Sitting of 24 July 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
9.34 am
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the course of preparations for today's Adjournment debate, in which hon. Members can raise various matters, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) have been most concerned about the deficit of East London and the City health authority. In attempting to compare that deficit—of over £30 million—with those of other district health authorities, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Health.
That question has been answered and printed in Hansard this morning. I shall not read out the question, but it was about deficits, which is a very important matter for the health service across the country. The answer states:
"The information requested is based on estimates subject to revision. It is not suitable for publication."—[Official Report, 22 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 121.]
Every hon. Member is familiar with answers containing such expressions as "not centrally held", "disproportionate costs" and "placed in the Library", but the answer "estimates subject to revision"—which is given all the time in response to questions on finance, taxation and public expenditure—is not a reason for withholding information.
Furthermore, the phrase
"It is not suitable for publication"
is an addition to the canon of unhappy excuses that sometimes comes from the Executive.
Madam Speaker, what are the appropriate means by which I can draw that matter to the attention of others? If the practice is more widespread, perhaps my raising this point of order will encourage other hon. Members who have received similar answers to take similar action.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order, and I have seen the question and answer to which he refers. As he knows, however, the Speaker is not responsible for the content of ministerial answers. There are many ways in which hon. Members may pursue what they consider to be unsatisfactory answers, such as, for example, in Adjournment debates or by raising the issue with the relevant Select Committee. It is my understanding that the Select Committee on Public Service is currently inquiring into ministerial accountability. The hon. Member might help that Committee with its inquiries if he were to put the matter to it.

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising today, do adjourn till Monday 14 October.—[Mr. Wood.]
9.37 am
Mr. Alfred Morris: There are three urgent and important issues I want briefly to address. Each of them merits a ministerial response before the House rises for the summer recess.
First, I want to raise Lord Rix's moving plea, in a letter to the Leader of the House, for a fair wind for his Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-term Breaks) Bill. His Bill won unanimous support in the Lords and I was delighted to be asked to sponsor it in this House. In doing so I have the support of right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, large and small, none of whom saw any justification whatever for the blocking of the Bill by a Government Whip when I presented it for Second Reading on 12 July. That our procedures can allow that to happen where a Bill has already been unanimously approved in another place is surely wrong and should be immediately reviewed.
While I cannot now discuss its terms, the Bill, as its title implies, is one to help disabled people and their carers who, hugely to their detriment, never go beyond their own homes. As Lord Rix pointed out in his letter to the Leader of the House, of the 130,000 adults and children with severe learning disabilities living with their families, four out of five never receive short-term care provision to relieve the pressure of full-time care in the family home.
All I will say today, as Lord Rix did in other words in seeking the right hon. Gentleman's help, is that this is bad for the disabled person, bad for carers and bad for the taxpayer.
As is accepted in other legislation on disability—not least that which I had the good fortune to bring to this House, both as a private Member and as a Minister—any failure to give the disabled person and the carer a break hastens the day when it will no longer be possible to cope at home, making long-term institutional care the only option at far greater cost to the taxpayer than that of facilitating short-term breaks. Carers may be among the most admired people in this country, but they are also among the most neglected. Helping them is not only a moral and social priority: it also makes economic sense.
While it appears on today's Order Paper only as a remaining order, the Government have it within their power to let Lord Rix's excellent Bill through this House before we adjourn for the recess. It is about a small step forward that, in Lord Rix's words, would
"add a touch of compassion and understanding to the Government's record."
He might justifiably have added that, for the Government to refuse to let so uncontroversial a measure through this House, would be both self-defeating and inhumane.
The issue is not one that divides one side of the House from the other. The divide is now one between the Government and both sides of the House, and I implore the right hon. Gentleman to do all he can to help the Bill forward. Meanwhile I must inform him that, if he is not able to assist its supporters today, I shall be seeking to discharge my commitment to the Bill in full by bringing

265
it back to the Order Paper of this House on every remaining sitting day of the current parliamentary Session.
I turn now, again briefly, to the very deep sense of injustice that persists among people with haemophilia and their families. The tragic fate of three brothers explains why they are so aggrieved. All three had haemophilia. Two were infected with HIV by contaminated NHS blood transfusions and died of AIDS-related illnesses. The third brother was infected with hepatitis C by NHS blood products and died of liver failure. The two brothers infected with HIV received help from the Macfarlane Trust, funded by the Government, and were able to make some provision for their families. But their brother, infected with hepatitis C, went to his grave having been refused that help. He was unable to make any provision for his family.
All three brothers had become terminally ill and died from the same cause: contaminated NHS blood products. But one was denied help given to the other two brothers by a Government who provided £70 million for people infected with HIV and set up the Macfarlane Trust to give them continuing support. The Government accepted their moral responsebility in the case of HIV infection. They have the same responsibility now in the HCV cases.
It is argued that compensating those infected with HCV would take money away from patient care in the NHS. To say that is to get not just the wrong end of the stick, but the wrong stick. For the payments made in the HIV cases, including those to the dependants of people who subsequently died because of AIDS-related illnesses, came from contingency moneys, which is what the Haemophilia Society is asking for now for the hepatitis C victims. The society simply wants the terms of reference of the Macfarlane Trust to be extended to include them.
Measured against the pain and suffering endured, the claim is an extremely modest one. Hepatitis C attacks the liver and is life-threatening. Current medical opinion is that up to 80 per cent. of those infected will develop chronic liver disease. Of these, some 20 per cent. will develop severe liver problems such as cirrhosis or liver cancer. More than 50 of those infected by contaminated blood products have already died and the death rate is accelerating.
This further tragedy in the haemophilia community dates back to before 1986 when heat treatment was introduced to end the contamination of NHS blood products. But by then 3,100 people with haemophilia alone had been infected with hepatitis C. In recognition of the scale of the problem, an all-party early-day motion was tabled, in my name, urging parity of treatment for people infected with HIV or HCV. The motion has now been signed by more than 260 right hon. and hon. Members, a majority of all Members of Parliament who are free to sign such motions. As the list of signatories shows, the issue is treated not as one of right and left but of right and wrong.
In none of the many campaigns in which I have been closely involved in this House in my 32 years here have I had so strong a sense that it should not be necessary to campaign to right such an obvious wrong. The
266
Government know we are right and that our campaign is entirely free from party animus. They know, too, that if given the nod by Ministers, this House would settle the issue within an hour. That hour could and should be found before the new parliamentary Session begins. If there is no commitment today to finding it and the campaign has to go on, then go on it will until justice is achieved for people who simply want equitable treatment.
I turn now, thirdly and finally, to an issue of urgent concern to all long-term sick and disabled people and those who work with and for them. I refer to the implications of a judgment given by the Court of Appeal in what the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—describes as
"one of the most important cases to date on the rights of disabled people to community care services."
The court ruled that, when a local authority has agreed that a disabled person has needs for care services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the authority must meet those needs and cannot take its own budgetary constraints into consideration. This landmark ruling was given in a judicial review judgment against Gloucestershire county council in relation to its treatment of a disabled pensioner, Michael Barry, in withdrawing home care services from him, among 1,500 other disabled people in the county, claiming that a Government squeeze on funds was responsible for the cuts.
The Court of Appeal's judgment, as John Keep of RADAR who played such an admirable role in helping Michael Barry to achieve the judicial review has reminded me, is totally in line with the guidance given to me as the Minister for Disabled People about the legal effect of section 2 of theAct.
I set out that guidance in this House, for the information of right hon. and hon. Members and local authorities, making it crystal clear that to reduce or withdraw a service under the section without diminution in need, was plainly unlawful. That is what the Court of Appeal has now ruled and it is, in my view as the author of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, urgently necessary for Ministers to issue guidance to local authorities about the implications for them of the court's ruling.
Clearly, service users whose needs have been assessed under the Act now have an undoubted right to have those needs provided for, and many thousands of disabled people up and down the country who had their services withdrawn or reduced for financial reasons are now entitled to have them restored. And they must quickly be identified and informed of their rights and entitlements. That there should ever have been any misunderstanding about the mandatory effect of the Act after my statement to the House is all the more disturbing when one learns that the legal guidance given to me as Minister was repeated by their legal advisers to all my successors in the post over the past 17 years.
The essential need now, however, is to ensure that no local authority is left in any doubt about its responsibilities as decided by the Court of Appeal. The right hon. Gentleman, whose genuine commitment to disabled people has so often been expressed, in opposition and government alike, fully appreciates the urgency of the call I am making to his ministerial colleagues on this issue and he needs no reminding of its importance to chronically sick and disabled people all over Britain.
9.48 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be extremely brief. There is an element of continuity in the events to which I shall refer. I spoke in the Adjournment debate before the Easter recess in 1995 on the subject of Bart's, and I wish to return briefly to that subject. I shall dwell only on that single issue.
Some 30,000 people in south Hackney and south Islington, as well as my constituents in the City of London, have been adversely affected by the proposed move of Bart's to the Whitechapel site. Although the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to East London and the City health authority, it is ironic that in 1993–94 Camden and Islington used more general medical beds at Bart's. That also has some relevance to present circumstances.
I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a single question at the end of my speech, so he does not need to take elaborate notes of the events that I wish to place on record. The easiest way of describing events since late 1995 and early 1996 is to quote the first two paragraphs of a letter from the two relevant community health councils—Islington and City and Hackney—to the Secretary of State on 22 April this year:
"Just over a year ago the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's Hospital closed. Assurances were given in writing by East London and City Health Authority, which agreed to the closure, that general practitioners would have direct access to the local hospital for their medical patients. In reality this has proved extremely difficult with obstacles being put in their way whenever they have attempted to get people admitted. This has led to people from south Islington, south Hackney and the City being sent down to the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel where they have had to wait sometimes for many hours before being admitted and in some cases transferred back to Bart's for admission.
In the autumn City & Hackney CHC learned from unofficial sources that there were plans to close the general medical beds at Bart's at the beginning of February 1996 so terminating entirely the services available to local people. This was confirmed just before Christmas. The enclosed letter,"—
which I shall not quote—
"objecting in the strongest terms to the proposed bed closures, was sent to the General Manager of East London and City Health Authority. These closures had not been consulted on and were contrary to the agreement that the Health Authority had made with the Royal Hospitals Trust following its decision in March 1995 to go ahead with the plans set out in its consultation document, Health Services for the Future. The Royal Hospitals Trust maintained it was quite safe to close the beds because there had been so few admissions over the past 12 months. The reasons why are explained above."
There was then a two-month gap before the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), replied on 18 June 1996, with what was an essentially procedural answer on the subject of consultation. He did not dwell on the substance of the letter. I fear that the absence of any reference to its substance did nothing for morale either at Bart's or in the area to which I referred, and that is a subject on which I have commented before.
No doubt, cost has played a role. There are rumours that the special trustees at Bart's are being pressed for any money that can be used to help the Royal Hospitals trust. There is a degree of irony in that, as the conventional wisdom was that the backstop of the special trustees had previously allowed Bart's to get into lax financial ways.
268
That was clearly a belief in the Department of Health, as my right hon. Friend, now Secretary of State for National Heritage, made clear in comment after comment to me in 1992–93 before Bart's took itself in hand so rigorously and effectively.
It is, however, cost pressure that I want primarily to raise as a matter that should detain the House from adjourning until it is settled. The matter is urgent because there are rumours that the Government would like to sign the private finance initiative contracts relating to the hospital in Whitechapel in October, which may well be before the House returns.
My question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, of which I have given him brief notice, is whether there have been any modifications—either upwards or downwards—in the cost stated in the outline business plan submitted by the Royal Hospitals trust in 1994 and approved by the Secretary of State for Health in 1995 in the invitation to bid for the private finance initiative and, if so, what are the percentage changes. My right hon. Friend will recognise the significance of that query from his past service in the Department of Health.
A final irony is that, early in July, I asked the parliamentary doctor for an appointment before the House rose. The only appointment available was at noon today. We NHS patients take opportunities and imperatives when they are offered to us. If it should prevent me from being present in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate, I apologise. I also hope to be present when my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) raises the subject of D'Oyly Carte, a cause with which I am also associated.
9.54 am
Mr. Donald Anderson: Just before the parliamentary recess, or what my brother-in-law persists in calling the parliamentary recession, we have the opportunity either to deal with the particulars—and we have heard important particulars from the previous two hon. Members who have spoken—or to speak in more general terms. I shall turn to the latter and reflect on what one may call the state of the nation as the Government stagger with great relief to the recess, having lost a number of Ministers on the way.
The Government's major concern is to survive. We have endured the politics of survival for some considerable time and that is not in the interests of the country. Therefore, it is to the state of the nation that I shall address one or two remarks and on which I shall make some reflections.
I was spurred to raise the subject by yesterday's exchange between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time. My right hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister:
"Does he agree with his Chancellor's recent statement that he can see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain joins a single currency during the next Parliament?"
The Prime Minister replied:
"We have made the position on a single currency entirely clear."
So my right hon. Friend continued:
"Can he, like his Chancellor, see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament—yes or no?"

269
The Prime Minister replied:
"Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether he agrees with the argumentation in the pamphlet that I have here".—[Official Report, 23 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 142.]
That exchange was extremely significant. The Prime Minister's response was astonishingly evasive, and one is bound to ask why. Why could not the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? If it were the case that in not even the most theoretical circumstances could the Prime Minister see a case for entering the single currency, he is surely deceiving our partners because, by remaining in discussions, he is implying that—if the circumstances were right, if the various convergence criteria were met, and if it were deemed to be in our national interests—he would be prepared to recommend to the House that we should join a single currency. However, he could not even say that he would do so in those theoretical circumstances. Why was that? He was in the awful position of having to look over his shoulder and say to left and right, "Have I done well? Have I answered correctly?" He was in the difficulty of not daring to identify his policy on that issue.
The Government's broad position is absolutely correct, however. The decision need not be taken for some years hence, when the circumstances may have changed and Britain can take a decision rationally on the basis of the configuration of countries and circumstances at the time. Why does not the Prime Minister at least say, "Yes. If the circumstances were correct, I would be prepared so to recommend"? The fact that he is not prepared to do so not only amounts to a deception of our partner countries, which let him and our Government into discussions on the basis that, if the circumstances were right, we would join, but is highly indicative of the state of the nation and of British politics.
The man in the street surely thinks of the Prime Minister as fundamentally decent. but with a wholly impossible balancing act to perform. He is seen as someone who is trying to hold together a party that is fundamentally divided. I have tried to find a character in Greek mythology who was in the same position. I recall one who was suspended between heaven and earth because neither would receive him. I thought of Sisyphus or some other character. I am sure that the Greeks would have conceived of some person on the rack or in circumstances alike to the Prime Minister's at the moment. He is certainly tortured as rivals position themselves for the post-election struggle for the leadership.
All serious commentators surely agree that this Parliament is already dead and that, effectively, we have already embarked on an election campaign. There will be some disagreement on when the Parliament died. Was it when Britain was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism, just after the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), so eloquently told us about its advantages? With a certain political amnesia, he is now bidding us to forget the eloquence of the speeches that he made shortly before the forced withdrawal. Certainly, for several months, the Government have been paralysed and Parliament has been dead. It cannot be right for the country that there is such politicking and paralysis in policy.
I travel fairly extensively and discuss matters with parliamentary colleagues on the continent. It is already clear that, in respect of the intergovernmental conference,
270
a number of our partner countries are seriously considering putting relations with the United Kingdom on hold so far as is possible because they perceive the Government as a lame duck. Our partners are looking forward to a time after the election, whatever the result may be, when they can deal with a Government who are prepared to govern. I know of that position from very highly placed sources. That is sad and cannot be good for this country.
On politicking, we know that we shall return after the spillover session to an abnormal Queen's Speech. It will effectively be the Government's manifesto. It will be a shop-window Queen's Speech because, realistically, the Government will not be in a position to put into effect many of its proposals. In November and December, we shall be dealing with some Second Readings and the Budget, and in January and February, the Government will find it very difficult to get many of the ideas through. The Queen's Speech will be a parading of theory and not really relevant to the country's problems. It will be more relevant to the Government's wishes to be re-elected and their desire to encourage the country to view the form of their policies.
As the election campaign becomes shriller and more intense over the recess, it cannot have the traditional themes that the Government prefer, such as law and order and the wicked Labour party that is in thrall to the trade unions. Given our policy, that can hardly be a credible position to put before the country. One fears, therefore, that the theme chosen will be the flag and the idea of wrapping oneself in it over foreign policy. One fears a rather nasty campaign against foreigners, especially our European partners, along the lines of those in the popular newspapers that follow the Government. At home, alas, the flag will relate to the devolution policies of the Labour party and all other parties, with a slogan about the break-up of the United Kingdom.
We are, of course, in a world of slogans. "New Labour, new danger" is parroted in Prime Minister's questions like a music hall act. That is not serious politics. Serious questions need to be addressed in relation, for example, to the future shape of the United Kingdom. The Conservative party, under Disraeli for example, stole the clothes of Mr. Gladstone when it saw the way in which the Liberal party was addressing issues surrounding the urban working classes. Disraeli said that we must educate our masters and sought to address real problems. This Government are paralysed; they will not debate or try to address issues such as the Scottish and Welsh questions, which concern identity. It should be recognised that there are already clusters of government in Edinburgh and Cardiff that are not accountable. There can be a serious debate on how to address that. One cannot simply run away, chant slogans and pretend that such problems will go away.
Alas, over the next nine months, this country is likely to be afflicted by the politics of Micawberism. The Government are hoping that something will turn up. There is a smell of decay and a feeling of the end of an empire. We have heard about the Premier club and Mr. Beckwith, a gentleman who is bidding for Ministry of Defence houses and, as we are now told, is interested in buying Benefits Agency buildings around the country. Mr. Beckwith and others with the right amount of money are gaining access to the Prime Minister's ear. This smell of decay, paralysis, Micawberism, drift, this lame-duck Government, are surely bad for Britain—alas, they are likely to last for another nine months.
10.6 am
Sir Patrick Cormack: I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) feels a lot better for getting that off his chest. It was a peroration reminiscent of John of Gaunt on his deathbed. I shall not attempt to follow him, but I wish him an extremely happy holiday.
I direct the House's attention to a matter that I consider to be of particular concern. I refer to a headline in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, which said, "Backwoodsmen save asylum Bill".
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do you still read The Daily Telegraph?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course I do. I emulate the hon. Gentleman's wonderful example. However, I shall not allow him to distract me.
I refer to the headline because I think that it highlights a matter that ought to be of acute concern to all parliamentarians: the relationship between the two Houses, especially the future of the House of Lords. It is a great pity that we are adjourning for the summer recess and returning for a brief spillover session without provision for a debate on the constitution. The other week, the other place had a very fine two-day debate on the constitution, in which many admirable speeches were made—not on both sides of the argument but on every side of it, since it is a many-sided and multi-faceted argument.
We trifle with the delicate balance of our constitution at our peril. The Labour party's proposals are fraught with danger. However, my main reason for addressing the House is that I do not believe that one can defend the automatic right of every hereditary peer to sit, speak and vote in the House of Lords.
I speak as one who basically believes in the composition and powers of the House of Lords—the powers are about right. It is a revising Chamber, a Chamber with the power to delay and to tell us to think again. It has been an extremely good institution over the past 17 years. On a number of occasions, particularly in the days when we enjoyed a very large majority in this House, the House of Lords told us to think again. In doing so, it often exercised collective wisdom of a high degree of excellence.
I think in particular of the House of Lords' rejection of the War Crimes Bill. We were most unwise to override it on that occasion. Nevertheless, when we overrode their lordships, we were doing what was constitutionally proper. It was entirely legitimate for the Government of the day to override the Lords' decision on the basis that the will of the elected House should not be superseded. That is an admirable constitutional doctrine, to which I subscribe.
However, I do not subscribe—the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear me say this as I have said it to him privately—to using so-called backwoodsmen to vote down what is manifestly the desire of a majority of the active, participating peers in the other place. I do not want to debate the merits of the Asylum and Immigration Bill this morning. Those who were present for the debate know that I am sympathetic to the three-day amendment that came from the House of Lords. Again, I do not question the constitutional propriety of the Government's
272
attempt to overturn that amendment. Had the Lords inserted another amendment on Monday of this week, and had we debated it today, it would also have been entirely legitimate for the Government to try to persuade their supporters here to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.
However, it is most unwise, although constitutionally perfectly proper, to bring into the Division Lobbies in the other place peers who rarely attend or take part in the deliberations there and who come up specifically to vote after a debate in which they have taken no part. Of course they have the right to vote, just as Her Majesty the Queen has the right to refuse the Royal Assent to any Act of Parliament that we pass. No monarch since Queen Anne has exercised that right, and it would provoke a constitutional crisis of the utmost magnitude if Her Majesty ever did so. I believe that a similar reticence ought to possess many of the hereditary peers.
I happen to believe also that the House of Lords as constituted now has a great deal to commend it. I should hate to see it become the creature of placemen and party. The Cross-Bench element contributes enormously to our constitution, consisting as it does of men and women of great eminence and distinction debating issues on their merits without feeling that they have to look over their shoulders to party bosses or constituents. That has a great deal to commend it, too.
The active, regularly attending hereditary element in the other place, who include some extremely able young men and women, make a real contribution as well. By way of reform, and following the precedent of the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801, I should like the hereditary peers to be confined to a certain number, selected on a basis to be agreed—perhaps elected by themselves. They include, as I say, many who are diligent in their attendance, eloquent in their contributions and emphatic in the mark that they make.
I must tell the Leader of the House, at a time when the whole future balance of Parliament is at issue, that it is unwise in the extreme to call out these "backwoodsmen" for particular votes such as the recent one.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The same happened with nursery vouchers.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Quite so. Again, I do not intend to discuss the merits of that argument. Suffice it to say that, in respect of the asylum arrangements, I was on the side of the Lords; on nursery vouchers I suspect that I would not be. That is neither here nor there. Using constitutional mechanisms that are in place is one thing; bringing out the backwoodsmen is quite another. By dint of those two recent unwise actions the Government have inflicted a wound—I sincerely hope not a fatal one—on the House of Lords.
I want the hereditary element to remain—in a monarchy it is important that it should—but I do not want every hereditary peer automatically to have the right to vote and speak in the House of Lords. I certainly do not want those who rarely exercise that right to be called in to rescue the Government from time to time.
I have felt moved to raise this subject above all because I deplore the fact that we have not had an opportunity to debate the constitution and the roles and positions of the two Houses during this Session. I hope that, when we

273
come back in October, my right hon. Friend will be persuaded to postpone Prorogation for just one day so that we can debate these matters. Failing that, I hope that we shall have a debate at the beginning of the next Session.
10.15 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who had the guts to put his vote where his mouth was, I thought the rejection by this House of the three-day Lords amendment was a disgrace to our country. Meanwhile, I should like to ask five succinct questions.
My first question relates to the United Nations resolution on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. As the Leader of the House will know, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, of which I am not a member, is being taken by its Chairman to Buenos Aires in the recess. I hope that there will be serious discussions with our colleagues on the matter of what they can say there about the question of sovereignty. There is a real opportunity to listen to what is being said in Argentina about this delicate subject. Judging by what we heard from Guido Di Telia, this morning on the radio and in person about two months ago, it appears that there is some kind of constructive solution to be had. So, before the whole thing goes sour, let the Government take action.
My second question relates to Iraq. Are the Government entirely happy with the seemingly unending mission led by Rolf Ekeus? In the Whitsun recess, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire led an all-party heritage delegation to Stockholm, where we naturally spent time talking to our Swedish colleagues. It emerged that people in the know in Stockholm—to put it at its very gentlest—entertain doubts about their colleague Ekeus and believe that the time is ripe for a change. It is certainly clear that his personal relations with the Iraqis, not just with the inner leadership, have become appalling. It is also beyond dispute that infant mortality in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys is so dreadful that it shames humanity. We are almost as far from the Gulf war now as we were from the second world war when we put Germany back on its feet. I therefore hope that the Government will take another look at that appalling human tragedy.
My third question concerns Cuba. It is perfectly clear to some of us that any pressure to stop trading with Cuba has nothing to do with the merits of the case and everything to do with internal American politics. I draw the attention of the House to Sunday's talk by Alistair Cooke. There is also a great deal of other evidence pointing to the idea that attitudes to Cuba reflect the internal situation in the United States. I do not see why British industry and trade should be disadvantaged.
The fourth issue concerns Libya, a subject on which I have had so many Adjournment debates. During the recess, can thought be given to a matter raised by President Mandela's delegation, which concerns the whole of Africa? Would not the situation be brought to a head by a trial in The Hague or, as has been offered, in South Africa itself? Otherwise, it will go on for a lifetime.
I am not in any way anti-American, but one does notice that Iraq and Libya were traditionally British markets, and that decision-makers in those countries were educated at British, not American, universities. However, it is British,
274
and not American, industry that is losing out in those Arab countries. I hope that the Government will no longer act on the instructions—I think that that is the right word—on Libya given by Washington. Otherwise, the present situation will continue. The sanctions will be maintained—sanctions which, incidentally, are totally ignored by the Germans, the Greeks, the Italians and the French, while Britain and British industry lose out.
Finally, I wish to raise the matter of airport and aircraft security. Throughout this Session, I have endlessly raised the subject of the Lockerbie disaster of 1988, which led to major reviews in aviation security by both the British and American Governments. Eight years on, experts and campaigners for improved safety agree that it is still possible for bombs to be smuggled on board aircraft.
Among the specific measures that feature in post-Lockerbie reports, and which will now be readdressed by the investigation into the TWA flight if a bomb was to blame, is baggage reconciliation, as recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in 1987. Its implementation is mandatory in the United Kingdom from this year, but is limited elsewhere. The rather grandiose term for the vital process of ensuring that every bag loaded on board is matched with a passenger is still a long way from being carried out around the world. Airlines are particularly vulnerable to baggage being transferred from connecting flights, and the bomb may make the whole journey while the passenger does not. Eight thousand bags a day are lost worldwide—yes, 8,000 a day. Is that not proof that reconciliation is just not working? How can people talk about baggage reconciliation and safety in those circumstances?
The second recommendation was made in the 1989 report "The Lessons of Lockerbie" by Paul Wilkinson, security expert from St. Andrews university. There is no worldwide watchdog organisation on air travel that has teeth. The UN's International Civil Aviation Organisation can make recommendations but has no power to enforce them. Wilkinson and his colleagues say that that does not have to be the case, and see the same organisation's International Atomic Energy Agency as a working model. Critics in the US highlight the fact that the body responsible for enforcing safety, the Federal Aviation Authority, also has the job of promoting air travel. It may be a little difficult to do both, and the Government should think about that.
The final recommendation—that better security equipment be provided—was made by Sheriff Principal John Mowat at the 1990 fatal accident inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. Its implementation has been limited. Systems similar to supermarket bar codes, which would aid baggage reconciliation, are being introduced only gradually. Mowat said that better X-ray machines might have detected the Lockerbie bomb and—although one must not jump to conclusions about the TWA disaster—might have detected bombs elsewhere. Many people are concerned about that matter. Standards have improved in some airports, but many others have done very little.
I ask that serious consideration be given this summer to the kind of international authority proposed by Paul Wilkinson.
10.24 am
Sir Peter Emery: I will be as brief as I can, and I am sorry that I have not given my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House notice of the point that I wish to

275
raise. Before I do raise the matter, I cannot let go the crass statements and nonsense from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about the Prime Minister's statement on the single currency, and implications about the hon. Gentleman's Government. Those need to be answered and hit hard.
The Prime Minister has—not once, but many times—stated at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that until we know the terms of a single currency, the Government will not make a statement about what they feel about it. Any person who believes that he can make a proper statement without knowing the facts is dealing in Alice in Wonderland politics. If the Government decided that a single currency was in the nation's interests, there would be a referendum. That is clear, and needs no argument.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his say. He implied that the Government are on their last legs, but what is the alternative? He said that it is time for a change, but a change to what? Higher inflation? We have the lowest inflation in western Europe. Higher mortgage rates? We have low mortgage rates, and they are always higher under a Labour Government. Higher unemployment? Unemployment has been falling for four years, and it is always higher at the end of a Labour Government than it was at the beginning. We must know the alternative, and we must ensure that it is branded properly.
I wish to return to my main point, and again I apologise for not giving notice to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I much object to the interference by an Opposition Front Bencher in what is an entirely constituency matter in Woodbury Salterton. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave me no notice of his question on the Order Paper, and that is wrong. He may be the Opposition's agriculture spokesman, but he should have the good manners to let me know what he is taking an interest in. If the hon. Gentleman had come to me, I could have told him what he is seeking.
The position is that rendered carcases and meat from non-BSE cattle are being stored in Greendale Barton in Woodbury Salterton. Any cattle with the disease, or from an infected herd, must be incinerated. That is the law, but a Liberal councillor is trying to create fear by criticising the Government, claiming that they are not doing their job properly by allowing the placement of this rendered material in a large agricultural store, which has been in existence now for 15 years or so, before being taken for incineration or disposal. That disposal cannot be done immediately, and there is not enough capacity to deal with the problem at the moment. The material must be stored somewhere, and it is in a proper store that is licensed and inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to get a statement from MAFF to clarify what I am saying so that we can assure my constituents that they have nothing to fear from the storage of this rendered material in my constituency.
People should understand that the Government's policy must be to get on with the culling as fast as possible so that we can meet the requirements by October and get the
276
ban on the export of British beef lifted. That entails a certain amount of storage around the country, including in Woodbury Salterton, but it is a measure to assist farmers and the British people to get agriculture back on its feet. That is why I raise the point. It is worrying that an Opposition Member should try to highlight something in my constituency which he could have clarified easily without stirring up problems.
10.30 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I wish to raise several points. I agree with many hon. Members that the House should not adjourn until the Minister of State for Defence Procurement takes a definite decision about procuring equipment that the forces will need shortly. I refer particularly to the Nimrod 2000 project. That has been held back by the Treasury, whose guesstimates have been wrong more than once. I sometimes wonder whether it has lost sight of the old adage, "Look after the pence and the pounds will look after themselves." It constantly watches the billions but fails to realise that money is lost at other levels. It has to foot the bills for other votes of supply because of unemployment. Firms have their patterns changed by the delays in deciding the contracts. I urge the Government to settle the issue quickly.
Secondly, I want to discuss intimidation. Some people in Northern Ireland claim that their community is being intimidated. In reality, far more people from the Protestant community have been put out of their homes in the past few weeks than have people from the Roman Catholic community. Tragically, our people do not claim compensation as they are not part of Sinn Fein-IRA's economic warfare against the House, the Government and our people in Northern Ireland.
It may surprise some hon. Members to learn that anyone who moves out of a Housing Executive home gets £175 for reallocation. A fair number of people who have claimed intimidation have been on waiting lists for some time and are seeking to jump the queue. They also blame the social services for not giving them the proper counselling needed for the pressure of economic warfare.
I wonder whether yesterday, when the Prime Minister met representatives of two smaller political parties in Northern Ireland, he got assurances from them that intimidation and extortion by loyalist paramilitaries will cease. I speak on behalf of constituents who in the past few weeks have been told that the ceasefire is over and that they must pay £100 a week. Some shopkeepers are asked to pay £20 weekly and larger firms pay £1,000 a year. The mythology of the ceasefire should not blind us to the reality that the forces of lawlessness have been dictating the terms in the Province.
I was interested to receive a letter from a lady in Preston who encourages us because we wish to remain in the United Kingdom. She said that she became interested in 1970 because she did not like to see small people pushed down. In that context, is there not some conflict between a Government policy that seeks to maintain the Union and discourages a form of devolution in Scotland, England and Wales but that has not only sought to restore a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland but gone further down that road and allowed a foreign Government to have an unhealthy influence in the affairs of United Kingdom in that area? That lies behind much of the trouble.

277
We must consider the provocation that our people endure. As they travel through Belfast, they see tricolours flaunted from high-rise buildings, one bearing the slogan, "Drumcree church will burn". Where is that being told to the British people by the British media?
My last point concerns the responsibility of the media, and especially of the BBC. Was it without significance that Kate Adie was in Northern Ireland even before the walk to Drumcree? We are constantly told about the Protestant terrorists and paramilitaries, but the religious connection of the IRA is never mentioned. We must strike a balance and have responsible broadcasting. I have twice had to have corrections in respect of references wrongly attributed to me.
10.35 am
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a constituency case. I realise that it is difficult for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to reply to a constituency case.
A constituent had a judicial separation hearing at Altrincham county court in the summer of 1995. His wife was legally represented because she was entitled to legal aid. My constituent was not so entitled because he was working, and had to represent himself because he could not afford to pay a lawyer and a barrister. The hearing lasted four hours, and it was decided that the wife should be awarded the matrimonial home, which has been paid off entirely. The husband had to pay the court costs amounting to about £1,000 and agreed to pay £400 monthly in maintenance. He also agreed with the court that, when he retired, he would commute £60,000 from his pension provision and pay a quarter of that to his wife so that she would get £15,000.
My constituent agreed finally that a £3,500 endowment policy due to mature this November should be shared between him and his wife. He accepted all that and, a few days after the court appearance, received a letter that stated the terms of the court order, to which he agreed. He was therefore surprised, a few weeks later, to receive another letter which amended the original order without explanation. He was then told that the endowment policy would go entirely to his wife rather than being split between them. He was disturbed about that, went to the court and asked for an explanation. He was shown the judge's handwritten memo, which clearly stated that the endowment policy was to be shared. He was also shown correspondence from the wife's lawyers, who had written to the judge requesting that he review the order. He had done so, amended it and ordered the whole endowment to go to the wife.
My constituent was never asked for his views. He wrote to the court and asked the judge for an explanation. He was told that the amended order was correct and that that was the end of the story. My constituent is entitled to know why the court was not reconvened and why he was not consulted. The decision was taken behind his back by the judge and his wife's legal representatives. He senses injustice, which I fully understand. He came to my advice bureau because he had tried every other means to get his grievance rectified, but to no avail. Because, in my innocence, I believed that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was responsible for the judiciary, I wrote to
278
him about the case. I had a reply dated 6 March from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which stated:
"As you are aware the Court Service became an Executive Agency on 3 April 1995. As your correspondence concerns matters relating to operational aspects of the Courts, the Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to pass it to the Chief Executive of the Court Service … to reply."
Meanwhile, my constituent had been trying desperately hard to obtain the necessary information—all he seeks is some redress. A letter dated 12 January from the office of the courts administrator in Manchester stated:
"I accept that you should have been given an explanation of the circumstances leading to the 2nd amendment to the order and for this omission I sincerely apologise.
Turning to your points regarding correspondence being entered into between the other side, the Court and the Judge without consideration to yourself I note that you also wrote to the Court to request amendment to the original order, albeit minor alterations, and that the order was duly amended. The petitioner's solicitors suggested that the order be reviewed and this request was relayed"
to the judge. The letter adds that the judge could have reconvened a hearing
"but it would appear that he did not feel that that course of action was necessary. I am not able to comment on the decision of members of the Judiciary."
I eventually received a reply from the chief executive of the Court Service on 25 March, in which he stated that while he understood my constituent's feelings,
"I regret there is little I can add to the replies he received from the Courts Administrator at Manchester and the Customer Service Unit here at Headquarters. I enclose copies for your information. You will appreciate that the judiciary are entirely independent of Government and therefore have complete freedom in the way they deal with the cases that come before them."
My constituent was of course not happy with that reply, so I pursued the matter with the Court Service, which replied on 18 April:
"It may be helpful if I explain that if"
my constituent
"does not agree with a particular part of the amended order, it is open to him to apply to the court to have the order varied. I enclose an application form should he wish to do so. I should stress, however, that the decision whether to allow his application rests with the judge who hears the matter. I would also strongly advice your constituent to seek legal advice before making any application to the court."
My constituent senses injustice. Because he is not entitled to legal aid, he would have to represent himself yet again. He has been told to appeal, but cannot afford to take the risk. The amount at stake is £1,750–50 per cent. of the value of the endowment policy. If my constituent won an appeal, he would retain that sum. If he lost, he would receive nothing and be faced with a substantial legal bill.
The judge involved is apparently a member of the Solicitors Family Law Association. My constituent felt so strongly that he complained to the association's complaints bureau, but was told that his complaint could not be accepted and that he had no redress. This country's legal aid system should be carefully examined. If my constituent had been legally represented, it could have been a different story.
My constituent has signed over the matrimonial home, paid the court costs of the original hearing, and agreed to pay his wife £400 per month maintenance and 25 per
cent.

279
of his pension commutation on retirement. Why was the judge able to change his mind on the sharing of the endowment policy? Why did the judge listen only to the wife's legal representatives? Why did not the judge reconvene the hearing and give my constituent the chance to put his case? If British justice is the best in the world, it must not only be fair but be seen to be fair. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can undertake some investigation before the House rises for the summer recess and explain why my constituent has been given no proper explanation, why the judge is apparently not answerable to anyone and where my constituent should go for justice.
10.43 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I declare an interest as chairman of the Commonwealth parliamentary Cyprus group.
On Sunday 14 July, the annual Cyprus rally was held in Trafalgar square, when 5,000 people gathered to remember the events of July 1974, when Cyprus was invaded by the Turkish army. Twenty-two years later, Cyprus remains a divided country. The occupied northern area is still under the control of the Turkish army, using an estimated 30,000 troops and military equipment.
Many hon. Members, irrespective of party, work closely together for a united Cyprus and the rights and freedoms of Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Britain is deeply involved in the Cyprus situation. It is one of the island's guarantor powers, and Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth. Discussions have been held over the years, but hopes of an honourable settlement have not been realised. Many distinguished individuals have studied the Cyprus tragedy and their views are clear They include the Secretary-General of United Nations. In reports, he and others have plainly put the blame for the lack of progress on Mr. Denktash, who leads the Turkish-Cypriot community.
None of the events that has occurred since 1974 has helped to resolve the Cyprus issue. Mr. Denktash made a unilateral declaration of independence to seek, he claimed, an independent Turkish republic in occupied northern Cyprus. That achieved nothing. Years after that declaration, only one country in the world recognises that so-called independent state—Turkey. Over the years, an estimated 80,000 people from mainland Turkey have been brought to occupied northern Cyprus. They are known to Turkish Cypriots as illegal settlers. Many true Turkish Cypriots have left their homeland because they are not prepared to live alongside the people whom Mr. Denktash has brought from the mainland.
Earlier this year, Mr. Denktash made a statement regarding the 1,600 Greek Cypriots who were declared missing after the 1974 invasion. He said nothing more than that those people were dead. He gave no explanation of how they were killed and he did not say where their remains were buried. I asked the Secretary of Stale for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action the British Government, as one of the guarantor powers, would take to secure further details from Mr. Denktash. On 29 April, the Minister of State replied:
"Mr. Denktash's remarks bring an opportunity for all concerned to renew their efforts towards resolving this tragic and long-standing issue."
I hope that the work of the UN committee on mercy and people can progress speedily, and that all parties will continue to give it their full support. Although I welcome
280
the Minister's sentiments, the British Government have made no commitment to seek a dialogue with Mr. Denktash to discover what happened to the 1,600 people Mr. Denktash says were killed—but whom Turkish Cypriots say were murdered.
At the time of the 1974 invasion, thousands of Greek Cypriots lived in the Karpass area of northern Cyprus. Today, only 500 people live there. Many people have visited the Karpass area, including Lord Finsberg, who went only this year. He has spoken to me about the deep concern that he saw and felt about the denial of human rights to those people. To his credit, he has tried to improve the conditions of the people who live there. I highlight that incident because, in March this year, Members of the European Parliament sought permission from Mr. Denktash to go and visit the area. He refused.
I tabled a question on 1 July to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs asking what discussions he was having with Mr. Denktash. The reply was:
"The Turkish Cypriot leadership is well aware of our views on the need to revoke the remaining restrictions on the basic freedoms in the Karpass."—[Official Report, 1 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 278.]
That is yet another reason why many of us in the House who genuinely seek an honourable settlement in Cyprus are deeply concerned at the actions of Mr. Denktash.
We are not talking about some faraway country; we are talking about a country that is a member of the Commonwealth and for which this country is one of the guarantor powers. There are many other issues that one could raise. A year ago, I, along with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, initiated a debate on Famagusta—a city today regarded as a ghost town. No one lives there. It was once one of the most prosperous areas of Cyprus. We have had promise after promise over the years from Mr. Denktash that Famagusta will be returned to the Republic of Cyprus. Nothing whatever has happened.
Recently, the Government—I applaud them for this—appointed Sir David Hannay as their special Cyprus envoy. I have met Sir David and I warmly welcome his appointment, but I should like to find out exactly how the Government see Sir David's specific role and how they will respond to his reports and proposals. When I met Sir David some three weeks ago, he gave a clear indication that he intended to play a very active role in seeking an honourable settlement to this long-running tragedy.
I believe, as do many hon. Members, that there is at long last real hope for an honourable settlement in Cyprus. That hope is Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. The next two countries due for consideration are Cyprus and Malta. In the view of many of us, there is no doubt that, if Cyprus becomes a member of the European Union, benefits will go—as I want—to northern Cyprus. Report after report tells us that the economy in northern Cyprus is on its knees. It gives me no pleasure to say that or know it because, sadly, ordinary men and women suffer as a result of the enormous problems that the economy in northern Cyprus now faces.
I hope that the British Government will give us clear assurances that they will support the application of Cyprus for membership of the European Union. What worries hon. Members on both sides of the House is that, more and more, we get what we term the hedge. The Government say, "Oh yes, we are considering it, but only

281
when there is a settlement." We all want a settlement, but I and many hon. Members believe that there should be no delay in consideration of Cyprus's application for membership. That consideration should be based on the fact that, even if by then there has not been a settlement, the application for EU membership will be determined on its merits. Many of us believe that that is the only criterion that should be followed in the application that Cyprus is making for membership.
As I have said several times in this short speech, Britain has clear responsibilities for Cyprus. We want a settlement for the benefit of the two communities of Cypriots. Whether they are Greek or Turkish, they are Cypriots. We want only one Cyprus, and that is the Republic of Cyprus.
10.54 am
Sir Michael Neubert: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this debate on the last day before the House rises for the summer recess. Under the old dispensation, we should argue that the House should not rise before urgent action is taken or pressing decisions are made. That is certainly the case with the matter that I wish to raise this morning, which is the return of the Stone of Scone to Scotland, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 July. On 16 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a consultation paper. The consultation is to be for one month only, until 16 August.
It is almost certain that the decision on this important matter will be taken before we reassemble in October and absolutely certain that the consultation will finish in a little more than three weeks. This is an example of a familiar phenomenon in public life—controversial proposals are put out for consultation in the holiday month of August. Everyone who has concerns about the matter on both sides of the border would need to be on the alert to make sure that their views were made known. I make known my views this morning in this last opportunity here in the House of Commons.
The return of the Stone of Scone has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), who was quick off the mark with his Adjournment debate yesterday week. I congratulate him on it. There was undoubtedly an element of surprise in the announcement. When the notice, "Statement: Stone of Destiny" went up on the annunciator screens, like many another I wondered what it could be about. Had the stone been stolen again? There was scarcely eager expectation of the announcement. It was that rare thing in modern politics—a decision that was not the subject of a disreputable leak or flagrant breach of confidentiality. It is a matter for commendation that that was so. Certainly the 700th anniversary this year of the removal of the Stone of Scone gave point to the announcement, and a pretext for it.
I greet the decision with some scepticism. I speak, of course, as a Sassenach—with some temerity, surrounded this morning by Scots—from well south of the border. As a Londoner born and bred, and I cannot see how these matters look from Scotland, but I doubt whether it is possible to rearrange hundreds of years of history by such a gesture.
282
If I speak briefly of the history of the stone, I do so as a non-historian, drawing heavily on advice. The stone consists of sandstone of a type apparently found in the Scone area and other areas of the world. It is part of the early history that is myth, but it is recorded that in 1249 Alexander III was crowned on the stone. In the late summer of 1296—hence the 700th anniversary of its removal—the stone was removed from Scone. In June 1297, the stone was formally presented to St. Edward, with the other Scottish regalia—the crown and sceptre. A bronze chair to house the stone was ordered, but in 1300 an account was presented for making a wooden chair. There had obviously been some restraint on public expenditure, which has an echo to this day.
A chair was eventually made of wood to house the stone found at Scone on which the kings of Scotland used to be crowned. Every coronation except one since 1399, or possibly as far back as 1307, has taken place in the chair. The only monarch not to be crowned and anointed on the chair was Mary Tudor, who regarded it as tainted by her Protestant predecessor.
That was the stone's early history. Then, in 1328, came the treaty of Northampton, which has been cited as one good reason for returning the stone as an overdue obligation, finally to be fulfilled by our generation. I am told, however, that the treaty of Northampton, made at Edinburgh and later ratified at Northampton, makes no mention of returning the stone.
The English and Scottish copies of the text of the treaty were lost. The 18th century Scottish historian Lord Hailes, in his "Annals of Scotland", attempted to reconstruct the terms from chronicle accounts, but copies of the terms have subsequently been recovered, and Hailes has been shown to have been wrong in some details, including provision for the return of the stone.
It is therefore incorrect to state that the Government are belatedly honouring the terms of a treaty by returning the stone to Scotland. The writ that orders the abbot of Westminster to surrender the stone, which refers to an agreement made at Northampton, refers not to the treaty with the Scots, but to a decision of the English king's council. There were no Scots present at Northampton with whom an agreement could have been made.
I am indebted for that advice to Richard Mortimer, keeper of muniments at Westminster abbey. He says that one of the myths gathering round the stone is that it once bore the inscription:
"Ni fallat fatum, Scoti, quocunque locatum Invenient lapidem, regnare tenentur ibidem".
Fortunately, it is translated as:
"If the fates go right, where'er this stone is found The Scots shall monarchs of that realm be crowned."
That prophecy was held to be fulfilled when James VI was crowned James I of England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] James left the stone at Westminster abbey, which he also chose as the burial place of his mother, Mary Queen of Scots. The presence of the stone at Westminster is therefore symbolic of the Union of the Crown.
For 300 years or so after that, there was nothing of report except that, in 1653, the chair and stone were removed to Westminster Hall for the inauguration of Oliver Cromwell as the lord protector, and then replaced. During the second world war, the chair was removed to Gloucester cathedral and the stone buried in the abbey. In 1950, as we know, the stone was stolen. That is when it enters modern consciousness.

