind on Greenham common by a Mr. Saxby in 1987. Copies of a 1986 report concerning Greenham common have recently been placed in the Library of the House.

  Brunei
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are presently serving in Brunei; and what is the estimated annual cost of this deployment. [38239]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 1,005 British military personnel serving in Brunei. The cost to the British Government is currently some £4 million per year to cover the British jungle training team there. All other costs are met by the Brunei Government.

  Military Provost Guard Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the legal powers and jurisdiction of the Military Provost guard service over(a) members of the public, (b) civilian employees of his Department, (c) defence contractors and (d) service dependants. [38339]

  Mr. Soames
  In the absence of special legislation or other emergency powers, members of the Military Provost guard service, like all service personnel in Great Britain, have the same general powers as a private citizen when dealing with crime or when helping the civil police. They may also have powers in respect of any person committing an offence under Military Lands Act 1892 byelaws if so authorised by those byelaws.
  738
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds Chilwell station was selected as a site for the pilot study into the Military Provost guard service. [38341]

  Mr. Soames
  The sites chosen for the Military Provost guard service pilot scheme were selected as representative of the different types of Army establishments at which it is proposed to replace Ministry of Defence police employed only on guarding duties with Military Provost guard service personnel.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the Military Provost guard service to function outside the perimeter fence of an MOD establishment in(a) an unarmed capacity and (b) an armed capacity. [38337]

  Mr. Soames
  Military Provost guard service personnel, like other service personnel, would undertake general security patrols off-base as required by the unit's commanding officer. There is close co-operation with the local police over security arrangements for protecting Defence property and personnel. Armed patrolling by service personnel off-base takes place only if specifically authorised by the local chief constable.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place between his Department and the chief constable of the Nottinghamshire constabulary regarding(a) the replacement of Ministry of Defence police stationed at Chilwell with the Ministry Provost guard service and (b) the planned role and tasking of the Military Provost guard service, (i) within and (ii) outside the perimeter fence of Chilwell station and Chetwynd barracks. [38338]

  Mr. Soames
  None so far. There will, however, be full discussions with the Nottinghamshire constabulary about security and policing arrangements to protect Defence personnel and property in the Chilwell area.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the advantages of piloting the Military Provost guard service scheme at locations where the level of security is not so great as to require constabulary powers. [38342]

  Mr. Soames
  The pilot scheme sites have been chosen to reflect the different types of Army establishments at which the Military Provost guard service could be deployed. There would be no advantage in confining the pilot scheme to locations at which there is no requirement for constabulary powers. At those sites where a civil police presence is required, it will continue to be provided by the Ministry of Defence or the local police.

  1236 Stand-off Missile
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement regarding the contract for the 1236 conventionally armed stand-off missile. [38455]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I expect an announcement to be made shortly.

  Landing Platform Dock Replacements
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement of the order for the landing platform dock replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. [38452]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 18 July our decision to place a contract with GEC-Marine to build two replacement landing platform docks.

  Maritime Patrol Aircraft
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement for the contract for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft. [38456]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I expect an announcement to be made shortly.

  AWE Aldermaston (Accident)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the causes and 740
  consequences of the plutonium contamination accident at atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston at the beginning of July. [38450]

  Mr. Soames
  During a routine analysis procedure on 4 July, a member of staff at AWE Aldermaston inhaled a microscopic quantity of radioactive material. The amount was a fraction of the safe limit. The relevant area of the site was closed immediately and the Health and Safety Executive, informed. There was at no time any danger to other employees or the public. The incident is the subject of an AWE investigation in which staff representatives and the HSE are involved. The latter has indicated that it is satisfied with the actions taken to date.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the number of Eurofighter aeroplanes to be ordered by his Department. [38453]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to table 9 of the 1996 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", Cm 3223, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.