283
That is the history and the context. Obviously it would be wrong to seek to change a decision already announced by the Prime Minister and approved by Her Majesty the Queen—that is beyond my ambitions or intentions at this or any other time—so I wish to concentrate on the choice of the new location, which I regard as extremely important. One can understand the dismay of the dean and chapter of Westminster. I quote from their official statement on the day of the announcement:
"as the successor of those abbots of Westminster and Deans and Chapters who have been guardians of the stone for so many centuries, we must continue to urge those who are advising the Queen in this matter to take full account of the symbolic and emotional significance of the stone, its integral connection with the Coronation Chair and its intimate association with the sacrament of Coronation."
My purpose is to emphasise the stone's religious associations—an aspect that received little attention at the time of the original announcement. It is appropriate and desirable for the stone to be found a new resting place on consecrated ground, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) in his question to the Prime Minister on 3 July. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside supported that principle in his bid to have the stone returned to Scone in his constituency.
I speak from the standpoint of my role as parliamentary warden of St. Margaret's and a member of the abbey family. Any decision as to the new location must reflect not only the constitutional importance of the stone to the United Kingdom, but the sacred mysteries of the coronation, to which our present monarch memorably and movingly pledged herself at the time of her coronation in 1953.
It is not easy from this distance to suggest where a suitable site might be found. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside suggested that there might be a site near the ruins of Scone abbey. St. Margaret's chapel in Edinburgh castle has been suggested as one option for the future by the Prime Minister. Another option would be St. Giles' cathedral, which I visited for a magnificent organ recital during the Edinburgh festival last August. It would seem most akin to the present position in Westminster abbey.
Inevitably, given its history, consideration of security for the stone will be an important factor, as will an appropriately dignified setting to match the sovereign symbolism of the stone for the Union. I make a plea that tourism be not paramount. It is true that, at Westminster abbey, it is now visited by 2.2 million people a year, a number exceeded only by that of visitors to the tower of London, but I ask that tourism not be the overriding consideration.
It would be nothing short of desecration if a stone that is already to be moved backward and forward between Scotland and England at the time of future coronation were to be lodged insensitively as part of a "Come to Scotland" campaign and not secured in the religious character that is its essence. The stone was, after all, the votive offering to Edward the Confessor of Edward I.
I look to the Government to respect those religious associations and to find a resting place for the stone that reconciles all those different interests and provides a fitting home for that all-important symbol of our historic Union.
11.5 am
Mr. David Rendel: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise an issue that has become public in recent days, which intimately concerns many of my constituents—the level of radiation around the old Greenham Common air base and in the rest of my constituency and adjoining constituencies. It is feared that there may now be, or have been in the past, some health risks associated with that radiation.
As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have tabled several questions for written answer to the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health, which I hope that they will answer. I shall refer to some of those questions today because, although I realise that the Leader of the House may be unable to answer some of them, I hope that he will ensure that the Secretaries of State concerned provide an appropriate answer, with all possible speed, given the profound worries of some of my constituents about those matters.
The issue arose from an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 14 July, when it reported on a leak that had been made to it, apparently by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, of a report written in 1961 by two Aldermaston scientists, Mr. Cripps and Mr. Stimpson. They reported at that time that they had found an increased level of uranium and radiation coming from uranium in the area around the Greenham Common air base in a sort of hourglass shape. That suggested that the runway at the air base had been at some point contaminated with uranium, which had been taken up on the wheels or wings of aeroplanes leaving the air base, and thus had been spread in both directions from either end of the air base runway.
Mr. Cripps and Mr. Stimpson said that the contamination must have resulted from some form of nuclear accident on the air base, and the only one that they could highlight was an accident that was known to have taken place on 28 February 1958, when a B47 bomber had to drop two of its fuel tanks; one hit a hangar and the other hit another B47 on the ground. Mr. Cripps and Mr. Stimpson assumed that it must have caused some sort of radiation leak, probably from a nuclear bomb on the bomber. There is considerable evidence that that was not the case, but that information raised understandable worries among many of my constituents.
One of the important questions that needs to be answered is why the Cripps and Stimpson report produced in 1961 was kept secret until it was leaked to The Daily Telegraph. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence to ask him to place a copy of the report in the Library, and I am happy to say that he promptly did so. In his letter to me confirming that he would do that, he wrote:
"I can … confirm that the 1961 report has been reviewed during the course of the day"—
on 15 July this year—
"and we have concluded that it can be downgraded and released to the Public Record Office."
It is now much more than 30 years since the report was produced in 1961, so why was it not released to the Public Record Office on 1 January 1992, in line with the normal 30-year rule? There must be some reason why the Government decided that it would not be released at that time. As it was so easily released once it had been leaked and, as those of us who have had a chance to see the

285
report know, as there seems to have been no good reason for keeping the report secret for so long, the Government must say why they kept it secret until last week.
Another report, which is believed to have been written by a man called W. M. Saxby in 1987, also refers to radiation around Newbury and the air base. It is rumoured that, as a result of that report, the Government changed their decision about the classification of the original 1961 report. Why has the Saxby report not been released? Can it now be released to reassure my constituents about its content?
Openness and honesty about both those reports are now required if my constituents' confidence is to be regained. Several questions remain to be answered. What happened during that accident? What was the result of it? Was any uranium involved in the 1958 accident? As there seems to be sound evidence that the bomber may not have had a bomb on board at the time, could a different source of uranium have led to the later contamination of the area, either on the bomber or in the hangar, which was also destroyed? What then happened to the debris from the accident? The hangar was virtually destroyed and had to be taken down and replaced with a new one, and the bomber was burnt out. But what happened to the debris, which may have contained some form of uranium? Was it buried somewhere and, if so, was it buried on the site or elsewhere? What monitoring has since been done to reassure local residents that the debris, wherever it might be, is not contaminated?
It is understood that up to eight reports have been written about the accident by both the British Government and the United States air force. Those should now be made known and copies placed in the Library so that everybody can see exactly what happened, what happened to the remains of the accident, and what further steps are being taken to ensure that they are kept safe.
A further question is: where might the raised levels of uranium and radiation have come from if they did not arise from that accident? The Cripps and Stimpson report found genuinely higher uranium levels than would normally have been expected in the surrounding area. If the Government are to continue with their line, which I have no reason to disbelieve, that the uranium cannot have come from the 1958 accident, which was originally blamed, the question arises as to where that excessive uranium came from. Was there another accident on the Greenham air base that may have caused it? What tests have been carried out since that date to discover whether those high radiation levels still exist and, if so, where they may have come from? Do the Government now propose to carry out further tests, given the increased concern that has now arisen?
My next two questions are about health and illustrate why further tests may now be necessary. A few years ago, there was a scare about a cluster of childhood cancers around Aldermaston and Burghfield, and various epidemiological surveys and tests were done to see how they could have arisen. Although no clear answers came out, the surveys and tests showed a significant increase in childhood cancers in that area. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment investigated the case, but it is not clear whether it knew about the Cripps and Stimpson report and was given the full details of the accident in 1958, which might have affected its decision on how those cancer clusters arose.
286
Most important in terms of the modern position is that, sadly, there is now a cluster of leukaemia cases in a small section of Newbury town. Three cases in one road alone have arisen within the past few years. Even to a layman, that is an unusually high incidence of leukaemia. Several related diseases seem also to be at comparatively high levels. Whatever happened in 1958 and whatever the Cripps and Stimpson report shows, we must find out whether the high number of leukaemia cases in a small area of Newbury town is significant statistically and, if so, how the cases may have arisen and whether they could be related to the radiation that was previously discovered. What epidemiological and other tests do the Government propose, to see what the causes of an excessive leukaemia rate could be? Naturally, my constituents are concerned that it could be connected to the high radiation levels in the area, so that must be investigated.
For far too long, there has been excessive secrecy over this matter. While that might have been necessary in the cold war days when the report was first produced in 1961, I cannot see why such secrecy should be necessary in the 1990s. Those days are surely gone and now secrecy can only increase my constituents' worry. My constituents now demand truth and honesty. The secrecy must end.
11.16 am
Sir David Madel: First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he has conducted the business this year and for the fact that he has been able to give us more notice of what we are to discuss.
I wish to raise three brief points, the first of which is on education. This year's settlement has done great good by getting more money into the classroom. The Government must go further and get even more money out of county halls and into the classroom, and, in what remains of this Parliament, I hope, they will be able to do that by means of the new Education Bill.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment all the best in the current discussions on state spending. She attained a good settlement for this year and we want an equally good settlement for next year. When the GCSE and A-level results come out next month, they will show a further improvement. Higher standards in the classroom are Government policy. The higher the standards, the more young people expect to go on to higher education.
I hope that the Dealing inquiry into the future of higher education will not cut across the expectations and hopes of young people and their parents as standards in the classroom rise. With the escalator taking young people into university going up, it would be extremely unfortunate if Sir Ron Dearing came out with a policy that somehow made the escalator go down and that made it more difficult for parents to help to get young people into university. That inquiry is a terrific challenge and it is vital that it recognises that standards in the classroom are going up, which inevitably means more demand for higher education.
Secondly, I raise the issue of the Child Support Agency, which is still not functioning properly. I do not blame Ministers for that but, to paraphrase the former leader of the Liberal party, the former right hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs, Ministers must not create a bomb shelter in which the Child Support Agency can shield

287
itself from the splinters of public criticism. I shall give the House two examples. The first concerns a constituent whose wife left him and went to Australia, leaving him with custody of the children. It has taken a long time and much effort to make the CSA understand that he is responsible for the children and that there can be no maintenance because his ex-wife is living in Australia and has nothing to do with them. One would think that the CSA could simply check with Bedfordshire local education authority to satisfy itself that the children are registered in Bedfordshire schools and that their father is responsible for them. However, it has taken months to get the message across to the CSA. Last month, my constituent received three contradictory letters within a week from the agency.
My second example concerns a constituent whose daughter went to live with my constituent's ex-husband. He was in employment and not on income support, so that did not trigger the Child Support Agency, and the daughter, who is approaching the age of 18, has been working for 12 months. Therefore, why is the CSA pursuing the mother for maintenance? It will require the patience of the archangel Gabriel and the wisdom of Solomon to resolve that matter. It is just another example of the CSA failing to do its work properly.
As the amount of overtime increases in certain industries, the CSA must be extra careful about calculating the level of maintenance to be paid. I have often told the CSA that overtime is not automatic; it is like the Cheshire cat—now you see it and now you don't. The CSA must not automatically include overtime in the usual weekly wage or the monthly salary when making maintenance calculations. It must be fast-footed and flexible in its calculations.
I hope that the CSA will improve one day. However, after another parliamentary Session during which I have battled on behalf of my constituents, I think that it has a long way to go, first, to attain the standards of public service outlined in the citizens charter; and, secondly, to improve communication channels with the public about its actions in relation to demands for maintenance.
Thirdly, I refer briefly to the extremely difficult industrial disputes in the Post Office and on the tube. I think that we must increase the powers of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in order to resolve those matters. At present, ACAS can intervene only if both parties are willing—it has a semi-voluntary role. Once a case is before ACAS and the parties have agreed voluntarily to refer their dispute to it, two things should occur: industrial action should be suspended together with any management proposals that may have triggered the strike. Both sides of industry should make an equal effort while ACAS tries to resolve the dispute. If the industrial dispute is hopelessly deadlocked with no movement on either side, ACAS should have the power to intervene. If neither side will co-operate, the law should be changed to allow civil action to be taken in the courts and damages awarded.
I think that it will take most of August to resolve those extremely difficult disputes. Public opinion regarding industrial disputes moves slowly, but above all people want to see efforts being made to resolve them. The current disputes will not be resolved in front of the television cameras or on the "Today" programme: they will be resolved only under the umbrella of ACAS,
288
without publicity stunts. I propose a small change in the law that would give ACAS greater powers to intervene. It has been resolving industrial relations disputes for 21 years and I believe that it is time to give it greater powers.
In conclusion, during the remainder of this Parliament the Government must continue to pursue policies that give greater job security, as it is the feeling of job insecurity that is making life difficult for Conservative Members. Post-1949, the Christian Democrats in Germany won five elections in a row because their policies of low inflation and low unemployment proved successful. There is no reason why the Conservative party should not do the same. Our priority must be to ensure that our economic policies give greater job security to all workers. If that can be achieved, we shall wake up on a fine May morning next year and find that the United Kingdom has a fifth Conservative Government.
11.24 am
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) referred to the industrial disputes involving the underground and the postal workers. He could refer them to ACAS until he is blue in the face, but there is one relatively simple solution: treat the workers like those in this place.
For instance, the postal workers are trying to get Saturdays off. At present they must work a six-day week: that is the core of the dispute. Members of Parliament come to this place for four days a week, and 10 Fridays in the year are constituency days—I will not call them days off. Hon. Members do not have to work a six-day week unless they choose to do so. Nobody drags Members of Parliament here, kicking and screaming that they do not want to do the job. Whenever there is a vacancy, there are plenty of people willing to fill it.
If the Government want to act decently, they should say to those involved in the postal dispute, "Why can't the workers have a five-day week like many other people?" It is not asking for the moon. What is more, the postal workers held a ballot and a massive majority voted for industrial action. The same is true of the underground. The main part of the workers' claim is to reduce their working week by one hour. Tories talk about breaking the back of the British economy, but those two disputes are about having Saturdays off and a one-hour reduction in the working week.
It is appalling that we must listen to attacks on the wealth creators in society—the workers—who are asking for relatively small concessions. I would go a lot further. With 4 million people out of work—that is the real figure—we must crack unemployment in Britain. We could do that by opting for a four-day week for everyone. What is the point of having technology coming out of our ears if we are calling upon people to work five and six days a week—as well as overtime—amounting to a 48-hour week or more? We should talk about harnessing that technology to enable everyone to work a four-day week.
Now that I have got that off my chest, I turn to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—who has now left the Chamber. He got on his high horse about an hon. Member tabling a question about his constituency. He said that that was terrible: his area was being invaded. I remember speaking not so long ago at Coalite in my constituency,

289
where two farmers had stopped their production because of high dioxin levels. Hey presto, shortly afterwards I looked at the Order Paper and found that there was a question from a Tory Member of Parliament—it was obviously planted—asking the relevant Minister to explain to the House what the dioxin at Coalite was all about. Coalite is in my constituency, but I did not whine or whinge; I know that that is how Parliament works. I have a vague idea—I do not wish to put words into anyone's mouth—that Ministers in the next Labour Government might ask me to table planted questions. I shall tell them to ask someone else, but I am sure that it will happen.
I come now to several issues of which the Leader of the House is aware. He served for some time as Secretary of State for Social Security and he is familiar with many areas that may appear complicated to some people. I refer to the chronic bronchitis and emphysema legislation. The Leader of the House knows that Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse), who represents a Yorkshire mining constituency, eventually succeeded in getting that legislation on to the statute book. Everyone knows that it does not work exceptionally well. The success rate is only 11 per cent. which is not high by anyone's standards. Thousands of miners who are coughing their lungs up have put in a claim, and only 11 per cent. have been successful.
Loads of us knew immediately that we had to do something about that. Many hon. Members—most of them are in the Chamber now—made representations at different levels. As members of the miners parliamentary group, we met the Trades Union Congress and put forward an argument that we had cobbled together with our hon. Friends. The FEV1—forced expiratory volume—test was not working properly because it provided a better opportunity for someone with a bigger physique than for someone with a smaller physique. The deterioration in lung capacity should not be decided by how big people are, so we said that that should be altered.
We said that it was unfair that people had to work 20 years underground to qualify and that no one on the surface should qualify, because people take in a lot of dust on the surface. We also proposed getting rid of the X-ray, because most people concluded that it was superfluous to the whole exercise. We campaigned on those issues. We took up the matter with the TUC, which took up our demands. It went to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which the Leader of the House knows only too well. It is generally accepted that, when the council makes recommendations to the Government of the day, they accept them.
Those recommendations have been with the Government probably for the whole of this year, so it is high time that they told us what they are going to do. We believe that they should accept the recommendations. We have reason to believe that they have not accepted all our ideas—I wish they had. Notwithstanding that, we think that they should now be put before the failed recipients.
Yesterday, in Social Security questions, it was drawn to the attention of everyone who has studied the issue that the old-fashioned special hardship allowance, which became the reduced earnings allowance, is in a big administrative muddle. It is clear that a substantial number
290
of people were given the reduced earnings allowance, and they were told by the Government that they had it for life. Now there is a new Government proposal to reduce the amount from roughly £36 to about £9 and to have what is called a retirement allowance. The net result is that people have lost £27, or whatever, out of that £36.
That is a problem in itself. Literally thousands of people in every coalfield are affected, as are people in other industries of course, but we all appreciate that, because of the physical aspects of mining, a considerable number of those affected used to work in the coal mines. They have lost that money.
It is clear that the Government should resolve that problem. I have again a simple recommendation. The Leader of the House knows the facts well. The matter involves part of the Department that he used to run. He should say, "Look. There is only one way to clear this up. Never mind going backwards and forwards to commissioners, appeals and all the rest. The Government have made a mistake and should allow the reduced earnings allowance to continue." I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is listening, because she can make that proposal when the next Labour Government get into power, and tell the putative Chancellor of the Exchequer that we shall need the money.
Many things in social security need to be sorted out by the next Labour Government. I am not expecting them all to be sorted out in the first year. I will be moderate on that issue, but we have been hammered on the social security front. The welfare state has almost been torn apart by the Government. I say that en passant. We shall probably hear a lot more about it from Conservative Members after May, or whenever the general election is, when I shall be sitting in the seat of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
There have been strikes by firefighters in Derbyshire, as there were in Merseyside some time ago. As we all know, there is a problem with firefighting and with how much money can go into it. Local authorities have been deprived of money. There have been cuts in Derbyshire in the past six years. The net result is that there are problems in coming to some form of agreement.
I have made it clear that I am on the side of the Fire Brigades Union. That will not surprise many people, but it is a problem. People cannot afford to act the fool when they are talking about people who have to put out fires. Not so long ago, hon. Members talked in the House about the three firefighters who had been killed, all within the space of a few weeks. People were saying that it was terrible. Every time there is a disaster in Britain, people say that the firefighters are doing a wonderful job, that they were first on the scene and all the rest of it.
What I have asked for is simple. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I have asked to meet the Home Secretary to put the case and to try to get the cap lifted by the Secretary of State for the Environment, so that we can resolve the problem and take account of the transition to a new fire authority next year.
With local government changes, it will be a problem not for Derbyshire county council, but for Derby and Derbyshire. Therefore, it is imperative that the firefighters know that, when the new authority comes into being, the financial base will be better than at present.

291
I compliment the Leader of the House because, when I raised the matter last time, he said that he would consider it and produced a letter from the Home Secretary. I know that he is never out of court and that he is a busy man—he has to keep defending himself; he is a bit of a recidivist. Nevertheless, he sent a letter to me saying that he did not have time to meet me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire.
I thought that it was general practice in this place that, if Members of Parliament made representations to meet a Minister, somehow or other, we would be able to meet him or someone from his Department. We are finding it extremely difficult. We are not on some errand, but trying to resolve the problem. We are trying to put out fires—a different kind of fire—on behalf of the firefighters.
The Leader of the House has gone so far. He has stirred the loins of the Home Secretary. We want the firefighters and Derbyshire county council to have the opportunity to meet the Home Secretary so that they can put their case, with a view to ensuring that the matter is resolved and, when the transitional authority takes over next year, that the financial base can be secure, so that fires can be put out in Derbyshire and elsewhere.
11.37 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: It is important that I declare an interest. My interest is in Gilbert and Sullivan. It is important that the House realises that what I am going to say is a direct result of an unashamed interest in preserving for all time the works of Gilbert and Sullivan, which have made an essential and unique contribution to our English national heritage.
Some months ago, the House became aware of the danger—I think it is a new danger—facing the much-loved D'Oyly Carte Gilbert and Sullivan light opera touring company. The problem, when the curtain fell at the end of May, was whether it would ever rise again. The difficulty has simply been how to find some 20 per cent. of the money needed annually to run the D'Oyly Carte. The other 80 per cent.—amounting to £2 million—is raised from box office receipts, from private subscriptions and from local authority support. Just the remaining 20 per cent.—the £500,000—is needed to keep going the D'Oyly Carte company, which has been running for over 100 years.
The problem is that the Arts Council is the proper vehicle for funding the arts—it does a very good job, but it seems to have some failings. It tends to like grand opera, so the Royal Opera House, wonderful work though it does, receives 80 per cent. of its income from the Arts Council and has to raise the remaining 20 per cent. from private sources. On the other hand, the D'Oyly Carte has to raise 80 per cent. privately and needs only 20 per cent. from public subscription. There is a similar story with other companies that favour grand opera. When the Welsh Opera performs Verdi, Puccini and the like, it is favoured rather than Gilbert and Sullivan. Such funding offers grand opera to the privileged and wealthy. I have nothing against that, but those companies are getting the strawberries and cream, by 80 per cent. of public funding for their enjoyment.
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend should not place too much emphasis on the figure of 80 per cent. at the Royal Opera House. He might find, on research, that that figure is not precisely accurate.
Mr. Steen: Obviously, if a former Secretary of State for National Heritage tells me that the figure of 80 per cent. is too high, I bow to his knowledge. The figure may be 70 per cent. or 60 per cent., but it is certainly very high and, in cash terms, the figure received from the taxpayer is about £14 million, whereas the amount given to the D'Oyly Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan has, at the highest, been only £30,000 a year and, at the lowest, £15,000.
If the D'Oyly Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan are part of our national heritage, perhaps they should be treated a little more generously—perhaps more in line with the grand opera approach of the Arts Council. Tens of thousands of people want an evening's entertainment in a language that they understand. It is no good going to grand opera and listening to Italian, French and German—most of the tens of thousands of people in the provinces want to hear a light operetta in English. From Birmingham to Glasgow and from Coventry to Plymouth, people flood to theatres in their droves and leave feeling better and happier. Whenever I go to see a Gilbert and Sullivan production, I come out in a merry mood, whistling some of the infectious tunes.
Mr. Skinner: Go on—whistle them.
Mr. Steen: I will not whistle one now, although it is tempting.
Gilbert and Sullivan is as much part of the British culture as cream teas, cricket at Lord's or the unpredictability of the weather.
I shall explain what has happened, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to understand the facts. I am delighted that the former Secretary of State for National Heritage has not yet had to leave for his doctor's appointment as he can put the facts right if I should get anything wrong in the next few minutes.
The D'Oyly Carte operated without any grants from 1880 to about 1982–102 years. In 1987, the company was reformed, sponsored by private institutions, and given a home in Birmingham, thanks to the generosity of the city council, which has been funding it to the tune of about £250,000 a year, although that grant is decreasing. The Arts Council has argued over the years that it cannot make an award to Gilbert and Sullivan's D'Oyly Carte largely because the Government have reduced its Treasury grant. In effect, whatever it is funding at the moment has to stay, but nothing new can be taken on board. That means that the existing orchestras and other good work must receive preferential treatment, but nothing new can be considered.
I wonder whether that is a correct analysis. I wonder whether the Arts Council is taking the right approach. Whether it is or not, there is a solution to the problem: lottery funds. The Arts Council receives £325 million a year from the national lottery. Many of the people who buy lottery tickets enjoy Gilbert and Sullivan. Can we find £500,000 from that £325 million to keep the D'Oyly Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan going? The answer is uncertain—the bureaucracy, rules and regulations surrounding the giving of lottery money are so complex that it has been difficult to see how money can be given to the D'Oyly Carte to keep it going, or to anyone else.
One would be forgiven for thinking that it should be otherwise. One may wonder why 0.5 per cent. of the total of the Arts Council grant from the lottery cannot be given

293
to the D'Oyly Carte. I have been told the reason by the chairman of the Arts Council. Whereas the Arts Council's funds are governed by Treasury rules, lottery awards are covered by different rules that come under the lottery regulations. Rules and regulations seem to be the problem in this case. The plot, which is worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan—perhaps mixed with Whitehall farce—is steeped in bureaucracy. The dramatis personae, which in this case includes Lord Gowrie and the Secretary of State for National Heritage, is peppered with petty bureaucrats proffering little lists that contain certain items. If a company is involved with quartets, madrigals or grand opera, it is on the list, but if a company is involved with low-brow Gilbert and Sullivan, it does not appear on the list. The list excludes popular culture and touring operettas.
We must give encouragement to the Secretary of State for National Heritage and her officials to achieve a little less restrictive regime on lottery funds. To give the Secretary of State her due, she has encouraged the setting up of a stabilisation fund, established to help organisations pay off any outstanding debt and put themselves on to a sound financial footing—we are all for that. I think that it is a splendid initiative, but the trouble is that it is surrounded by more red tape, with more criteria and more rules and regulations. It may take so long before the stabilisation fund comes on tap that the D'Oyly Carte will not be around to benefit.
The officials are also trying to free the lottery money so that some funds can be given to on-going touring operations. At present, the lottery money is precluded from paying for touring operettas or touring companies. To give credit where credit is due, the Secretary of State is trying to release lottery money for things other than buildings. If the D'Oyly Carte had applied for a new theatre to be built, there would be no problem. The problem would involve finding the money to do anything in that theatre.
The Leader of the House should find a way of not allowing the House to adjourn today until we have saved one of the most peculiar and important of our British institutions: the D'Oyly Carte and its Gilbert and Sullivan repertoire.
11.47 am
Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred to the importance of Gilbert and Sullivan in this country's cultural heritage and I want to speak about something that is important to its natural heritage.
The House may be aware that I have long been interested in hedgerows, the landscape and British wildlife. Hedgerows are important, but unfortunately, over the past 30 or 40 years, we have seen the destruction of thousands of miles of hedgerow. In the 1970s and during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in 1981, I sought to gain protection for hedgerows, but the Government blocked the move. In 1982, with all-party support, I presented a Bill to protect the most important hedgerows in England, but the Government blocked it. Further attempts followed and in 1987, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, who was guest speaker at the centenary celebrations of the Royal Society for the
294
Protection of Birds, called for the protection of hedgerows. I was delighted with that call because, as a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I was to present a Bill in the House that very afternoon to accomplish just that provision.
Unfortunately, on the following Friday, despite the fact that the Bill was supported by Conservative Members as well as by Opposition Members, the Government blocked it, on the instructions of the then Prime Minister, who had called for such protection only a few days before.
Early in 1982, I reawakened interest in the old enclosure hedgerows—or the parliamentary hedgerows, as they are called in some parts of the country—and told the House that such hedgerows seemed to be legally protected. The Minister told me, "Those old laws no longer apply; but they have never been repealed." I made representations to the Minister and inquired of him, "You do realise that you're paying out grants to people to grub hedgerows that may be protected in law?"
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food then moved with enormous speed, ending all grants for grubbing out hedgerows. Trying to put matters right, the Ministry then introduced grants to plant new hedgerows. I welcome that measure, but point out the fact that it may take those new hedgerows a couple of centuries to develop the ecological interest possessed by those that have been grubbed out.
The Government failed to act to protect hedgerows. Furthermore, unfortunately, conservation organisations did not pursue the test case that I had thought desirable. Subsequently, the Government continued to block initiatives by Back Benchers on both sides of the House to protect hedgerows.
In the Environment Act 1995, the Government gave themselves the power to take action to protect hedgerows. Although they have received credit for assuming that power, they have, so far, not earned it by doing anything to implement their power.
About an hour ago, I left the House to make a telephone call, in which I learned that we now have the beginnings of a test case and that we have received a judgment stating that individuals who are concerned about the destruction of hedgerows of parliamentary character—the old enclosure hedgerows—have locus standi. The case was initiated by Mr. Colin Seymour, who has a great deal of experience in this matter, and I have supported it, as has the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, of which I am patron. We have now flushed the matter out into the open.
A few months ago, the Government refused to make a declaratory statement on the matter to confirm the legal position, as they should have done. They will now have to do so, or face a flood of cases across the country.
The House should understand that no one involved in this issue is being Luddite about it. The common land of England was enclosed in the industrial revolution to enable the production of more food for an increasing population. However, when the common lands were enclosed in 4,000 parishes—with each enclosure before 1840 requiring a separate piece of legislation—the landowners who carved up the land between themselves were given not only ownership but an on-going legal responsibility to protect hedgerows for all time. That responsibility applied to them, their heirs and their assignees, and those laws have never been repealed.

295
The Government's actions have allowed the irresponsible to maintain ownership of that land, and to get rid of the responsibilities and obligations that the ownership entails. The Government cannot continue to ignore that fact.
I had hoped that this would be my last speech in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] NO; the Government should go, and they should go quickly. If there is an early election, this will be my last speech in the House. However, if we do not have an early election—in which case I shall have to make another speech—I hope not only that sensible hedgerow protection is introduced under the 1995 Act, but that the Government will start to act responsibly on the obligations and responsibilities placed on landowners by the 4,000 private Acts of enclosure passed by the House before 1840.
11.53 am
Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will be pleased to know that my wife and I have been busy planting hedges all round our land in Scotland, as some of us do care about hedges.
I believe that the House should consider the constitution of the United Kingdom. In particular, I believe that we should have a debate about the crazy, unworkable and dangerous proposals for devolving power to a Parliament in Scotland. The House should also consider viable and deliverable alternative proposals.
Hon. Members are aware of the Liberal Democrats' proposals for a federal structure, in which Scotland would have a Parliament in Edinburgh, the English regions would have regional Parliaments and Wales and Northern Ireland would have their Parliaments. That is theoretically possible, but, unfortunately for the Liberal Democrats and for others who support a federal structure, the 83 per cent. of the UK population who live in England have, thus far, shown no real interest in such proposals.
In a democracy, there is no viable way in which the minority of the population who live in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can force the vast majority of the population, who live in England, to accept a federal structure against their wishes. Consequently, any proposals for constitutional change must seem viable and be acceptable to the majority of the UK population.
Labour's proposals—which have created great rifts within the party and opposition to the proposals from outside the party—are neither viable nor acceptable. That is why the House should debate the constitution, and, in particular, the relationship between Scotland and England.
I believe that Labour's proposals are dangerous and unworkable. They are also unsaleable in England, because the English voter's right to enjoy the same decision-making structure as Scotland has been ignored totally. Does anyone seriously believe that voters in England—who comprise 83 per cent. of the UK population—will accept Labour's devolution proposals?
In simple language: what devolution proposals does Labour expect 83 per cent. of the population to support at the next general election? It expects English voters to agree to a Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is a Scot, educated at a fee-paying Scottish selective school, and who is proposing
296
to lead a Government at Westminster. Most of the major portfolios in his Administration are likely to be filled by Scots from Scottish constituencies. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is expected to be Chancellor of the Exchequer; the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is expected to be Foreign Secretary; the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is expected to be Secretary of State for Scotland; the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is expected to be the Patronage Secretary and Chief Whip; and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) may turn out to be the Secretary of State for Transport. Furthermore, the Law Officers and many of the Ministers of State will be Scots from Scottish constituencies.
If that were to happen, English voters would say, with considerable justification, that the Labour Scots are expecting to run Westminster—which would be perfectly legitimate in a unitary Parliament. However, those same voters will find that proposal unfair and unacceptable if that proposed Scottish-run Government also ask them to support proposals for a Scottish Parliament to be run by Scots in Edinburgh.
What about Labour's proposals for a referendum? In my judgment, it is nonsense to pretend that there is any logic in having a referendum on constitutional change without spelling out exactly what the referendum will contain. The details of a referendum are not merely to deal with constitutional anomalies but will be critical in determining how people will vote. The only time to hold a referendum on constitutional change is after Parliament has fully debated the matter and voted a Bill through both Houses—only then will the details be known and only then should the question be put to the people. It is nonsense to pretend otherwise—just a fig leaf to cover Labour's embarrassment.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield knows that the package that Labour is proposing is unsustainable and that he understands that it is unsaleable in England. That is one of the reasons for the Opposition's U-turn. As I have outlined, Labour's latest proposal for a two-part referendum is also unsaleable.
English-based voters will not accept that only Scottish-based voters should be allowed to vote for proposals that would allow the Scots to run Westminster, with Scottish Members voting on English law and order, education, local government and other politically sensitive English matters, while English Members would have no say on such matters affecting Scotland. The West Lothian question cannot be ignored. It has to be answered, but there is no answer yet.
To add to the irritation, Labour expects to retain the Goschen/Barnett formula which takes into account sparsity and population numbers in Scotland so that anything up to £1.40 of UK taxpayers' funds can be spent per head of the population in Scotland for every £1 per head spent in England—and the Scots are going to be running Westminster.
Such a notion is unsaleable in England because any party with a majority of Scottish Members could, if it so wished, take all Scottish legislation, including controversial measures, through all its stages in the Scottish Grand Committee. That is the obvious, viable, deliverable and workable alternative. As has recently been shown, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the

297
Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee can sit anywhere in Scotland and, with minor changes to the rules, can have UK Ministers attending and participating in debates.
So why is there deemed to be a need to set up a Parliament at great cost—£47 million, I understand—in Edinburgh? That £47 million would be only the beginning and the continuing revenue costs of this unnecessary, constitutionally dangerous Parliament could run into many hundreds of millions of pounds. Why, then, is the Labour party proposing such a badly thought-out scheme and putting the UK constitution at risk? It is doing so for short-term political advantage at Westminster and in Scotland.
No attempt has been made to accommodate the need to reassess the number of Scottish Members of Parliament; nor has any attempt been made to consider the amount of taxpayers' money spent in Scotland. The only way to prevent a damaging and debilitating English backlash is to make all the electors throughout the UK aware of the real hazards of the scheme. The crazy and dangerous proposals should be scrapped. We need a full debate to expose the realities.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) here. I believe that the answer to the Northern Ireland situation, which is often brought up as the red herring, lies in giving people there the same structures as the United Kingdom—local government with all the powers and authority that it has in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, it could be in the form of a regional council. With a unitary Parliament, we cannot have one part of the United Kingdom enjoying benefits that other parts do not. That is neither viable nor deliverable.
The 83 per cent. of the UK population living in England must be made aware of the realities of Labour's crazy scheme. Were it ever implemented, not only would the Scots under Labour be seen to be having their cake and eating it, but the English voters would be expected to bake the cake, ice and deliver the cake and pay for it.
We should be aware of the hazards and recognise that there would be an English backlash. I am not suggesting that the backlash will come only from Conservative Members. The British people as a whole have a gut feeling about what is right and wrong—they would know that Labour's proposals are wrong and would not accept them.
12.4 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: This has been an interesting debate. I should like to comment on many issues, but because time is limited, I shall concentrate on a constituency matter, namely a company called LORE, or Land Owners Rights to Enforcement which is involved in wheel clamping on private land.
Wheel clamping is a cause of great concern in my constituency and throughout the Wakefield area. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, people are being allowed to park their cars only to find that, as soon as they leave them, the cars are clamped. LORE is demanding £95, or £100 in one instance, to have the clamp removed. That is extortion and something will have to be done to control
298
such companies which are not registered and which recruit all kinds of people to carry out their work and extort money from unfortunate people.
I had hoped that the matter would be cleared up by the Home Secretary before the recess. I understand that he is aware of the situation and is on record as having promised to consider regularising the way in which wheel clampers operate.
In my constituency on Saturday—market day—three cars were clamped. The municipal car park borders on to the car park of a public house. One car owner had purchased a ticket from the municipal machine because he thought that he had parked in the area run by the local authority. The person involved—a Mr. Robinson—had his car clamped and received a demand for £95 to have it removed. A group of 50 people gathered round to support the claim that those whose cars had been clamped should have the clamps removed free of charge. The police were called because the situation could have become serious. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are aware of the problem which has affected your constituents.
In a further case, Mrs. Mountain who lives in my constituency went to buy a ticket only to find that her car had been clamped when she returned to it. The people who carry out such operations are often large and heavy and are frightening in themselves. Something needs to be done because the situation becomes serious when people say that they will not allow clampers to get away with it.
Indeed, a constituent of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, took the initiative only last week. Her car was clamped but instead of waiting for the clamping company to tow it away, she towed it away using her own tow vehicle, had the clamp removed and demanded £95 from the clamping company for the clamp's return. I regard that as true initiative but it is dangerous because the heavies—the people employed by LORE—demanded the lady's home address and telephone number, which she refused to give. She regarded that as intimidation.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about intimidation and extortion in Northern Ireland. It is being used by wheel clamping companies in our local communities. I hoped that we could have found a solution or at least asked the Home Secretary do something about this dirty business before the House goes into recess. Sadly, that will not happen, but hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that something must be done about companies that are not registered.
Wheel clamping companies should be registered with the local authority and there should be reasonable charges. I am not suggesting that there should be no charge, but £95 is totally unreasonable. If a car is towed away, a further charge of £25 per day is imposed. The House must address that issue and find a solution.
12.10 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: We have had a useful debate with a high level of interest on both sides of the House. Therefore, there has been a great demand on time and some hon. Members who are present have not been able to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) was particularly disappointed that he was unable to discuss the catastrophic £32.5 million deficit faced by his local health authority.
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is well known that I am the only

299
hon. Member who speaks for an entire county and represents more than 100,000 constituents. It is also well known, as it has been in the media, that I represent the only seat in the House where there has been a serious call for devolution and independence from the United Kingdom constitution. It is a matter of the utmost regret that the House has not found time to allow me to debate that issue today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That may be so, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mrs. Taylor: Notwithstanding that, we have had a useful debate and many hon. Members have raised important issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) opened the debate and it was no surprise to the House that once again he raised his long-term concern with the difficulties facing disabled people. I hope that the House continues to focus on those issues when my right hon. Friend retires. He has served the House well by drawing those matters to our attention on numerous occasions.
Other hon. Members also mentioned long-term problems, including those in their constituencies. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) mentioned Bart's and the health service in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned hedgerows and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) mentioned the Child Support Agency, which is becoming a long-term problem. Despite all the assurances that matters are improving, most hon. Members know from their case work that many problems remain in respect of the CSA. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them today.
Other hon. Members have raised topical issues. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) spoke about wheel clamping. He gained the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House when he described the outrages that are well known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about issues that he has raised previously. I am thinking particularly about what he said about airport safety. As he said, had the lessons, of Lockerbie been learnt, perhaps the events of the past few weeks might have been different.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked the Leader of the House for a constitutional debate, if not during Prorogation, early next Session. He gave the Government an extremely mature warning about the misuse of backwoodsmen in another place. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Asylum and Immigration Bill. The vote in another place on the amendment that concerned him would have been very different had it been a vote of life peers and not hereditary peers. The same applies to the decision affecting Ministry of Defence housing. He was right to caution the Government against playing into the hands of those who want to reform the House of Lords. Every time the Government get their way by dragging in every hereditary peer who is entitled to vote, the result is often different
300
from the will of the life peers and that does not serve the Government well. I commend him for making that warning.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I referred not just to life peers, but to hereditary peers who regularly attend the House of Lords.
Mrs. Taylor: On both occasions, the attendance was much greater than usual.
Perhaps the most topical issue this morning was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who mentioned the Premier club and the role of Mr. John Beckwith. It is urgent and important that before the House rises there should be a statement on the role of Mr. Beckwith in the sale of Ministry of Defence housing and the possible sale of social security property—an initiative that seems to have come from Mr. Beckwith himself. The value of the properties is reported to be £2.5 billion. Therefore, there are massive implications for the taxpayer and for the reputation of politicians.
We know from the Sunday newspapers that Mr. Beckwith is also chairman of the Premier club, which solicits donations to Tory party funds of up to £100,000 from very rich business men in return for contact with Ministers up to and including the Prime Minister—hence the title Premier club. At the same time, Mr. Beckwith is having discussions with management advisers to the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Secretary of State for Defence and urging the sale of all that property to consortia which he leads. That puts Ministers in an intolerable position as there is a conflict of interests. It also raises some important issues that should be addressed before the House adjourns for the summer recess. It demonstrates how much wiser it would have been to refer the issue of party political funding to the Nolan committee as soon as possible rather than delaying until after the next election.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) raised another topical issue that concerns both sides of the House. He was concerned about defence procurement. There is real concern that has been mentioned almost on a daily basis over the past two weeks that the Government have not yet announced their decisions on three vital contracts—the hon. Gentleman mentioned one of them. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are in jeopardy and there is great uncertainty within the armed forces. Ministers previously gave the impression that announcements would be made before the summer recess, but it now appears that the Chancellor is blocking decisions or announcements on those contracts.
I raised the matter at business questions, as did Conservative Members, yet we have not had a decision. There is great concern that the decision will be made without hon. Members having the opportunity to question Ministers. It would be unfortunate were such a decision to be made immediately the House goes into recess. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House raised that important point. Indeed, Conservative Members, as much as Labour Members, have said in this debate that several decisions are imminent—whether they be on the funding of London hospitals, defence procurement, or the Stone of Scone, to which the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) referred. We have been told that decisions are imminent but that they will not be announced in the House. I do not think that that is satisfactory.

301
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East speculated on what it will be like when the House returns in October and said that we shall have a very sparse Queen's Speech that might be no more than an outline of the Conservative party's manifesto. I am not sure whether we shall return for more than a formal Prorogation in the autumn because I would not be surprised if, effectively, today were the last day of this Parliament before the election. I certainly hope that that is so. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would consider it beneficial to everyone if a phoney Session did not begin in October.
12.20 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): It will not surprise the House to learn that I do not intend to be tempted too far by the remarks by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I assure her that the Queen's Speech will not be phoney. I have spent a great deal of time on it. It will be a good, solid Queen's Speech, containing measures that we intend to carry through for the benefit of the people of this country.
The remarks by the hon. Member for Dewsbury represent only one of the temptations with which I am faced at the end of this debate, which has been the most extensive of its kind that we have yet had. If I count the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) as something akin to a speech and include my speech, we will have reached an historic high of 20 hon. Members taking part in this debate. That leads me to the first of various temptations. I wonder—it is very dangerous to do so in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and certainly totally against my own interests—whether the opportunity provided by this debate would not be rather a good use of a number of Wednesday mornings. Although it is perhaps not appropriate to consider that now, it has been observable that we have had a very good debate and hon. Members have valued the opportunity to raise a variety of issues.
Were there not a risk of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) thinking that I might be flippant, which is the last thing that I would wish to be on the subject that he raised, I would be tempted to say that no stone has been left unturned in this debate. Certainly no hedgerow was left unexplored in what we all fervently hope will not be the last speech by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
I see that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is not present. I personally thought that his speech was rather outside the normal tone and terms of this debate. A large part of his speech rested on the proposition that this place was dead, yet it has seemed very much alive this morning, which, in a sense, disproves what he said at the outset. His pretty extraordinary speech, on which the hon. Member for Dewsbury sought to build and which was effectively demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, was apparently based on attacking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for taking a position with which the hon. Gentleman declared that he agreed. I do not understand quite what he thought that he was at. He also succeeded, as did one or two
302
others, in referring to devolution in the presence of the author of the West Lothian question without seeking to address it in any way, shape or form.
Leaving aside such points, I am faced this morning with an even more impossible task than usual because I have been invited to range across the entire future of the British constitution by my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for North Tayside (Mr. Walker). When I put together the remarks by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and one or two others, I realise that I have also been invited to range virtually across the entire British foreign policy—all in less than 10 minutes.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow knows very well that the Government have very strong objections to the United States' extra-territorial legislation, which is one of the things to which he referred. I assure him that, although we share the United States' desire to promote political and economic reform in Cuba, we differ fundamentally on the means by which to achieve it. I cannot comment on all the points that he made, but I shall of course ensure that his particular point on airport security is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
The hon. Member for Tooting is an indefatigable contributor to our debates because of his experience in many parts of the world. I cannot range over the whole situation in Cyprus, but I am grateful to him for recognising that Sir David Hannay's appointment as our special representative is a sign of our determination to help reinvigorate the settlement process.
I briefly touched on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, but I should also say that he knows that consultation is going on about the future location of the stone. I am quite sure that his remarks will be taken carefully into account in the course of that consultation.
Since the issues that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised have by and large been the subject of extensive discussion and correspondence in various ways, he will not be surprised to learn that I am not in a position to add to what has been said on earlier occasions about the Bill to which he referred or, the unhappy—indeed, tragic—problem of haemophiliacs.
On the legal case concerning Gloucestershire county council, the Government are considering the judgment and its implications. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords has been granted and the Department of Health will consider whether to revise any of its guidance—which was of course the right hon. Gentleman's request—in the light of the House of Lords judgment. In any case, we shall shortly be discussing the details of the case with the local authority associations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) asked a specific question. I have an answer in front of me and I shall simply read it. Whether he regards it as an answer is a matter for him to judge, but we can no doubt return to it if he does not. It says that, in line with the investment appraisal process used throughout all NHS trusts, the final costs of the project to which he referred will not be known until the full business case has been produced. That will take into account the details of bids received from potential private sector partners in September and continuing discussions with the purchasing authority.

303
However, the trust is confident that the costs will be in line with those in the outline business case. That is certainly a relevant comment that my right hon. Friend will want to consider very carefully.
A number of references have been made to defence procurement. Although I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when questioned about the matter yesterday, I assure the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in particular that I will ensure that the concerns and interest that he expressed on that front, together with the comments that he made on others, are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other right hon. Friends as appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) raised a constituency case, and I well understand that. He had kindly given me notice of it. I must repeat that, as all hon. Members know, it is not possible for Ministers to intervene in judges' decisions. In view of what he said, however, I shall specifically ask for his speech to be drawn to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
I shall ensure that the remarks by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) are carefully studied. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has asked the National Radiological Protection Board to undertake an independent inquiry into the contamination levels in the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It might also be possible for the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, which has a wide-ranging brief, to take account of any new information that arises concerning the position in his constituency.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) recognises that it is no more possible for me to range across the entire education policy than it is for me to do so on foreign policy and the
304
constitution. I have, however, noted with care his remarks, which I thought were interesting on that front as well as on industrial relations.
I thought that the usual knockabout by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was quite good this morning. As ever when he gets to constituency matters, he made some important points, but I am not in a position to comment on them in detail. I am sorry that my success in getting him a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has not satisfied his appetite. His appetite for a meeting remains and I shall ensure that the matter is drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
As for the IIAC recommendations, with which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am familiar, he slightly exaggerated the amount of time the Government have had to consider the proposals. As I understand it, the report was given to Ministers in March and published in May. These are complicated matters; a response will be made once all the issues raised have been given full and careful examination.
Lastly—I am doing rather well having referred already to hedgerows—I note the strong support for the D'Oyly Carte expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I know that the company is in the middle of complex commercial negotiations on its future, and I do not intend to comment further.
As for hedgerows, section 97 of the Environment Act 1995 requires that regulations be subject to consultation and approval by both Houses before they can come into effect. We expect to publish draft regulations for consultation later this summer, with the aim of laying the regulations before Parliament by the end of the year.
Apart from wheelclamping, which I shall bring to the attention of the Home Secretary as he is familiar with the problem, I believe that I have now touched on every subject raised this morning.

Social Policy (Europe)
12.30 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to the Front Bench today. This is the first time he will have had the pleasure of engaging in debate with me, so my welcome for him is even greater than it might have been for any other Minister who might have attempted to yawn his way through the debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not do that.
I make no apology for raising this subject again, the fifth time I have done so in the House since 1992. I promise my right hon. Friend that, if he accepts all my recommendations, I will never speak on this subject again. I suspect that that is a promise neither of us will be able to keep.
Our greatest problem in relation to European social policy has been our failure fully to understand how the treaty of Rome and its amendments work and have worked, and how the institutions of Europe have implemented the treaties. I refer to the Commission, the court and the Council of Ministers.
We have endlessly been told not to worry too much about the wording of the treaties; that they are vague, that they can be interpreted as we like, and that, after all, it is the nation states that will drive forward implementation of the treaties, so all will be well. In short, we are told that the vagueness of the wording will constitute our defence. I, on the other hand, have endlessly repeated that the language of the treaties, beginning with the preambles—even though they are officially ultra vires—is very important, because it allows the court to understand the precise direction in which the treaties lead.
Comments made by Advocates General and justices of the European Court have shown time and again how they see the vague treaty obligations being implemented. The problem of the 48-hour working week is a clear practical example of what I mean.
I should like to start by reading out some of these preambles. In wonderfully general language, one of them states:
'The Community shall have as its task… a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States."
Article 3 further states that
"a policy in the social sphere comprising a European Social Fund"
shall be pursued, and that
"the strengthening of economic and social cohesion"
shall be the guiding principle.
It is important to understand that the justices believe that such language gives them a sense of Europe's direction, which is eventually to act as one on such matters.
Too often, I believe, my right hon. and hon. Friends fail to understand the language in which these documents are couched. Articles 117 to 122 all concern social policy and are written in wonderfully general language. For instance, article 117 says:
"Such a development will ensue not only from the functioning of the common market, which will favour the harmonisation of social systems, but also from the procedures provided for in this Treaty and from the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action".
306
Article 118 states:
"the Commission shall have the task of promoting close co-operation between Member States in the social field, particularly in matters relating to: employment; labour law and working conditions; basic and advanced vocational training; social security; prevention of occupational accidents and diseases; occupational hygiene; the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and workers".
Article 118a, which comes under qualified majority voting, is relevant, because, in the titanium dioxide case, the court has decided that such matters will be decided not by unanimity among the member states but by QMV. That is of course relevant to the 48-hour working week. It reads:
"Member States shall pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers, and shall set as their objective the harmonisation of conditions in this area".
I do not intend to read out all the articles, but I do suggest that my hon. Friends read, re-read and re-re-read them.
Especially I would ask my hon. Friends to read article 5, which stipulates that member states
"shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty."
That is critical, because our social chapter opt-out is in Europe's sights.
The Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), assured me at the time of Maastricht that the court would not be a problem: that it was in the business of decentralising, and would rule in favour of nation states. Since then, there have been judgments against us on the transfer of undertakings and on fishing. Most recently, the Advocate General made his remarks about the 48-hour working week.
I was told after a previous speech that I was attacking the court. That is not my intention. It is only carrying out what it has always done—it sees itself as the architect of political union, just as it always has since 1954. Indeed, Judge David Edward told a Committee of the House exactly that. It is therefore quite wrong to think that I am attacking the court. What I am attacking is our failure to understand what we have signed up to. While we are contemplating the implementation of the social policy opt-out, Europe is already planning how the social chapter will work.
Back in 1960, Advocate General Roemer said:
"The European treaties are nothing but a partial implementation of a grand general programme, dominated by the idea of a complete integration of the European States".
Lasok and Bridge, authors of one of the premier reference works on the subject, have this to say:
"references to the spirit or the aims of the Treaties enable the Court to fill in the gaps in the system and so to 'update' the text. In doing so the Court has consciously acted not only as the Constitutional Court of the Community but also as an architect of European integration".
Mr. Anthony Steen: Labour Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] None of them is here, and nor are the Liberals. Still, both parties make great play of the fact that, if they ever came to government, jointly or on their own, they would increase expenditure on a new range of social benefits. As I understand my hon. Friend's argument, however, what they say does not matter at all. This whole policy area has

307
been taken over by Europe, which will decide how much we spend on it. So what the Labour and Liberal parties think is wholly irrelevant.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am told that, if Labour gains power—God help us if it does—it will think the unthinkable, but I urge him not to think the unthinkable—that Labour will get into power. The resistance that the Government have put up has slowed the process, although it will not stop it. Labour will simply help to accelerate the process by acquiescing to everything laid down by Europe.
The latest and most important example of the process in action is the working time directive, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister will be only too well aware. Although limitations were set in the Council on the way the directive works, it will cost in practice up to £2 billion to implement, with a further £1 billion needed in the following two years.
The costs to industry will be severe and will be borne across the economy in lost employment, as the flexibility to employ under the previous conditions changes. The directive also breaks the historical way in which successive British Governments—ironically, even socialist Governments—have accepted the more laissez-faire and relaxed view on the way in which employers and employees negotiate contracts in this country.
Mr. John Sykes: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate? If I may say so, he is an entirely worthy successor to his honourable predecessor, the noble Lord Tebbit. I wish to give an example of the effect that the social chapter and the 48-hour week will have in my constituency.
Cleveland Potash—based near Whitby in the northern end of my constituency—is by far the biggest employer in the area. I was told last week that, if the 48-hour week is imposed, the company will have to lay men off. It is the only potash mine in this country, and competes, with mines in South America. The fact is that one works when the work is there, not when the Commission says so.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who has practical experience in these matters—something that too few hon. Members have. He has run a business, employed people, and, no doubt, laid people off at times.
If the working time directive is so successful, Spain—which has implemented all the measures—should be rocketing away in trade, and should have no unemployment. Everything in Spain should work according to what Labour believes and the proposal allows. Instead, Spain has more than 23 per cent. unemployment, more than 30 per cent. youth unemployment and a stagnating economy.
The idea that this country would put up with those problems and not have constant turmoil on the streets is unbelievable. This country, which has implemented none of the measures, has the lowest, and still declining, level of unemployment in Europe, and an enterprise economy on which we pride ourselves.
Mr. Steen: The interesting thing about Spain is that it gets £8 million a day from the EU, but, in spite of all that public subsidy, it does not succeed.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend makes yet another powerful point. The same applies to Germany, which has rising unemployment, and France. Having taken hard decisions—from changing the nature of pension rights to deregulating and making the work force more flexible—the Government are seeing those successes bear fruit. It would be a tragedy if we allowed that to change by implementing the directive.
Although there are practical reasons why implementation would be a disaster, there is also a principle involved. If we allow this matter to go through, and if we do not make it clear to the Commission and to our colleagues in Europe that we will not accept it and that we are prepared to do almost anything to stop it, a flood of further regulation will follow the directive. That regulation would restrict the flexibility of the British work force, and would bring it into line with the sclerotic and declining state of employment in Europe. That is why, for once, the principle is critical. Even though it is said that the situation is not as bad as some make out, the principle makes it devastating.
My right hon. Friend the Minister must demonstrate that he will resist implementation at all costs, because behind it lie increased holiday rights for fathers, increased regulations on employers on sex discrimination, more stifling controls on part-time workers, workers' privacy regulations, and restrictions on an employer's ability to dismiss employees. It goes on—the catalogue is endless.
Another matter of social policy which may even affect the would-be move to a single currency is the issue of pensions. We have made our pensions provision flexible by putting it out into the private sector. Funds have been provided, and people now have security for the future in a way that they never did before. In Europe, none of that is happening. I understand that an estimated £10 trillion-worth of liability exists across Europe, and that would be imported to this country were we to go down the road of a single currency. The process of social policy is about moving us to the lowest common denominator that exists across Europe.
We must make it clear that there is no point in putting a line in the sand and having an opt-out, if we accept that that opt-out can be bypassed by treaty obligations. We must make it clear that we will not only resist implementation but will absolutely refuse to allow it to happen. We must also seek a different relationship with Europe.
It is inconceivable that a Conservative Government could allow social provisions as contained in the articles of the treaty to dictate to us on the flexibility of our work force, which has better employment provisions than elsewhere. Now is the time for us to debate a different relationship, which would allow Britain to be the enterprise centre of Europe and the flexible trading partner with the rest of the world that we have always prided ourselves on being.
12.46 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I shall be extremely brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on securing

309
the debate. Some of us have been accused over the years of heinous and dastardly crimes against our country, our Government and our party, but he is saying in substance nothing new—we expressed these opinions in this place during the debates on the Maastricht treaty.
My hon. Friend will recall that we assembled some comments taken from debates on the treaty in a pamphlet that we called "Game, Set and Match?" In a debate on 20 January 1993, he said:
"Therefore, the route that I have demonstrated leaves the door open for substantial Community interference in social policy, effectively undermining our exclusion from the social chapter."
In the same debate, I said:
"Even though we may wish to opt out of the 48-hour working week directive … it is impossible to imagine a situation in which, 11 member states having voted for a particular directive, the court will not rule against us if we continue to defy that directive."—[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 413–22.]
It is clear that we are not saying anything new, and what we said was not startling then—everyone else in Europe was saying pretty much the same thing.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on a tiny ray of hope in "A Partnership of Nations", the Government's White Paper on European policy, in which paragraph 20 states:
"The Government is considering ideas for limiting the scope of Community action".
That may not have been enough for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—who made it clear that he did not believe that our European policy is working—but that is what we must pin our hopes upon if we are to stop European social policy wrecking our economy.
12.48 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am honoured to be replying to the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) has had the good fortune to secure. I am grateful for his welcome.
The Government's position on European social policy is already well known to the House. Since the Maastricht negotiations in 1991, the UK has been in a unique position in Europe. We and our European partners have taken separate paths as far as increasing the burden on businesses of social legislation is concerned. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford will agree that the path taken by the UK is the better one.
I need only cite as evidence the decisions by LG and Siemens to locate major new manufacturing facilities in the UK to demonstrate that our policy is working. We are by far the most attractive destination for overseas investment in Europe. A significant factor in those investment decisions is our social opt-out. Though we participate to the full in the single market, we have chosen not to be bound by commitments taken on by our partners under the agreement of the Fourteen on social policy.
There is some confusion about what our opt-out means. It is not correct that we are not bound by any elements of European social policy. The European Union treaty has always contained several provisions relating to social policy, such as health and safety and equal treatment: we
310
are bound by them, and we honour them in full. In fact, the UK has a much better record than most member states on that.
However, we are not bound by any agreements concluded by the Fourteen under the Maastricht social agreement, such as the European works councils directives. Some sections of the press have trumpeted the fact that, in spite of that, some British multinational companies have decided to adopt works councils. The crucial point is that those companies had the freedom to choose, and made their decisions voluntarily. It is vital for businesses that they, not Government, make such decisions.
Another example is the directive on parental leave, to which my hon. Friend referred, which was also recently agreed by the Fourteen. British companies are, of course, free to provide generous benefits for employees after the birth of their children, but we will not force them to incur high costs, regardless of their ability to meet them, by relinquishing our social opt-out. The most likely result would be not higher social standards but higher unemployment.
The UK's flexible and deregulated labour market encourages employment and growth. We want it to continue to do so. Had the UK signed up to the social chapter, legislation on working conditions could have been imposed on us by qualified majority, whatever the views of the British Government, employers and workers. That is why the Government will not sign up to the terms of the Maastricht social chapter. We certainly could not sign up to the social chapter and then control it.
Mr. Walter Sweeney rose—
Mr. Hanley: I am sorry, but I do not have long. If I have time, I will come back to my hon. Friend.
We could not pick and choose the bits of the social chapter that suit us. The moment we signed up, the scale of legislation would undoubtedly increase, and Britain would be overruled on many matters vital to our economy.
What do we believe to be the European Community's legitimate role in social policy? It is certainly not the case that we see no role for the European Community at all in employment or social matters. There is vital work that the Community can do, but its social policy and employment agenda must be founded on three important principles.
The first is competitiveness. Significant and sustainable growth is impossible in an uncompetitive economy. If Community businesses are not able to maintain and improve their competitiveness, jobs will not be created in the Community but be increasingly located outside it. Europe will not be able to compete in the global marketplace. Many provisions of the agreement of the Fourteen on social policy will lead directly to a loss of competitiveness. Many British and foreign businesses also believe that.
Secondly, we insist on diversity. That is, or should be, one of the Community's greatest strengths. The diversity of our institutions, traditions and legislation is as great in employment and the labour market as in almost any other sphere, and it must be respected. No one can believe that the measures necessary to combat unemployment in Greece or Spain are the same as those required in Britain. Are the problems of regulating working practices the

311
same in Sweden as they are in Portugal? I think not. Unnecessary harmonisation risks raising costs and damaging competitiveness.
The third essential is subsidiarity. European social policy must respect the division of legal competence between the Community and member states that is laid down in the treaties, and the principle of subsidiarity that is now enshrined in them. Much of the action required to combat unemployment must be, and often can only be, undertaken by member states themselves. The Community's role is to support and complement action by them, not to try to supplant that action altogether or to tell them what action they must take.
When the treaty on European Union was concluded, the UK succeeded in including the principle of subsidiarity in its text. In the current intergovernmental conference to consider treaty changes, the UK will make proposals to entrench subsidiarity still further.
We are also committed to doing everything in our power to convince our European partners of the dangers of creating a two-tier labour market: one tier of people with permanent jobs, well paid and with all the benefits of pension rights, holiday pay, and employment protection legislation; and a second tier either with no job, or forced into temporary contracts—or even the black economy—because employers are deterred by excessive regulation from offering permanent jobs. We are bound by a simple moral principle: it is wrong to favour those in jobs at the expense of those without them, or to concentrate on protecting the employment of the first tier while failing to increase the employability of the second.
It is clear that adding yet more employment law or social legislation will do nothing to help the people of Britain, or those of the rest of Europe.
Mr. Sweeney: Conservative Members fully endorse all that my right hon. Friend has said, but what will the Government do to renegotiate our obligations under the various treaties, and limit the powers of the European Court of Justice to bring in by the back door the very things to which he is rightly opposed?
Mr. Hanley: If I have time, I shall come to that.
We are not going to add more employment law or social legislation, because that will not help the people of Britain or of Europe. Europe's employers are well aware of that. A large-scale survey carried out by UNICE, the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe, last year found that employment law was the second highest cause of concern for business men. A survey last summer by the European Enterprise Centre found that two thirds of Europe's smaller companies were worried that higher social costs resulting from the Maastricht social chapter would make them less competitive.
Some member states are seeking to extend Community competence over employment at the intergovernmental conference. The UK will strongly oppose this, just as we
312
shall oppose any suggestion that our social opt-out should be abolished. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that very clear.
The need to create more jobs and to tackle unemployment is one of the highest priorities in Europe, but it is businesses and employers who create jobs and the Governments of individual member states who create the right conditions for employment. Jobs cannot be brought into being simply by legislating for them in the treaty. The way to create new employment in Europe is to improve competitiveness and productivity.
I must mention an issue that has been the subject of much lively debate inside and outside the House. The Government are awaiting the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the UK's challenge to the working time directive. The UK believes that the directive is a piece of social legislation that has been foisted on us in the guise of a health and safety measure.
We hope that the court will confirm our interpretation of the health and safety article 118a, which would exclude its use for such measures. If the court does not endorse our view, we will ensure at the intergovernmental conference that our concerns about possible erosion of our social opt-out, and about that directive in particular, are addressed. The Government's IGC White Paper "A Partnership of Nations" expressed our determination to ensure that the health and safety article of the treaty should not be used for social policy by the back door.
Now that some Labour Members are present, I can refer to their leader. He has tried to calm the fears of British business on several occasions, because the Labour party remains committed to signing the job-destroying social chapter. In that, it is playing true to form—more regulation and higher costs for employers, which will lead inevitably to firms going bust and to higher unemployment.
The right hon. Gentleman has tried to maintain that the Labour party would sign up to proposals for social regulation only if they did not inflict economic or competitive damage on British business. That claim is disingenuous, to say the least. The right hon. Gentleman constantly refuses to accept that, if Britain gives up its social opt-out, it will sign up to a future of European labour law, with unquantifiable consequences. The social agreement between the other EU nations contains substantial sections governed by qualified majority voting, and with QMV one cannot pick and choose those bits one likes and those one does not. The right hon. Gentleman's proposition is pure doublespeak.
One reason why more social policies have not been put through the social chapter is that Britain has an opt-out, and other countries do not want to give British business a competitive advantage. Our opt-out is protecting businesses across the whole of Europe from giving away competitive advantage to the rest of the world. Labour would give all that away. Adair Turner, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, has said that the way to pick and choose is not to sign up to the social chapter at all.

Kashmir
1 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I am pleased to introduce this short debate on the future of Kashmir. I have notified the Minister that the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) hope to contribute briefly. I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) are in their places, together with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—all of whom have taken a considerable interest in the Kashmir dispute over many years.
Since 1990, there has been a popular insurrection by the people of Kashmir in support of the right of self-determination, for which they have struggled in the face of a determined effort to eradicate their state. We have seen the displacement of 2 million Kashmiris over a long period, the killing of 40,000 Kashmiris, the murder of an entire generation of young Kashmiris, and the transfer of large numbers of non-Kashmiris to Kashmir, with the clear objective of diluting the indigenous population and facilitating a more favourable electorate.
We have seen the occupation of Kashmir by 700,000 members of the Indian forces—one member of the Indian security forces for every 10 Kashmiris. We have seen the systematic destruction of the local economy, grievous pollution of the Kashmiri environment, gross human rights violations, systematic curfews, house searches, rape, torture, detention without trial and disappearances.
We have seen an orchestrated bid to remove political and other leaders of the Kashmiri people by assassination and disappearance, and sustained efforts to erode the Kashmiri language and culture. All that has occurred over many long years.
The recent elections in Kashmir were widely condemned by the international media, who reported widespread intimidation and coercion of Kashmiri people by Indian military forces. Before the elections, there was one member of the Indian military forces for every four Kashmiris.
The British Government have equivocated in the face of challenges to the free and fair nature of those elections. It was absurd of the Government to refuse to publish a report by a British high commission official from Delhi who observed the Kashmir elections, on the ground that it was a confidential internal document. That absurdity caused widespread concern in the House and outside, and I hope that the Minister will say today that the report will be published, so that we may all know the views of the British official who was asked to observe the elections.
The current view of the Indian Government is that state elections will take place in September. It is important that candidates should not be required to sign a declaration of support for the Indian constitution, and essential that a large number of international observers are present in Kashmir to monitor the elections.
The new Indian Government have received an overwhelming welcome. We all wish Prime Minister Gowda well in overcoming the awesome problems facing his country. Senior members of his Cabinet are known for their sympathetic understanding of the Kashmir dispute, which they have demonstrated in courageous ways in the past. I think particularly of Foreign Minister Gujral, Home Minster Gupta, and Defence Minister Yadav of the United Front Government of India.
314
A recently published document, "The United Front: A Common Approach to Major Policy Matters and a Minimum Programme" concludes:
"India today is in the midst of a major transition in its economic, social and political life. This is a transition period which will be guided by the need to strengthen the principles of democracy, secularism, federalism and social justice. The ethos of our humanist tradition and the aspirations of the Independence struggle inspire the United Front Government to carry out the above programme. In the building of this new India of equality, justice and fraternity, we seek the fullest participation of all citizens. The hallmark of the United Front Government's approach will be the greater and greater involvement of our people in all its endeavours."
The section on Jammu and Kashmir states:
"the problems of Jammu and Kashmir will be resolved through giving the people of that State the maximum degree of autonomy."
That important statement comes from a new Government who have clearly broken the mould of Indian politics, which will never be the same again now that the Gandhi dynasty has been broken. In the climate of enormous opportunities and challenges that that presents, the British Government should say what they propose to do. This country has a shared history with the Indian subcontinent. The core reasons for the Kashmir conflict go back to before independence in 1947. We carry an enormous responsibility for the present situation. The situation in Kashmir today is unacceptable to the international community and to the vast majority of the British public, including the Kashmiri community in this country.
Do the Government have the will and political determination to encourage talks between the Governments of India and Pakistan—if necessary, talks about talks? The UK convened several conferences to resolve the Bosnian conflict. Why not a conference in London to find a way out of the Kashmir conflict? We have appointed a special envoy to try to resolve the Cyprus dispute. Why not a special envoy to do the same in respect of Kashmir? There are close parallels.
Will the British Government press the Indian Government to allow access to Kashmir by UN rapporteurs—particularly those responsible for investigating torture and executions? It is intolerable that successive Indian Governments have isolated the people, problems and conflicts of Kashmir from world and international opinion. They have consistently refused Amnesty International and other human rights groups access to Kashmir and the right to move freely around the country.
Will our Government now press the new Government of India to allow human rights groups access to Kashmir? Will they press the new Government of India to grant visas to Lord Avebury and an international mission which applied for visas weeks ago, which wishes to mediate on the hostages taken more than a year ago in Kashmir? We shall all appreciate it if the Minister gives us the latest reports on the hostages.
We should remember that the people of Kashmir have demonstrated against and condemned the taking of hostages and condemned those who were responsible for taking the hostages, who were kidnapped more than a year ago. Several leading Kashmiri politicians have sought to mediate and ensure that those hostages are released immediately alive and well. So Kashmiri politicians and the Kashmiri people do not condone hostage-taking. Indeed, their struggle is for the right to self-determination and it is clearly based on democratic means.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since 1947, there have been elections in Kashmir, and democratic Governments have been established who have not at any stage demanded independent status for the people of Kashmir? Does he accept that there is outside interference, and that the terrorists who are killing ordinary people are being armed from outside? Those who have taken up arms are not even citizens of Pakistan, but citizens of other countries.
Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend has a perfect right to express his views. I do not agree entirely with all that he says. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is clear that a popular insurrection is under way in Kashmir, which is based on the determined struggle for the right to self-determination. The outcome of self-determination is for the people of Kashmir. We are concerned that the people of Kashmir should be given an early opportunity to decide the destiny of their country.
Will the British Government press the Government of India to allow journalists from around the world freely to report what is happening in Kashmir, and to allow Members of this House and the other place easy access to visas to enable them to visit Kashmir and talk to the people of Kashmir?
Kashmir represents today the most serious threat to regional peace. Both India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir. Both now have nuclear capability. Both countries are using enormous amounts of scarce resources to purchase military hardware and pursue a military solution in Kashmir. That is unavailable; there is no military solution to the Kashmiri conflict. There can be only a political solution. We need to encourage India and Pakistan to declare war on poverty and use their scarce resources to relieve the awesome poverty that both countries confront, and not to pursue military means of resolving the Kashmiri conflict.
Her Majesty's Government have a key role to play. They have a responsibility to find a lasting, peaceful, political settlement. I hope today that we may hear from the Minister some change of thinking and, more particularly, some indication of what action Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take. A more proactive, robust role would be widely welcomed, and might bring a resolution to the conflict earlier rather than later.
1.13 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for the opportunity to participate in this most valuable debate. One of the encouraging aspects of the long dispute in Kashmir is that, for many years, there has been a bipartisan or tripartisan approach to the issue among Back-Bench Members.
The long conflict over Kashmir can be regarded only as a terrible tragedy, not only for the people of Kashmir but for all the people of the subcontinent. Kashmir's status is essentially the nub of the serious tension which exists between the two great powers of India and Pakistan. It is difficult to imagine the enormous cost to both countries of maintaining such substantial defence forces, which are largely devoted to this single conflict in a small part of south Asia. As the hon. Member for Bradford, West said, the cost greatly outweighs the resources devoted to education, health and social services in the subcontinent.
316
Britain and other aid-giving countries cannot be indifferent to the disparities in Kashmir. Therefore, although the conflict cannot ultimately be resolved without the commitment of both India and Pakistan, we have a duty to express our concern, and exert some pressure on the parties to negotiate seriously about the future of the territory.
As the hon. Member said, the irregularities and abuses in the most recent elections were well documented in the world's media. New elections for an assembly are now planned by India, and it is most important that international observers should be allowed to be present. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will put some pressure on India to allow that to take place.
The nature of the powers in south Asia in the world today make the dispute in Kashmir one of the most intransigent and dangerous. I hope that, in the 50th year since independence and partition, if we cannot look forward to an imminent resolution, at least some significant progress can be made towards that happy outcome.
1.16 pm
Ms Liz Lynne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for allowing me a little time to intervene in this debate. It is a shame that we have such a short debate. I should like us to have a long debate in the House in Government time about Kashmir.
We are all aware of the documented evidence of torture. We know that cases of rape occur daily. It is intolerable for the people of Indian-controlled Kashmir that the situation should continue. I hope that the Government will use their good offices with the new Indian Government—there is hope now because there is a new Indian Government—to persuade them to come to the negotiating table along with Pakistan to find a just solution and to consult the people of Kashmir. The people of Kashmir have a right to self-determination and to discuss and decide their own future. We cannot continue in this way.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance today that he and his Government are prepared to put pressure on India to make sure that the human rights abuses stop and that India comes to the negotiating table.
1.18 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for requesting this debate. I know that the Kashmiri situation continues to be a matter of great concern to him and his constituents and to many others on both sides of the House, as the debate demonstrates. It is also a matter of serious concern to the Government, as I am sure everyone is aware. Therefore, I am pleased to have an opportunity to explain the Government's thinking on this difficult issue.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is the new Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. As from the end of this debate, he will have direct responsibility for south Asia, in which I wish him well. He is assiduous in his research.

317
I can assure the hon. Member for Bradford, West that we pay close attention to developments in Kashmir. That has always been the case, and it is even more so now. Indeed, for more than a year we have had a permanent presence in Srinagar as part of our continuing efforts to secure the release of two British citizens, Paul Wells and Keith Mangan, who were kidnapped by militants last summer. They were taken, together with an American, a German and a Norwegian, in early July 1995. Very sadly, the Norwegian was killed in August 1995, and we have not had proof of life for the others since 28 August 1995.
We should not debate the subject of Kashmir without remembering the suffering that all the hostages' families have been through, and continue to endure. Members of the Foreign Office's consular division are in contact with them daily. Our thoughts are always with them and their loved ones as efforts continue in Delhi, Islamabad, Srinagar and capitals throughout the world to find out what has happened to them. These four are caught in an issue that is not of their making, and we owe them all our efforts.
Hostage taking is counter-productive. The kidnapping of Paul, Keith and the others has done nothing but harm to the Kashmir cause. Political leaders in the valley know that. We are grateful to those who have demanded the release of our citizens. We ask those political leaders, and others, to redouble their efforts to help us to establish what has happened to the four of them.
Kashmir has been a theatre of conflict for far too long. The Kashmiri people deserve better than to live their lives in an atmosphere of violence and intimidation. It is 10 years since I was last there, but I remember the beauty of the landscape and the friendliness of the people. Kashmir's reputation has led many thousands of tourists to the edge of Lake Srinagar, to trek into the hills or to buy the excellent carpetware for which the region is rightly famed. Kashmir had a successful tourist industry, but it is no more—the insurgency has ended that. It has brought danger to the region. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office now advises British visitors not to go. We do not want more kidnaps.
Kashmir has been a theatre of conflict for too long. It continues to bedevil relations between two great countries, India and Pakistan, two great friends of the United Kingdom. We regret that.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with our policy on Kashmir. We believe that the way forward must involve simultaneous progress on three fronts. The first is bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan. Self-evidently, both India and Pakistan are crucial to a settlement, but it is not easy, because they are two neighbours who do not talk. We would like them to, not only on Kashmir but on the full range of bilateral issues, and we have told them so and written to tell them so.
The atmosphere now is encouraging—better than it has been for some time, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West rightly deduced. Since the election of a United Front Government in Delhi, both sides have expressed a willingness to resume talks. We warmly welcomed that. This might initially be at senior official level, continuing talks last held in January 1994. There is no agreement to
318
do so yet, but quiet diplomacy is continuing behind the scenes. We take this opportunity to urge both sides again to agree to hold talks.
Now is surely the right time. It is 25 years since India and Pakistan last went to war. Twenty-five years after the second world war, victors and vanquished had formed new alliances. They had recognised that it made more sense to work together for common prosperity, as equal partners, than to turn their backs on one another. The same could be true in south Asia.
If India and Pakistan do resume talks, I hope that they will agree to open a new chapter in their relationship, to try to establish greater trust between the two Governments and the two peoples. We are keen for greater links to be developed between the two—more trade, more tourism, more exchanges. The hostility that has existed between these two great countries, both Commonwealth nations, with so much in common, has spawned, fanned and sustained the violence in Kashmir.
But what about the Kashmiris? Should they not have a say in the future of their home? Yes, of course they should. An improvement in the relationship between India and Pakistan is a sine qua non for any lasting settlement to the Kashmir problem; but equally important is the development of a genuine political process in which the aspirations of the population can be accommodated. We have not spelt out what that process should be, because it is not for us to do so, but we have said that elections can be part of the process.
There has been much interest in the House in the parliamentary elections held recently in Kashmir. Members on both sides of the House have criticised them, noting specifically the allegations of coercion that were reported in the Indian and international press. We saw those reports of pressure being exerted on people to vote, reports which we are not in a position to dismiss. The elections were not perfect—the statements of the Indian election commissioners implicitly recognise that—but the issue is peace and how to get there.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in the House on 10 July, free and fair elections can play a part in leading the way from violence towards dialogue and a political settlement of these difficult problems. The voting in the parliamentary elections showed that elections there can take place, and that many of the population want to vote. They are fed up with violence; they want peace. We can all sympathise with that, because terrorism does not offer a way forward. Democracy does.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West mentioned the publication of the high commission's report on the elections. The report was written by one member of our high commission who visited Kashmir during the elections. It is not possible to publish a copy of the report, and it is therefore not possible to place it in the Library of the House, because it is a confidential internal document. I believe that it contains critical information, which we should absorb. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the internal report very seriously.
It is important that we try to encourage elections, and that they be free and fair.
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that time is short.

319
I too very much welcome the opportunity for the Kashmiri people to express their opinions, but does the Minister accept that it is crucial to a democratic process that people be allowed the right to say what they want and to express their opinions on the whole political position? Is it not the case that the elections that the Indians are talking about would take place on the basis that, unless candidates subscribed to the Indian constitution, they would be committing acts of treason, were they to advocate, for example, that Kashmir should not be part of India? That surely cannot be a true democratic process.
Mr. Hanky: The House should be aware that the Indian authorities want to hold state elections in Kashmir in the autumn; these will be the first state elections since 1987, and will bring an end to President's rule from Delhi. It is only right that the people in Jammu and Kashmir should have the right to elect local representatives and be governed by them, and we hope that, if elections are held, militants and political leaders in the valley will allow those who wish to participate to do so, and that the wishes of those who prefer not to vote will be respected.
If the Indian Government decided to invite international observers to monitor the elections, we would definitely welcome that, and it would enable the elections—
Mr. Toby Jessel: Would my right hon. Friend briefly give way?
Mr. Hartley: As long as it is very brief.
Mr. Jessel: I said "briefly". In welcoming these provincial elections, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it would be quite wrong if anyone was scared off voting by militant terrorists?
Mr. Hartley: Absolutely; indeed, I have just said that. I agree with my hon. Friend.
If the Indian Government decided to invite observers, we would welcome it; it would allow the elections to take place in an atmosphere of greater trust—that is something that has been lacking in previous elections. Furthenmore, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said on 10 July, it would make an important and significant contribution to the credibility of any electoral process in such a sensitive area.
320
Elections must be part of the process, but there must be a dialogue between the Indian Government in Delhi and the political leaders in Kashmir if peace is to return, and the development of a genuine political process is important. So too is the improvement of human rights there. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) spoke graphically on that subject.
The situation continues to cause us grave concern. Members of the security forces continue to be implicated in allegations of human rights abuses. Recently, there have been some improvements in the position, but we should like to see more.
The greatest threat to human rights in the region is the cycle of violence that the local population has had to suffer since the insurgency began. We have long called for an end to external support for this violence, but, sadly, it continues. Indeed, it seems likely that many of those responsible for the kidnapping of Paul Wells and Keith Mangan were not Kashmiris.
I recognise that terrorist violence makes life difficult for the security forces in Kashmir, and that they are there in large numbers. As hon. Members know only too well, terrorism must not be allowed to triumph, and tough action is necessary. But the fight against terrorism must not compromise respect for human rights. We know that from Northern Ireland, where our forces are conscious of the need to respect human rights in maintaining law and order.
I am grateful that the Indian Government are showing a willingness to give access to outside observers and international humanitarian organisations. A key development was their agreement in the past year to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Kashmir.
So what can the UK do? First, it is not right for us to seek to impose a solution. It is for those directly involved to discuss the way forward. I am often asked by those who fail to understand the complexity of the situation why the UK could not mediate. Mediation would work only if the fundamental conditions were right, and both India and Pakistan wanted it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The next debate is on the defence industry in the north-west. I call Mr. Nigel Evans.

Defence Industry (North-west)
1.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this vital issue concerning the importance of defence manufacturing in the north-west and I am delighted to have the support of so many of my colleagues from both within and outside the north-west. Those include, from outside the north-west, my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and, from within the north-west, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) will be interested in some of what I shall say and would wish to participate if he could, but I am extremely grateful to see him in his place.
I am also pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for Southport (Mr. Banks), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans). Opposition Members from the north-west include the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) must also be interested in this debate.
Britain has a long and distinguished history in international affairs, which has bequeathed us a unique role on the world stage today, from the time when the sun never set on the British empire to present-day conflicts. We are the only country to be a member of NATO, the European Union, the Western European Union, the Commonwealth and the Group of Seven leading industrial countries, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
As President Chirac noted earlier this year, Britain has a long tradition of action abroad. That proud tradition has continued under this Government, with our troops, aircraft and Navy not only protecting our protectorates and assets abroad, such as the Falklands, but participating in grand coalitions of states enforcing the rule of law. That can be seen time and again—for example, in the Gulf, when our Tornado fighters, built in the north-west, were the first to brave enemy anti-aircraft fire and bomb Baghdad, and, more recently, in Bosnia, with UNPROFOR enforcing the peace process.
We are still a nation with a global reach. Even if it is not all that it once was, we can still hold up our heads with pride. For example, in one month in 1995, British forces were deployed or carrying out exercises in more than 30 different parts of the world. We are proud to continue that tradition, but we must ensure that our troops continue to be the best armed in the world.
Defence procurement now goes some way to achieving that goal. It accounts for 40 per cent. of our defence budget. It is important to maintain technical superiority, the like of which we have in the north-west. The importance of defence procurement to the economy as a whole and in the north-west in particular is beyond question. Some 38 per cent. of net manufacturing output in the north-west is directly related to aerospace products, which are affiliated to the Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace. Its 127 member companies range from British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and GEC to smaller companies, some with only five or six employees.
The number of jobs involved is staggering. Up to 40,000 people are employed in the industry. At least two other jobs depend on every aerospace job. We can see the
322
devastating effect that the cancellation or refusal of an order can have on the area from the loss of a 10-year lead in electronics and thousands of jobs when the TSR2 was cancelled by the then Labour Government in 1965 because it allegedly cost too much.
That was especially important to British Aerospace in Preston, where thousands of jobs were lost. The effect on the local economy was so severe that people still discuss the loss of that order today. We must not allow such catastrophes to happen again, as they would if Labour ever had a chance to put into operation its plan to slash defence by £4.5 billion. New Labour would certainly mean new danger to jobs in the north-west.
Today, the British armed forces are better armed and equipped than they have ever been, not only in high-tech weaponry but in boots and clothing, and I congratulate the Government on that considerable achievement. To continue it, we must guarantee the success of the British defence industry, especially the expertise and skills for which the north-west has become famous.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble and I have visited British Aerospace, Samlesbury, in my constituency several times and marvelled at the skills there. Many people from all our constituencies work in the factories there, and at Warton just outside my constituency. Their projects include the Eurofighter, which is set to be a major success, despite the fact that, only a few months ago, there was a major dispute between the four partner nations—Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy—over who should get how many finished aircraft, and over the flight control system.
The Eurofighter is a magnificent aircraft, which I saw in flight at Warton recently. It has advantages over all its competitors, particularly the American F22, which, although it allegedly has a better flight control system, could cost £20 million more per plane. The French Rafale, although roughly the same price, is easily out-performed by the Eurofighter, and the far cheaper Swedish Grippen is much inferior.
We must never forget the strategic importance of having a manufacturing base that is capable of producing aircraft such as the Eurofighter. It has an extremely good chance of being a commercial success, which can but benefit this country. An amazing number of jobs are tied into that project. Once British Aerospace has received the production investment go ahead, the number of people directly employed on the project will be 2,000. That does not include outside contractors or service industry providers, of which there are many.
According to an article in The Times earlier this week, if the aircraft is as big a success as early indications suggest, as it has advantages over all its main rivals, it will have a significant impact on dole queues in the Lancashire area. I urge the Government not to ignore that.
Defence is the life-blood of the north-west economy, and we have become world beaters in that area. It is essential, however, that the Government make the right choices in their procurement programme—unlike the Labour Government of the 1960s who, through their short-sighted penny pinching, consigned many skilled Lancashire workers to the scrap heap and lost us a massive lead in military technology, which filters through to civilian life and benefits us all.

323
Opposition Members call for diversification, but we must remember the importance of the defence manufacturing industry to the north-west, the fact that the skills base remains in the north-west, and that exports and research are important.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I was about to refer to the Nimrod upgrade.
As the prime contractor and design authority for Nimrod 2000, British Aerospace will take responsibility for many aspects of the plane, including the flight and test evaluation. All management and integration tasks will be carried out at Warton, thereby ensuring the retention and development of those key technologies for future airborne weapon system platforms.
But it is not only British Aerospace that will benefit directly from a contract of that size. Arrangements are in place for north-west industry to gain from contracts. Indeed, 68 companies already benefit from the £50 million-plus-worth of business that comes their way each year as subcontractors to British Aerospace Military Aircraft division alone. However, the Nimrod contract will be worth £212 million to the region as a whole.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: Several hon. Members from the north-west contacted me earlier to ask whether I would give way to them during the debate. I said yes to all those hon. Members, none of whom included Opposition Members.
The Nimrod contract represents a total of 5,825 jobs in the north-west. Of those, 3,000 jobs will go, directly and indirectly, to British Aerospace, Warton. In addition, more than 1,500 jobs will go to subcontractors in the region, and a further 1,250 will go to other British Aerospace plants in the area.
As well as the immediate effects that a contract will bring, the export potential for the Nimrod 2000 has been examined by British Aerospace and the Department of Trade and Industry. They have estimated that the export market is worth more than £9 billion over the next 25 to 30 years, addressing both upgrades to existing fleets in the short term and the building of new aircraft after 2015 in the long term.
Mr. Robert Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he would wish to associate his remarks with our hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in whose constituency Warton is located and who cannot be present for the debate due to ministerial commitments. Will my hon. Friend, the Minister and his scribe accept that it is not acceptable to delay the procurement projects that affect the north-west and other areas beyond the next few days? The decisions have been taken, and the agreements have almost been made. The Treasury must now give the go-ahead, and we expect that to occur very soon.
Mr. Evans: I am extremely concerned about the delay in giving the order for the replacement maritime aircraft. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has already made a decision. Many workers in the north-west and elsewhere expect that order to be given, and the delay is extremely worrying for them.
Sir John Cope: I apologise for intervening in a debate about the north-west, but the issue is also important for my part of the country. I think that the Treasury must realise that, if it abuses the tender process by delaying beyond the arranged timetable, future orders will cost more.
Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have referred to the Nimrod's export potential when the contract is awarded. A union official from British Aerospace contacted me this morning. He said that, if the awarding of the contract is delayed further, firms may not be able to keep their technical work forces together. We risk losing that skills base if we delay much longer.
The Chamber must send a message today, on behalf of those hon. Members who are interested in the matter, that the Government must pull their finger out. Many people are waiting for the order to be given; they want to get on with it, as many jobs and export orders depend upon it.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the north-west, like the two of us, and others, would be wronged if the process were reopened after decisions had been taken at the instigation of an American aerospace company? That would go down badly in the United Kingdom, particularly in the north-west.
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We understand that the decision has been taken, and the Government must now act to secure those jobs in this country.
Mr. Robert Key: The people in the south of England care about the matter very much. Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read today's Defence Select Committee report on the defence estimates, which says that it will not be able to recommend the defence estimates to the House when they are debated in October unless the Government fulfil the contract and the rest of the defence estimates as promised?
Mr. Evans: I have not yet had the happy opportunity of reading that report. However, I know that it is important to hon. Members that the contract be awarded as soon as possible. Many people expected that to occur before the House rose today, but I understand that the contract will be given during the recess.
Our message is loud and clear: the order contract must be awarded as soon as possible. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, who cannot speak in the debate, has heard that message. I am sure that he will pass it on to those who need to hear it, so that action can be taken.
Other aircraft and missile orders besides Nimrod are important. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) is interested in the matter as well. For instance, there is the Hawk trainer aircraft. I am delighted to see several Labour Members in the Chamber, some of whom signed the early-day motion in an attempt to prevent the export orders of Hawks to Indonesia using bogus information supplied by people who have no interest in defence manufacturing in this country. They would happily see those jobs exported to France, Germany and Sweden. I am delighted that the Government are turning a blind eye to them, and will

325
support those exports. It is important for defence manufacturing skills in the north-west that we support the Hawk trainer aircraft.
As well as jobs in the defence manufacturing industry, many other jobs in related industries will be affected. Local hotels, shops and other businesses provide services to defence manufacturing. We saw the damage that was done during the 1960s when the TSR2 order was cancelled. British Aerospace in Preston lost many jobs, and there was an enormous knock-on effect throughout the economy. People talk about those job losses even today.
I turn now to Royal Ordnance, as I have concentrated mainly on British Aerospace aircraft. It is a major employer in my area. Other companies involved in the defence industry provide many jobs in my constituency.
Mr. Atkins: Leyland Trucks.
Mr. Evans: Including Leyland Trucks, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
Royal Ordnance has three offices in the north-west, at Chorley, Blackburn and Radway Green, which between them employ 1,500 highly qualified technical and managerial staff. They also use several dozen subcontractors, and that accounts for a further 5,000 jobs. The peace dividend has meant falling orders for the north-west. The company is finding it difficult to compete against overseas competitors, which are often state-sponsored.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has taken several trips at the behest of British Aerospace. Should he not declare an interest in the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Chamber is not the place to make such complaints. All hon. Members are familiar with the procedures of the House. They know that they can declare an interest in the House if they so desire, or through the Register of Members' Interests.
Mr. Evans: I have no problems with that; the information is there for all to see. British Aerospace, Samlesbury, is in my constituency, and, unlike the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I stand up and speak in support of my constituents' jobs. I am not trying to destroy their jobs; I am backing them.
I call upon the Ministry of Defence to look seriously at the imminent contract for the SRA 1236 competition for a stand-off bunker-busting weapon, and to consider the implications for the north-west, without compromising the quality of weaponry in the infantry, should the contract go abroad. I am sure that some of the old doubts remain: such as, should we spend vast sums of money developing our own aircraft and munitions when we could buy cheaper abroad? That is an extremely dangerous path to tread.
No one could call me a friend of subsidies—I deplore the propping up of ailing state industries, many of which would be recreated under a Labour Government. However, our lean armaments industry is neither subsidised nor ailing. I am afraid that, if we ignore the
326
strategic importance of the defence industry in the north-west and destroy it, we will never get it back. We will lose those skilled workers to France, Germany, the United States and elsewhere. We cannot afford to lose the technological and the strategic edge.
For example, if we were to import cheap Russian planes because the market is good at present and there is easy access to spares and munitions, what would happen if a hardline nationalist or communist took over in the Kremlin and denied us access to those parts? We would have squandered our technological lead, and we would be at the mercy of an unfriendly power. I urge the Government to take that factor into consideration.
There are other projects in the pipeline, such as the future large aircraft and the future offensive aircraft. We must ensure that we award the orders and contracts and look to the long-term future of the British defence manufacturing industry—of which hon. Members should be proud, rather than sitting back and carping at every opportunity. We must get behind that industry and support those men and women who are producing the aircraft, and who are taking a lead in exporting to the world and providing a great service to this country.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean no disrespect to the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, but several hon. Members were expecting the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to come to the Dispatch Box and make an announcement about the replacement maritime patrol aircraft, which affects hundreds of my constituents who work for British Aerospace in Prestwick. I ask you to demand that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement comes to the Dispatch Box today to answer the call by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), and to make that statement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is for the Government to decide who appears at the Dispatch Box.
1.48 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate, and on using the opportunity to raise the defence industry's interests in the north-west. I know that he and other hon. Members representing constituencies in the region—not least my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), who is in his place sharing the ministerial Bench with me—work hard to impress on the Government the importance of the industry.
I also mention my right hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Southport (Mr. Banks), for Chorley (Mr. Dover), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). If I have missed out any others, I apologise. I shall be even-handed in this matter, because I recognise the interest of the constituency of Bury—
Mr. Pike: Burnley.
Mr. Taylor: Burnley—I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I know Burnley, at the top end of the Rossendale valley, because my father came from Whitworth, so the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that it was a mere slip of the tongue.
I recognise the interest of the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), where my mother was born, and the interest of even the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
Mr. Matthew Banks: And our hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
Mr. Taylor: And our hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
Mr. Atkins: Hot Ayr.
Mr. Taylor: That was an unworthy intervention. I recognise the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now that the Leader of the House is in his place and as he is responsible for business, would it not be appropriate for him to bring the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the Chamber so that he could be told—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that. It is a matter for the Government to decide who is at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Taylor: It is important for me to place it on the record, for the benefit of Members on both sides of the Chamber, that the questions under consideration are for decision by the Government. They are under the closest consideration, and there is not much more to it than that—except that, in our different roles, I share with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester the responsibility for letting other Ministers know just how forceful have been the opinions expressed, and their importance in relation to the north-west in particular, and to other regions as well. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that I will not short-change them in getting across the strength of their message.
Dr. John Reid: No one in here feels anything—
Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
Dr. Reid: At least I am here, unlike the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who has not had the guts to come in and explain to the House why important defence contracts, which have been delayed for a year, have been further delayed. Why is he not here to respond to the defence procurement issues that have been raised?
Mr. Taylor: I defer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in all matters of order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rising on a point of order, so I resumed my place. As it is, he has merely taken up valuable time that I should like to have spent addressing my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The contribution of the north-west to this industry is a major one. It is estimated that, in 1993–94, 12,000 people were employed directly by the defence industry in the north-west. The full employment impact is, of course, much greater, given the multiplier effects on indirect employment.
There are well-known centres of excellence in the north-west. British Aerospace Military Aircraft, based at Warton and Samlesbury, is world famous for producing a succession of splendid aircraft. The Hawk, Harrier, Tornado and now Eurofighter are all world-competitive products, of which the region can be justly proud. British Aerospace is the United Kingdom's leading exporter of manufactured goods. GEC Marine's VSEL shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness is another such centre. As Minister with special responsibility for the north-west, I visit the region regularly, and I hope to visit the Barrow region in the near future.
Behind those companies, however, lies a long supply chain of smaller companies whose interests must not be ignored. They are the backbone of the competitiveness of our major defence equipment suppliers.
Mr. Pike: I accept that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has rightly made the case for British Aerospace, but many small companies are also involved in the Orion project. Will the Minister recognise that those companies and their jobs are just as important to the north-west and to Lancashire as British Aerospace is?
Mr. Taylor: The north-west and small companies in the north-west have been handsomely represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends. They have no equivocation in their responsibility for supporting—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Taylor: I fell to the temptation of wanting to be direct in engaging with my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I should like say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my right hon. and hon. Friends have no difficulty or equivocation in standing up for small business, for large defence contractors and for the defence of their country generally. They have no difficulty reconciling those duties, and they discharge them admirably.
I cannot say the same for Labour Members, who have a long history of not wanting to be associated in any way with the export of arms that are intended for destruction. Those who can come to terms with this country's fighting requirements can look that straight in the eye and have no problem with it, but Labour Members are humbugs on this subject.
Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making statements that are not correct, and he should be careful that he does not mislead the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is responsible for his own speech. I hope that I shall not get any further points of order that are not genuine points of order. I have waited in vain for many years to get one of those in this place, and I have not succeeded yet.
Mr. Taylor: Having been rebuked, but kindly, by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, once already today, I shall endeavour to discharge the rest of the debate in a manner that is as helpful as possible to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley.
I want my hon. Friend to know that my Department has been active in seeking to ensure that smaller suppliers' interests are not ignored. This activity has included working with the Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace in developing their role in providing support to companies in the north-west. The Department of Trade and Industry has also funded the Society of British Aerospace Companies' competitiveness challenge programme. The British Aerospace Military Aircraft division at Warton played a significant part in the programme by leading the work on supply chains.
If I may, I should like to focus on the aerospace industry for a moment, as it accounts for the largest element of Government expenditure, in terms of both defence programmes and important civil programmes, the latter of which are supported by Government through launch aid and the DTI's research and demonstration scheme, CARAD—the civil aviation research and demonstration scheme.
My Department has an especially strong relationship with the industry, which was reflected in the joint statement issued by the DTI and the Society of British Aerospace Companies towards the end of 1995. Our developing relationship was fully recognised by the society through the launch of its national aerospace framework earlier this year.
This is an impressive document, and I pay tribute to the society and to its leading company members for producing one of the most systematic documents produced by an industrial sector that I have seen. The
330
framework provides an excellent basis for the trade association, member companies and the Government to work together in partnership to benefit industry and the economy as a whole. I hope that the society will continue to work with the DTI on updating the document.
Government are, of course, close to the defence industry.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Taylor: No. I have little time to try to conclude the debate.
The Ministry of Defence is British industry's largest customer, and all its decisions on major procurements impact greatly on industry, including companies in the north-west. My Department is the sponsor of the industry, and we have recognised the importance of the sector by setting up the aerospace and defence industries directorate earlier this year. The directorate provides the focus for the DTI's relations with the industry, and works with the MOD on defence procurement policy and projects.
The Government have made it clear in their statements on defence procurement policy—for example, in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in May—that industrial implications will be thoroughly examined in all procurement decisions. That is certainly true of the current procurements that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Earlier this year, the Defence and the Trade and Industry Select Committees made recommendations regarding my Department's role in assessing the bids for Ministry of Defence procurement competitions. Indeed, the Committees expressed some satisfaction with the DTI's role in major procurement cases. The Committees urged the Government to extend that role to include smaller procurements.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Assisted Places
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent consultations she has had with independent schools concerning the assisted places scheme. [37265]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I regularly discuss the assisted places scheme with representatives of independent schools.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of the assisted places scheme to many children and their parents in Batley and Spen? Is she also aware that many people consider the scheme to be good value for money? It would be abolished by the Opposition, who cannot even get their own sums right.
    Mrs. Gillan: I am well aware of the value of the assisted places scheme to many families and children throughout the country, including, in my hon. Friend's constituency, those who attend Batley grammar school. My hon. Friend is right: assisted pupils obtain good results—better results than similar maintained school pupils. Assisted pupils obtain up to three A-level grades over all subjects. The Labour party is completely wrong—at best, it has got its mathematics wrong and at worst, it is playing a con trick. Completely phasing out the assisted places scheme would still save only about £24 million a year, provide fewer than 1,000 extra teachers and reduce average infant class sizes by less than half a pupil. It is still nowhere near the Opposition's pledge to eliminate classes of more than 30 pupils.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the hon. Lady know that, since its inception, the scheme has taken approximately £20 million in Wales? Does she accept that it would have been far better to have spent that sum on modernising, extending and refurbishing the older schools? Why not ditch the assisted places scheme, and the wretched voucher scheme?
    Mrs. Gillan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The average cost of an assisted place is somewhat higher, but of the same order as an average maintained pupil place. The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that 80 per cent. of the assisted pupils come from socio-economic groups C1 and E—the lower-middle and working classes. The scheme is of great value to parents and pupils throughout the country.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says about the scheme, but may I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider reintroducing in the next Parliament the direct grant scheme, which was infinitely better than the assisted places scheme?
    Mrs. Gillan: I will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says about the direct grant scheme but, as we all know, many of the direct grant schools were forced to become independent schools by the policies of the last Labour Government, if anyone can remember them.
    Mr. Kilfoyle:I congratulate the Secretary of State on obtaining extra money for the assisted places scheme, thus enabling the imminent Labour Government to reduce class sizes more quickly. Will she now fight for equivalent funding for the 86,000 extra children who are to be in the system this year and the 60,000 who are to be in it next year on the same basis as she proposes to subsidise the independent schools under the assisted places scheme?
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is up to his old tricks. He knows that the cost of the scheme is £114 million this year, rising to £118 million next year. He also knows that he could not phase out the scheme immediately as, under present legislation, it would take three years to phase it out. He has repeatedly asserted that the money would be used to reduce class sizes, but in the first year of phasing out, he would save no more than £5 million. However, if those children were educated back in the maintained sector at the cost per head of educating a child at Hackney Downs, there would be no change from the money that we put into the assisted places scheme.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the Labour party is against assisted places in schools but in favour of assisted places in the shadow Cabinet?
    Mrs. Gillan: If the Labour party is so keen to abolish assisted places, it had better start at home first.

    Access to Work
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to monitor the impact of the new employer contributions on support for disabled people through the access to work scheme. [37266]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): TheEmployment Service will be monitoring the new arrangements for access to work to ensure continuing effective help for disabled people.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Is it not already clear that this new scheme, by its reduced funding compared with that of the original scheme, is already having an adverse effect on both employed and self-employed disabled people, as they must now rely for equipment on their employers or fund it themselves? Does the Minister accept that the scheme will have a particularly adverse effect on people who are self-employed, who work in small firms or who are in voluntary organisations that employ many disabled people? Does he think that it is fair for the Government to impose a penalty on employers who have the best record on employment of disabled people?
    Mr. Paice: No, I do not accept the points made by the hon. Gentleman. First, there is a considerable increase in funding for access to work this year compared with

    333
    funding for the original scheme—it is up by 50 per cent. Secondly, the contributions that would be expected either from an employer or from a self-employed individual are capped, and the average contributions are extremely low. On average, a self-employed person would be expected to pay £240, and, based on experience, it is likely that an employer would be expected to pay £540. I think that those are perfectly reasonable contributions to expect people to make to help disabled people. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the access to work scheme is designed to help employers and individuals overcome problems created by disability. As has always been the case, if people are unemployed—I think that we would all agree that they are in the most need—they will make no contribution at all.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On all the evidence available to the Minister, does he accept that employer contributions are unfair to small businesses and to the self-employed? If the Minister really wants to support small firms and self-employed disabled people, will he now review their liability to pay up to £2,000 a year under access to work? Does the Minister accept that small firms simply do not understand why they are exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 but not from employer contributions under access to work? What is the difference?
    Mr. Paice: The difference is in the legislation.
    Mr. Clarke: Which one was wrong?
    Mr. Paice: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is making these points, because he totally opposed any exclusion for small firms in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Labour party—to a man and to a woman—went through the Lobbies on that legislation against the interests of small firms. It is somewhat hypocritical now to pray in aid the support of small businesses. The fact is that, as always, we have had to find a balance between cost to the taxpayer and the help that we want to provide to the disabled. I am amazed to find that the hon. Gentleman continues to be part of that group of Labour Members who seem to believe that the public purse is bottomless.

    Schools (Security)
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to enhance the security of schools. [37267]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): This question is about school security. Given that the matter of children's safety is involved in the answer to it, however, I should like to express my sympathy and that of Conservative Members to the parents, family and friends of Caroline Dickinson, the Cornish schoolgirl who was so tragically murdered last week in France. I should like also to express our sympathy and support for the head, governors and staff of her school, Launceston college.
    The Government have accepted in full the 22 recommendations of the working group on school security.
    Mr. Spring: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reassuring comments. What she said about the recent tragedies is endorsed by all hon. Members.
    334
    Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful bids made by two schools in my constituency—St. Felix middle school in Newmarket and Mildenhall upper school—for closed circuit television, which will be greatly welcomed not only by parents, governors and teachers but by the community at large?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome. More than 100 schools have been able to benefit from the Home Office's CCTV scheme, which will be a useful addition to the security of children at the schools involved.
    Mr. Turner: I know that the Secretary of State has already expressed sympathy to the parents, children and, indeed, the whole community in Wolverhampton, who were devastated by the tragic attack on the children and adults at St. Luke's school two weeks ago. I should like to say a very sincere thank you to all hon. Members who have, through the early-day motion that I tabled, expressed their good wishes and sympathy to everyone involved.
    In view of that tragic accident, and many others that we have witnessed, would the Secretary of State consider bringing forward the moneys that I know that she has earmarked for next year into this year's budget? There was a call at the Conference of Local Education Authorities' conference last week, urging the Secretary of State to make more resources available. Wolverhampton is spending £60,000 this year, but that is wholly inadequate to meet security needs in our schools. Will she please consider giving the money in this financial year rather than the next?
    Mrs. Shephard: This is of course a matter of great concern. As the hon. Gentleman said, I have been in touch with St. Luke's school in Wolverhampton. As he knows, schools and local education authorities are already spending on school security. The way in which the money will be spent is important. Schools have varying needs, and it is necessary that LEAs and schools conduct a thoroughly professional risk assessment of the type of arrangements that need to be made to improve school security. That is why they have already acted on some of the working group's recommendations on security, why we have already allocated more money through the CCTV scheme, why I announced yesterday that 60 schools would benefit from the schools renewal challenge fund to help them with their security arrangements, why LEAs already have guidance to help them decide how best to allocate the extra money when it comes and why schools will receive guidance in September. A great deal of work needs to be done. We will make new moneys available, but we have to be certain that they are allocated according to a school's need and spent in the best way.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the money that will be raised from this year's Burbage charity bike aid in my constituency will go towards CCTV in local schools? Will she congratulate the organisers on that decision and wish them well at that popular event, which is enjoyed by thousands of my constituents each year?
    Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on their effort to help with arrangements for school security. There will no doubt be other such money-raising efforts but, of course, any money spent has to fit into a sensible framework to ensure that it is spent in the best way. As I said, the Government will be making extra money available.
    Mr. Don Foster: I join the Secretary of State in her expressions of sympathy to those affected by the recent tragedies and repeat my congratulations on her seeking and gaining widespread support for the measures now being proposed to improve school safety. Although it may be impossible to implement immediately, does she agree that it would be sensible to agree in principle that, over time, all schools should have a single boundary?
    Mrs. Shephard: Although I realise that the question was sensibly meant, that would be extremely difficult to put into practice because of the different geographical locations of school premises. It is important that schools assess their needs in the light of their own physical circumstances. In some cases, they may need a single boundary or entry point. The purpose of the conference that we intend to hold in the autumn will be to discuss best practice. Although there is a great deal of good practice, we found that those in the working group did not necessarily know about it. I take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion on board and the conference might be able to disseminate it, but there will also be many others.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about making additional funding available for school security. However, is it not important that we should not allow local authorities to get away with hiding behind the Government in respect of such an important issue? If a local education authority believes that priorities need to be addressed in terms of school security, should it not use the funds that are currently being wasted elsewhere rather than blame the Government for its own failure to act?
    Mrs. Shephard: Many local education authorities are extremely concerned about those matters. They already have—as we have just dispatched it—guidance on the arrangements that will be made for the new GEST—grants for education support and training scheme—money that will be earmarked for school security. The money will be available next year. If there were any local education authorities that needed reminding, they have their reminder.

    New Businesses (Failure Rate)
    Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the failure rate in new businesses on employment opportunities in the United Kingdom. [37268]
    Mr. Paice: No direct assessment has been made, but research shows that new business survival, and hence employment potential, is affected by the level of business management skills and experience of the proprietor.
    Ms Anderson: Is not investment crucial to the long-term success of new businesses and the creation of jobs? Does the Minister accept that Britain now has a lower level of investment than in 1989? Could that be why the number of jobs in manufacturing has fallen by 500,000 over the past five years?
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Lady falls into the trap of equating numbers of jobs in a sector—particularly manufacturing—with the health of the sector. For decades, jobs have been shed in manufacturing because of automation and technology. That does not mean that the sector is less advanced or profitable—probably the reverse. All businesses need to invest, both in equipment—which is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—and in their work force—which is my responsibility. That is why the Government have made a range of proposals targeted at small businesses and businesses generally to encourage them to invest in their work force.
    Sir John Cope: We all support reductions in the failure rate of small businesses. The Government are doing a great deal—through business links and other schemes—to reduce that failure rate. Does my hon. Friend not deplore, as I do, the emphasis that the question places on the failure rate? The main employment effect of small businesses has been a massive increase in employment as a result of the massive increase in the number of small businesses since 1979 of about 1 million.
    Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There are now more than 50 per cent. more businesses than there were in 1979. That in itself is good for employment. He is also right that we should not dwell on what are often described as failures. Just because a business may cease to operate does not mean that it is a failure. [Laughter.] In their laughter, the Opposition demonstrate how little they understand about businesses. A business may stop trading in the same name because it has been sold or because the proprietor has retired, or for a whole range of reasons. The NatWest survey of small businesses demonstrated that 73 per cent. of cessations were for reasons not associated with bankruptcy or solvency.
    Mr. Meacher: May I associate myself and the Opposition with the words of concern and sympathy expressed by the Secretary of State about the tragic death of Caroline Dickinson last week?
    Will the Minister confirm that the company failure rate, which we believe is significant, is running at nearly 1,000 a week and increasing, and that, each day, in the first three months of 1996, 2,500 people lost their jobs? Will he also confirm that, contrary to the impression that Ministers like to give—that unemployment is falling—the more accurate labour force survey shows that the number of people in employment fell by 74,000 in the first three months of this year and that there are still 1 million people fewer in jobs than there were the day that the Prime Minister entered Downing street? Is he not ashamed that, since 1979, Britain has had the worst job creation record of any major industrial nation?
    Mr. Paice: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took so long in asking his question because as he did so his facts became more and more obscure. Unemployment has been

    337
    falling consistently for a considerable time, thanks not only to the Government's economic policies but to our resistance of policies that would have damaged employment prospects: the social chapter and the minimum wage. Those are the Labour party's policies and they would destroy employment. Wherever the hon. Gentleman would care to look throughout the rest of Europe, he will find countries suffering from those problems. Unemployment in the major European countries is much higher than ours, and is often still rising.
    Mr. Batiste: Is it not inevitable that, if there is a substantial increase in new business start-ups, there will also be a corresponding increase in the number of business failures? Is not the creation of new businesses the best way of increasing employment? Will my hon. Friend commit himself and the Government to maintaining that momentum by opposing the national minimum wage and the social chapter, which are so destructive to businesses and so often lead to failure on the continent?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is important that we do whatever we can to encourage small businesses and the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that leads to their success. That is what the Government's policies are directed at. He is also right to remind us again about the minimum wage. Conservative Members have always been amazed by the fact that the Opposition have never said how they would resolve the problem of the restoration of differentials—a problem that is underlying the minimum wage and would destroy more jobs than anything else. We await with interest to see how they plan to address that issue.

    Unemployed (Policies)
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policies she intends to pursue in respect of those unemployed for 12 months or more. [37269]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): We shall continue to pursue the policies that have seen long-term unemployment fall by more than a quarter since the start of 1994.
    Mr. Winnick: When will Ministers apologise for the fact that the number of people out of work for 12 months or more has more than doubled since April 1979? Does that figure not show that unemployment has increased substantially during the 17 years of Tory government? The Minister is nodding. How much more human misery is to be inflicted on the country before this wretched Government are turned out at the election?
    Mr. Forth: I can indeed confirm that unemployment is higher now than it was in 1979, as it is right across the European Union. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the 1970s, when everybody was doing well in terms of employment and unemployment. In the 1990s, life is tougher and more difficult. Compared with our European partners and competitors, we have served the employed and unemployed so much better because our policies have turned out to be more relevant to the needs
    338
    of the 1990s. Opposition Members persist in turning the clock back to the 1970s—not only in their faulty memories but in their yearnings for policies that have long since passed—but the result of putting such policies into effect would be a return to the conditions of the 1970s, which were so much worse than they are today.
    Mr. Ian McCartney: As part of the Government's programme of encouraging the unemployed to seek work, they have signed a contract with a company called Trinity Newspapers, which produces for distribution in jobcentres in England and Wales a magazine known as Jobsearch. Among other things, the magazine invites vulnerable unemployed men and women to take up prostitution as a business opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) has asked the Minister to withdraw that offensive magazine and its job advertisements, but was refused on the ground that the Department believes that the unemployed should have the widest possible access to job opportunities.
    It is scandalous that such a magazine and such advertisements should have been distributed to vulnerable unemployed people. The Government's history of massaging the unemployment figures is wholly unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State today issue instructions for the withdrawal of the magazine and its accompanying advertisements, and initiate an inquiry into how it was ever distributed in the first place?
    Mr. Forth: Before the hon. Gentleman massages himself into hysteria, I advise a little more calm. Of course I shall have a look at what he has described. If there is any substance to it, we shall see what can and should be done. [Interruption.] There is no point in pushing a piece of paper across the Table at me, because I do not know its provenance or the circumstances in which it came to be written. I prefer the approach of calm investigation and reflection to the hysterical outbursts that characterise the behaviour of Opposition Members.
    We shall have a good look at what the hon. Gentleman has said and then, I have no doubt, we will take the appropriate action.

    Sensorily Impaired People
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to monitor the levels of employment and unemployment among young people with sensory impairments after they leave full-time education or training. [37270]
    Mr. Paice: The Department is funding a new national survey of disabled people and their employment, education and training, to provide information on different age groups and the impact of different disabilities.
    Mr. Livingstone: Given that the unemployment rate among those who are hearing impaired is twice the national average, and that only one quarter of those who are visually impaired are in work, can the Minister guarantee that this survey will give us the tools that we need to analyse the pattern of discrimination? In particular, will he see what happens to people who have been through training programmes, to find out how effective those are, where the people end up, and what is the long-term impact of the training programmes?
    Mr. Pake: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The survey will investigate the nature and severity of disability, employment status, characteristics of employment—permanent, temporary, part time, full time—qualifications and training, income and benefits, equipment, aids and adaptations, working arrangements, attitudes and experiences in the labour market, and household composition. What is more, the exercise starts today.

    Sensorily Impaired Pupils
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils with hearing impairments are being taught in mainstream schools. [37271]
    Mrs. Gillan: Statistics on the number of pupils with hearing impairments in mainstream schools are not collected centrally.
    Mr. Timms: I am aware of the Minister's close personal interest in this matter. In the light of that, does she agree that we need data on the numbers and experiences of youngsters with disabilities in mainstream schools so that we can ensure that mainstreaming is working effectively for them? Should not such data be collected by the Government?
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging my interest in this matter; of course I shall look at what he says. Subject to certain conditions, local education authorities have a duty to provide mainstream places for children with special educational needs when that is what parents want. We have encouraged LEAs to integrate children with SEN in the main stream. I have seen radio aids being used in the classroom very effectively—they certainly level the ground for children with a hearing impairment.
    While I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman might like to know of Langdon secondary school, in his constituency, which has a learning support department that has recently twinned with the effectiveness division of the Department for Education and Employment. Teachers and pupils have visited the Department, and art from that school is on display in Sanctuary buildings.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend welcome the nursery voucher scheme, which gives an opportunity to spot at an early stage children with special educational needs, particularly those with hearing difficulties?
    Mrs. Gillan: Of course I welcome wholeheartedly the nursery voucher scheme. I am pleased that, from April next year, parents of four-year-olds will have access to good-quality nursery education throughout the country, whatever the needs of the child.

    A-level Results
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research has been carried out to investigate the factors underlying the difference in A-level results between boys and girls. [37272]
    Mr. Paice: A number of independent studies have been published, including a recent report funded by the Nuffield Foundation.
    Mr. Rendel: The Minister is no doubt aware of the recent report that the differences may be due to the extra flair and self-confidence that young males are said to have at that age. If that is anything like the truth, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that it is not simply the format of A-level examinations that is producing the difference between males and females?
    Mr. Paice: I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman ascribes that series of assumptions. It is interesting that the gender difference at GCSE level is dramatically reduced by the time children get to A-levels. We also know—although I cannot explain it—that boys get more grade As while girls get more of all the other pass grades. No clear lessons can be drawn from that, but we are anxious to ensure that exams—whatever form they take—are right for all young people, regardless of gender.
    Mr. Dunn: Is it not essential to maintain single-sex education for girls and boys, given that girls develop at a different rate in schools assigned to their sex only? This is the Government's policy and not that of the Opposition, who would destroy single-sex schools, grammar schools, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools and go back to the old 1960s notion of neighbourhood comprehensive schools.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend knows that the Government's policy is based on diversity and choice. It should be for children—when they reach a reasonable age—and their parents to decide on the right form of education, whether it be at grant-maintained schools, LEA schools or single-sex schools, but they must also decide which qualifications are right for them. That is why we have set out not only to maintain and improve the rigour of A-levels, but to provide general national vocational qualifications and modern apprenticeships so that something is available to everyone to make the most of their talents.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister accept that we are seeing a significant change in the relative performance at examination level of boys and girls, and that the consequences of that change extend far beyond the classroom? Is it not the case that the Government have failed to recognise this change and to take any action on the important issues that it raises? Will he give a commitment today that, as a useful first step, he will require the Office for National Statistics to provide statistics and information on how boys and girls perform as part of individual school inspections?
    Mr. Paice: The Office for Standards in Education has already done that.

    Teaching
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on teaching skills and methods employed in schools. [37273]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: All teachers need to be equipped with the most effective teaching methods and to know when to use them.
    Mr. Arnold: Have not a number of reports highlighted the results of the trendy lefty education and training methods that we have had in far too many schools, particularly in inner cities, since the 1960s? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, having introduced testing in the teeth of Labour opposition—which has highlighted where the shortcomings are to be found—the Government will continue their work on teacher training and get back to the proper teaching methods that will bring the results that the country is crying out for?
    Mrs. Shephard: We have put in place several reforms of initial teacher training to ensure that teachers are equipped as practically as possible. We are also reviewing in-service training. Among the things that we have already announced are the 25 literacy and numeracy centres, the headlamp scheme to train newly appointed heads and a new national professional qualification for headship. In September, I intend to announce plans to reform initial teacher training and to introduce a national curriculum for it to ensure that all teachers are trained in the most effective manner.
    Mrs. Wise: Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever the teaching skill, and whatever methods are employed, the effectiveness of teaching is enhanced if class sizes are smaller rather than steadily increasing, as they are at present?
    Mrs. Shephard: We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about smaller classes and how they would seek to fund them by raiding the assisted places scheme budget, thereby depriving children from some of the worst-off families in the land of the chance of an excellent education in the independent sector. I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows that the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales has told her Front-Bench spokesmen that their figures take no account of how the extra money identified by them would reach schools or of the extra costs of, for example, accommodation for the additional number. I am sure that she will be concerned about the fact that Labour's advisers say that its figures do not add up.
    Mr. Redwood: Over the summer, will my right hon. Friend reconfirm that traditional methods and whole-class teaching have much to offer to improve primary school standards, and will she give strong support to the chief inspector, who is doing admirable work to highlight both good and bad performance and to offer some leadership in the profession?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, the chief inspector has provided some stringent comments on what needs to be done to improve education standards. Teachers should certainly be equipped for whole-class teaching to provide active instruction rather than passive supervision. That is what we intend to put in place.

    Higher Education
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to maintain standards in higher education. [37274]
    Mr. Forth: Prime responsibility for maintaining standards in higher education rests with the academic institutions, acting individually and collectively.
    Dr. Wright: Does the Minister agree that quality in higher education depends on having common degree standards in different institutions, from Birmingham to Bradford and from Leicester to Luton? What is his response to the evidence, now confirmed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, that institutions differ markedly in degree standards both between institutions and between subjects, sometimes deliberately? Is not that unfair to students who rely on degree standards for entry to postgraduate work? Does it not devalue higher education?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is a system of quality assurance in place and that there is a continuing effort to try to improve it to make it even more effective. I wonder whether his comments reveal the hidden threat to the academic autonomy of our higher education institutions that his party poses. One could readily conclude from his words that he would seek to impose a straitjacket on our higher education sector, which has for so long prided itself on its autonomy and independence of government.

    Nursery Education
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to ensure access to nursery education for children with special needs. [37275]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996 will ensure that all children, including those with special educational needs, have an equal opportunity to experience good-quality nursery education.
    Ms Jackson: Has not research in Britain and America shown that flat-rate vouchers impact against children with special needs because their education requirements inevitably cost much more? Precisely what is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that children with special needs will not be denied places, which are of particular importance to them, in nursery schools?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree that nursery education is particularly important for children with special educational needs, to which a lot of attention was paid during the passage of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. The new money made available as a result of the voucher scheme will contribute to meeting the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs. Local education authority budgets will be reduced only by £1,100 for each four-year-old who has a maintained place. If a place costs more, the difference is left with the LEA. If a child returns to the LEA for its nursery place, so does the money.

    Higher Education Funding
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding the planned funding of higher education in the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. [37277]
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has received nearly 700 representations about higher education funding this year.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister comment on Cambridge university's decision to accept money from British American Tobacco in view of that company's falsification of data about the addictiveness of tobacco? Does the Minister think that it is desirable for higher education institutions to be pushed into a financial position so extreme that they must accept money from such sources?
    Mr. Forth: No, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a decision by an entirely autonomous higher education institution.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council has suggested that all funding for education, including higher education, is damaged by the area cost adjustment—which supposedly acts to the detriment of Lancashire and in favour of the south of England? Is my hon. Friend aware of any Labour-controlled council that benefits from ACA that would forgo it? Is he further aware that Labour Front Benchers do not have a policy on that matter?
    Mr. Forth: I am not surprised by my right hon. Friend's last observation. We all eagerly await the emergence of Labour policy on the issue. My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. When we have a unanimous view from local authority organisations on the area cost adjustment, we will be prepared to consider it. I hear no unified voice from those bodies, but I await the day.
    Mr. Sheerman: Surely the Minister is aware of the furore in the university sector in respect of higher education funding. Is not it the case, as vice-chancellors throughout the land are saying, that if the equipment used to teach postgraduate and other students of science and applied science is denied them, that will affect the quality of the degrees that are awarded? Ten per cent. of university income comes from overseas students. If standards fall—the Minister has seen the warning signs-higher education funding will be in dreadful trouble.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman used the word furore. Of the 140 higher education institutions, we have received between 50 and 100 letters. Of the country's 1.4 million students, we have received 200 to 300 letters, and from a total of 55,000 staff, we have been inundated with 200 to 300 letters. That gives some idea of the "furore".

    Nursery Voucher Scheme
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure high education standards in those places administering the nursery voucher scheme; and if she will make a statement. [37278]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Any establishment participating in the nursery education voucher scheme must work towards a set of desirable outcomes for children's learning, submit to educational inspection and publish information for parents. Those and other detailed requirements will ensure a consistently high standard over the whole scheme.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance on the quality of nursery education for four-year-olds. Will he give the further assurance that no three-year-old currently in nursery education will lose out under the scheme? What effect will the scheme have on the education of children by the age of five, in terms of the tests that, according to national press reports, they are likely to receive at that age?
    Mr. Squire: The voucher scheme has no impact on three-year-olds—although I expect that, under the next Conservative Government, there will be a reasonable prospect of extending the scheme to cover three-year-olds. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a report from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on base line assessment, and we look forward to full public consultation this autumn.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Minister yet assessed the extra costs involved in providing a high-quality education for children with special needs in the voucher scheme? If he has not done it yet, why not?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say a moment ago that the cost of a statemented child over and above the £1,100 voucher value will be unaffected by the arrival of the voucher. The hon. Lady will be aware that power has been taken in the legislation to ensure that pre-statemented special needs children—an important category—will receive assistance from local education authorities. That will be part and parcel of the annual negotiations with local authorities in the ordinary way.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to monitor standards in the grant-maintained sector. [37279]
    Mr. Robin Squire: Standards in grant-maintained schools are monitored in the same way as in local authority schools, particularly through Office for Standards in Education inspection reports and published performance data.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not surprising that the three grant-maintained schools in my constituency in Sutton are heavily oversubscribed because they have excellent results in public examinations? Does he agree that that is consistent with the Ofsted report, which has judged that 40 per cent. of grant-maintained schools have an excellent achievement record and that 30 per cent. are good and improving? Does he agree that all those achievements will be seriously at risk should we ever have in government a party such as the Labour party, which is hostile to grant-maintained schools and would introduce political control, remove schools' right to manage and spoil children's life chances?
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. As it refers to standards, Madam Speaker, I trust that you will allow me to correct a statement made from

    345
    the Dispatch Box during the previous Education and Employment questions. It specifically referred to the believed fact that Westminster had the highest proportion of pupils achieving five or more grade A to C GCSE results in inner London. While Westminster has good results—better than many local authorities in inner London—I can confirm that Camden has the best results.
    My hon. Friend is right in every material particular. The important thing to note is the threat the Labour party poses to grant-maintained schools, notwithstanding the fact that a number of Labour Members choose those self-same schools for their own children.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that one of the main contributions to raising standards in schools comes from the example set by the brilliant pupil who sets the pace and the standard throughout the school? Does he agree that it is a terrible loss to such a school when pacemakers are turned out to go somewhere else? Why have the Government never examined the effect on schools that have been deserted when bright students leave to take up assisted places? When will the Government have an inquiry into that? They have all sorts of figures on assisted places, but they have never examined the damage done to schools, often in the least prosperous areas, when the brightest pupils are plucked from them and put into other schools.
    Mr. Squire: I lost the hon. Gentleman a little when he reached his pacemaker, but I think I understand what he is saying. The best response is the truth that the Government believe that schools should reach for the best in every child, regardless of his or her ability. A few schools have too often used as an excuse for their poor performance matters such as the nature of their intake. That must not be an excuse.
    On the wider issue of exemplars, the hon. Gentleman may be interested in some recent research which shows that, in areas such as Salisbury and south Birmingham, which have a significant number of selective schools, there is higher performance among the comprehensive schools than the national average and an improvement in recent years which beats the national improvement.
    Mr. Pawsey: Given the fact that many parents and teachers are increasingly worried about discipline in the nation's schools, a point borne out by the recent Association of Teachers and Lecturers' survey, what action is being taken in teacher training colleges to emphasise the need to teach and instil discipline in the classroom?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right to highlight an anxiety that every opinion poll that I have seen shows is shared by parents throughout the country. It is important that teachers, whether they are teaching or coming out of training college, should have the ability to maintain order. As my hon. Friend is aware, we intend to legislate this autumn—assuming that there is opportunity—further to strengthen the powers of teachers in that respect.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds she plans to make available over the next three years to set up grammar schools. [37280]
    Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend will approve proposals for new schools—including new grammar schools—where they are needed.
    Mr. Gunnell: I see that the Minister is offering no money even for this policy, in which she obviously believes. Does she believe that this policy is among those that have led to my selected Conservative opponent in Morley and Rothwell standing down and resigning because, he says, of the arrogance of the approach of some senior Tories?
    There are three excellent comprehensive schools in Morley, to which parents are anxious to send their children. Does the Minister realise that, if a grammar school for Morley or south Leeds were created from one of those schools, fewer parents would get the school of first choice?
    Mrs. Gillan: As usual, the Labour party has got the wrong end of the stick. We are not about forcing grammar schools on communities that do not want them. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman re-read the White Paper. If he does, he will see that the Conservative party is offering choice to communities—they may choose whether they want a grammar school in their town—unlike the Labour party, which is reported in the Daily Mail last week as
    "itching to axe the grammars".
    That is the Labour party's true agenda. Not satisfied with forcing direct grant grammar schools into the independent sector, it now wants to remove grammar schools throughout the country.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a well-run modern selective system such as the one that we have in Buckinghamshire, standards are being driven higher in the grammar schools and in the upper schools which, in the case of some in Buckinghamshire, are achieving results as good as or better than those of comprehensive schools in neighbouring local authorities? Does she agree that that is a tribute to the staff and governors of Buckinghamshire's schools and to the support that they have consistently had from the Buckinghamshire local education authority—in the teeth of hostility from representatives of both Opposition parties?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend and I share that local education authority, so I have no hesitation in endorsing his comments. The schools in Buckinghamshire are an excellent tribute to grammar schools and comprehensive schools. The grammar schools are not bad for other schools. We studied the GCSE results in two areas—Salisbury and south Birmingham—where grammar schools and non-selective schools co-exist. In both areas, the proportion of pupils in the non-selective schools who achieved GCSE grades A to C rose significantly faster than the national average. Grammar schools are good for us.
    Mr. Byers: Can the Minister explain how a return to a grammar school system will enhance parental choice when selection, by its nature, takes powers from parents and gives them to individual schools? Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, who told a delegation of head teachers recently that she personally did not want to see a return to the waste of talent inherent in a form of selection at 11? Do the Government still propose to have

    347
    a grammar school in every town? If so, how much would that cost and how many secondary modern schools would be created as a result? Is it not time that the Government put all our children's interests first instead of allowing political dogma to triumph over reason?
    Mrs. Gillan: This party always puts the education of children first, as do many members of the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman should read the proposals in the White Paper, which would make it easier to set up grammar schools wherever parents want them. The key to our proposals is choice and diversity, whereas the Opposition would remove choice. They would remove grammar schools and assisted places. They would go on to remove other forms of choice too, because their idea of education is to level everybody down whereas ours is to raise standards of education for all.

    Education Provision
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment she has made of the diversity of education provision between different local education authorities. [37282]
    Mr. Robin Squire: There are grammar, specialist and grant-maintained schools in many parts of England, but their distribution is patchy. In many places, a generalist LEA comprehensive is the only choice of secondary school. The proposals in last month's White Paper will give schools more freedom to develop distinctive strengths, offering more choice for parents.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that one factor that determines different levels of education provision is the amount of money held back by each education authority to pay for its central services? Is he aware that Derbyshire holds back £642 per pupil whereas neighbouring Staffordshire holds back just £487? Does he agree that the easiest way for Derbyshire to make more money available for its schools is to cut its central services to the level of neighbouring Labour-controlled Staffordshire and make available an extra £155 per pupil straight away?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. There can be no obvious justification for the wide disparity between the proportions of budgets delegated, which is why the issue was raised in the recent White Paper with a commitment to raise it to 95 per cent. of a school's potential budget. On the basis of that budget and the latest figures that I have, Staffordshire emerges as a markedly higher delegator than Derbyshire.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that central funding for Derbyshire is so bad that the schools are in crisis? Louise Orrill, aged nine, points out that, in her class, the teacher no longer has a desk and 40 children are crammed
    348
    into a classroom built for 25. Is not that disgraceful? Does not it have a serious impact not only on education but on children's safety?
    Mr. Squire: It is disgraceful that some local authorities are so inefficient that they spend disproportionate sums at the centre, denying that money to schools. The decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter resolved by governors on the basis of the funding available to them. It is not a decision that the Government should take, but the Government and schools would be assisted if some local authorities were more efficient.
    Sir Michael Shersby: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the education provision for statemented children in grant-maintained schools in Hillingdon? Is it the Government's policy to fund statementing directly? Will he confirm that that is happening in grant-maintained schools in Hillingdon?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising his concerns about the current situation in Hillingdon and the possible threat to the funding of statementing from that authority. As he knows, we are looking into the matter. I can confirm that, under the law, Hillingdon and all LEAs must meet the cost of statementing. It is essential that schools have adequate resources to meet those demands.

    Disabled Children (Access to Schools)
    Mr. Pearson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has for further developing the access initiative to improve access for disabled children to mainstream schools. [37284]
    Mrs. Gillan: Some 800 mainstream schools will benefit from the schools access initiative projects in 1996–97 to improve access to the curriculum for disabled pupils.
    Mr. Pearson: While I welcome the £45,000 that was allocated to Dudley metropolitan borough council on a one-off basis this financial year, if that funding is not repeated in future, the parents of children with physical disabilities will view it as tokenism and a cheap pre-election bribe. What will the Government do to ensure that all children with physical disabilities gain access to their local mainstream schools?
    Mrs. Gillan: I would not seek to make political mileage out of the issue, but the funding demonstrates the Government's commitment to integrating pupils with special needs into mainstream schools wherever that is feasible. We shall look at the expenditure for 1997–98 soon, and we shall take a decision about whether to extend the initiative based on what we have learnt from the 1996–97 bidding round. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman had the decency to acknowledge Dudley's successful bid, which enabled four schools to improve access for the disabled.

Transmissible Encephalopathies (Sheep)
3.30 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): If you will forgive me, Madam Speaker, I must begin with an apology. I am afraid that I have lost my voice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."] I think that that will be the most popular part of my statement. I shall, therefore, have to lean directly over the microphone.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the engineers will increase the sound from that microphone.
Mr. Hogg: Madam Speaker, my original remark is more popular than your later observation. However, with permission, I would like to make a statement about transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in sheep. The subject was discussed at the Agriculture Council on Monday, and Commissioner Fischler said that he intended to put forward proposals for controls on sheep to apply across the Community.
Scrapie, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of sheep and goats, has been known for more than 200 years. There is no evidence that it is linked to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. CJD occurs at approximately the same level in countries with and without scrapie. I have recently received advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advice Committee—SEAC—that bovine spongiform encephalopathy could theoretically become established in the sheep flock. It notes that in experiments—the results of which have been published—one in six sheep experimentally challenged orally with BSE brain material succumbed to an encephalopathy and that, when their brain material was tested in mice, the same strain type as BSE was found. It notes also the possibility that some sheep could have been exposed to feed contaminated with the BSE agent before the ruminant feed ban was introduced in 1988.
The committee points out that there is no evidence of BSE occurring naturally in the sheep flock. However, SEAC is concerned that, while there is no evidence to that effect, scrapie might be masking BSE in the sheep flock. On the basis of present knowledge, SEAC has made three recommendations: first, that the Government should consider the issue further with our European Union partners, and we are doing that. We are keeping in close contact with the French Government, whose scientific committee equivalent to SEAC has made certain recommendations on the basis of the laboratory evidence about BSE in sheep and of concerns about scrapie. At the Agriculture Council on 22 July, Commissioner Fischler announced that the Commission intends to formulate proposals for the removal of certain offals of sheep and goats from the human and animal food chains. Those proposals are to be considered initially by the Standing Veterinary Committee in early August and then by other EU expert committees.
SEAC's second recommendation was that the Government should give early consideration to removing the brains of sheep, whatever their source, over six months of age from the human food chain. The agriculture departments are today issuing for consultation a proposal for the heads of all sheep and goats to be removed and destroyed in the same way as specified bovine material. That measure would go further than SEAC recommended,
350
taking into account the practical difficulty of distinguishing the age of sheep at slaughter. It should not have a major economic impact as the vast majority of sheep's heads are already destroyed. It is worth noting that sheepmeat for human consumption comes predominantly from young lambs under 12 months of age.
We intend to reach a final decision in the light of responses to our consultation paper and progress in the EU discussion. Action on the issue at EU level would be preferable, but it is desirable, on a precautionary basis, that those measures are put in place promptly.
SEAC's third recommendation is that further research should be done to establish the levels of scrapie occurring naturally in sheep and to investigate further the risks of BSE transmission to the United Kingdom sheep flock. We accept that and some relevant research has already begun.
I emphasise that those steps are being taken out of an abundance of caution. There is no direct threat to human health. With the exception of the consumption of brains, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to change their eating habits. I repeat: there is no evidence at all that, in field conditions, BSE has got into the national flock, but as that possibility cannot be wholly excluded, we are proposing to take these precautionary measures. I am putting a copy of SEAC's advice and of my Department's consultation letter in the Library of the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker: It would make me a very happy Speaker if all statements were received in such silence. Thank you.
Dr. Gavin Strang: May I put it to the Minister that, in dealing with matters relating to BSE and a possible link with CJD, we always need to err on the side of caution? It is on that basis that we support the precautionary measures that he announced today. May I also make it clear that it is vital that the regulations are properly enforced? We must have no repeat of the dreadful underenforcement of the regulations to keep the BSE agent out of beef and beef products, in the early years after it was identified in 1986. Is the Minister now taking steps to reverse the cuts that successive Conservative Governments have made in the State Veterinary Service?
In view of the trade in lamb throughout Europe, it clearly makes sense that any measures of this nature should be implemented across all the member states of the European Union. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that a number of member Governments at the Council meeting on Monday opposed the proposals? In that case, is he confident that, whatever the Standing Veterinary Committee decides, we can look forward to their being enforced throughout the EU and as uniformly as possible?
The Minister advised the House that the heads of all sheep and goats are to be kept out of human food. I should be grateful if he set out further the scientific basis for keeping heads out of our food, particularly in the light of the fact that, in relation to cattle, we keep intestines, thymus, spleen and spinal cords out of human food, again on a precautionary basis.
The Minister confirmed that the whole basis for the measure is the possibility—many people would say the theoretical possibility—that BSE is in our national sheep

351
flock. I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to carry out research to see whether he can find any evidence of BSE in our sheep. Has he noticed today's statement by the president of the Royal Society, that there is an urgent need for more research into the subject in order to reduce some of the uncertainties?
We need to attach the highest priority to the health of our livestock, and it should be our policy to eliminate transmissible spongiform encephalopathies from our cattle and sheep.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, and I entirely agree with his assertion that it is right to act in a precautionary manner. I can confirm that when the regulations are put in place, they will be rigorously enforced, and I am confident that we have sufficient resources to do so. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Meat Hygiene Service has been recruiting substantially in order to discharge its existing duties with regard to BSE. It is true that there are some reservations in member states, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is desirable to approach the matter in an EU-wide way. I anticipate that any legally binding directives or decisions will be implemented throughout the European Union.
On the issue of brains and heads, the recommendation in SEAC's report extends only to brains. It does not extend to the spinal cord, although it is perfectly true that there is a French recommendation that does, albeit with a 12-months start point. The European Union vets will be considering that recommendation. For my part, I shall be annexing the SEAC recommendations and its report to the consultation document so that everyone has access to the advice that we have received.
I can confirm that we shall be looking into research to establish whether there is any evidence of BSE in the national flock. At the moment, there is no such evidence. I can also confirm that the elimination of BSE from cattle is a very high priority objective of the British Government. I can confirm that it is highly desirable for us to work out a strategy for the elimination of scrapie from the national flock.
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. and learned Friend has demonstrated that in scientific laboratory conditions BSE can be transmitted to sheep. What possible evidence is there that that happens in the field, particularly in relation to sheep that are younger than eight years old and have never been able to eat any bovine beef?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right—there is no evidence that BSE has been transmitted to sheep in field conditions. We are acting out of an abundance of caution in a wholly precautionary way. But my hon. Friend was right to make his point.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We are grateful to the Minister for making an oral statement, particularly given the condition of his vocal cords. I think that he was originally intending to rely on a written answer and it is to the benefit of the House that he has made a statement and that we have had an opportunity to put questions to him.
The House will agree that there is an urgent need to clarify the position, so will the Minister tell us precisely what he has agreed to in relation to British lamb? Is it
352
not true that the precautionary measures are irrelevant to traditionally reared and traditionally butchered English—British—lamb? Is it not true that the English chop is safe in our time? Will he now give that assurance? Will he respond specifically to the point made by the British Veterinary Association, that the proposed regulations are ludicrous in relation to the British situation?
Mr. Hogg: It is true that I was thinking of relying on a written answer; an Adjournment debate was also planned and I was contemplating informing the House about the issues during that debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked what I have agreed to. I have agreed to nothing. I am in the process of consulting, in the manner that I have described to the House. Clearly, if the European Union promulgates EU-wide directives that are legally binding, I anticipate implementing them in this country—as I imagine that he would wish me to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the English chop. I am bound to say that I am not quite as partial as he is to it, in the sense that I am also concerned about the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh chop. Speaking of the UK chop, I think that it is a splendid product. It can be eaten in complete safety, and I look forward to doing so for very many years to come.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Perhaps the House has listened to this statement in such a quiet manner because, rather than suffering from July madness, we are suffering from crisis fatigue. Will my right hon. and learned Friend recall and reflect on the question so ably asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), who got to the nub of the entire matter? Is it not a fact that we are leaving our common sense behind in responding to the Commission's proposals, which are totally unnecessary for our sheep industry?
Mr. Hogg: I have already made the point that we are acting out of an abundance of caution. It is our view that UK lamb—in fact, European lamb—is wholly safe. We have received advice. The French committee has advised the French Government, and SEAC, our advisory committee, has advised the British Government. Therefore, on the basis of that considered opinion—which will be made available to all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend—it is right to proceed in the manner that I have outlined to the House.
Mr. John Home Robertson: This is another fine mess that the Agriculture Minister has got himself into—or that he has got the industry into. Surely he is aware that consumers do not trust him. Furthermore, he must be aware that he is driving producers to despair, particularly those who have to sell their lamb flock at this time of year, when the lambs are ready for market. Given that he has not only lost his voice, but lost the place, has not the time come for him to hand over responsibility for these affairs to the Deputy Prime Minister—or, preferably, to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)—before any more damage is done to consumer confidence or to the rural economy?
Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood the position adopted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who was, quite rightly,

353
supporting the Government's position. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is in fact saying that we should override and disregard SEAC's advice. That is what he is saying, and I do not think that it is a sensible or a prudential way in which to operate.
Mr. Paul Marland: May I be forgiven for wondering where all this will end? I saw that, in some quarters this morning, the judgment of the Agriculture Commissioner was being called into question, because these precautions are being taken on the flimsiest of evidence. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is good news that this is a European rather than a British initiative, so that the onus is no longer on the British Government? Will he confirm that already 99 per cent. of the sheep brains removed in this country are destroyed, and that these measures will have virtually no effect whatever on the British sheep industry? That is quite a contrast to what happens in France, where a large proportion of sheep's brains are used in regional dishes.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that there is any truth in the rumour that is today circulating round the House, that these measures are a dastardly plot by Euro-vegetarians, who are determined to put off everyone from eating meat and to promote nut cutlets?
Mr. Hogg: I have no difficulty in forgiving my hon. Friend in this matter, or in almost any other matter in which he asks for forgiveness. I have not the faintest intention of embarking on a diet of nut cutlets, and certainly not if they were the only thing that I was permitted to eat.
It is entirely desirable that the policy should be deployed on an EU-wide basis. My hon. Friend is right about that. He is also entirely right about the impact on the United Kingdom, as almost without exception— I am talking about 99 per cent.— the brains from sheepmeat in the UK are destroyed.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Minister confirm that virtually every species that has been challenged with BSE in the way that the French team challenged sheep has developed a BSE-like disease? Will he therefore explain what will be done with the sheep's heads that are not now going into the food chain? Will they be rendered down into meat and bonemeal, and will that meat and bonemeal still be going into animal pet food as well as being disposed of in landfill sites?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will find that the latter point is dealt with at some length in the consultation document. It is perfectly true that BSE can be transmitted to many creatures. As for the brains, the head— leaving aside the tongue— will be removed and destroyed and will not go into pet food. It will be treated as the equivalent of specified bovine material.
Mr. John Green way: If we are to have these precautions, so be it— as my hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland) said, they will not make a scrap of difference to the preparation of lamb for British and European tables. What livestock farmers will find difficult to understand is that it appears that the Agriculture Commissioner says that if we remove the
354
brains and offal from lambs that theoretically might have BSE, lamb is safe. We have been doing that with British cattle for seven years, but we still have a ban on British beef. Why?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a formidable debating point, which I shall not overlook.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have many sheep farmers in my constituency who are very dependent on the export trade to Europe. Is not it in their best interests if we comply fully with the new European requirements, because we do not want trouble again with Europe on these matters in future?
Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when the European Standing Veterinary Committee considered beef, its decisions appeared not to be based purely on scientific evidence? Is he confident that when the committee meets again to consider these matters, it will consider them only on scientific and veterinary grounds?
Mr. Hogg: It is very important that it should, but it is fair to say that in matters of this kind there is scope for more than one reasonable judgment. There is a difference, which I have already pointed out to the House, between the advice of SEAC, which confines the recommendation to brains from sheep of more than six months, and that of the French advisory committee, which talks of enlarging the prohibition to include the spinal cord and spleen, albeit only in respect of sheep over the age of 12 months. There is that perfectly understandable difference of opinion among scientists, which needs to be reconciled on objective scientific criteria within the EU's advisory committees.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that Welsh lamb is one of the great export success stories of recent years and that it is a quality product much sought after in France, Italy and Spain? Does he recognise that the statement by the Commissioner this time was distinctly unhelpful, bearing in mind the fact that many lambs are now coming on to our markets? Will he reinforce to his European counterparts the fact that the Commissioner's words must not in any way be used as a pretext to prevent our lambs going on to those markets?
Mr. Hogg: I recognise the importance of the export of Welsh lamb. I also recognise that it is a quality product. It is important that we do not allow any action to be taken to discriminate against United Kingdom products in any respect. I should make the point that we are dealing with very young lambs. The majority of the exports from Wales are substantially under 12 months and that, for example, would mean that if we were to accept the French recommendations, there would be no prohibition of any kind.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the price of lamb at Hexham auction mart yesterday fell by more than 20 per cent., which is bad news for farmers, who are already suffering a 30 per cent. drop in income because of the BSE crisis

355
in beef? Will he ensure that nothing is done to discriminate against English lamb in France by the French Government making regulations which would increase the processing costs of United Kingdom carcases, but which would not apply to carcases of French-bred lamb?
Mr. Hogg: I was aware of the fall in price to which my hon. Friend refers. When the consumer reflects on what has been said in the House and elsewhere, we shall find that consumer confidence bounces back and the price will be restored to its former levels. My hon. Friend is quite right in what he says about discrimination. I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter in some detail with Philippe Vasseur, the French Agriculture Minister, and I do not believe that there will be any such discrimination. [Interruption.]
Mr. Andrew Faulds: These boys. Has it been established what proportion of British sheep may have had access to dubious bovine feed?
Mr. Hogg: That information is set out in the consultation document. A detailed reply would take several minutes. The information is also in the SEAC report. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will be able to find the precise answer to his question by reading the consultation document and the SEAC report.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to prove a negative, so it is impossible to prove that there is any food that does not have some risk? Are we not in danger of a national epidemic of paranoia, which is far more damaging to the health of the nation— a nation that still has many smokers? Can we not put the whole matter in perspective during the quiet days of August?
Mr. Hogg: That is good advice.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Minister recall promising during the evidence-taking sessions of the joint Health and Agriculture Committees that MAFF would co-operate with Dr. Harash Narang by supplying him with urine samples? A fortnight ago, at a meeting in the House of relatives of CJD sufferers, Dr. Narang said that he had not yet received those urine samples. Will the Minister tell us why not? Surely it is in everyone's best interests to have a live test validated.
Mr. Hogg: It is, of course, desirable that we should identify and develop an effective live test. We are perfectly willing to work with Dr. Narang, but co-operation has to be a two-way process.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Has my right hon. and learned Friend's Department learnt nothing from previous health scares? Does he not recognise that saying that a product is safe while at the same time introducing precautionary measures sends a confused and confusing message, which does nothing to maintain or restore public confidence?
Mr. Hogg: But if I could turn that question on its head, is my hon. Friend recommending that I disregard a positive recommendation from SEAC?
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Could we return to the science of the matter? When Professor Pattison of SEAC
356
and Dr. Will of the neuropathogens unit at the Western general hospital in Edinburgh addressed the parliamentary and scientific committee some three weeks ago, they gave the impression that the French work had not been made available to them. In the past three weeks, have our scientists looked at the basis on which the French results were achieved, and what is the state of co-operation among scientists?
Mr. Hogg: The co-operation has been very good. At a recent meeting of SEAC, a number of French scientists from the Dormont committee were present, and I believe that at one of the recent meetings of the Dormont committee, members of SEAC were present. I have also had a recent meeting with the French Agriculture Minister to discuss this very subject.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the great British public are getting pretty fed up with all the scare stories affecting their staple food of one sort or another? Is he further aware that one of the largest abattoirs in the country is in my constituency? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and other hon. Members have said, abattoirs are affected by such scare stories. Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to assure people today that lamb is as safe as it has ever been, so that we can enjoy our summer holidays in peace and quiet and ensure that butchers, abattoirs, retailers and anyone else involved in the industry can sleep easy at night?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has stated the position with complete accuracy. In my view, UK lamb and, indeed, European lamb is wholly safe. What is being done is done out of an abundance of caution, based on assessments of theoretical risk. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that BSE is in the national flock, either here or elsewhere in Europe.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Minister aware that the opinion is going around in my constituency that his mere appearance on television is enough to undermine confidence in whichever product he is proclaiming to be safe? Will he confirm whether it is correct that there are about 170,000 cases of BSE in beef herds, so the Government have taken some precautions— belatedly and poorly enforced, but now in place— and that, although there is no evidence whatever of any BSE infection in the sheep flock, we are taking similar precautions for sheep? In the absence of such evidence, does not such action strike the Minister as somewhat drastic? Have we not reached an incredible state of affairs when Professor Richard Lacey is accusing the Ministry and the European Commission of alarmism?
Mr. Hogg: I do not know what impact I may have on the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but I know of the impact that he has on mine. He is against the integrity of the United Kingdom, which causes immense dismay in most of England and Wales, and I fancy in Scotland as well.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I encourage the Minister to look on the bright side? There is one. First, thousands of sheep and cattle are happily munching grass instead of heading towards the abattoir or the dinner plate.
Mr. Home Robertson: They are going to incinerators.
Mr. Banks: Not all of them, yet.

357
Secondly, thousands of people are becoming vegetarians because they do not want their brains to turn to jelly, and that must be good for the health of the nation. Thirdly, the House has watched the interesting spectacle of the Minister becoming the first hog to make a pig's ear out of himself.
Mr. Hogg: It is obviously for the hon. Gentleman to determine whether he is a vegetarian, but the consequence of what he has just said would be disastrous for British farmers and everybody working in the related industries.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that I represent a large number of producers as well as consumers, and although I agree with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that it is right to err on the side of caution, it is also important not to cause panic? Will he or one of his Ministers have a quick word with the Consumers Association, to ensure that it does not make the same kind of foolish statement that it made over the beef crisis?
Mr. Hogg: It is always nice to have the hon. Gentleman's support. He had better have some cautionary words with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), because his constituents would be damaged by his hon. Friend's policies. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has the matter concerning the Consumers Association in hand.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that the key lesson to learn from the BSE crisis is the need to engage and hold consumer confidence? Does he understand that many people view his Ministry as an agent of the producer rather than of the consumer? Is there not a case for an independent food advisory committee?
Mr. Hogg: Of course, it is important to try to engage and retain the confidence of the consumer— that is central. I do not, however, agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. It is perfectly true that the Ministry of Agriculture has always had a high regard for the interests of the producer, and rightly so. But our paramount obligation and duty is not to the producer: it is to the consumer. My Department's overriding obligation is to ensure the safety and quality of British food.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Minister assure the House that the Department's secret priority is not the promotion of ostrich farming?
Mr. Hogg: That issue has never crossed my desk.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Scrapie in sheep was made a notifiable disease in 1992. Has the incidence of scrapie increased since then? Is there not a case, as the president of the Royal Society makes clear in his press statement today, for the Government to explore the possibility of a programme to eradicate scrapie in sheep?
Mr. Hogg: Yes, there is. We must clearly develop a strategy designed to achieve, in the medium to long term,
358
the eradication of scrapie from the national flock. Meanwhile, we need to determine whether our existing scrapie controls and regulations are adequate. I propose to direct that that be done. We also need to carry out research to determine, as best we can, the present incidence of scrapie in the national flock.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Is the Minister aware that I spent several hours over the Whit weekend assisting a farmer because the Intervention Board's telephone service was unmanned for the whole holiday period? Given the Government's failure to respond to inquiries that I have initiated, will the Minister assure the House that every possible support will be given to farmers with inquiries about his statement— over the telephone and by other means— during the coming holiday period? Will he also use such services as a way of collecting data from farmers, to assist with the important research that is necessary?
Mr. Hogg: We have greatly improved the communication policies that we have been pursuing. It is important to do our utmost to keep the producers informed. We have established helplines; we have been writing direct to farmers. We have been issuing newsletters and publishing advertisements in the farming press. We shall certainly see how we can reinforce that approach.
Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. May I emphasise to him the massive size of the Welsh flock? Were anything like what has happened to beef to happen to sheepmeat in Wales, our rural communities would face ruin.
Where are Welsh Office Ministers today? What discussions has the Minister had with them to safeguard our industry?
Mr. Hogg: My understanding is that the relevant Welsh Office Minister is at the Welsh show, which is where I expect the hon. Gentleman would want him to be.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Minister accept that many sheep producers in constituencies such as mine work in the most marginal agricultural areas and are already right up to the wire, financially speaking— not least because of the erosion of Government support for those areas, particularly in the form of hill livestock compensatory allowances? If they are to suffer losses from a slump in market confidence, will the Minister reassure us that, in so far as it is within the power of the Government to do so, they will adjust the various forms of agricultural support so that, for once, hill farmers in marginal areas will be given a decent deal?
Mr. Hogg: The truth is that all these things depend on consumer confidence. My own clear feeling is that there is absolutely no reason why consumers' confidence in lamb should be damaged by what has been said here today or at the Agriculture Council.

Point of Order
4.9 pm
Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House:
"No one can buy access to Ministers."— [Official Report, 23 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 144.]
Yet the introduction to a leaflet from the Conservative party's Premier club states:
"The Premier Club is also a forum for leading businessmen to meet and interact, and to forge closer relationships with senior Conservative politicians."
Those senior politicians are, of course, Ministers. Do you believe that that issue ought to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, so that we can prevent Ministers from touting themselves around for money in that way?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Lady feels that that is a matter for the Commissioner, she must refer it. I remind the House that we will have a debate later today on the code of conduct, during which that matter may arise.

BILL PRESENTED

  REGULATION OF THE WHEELCLAMPING INDUSTRY
  Mrs. Diana Maddock, supported by Mr. David Atkinson, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Matthew Taylor, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing of private wheelclamp operators by local authorities and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 16 October and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
  4.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate and promote the flying of the Union Flag; to enable Government construction projects to be identified with the Union Flag; and to promote the union of the United Kingdom.
  Sunday was a gorgeous day, and I sat in my garden in Lichfield reading The Sunday Times, as my favourite newspapers The Guardian and The Times were not available that day. I started looking through the newspaper's magazine, where I saw an interesting piece called "Britain's feel-bad factor".
  The article stated that The Sunday Times had commissioned an NOP poll for the magazine, which showed that
  "people are either unaware of, or unwilling to believe in, Britain's achievements."
  The article stated:
  "Measured in terms of gross domestic product, Britain vies for fifth place … in the world rankings. But most people think that Britain's economy is far less important … Only 22 per cent. correctly plumped for the fifth biggest."
  The article continued:
  "Only 27 per cent. think Britain has a lower unemployment rate than Germany, France and Sweden … But unemployment in Britain is only 7.7 per cent. of the workforce, compared with 9 per cent. in Germany, 9.3 per cent. in Sweden and 12.3 per cent. in France."
  On taxes, the article stated:
  "46 per cent. think they are higher in Britain than in other industrial countries … Overall, taxes in Britain are 38 per cent. of GDP, compared with an average of 45 per cent. in the EU."
  Only in two areas was there a little optimism.
  "By more than two to one … people believe British television to be the best in the world. Given the choice between identically priced British, German and Japanese goods, 72 per cent. said they would choose the domestic product."
  The article, written by David Smith—
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Much against my better judgment, I have been listening to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), and not once has he mentioned the subject of his Bill— the Union flag. All he has said is totally irrelevant to the Bill that he is purporting to introduce.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member's introduction has been quite long, but he may now be coming to the flag. Is that right?
  Mr. Fabricant: Precisely
  Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is wearing the right colours today.
  Mr. Fabricant: The point is that the final sentence of the article states:
  "Underneath that inferiority complex, there may just be a sense of national pride waiting to burst out."
  Madam Speaker, that is the whole point of my Bill.

  361
  Thanks to Gordon on the Opposition Front Bench, we have become a nation of gloom— new Labour, new glums. I want to bring a little colour back to the United Kingdom. I want to fly the red, white and blue. About 3 million Britons go to America every year, and they see the stars and stripes flying in petrol station forecourts, outside people's homes, outside schools and on public buildings. But we do not see our flag flying here.
  Why is that? First, it is due to planning permission, and my Bill will seek to change planning permission measures. To fly a flag, one needs a flagpole, and— astonishingly enough— one needs planning permission for that. My Bill will seek to ensure that— providing it is to fly the British flag— planning permission will not be necessary for a flagpole.
  Secondly, during my researches, I found that, amazingly, Government buildings are allowed to fly the flag on only 20 days in a year, and on extra special days as specified by the Queen through the Lord Chamberlain. My Bill would allow— nay, would encourage— Government buildings to fly it 365 days a year. I would like it to be flown in schools, outside petrol forecourts, in people's front gardens and in offices. We should be proud of the Union.
  I have had letters of encouragement from people from all parts of the country. Mr. Egerton, of Dinas Powys in the Vale of Glamorgan, wrote:
  "I fly the union flag (a small one) on the apex of my greenhouse— and regularly receive appreciative remarks."
  Roger Percival, of the Pheasant hotel in Kelling, Norfolk, writes:
  "I urged the British Tourist Authority/English Tourist Board to encourage all members to fly the Union Flag."
  Christopher Buswell of Alton in Hampshire says:
  "Could not the British be encouraged to erect flagpoles at their homes and fly the Union flag thus instilling a sense of national pride in their country once again?"
  Mrs. Woolley, of Cardiff, South Glamorgan, writes:
  "I have just returned from a holiday in the West and to see the flags of Canada and America so proudly displayed in almost every garden and on public buildings made me ashamed for the way in which we are fettered by planning restrictions and days for flying the flag."
  I could go on— [Interruption.]— and I will, as Opposition Members implore me to. Mr. Edward Johnson, from Falmouth in Cornwall, writes:
  "I personally feel that the history of our flag and its presence, should be compulsory at every school in Britain."
  We have every right to be proud of the flag. I would also like Government construction projects to fly the British flag, just as European Union projects in the United Kingdom show the European flag.
  This Bill is not only about patriotism; it is about taking the flag away from the National Front and the fascists, who more or less possessed it in the 1960s and 1970s. The Bill gives the flag back to the people. The greatest threat it faces comes not from anyone who might be unpatriotic enough to oppose it today, but from a Labour Government.
  Madam Speaker, I can see you asking me why that should be so. It is Labour policy to promote devolution. Devolution would light the long fuse that would
  362
  inevitably lead to the break-up of the UK. That would be damaging, because, great as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are, they are made all the greater because we are one nation— the United Kingdom. That would be threatened by a Labour Government.
  A Labour Government would give up all our powers of veto in Europe. The Union flag would become the white flag of surrender. For that reason, the Bill not only promotes a flag to be flown from a flagpole, but is a reminder to everyone that the Conservative party and the Government stand for the great union that is the Union of the United Kingdom.
  The greatest son of Lichfield is Samuel Johnson, who said:
  "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
  At the risk of deselection, I shall disagree with him and say that there is nothing wrong with patriotism, which is devotion to one's country. Nationalism may be different. The Union Rag Bill promotes the Union and the flying of the flag. I hope that all patriots in the Chamber today will support it
  4.19 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I do not support the Bill, but I like the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)— how could anyone dislike him? It is not the Labour party that is a threat to the hon. Gentleman's Bill, if he gets permission for it, but time and sanity. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a Parliamentary Private Secretary, which is a humble but worthy job. It is the first greasy mark on the political pole, and we would all agree that few have greased more assiduously, or carried a ministerial lunch box with more colour and verve, than the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire.
  There is a certain guile about the hon. Gentleman that neutralises his propensity to kiss the bottom of any passing figure of authority. He is visibly bursting with pride at becoming a ministerial gofer, which makes me rather sad. I do not see a Minister manque sitting opposite but a poor, wretched youth congratulating himself on getting the last cabin boy's job on the Titanic.
  For all the qualities of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire— and we all like him— his proposal is silly, as one would expect from its originator. It is silly in concept and timing. After all, the hon. Gentleman only has the overspill of a few days in October to present his Bill, if he gets permission. The chances of the Bill ever getting to the statute book are about as good as my chances of entering the kingdom of heaven.
  Mr. Foulkes: Or the shadow Cabinet.
  Mr. Banks: Yes, or the shadow Cabinet— which I have been assured by the Leader of the Opposition is one and the same place. If it is the same place, I have a good idea what God looks like.
  The suggestion to fly more flags comes straight out of Evelyn Waugh, and so does the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire. Wrapping the Union flag around bankrupt policies or unfavourable Government opinion polls is typical of the Conservative party. It does that all the time, to cover its bankruptcy. Every time Opposition Members criticise the Government about their economic

  363
  performance, or whatever, they say that we are being unpatriotic and talking Britain down. The Government are running Britain down, when all we are doing is telling the truth.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire mentioned the great Samuel Johnson. Apart from Lichfield, I can think of one other similarity between Dr. Johnson and the hon. Gentleman, but kindness prevents me from saying precisely what it is.
  Waving more flags is a pathetic response, but one expects that from a pathetic Government. It is obscene to use the flag as a way of suggesting that criticism of a policy or Government is tantamount to treason, and divides the country rather than unites it. The hon. Member said that the Union flag should be flown over Government construction projects. I would like him to name a few. There are plenty of flags flying over British manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, they tend to be the national flags of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Germany.
  The hon. Gentleman is also using his Bill as a way of getting at devolution. There is much talk in the House about subsidiarity. Devolution is subsidiarity— national subsidiarity. A flag should be a symbol of national unity, not used to paper over injustices and divisions that should be addressed. I often visit the United States, and it is true that one sees that country's flag everywhere. America is more united in that respect, because so many powers have been devolved to individual states, which also have their own flags.
  The hon. Gentleman's Bill is a silly proposal, but at least Mr. Simon Hoggart now has some more cheap copy for tomorrow, in his love-hate relationship with the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and negatived.

  REGULATION OF THE WHEELCLAMPING INDUSTRY
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.— [Mr. McLaughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  WILD ANIMALS: TRAPPING METHODS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4198/96, relating to methods of trapping wild animals; shares the Government's concern that the Commission's proposals represent a significant weakening of the existing Council regulation agreed unanimously in 1991; and supports the Government's view that the Community must make it clear to fur-exporting countries through Community legislation that it maintains a strong commitment to end the use of leghold traps worldwide.— [Mr. McLaughlin.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,

  FISHERIES
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7833/96, relating to management guidelines for the fourth generation of Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes, 7827/96 on restructuring the Community fisheries sector, and 7701/96, relating to the establishment of a satellite-based vessel monitoring system; and the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th July 1996 laying down technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources; on 6th July 1996 on a fisheries agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania; on 8th July 1996 on a fisheries agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Angola; on 8th July 1996 on a fisheries agreement between the European Community and Sao Tome e Principe; and on 9th July 1996 on progress of the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme for the fishing fleet at the end of 1995; and supports the Government's resolve to achieve improvements in the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular in relation to the conservation and rational exploitation of the resources on which United Kingdom fishermen depend, and the Government's commitment to seeking Treaty changes at the Inter-Governmental Conference in order to address the issue of quota hopping.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Amendment proposed: at the end of the Question, to add—
  'and calls on Her Majesty's Government to recognise and draw to the attention of other Member States of the European Community that the genesis and evolution of the current Common Fisheries Policy is flawed by past misrepresentation, coercion by qualified majority vote, inequity between Member States, and impracticality in operation, and is thus incapable of achieving the objectives of conservation of fisheries and the marine environment that can yield sustainable catches and consequent stability of income and employment in fishing communities: and thus believes that these objectives can only be achieved by a new policy created and sustained by mutual agreement between those Member States possessing internationally recognised fishery interests working in co-operation to achieve these universally desirable ends.'.— [Mr. Spearing.]
  Question, That the amendment be made, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees):—
  The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 164.

  Division No. 211]

  [4.27 pm

  AYES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Beith, A J

  Madden, Max

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Molyneaux, Sir James

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Chidgey, David

  Rendel, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Salmond, Alex

  Dalyell, Tam

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Steel, Sir David

  Flynn, Paul

  Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gill, Christopher

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hardy, Peter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Harry Barnes and Dr. Norman A. Godman.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Bates, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  365

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, John

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cope, Sir John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, John

  Gallie, Phil

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Madel, Sir David

  366

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Allan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thomason, Roy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Newton, Tony

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Paice, James

  Waldegrave, William

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Walden, George

  Pawsey James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pickles, Eric

  Waller, Gary

  Rathbone, Tim

  Ward, John

  Rifkind Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roberts, sir wyn

  Wells, Bowen

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shephard, Gillian

  Young, Sir George

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to

  Point of Order
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published a Fisheries Review Group document. I found two reference copies of it in the Library, but no copies for hon. Members in the Vote Office. The document is substantial, and does not easily photocopy.
  It is infuriating for hon. Members with fishing constituencies, who have been waiting for this document for many months, to find that it has been published on the last day of the Session and in a manner that makes it extremely inconvenient and difficult to consult. As MAFF Ministers are on the Front Bench, may I use your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask whether they are prepared to extend some common courtesy to hon. Members?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I
  shall cause inquiries to be made. I have no prior knowledge of the matter.

  Orders of the Day

    EDUCATION BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    SCHOOL INSPECTIONS BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. John Morris: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I just say one word?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am
    sorry, but no debate is possible under the Standing Order arrangements.
    Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    Accelerated Slaughter Programme
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]
    4.41 pm
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): This will be a short debate, and I know that many hon. Members have points that they wish to make. Therefore, I shall keep my remarks brief, and focus on the issues of most immediate importance.
    I shall deal first with the selective cull. As hon. Members know, the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured at the Florence Council provides the framework for the step-by-step lifting of the European Union ban on exports of United Kingdom beef and beef products. Decisions on each step will be taken on the basis of scientific and objective criteria. The agreement was a great success, and provides a solid way forward. The framework also provides for the introduction by the United Kingdom of a programme for accelerating the decline of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
    As I have stated frequently, the Government are committed to a policy of eradicating BSE— it is a high policy objective. We are pursuing that objective successfully. I am glad to report that the number of confirmed cases is in sharp decline. To date, there have been about 160,000 confirmed cases. The peak was in 1992, when we had about 36,500 confirmed cases. By 1995, that had fallen to about 14,000 confirmed cases. This year, leaving aside any question of a cull, we expect about 8,000 confirmed cases. That figure will fall to about 2,800 confirmed cases by 1998. As the House will see, we are steadily eradicating BSE from our national herd.
    On 3 July, we issued a consultation document on our selective slaughter programme which is designed to increase the rate of decline still further. The aim of the programme is to identify, slaughter and destroy those animals that, on objective grounds, can reasonably be regarded as most likely to have been exposed to the risk of infection, and thus to develop BSE.
    There has been much talk— in the House and elsewhere— about the cull of hundreds of thousands of animals and about whole-herd slaughter. Neither is true. The programme will be carefully targeted, focusing on certain individual animals born in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. As hon. Members know, for animals born in 1989–90, the slaughter will be voluntary.
    There have been many responses to our consultation document. In addition, my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Agriculture, with Ministers in other Agriculture Departments, have held many meetings with farmers throughout the country to hear local views at first hand. Many views have been expressed to us on such details as what we mean by a cohort, the definition of a herd and the right to make representations against the requirement to slaughter.
    All those responses are still being considered. I am determined that our final conclusions should reflect as many of the concerns as possible. It is our intention that, in carrying out this policy— which I recognise is a difficult one for many people— we should be as sensitive as we can to the individual problems of every farm.
    370
    In this respect, I should say that I am especially aware of the anxieties of dairy farmers about the possible implications for milk quota management. I am pleased to announce that, last night, I was able to secure an important concession from Commissioner Fischler at the Agriculture Council. Subject to certain conditions, United Kingdom farmers who are affected by our programme will be able to lease out surplus milk quota after the end of the calendar year. That should provide welcome flexibility for those concerned.
    Taking into account all the relevant considerations, I have concluded that, although it is right that the House should now have the opportunity to debate the programme, it would not be right for me to sign the orders. I did, however, think that it would help hon. Members if they could read copies of the present drafts of the orders, which are now available in the Vote Office. Before signing them, Ministers will take into account the responses to our consultation paper, the views expressed in the House, and any other relevant material.
    Sir Donald Thompson: I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend made a long statement earlier and that he is discussing the important matter of mass slaughter, but, before we get to that mass slaughter, we must deal with the fact that all sorts of farmers throughout this country are facing delays in getting their cattle slaughtered in ones and twos.
    They seem to hint that, were they to deal with dealers rather than directly with slaughterhouses, there would be some accelerated progress. My right hon. and learned Friend will have read that I have said the same thing in the House before. Will he encourage his civil servants and his Ministers to ensure that we get the tidying-up process before we enter into the great programme that he is proposing?
    Mr. Hogg: I am conscious of the concerns that have been expressed— for example, by my hon. Friend. I am glad that the slaughter policy under the 30-month rule is proceeding effectively— in many ways, thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We have slaughtered around 280,000 beasts thus far under the 30-month rule. It is difficult to be wholly certain when we will eliminate the backlog, but I hope that that will happen around the middle of October. I certainly understand that it would be desirable either to complete, or at least nearly to complete, the backlog before embarking on the selective cull.
    Mr. George Foulkes: As the Minister rightly says, the accelerated slaughter scheme is not welcomed by the producers, who are entering into it reluctantly— it is causing them stress and disturbance. Beef producers in Scotland have made it clear to me that they are willing to go along with the scheme, albeit reluctantly, on the clear understanding that the beef ban will be lifted. The Minister has constantly said that the framework is there for lifting the ban.
    I have looked carefully, but I cannot find any guarantee or clear indication that the ban will be lifted if we go ahead with the scheme. Will the Minister spell out how it was made clear in the agreement reached in the Council of Ministers that, if the scheme goes ahead, the ban will be lifted?
    Mr. Hogg: The framework agreement works as follows: the British Government must fulfil certain obligations, most notably, putting in place the legislation on the selective cull, but also putting in place the requirements regarding the recall of feed and measures involving the identification and traceability of beasts. I shall come to those points later.
    When we believe that we have concluded that process, we shall present the Commission with a paper setting out what we have done. The Commission will doubtless wish to verify that we have done that which we have said we have done. We shall then look to the Commission to bring forward proposals for the step-by-step lifting of the ban. The framework identifies a number of steps that we think should be taken before the ban is entirely lifted. I think that the first steps that are likely to be taken involve certified herds— a point that I shall touch on.
    For those purposes, the most important thing in the framework agreement, which has been signed up to by all the Heads of State, is a recognition that the Commission and its various instruments, such as the Standing Veterinary Committee, should proceed on scientific and objective criteria, not with regard to any other considerations, as some people might feel that they have hitherto done.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Would this be an appropriate time to ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend will be saying something about the position of cattle that have been sold under the age of 30 months where there has been a substantial loss on the transaction? Is my right hon. and learned Friend attracted to the proposition that the £ 29.6 million provided by Europe should be applied entirely to help that sector? Can he say something about whether there might be matching funding to provide genuine compensation for the difference in respect of market values?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but perhaps he will forgive me if I respond to it in the course of my speech, as I have something specific to say on it.
    Mr. Paul Marland: On the subject of clearing the backlog, there has been some discussion about bringing into play some cold storage, so that animals that have been slaughtered can be stored in a cold store until the rendering capacity is available to treat the carcases. What is the current position on that?
    Mr. Hogg: We have plans to bring on stream additional cold storage facilities. It is that fact which, at least in part, enables me to say that I hope that we shall clear the backlog by around the middle of October. It is important to have additional storage capacity, because we must render some parts of all beasts that are killed under the slaughter scheme.
    I have already told the House— I hope that it is helpful to hon. Members— that copies of the draft orders are in the Vote Office. There are some further points that I think hon. Members would like to know. Ministers are likely to sign the relevant orders during the next few weeks— that is not absolutely certain, but likely. That would allow us to start the process of tracing animals in the way set out in the consultation paper and, where appropriate, to apply restriction orders.
    372
    There are also a number of questions to which the farming community is anxious to have answers— most notably, compensation. The Government have recognised the need for fair compensation, going beyond our practice for disease control measures.
    There will not always be a ready market in the older animals that are slaughtered. Consequently, farmers will have to go out and replace an animal that is slaughtered with a younger animal, which is likely to be more expensive. We have also to take into account taxpayers' interests, however, and it would not be right for farmers to benefit by improving the quality of their herds at taxpayers' expense. Thus, we must strike a balance.
    We have decided that, in the case of female animals, we will pay compensation at a value of 90 per cent. of the cost of a younger animal— in other words, 90 per cent. of replacement value— or market value, whichever is higher.
    We have also recognised the need for additional compensation for farmers whose herds are most affected. Hon. Members will see our detailed proposals on this matter in paragraph 13 of the consultation document.
    I recognise also that, within the farming community, there is grave anxiety about the prospect of a compulsory slaughter of healthy animals. Therefore, I repeat the assurance that I gave the House on 18 July: there will be no compulsory slaughter under this scheme unless the House has had an opportunity to debate the relevant order.
    That assurance is subject to one qualification. Separate legislation applies in Northern Ireland, and farming organisations there strongly favour an early cull. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may proceed with slaughter in Northern Ireland in advance of any debate in the autumn. However, we will not proceed to a compulsory slaughter in Great Britain on that basis.
    Sir Colin Shepherd: My right hon. and learned Friend has set out the Government's position as stated in the consultation document. As he will be aware, both the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union took issue with increased compensation for farmers whose herds have been more affected. I should be grateful if he would amplify on that matter, rather than making his rather bald statement about securing a balance. Why does he feel that that balance is correct?
    Mr. Hogg: There are two elements in the compensation. First, there is compensation for the beef itself. On that, I reiterate what I have said already: compensation for female animals will reflect 90 per cent. of replacement value or market value, whichever is highest. The justification for a 90 per cent. rather than a 100 per cent. replacement value is that, inevitably, farmers will replace an older beast— as, by definition, it will be— with a younger beast. There is a degree of betterment to that.
    It is perfectly fair for my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) to say, "This obligation has been cast on the farmer by the Government." However, we have tried to deal with the concerns both of taxpayers and of the farming community, by saying that 90 per cent. of replacement value or market value, whichever is highest, will take account of the balance that must be struck.

    373
    The second element in the compensation relates to the disruption that is caused. When one takes out cattle from a herd, one inevitably disrupts a farmer's business. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford will see, in paragraph 13 of the consultation paper, the measures by which we deal with that matter. In very broad terms, they are as follows. If 10 per cent. of a herd is culled, there will be a 10 per cent. supplement on the value of an individual beast. The supplement will increase in a linear progression, so that there will be a 25 per cent. supplement if 40 per cent. of a herd is culled. I should say that the supplement is subject to a cap, which is explained in paragraph 13 of the consultation document.
    It might be helpful if I give the House some information on several related matters. Under the over-30-month scheme, we have now slaughtered rather more than 270,000 beasts, and we are, as I have said, on course for clearing the backlog by mid-October. We would wish to complete, or nearly complete, this process before embarking on the mandatory selective cull.
    I attach considerable importance to making speedy progress on our schemes for herds, or animals, which can properly be said never to have been exposed to the risk of developing BSE.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
    Mr. Hogg: I must make a little progress; I shall then certainly give way to my hon. Friend.
    We are making excellent progress on the concept of the certified herd. We have discussed the scheme with the Commission, which has raised no objections. We hope to start the process of certifying herds by mid-August. This will provide an exception to the 30-month rule so far as the UK domestic market is concerned, and I would hope to be able to press for an early relaxation of the ban on beef exports in respect of the certified herds.
    Mr. Jackson: I greatly welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the passporting scheme. Does he agree that it must be a high priority, as it is the key to providing a watertight guarantee to consumers at home, in Europe and elsewhere?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Easy identification of animals and their traceability are key elements in restoring the confidence of consumers and our EU partners. The UK has in fact for a number of years had a system which identifies each animal individually, and enables us to trace it back to its herd of origin, but we are improving and reinforcing that system.
    Every bovine animal born in Great Britain after 1 July has to have a cattle passport recording all its movements. We are moving as rapidly as we can to a fully computer-based movement recording system. These are the types of development that my hon. Friend would urge on us.
    Mr. Nick Ainger: The Minister is talking about clearing the backlog by mid-October. A number of my constituents— farmers and cattle dealers— have mentioned the fact that dealers are not considered as collection centres. Slaughterhouses are informing these dealers that they cannot take the beasts they have, or their customers' beasts— the farmers' beasts— because slaughterhouses have to take 75 per cent. of their throughput from collection centres.
    Farmers are being told by auctioneers with whom they have never traded that they— the auctioneers— must refuse to take their beasts into their collection centres. Will the Minister explain why he has stipulated that slaughterhouses must take 75 per cent. of their throughput from collection centres?
    Mr. Hogg: It reflects the pattern of the previous trade, but we are trying to secure a higher throughput through the live marts in order to bring about a slight skew in the system. Some discussions are taking place, especially with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to try to ensure that live marts are getting a higher proportion of the clean cattle than is currently the case.
    I deal now with the question of feed. As the House will know, our view is that ruminant protein in cattle rations is the historic, and by far the most important, cause of BSE. Acting on feed is therefore the key to eradicating BSE. I will not repeat again the various measures that we have taken since 1988 to control the feed given to UK farm animals. I would, however, remind the House of the steps that we are taking this month— at Government expense— to collect and dispose of any supplies of meat and bonemeal still on farms or in feedmills.
    From 1 August, it will be an offence to possess such material. I assure the House that we shall be vigorous in our enforcement of this very important provision. The provisions now in place should prevent any risk of ruminants being fed cattle rations that contain any mammalian protein.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: On a point of information, what is the position on the continent in terms of animal feed? The general population has learned an awful lesson about the feeding of animal protein to cattle and sheep which are herbivores. Is that still the practice in other European countries?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right. The regimes of some countries on the mainland of Europe have been much less satisfactory as regards the use of mammalian protein being fed to farm animals than has been the case here for many years. However, controls have been tightened, and the Commissioner himself intends to make new proposals in that regard. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is important that the requirement is EU-wide in its application.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asked about support. We have introduced a range of measures to safeguard the future of the key links in the chain. My hon. Friend will remember that the Agriculture Council in June agreed a range of EU assistance worth about £ 110 million for beef farmers. Of that, about £ 29 million, or 34 mecu, was available as a discretionary spend. I am announcing by written answer today how we propose to spend this.

    375
    In substance, we will be using the £ 29 million to pay a headage payment in respect of cattle sold for slaughter between 20 March and 30 June— provided, of course, that the necessary documents can be produced. We have thereby gone a long way towards meeting the wishes of the farming community and its representatives, so as to ensure that the money gets quickly into the pockets of those who have suffered most.
    To make it plain, £ 29 million of the £ 110 million will be used as I have just described, and the balance will be loaded on to the premium. However, it is not our intention to introduce national aids.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I sympathise with the Minister's losing his voice. Although his announcement will be some consolation and help to producers who sold at a significant loss earlier this year, what can he say to those who produce suckler calves on the hills and who are contemplating the autumn calf sales with great anxiety, because they cannot afford the fodder to keep those animals throughout the winter months?
    Mr. Hogg: The real honest answer is that consumer confidence has to be built up. The market price is the only way to bring about permanent financial assistance or resources to the sector of the farming community that we are debating. We do not have it in mind to introduce a further top-up scheme; nor are there currently any proposals for such a scheme.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose—
    Mr. Hogg: No, I cannot give way. I must make progress.
    I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, essentially, the solution lies in the market. We need to ensure that market confidence is restored.
    On many occasions since 20 March, the House has had an opportunity to discuss BSE and how we can best respond to the grave difficulties that we all face. It is for that reason— the fact that we have been here before— that I have not thought it necessary to go into overmuch detail, but have focused on those matters which are of most immediate concern.
    In closing, I should like to pay tribute to the good sense and patience of the fanning community and of those who represent it. I have been deeply impressed by the courage and dignity with which those engaged in agriculture and in related industries have met these quite exceptional and most challenging of times. They have our support.
    Indeed, I believe that only a Conservative Government would have had the will to commit such vast resources to the assistance of British agriculture. We have thereby given powerful and conclusive evidence of the importance that we attach to this vital sector of the British economy.
    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, will he give way?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
    Order. I rather thought that the Minister had already sat down.
    Mr. Hogg: I was making my final observation, and I give way to my hon. Friend
    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. and learned Friend is most kind. I know that he mentioned the cold storage scheme, but unfortunately I had to attend to an urgent matter outside.
    Let me briefly draw to his attention a point about the north-west and Lancaster in particular. Although it is a small market, there is a great backlog of 2,700 cattle awaiting slaughter. That figure will increase dramatically in the autumn, and there could well be animal welfare problems. That makes it so important that an adequate cold storage scheme is provided in the north-west. I should say to my right hon. Friend that there is a belief—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but interventions should be brief, and this is an one-and-a-half-hour debate.
    Mr. Hogg: I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs has been to Preston to discuss exactly the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Our objective is to ensure that the 30-month scheme operates as effectively as possible. There are rather more than 40 abattoirs operating in England and Wales.
    It is important to match abattoirs to Tenderers to make the scheme as effective as possible, but the cold storage facilities are also important, and I hope that bringing together all the additional facilities will enable us to clear the backlog by about the middle of October. Meanwhile, I shall certainly take account of the point that my hon. Friend has just raised.
    5.10 pm
    Dr. Gavin Strang: It seems appropriate that we should debate BSE on the day that the House rises. The matter has rightly preoccupied hon. Members for many months, and it has been the subject of several debates.
    The House will be all too aware of the Government's appalling record on BSE since the disease was officially identified in 1986. It is a record of delay in regulating to protect human and animal health from the BSE agent and of dreadful under-enforcement of those regulations.
    By May 1989, the Labour party had realised that it was vital to ban cattle offal from human food, to compensate farmers fully for slaughtered BSE cattle, and to ban the export of meat and bonemeal for cattle feed. Six years ago, in 1990, we called for a tagging system for all calves to be introduced in Great Britain. We knew that traceability would be the key to tackling the problem. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for South Shields (Dr. Clark) are on record calling for action, much of which was belatedly taken by the Government.
    Had the Conservative Government listened to Labour, the difficulties faced by the beef industry now would be on a far smaller scale.
    There is now great resentment— and a lack of confidence among consumers and the beef industry— at the Government's handling of the crisis that followed the statements made on 20 March that BSE was the most likely explanation for an apparently new strain of CJD.

    377
    The House will remember that on that day the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated:
    "I do not believe that this information should damage consumer confidence and thus the beef market."— [Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 387.]
    The Government had no strategy to cope with the crisis, and our rural areas are paying a heavy price for that misjudgment.
    As bits of policy have emerged since the statements of 20 March, they have been dogged by chaos and confusion. Nowhere was that more apparent— nothing had more impact on the industry— than in the introduction of the 30-month slaughter scheme. Only last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster admitted on radio that there were still problems with the scheme. At least one Conservative Member has drawn attention to the aspects of the implementation of the scheme that are a matter of great concern to the industry.
    There is continued dissatisfaction with the selection of abattoirs involved in the scheme, and in my view it is certainly time to review the level of payments made to slaughterhouses participating in the scheme. There is a general feeling in the industry that the rate paid for slaughtering an animal under the 30-month scheme is exceptionally and unjustifiably high.
    On 16 April, the Minister promised that there would be exceptions to the 30-month rule for those herds— especially organic and specialist herds— with no risk of BSE. No such scheme is yet in operation. The Minister addressed the selective slaughter scheme, which is the main item before the House today.
    Mr. Marland: We have heard this before from the hon. Gentleman. Before he leaves the section of his speech in which he criticises what is happening in the slaughterhouses, will he tell the House what his party proposes and how Labour would sort out the problem? It is not good enough for him to echo the Irishman and say, "I would not start from here if I were trying to find a way forward." It would be interesting to hear what the Labour party would do.
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is tremendous dissent in the slaughterhouse industry. We recognise that there is overcapacity and that it has created problems. There is a feeling in many of the slaughterhouses and abattoirs not involved in the scheme that those participating in the scheme are achieving high profits and that the scheme is giving them an unfair competitive advantage in a difficult market.
    No matter how we embarked on the scheme— we should recall that the Government proposed the 30-month slaughter scheme, albeit in response to the views of the industry; it was not imposed by Europe— it was always going to be a huge logistical operation.
    Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Strang: No. Others are waiting to speak, including the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
    Mr. Marland rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
    Dr. Strang: I am encouraged by hon. Members on both sides of the House not to give way, so I shall move on fairly quickly.
    378
    It is obviously a matter of regret that the orders have not been signed, but hon. Members should have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
    The House will remember that, at first, the selective slaughter scheme was to involve 40,000 cattle. That was the figure that the Minister first mentioned to the House. It was then increased to 80,000. Now, up to 147,000 cattle will be killed under the scheme. After great difficulty, that was agreed with the other member states of the European Union. We are concerned that what we have in return is not adequate. We have no timetable, and no guarantee from our European counterparts of any future agreement on the proposed lifting of the overall ban on the export of our beef and beef products.
    The Minister will be aware that there is great concern throughout the industry. Did he agree with the Prime Minister when he said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on 4 July that the selective slaughter policy was necessary, "to ensure public health"? I doubt that that can really be the Government's position.
    Does the Minister share the Prime Minister's assessment that, by October, we shall be ready for the lifting of the ban on certified herds, young animals and embryos, and that, by November, all the conditions should be met to allow all meat that can be sold in the United Kingdom to be exported?
    I remind the House that the agreement that was reached with Europe obliged the Government to get the necessary legislation and administrative provisions into force by 1 August. We are clearly in no position to achieve that.
    The farming industry is right to advise the Minister that the cost of replacing an animal slaughtered under the scheme will be greater than its market value. The Minister has provided us with information on compensation. It is fair to say that he has now reached an understanding with the industry in respect of the compensation being offered. There are some considerations as to how we calculate the size of the herd, but hon. Members will recognise that, if we are to implement such a scheme, there must be fair compensation. Indeed, it will be a traumatic time for many producers and dairies. Many of them will be unaware of what lies ahead. Such uncertainty is of great concern to the industry.
    I would like to raise a number of points, but time is short. Many of us are repeatedly approached about incineration. What additional incineration facilities are being provided? A huge volume of meat and bonemeal, which is created by Tenderers after the animals are slaughtered, has to be incinerated. The operation is huge, and we need some assurance that the Government are pressing ahead with it because it causes great controversy in many parts of the country.
    It is of deep regret— I make no apology for repeating it— that two thirds of BSE cases being reported are in cattle that were born after the ruminant feed ban was put in place. We know that that ban was not effective. I still believe that there is a very powerful argument for an investigation into whether we can identify the main sources of that contaminated ruminant protein. Where were the cases occurring? Where was the specified bovine offal not being properly kept out? Where were compounders— I think by accident— continuing to supply contaminated ruminant protein? To what extent was there cross-contamination through the use of the same equipment for pig and poultry meal?

    379
    I appreciate the Minister's advising the House on how the Government intend to allocate the special additional aid that the EU has given to individual countries. I welcome his decision in this area. There was a feeling in the industry that the Government would allocate it to the beef special premium scheme. It is obviously fairer that the money should go to producers who have lost most and been hit hardest— those who have been selling beef for consumption since the crisis broke on 20 March.
    We have a long way to go on this issue. There is a great deal to be learnt, but I am sure that hon. Members share the objective that we must support the industry and all its ancillary aspects as best we can. Of course we do not have an open purse; of course there is a limit lo the amount of money that any Government can spend on the matter, but above all we must see our way forward and re-establish our reputation as a country that has some of the healthiest livestock in the world and high quality beef and beef products.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I should point out that this is a very short debate and I should be grateful if those who are called would speak very briefly.
    5.22 pm
    Mr. John Biffen: I welcome the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to take part in this debate. I very much appreciate his gesture, given the difficulty that he has with his voice. I believe that the whole House welcomes it; it underlines the importance of this topic to many of our constituencies. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall try to keep my remarks to the minimum, having regard to the many hon. Members who want to take part in the debate.
    The situation that we are considering has some echoes for me, since the 1968 foot and mouth disease originated in my constituency. For many months, I felt that I lived with that topic, excluding all others. One very strong recollection that I have from that occasion was the fashion that developed for saying that the traditional slaughter policy for foot and mouth disease was being overtaken by the magnitude of the disease and that we should be much more sympathetic towards a vaccination policy. The clamour— certainly a representation— was resisted by Mr. Fred Peart, who, as Agriculture Minister, earned my genuine respect. He was a streetwise politician.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Biffen: I see that his son and heir is present. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman represents quite the same robust views on the issues of our time.
    Mr. Peart fought his battles with the Treasury, but above all, broadly speaking, he was the master of his own Department. He did not have to go across to Brussels every five or 20 minutes to seek guidance, secure permission, and so on. I am not in any sense being disrespectful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who has done an extremely good job in these difficult circumstances. Let the House be under no illusion, however, that the world is very different when a Minister must operate within a collective framework rather than carry out departmental policies as could be done in the time of foot and mouth disease.
    380
    We are confronted today not by the assertion of the traditional means of countering a disease but by a departure from the traditional means of countering BSE. I agree that the disease is relatively modern, has the most horrifying consequences, and is deeply worrying to the farming industry that wants to preserve a worldwide reputation for animal hygiene. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, although there were difficulties in the early days, which have been well documented, the incidence of BSE fell by 61 per cent. between 1992 and 1995, and that fall is continuing. We are all entitled to ask what should be added to that policy to make it more cost-effective. It is not as though we are bewildered at being confronted by a disease; just the opposite.
    What is so important about the accelerated programme and the orders that might be laid in its support is, first, the extent to which we are envisaging the slaughter of cattle that have no visible symptoms of BSE; secondly the slaughter cannot be easily identified as directly assisting the reduction of BSE; and, thirdly, a substantial element of the programme is— presumably— related to the restoration of consumer confidence. All those propositions need to be much more explicit and much more thoroughly argued to secure the House's assent. That is why I think that it would be valuable to return to the subject in the autumn when we know rather more about the factors and the significance attached to them.
    Every hon. Member is naturally anxious that our rural communities should be compensated for the losses incurred over BSE, and it is natural that our first thought is of the farming community. The difficulties go much wider. Shropshire county council and the Shropshire training and enterprise council produced a paper on what was thought to be the cost to the community. I advised them to submit it to the Treasury, because it seemed very prudent. We are considering substantial costs. Let there be no doubt whatever that they impact on total public spending and any assumptions of tax reductions. That is why we will want to consider the working of the scheme again to ensure that the financial costs are limited wherever possible. We should reconsider the scale of the slaughter that is so far envisaged where it is questionable that it will have any impact on the reduction, and the rate of reduction, in BSE.
    I turn now to parliamentary control over policy. I am very pleased that we are having this debate, that it is on a one-line Whip and that it is low key. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that we are all concerned about seeking to support the agriculture industry. We all want to ensure that its interests are secured in equitable terms— and not only in our national community. We also want them to be reasonably effectively represented in the European Union. To that extent, the House must consider how best to make its representations.
    I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will be sensitive to anxieties on this point. Criticising the present arrangements does not amount to xenophobia; it simply means, given our history of animal health and welfare, that we are not prepared to throw all that aside and adopt a system that we would never have adopted had we been left to make our own dispositions in reaction to events earlier this year.
    This is a challenge to the maturity of the political judgment and political effect of national parliaments in relation to Community decisions. If we do not start getting it right now, we shall be doing no service to our friendship with Europe.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Following one of the comments made by the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen), I might point out that one of the features that I find most unsatisfactory in this programme is the fact that it is incredibly inefficient. Perhaps 98 per cent. of the animals that will be slaughtered do not have BSE. I listened intently to the Minister's opening remarks to hear how these cohorts of animals were to be selected for slaughter under the programme. I heard nothing about that— except that they will be animals from herds that have included cows with BSE. What about a herd of 50 cows in which just one has had BSE? How many of them will be slaughtered? We await the details.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) pointed out, the numbers have grown time and again— from tens of thousands, to 40,000, to 120,000. Now, there are even fears of 200,000 having to be slaughtered. It is rather like losing badly at Monopoly or poker. What is more, the numbers have always seemed arbitrary, and there is no enthusiasm on the part of farmers for the programme.
    One of the greatest disappointments of recent times in the BSE story is the fact that no live test for BSE has been developed. We pressed for research into one many years ago. During a recent recess, I spent four or five hours going through the literature that I have accumulated on the development of a test for BSE in live animals. I then wrote a detailed letter to the Ministry of Agriculture— three pages in all— summarising some of the progress and inviting comments. I know that MAFF is hugely overburdened these days, but I did expect better than the six or seven-line reply that included no detailed comment on the research that I had quoted.
    The Minister may say that this is unfair, but I detect a certain indifference in MAFF to developing a test for BSE in live animals, even though ultimately that will be the only effective, efficient way of eradicating it. I should like to think that, if the Labour party was in charge of agriculture over the next five or six months, we would launch an intensive effort to develop such a test, so that it would be ready by, at the very latest, December. Based on my knowledge of the subject, I feel sure that such an intensive effort would lead to a test for BSE in live animals by the end of the year.
    The global total of animals to be slaughtered during the next 12 months will be 1 million, comprising the 15,000 a week barren cows, the extra numbers under this new programme, and the slaughter of cattle aged more than 30 months— yet only about 10,000 are certified as having BSE. One hundred times as many cows as need to be are being slaughtered. Hence the urgency of finding a test for BSE in live animals.
    I was reassured by the Minister's remarks about compensation for farmers in terms of replacement values and market values. The terms seem fair and reasonable. I am pleased also to hear that the £ 29.5 million from the EC is to be topped up by the Government—
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Wrong.
    Mr. Williams: Really?
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The £ 29 million is not to be topped up. I explained that we were going to use the money to make payments in respect of cattle sold between 20 March and 30 June— but we are not topping it up.
    Mr. Williams: In that case I am deeply disappointed. The money is being aimed at the right target, but I can
    382
    see the force of the representations made to me to the effect that the beef market since 20 March has suffered such a devastating blow that the Government should have provided as much money as the EC is providing.
    I want to say something about the fees being paid to abattoirs by the Government. I have been sent a letter— I do not know whether it was circulated to all hon. Members or just to those interested in agriculture— by Sam Morphet, chairman of the Bermans Group of Abattoir Operators. He is severely critical of the selection of abattoirs. There are 256 slaughterhouses in Britain, 41 of which have been allocated work under this scheme— but 19 of them have been allocated 82 per cent. of the work, and they are the largest abattoirs. That is completely unfair.
    I find one paragraph of Mr. Morphet's letter staggering:
    "payment for the slaughter of cattle under the scheme is being set at the extraordinarily high rate of £ 107.50 per beast (£ 87.50 plus the value of the hide which is at least £ 20). To put this into context a reasonable commercial rate for the job is around £ 30 including the value of the hide."
    I hope that the Minister will, this afternoon, explain to the House and to the people of this country— they are footing the bill— why abattoirs are being paid three times the going rate.
    I should like, finally, to mention the environmental implications of the slaughter programme. We hear stories from time to time of severe difficulties encountered in the slaughtering of 1 million head of cattle. First, there is an acute shortage across Britain of rendering capacity. Indeed, in Wales there is not a single rendering plant. I hear, too, that Canterbury Mills plant in Ashford, Kent may be operating in an unsatisfactory way. A few weeks ago, there were stories of aqueous effluent from the plant being poured on to adjacent land, with the consequent danger of prions contaminating that land. The material may even have contaminated water supplies, and it is no coincidence that there is a cluster of CJD cases in that area. That rendering plant has been in operation for many years, and we cannot be so casual in disposal.
    Some 800,000 cattle are to be rendered down to meat and bonemeal, but we have no way of disposing of it. It cannot be used in animal feed, and it must be stored. It may end up being dumped as landfill— a solution that I find most unsatisfactory. It would be far better if the material were incinerated, but although there is a problem with incineration capacity, that is the only environmentally acceptable solution. I hope that MAFF will show urgency in that regard. If this is to be an on-going programme for the next five or six years— if 800,000 cattle a year are to be slaughtered— we need to develop incineration capacity so that we can destroy the material and make certain no harm is done to the environment.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. Tom King: In the south-west recently the Prime Minister referred to this crisis as the most difficult problem that he had faced in his 17 years in Parliament, and few who represent rural constituencies would disagree with him. We meet at an acutely worrying time for many farmers, and I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen) said about the spirit in which this debate must be approached and the way in which the

    383
    Government have set it up. This initial debate on the Adjournment will be followed by another opportunity to consider the matter when we return.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that this has been a massive organisational challenge. I have criticised the time that it has taken to get the cull of cattle aged over 30 months under way. Clearly there continue to be problems and there will be more, so vast is the extent of the cull. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister should be congratulated on the compensation that he has achieved for farmers, which is fair. The scheme has taken time, as no one has ever managed to complete a quick chat with the Treasury. I recognise also that we are dealing with substantial sums of public money that have a significant impact on the economy. The offer of 90 per cent. of replacement costs is fair, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on what I recognise will not have been an easy discussion.
    Having said that, I must join my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire in expressing the gravest concerns and some reservations about the policy. I am glad that we are not voting on it tonight, because I am not sure that I would be able to support it. The purpose of the measure— as stated in the consultation document— is to accelerate the decline in the number of BSE cases in the United Kingdom. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister confirmed in his speech that BSE is in sharp decline in any case. What will we achieve and what will it cost us to accelerate something that is in sharp decline?
    The purpose is not simply to get an export ban lifted from Europe, but to restore confidence in British beef. Perhaps the return of McDonalds to purchasing on the British market and the success of the Meat and Livestock Commission's campaign to eat more mince— I had mince in the House last night, and extremely good it was— may achieve more for British beef than the lifting of the export ban to Europe. I am not sure how big that export market will be, but it may be significant as an indication of confidence.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister may remember that when the measures were first announced some months ago, I said that the lifting of the ban in Europe was desirable, but not at any price. If colleagues consult Hansard they will find that phrase. We need to consider this carefully. If the purpose of this very distressing and expensive scheme is mainly to achieve the lifting of the export ban on live cattle to Europe, what confidence can we have that that will be the consequence?
    There is distressing news about gelatine and tallow— matters that I thought had been settled. I understand that there is now fresh uncertainty, and that the ban on those products has not yet been lifted. Clearly it would be most unsatisfactory if we were to proceed with the scheme, only to find that we had not achieved our objectives. Practically every day in the newspapers, the scientific journals and the media, we hear of a new scientist who has found a new way of identifying the disease. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) referred to the importance of what he regards as the Holy Grail in this matter, the live test.
    I do not know what will come forward in the three months between now and October— and three months in the life of this terrible saga is a long time. It is extremely wise of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to continue to approach the matter in the way he has. He has
    384
    tabled a draft order that establishes what the arrangements will be. There was uncertainty in some of the circulars that we received— including, I believe, from the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association— that the draft orders might change the terms of compensation. It would be helpful if my right hon. and learned Friend or the Minister could reassure those concerned that those are the terms of compensation if the cull goes ahead.
    Farmers need to know where they will stand, but I believe that it would be right to hold our counsel and take all possible steps to firm up as clearly as we can just how good the undertakings from Europe are. If the framework is there and if the steps are achieved, we need to know that the ban will be lifted. We can then approach this difficult and challenging issue in that knowledge. But at present, I must say clearly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that I am not confident that I shall be voting in support of such a scheme in October.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), as I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues share many of his misgivings. This is a very short debate, and the draft orders were available to us only shortly before it began. It is regrettable that we have such little time to consider and debate the orders. If the Under-Secretary cannot respond to my specific questions during the winding-up speech, I hope we will have the benefit of written answers.
    First, can we be given the latest date for the start of the accelerated slaughter scheme? From what the Minister said, it sounds as if that is directly dependent on the completion of the removal of the backlog of the 30-month cattle disposal scheme. If so, a considerable acceleration of that scheme is needed. As has been said in previous debates, and again tonight, there is a considerable backlog which in some regions is more dramatic than others. In particular, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's firm promise on sourcing through auction marts is not being met.
    The regional discrepancies are huge. In the south-west, for example, 80 per cent. of farmers have animals that have been in the queue since the beginning of the crisis in March. That area has 26 per cent. of the total number of cattle over 30 months but has been allocated only 19 per cent. of abattoir capacity for the cull. We must adjust that balance quickly.
    Similarly, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given assurances about allocation to smaller abattoirs, some of which are on the brink of bankruptcy. From Plymouth to Cumbria, I know of abattoirs that have not been brought into the scheme despite meeting the five criteria. They are being driven out of business by the carve-up, which is sanctioned by the Ministry and the intervention board but imposed by the cartel of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers and the United Kingdom Renderers Association. That must be sorted out in the next few weeks if there is to be success by October.
    We must get value for the taxpayer's money. Is it not extraordinary that the Intervention Board's original instinct, which was to ensure competitive tendering from the abattoirs competing for the business, was overruled? The excuse for not using it given by Ministers in answer to my questions was that there was an emergency.

    385
    Eighteen weeks on, is it still an emergency that cannot permit competitive tendering? To correct the bias of the past will require positive discrimination in the next few weeks. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that he expects by next week to be able to sort out some of the problems. Can the Minister of Agriculture guarantee that that will happen?
    The Minister of Agriculture has made clear his chosen method to assist beef producers caught in the impossible market conditions of the past 18 weeks. We accept as a good basis for further action the £ 29.4 million that he said will be available to farmers who have suffered from the sale of young cattle at reduced prices. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), he made it clear that anything that happens in the autumn in relation to store cattle will have to depend on the recovery of confidence in the market. No hon. Member who represents farming communities is convinced that there will be a recovery as fast as that. I hope that the Minister will at least accept that if matters do not improve, he will take steps to redeem that situation.
    On the accelerated slaughter scheme, is there now a firm commitment to the replacement value to which the Minister of Agriculture referred? If that proves inadequate, or if the consultation that is starting only today proves that 90 per cent. is not sufficient, can we be guaranteed that at least that figure will not be reduced? If there is to be a change, the percentage should be increased. What account will be taken of the considerable costs of disruption and dislocation for closed herds that do not buy cattle in? Those are difficult matters. The figures given by the Minister are not a realistic assessment of the true cost.
    Similarly, if we find that milk quotas get out of kilter, can we be guaranteed that there will be flexibility in the coming months so that that does not produce yet more burdens on a hard-pressed sector of the industry? The criteria for identifying cohorts were mentioned. Can we be sure that the draft order will not be altered in the coming weeks so that farmers can know where they stand until October?
    The Minister of Agriculture has to some extent spelled out the logic of his special arrangements for suckler and closed herds, but the draft is unrealistic if it is thought that a 50 per cent. addition is sufficient to meet the needs of such herds. The draft order refers in some detail to the problem of herds that have a large number of followers, which applies especially to closed herds. Against all previous practice they are being included in herd size which dramatically distorts the figure for compensation. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that. Otherwise, as the National Farmers Union said, it will look like sharp practice that criteria different from those of any previous scheme are being used.
    The right hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen) and for Bridgwater referred to the hoops that still must be gone through in Europe. If there are modifications to the scheme, as may well be necessary before October, will the whole scheme have to go back to the Standing Veterinary Committee? As we know, it does not approach the issues purely on scientific grounds. It is composed of representatives of the 15 member state Governments. The Prime Minister complained about the
    386
    way in which it has acted in the past. If the scheme is held up or modified yet again in the autumn, there will be further delays.
    On his return from the Florence summit, the Prime Minister boasted to the House that his objectives had been met and that the ban on the export of beef derivatives would go. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said, it has not gone. The Prime Minister also said that there would be an agreed timetable for the removal of the comprehensive, worldwide export ban on beef. He emphasised that the time scale was in the hands of the British Government. On 24 June, the Prime Minister told us that he expected that, by the end of October, the export position for British beef would be restored to that which existed before 27 March.
    Last Thursday, I put questions to the Minister of Agriculture on that very point. He answered:
    "The framework agreement is quite plain: it provides for a progressive lifting of the ban, in circumstances that are to be judged by the scientific and objective criteria that are spelt out. We are meeting our obligations and I expect the others to meet their obligations."— [Official Report, 18 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 1291.]
    Last Friday, the Prime Minister admitted to farmers in Cornwall that his timetable for lifting the export ban was "pretty speculative" and added:
    "if we could meet that timetable, 1 would be very pleased but I think it will take longer."
    Hon. Members would like to know who we should believe, and what was the purpose of the non-co-operation tactics in the forums of Europe that have left us in a worse state than hen we began.
    5.56 pm
    Mr. Paul Marland: I am glad that the orders for the accelerated cull have not been signed because I hope that we may find that we do not need to indulge in it. It is sensible to pause for longer reflection and consult again those involved in the trade. There is no doubt that the cull is regarded with serious trepidation by the agriculture industry. I spent some time in the cattle sheds at the royal show. Farmers were horrified that their healthy cattle were faced with the possibility of slaughter. There seems to be no scientific justification for the cull, as other hon. Members have said. More importantly, there is no guarantee that the ban on exports will be lifted because of the cull.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about restoring confidence in British beef. I am pleased to tell the House that McDonalds told the Conservative agriculture committee that it is becoming more confident about the possibility of reinstating British beef in its restaurants. It is important to move with considerable caution in the House because the remarks that are made here have a considerable effect outside the House. I shall never forgive the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) when BSE was first debated for her incautious remarks, which had a devastating effect on the British beef industry. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) is taking a more constructive view, for which I compliment him.
    We must move cautiously because of our experience of such matters. We all remember the problems of salmonella in chickens and the millions of chickens that were slaughtered to little advantage as a result of the scares and the sometimes bogus, ill-informed scientific findings that suggested that there needed to be a slaughter.

    387
    We have heard today about BSE in sheep. I have read in the newspapers that the difficulty is that Mr. Fischler's judgment is being called into question because he says that he did not mean to imply that farm sheep could get BSE. The Community is overreacting to his comments. I wonder whether by Christmas some ill-informed scientist will be saying that there is a possibility of turkeys getting BSE.
    It is questionable whether the cull will be needed. I am glad that we have paused. Most importantly, we must ensure that all members of the European Community live by the same regulations. It is outrageous that BSE has been so under-reported in France and Holland. I am pleased that the French now recognise that fact. We want no more duplicity and cover-ups in Europe, planned silence by EU officials and campaigns of misinformation. One source stated:
    "Officials were instructed to show a cool attitude towards BSE in Europe in case it caused an unfavourable reaction in the markets."
    BSE must be tackled on a Europeanwide basis, building on scientific advice. I remind our European partners that at the end of the day, the truth always comes out. Seeking to cover up the truth in their own countries in the past have given them extremely red faces today.
    6 pm
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister said that £ 29 million compensation will be made available to beef producers, but I am disappointed that sum will not be topped up. Although we are debating the BSE crisis as it affects dairy and beef herds, we should concentrate our long-term efforts on making sure that the clean beef industry recovers sufficiently. If it is necessary to prop up the industry in the short term, that would be to the greater advantage of Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. I am pleased that compensation is to be paid quickly, so that it will benefit the incomes of farmers who have suffered considerably from the effects of the crisis. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to close his mind to further assistance later this year.
    Doubts have been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House— and I add the voice of my own party— about the need for the accelerated slaughter programme. There are concerns about the way in which the issue was handled by the Council of Ministers but now that the programme has been accepted as part of the framework, we must make sure that it runs as smoothly as possible. I welcome the increase in compensation, even though it will not represent the full replacement value for which the farming organisations have been pressing. I urge the Minister to ensure that when the measure finally comes before the House, the compensation will be not less than the sum that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced. I trust that he will listen carefully to the representations that the farming unions will be making for increasing the compensations upwards from 90 per cent.
    I urge the Minister to reconsider consequential loss and the direct loss of income that many farmers will inevitably face. The animals caught by the ASP will often be at the top of their productive lives. Their replacements may not be as productive in their early years— the yield per cow will be down, with a consequent loss of income. I ask the Minister to consider including in the compensation programme farmers having herds in which less than 10 per cent. of animals will be affected, of which there may be a considerable number.
    388
    I am grateful to hon. Members in all parts of the House for allowing as many hon. Members as possible to contribute to the debate, to reflect points of view from all parts of the UK. The BSE crisis has had a considerable impact on farming communities in Wales. We want fair compensation, consistent with the demands on the public purse. I want compensation payments to take into account the replacement cost of the animal and the consequential loss of income to the farmer. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to further representations between now and the time that the measure is finally approved by the House.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that a large number of hon. Members still want to speak. Would it be in order to put the motion that the House do now adjourn, so that hon. Members who do not wish to adjourn may vote on it?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I do
    not think that would be desirable. We should hear from the Minister.
    6.4 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The accelerated slaughter programme is a matter of enormous concern, which is why we have consulted extensively with the farming industry and were pleased to have the opportunity to debate the matter today. We will give full consideration to the points made by hon. Members. The purpose of making available but not signing the orders is that we will be able to return to them after the summer recess. We will welcome over the coming weeks and months comments and responses from the industry and hon. Members on the specific details put before the House today.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend have some regard for the morality of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of cattle for no good reason? I ask that against the background of the slaughter of 3.75 million head of poultry in recent years as the result of the salmonella crisis. Every day of every week, millions of fish are being cast back dead into the sea— also for no good reason.
    Mrs. Browning: My colleagues and I have spent the past three weeks meeting farmers throughout the country, to listen to their concerns. In identifying which animals would form part of a cohort, we are specifically considering those that might be incubating BSE. There will be detailed discussions between vets and farmers, because the purpose of the scheme is to make sure that we identify as closely as possible animals that may be incubating BSE.
    The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and others may find it helpful if I reiterate exactly what is meant by a cohort. We wish to identify animals that were fed at the same time as calves of animals that have been positively diagnosed as having BSE and which have been subsequently destroyed. Our intention is to identify, through records and discussions with farmers, animals that could have been part of the group that consumed infected feed.

    389
    We are not in a number-crunching game but are trying to identify BSE incubation, to reduce more rapidly the number of animals that are presenting as BSE cases. The incidence of the disease is in decline. We expect just over 8,000 cases of BSE this year, without any slaughtering. We estimate the figure to be in the region of 5,000 next year and 2,800 the year after.
    We must try to reassure the public here and abroad of our ability to reduce the number of BSE cases as quickly as possible, and of our determination to address BSE— which has admittedly been on a huge scale in this country compared with others.
    We have heard some helpful speeches tonight by hon. Members who have taken a close interest in the subject. We are sensitive to the fact that, for many farmers, the destruction of animals is an emotional thing. It is not only about finance and compensation. There is a lot of emotion attached to it. Often, a herd represents many years of hard work. For that reason, we are not seeking to muscle through a policy without taking into account the views of the industry and the House.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has made it clear that, in announcing the levels of compensation today, we seek not only to give what we believe to be a fair level of compensation, bearing in mind that we do so on behalf of the taxpayer, but to take into account the disruption that will be caused especially on farms which have a larger number of affected animals than others. That has been made clear in the representations that have been made to us.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) mentioned specifically the numbers—
    Mr. Beith rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 188.

    Division No. 212]

    [6.10 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Beith, A J

    Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Rendel, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Chidgey, David

    Steel, Sir David

    Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Flynn, Paul

    Tyler, Paul

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Ms Liz Lynne.

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Alexander, Richard

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Alison, Michael (Selby)

    Biffen, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Booth, Hartley

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boswell, Tim

    Ashby, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Atkins, Robert

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Boyson, Sir Rhodes

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Bates, Michael

    Brooke, Peter

    Bellingham, Henry

    Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

    390

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Lamont, Norman

    Burt, Alistair

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Butler, Peter

    Legg, Barry

    Butterfill, John

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

    Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Lidington, David

    Cash, William

    Luff, Peter

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Clappison, James

    MacGregor, John

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Coe, Sebastian

    Madel, Sir David

    Congdon, David

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Conway, Derek

    Malone, Gerald

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

    Marland, Paul

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Marlow, Tony

    Cope, Sir John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Couchman, James

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Merchant, Piers

    Devlin, Tim

    Mills, Iain

    Dicks, Terry

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Dover, Den

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Duncan, Alan

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Nelson, Anthony

    Dunn, Bob

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Newton, Tony

    Eggar, Tim

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Elletson, Harold

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

    Norris, Steve

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Page, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Paice, James

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Pawsey, James

    Forman, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Forth, Eric

    Portillo, Michael

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Freeman, Roger

    Robathan, Andrew

    French, Douglas

    Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

    Gale, Roger

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Rowe, Andrew

    Gill, Christopher

    Rumbold, Dame Angela

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Shephard, Gillian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Gummer, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Hawkins, Nick

    Sproat, Iain

    Hawksley, Warren

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Stanley, Sir John

    Heald, Oliver

    Stephen, Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Hendry, Charles

    Sweeney, Walter

    Higgins, Sir Terence

    Sykes, John

    Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Horam, John

    Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Howard, Michael

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Thomason, Roy

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

    Tracey, Richard

    King, Tom

    Trend, Michael

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Walden, George

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Knox, Sir David

    Waller, Gary

    Kynoch, George

    Ward, John

    391

    Waterson, Nigel

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

    Watts, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Whitney, Ray

    Wood, Timothy

    Whittingdale, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Young, Sir George

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Wilkinson, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Willetts, David

    Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Bowen Wells.

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after one and half hours after the motion was made, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [19 July].

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I
    have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    Appropriation Act 1996

    Armed Forces Act 1996

    Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996

    Damages Act 1996

    Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

    Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996

    Social Security (Overpayments) Act 1996

    Housing Act 1996

    Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

    Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Act 1996

    Broadcasting Act 1996

    Education Act 1996

    School Inspections Act 1996

    Deer (Scotland) Act 1996

    Allied Irish Banks Act 1996

    City of Westminster Act 1996

    Code of Conduct
    6.24 pm
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
    That this House approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, House of Commons Paper No. 604, and in particular—

    (a) approves the Code of Conduct prepared pursuant to the
    Resolution of the House of 19th July 1995,

    (b) approves the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct
    of Members, the modifications to the rules of the House contained therein, and the guidelines to the application of the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 (Conduct of Members) contained in paragraph 58 of the Guide, and

    (c) authorises the Committee on Standards and Privileges to
    make such minor amendments to the Guide to the Rules as appear to it to be justified by experience or necessarily reflect decisions of the House; and to report such amended versions of the Guide to the House.

    The House will recall that on 19 July 1995, almost exactly a year ago, the House resolved that a code of conduct should be drawn up and placed before it for approval. The report that is the subject of this debate, containing such a code and accompanying guidance, is the product of six months' very considerable work on the part of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I chair.
    I want to pay tribute, with more than usual formality, to all the members of the Committee for the spirit in which they have approached that task. There were of course differences in the Committee, but all were resolved by discussion so that we achieved a consensus and produced a unanimous report for the House. Indeed, there was no vote of any kind at any stage in the whole of those six months in relation to the production of the code. I am prone to refer to the fact that I had a Quaker education, and I take some satisfaction from the fact that the Committee proceeded on what the Society of Friends would call a "feeling of the meeting basis", and that we managed to achieve those agreements.
    I want to express, I am sure on behalf of the whole Committee, our collective gratitude, and I hope also that of the House, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, for the contribution that he made to our deliberations, with much wise advice.
    I do not propose to speak at great length. The Committee's views are contained in the text of the report and the associated documents, and I want to ensure that there is plenty of time for Members who wish to contribute to do so. I shall also probably be less generous than I sometimes am in giving way to interventions, because it would not be wise for me to attempt further textual interpretation on the hoof although, if I can be helpful to the House later in the debate, I shall be glad to do so.
    The first part of our report contains a code setting out general principles to guide hon. Members on the standards of conduct that the House and the public have a right to expect of all Members. In the second part, we seek to set out a guide to the rules on registration and declaration of Members' interests, to the rule banning paid advocacy and to the complaints procedure.
    In preparing the guide, we reviewed the current rules relating to the registration and declaration of interests, and we recommend certain changes, which I shall briefly

    393
    summarise, but I should make it clear that very few of the changes are substantial. Our main concern was to achieve greater clarity and consistency in the way in which the rules are applied, taking account of the changes agreed by the House last year.
    First, on registration, we recommend that the period within which a Member returned at a by-election should complete a registration form and submit it to the Commissioner should be extended to three months. That simply makes the position of Members returned at general elections and those returned at by-elections the same. At present, there is a difference.
    Secondly, any Member who has a registrable interest that has not yet been registered should be required to abstain from any parliamentary action, except voting, to which the registration would be relevant, until notification of the interest has been given to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Members are of course already required to register a new interest within a month of acquiring it.
    I hope that the following recommendation, like the rest, will be considered a commonsense recommendation. We recommend that accommodation provided by a local authority at no cost or at a subsidised cost to a Member solely for the purpose of holding constituency surgeries— not subsidised office accommodation, but accommodation solely for the purpose of holding constituency surgeries— should be exempt from registration.
    The guide also updates and amends the guidance on the interpretation of the rules on registration and declaration, most of which have been in existence for some years. Those additions and modifications include confirmation of the long-standing practice that a Member need not register attendance at a conference or a site visit in the United Kingdom where the organiser meets reasonable travel and accommodation costs only. There is also an updated list of categories of overseas visits that are exempt from registration, including those that are financed from UK public funds.
    Section 2 of the guide provides additional advice on the rules on declaration. For example, advice is given on the occasions— such as business questions, the report suggests— when Members should consider declaring a relevant interest even though there is no formal requirement to do so. We also recommend that the rule that requires notice to be given on the Order Paper of any relevant pecuniary interest when tabling any written notice should also apply to notifications given to the Speaker's Office in respect of daily Adjournment debates and requests to present a Standing Order No. 20 application to the House.
    We have given particular attention to framing workable guidelines for the application of what is now called the "advocacy rule", passed by the House in its resolutions of last November. Our recommendations closely reflect the observations of our predecessor, the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, in its second report, which the House debated last November, as well as our own detailed consideration of the application of the rule on advocacy to the proceedings of the House.
    Our full proposals on the application of the advocacy rule are contained in section 3 of the guide. Paragraph 58 sets out the guidelines on the application of the advocacy
    394
    rule as it applies, on the one hand, to initiating a parliamentary proceeding and, on the other, to participation in debate. The paragraph also gives examples of what is meant by initiation or participation in that context.
    Paragraph 62 sets out certain parameters to the operation of the rule, which allow appropriate latitude to, for example, hon. Members who are successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills and receive assistance from outside bodies, and hon. Members who have visited a United Kingdom dependency at the expense of the Government of the territory.
    Paragraph 63 gives illustrative examples of how the guidelines might operate in the case of a Member who is a company director or a paid adviser to an organisation, or who may be caught by the advocacy rule in some other way.
    Finally— this is important as it would be a rash member of the Committee who said that he or she was convinced that we had every point of detail right— the motion before the House would authorise the Committee on Standards and Privileges to make minor amendments to the guide on the basis of experience.
    I have said on several occasions that the resolutions agreed by the House last year constituted the most substantial strengthening of the rules of the House for a very long time. Today's resolution, while in one sense less significant as it does not in itself introduce further major change, is none the less important, both in consolidating those earlier changes and in translating them into the practical working guidance that can give them best effect. I commend it to the House.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. Nigel Jones: I am delighted to have a chance to speak in this debate, and to be a member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. When my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, asked me to serve on the Committee, I did not realise how much time it would take, but it has been time well spent, and the code of conduct is proof of that. Tributes are not often paid across the Floor of the House as the Chamber's layout makes a confrontational style of politics more manageable, but I appreciated how the Committee Chairman, the Lord President, managed our deliberations. It is remarkable that we never divided on the issues that we covered.
    I shall restrict my remarks to three issues: sponsorship, visits and outside employment. Sponsorship is covered in paragraphs 21 to 23 on pages 16 and 17 of the code. Having re-read those paragraphs several times in the past few days, and following reports that started in last Sunday's The Observer, I suspect that there may be a loophole in paragraph 22, to which the Committee may have to return. The issues raised by The Observer relate mainly to Ministers, for whom there is a separate code of conduct that is supposed to be tougher than that for other hon. Members.
    The exposure in Sunday's The Observer illustrates a failing of the current system. If one believes the report, hon. and particularly right hon. Members have appeared at dinners to be lobbied by business men and women, in return for large sums of money, laundered as tax-deductible "entertainment" expenses in company

    395
    accounts, but which quickly end up in Conservative central office funds. According to the reports, the Premier club is hiring out the Prime Minister at up to £ 100,000 per person to have dinners with business men and women bidding for some of the most lucrative privatisation deals that the Government have on offer. If the reports are to be believed, the chairman of the Premier club, Mr. John Beckwith, is not just bidding to take over Ministry of Defence homes that are to be sold off but, according to The Guardian today,wants to—
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we have the privilege of saying what we believe to be right in this Chamber, if someone who has been referred to has specifically denied the report in The Guardian on the radio today, it would be courteous to people outside the House if the accusation were not read into the record.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am
    sure that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) will have noted the point that has been made.
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that Mr. Beckwith denies those reports and I hope that they are not true, but they show that the position must be dealt with and clarified. If people who take part in Premier club dinners are bidding for privatisation schemes, and the Cabinet decide who will be the successful bidders, there is a conflict of interests. That is exactly what the Nolan committee was set up to stamp out, what the public find distasteful, and the kind of practice that brings the House into disrepute. I hope that there is no truth in it.
    I prefer the rightful indignation that the eminent journalist, Tom Brown, expressed in yesterday's Daily Record, where he said:
    "Any businessman who forks out £ 100,000 for the dubious privilege of having dinner with John Major should be a candidate for instant dismissal by his shareholders."
    Two months ago, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the Prime Minister said that he had devolved responsibility for party fund raising more than three years ago to avoid possible conflicts of interest. If one believes any of the newspaper reports, that does not seem to be the truth. Clearly, the Prime Minister did not mean to mislead the House. Why, then, did he say those words to my right hon. Friend? If we are to rebuild the House's reputation, such activity must cease and all Members of Parliament must stick to a code that is fair and is seen to be fair and above board.
    Overseas visits are covered in paragraphs 27 and 28 on page 18. There is a clear difference between visits undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which are part of our duties as Members of Parliament, and trips such as the "jolly" to Malta recently reported in The Independent on Sunday. Select Committee visits play an important part in informing hon. Members on issues on which they must report to Parliament. Foreign affairs and defence are two vital subjects on which hon. Members must be properly briefed. Britain's overseas aid programme supports many countries throughout the world, so the House has a duty to ensure that the receiving nations spend the money prudently. That is why the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other publicly funded organisations occasionally send delegations. Britain is also responsible, through the European Union, for helping emerging democracies.
    396
    Last January, I was one of six parliamentary observers at the elections to the new Palestinian council. It was certainly no "jolly". Apart from the blizzard in Jerusalem, the town of Nablus to which I was deployed was dry— no alcohol— and had only one hotel. The hotel was full and I found myself sharing a room with a communist parliamentarian from Portugal named Reuben. I hasten to add that we had separate beds. On polling day, observers were up at 5 am and on duty until the following morning. It really was no "jolly".
    Such visits are an important part of our job and, as such, the Committee rightly decided that they should be exempt from registration and the advocacy rule. Although right hon. and hon. Members may still accept visits paid for by companies or foreign Governments, they must register each visit and may not initiate any parliamentary action relevant to that company or country.
    Another important exception to the advocacy rule involves visits to United Kingdom dependencies, such as Gibraltar. On page 30, paragraph 62(7), the code states that
    "visits to a UK dependency at the expense of the Government of that territory must be registered and declared",
    but that
    "such visits shall not be taken into account when applying the advocacy rule".
    The third area that I shall mention briefly is paid outside employment. I cannot understand how hon. Members find the time to do justice to a job outside Parliament— perhaps my constituents in Cheltenham are more demanding than most. At the end of the week, I find that I have little or no time to spend with my family, let alone to do another job. The work of Members of Parliament is becoming more full time and the hours that we spend working for our constituents and for our country should reflect that fact. Although it is not stated in the code of conduct, I believe that our duties here should constitute our main income. I do not seek to ban outside interests altogether, as I believe that they help us to keep in contact with the real world beyond Westminster.
    I hope that no hon. Member will seek to exploit loopholes in the new code of conduct. If hon. Members find what they consider to be loopholes— and there may be some— they should contact the Commissioner or a member of the Committee, and the Committee will deliberate on the matter. I hope that the code of conduct will go some way to restoring public faith in the House and in the people whom the public choose to send here.
    6.40 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The speech by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) is unlikely to have that effect. That kind of speech may go down well at the Liberal Democrat party conference, but it is not appreciated in the House. If hon. Members choose to repeat allegations from a newspaper article, they have an obligation to listen to what is said by the principals involved. The person involved in that case made his views clear on the radio at lunchtime today. The hon. Gentleman could have checked the allegations by making a simple telephone call. As he obviously spent much time preparing extensive notes for his speech, I suspect that he could have uncovered Mr. Beckwith's response.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What did he say?
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not intend to repeat what was said on the radio. I simply put on record the fact that someone who prepares his notes as extensively as the hon. Gentleman did, should take into account what is said outside this place.
    I shall make three non-partisan points— although one might be considered, wrongly, to be partisan. The first concerns overseas visits by Members of Parliament. It is sad that a growing number of Members of Parliament do not know much about the world beyond the United Kingdom. I am glad that few hon. Members have experienced war— which is one reason why previous generations travelled. However, few hon. Members have experience of other Commonwealth countries, which can add to the quality of debate.
    It is important that people travel whenever possible, and I do not think that we should rely simply on the opportunities provided by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and political observer trips. Perhaps this is not the right time to suggest it, but I believe that Members of Parliament should have the opportunity to travel almost where they want and when they want, perhaps every few years. It is important to know what the world is like: one can then interpret what is broadcast in the media and what appears in the newspapers according to one's personal experience.
    I have had a number of overseas trips during my 21 years in Parliament. Some were balanced: I visited Israel and the west bank with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I later travelled to Lebanon and the west bank with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. That experience proved immensely important and useful when considering middle east issues.
    I also visited El Salvador three times. I first travelled to that country with the parliamentary human rights group, which was funded by charities, in an attempt to delay the assassination of an archbishop. On my second visit, I represented the British Council of Churches at the archbishop's funeral mass. On the third occasion, I attended the free and fair elections that aimed to prevent assassinations of archbishops and many others. That trip was paid for by the Salvador Government, who wished to have credible observers in attendance.
    I have no hesitation in declaring those trips and their sources of finance. I do not want Members of Parliament to be discouraged from taking trips because an entry in the Register of Members' Interests is interpreted as a bad thing. I urge hon. Members to apply the local newspaper test. They should ask themselves, "Am I doing something that I would mind being reported in my local newspaper?" If they would not mind, they should tell the local newspaper; and, if they would mind, they should either tell the local newspaper, or not do it. People expect a culture of openness.
    The rules and the changes they embody take us backwards in one sense— I do not wish this point to be considered party political. The trade unions and other socialist societies set up the Labour party honourably. In the past, Labour Members were encouraged to state that they were sponsored by trade unions under the Hastings agreement.
    398
    As I understand it, that meant that up to 80 per cent. of candidates' election expenses could be met by a trade union. I am not saying that all trade unions sponsored candidates to that extent, but I think that I am correct in saying that that meant potentially £ 5,000 in funding at a general election and £ 16,000 at a by-election, as we have lifted the spending limits for by-elections.
    Under the present regulations, a Member of Parliament in those circumstances would declare that he or she was sponsored above 25 per cent. for election expenses. There is a great deal of difference between saying that one is sponsored above 25 per cent.— which is what the rule requires— and declaring funding of £ 5,000 or of up to 80 per cent., which is what the Hastings agreement allows.
    At election time, there are only two legal entities: the candidate and the candidate's appointed agent. Any money that is spent during the election campaign is spent on behalf of the candidate, and authorised by his or her agent. I do not believe that we have solved the problem by proposing that money should go to the constituency Labour party, as though it were independent of the candidate. Candidates will still benefit from that funding in what I call "cash for votes". I believe that we should try, in a non-partisan way, to be open about the real situation. I do not argue that it should be illegal, but openness is important.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to clarify one point. The Hastings agreement, which the hon. Gentleman described accurately, has been terminated by the Labour party, so there is no such thing as a sponsored Member of Parliament. The rules laid down by the Committee about contributions to election funds or annual contributions to constituency parties are the same for all hon. Members.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not trying to argue against the Labour party or against contributions to constituency political associations or parties— I hope that I have made that plain. However, openness is the key.
    Money that is given to meet expenses at election time or on an annual basis can only advantage the candidate. Conservative associations and Liberal Democrat and Labour constituency parties do not exist as legal entities at election time— there are candidates and their agents, and that is it. I hope that the situation will be clarified further in time. I shall happily engage in discussions with people in an attempt to achieve that.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is the case, am I correct in suspecting that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of Lord Nolan's examining the question of political funding? He refers to funding local Conservative associations and Labour and Liberal Democrat constituency parties, and to money being donated at a local level. Therefore, is he in favour of the inquiry for which many hon. Members have been pressing?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not in favour of referring that matter to Nolan. This is not the time for me to provide a series of answers, but I believe that the current rules lead to greater obscurity, and are based on a legal fiction.
    Finally, I refer to category 5, dealing with gifts, benefits and hospitality. Due partly to my peculiar position, my entry in the Register of Members' Interests refers to the fact that I am the recipient of a fair amount of corporate,

    399
    sporting and cultural hospitality, both in my own right and through my wife. I am grateful for that. However, it is difficult to know how seriously one should treat the detail in the category.
    For example, I was invited to a party at an English Heritage property in my constituency which a newspaper report suggested cost significantly more than £ 215 per person. I do not want to have to ask my hosts— private or corporate, who may have some link with my position as a Member of Parliament— how much my presence has cost them, and then decide whether I should declare it. In time, perhaps we shall learn whether the category is achieving the desired result and whether there are many complications of the kind that I have illustrated.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. Gary Waller: I welcome the publication of the code of conduct and guide to the rules, which will help hon. Members, but I want to refer to the application of the advocacy rule, because its implementation is already leading to consequences that I cannot imagine the Committee can have fully intended. May I give two or three instances of what I mean?
    The other day, I heard from a Labour Member who came to the House relatively late in life that he was caught by the advocacy rule, because he is the recipient of a pension that he receives as a result of a lifelong career in the mining industry. As a result of that pension, which is properly declared, he is apparently precluded from initiating actions. He receives a continuing benefit as a result of his employment in that industry. That is my reading of the matter.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I point out that anyone who receives a pension from previous employment does not receive money in his or her capacity as a Member, and that therefore no restrictions would apply?
    Mr. Waller: As I understand it, that Labour Member nevertheless receives a benefit that is related to an industry.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.
    Mr. Waller: If I am wrong, that Labour Member has clearly been misled, because he felt precluded from initiating actions. In a forum in the House, he drew attention to that point, but if he was wrong and has been misled, I am delighted to hear it.
    May I give one or two other examples? Two or three years ago, I was invited by the Kashmir committee of Copenhagen in Denmark to speak at a one-day conference, which I did at some inconvenience. It meant flying out early in the morning. I saw little of Copenhagen. What I saw was from the taxi that took me from the airport to the conference centre, and from the one that took me on the return journey.
    On my return, I properly declared the visit, and it appeared in the Register of Members' Interests as a one-off "benefit", but, as I understand it, as a result of the proposal that is to be implemented with the introduction of the 1997 Register, if I were to make such a visit in future, I would be prevented from initiating any action connected with Kashmir for one year.
    400
    That seems wrong, bearing it in mind that many of my constituents are Kashmiris and that they expect me to represent their interests, among those of my other constituents, in the House. I hope that the Committee will consider that concern, because it would be regrettable if Members were prevented from taking part in such visits for that reason.
    Mr. Newton: May I establish one point, because it would make a difference, and I would be hesitant to make snap judgments anyway? Did my hon. Friend say that his visit was funded by an organisation in Denmark that was interested in Kashmir, by a Government— I am not quite sure whether one can talk about the Kashmir Government— or by what might be described as a non-governmental organisation? If the latter is true, I suggest that he considers paragraph (e) on page 32, where his reservations might be put to rest.
    Mr. Waller: On this occasion, I am not sure, to be honest, where the money originated. It certainly came from the Kashmir committee in Denmark, but that committee would, I imagine, to some extent have been funded by the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, so there is a certain grey area here. Hon. Members may feel inhibited in accepting an invitation to go on such a visit.
    More generally, Members may be invited to visit a country in which they have had a long interest. Today, I participated in a radio programme with another Labour Member, who for more than a decade has been a member of an all-party group connected with a particular country. He was invited by the Government of that country to visit it. He probably knows more about that country than almost any other hon. Member. As a result of the implementation of these rules, if he were to accept such visits in future, he would be prevented from speaking about that country for a year.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): It seems not only that what my hon. Friend is saying is important, but that it would give the House an opportunity to say that, where the code is invoked, it is possible for the House in a particular debate to waive that restriction in the circumstances. I wonder whether that is the intention of the code.
    Mr. Waller: The code seems to be clear and unequivocal. It is important that we should have transparency. Members who speak in the House should understand that everyone appreciates where they come from, and that they may have interests that have to be declared, but to prevent Members from speaking because they sought to improve the extent of their knowledge by accepting an invitation to visit a country seems to be going too far.
    In general terms, the public would like full-time Members— we often hear that— but at the same time they want Members to know something of what goes on outside the House, and to have experience and an understanding of other countries. We must find a happy medium between those two principles. I wonder whether the advocacy rule in its present form goes too far, and whether it includes too many visits or benefits. When I

    401
    say "benefits", I use the term in the way in which it is expressed in the document. Many would not necessarily regard them as benefits.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I help the hon. Gentleman? He should try to draw a distinction between speaking in the House and initiating proceedings. In this whole area, that distinction is clearly drawn. If he reads the report in that sense, he will find that he has far more liberty on these issues than he thinks he has. I reassure him, because there is strong support for his case, and we believe that the report's recommendations meet all his concerns.
    Mr. Waller: I fully appreciate that it is possible for a Member to speak in the House, provided that he or she has not initiated the debate or motion, or tabled a question. There is still a considerable inhibition. It should be unnecessary to prevent me from initiating a debate for a year after I have visited a country and found out a lot about it, provided that I have put it on the record and everyone knows about it. We have gone a little over the boundary that was necessary to ensure that there was full transparency. I just hope that the Committee keeps the matter under review.
    6.58 pm
    Sir David Mitchell (North-West Hampshire): I declare an interest, having served on the Committee.
    I should like to join others in paying tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the Leader of the House. He has had a pell-mell round of meetings, coming from one and going to another. He has always seemed to be on top of the agenda, and has had an extraordinary ability to carry the whole Committee with him with a bluff common sense. In that, he has been fully supported— I pay tribute to this— by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House. It was an unusual Committee in many ways— very much the House at its best. It was non-partisan, and was seeking to safeguard the respect of the House outside this place.
    The Committee has fully and fairly discharged the responsibilities under its remit, but I have one reservation. It concerns not so much the Committee's work, as its remit in relation to the resolutions of the House banning advocacy. In future years, the House may look back and feel that it has lost something.
    I have never been a paid consultant to any industry or organisation outside the House, but the consultant to a trade union or trading association performs three clear roles. He holds a watching brief for that industry, advising it if anything is about to be raised in the House that would affect it— such as regulations, EC regulations or commercial interests that might damage it. Secondly, the consultant familiarises himself with the working of the industry so that, if there is a problem, he thoroughly understands it. Thirdly, he raises in the House matters that would affect that industry.
    Hon. Members would, in effect, be paid overtime for in-depth study and knowledge about a particular industry. The House passed the resolution banning advocacy last November, and I fear that to some extent we may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Fewer hon.
    402
    Members will undertake the extra work to gain the in-depth knowledge of an industry, whether as a trade union representative or as the representative of a trade association.
    Although I fully support the Committee's work in interpreting the will of the House, and I believe that we should have transparency, maximum disclosure, maximum openness and full and open declaration, I also believe that, in the long term, the House will regret that it has banned advocacy and, with it, lost the greater, in-depth knowledge that would have been brought to bear in our debates.
    7.1 pm
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I start by joining those hon. Members who have complimented the Leader of the House on the way in which he chaired the Committee. Our meetings over the past few months have been purposeful. They may have been slow on occasions, but that was often because of the detailed work we were carrying out in order to try to ensure that the guidelines we produced were as consistent and comprehensive as possible.
    The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said that he was surprised by the number and length of our meetings. Had he served on the previous Committee, he might have been relieved mat our meetings were not more numerous, or on a daily basis. He might also have been relieved that the Committee is not, as far as we know, sitting in the parliamentary recess.
    Much work has been done in the Committee. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has taken a keen interest in the subject, whether he was going to speak. He said that he was not, as he thought that the report represented "good, hard, nitty gritty work by the Committee". I report that to members of the Committee as a compliment to all involved. It certainly felt like good, hard work, and I think that it has been productive.
    The objectives we set ourselves were, first, to establish a code of conduct to lay down principles by which the actions of Members of Parliament could be judged in future. Secondly, we tried to write guidelines that would help in the detailed practical application of that code of conduct, so that, if hon. Members were in any doubt about what they would or would not be able to do following a visit, or if they had a particular interest, there would be advance guidance, and they would know exactly where they stood. The third— extremely important— objective that we have tried to stress is that all Members of the House have an obligation to take it upon themselves to ensure that they do not act in a way that would breach the letter or the spirit of the rules we have laid down.
    I hope that what we have established is clear enough. I also hope that all hon. Members will read the code of conduct and the guidance notes. One thing that all members of the Committee have learned over the past few months is that many of us have forgotten some of the rules that existed, such as those relating to Members' interests. Many colleagues may not have read all the rules that existed, or understood the implications.
    A couple of Conservative Members have taken issue both with the remit of the Committee and with how far it has gone. At this stage, I simply remind hon. Members why we got into the situation in me first place. It was

    403
    owing to the actions of a couple of hon. Members in the case that has become known as "cash for questions". That led the Prime Minister to establish the Nolan Committee.
    It was the Nolan committee's report that led to resolutions in, and decisions by, the House designed to change the rules on registration and advocacy, and to ensure that whatever we did involved as much transparency as possible, in order to start to restore public confidence in Members of Parliament, because that confidence had been so badly affected by the "cash for questions" case. Public opinion demanded that the House set its affairs in order. The public's opinion of Members of Parliament is often jaundiced because of past incidents.
    I hope that the code of conduct and the guidelines that we have established will work and will be practical— I think and hope they will be. I do not preclude the need for revisiting some of the issues, as other aspects, may arise from time to time. The Committee may have to see how the code works, and try to ensure that the guidelines are as precise as they should be.
    It is interesting that, when the code of conduct was published last week, there was little press or public interest in it. That might have been because there were no spin doctors explaining to the press exactly what had happened— the press seem to have to be spoon-fed on all occasions. It might also have been because no member of the Committee leaked the document, which may be unusual these days.
    The inquiries that I have received about the code of conduct have been strange. People have sometimes asked whether Members of Parliament had any rules before— I think that Members of Parliament have sometimes had the same thought. Of course there have been rules, and of course the majority of Members of Parliament have been acting and operating in a perfectly honourable manner, but because of what had happened in the past, it was important that we consolidated the resolutions of the House, brought them together in one document, laid out the code of conduct and issued as many guidelines as possible to ensure that the rules were clear and there were no escape clauses.
    The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the recent publicity surrounding the Premier club, where contributions are made to the Conservative party in exchange for meetings with the Prime Minister. I referred to the need to have statements on that subject when I spoke in this morning's Adjournment debate.
    The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) tried to say that, because John Beckwith had spoken about his lack of interest in social security offices on the "World at One" programme— although I think that he confirmed his interest in Ministry of Defence properties— it was not an issue.
    The issue is not simply whether one business man has found ways of contacting the Prime Minister and has an interest in certain sales that are currently pending.
    Bigger issues of principle are involved, which is why I believe that the issue of political party funding should have been referred to the Nolan committee when we first suggested it some time ago. Today is not the day to go into all those details, although I think that we will have to return to the issues on another occasion, and that: we should have had the inquiry before, and not after, the next general election.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: On this, the last day before the summer recess, the accusations that have been made against the office of the Prime Minister are the most serious that we have heard since the most recent Liberal Government, when there were suggestions that Lloyd George was selling honours for cash. The suggestion now is that the Prime Minister is using and prostituting his office for his party's financial gain. There can hardly be a more serious charge than that.
    I am sure that, when inquiries are made, we will find that that is not the case, and that the Prime Minister has not prostituted his high office for his financial gain. However, is it not a matter about which we need an inquiry urgently?
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that we need an inquiry urgently. We need an inquiry into the entire range of party funding. The Premier club, however, raises questions that go outside the scope of this debate, such as whether it should be a matter for tax officials and for company auditors if companies are offsetting the costs of the dinners and their club membership against their tax liability. That is not the main thrust of this debate. Had the entire issue been referred to the Nolan committee earlier, however, we might have avoided the need to raise such questions, because such practices would have diminished.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Would it not be a little more sensible for the hon. Lady to find out a little more about this matter before commenting on it? I would not criticise for a moment the lavish dinners that the Labour party has held to raise funds and its profile, and to improve its contacts with the City and its donations from industry. All those activities are entirely legitimate, and I do not for one minute impugn anyone's integrity for doing or accepting such things. I ask only for a similarly charitable attitude from her towards the other side the House.
    Mrs. Taylor: I suggest only that all parties should be completely open about the scale and sources of domestic donations and of those from abroad. We have always found it very difficult to achieve any agreement with the other side of the House on that point, which is why, as 1 said, the matter should have been referred to Lord Nolan some time ago.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I find it quite remarkable that Conservative Members resist the proposition of an inquiry into political funding— because it will happen under a Labour Government. So why not accept the proposition? Let us get on with it. Why be seen to be dragged and protesting, when the inevitable outcome is that such a debate will take place?
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right, and not for the first time. It is only a matter of timing. Lord Nolan is, indeed, due to examine the whole issue. The problem is that he will not examine it until after the next general election. I think that the electorate have a right to know about party funding before any general election.
    The hon. Members for Eltham and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) expressed some concern about hon. Members being able to undertake foreign visits for fact-finding purposes. We should make it clear that there are no restrictions at all on what hon. Members can do.

    405
    Restrictions apply only if an hon. Member has had a visit paid for. The restriction is simply that, for a period, the hon. Member should not initiate any action that would bring benefit to the sponsor of that visit. I think that that is a very minimalist approach. The approach is not over-burdensome, and it will not inhibit genuine fact-finding missions, which are frequently necessary.
    The hon. Member for Keighley made a couple of points, during which I felt it right to interrupt him. I am grateful to him, as I am to the Leader of the House, for giving way. The hon. Member made two points— one of which was of concern to him, and another which was of concern to a colleague— that show that not all hon. Members fully understand all the implications of the current rules or of the new rules.
    An hon. Member who receives a pension or undertakes employment that is totally unrelated to their membership of the House is not restricted in his or her activities. An hon. Member who goes abroad at the request of someone abroad who pays for that visit is prohibited not from speaking in the House but from initiating any action for a certain period.
    The hon. Member for Keighley said that, on one visit, he was not sure where the money had originated. I must say that the onus is on each hon. Member to be sure who has paid for a visit that he undertakes, and that it is somewhat foolish to undertake visits on any other basis.
    The hon. Member for Eltham talked about sporting activities. He also cited an English Heritage party in his constituency. All hon. Members, as constituency Members of Parliament, are entitled to normal hospitality in our own constituencies. Clearly, however, there are problems with sporting occasions, and with estimating their value. On this matter— as indeed on every other matter— we now have the Parliamentary Commissioner, who can give advice to hon. Members. In the first instance, it is to him that all hon. Members should go if we are seeking advice on that basis.
    The hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell), who served on the Committee, disagreed with its starting point. He wishes that we could turn the clock back, and that we had never passed the resolutions of last November. I think that we had no alternative but to tighten up our rules. We were right to do so, not only because of the problems that had arisen but because the lack of public confidence in the House.
    I do not think that this code of conduct and the guidelines that we have laid provide the answer for everything, but they will start the process of giving clearer guidance to hon. Members about how they can and cannot act. The public expect no less, and I hope that this will be a useful starting point.
    7.17 pm
    Mr. Newton: With no discourtesy intended towards the House, I do not think that I need to sum up at length. I regret that material was introduced into the debate which is not very relevant to it, and that it has been used to recycle allegations that— as we now know— have been denied by one of those named. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on the material at Prime Minister's Question Time on 23 July.
    406
    However, given the fact that what was said was said, I must say that the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is— I think that I remember the phrase used by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)— "prostituting his office" is an absurd allegation to be made under the privilege of the House, and that it is bordering on the disgraceful.
    In quieter terms, I shall deal with the debate in general. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has said on every subject other than the one that I have just mentioned. I am grateful to her and to other hon. Members for their kind words about my chairmanship. I reciprocate those words, and endorse the compliment paid by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell) to the hon. Member for Dewsbury on the part that she played in our deliberations.
    I agreed with the comments by the hon. Member for Dewsbury on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I think that, if he examines paragraphs 63(d) and 63(e) of the report— to one of which I have already referred— he will find that we have dealt with the anxieties that he expressed, which are the anxieties that were expressed last November. I think that we have dealt with those anxieties successfully in this code, and that he will find that his mind can be put at ease.
    Equally, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that, unless I am misremembering the 25 per cent. rule, which he regards as somehow a slip backwards, it is basically exactly the same rule as already exists. There has been no change in that respect, but there has been a change in the nature of the on-going relationships of the Labour party under what was known as the Hastings agreement. Clearly, that is a matter for the Labour party, not for me.
    Our approach has indeed been consensual, because I also agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, and, to some extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley— had he been here, the same could be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims)— expressed reservations about what the House did last year. However, the job of the Committee that I now chair has been to give practical guidance on interpreting and implementing decisions.
    I think that the House should now—
    Mr. Flynn rose—
    Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way.
    I hope that the whole House will acknowledge the need for us to examine the rules and consider the Committee's work, and agree that we must collectively try to make the rules work to the benefit of the reputation of this place, about which we all care a great deal.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, House of Commons Paper No. 604, and in particular—

    (a) approves the Code of Conduct prepared pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 19th July 1995,

    407

    (b) approves the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, the modifications to the rules of the House contained therein, and the guidelines to the application of the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 (Conduct of Members) contained in paragraph 58 of the Guide, and

    (c) authorises the Committee on Standards and Privileges to make such minor amendments to the Guide to the Rules as appear to it to be justified by experience or necessarily reflect decisions of the House; and to report such amended versions of the Guide to the House.

    Central Railway Order
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I
    must advise the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.
    7.20 pm
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move,
    That this House, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under section 6 of that Act by Central Railway plc on 20th May 1996 and entitled The Central Railway Order, for the construction and operation of a railway between Leicester and the Channel Tunnel via Rugby on a dismantled railway alignment to link with the existing Chiltern line through Buckinghamshire to near Olympia in London, from where a new railway would be constructed in a tunnel under the Thames to Streatham, where it would run beside the existing Brighton line to south of Coulsdon, then under the North Downs close to the M23 and then beside the existing railway to Tonbridge, Ashford and Folkestone; and for the construction and use of freight terminal sites at the M1/M6 junction and next to the M25 and M40 in Buckinghamshire.
    As this is the first time that the procedure under section 9 of the Transport and Works Act 1992— or TWA for short— has been used, I should perhaps explain briefly some of the background to and purpose of this debate.
    The TWA has replaced private Bills as the means by which new railways, tramways and certain other works projects are authorised. It gives Parliament a continuing and important role in relation to schemes of national significance by requiring Parliament to consider and vote on the principle of such schemes.
    The purpose of this debate is to enable the House to decide whether the Central Railway application should go forward for more detailed consideration at a public inquiry and, possibly, to the eventual making of the order authorising its implementation.
    The motion before the House seeks approval of the proposals. I should perhaps explain why the motion is one to approve the project. I considered whether it should be a "take note" motion which could be amended by hon. Members who wished either to amend or oppose it. I concluded that it is only by proposing a motion to approve the project that a conclusive outcome could be assured at the end of a single debate.
    If the House rejects the motion, the scheme is effectively dead as the order could not be made. If the House passes the resolution, the project will be considered in another place. Only if the application is approved in both Houses can it proceed to more detailed examination at a public inquiry.
    The House will wish to bear it in mind that Parliament's endorsement of the principle of the project would be bound to carry weight with the inquiry inspector in making a recommendation.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: My intervention will be brief as I realise that it is a short debate. Is not it clear— if not, will my hon. Friend the Minister make it clear— that we cannot adopt the desirable aspects of the project, which include freight coming off the roads and on to rail, which is something that we all want, while at the same time rejecting the awful aspects:

    409
    that it would damage wildlife in my constituency and send heavy trains within inches of people's homes, which is intolerable? Is it possible to take partial decisions?
    Mr. Watts: I think that my hon. Friend will find that I deal with that matter a little later in my speech.
    As I was saying, endorsement of the principle by the House would weigh with the inquiry inspector and, indeed, might weigh with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in deciding whether to make the order. It would not necessarily mean that the order would be made. The Secretary of State could still decide, having taken into account the inspector's report, that the application should be turned down. This is no different from the Secretary of State's statutory position under general planning and highways legislation.
    I turn now to the specific application before us. Central Railway's objective is to establish an independent railway connecting the midlands, London and the channel tunnel. The proposed alignment is described broadly in the motion. The railway would use standard track gauge but, unlike existing railways in this country, would have greater clearances to enable lorries and double stack containers to be transported.
    The main service to be offered would be frequent shuttle trains carrying lorry trailers between freight terminals located near motorway junctions. Central Railway says that the project has been planned to maximise the use of former or existing railway lines. Where new track is necessary, it would be mostly adjoining existing lines.
    The draft order contains powers for Central Railway to build and operate the railway and terminals, to acquire land compulsorily, to create new accesses to motorways and other roads, and temporarily or permanently to stop up or divert streets and footpaths. A number of provisions seek to disapply parts of public general legislation, including the regulatory regime for licensing and track access in the Railways Act 1993. Central Railway has also applied for planning permission to be deemed to be granted for the construction and use of the works specified in the draft order.
    The works would involve, typically, the laying of railway lines with associated signalling and overhead electrification equipment, and civil engineering such as earthworks, tunnels and bridges. Because of the larger train gauge, the track would need to be lowered, or existing bridges raised, to enable the freight trains to operate. Freight terminals would be constructed near Rugby and at New Denham in Buckinghamshire, and a maintenance facility would be provided at Lutterworth.
    Mr. Ray Whitney: Is not it the case that the plan involves the construction of some 24 km of tunnels, some of which would be wider than any tunnels now in use?
    Mr. Watts: The proposal certainly involves some extensive tunnelling, but, again, I shall come to that point a little later in my speech.
    The application also contains proposals for new passenger stations at Lutterworth, Rugby, Woodford Halse, Brackley, West Wycombe and White City. Central Railway estimates that about £ 3 billion will be required to finance the project.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister accept that for a fraction of the £ 3 billion that he cited we could upgrade the existing west coast main line to the necessary standard and probably move freight from road to rail, something for which we perceive there to be a demand? Would not that perhaps be a better way forward?
    Mr. Watts: The two issues are fundamentally different. I have not seen estimates for upgrading the freight capacity of the west coast main line which would come anywhere near £ 3 billion. Essentially, however, it is for the private sector promoters to decide whether it is worth their while to promote such a project and to raise the finance. Of course, this is an entirely privately funded proposal, whereas the hon. Gentleman is possibly thinking of some public sector money for upgrading the west coast main line.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: Has there been any consultation between the developers and any local authorities along the route?
    Mr. Watts: Applicants under the TWA are advised to consult local authorities and others affected by any proposals. The company claims that it has consulted extensively.
    If parliamentary resolutions approving the project are passed, the company would seek to raise additional equity funding to finance the inquiry and statutory blight compensation. Central Railway estimates that the project would capture and retain 25 per cent. of the UK-continental market for lorries and containers, which is about 15 per cent. of total UK-continental freight tonnage, within four years of opening.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am sure that we would all be interested in a list of the companies that are providing the money to keep Central Railway afloat. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have such a list; it is just that I have not seen it.
    Mr. Watts: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend. I do not have such a list. Frankly, I do not think that it is relevant to the consideration by the House of the principle.
    Sir David Mitchell: As we are dealing with a new procedure, at what stage will there be an examination of the financial viability of the process?
    Mr. Watts: That would be appropriate at a public inquiry were both Houses of Parliament to allow the scheme to proceed to that point. It would be unreasonable for us to expect the company to have raised the full project financing at this stage in the development of the project.
    Mr. Matthew Carrington: If the financing of the project is crucial to its viability— as to whether it would lead to extended planning blight— does my hon. Friend have any idea whether his Department could undertake a feasibility study into whether the total cost of the project would be £ 3 billion or £ 6 billion, as has been suggested elsewhere?
    Mr. Watts: It is not for my Department to second-guess the promoters of the project. On the matter of blight to which my hon. Friend referred, the company has assured us that it has the means to meet any statutory blight obligations that it might incur.
    Mr. Tom Cox: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) has just referred to the crucial issue that concerns many of our constituents. Why should they suffer years of blight on the property they have worked hard to buy and on which they may still owe a considerable amount of mortgage repayment? Why should they suffer an on-going unawareness of what will finally happen? That is the crux of the issue that unites hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Watts: As I said, the company has given us assurances that it can meet any statutory blight obligations that it incurs. If we were to find that it was unable to meet such obligations, we would determine against the application.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I had not intended to speak, but I am becoming increasingly bemused. Has my hon. Friend met the promoters? Is he totally satisfied that they really are people of substance and that they can carry out the project? If he is not, why are we wasting our time?
    Mr. Watts: At this stage of the application, it is not for me or my Department to determine whether the company would be able to raise £ 3 billion. That is a matter for the company. Our legitimate interest is in whether the company could meet blight obligations. That is obviously a concern to every constituency Member affected by the project. As I have said, the company has given us undertakings that it can meet any such obligations. If we were to find that it was unable to do so, we would refuse the application.
    Ms Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Ove Arup commented:
    'They have clearly not demonstrated that they have adequate funds available to meet their obligations for compensation for blight and to fund the public inquiry".
    The House should be aware of that.
    Mr. Watts: I am aware of that opinion, which is taken from a report that was prepared in support of some of the objectors to the project. However, until it could be shown that the company's undertakings cannot be honoured, we would be wrong to make a judgment on that.
    As to the funding of the public inquiry, as I said in my opening remarks, the company intends to raise the additional funding required to take the project to a public inquiry in the light of a decision made in the House.
    Mr. Clive Soley: I have already inquired in a letter whether the company could pay compensation for blight if the House approved the order tonight. My understanding is that there is no such guarantee. However, is there not something fundamentally wrong with the 1992 Act if a company without evidence of financial viability plus the lack of coherent planning
    412
    policy can create such mayhem without first producing a planned proposal? Frankly, if it happens again, the Act must be changed.
    Mr. Watts: There may well be lessons to learn from this case as to the way in which such matters are dealt with, but as this is the first time that the powers have been used, it would be premature— certainly in tonight's debate— to conclude that the procedure is flawed. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it may be appropriate for us to examine the procedures in the light of experience of this case.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The old system required the Government to be neutral if they were in support of a proposal. They state in their paper of 19 July:
    'The Government is not however persuaded that the proposals have such substantial merit as to enable it to commend the application to Parliament. It has therefore decided that its stance on the scheme should be neutral."
    Can I take it that under the new procedure, being neutral basically means being unconvinced and probably being against?
    Mr. Watts: No. Being neutral means what it says. We have adopted a neutral stance at all times in our dealings with the company. However, there is a question as to what might have shifted the Government from being neutral to supporting or opposing the project. For the Government to support such a scheme, they would need to be persuaded that the merits of the proposal were so overwhelming as to justify unequivocal support. I did not reach that conclusion. That is why the position of the Government tonight is still one of neutrality— of neutral neutrality.
    Central Railway estimates that the project would capture and retain 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom and continental market within four years of opening. By 2010, the midlands terminal would be catering for 16 million tonnes of freight and the New Denham terminal for 10 million tonnes. The average number of freight trains required to deal with that volume would be 98 per day.
    Central Railway is seeking to keep compulsory land acquisition to a minimum, but recognises that realignments of existing tracks will be required at some locations. It believes that most work could be carried out within normal maintenance schedules, but some may involve temporary closures with replacement bus services. It says that no significant interference with services will be required during the upgrading of the Chiltern line but that the company will liaise with Railtrack and London Underground to co-ordinate the construction programme so that disruption occurs during periods of minimal railway operation.
    Mr. Tim Smith: As my hon. Friend has referred to the fact that Central Railway proposes to adapt the existing Chiltern line, what assessment has the Department of Transport made of the likely impact of the scheme on the commuter services that my constituents use every day?
    Mr. Watts: If the House and another place were to allow the scheme to proceed to public inquiry, and if such an inquiry recommended that it should be permitted to go ahead, in deciding whether to make such an order, I would have it in mind that I have powers to vary the order and

    413
    I would be prepared to do so In so far as I deem it necessary to protect existing passenger railway services. An assessment has not yet been undertaken because we are at too early a stage in the consideration of the application.
    The company says that it would seek to keep disruption to a minimum by ensuring that works were carried out during periods of minimum rail operation— commonly on Sundays or late evenings. After construction, the company claims that no existing services would be affected by the operation of the new railway. In very broad terms, that is the applicant's case.
    Mr. Mark Wolfson: Those are extraordinary claims. Although my hon. Friend's position is neutral, I am encouraged by the fact that I have never before heard such a barrage of real questions on such an issue. I am encouraged by the mood of the House.
    Mr. Watts: I have tried to set out in fairly neutral terms the case that the company has presented.
    I turn to the Government's view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Perhaps the House will find it helpful if I explain how we arrived at this position of neutrality. The Government are anxious that the decline in rail's share of the freight market is checked and reversed. We believe that the key to that lies in giving the private sector the right opportunities and incentives. That is why five of British Rail's six rail freight companies have already been privatised and the sixth is on the market. The Railways Act 1993 created new opportunities— which have already been exploited— for entirely new own-account rail freight operations to be established. We continue to make available substantial support to rail freight through freight facilities and track access grants.
    Sir Keith Speed: The rail companies that have been privatised, indeed all rail freight, and many other organisations are backers of the piggyback consortium, which presents a totally viable solution. It would cost £ 100 million, mean no new railways at all and operate a freight service from Glasgow to Folkestone. What is the Government's view on assisting that in the next two years?
    Mr. Watts: I am not going to give any commitments on assistance, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the piggyback idea is most interesting and has considerable potential. I hope later in the summer to see a demonstration of a prototype piggyback vehicle.
    The Government also want to bring private finance into the provision of transport infrastructure. The channel tunnel rail link is the outstanding example of private finance helping to provide an entirely new railway line. Central Railway's proposals would go further in so far as they would be 100 per cent. privately financed. So, from two points of view— freight on rail and private finance— the Government's objectives could be assisted by Central Railway's plans. It is for those reasons that, although we have urged the promoters to consult widely and take account of consultees' views, we have not discouraged them from working up their proposals.
    The question for the House tonight is whether Central Railway's specific proposals have sufficient merit to be worthy of the House's endorsement in principle. That
    414
    must involve consideration not only of whether the project fits the broad thrust of transport policy, but whether the particular proposals are acceptable in principle, having regard to such matters as environmental impacts and effects on existing passenger services during construction and in operation.
    Under the TWA procedure, there is a six-week objection period. The Department received almost 14,000 representations dated on or before the deadline of 1 July. Roughly 98 per cent. of respondents registered objections to the project. The Department has analysed some 6,600 objections, and found that more than 90 per cent. of objectors raised concerns about local environmental impacts of the project during construction and/or in operation, 60 per cent. object to the perceived adverse impacts on rail passenger services and road traffic, and 40 per cent. think that the principle of the project is flawed.
    Blight is naturally a concern. All major new developments are likely to have adverse local effects. The House may wish to take a broader view does the project offer sufficiently strong regional or national benefits to outweigh any local disbenefits? The House may wish to give due weight to the views of the planning authorities and the national environmental agencies, which are able to make an objective and strategic assessment of the project. Only two authorities— Surrey county council and Reigate and Banstead borough council— have expressed support for the project in principle, and even they expressed concerns about the adequacy of the information supplied by Central Railway. While supporting the principle of moving freight by rail, 37 local authorities said no to the project and expressed serious concerns about alignment, locations of the terminals, adequacy of the environmental statement, impacts on existing railway services, and, around the freight terminals in particular, road traffic.
    All the environmental organisations that have responded are also either opposed to the scheme or have expressed specific concerns. Bodies such as English Nature, the National Trust, the Environment Agency, the wildlife trusts, the Council for the Protection of Rural England— with the exception of two of its branches— and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have been critical of the adequacy of the environmental statement. The National Trust, for example, has commented that the statement does not refer specifically to its land, even though the Central Railway's proposal bisects the trust's Sandhills estate near Bletchingley in Surrey.
    The Government want more freight to be carried by rail and more transport infrastructure provided by private finance. However, we cannot— indeed we should not— ignore the number and weight of representations that we have received against this project. Many of them were from persons who and organisations that support the policy of moving more freight by rail. It would be wrong to consider the principle of such a scheme without regard to its effect on the ground. Nevertheless, if we had thought that the arguments for the specific proposals outweighed the force of the objections, we might have been prepared to recommend that the House approved them. But we are not so persuaded. We are therefore making no recommendation in respect of this application and leave the decision to the good judgment of the House.
    7.46 pm
    Mr. Keith Hill: I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members want to express their constituents' concerns.
    The Central Railway scheme will demolish many homes and properties and cause grave disturbance and blight to many more. Thousands of ordinary households will suffer in one way or another whether the scheme is built or not. The question is whether the benefits of such a proposal can possibly outweigh its manifest disadvantages. The answer is, as I shall argue, a resounding no, which is why the order deserves to be roundly defeated and why I give notice of my intention to call a Division at the conclusion of the debate.
    In the Streatham Vale area of my constituency, the building of a two-track railway would mean the loss of homes, gardens and retail premises. The proposed running of unusually heavy complete lorry trailers and double-stacked containers would cause unacceptable noise and vibration. Above all, the planned construction of the six-mile tunnel under London from Streatham Vale opens up the prospect of a protracted nightmare of noise, lorry movements, dust and pollution for local residents.
    Two years ago, a Department of the Environment advice note called for the diversion of channel tunnel-related rail freight around, and not through, London. For several years, the London Channel Tunnel Group— a consortium of London boroughs of all political persuasions— has advocated the upgrading of rail routes around London from Redhill to Reading for use by such freight. A Department of Transport study has acknowledged the technical feasibility of that so-called North Downs line.
    Mr. Rowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, this very week, British Rail set aside £ 500 million to take account of the fact that it has grossly overestimated the amount of freight passing through the channel tunnel? Does not that show that speculation about how much freight capacity is needed is still at a very rudimentary stage?
    Mr. Hill: I entirely agree. The fact is that the tunnel under London is not just environmentally unacceptable: it is unnecessary.
    It goes without saying that no one in this Chamber or in the country challenges the principle of the need to transfer more freight from road to rail, but there are other more immediate, more practicable and more viable means of achieving that objective.
    Next month, the first wagons operated by the public-private consortium, the piggyback consortium, will begin running between Glasgow and London on the west coast main line. It is one of several projects designed to carry lorry semi-trailers piggyback fashion on rail wagons. Unlike the Central Railway scheme, the loading of semi-trailers can be carried out at railheads nationwide; Central Railway is proposing just two terminals. Unlike in the Central Railway scheme, semi-trailers can be carried throughout the continental rail network; Central Railway's lorries would have to be offloaded at Calais. Unlike Central Railway, which proposes an entirely new line, carrying semi-trailers by rail requires relatively minor upgrading of lines and bridges, at relatively modest cost.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: In south Yorkshire, far from Leicester, London or the Chilterns, there is great concern about the line. A private sector initiative in Doncaster is building an important freight hub that will move a lot of south Yorkshire's heavy engineering goods off the roads on to rail, swinging around London into Europe. Is my hon. Friend therefore aware that Central Railway's proposal, if it goes ahead, would seriously damage the financial viability of that project? The message from south Yorkshire is that the Government, far from being neutral, should vote against the proposal.
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the general point that the project would put a question mark over a range of enormously valuable and immediately achievable schemes. That is a powerful reason for opposing the scheme.
    The cost of the piggyback consortium project would be about £ 100 million, compared with Central Railway's £ 3 billion— if we believe Central Railway's figures, which few experts do. London and Continental Railways, which is to build the channel tunnel rail link, has analysed the scheme and concluded that it will cost £ 6 billion— twice Central Railway's estimate. Ove Arup, which has some reputation as a transport and engineering consultancy, claims that the total costs will be 90 per cent. more than Central Railway estimates. Another group of transport consultants, MDS Transmodal, has calculated that Central Railway has overestimated the likely revenues by as much as three times and will never be able to recover the questionable £ 3 billion, let alone twice that sum.
    The business case for Central Railway simply does not stand up to scrutiny. After all, it is a company with net assets of little more than £ 100,000. At the end of last year, its managing director wrote in the company report:
    "Obviously, the company cannot guarantee that money will be available from investors to build the railway".
    That, to say the least, was something of an understatement. The proclaimed jobs and the proclaimed equipment purchases are mere fantasies— they will never materialise.
    This evening, the House is being invited to approve a public inquiry into the scheme. Such an inquiry would add two or three more years to the blight that would affect thousands of householders along the route until the scheme inevitably folds. We cannot fairly inflict that on our constituents. This is the wrong scheme at the wrong time from the wrong company. It is up to the House to take the responsibility for this matter and to consign Central Railway's scheme to the scrapyard of history.
    7.53 pm
    Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): As has already been said, the issue of whether to proceed with this scheme with the endorsement of the House is one of principle. It is thus inescapable that, by the end of the debate, the House must take a view on whether the scheme is financially viable. The House would have no justification for sending the scheme on to a public inquiry unless it was reasonably satisfied that it was financially viable.
    The difficulty that we face— it is entirely of Central Railway's own making— is that the company has given the House a paucity of information about the scheme's

    417
    financial viability. I tried to obtain from the chairman of the company a copy of the prospectus that it issued in 1995 when it made its last funding issue. The reply that I received was highly instructive. The chairman said:
    "I do not wish to be remotely difficult, but we do not, as a company policy, distribute the prospectus on a general basis as the offer to which it refers has been closed for some considerable time."
    That is an extraordinary response to a Member of Parliament with a direct constituency interest in a project for which a company is seeking approval. Luckily, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave me a copy from his filing cabinet, for which I was grateful.
    The prospectus is the crucial document when it comes to financial viability. It is the only one that gives us some information about what the company's expectations are in terms of revenue, cash flow, operating costs and assumptions about the transfer of freight from road to rail. It is bizarre that the House should be holding this debate without the prospectus being available in the Vote Office. No doubt there is a copy somewhere in the Library— it always manages to get hold of every single piece of paper.
    Significantly, however, when the documents for this debate were deposited by the company in the Library of the House on 20 May, the huge bundle of documents— I have taken some pains to comb through them— did not include either a prospectus or any information of consequence about the financial viability of the scheme.
    As for the company's attitude, it has placed a most interesting document in the Vote Office, telling Members of this House:
    "So far as the company is aware, private sector developments have never been required to prove financial viability, and objections on that score are misconceived and should be disregarded."
    Is it satisfactory that a public company seeking the approval of this House should thus dismiss objections on the grounds of financial viability as apparently irrelevant?
    Only two of the documents placed in the Library bear on the financial viability of the scheme. One of them is headed "Cost Estimate". It might be thought that this would be a bulky document since it concerns a £ 3 billion project. I have brought it with me into the Chamber; I am not exactly groaning under its weight. It consists of a single sheet of A4 paper, containing on one side 17 lines of cost headings. That is all the costing information that has been placed before the House.
    The cost estimate in itself is subject to great doubt. It is believed to be an underestimate, possibly by 100 per cent. The real cost probably amounts to £ 6 billion.
    The second document placed in the Library is headed "Funding Statement". It too consists of one side of one sheet of A4. I want to quote just one sentence from it, as it is the only sentence that the company has placed before the House concerning the scheme's supposed financial viability. The sentence reads:
    The directors of Central Railway believe that the projected nominal internal rate of return for this project is sufficient to allow the project to be funded in the market through the development and construction phases and into the operational phase."
    418
    That is the one and only indication of the financial viability in the documents placed in the Library.
    Mr. David Congdon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir John Stanley: No. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak and I shall be as brief as I can.
    That is the one sentence the House has been provided with as a basis on which to proceed on an assumption of financial viability— a belief of the directors, expressed in one sentence and wholly unquantified. It is significant that hon. Members are being treated with infinitely less candour on the issue of financial viability than was the case just 15 months ago, when the company made its last application for funds in an equity issue.
    When the prospectus was issued, in addition to getting the company's view about whether the project would be financially viable, those who got hold of the prospectus were at least told of the financial risks. In this case, the House has not been told anything of the financial risks.
    I shall quote one of the 15 risks detailed in the earlier prospectus.
    "The company may fail to raise equity or debt on the terms proposed in the Base Case, or at all."
    It is clearly stated that the company may not be able to raise the money at all. Why has that key financial information not been placed with all the other risks in the process? Why has that not been placed before this House or in the Library? Why was it not put in the Vote Office?
    It is not acceptable for hon. Members to be asked to approve this project on the basis of totally inadequate financial information. On the basis of what we have been shown, this project is, frankly, a total financial speculation. I do not have any difficulty with those who wish to engage in speculation— there may be some who speculate on the national lottery, the horses, the football pools or certain stocks and shares. It is one thing to have a speculation where only those who are making the speculation stand to lose, but in this project the losers would not be those who may choose to speculate in the shares of Central Railway, as they could limit their risk and speculate only to the extent that they were willing to lose the money that they advanced in buying equity; the real losers would be the people who were dragged into the project on the back of the speculation. People all the way from Rugby, through the midlands and around the home counties to west and south London, Surrey, Kent and on to the channel tunnel would lose— tens of thousands of people would be blighted. If this House gives the project assent, they will be blighted for years to come and their environment will be damaged.
    I do not believe that there is any conceivable basis on which we can reasonably and responsibly approve a scheme when the uncertainty about its financial viability is almost total, and the only real certainty is the devastating environmental damage it would do the length and breadth of the scheme.
    8.4 pm
    Ms Clare Short: It might help the House to know the views of the Labour Front Bench at this point in the debate, and I shall try to put them briefly as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.

    419
    We are, like many hon. Members, strongly committed to the aim of getting more freight on to rail. We made this clear in our policy document "Consensus for Change" which was published recently, and I set out in more detail how we would set about achieving this in a speech to the rail freight conference on 5 June. I therefore approach this project with sympathy, but I am afraid my conclusion is that the proposal is unrealistic, is not economically viable, will not come to fruition and is causing blight and upset for no good purpose.
    I spoke briefly on the telephone today to Andrew Gritten, the chair of Central Railway. He asked me to speak to Central Railway's financial adviser, John Cramer. He told me that he used to work for Goldman Sachs, and also used to be Minister for Transport in Illinois. He argued that to create a successful freight railway, one needs very large volumes, low costs and high frequencies. He believes that to achieve that, the freight railway needs control over its own infrastructure and to have dedicated facilities. He pleaded with me to allow the application to pass today so that it could go to the next stage for full consideration. I said to him— and I say to the House— that I am well aware that investment in new infrastructure causes blight and that that is sometimes necessary in the public interest to carry through major new infrastructure projects. But in this case, it seems clear to me that the whole project is unrealistic and not properly considered. It would therefore be wrong for the House to allow the problem of blight to continue.
    Let me cite a few examples of the unrealistic nature of the proposal. It is a 180-mile line, 57 miles of which are to be reinstated on an old route. Near Rugby, incidentally, the old route goes through a new housing estate. It will then move on to an upgraded Chiltern line. The plan involves the compulsory purchase of 41 miles of the Chiltern line. But Railtrack says that it will not hand over ownership, and I understand that Central Railway has not made any approach— at least until May— to propose buying the lines.
    In addition, Central Railway has said in its brief to hon. Members this week that work to upgrade the Chiltern line would not involve any widening or extra tracks. But today I was told that it would involve extra track. Yesterday, Adrian Shooter of the Chiltern line said that it would not be possible to integrate the proposed number of Central Railway trains with existing passenger services. He says that Central Railway has consistently refused to tell him how many trains it will run. He learnt only yesterday that it would be five to six per hour. It seems clear to me that not enough work has been done and not enough detail has been settled and the proposal to incorporate the Chiltern line means that it is not a dedicated freight railway, as is claimed.
    On top of this, the proposed gauge— which is very high because the lorries are intended to roll on to the trains— will not be able to continue beyond Calais, because the gauge is smaller on the continent. That makes it a defective scheme in my view. But there is no provision for a terminal in France. Central Railway says that: the project will cost £ 2 billion to £ 3 billion— as we have heard— but Ove Arup says it could be twice as much.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) referred to MDS Transmodal— a shipping and freight consultancy keen to get more freight on to rail. That company says that Central Railway has underestimated the cost of locomotives. The type of wagons that are
    420
    budgeted are not safety approved for the tunnel, and are unlikely to be in the future. In addition, estimates of revenue are unrealistic.
    I could go on, and give more examples of this unrealistic nature of the project but I do not want to take up the time of the House. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) referred to the fact that those who are keen to see more freight on rail want attention to be drawn to the alternative plans— costing only £ 100 million— that would enable the west coast main line greatly to increase its freight capacity and remove the same traffic from the road as would the Central Railway plan. This scheme could be completed in two years. Central Railways' plan would take four years after the public inquiry had been completed and the funding found— if it could ever be found.
    In contrasting these schemes, I would like to say in passing that this is an example of the deeply unsatisfactory rail system that the Government's privatisation has given us. [HON. MEMBERS: "She's spoilt it."] It does not spoil anything— it is true and the Secretary of State should listen. The privatised railway is so fragmented that there is no strategic centre to the system that is capable of judging which freight scheme best serves the public interest and ensures that that is carried through. I set out in a recent speech to the Adam Smith Institute— Conservative Members may wish to note that— how Labour will ensure that such a strategic centre is established. It is a failure of the privatised network that we are having this mess today when a cheaper and better scheme is available, and the Government are not getting behind the scheme that would best serve the public interest.
    My conclusion is that the most persuasive case for passing the application tonight is that it needs much more development and that its passage would allow detailed consideration to take place. However, as the Minister said, if the House passed the proposal, it would be like a recommendation to the planning inquiry from the House. No responsible Member could possibly recommend it and no responsible Government could be neutral about such an unsatisfactory scheme. The proposal is before the House and that requires us to take a view. The project is well intentioned but unrealistic. It would be wrong for the House to allow large numbers of people along the route to continue to suffer blight. I advise that we should vote to refuse the application.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), but I am in substantial agreement with her comments on the great central line. Certain of her other comments passed me by but the first section of her speech was admirable. I especially liked her reference to Rugby and its housing estate. What she said about Rugby could be echoed for every constituency on the line.
    This is the first time that the Transport and Works Act has been used since it was enacted in 1992. The subject for that unique occasion is the application by Central Railway plc to restore a major section of the old great central line. I suspect that the way in which the Act operates will lead the House to amend it in the fullness of time but that is not a matter for tonight.
    It is intended that the reopened line will cater principally for freight and carry the lorry trailer and the tractor unit on flat-bed rail trucks. The House will

    421
    appreciate that the carrying of the tractor unit in addition to the load is not an efficient way to transport freight. The line has been disused for some 30 years. In some parts, it has been become a nature reserve and a public amenity. In others, factories and housing estates have been built over its site. Were the reopening to go forward, enormous environmental damage would occur.
    Many houses have been built and bought in the knowledge that a disused railway line is close by and while Central Railway claims that it has a property protection scheme, it admits that it has no money to acquire properties or to meet any statutory blight notices. That was the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) in his powerful speech. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of homes and businesses face a future that at best might be described as uncertain.
    It is significant that the development is opposed by groups ranging from statutory bodies such as county, district and parish councils to the National Farmers Union and various wildlife trusts. All come together in opposition to this proposal. One of the reasons for the breadth of opposition is the existence of a viable alternative. That point was made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), by my hon. Friend the Minister during his strong speech and by the hon. Member for Ladywood.
    The alternative is the piggyback consortium, which involves lorry semi-trailers being carried piggyback on rail wagons on the existing west coast main line. I have correspondence from the consortium dated 8 July that confirms that the first wagons will be launched in the United Kingdom next month, when a revenue service between London and Glasgow using low-height trailers will commence. The consortium is working with Railtrack to upgrade existing lines from Glasgow to the channel tunnel to enable standard 4 m high lorry semi-trailers to be carried.
    It is estimated that the infrastructure work may take two years and cost about £ 100 million. That is not an insignificant sum but it pales into insignificance when compared with the costs quoted by Central Railway, which optimistically says that the cost will be about £ 3 billion. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh [HON. MEMBERS: "Streatham."] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. As he said, consultants Ove Arup have issued a report that puts the cost substantially higher than that currently quoted by Central Railway.
    Central Railway has not developed an environmentally sensitive scheme. Its environmental statement does not identify significant effects or specify plans to mitigate the undoubted noise and nuisance. Substantial doubts exist that adequate landscaping, noise abatement and habitat protection have, or can be, provided.
    This is one of those rare occasions in the life of the House when there is general agreement between the three major parties. It is significant that the Labour and Liberal parties have come out strongly in opposition to the development. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government are, and must be, strictly impartial because of their quasi-judicial role. However, Back Benchers do not have to be impartial. One has only to look around the Chamber to see the growing opposition to this
    422
    crack-brained scheme and the number of Conservative Members who will oppose it in the Lobby tonight. There is no substantial demand for the reopening of the great central railway line outside the financial interests of the sponsors.
    Freight can be taken off the roads and the environment can be protected by using the existing west coast main line and the piggyback consortium. It is worth recording that, unlike the Central Railway, the piggyback consortium is supported by local authorities, Eurotunnel, the Freight Transport Association, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, P and O Ferrymasters, PowerGen Property, Rail Freight Distribution, Railtrack and SNCF. Many other major companies are associated with the consortium but a full roll-call would take up too much of the House's time.
    I urge the House to reject the application because it is as unnecessary as it is unwanted. It is disruptive, damaging and will cause enormous worry and distress to substantial numbers of the people who we are elected to defend. I intend to divide the House and urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote no tonight.
    8.18 pm
    Mr. David Chidgey: It is rare that we have a free vote on an issue of national importance. Even if it is at the 11th hour of our last day, it is gratifying that so many hon. Members are present and clearly intent on voting. I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members want to speak so I will not rehearse the well-established Liberal Democrat transport policies. I assume that hon. Members can take them as read, whether they agree with them or not. I shall concentrate on Central Railway.
    Over the past few weeks, many hon. Members will have been lobbied by the company, which emphasised that Central Railway's private initiative and financial commitment would be at risk if Parliament does not allow the scheme to progress to the next stage. Although my party welcomes private and public sector financing partnerships in our transport infrastructure, provided that it accords with transport strategy, it is odd that Central Railway should appeal to our good nature. The risks are well known. The Transport and Works Act 1992 makes clear the requirements that promoters must meet if they are to take a project forward. Organisations that subscribe to market forces should be happy to allow that procedure, and not complain if the result does not go their way.
    The report by Ove Arup, consulting engineers of international reputation and integrity, was independent and not in support of any particular group. The whole point of engineering consultants is that they offer professional and independent views, of which we should take serious note.
    The project documentation has been well described. I invite hon. Members to compare that documentation, or the lack of it, with the amount of information that was presented to the House when it reviewed the progress of the channel tunnel rail link and the amount of work that went into establishing the viability of that scheme.
    I want to address the three key issues of the scheme's impact on the environment, its impact on the democratic process and its synergy with the national transport strategy. We are all in favour of switching as much freight as possible from road to rail, and my party has set a target

    423
    of 10 per cent. over a reasonable period. However, that objective is not itself an argument for building a 208 km railway, particularly when the existing rail network is capacity-hungry for freight. We are aware of the damage and uproar caused by recent new motorway construction. Hon. Members will recall the incidents at Twyford Down when the M3 was completed— I live in that constituency, so I remember them well. Railway construction is no less environmentally damaging and is arguably more so. The gradients that must be achieved for a railway are less than for a motorway, so require deeper cuttings and higher embankments— not to mention the 24 km super-diameter tunnelling that will be required. One returns to the argument that we already have an existing rail network crying out for investment.
    The Minister said that 14,000 letters of objection have been received, and 50,000 people have signed a petition against the project. The reason for that controversy is that planning officers and locally elected councillors have been shut out of the process and starved of information. It is well established that Central Railway has continually sought to limit information by seeking waivers against the requirements of the 1992 Act, which has undermined the democratic checks and balances that are well established in local and county councils.
    If the House approved the order and outline planning permission were subsequently granted, the public inquiry would be concerned not with whether the project should proceed but with when, how and where. The House would remove at one stroke the basis of local democracy, the planning process and local accountability. Local plans painstakingly developed over decades by district councils to serve their communities would be thrown aside. Dozens of communities would be shattered by blight for many years. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) pointed out that housing estates would be cut through, parks destroyed, industrial estates torn down and immense traffic problems created as side roads were used for access.
    Of course there is an urgent need to attract freight from the roads to rail. There has been an appalling decline in rail freight volume in recent years, and the state of the west coast main line is a classic example of lack of investment and poor maintenance leading to extensive speed restrictions and disrupted timetables. Nevertheless, the west coast main line is the most extensive and complex link in the national network. It is the major artery connecting the heart of the west midlands and our manufacturing base with the rest of Europe. The proposals of the piggyback consortium show how quickly an essential freight service could be provided. It would use the channel tunnel and connect directly with the continental rail network, without any necessity for a change of gauge or Central Railway's super-gauge, which cannot connect with the mainland European network.
    For a fraction of the cost of the Central Railway scheme, the west coast main line can and must be upgraded as an essential part of our national rail strategy. That can be achieved with minimal disruption, to meet the demand for rail freight that can be created if Railtrack is required by the rail regulator to provide cheap, efficient and attractive rail access to freight operators.
    It would be wrong for Parliament to act as a planning supremo in granting or making way for an order that would overturn local plans, ignore the needs and wishes of local communities, and circumvent local democracy. It
    424
    would be wrong to grant or assist an order to permit a massive construction that would cause untold environmental damage and make Twyford Down look like a side road closure order. It would be wrong to grant an order for a hugely expensive and disruptive scheme while the west coast main line remains neglected, underfunded and underused. Parliament should direct its energies at forcing rapid improvement to our existing rail network as its highest priority. I hope that the House will join me in voting against the order.
    8.27 pm
    Sir Keith Speed: I will not reiterate the comments by hon. Members in all parts of the House because time is short. I quarrel slightly with my hon. Friend the Minister when he says that consultation has taken place with many local authorities. I am informed by Kent county council and Ashford borough council that consultation consisted of encounters with two or three people who were unwilling or unable to answer any questions of consequence. Fortunately, we have good officers in both authorities and they were able to interpret the little information that was provided and the scheme's likely effect on their communities— which would be extremely bad.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and I have lived for eight years under the blight of the channel tunnel rail link. First there were four routes, then two and then two other routes. That created enormous misery for people who had invested their life savings in houses but who had to move because of their work or for financial reasons, having been caught in negative equity. They were confronted by an apparently implacable bureaucracy. The Central Railway scheme has already produced several months of blight. The blight did not start on 20 May, when the order was first laid. It has long been evident in my constituency and, I suspect, in many others. I hope that the House will sound a resounding death knell tonight on this ill-considered project, so that blight will be truly and properly ended.
    My hon. Friend the Minister read out a statement from the Central Railway consortium that by and large there would be little disruption to existing services. That is nonsense. It is nonsense for the Chiltern line. My hon. Friend has not mentioned, but I am going to, the international station at Ashford. I had the great honour of inaugurating that new service on 8 January this year. Ashford is a pretty narrow gap. We have the main lines from Maidstone and the main lines from Tonbridge. We have lines going off to Canterbury, Folkestone and Hastings and in addition we shall have the new channel tunnel rail link going through Ashford.
    If the Central Railway line project goes through, it will be much bigger than the others. No one has yet mentioned the vertical deviation of plus or minus 10 m. Central Railway is so precise that we are talking about 33 ft up or down. How can one interpret things like that on a map, for heaven's sake?
    The international station at Ashford, which has been open for only two months, will be largely demolished and, we hope, rebuilt— we do not know how— to enable the line to go through. The station already has 7,000 people a week going through it and is fast expanding. It is doing a good job not only for Ashford but for a swathe of counties and constituencies from Essex to Bristol. It will

    425
    be completely disrupted. No wonder that the channel tunnel rail link people, Eurostar and all the rest feel that the Central Railway line will be the death knell for any stations on the Eurostar route outside London.
    I have said enough to show that, even in my part of the world, there are problems. There will be six lines going down from Ashford to Folkestone. The project will involve the demolition of a mediaeval church and a village school. I agree that if the line is built it will cost £ 6 billion-plus, not £ 3 billion, but let us also consider the cost to local authorities. If there is a series of local planning inquiries, officers of district councils, parish councils, borough councils and county councils will have to do a great deal of work to make sense of the nonsensical maps with which they are working so far. Time for officers is money. Why should the taxpayer, either local or national, pay a penny more for this ill-gotten scheme? It must be killed and killed now.
    8.31 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I speak on behalf of many concerned constituents, to inform the House that Croydon says no to Central Railway. The people of Croydon say no to the scheme, for environmental, social and economic reasons, not least in terms of jobs. It has been estimated that in Croydon there would be a direct loss of 62 residential properties, many in Croydon, North-West. There would also be a direct loss of 40 commercial premises, which currently support about 580 jobs. There would be loss of access to premises, which support a further 200 jobs. There would also be significant effects on the environment and ecology of the area, including the felling of up to 500 mature trees. There would be other impacts on nature and the ecology.
    Many people are worried about the loss of garden space. I understand that. More than 600 residential properties in Croydon would lose garden space. For about 110 properties, the loss would be so significant that the garden space left would be below council standards— a minimum of 8 m in length for a back garden. There would be increases in noise levels.
    I have received more letters— well over 150— on this matter than on any single issue since I became a Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Tim Smith: I have had a thousand.
    Mr. Wicks: The party of inflation will speak for itself later. I have received more than 150 letters— not petitions or postcards, but handwritten letters from concerned groups. I pay tribute to the community groups in my borough and elsewhere, which have led the fight against the scheme. I pay tribute in particular to Vera Hunter and Charmienne Bold— two of our key local activists.
    One pensioner from Norbury who wrote to me said in her letter that her husband had recently had a stroke and was now wheelchair-bound. She said that he did not need the added stress of their house being blighted by Central Railway. Another pensioner couple in Norbury said that they had spent all their savings on a house to make it comfortable for their old age, and they now feared that it would be uninhabitable, because of pollution.
    426
    Another constituent from Norbury said:
    "If Central Railway have their way it will be sheer hell. There will be more filth and many other disadvantages."
    Another constituent from Thornton Heath said:
    "The noise coming from these trains… would be unbearable."
    Another talked about her garden and said, perfectly reasonably, that her 81-year-old mother
    "should be able to tend the whole garden she has lived with for over 50 years without any interference."
    Another constituent from Croydon said:
    "I bought my house 2 years ago and have spent thousands of pounds renovating it to make it comfortable and also to increase its value. I have no intention of being driven out by the greed of a few people in high places."
    I could quote from many other letters, but both Opposition and Conservative Members wish to speak.
    Central Railway should receive a gold medal in any Olympics for arrogance, and at least a silver medal for insensitivity. Despite inadequate funding and the fact that it is a toytown, tinpot company, it has sought the time of Parliament to pursue plans that have caused dismay and despair, not least to elderly people. I have had people literally in tears in my constituency about the human impact of the project line. I am angry on their behalf, as are other hon. Members, that they have been caused so much despair, dismay and sadness, not least by the arrogant lack of consultation and the bullying approach of Central Railway.
    To my surprise, I saw in a local newspaper an article with the headline, "Railway expects yes vote". The article said:
    "Central Railway says it is pleasantly surprised at the number of objections to its freight scheme through Croydon— 12,000."
    Why is it pleasantly surprised? It is because, the company says,
    "It amounts to little more than 40 objections per kilometre. For a major scheme of this character one could expect a figure which would run into hundreds per kilometre."
    Such is the statistical fantasy land of that toytown company. These are people who would have described Chernobyl as a small bang.
    The people of my constituency humbly hope that the House of Commons will represent them today. I believe that we shall. They feel that they are up against a big brother— a big company— but they also know that Parliament means something in our democracy. Very soon we shall show that we speak on behalf of our people by voting resoundingly, decisively and clearly no.
    8.37 pm
    Mr. George Walden: After listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I do not wish to try their patience by trying to demolish the already demolished, but I reflect on behalf of my constituents that in the past two or three years they have been subject to two massive infrastructure proposals. The first was the east-west route, which runs plumb across my constituency, and the second is the Central Railway project, which runs across it from north to south. If the two projects go through, my constituency will look like a hot-cross bun.
    All that my constituency wants from my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads is a very small and inexpensive bypass at Tingewick, with which I have bored

    427
    my hon. Friend on many occasions. Therefore, it is ironic that, instead of that much-needed bypass— people walk in danger of their lives every day— we are presented with two enormous schemes that would dissect the constituency and cause massive environmental problems, among other things.
    I shall speak literally for a matter of minutes. Apart from stressing the environmental problems, particularly for Haddenham, the village that would be most damaged if the line was built, I should like to emphasise that there is an air of unreality about these proceedings, not only because there is such a measure of agreement across the House, but because we are discussing, seriously as we must, the whole spatchcocked idea in the first place. This is the type of plan that gives private enterprise a bad name, because it has a strong flavour of speculation. I have not looked up the south sea bubble debate, but no doubt we could have cribbed some terminology from there, had we tried.
    I could go on for hours emphasising the pain that this has caused many people in my constituency, but I know that similar pain has been caused to other hon. Members' constituents, so I shall finish with the following thought. I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister imply that he would study the procedure under which massive planning applications can be made and cause massive disruption and— as this one has done— massive cost to the Government, when they are merely confetti and not worth the paper on which they are submitted.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Tom Cox: There have been some excellent speeches in the debate, which have shown the strength of feeling of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister— I do not criticise him for it— illustrated the genuine anxieties that he and his Department have, not only about the possible funding, but about the overwhelming opposition that has been expressed.
    The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), in a telling speech, ripped apart the argument that has been presented. I represent a constituency in the London borough of Wandsworth. The borough has spent an enormous amount of time and money considering the proposals, and has made countless objections to them.
    The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made certain statements on the documents that he has. I also have one, which I am sure that other hon. Members have, headed:
    "Central Railway's Response to Representation and Objections".
    It is lies or misinterpretation of what we know has been happening in the constituencies that we represent.
    One of the points that the document makes about objections by local authorities is that most of the authorities object to the scheme on the basis that there has been insufficient consultation with them and that the information provided with the application is inadequate; how true. We in Wandsworth, and many of my constituents who are affected, have been trying and trying to find out what the proposals really mean, without great success.
    On the third page of the document, there is the following statement:
    "Under this scheme homeowners are granted an option to sell their homes to the Company at a fixed price."
    428
    Many hon. Members have been through all this before on other proposals, when at the end of the day people whose homes were being compulsorily purchased have had very little say in trying to get what they rightly believed to be the value of their property.
    The document next discusses the environmental impact.
    It says:
    "The Company's investigations indicate that the operation of the railway will not create unacceptable increases in noise or vibration".
    The London borough of Wandsworth, which has done extensive work on that, says clearly, in documents that have been circulated to the three Members for the borough, that that is totally untrue.
    My final point is about disruption during construction.
    The document says:
    "The project has been designed to minimise disruption during construction but some disruption is inevitable."
    The Minister said in his opening remarks that there will be seven-day working on much of the project. Do we not have an obligation, not only to look after the blight problem for our constituents, but to look after the general environment in which they live? The hon. Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) spoke of the problems that his constituency has had to suffer as a result of the cross-channel developments.
    Very shortly, we shall have the opportunity to vote the order down, and I hope that we shall do so overwhelmingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) outlined—
    Mr. Bill Olner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can advise the House as to whether any hon. Member will speak for the scheme tonight.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am
    afraid that I cannot anticipate what hon. Members might wish to say.
    Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) makes an important point. We shall watch closely how many hon. Members go into the Aye Lobby tonight, and I do not think that we or the Tellers shall spend much time counting them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood spoke about the time of the overall development. If we have a public inquiry, which will take two years or more, and then the development work, the entire process might take five or six years. None of us has a right to be in the House tonight thinking about our constituents and saying, "Perhaps they will not like it, but we must live with it." I am sure that all of us here tonight who oppose the scheme want to see it defeated in the House. In six months' or a year's time, we shall not be faced with the prospect of the scheme being brought back because it has been changed in some way, if we defeat it tonight in its entirety.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I support the strong objections that have been made to the proposal. I am keen for freight to move from road to rail, as I believe the House and the country are, but not in this way. In my constituency, there would be enormous damage to people in their homes, in that they would have trains thundering

    429
    past close by, day and night, in a way that would damage unacceptably their health and morale and their way of life, beyond repair. In Greenford, Northolt and especially Perivale, there would be destruction of habitats, in addition to the damage to people in their homes.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend realise that there could be not only the five to six trains an hour that Central Railway has mentioned, but as many as 10 trains an hour, if third-party operators are also permitted to use the line?
    Mr. Greenway: Yes, I am aware of that, and I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned it, because it emphasised his opposition to this unwanted, unsatisfactory development.
    Many hon. Members want to speak. We all have a duty to represent our constituents' concerns. My constituents expressed their views to me by the thousand, in the form of a petition. Everyone opposed the scheme; no one wrote to me to say that they wanted it. I wish that people could have been informed of their opportunity to write with their objections by 1 July, long before they were given that information. In my constituency, people did not know that they could write and object to the scheme until the middle of June, leaving them with a fortnight. That is unsatisfactory.
    The scheme is unsatisfactory in every way. It has been unsatisfactorily presented and mounted, and it has been unsatisfactorily handled throughout the short consultation stage. It should be thrown out unanimously.
    8.48 pm
    Mr. Clive Soley: I have received the same petition and complaints as many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I want to add to the debate, because there is no point in repeating much of what has been said, simply repeating what many of our constituents are saying.
    This application shows the need to review the Transport and Works Act 1992. It is wrong that a company without any convincing financial ability can propose a scheme by drawing a line on the map without adequate consultation with any of the local authorities concerned, let alone other people, and put that scheme in such a way that it blights people's homes and businesses. In doing so, it will make many people lose money on their homes.
    This is no way to plan a major infrastructure scheme. No attention has been paid to the height of bridges or to the need to deal with the infrastructure underneath the roads that the railway will cross. A proposal of this nature will put at risk electricity cables and gas and water mains. The Government cannot justify a system in which a minor company makes proposals without adequate thought and planning, and then expects to get it through on the ground that it can spell out the detail later once Parliament has approved it.
    I appeal to the Minister to learn from this lesson. The Act must be amended to ensure that a company—
    It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents).
    The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 172.

    Division No. 213]

    [8.50 pm

    AYES

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    French, Douglas

    Gill, Christopher

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Leigh, Edward

    Mr. Don Foster and Mr. Robert Hughes.

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Alexander, Richard

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Alton, David

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Amess, David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gunnell, John

    Austin-Walker, John

    Hall, Mike

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Barnes, Harry

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bayley, Hugh

    Hawksley, Warren

    Beith, A J

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Benton, Joe

    Howard, Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hoyle, Doug

    Body, Sir Richard

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Booth, Hartley

    Hutton, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

    Boyson, Sir Rhodes

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Burden, Richard

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Burns, Simon

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Butler, Peter

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Byers, Stephen

    Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Lidington, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Carrington, Matthew

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

    Chidgey, David

    McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    MacGregor, John

    Church, Ms Judith

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Clapham, Michael

    McNamara, Kevin

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    MacShane, Denis

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    McWilliam, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Congdon, David

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Conway, Derek

    Marland, Paul

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Martlew, Eric

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Couchman, James

    Meale, Alan

    Cox, Tom

    Mellor, David

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Dicks, Terry

    Mills, Iain

    Dobson, Frank

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Dowd, Jim

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Mullin, Chris

    Dunn, Bob

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Norris, Steve

    Elletson, Harold

    Olner, Bill

    Faulds, Andrew

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Paice, James

    Flynn, Paul

    Pawsey, James

    Foulkes, George

    Pearson, Ian

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Pike, Peter L

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Pope, Greg

    George, Bruce

    Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    431

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Thomason, Roy

    Rendel, David

    Tipping, Paddy

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Tracey, Richard

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Tyler, Paul

    Rooker, Jeff

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Rowe, Andrew

    Vaz, Keith

    Scott, Sir Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Shephard, Gillian

    Waller, Gary

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Wareing, Robert N

    Short, Ms Clare

    Wells, Bowen

    Skinner, Dennis

    Whitney, Ray

    Smith, Chris (Islington S)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Soley, Clive

    Wilkinson, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Spellar, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wood, Timothy

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Stanley, Sir John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Bill Etherington.

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Question accordingly negatived.

    FINANCE AND SERVICES
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Greg Knight be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr. Andrew Mackay be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Ottaway.]

  PETITIONS

    Standard Spending Assessment (North Lincolnshire)
    9 pm
    Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of the people of North Lincolnshire regarding the way in which the standard spending assessment is calculated. The campaign has been organised by the local newspaper, the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph. It is supported by the leader of the North Lincolnshire council and by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), whose constituency covers part of the new unitary authority.
    The standard spending assessment calculation led to a council tax increase of 28 per cent.in April this year. We believe that that is an unfair, and a very heavy burden on the people of that area. It has also caused dramatic cuts in services and created enormous problems for the council. The petition reads as follows:
    To the House of Commons
    The Petition of the people of North Lincolnshire declares that the Standard Spending Assessment that dictates the level of the North Lincolnshire Council Tax is unfair, unreasonable and does not take into account the needs of the area, recognise the balance of its urban and rural nature, and has resulted in an excessive increase in Council Tax.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons carries out an urgent review of the basis of the Standard Spending Assessment.
    That issue must be examined urgently— not just in the case of North Lincolnshire but in relation to councils the length and breadth of this country. It is quite clear that there is something seriously wrong with the calculation, and it must be rectified as soon as possible.
    To lie upon the Table.

    North Western Traffic Area Office, Manchester
    9.3 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The right to petition the House of Commons is a very important one which is not lightly abandoned by anyone. Therefore, I am delighted to present to the House tonight a petition on behalf of a small group of important people who run the north western traffic area office in Manchester.
    Those hon. Members who know the transport industry know that traffic commissioners are responsible for maintaining and enforcing the laws that keep our constituents safe in relation to public service vehicles, buses and heavy lorries. They have now been told that they are to lose their jobs and that the work is to go elsewhere.
    The petition reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
    The Humble Petition of the people of Manchester and elsewhere sheweth
    that we wish to register strong protest at the Government's proposal to close the North Western Traffic Area Office in Manchester and thereby reduce the levels of vehicle and traffic enforcement in the North West and threaten the employment of some sixty staff.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do not proceed with this proposal.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Security (Middle East)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Brandreth.]
    9.5 pm
    Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a great pleasure and privilege to initiate this Adjournment debate on the important subject of peace prospects in the middle east. I am conscious of the fact that, although the hour is early, at the end of this short debate the House will be going into a long summer recess, when no doubt you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other right hon. and hon. Members will be able to spend more time with constituents.
    Conscious as I am of the fact that, earlier this evening, the House debated the third report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges on the conduct of hon. Members, I am pleased to report that I have no interest to declare, other than an interest in the subject, but it is a sad reflection on public life in the United Kingdom that those of us who have business interests predating our membership of the House and who are able to draw on experiences in business, socially and otherwise, have felt constrained, as I have in the past four years, from speaking in such debates in recent times. On this important subject, however, it is useful perhaps to put down one or two markers, and I hope to play some small part in furthering the peace process.
    The middle east is vital to the interests of the industrialised world, because of its strategic location and unparalleled wealth. Today, the region's future is in the balance. The choice is either for its political elites to continue to initiate constructive dialogue with each other and to marginalise the extremists, or to appease the hardliners, whose best interests are served by the continuing mistrust and confrontation of the past and the failures of the peace process.
    Even in Israel, enormous discretion is given to its elite to make public policy. Despite such leeway, trust can be squandered if officials are seen as not protecting their country's national security interest. An aide to Prime Minister Rabin once coined a succinct motto for him:
    "If you want to make drastic concessions on peace, you must show the public you can take drastic measures for security".
    Prime Minister Rabin declared that Israel would pursue peace as if there were no terrorism, and fight terrorism as if there were no peace process. There is much of such a policy in Israel's new leader. Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu possesses both the credibility with the Israelis and the personal will to make territorial concessions when he is convinced that his state's security is not at stake. Reaching agreement will prove a matter more of timing than anything else.
    Mr. John Marshall: May I thank my hon. Friend for not prejudging the Israeli Prime Minister, as so much of the world press did? Does my hon. Friend agree that the lesson of history is that leaders of the right are often better able to make peace than leaders of the left? After all, it was Prime Minister Begin who signed the Camp David accord, and President Nixon was able to warm up relations with the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Banks: I was pleased to have the opportunity to give way to my hon. Friend, and I agree with the broad thrust of his remarks. I am certainly one of the last people who would wish to make presumptions about the actions of the Prime Minister of Israel in the days and months ahead.
    Prime Minister Netanyahu made an eloquent and articulate speech to the United States Congress earlier this month. I believe that that speech will have allayed the scepticism and consternation felt by a number of Arab leaders following the Israeli elections in May. I hope that it will have contributed towards the gradual expansion of the circle of peace.
    The clearing of the air has continued with Arab leaders— most recently with President Mubarak in Cairo on 17 July, and with the Israeli Foreign Minister's visit with President Arafat earlier this week. The promise to allow 10,000 Palestinian workers to enter Israel, despite the existent threat from Muslim militant terrorists in the west bank and Gaza strip, is a welcome sign of Israeli intentions.
    To the ordinary Palestinian in the territories, the initiation of constructive dialogue and the marginalisation of the extremists means little. Tangible evidence of the fruits of peace must pervade everyday life— hence the importance of economic development and, in Secretary of State Warren Christopher's words
    "not simply to give peace a chance, but to ensure that it will not fail".
    Just as the Israeli Government must carry their people with them in the search for peace, so too must the Palestinian authority. Marginalising extremists is made easier by improvements in living standards under a responsible leadership.
    The United States and Russian co-sponsored international donors conference in Washington in 1993, the Israel-Palestinian Liberation Organisation economic agreement in Paris in 1994, the work of the ad hoc liaison committee on Palestinian assistance and the conference on assistance to the Palestinians convened earlier this year, have all played their part in initiating such an improvement.
    All five of the Madrid multilateral working groups have made significant progress via concrete projects that bear significantly on the long-term peace, stability and prosperity of the region, particularly the work of the regional economic development working group, chaired by the European Union, and the refugee working group, chaired by Canada. Their activities are also fostering new bilateral and private sector initiatives throughout the region.
    One of the more significant of those involves the middle east/north Africa economic summits that reached agreement in Amman last year on, among other things, the establishment of a bank for economic co-operation and development in the middle east and north Africa, the establishment of the Regional Business Council, and the formal inauguration of the economic summit executive secretariat.
    As for ourselves in the United Kingdom, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will reaffirm the Government's commitment to helping the Palestinian territories through the constructive, helpful methods that have been adopted so far, bilaterally, through the United

    435
    Nations, and via the European Union. I know that this country's aid has reached £ 82 million in the three years up to 1996–97, and the European Union's aid of £ 400 million over five years— our share being one sixth— is welcome.
    I am particularly keen on the fostering and encouragement of private enterprise in the territories, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did much to encourage that end during his visit to the Gaza strip last year. If ordinary Palestinians are able to see an improvement in their living standards in trade, public health, sewerage, finance and administration, it spells trouble for the extremists and terrorists and their recruitment teams.
    We already co-operate with both Israel and the Palestinian authority on training for the Palestinian police force, with, for example, the help of a team from the Scottish police training college. I hope that we shall continue to provide such obviously practical and beneficial assistance in the future.
    Sometimes we talk about the inner circle of states surrounding Israel and about their importance. Some of the most important of those, of course, are Syria, Jordan and the Palestinian territories. Negotiations between Israel and Syria entered a new phase in 1995, although talks have stalled in the aftermath of terrorist incidents in Israel and the election of the new Israeli Government. However, I believe that the will to reach agreement exists on both sides.
    Peace with Syria would almost certainly mean that Israel could have peace with, I hope, all Arab countries, barring one or two indefatigable holdouts such as Libya and Iraq. The Israel-Syrian tract is doubly important, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in a radio interview this April, when he said:
    "We know that Syria has enormous influence in Lebanon … It is quite clear that the two are quite intimately linked."
    What is Syria to gain in the peace process? I believe that the prospect of getting back Golan is of huge political importance. Possibly Syria could gain Israel's consent to its continued overlordship of Lebanon, and it could reasonably expect to be removed from the United States's list of state-sponsored terrorism. If Syria, with its influence over dissident groups, felt able to sign on the dotted line by joining the multilateral talks, for example, I believe that Arab rulers everywhere in the Gulf and in north Africa would feel that they had nothing to fear from doing the same.
    Just as the Palestinian deal is the key to a new economic order, so the Syrian deal is the key to a comprehensive peace with the wider Arab world. Corning down from Golan is the key, and— despite the utterances of Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Netanyahu— I believe that the Israeli elite understands that, too, provided that security can be guaranteed.
    In the meantime, it is only by marginalising supporters of Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah that leaders committed to peace will continue to make progress in the years ahead. International pariahs— such as Libya and, especially, Iran— do most to encourage terrorism, which can, and sometimes does, destabilise other countries in the region. I am particularly concerned about the most recent murderous examples of that fact, in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
    436
    The recent European Union agreement on a new extradition convention between member states is a very constructive follow-up to the Prime Minister's statements at the middle east summit in March.
    I do not believe that we should tolerate the activities of people such as Dr. Al-Masari, who exploit their roles as asylum seekers to diffuse their evil and malignant opinions, to the detriment of the builders of peace everywhere. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that issue at the summit.
    In view of the significant threat posed by a spiralling arms race and by state-sponsored terrorism, it is imperative that the arms control and regional security working group, chaired by the United States and Russia, reaches substantive agreements, such as that on establishing regional security centres. However, given that the arms procurement policies of countries such as Iran and Libya— which by choice are not involved in peace negotiations— have as much bearing on future security as countries that are involved in the negotiations, any hope of achieving arms control is a dim one.
    Iran is still viewed by the United Arab Emirates, for example, as the major threat to security in the region, not least because of the clearly expressed ambitions of its leaders to play the dominant role in regional security. The dispute over Gulf islands, such as Abu Musa, symbolises the confrontation. Unsurprisingly, as Iran refuses arbitration, international diplomacy has been blocked in the matter.
    Iran has consistently opposed the Arab-Israel peace process, not only diplomatically but by sponsoring terrorism aimed at destabilising the mutual trust carefully nurtured between Israel and several Arab states since 1991. Moreover, western intelligence has documented reports of Iranian meddling, during this decade, in the internal affairs of Lebanon and of Algeria, and it seems clear that that meddling is spreading to other countries as well— even to the extent of attempting to divide the UAE, for example, by practising direct diplomacy with the individual Emirates rather than through the federal authority.
    Iran has proved antagonistic to security in the region. Its programme of weapons acquisition— including, as many fear, efforts to procure nuclear weapons— the expansion of chemical and biological weapons capabilities, the acquisition of more sophisticated missiles and the purchase of three modern diesel-powered submarines from Moscow are all further proof of Iran's aspiration to regional hegemony. Iran is currently experiencing high unemployment and inflation, shortages of consumer goods and currency devaluations, but, despite that, it is spending vast sums on modern military technology.
    The view in Abu Dhabi towards security in the region has been one of common sense. It has weighed in with third parties to encourage them to desist from supplying weapons of mass destruction, dual-use high technology and new credits to terrorist regimes, including Iran.
    The United Kingdom has been the UAE's staunchest ally since independence in 1971. As a frequent visitor and secretary of the Anglo-UAE parliamentary group, it would be remiss of me not to say that I firmly believe in the successful conclusion of a defence co-operation agreement between the United Kingdom and the UAE, especially as a means of providing a framework for future bilateral defence collaboration.

    437
    Although I appreciate that the content of negotiations is confidential and most certainly very delicate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure me and the House that the Government are doing their utmost to build on our long-standing friendship which has existed since 1971.
    As for international trade, with a total population of some 359 million, the countries of north Africa and the middle east had a combined gross domestic product of some £ 601 billion in 1993, and imported £ 135 billion-worth of goods. The region remains one of enormous importance for British trade. Many businesses in my constituency export to the middle east, and I know that trade with the region is also important for the constituencies of other hon. Members. It is important to remember that 6 per cent. of exports worldwide are with the region, and that it shows a balance of trade of 2:1 in the UK's favour.
    The Gulf also continues to offer enormous prospects in all sectors, and there are also new opportunities in Israel, the territories and Jordan arising from the peace process. Lebanon and Syria may also benefit once there is progress on the Syrian track. In the meantime, reconstruction in Lebanon and the liberalisation of the Syrian economy mean that markets are worthy of attention in their own right. I am pleased to learn that British companies are getting in there and trying to win orders. I trust that they will continue to receive the support of our posts abroad and of Ministers at home, and of Ministers when they travel.
    Security in the middle east is still far away. Continuing and regular threats to long-term security are posed by extremism and terrorism throughout the region. I hope that the day will come when all disputes in the middle east can be settled in the peaceful and brotherly manner which I like to think we are seeing in the border dispute between Bahrain and Qatar, which is being brokered by the Saudi Arabians.
    It has been well said that it is easier to make war than peace. It will take concerted international leadership and, of course, the will of the people themselves to ensure that peace and its dividends remain the only viable future option. I know that my right hon. Friend is playing his part, on behalf of the Government, in providing our share of that leadership. He has my full support in that task.
    9.23 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) for raising this important topic. He touched on many issues and perhaps I can put some of his remarks into a wider context.
    As my hon. Friend said, this is the final debate of the current Session. It is appropriate that an area as important as the middle east should be the subject of that debate. It is also the third Adjournment debate to which I have replied today and I am pleased that this hat trick should be recorded on such a subject.
    It is vital to fundamental British interests that there should be peace and tranquillity in the middle east, not merely because, as a permanent member of the Security Council, our aim is to promote stability throughout the world. In the middle east that concern is also linked to
    438
    some long-standing friendships. Our profound economic and commercial interests and the safety of tens of thousands of British expatriates are forefront in our minds. So my honourable Friend should not be surprised if we accord a high priority to our interest in regional security. We showed in the Gulf war how far we were prepared to go in opposing threats to that interest and attacks on our friends.
    The middle east peace process is a linchpin of our regional security policy. Many recent statements have confirmed our strong interest in the search for a comprehensive regional peace settlement. They include my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech to the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians on 23 May and, more recently, the G7 declaration at Lyons and the European Union's Florence declaration. It is now most important that the agreements that have been made are implemented by all parties. For the Israelis, that means in the first instance the commitment to deploy from Hebron.
    The other immediate imperatives are relaxations of the closures of the West Bank and Gaza and the resumption of high-level contacts between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I welcome the meeting that has taken place between Foreign Minister Levy and President Arafat. I have every confidence that Israel— with its new Government— and the Arab world will work for peace. That is vital to us all. As my hon. Friend said, the new Israeli Government must be given time to formulate their policies.
    We recognise that security is a vital priority for Israel. We are working hard— in counter-terrorism, for example— to ensure that security and the peace process are seen as inter-related. Ultimately, the only answer to the problem of security is a comprehensive and lasting settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours, based on the principle of land for peace, which respects the rights of all.
    The principle of land for peace was put forward in United Nations Security Council resolution 242, back in 1967. It was the basis for the Madrid process, which began in 1991, and for the Oslo talks which resulted in the declaration of principles between Israel and the PLO, signed in 1993. Britain gave consistent and full support to both of those declarations. The declaration of principles has led to the signing of the Gaza-Jericho agreement in 1994, and most recently in September last year of the interim agreement.
    Not only has Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the PLO, renounced violence, but he has been instrumental in the important decision of the Palestine National Council of 24 April 1996 to amend the Palestinian Covenant so that it no longer denies the right of Israel to exist.
    We shall have a major role to play in helping to maintain the momentum of the peace process. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 15 July to the General Affairs Council in Brussels, we must not allow the peace process to slip between the fingers of the world, like sand, and be lost. As I have said already, that cannot be allowed to happen.
    An important main part of our support for the peace process is our economic assistance to the Palestinian people.
    Mr. John Marshall: In the 62 minutes available to my right hon. Friend, will he talk briefly about the fate of the missing in action Israeli soldiers and airmen such as Ron Arad and Zachary Baumel? He will know that the remains of two Israeli MIAs were returned recently. May we have an assurance that the British Government will continue to press at every opportunity in an attempt to ensure that the fate of the other MIAs is determined very quickly?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can give him that assurance. When I was in Israel in January, I raised the subject of the six persons missing in action not only, of course, with Israelis but with President Arafat himself. We discussed the issues in great depth and I believe that Yasser Arafat wants a resolution of the matter as much as anyone. I will continue to raise the subject. In fact, I have in my briefcase a dog tag with the six names of those who are missing. That two of those have been returned dead is no satisfaction. The fact that their fate is now known is in a way a relief to the loved ones, but it is quite terrible that the fate of those who are still missing is unknown. It is possible that Ron Arad is still alive. We will need to address the matter and constantly raise it with all those who might have influence.
    In the context of the middle east, I might also add that the situation of any people who are missing in action must be resolved and information given. I think of course of the 600 Kuwaitis who are still missing in Iraq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for raising a humanitarian issue that needs to be resolved.
    As I said, the Palestinian people require our economic assistance. I was proud to attend the Palestinian donors conference in Paris earlier this year. We are giving £ 87 million between 1994 and 1997.I believe that it is money well spent. Even the Israelis agree that a prosperous Palestine is a more peaceful Palestine.
    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference in March, such aid can draw away support from extremism fuelled by poverty. Much of it has helped to build up the Palestinian civil police. While that approach focuses on human rights concerns and good policing tactics, it helps to increase confidence among the Palestinian public in their Administration and contributes to the formation of a stable and forward-looking Palestinian democracy.
    I would also like to speak briefly about Syria, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport raised. I recently visited Damascus. We greatly hope that the talks between Syria and Israel, which were suspended earlier this year, can be taken forward at an early opportunity. Syria remains central to the ultimate success of the middle east peace process and we welcome the fact that Mr. Netanyahu has said that he wants to resume those negotiations. Syria has made great progress away from confrontation with Israel and the west towards the search for a peaceful solution.
    We also support the strengthening of Syria's links with Europe and welcomed its participation in the Barcelona conference last year. We hope that it will be possible to negotiate an association agreement between the European Community and Syria at an early opportunity, further developing trade and economic links. Very recently, we had a most successful day at the CBI discussing trade relations with Syria. Syria's greater integration into the
    440
    region and internationally is very important for the long-term stability of the middle east. It would be in no one's interest for Syria to be isolated.
    Iraq continues to pose a serious threat to regional security. Saddam Hussein has shown quite clearly that he retains ambitions to dominate the area. We must ensure that he can never do so again and maintain pressure on Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations resolutions, including, as I mentioned, by accounting for all Kuwaiti and other prisoners of war. Until that happens, sanctions must stay in place.
    It is particularly alarming that Iraq continues to obstruct the work of the UN Special Commission on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The commission's last report to the Security Council in April made clear that major gaps in its knowledge of Iraq's weapons programmes remain. Iraq's repeated obstruction, despite tough warnings from the Security Council, strongly suggests that Iraq is still trying to protect its weapons of mass destruction capability. Saddam's refusal to implement the relevant United Nations resolutions has cruelly prolonged the plight of the Iraqi people. To alleviate their suffering Britain co-sponsored Security Council resolution 986 which allows Iraq to sell £ 1 billion worth of oil every 90 days to purchase humanitarian goods. The resolution was adopted in April 1995; but, sadly, Saddam refused to implement it until May this year. We hope the Iraqi people will see the benefits very shortly.
    We remain deeply concerned about Iranian ambitions in the middle east. We believe that its weapons of mass destruction programmes and ambitions are a major threat to regional security. We are not reassured by the Iranians' history of interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Their hostility to the middle east peace process, anti-Israeli rhetoric and support for Hezbollah is also deeply concerning.
    Our friends in the Gulf recognise the threat posed by Iran. The recent arrests in Bahrain and elsewhere in the region of members of Hezbollah's small cells linked to Iran has served to highlight this problem yet again. Our Gulf friends will continue to have our full support.
    Our own relations with Iran are conducted within the framework of the European Union's critical dialogue, established by the European Council in 1992 to engage Iran on key areas of concern: in particular its hostility to the middle east peace process, support for terrorism, weapons programmes, appalling human rights record and the continuing threat to Salman Rushdie's life. Our objective is to bring about an improvement in Iranian behaviour through sustained, concerted pressure. The council made it clear that progress in these areas would be important in determining the extent to which closer relations with Iran could be developed.
    Some commentators underestimate the contribution made by the Gulf nations themselves to securing regional stability. As owners of nearly half the known oil reserves and situated in a volatile region— neighbouring Iran and Gulf states have delivered stability and a high level of development and prosperity to their citizens. These are no mean achievements. It is easy for people to scoff and say that oil wealth made such progress inevitable: I do not believe that to be true. We recognise that the amazing transformation which has been wrought in the Gulf on the back of oil wealth is a tribute to the Governments concerned.

    441
    Infrastructure has been created where none existed before: roads, hospitals, schools, water, power— the list goes on. There has also been investment in diversification, to prepare for the time when oil revenues decline. There has been a substantial record of achievement.
    The Gulf states have also made a considerable contribution to regional security. The Gulf Co-operation Council is a symbol of their determination to maintain their independence in the face of any threats. Its military development, including the establishment of a common defensive force, the peninsula shield, continues to make progress. This Government strongly support the GCC, which has played, and continues to play, a vital part in maintaining regional peace and stability.
    The GCC has also exercised a constructive influence through its foreign policy. Whether in terms of the middle east peace process, Iran or Iraq, the GCC has consistently sought to advance the cause of peace and stability. We may not agree on every last detail, although our policies are broadly similar. But we are in no doubt that the GCC should be commended for its responsible approach.
    We have major trading interests in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia is our largest market in the middle east and one of our largest outside the OECD. Our exports amounted to £ 1.6 billion in 1995 and continue to increase. Our trade with the United Arab Emirates is not far behind, at £ 1.2 billion in 1995. The remaining Gulf states also represent very significant markets. In total, 12 per cent. of the UK's exports outside the EU go to the Gulf. Tens of thousands of British jobs and hundreds of British businesses depend on this trade.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southport dealt in particular with the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is one of our closest allies in the Gulf and we enjoy excellent relations. Following our withdrawal from the area formerly known as the Trucial states in 1971, we concluded a bilateral treaty of friendship which has remained the cornerstone of our co-operation to date.
    I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the amazing transformation that has occurred in the UAE since 1971, largely due to the wise leadership of the Emirates sheiks, and in particular to President Zayed. There were some siren voices in 1971 who predicted that the UAE could never prosper as a cohesive entity, and that it would not be able to support itself. But those voices were silenced by the steady transformation of the small desert territories into modern oases of industry and commerce. The UAE now enjoys an enviable economic situation, with a GDP of around $18,000 per capita per annum, and a burgeoning infrastructure to support its population.
    442
    The UAE's success story goes beyond economics. Twenty-five years after its foundation, the federation now enjoys a permanent constitution, an active federal national council and intra-Emirate co-operation in a whole range of matters. Anyone who has visited the UAE— as I did last November— can appreciate the co-operation which binds the Emirates together while respecting their different traditions. As they approach the 25th anniversary of the founding of the federation, the UAE's leaders can be justifiably proud of their achievements to date.
    Our bilateral links go far beyond trade— important as that is. The United Kingdom remains a favourite destination for Emiratis whom we welcome each year for business, leisure or health care. Around 30,000 Britons live and work in the UAE— including my stepbrother. This day-to-day co-operation rarely makes the headlines, but it is indicative of the health of our relations.
    We also co-operate closely in defence matters. We understand the UAE's security concerns— notably the threat of aggression from Iran. We are concerned by the on-going dispute between the UAE and Iran over Abu Musa and the Tunbs islands, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport referred. As British Ministers have made clear before, we support the UAE's proposal to refer the issue to the International Court of Justice. We call on Iran to engage in constructive dialogue over the future of the islands, and to refrain from any actions which might alter the delicate status quo. Recent history in the Gulf has demonstrated that aggression finds no rewards and Iran would do well to listen to the message of history.
    As with our other Gulf allies, we are co-operating with the UAE in the development of its military capability. We provide the UAE with loan service personnel working directly with the UAE armed forces. We are negotiating a defence co-operation agreement that would provide a framework for our existing defence co-operation. Although we have agreed on the majority of the text, we are working to finalise a number of points. As we work towards conclusion of the defence arrangement, our friends in the UAE can be in no doubt about our commitment to their security and that of the Gulf region.
    Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to say a word to those who speak loosely of the threat from Islam against the west. This is nonsense. Islam has its extremists, as we do in the west. The Al-Khobar bombing was a salutary reminder of their existence. We must work together with our Islamic friends against this menace. Regional peace and tranquillity can only be preserved by a close partnership, and we have much in common.
    Question put and agreed to
    Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Ten o'clock till Monday 14 October, pursuant to Resolution [22 July].

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Royal Visits
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official visits were made abroad by members of the royal family in 1995–96; on what dates; at what cost; and which visits were made by use of the royal squadron. [38520]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Official overseas visits made by members of the royal family in 1995–96 at the request of my Department together with expenditure authorised by my Department, based on bills presented to date, are as follows. Visits on which aircraft of the royal squadron were used are identified by an asterisk.

  £

  Princess Alexandra and Sir Angus Ogilvy to Botswana, Swaziland, and Senegal 14–24 October 1995*

  14,800

  The Duchess of Kent to The Netherlands 1 June 1995*

  1,000

  The Duchess of Kent to Belgium 16 June 1995*

  1,100

  The Duke of Edinburgh to France 8 May 1995*

  1,200

  The Duke of Gloucester to France 28 May 1995*

  600

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Mexico 20–23 May 1995

  25,100

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent to Norway 7–8 May 1995*

  2,200

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent to Germany 19–21 June 1995*

  7,800

  The Duke of Kent to Singapore 10–12 September 1995

  11,500

  The Duke of Kent to Portugal 8–9 March 1996*

  700

  The Duke of York to Gibraltar 13–14 July 1995*

  700

  The Prince Edward to Zimbabwe 30 August—2 September 1995

  13,100

  The Prince Edward to Luxembourg 15–16 September 1995*

  400

  The Prince of Wales to Germany 2–3 May 1995

  1,900

  The Prince of Wales to France 31 August 1995*

  400

  The Prince of Wales to Oman 1–3 October 1995

  9,100

  The Prince of Wales to Germany and Latvia 13–17 November 1995*

  18,300

  The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to New Zealand for CHOGM, 30 October to 11 November 1995

  79,000

  The Prince of Wales to France 11 January 1996*

  —

  The Prince of Wales to Bosnia 8–9 February 1996*

  800

  The Prince of Wales to Morocco 23–27 February 1996*

  5,500

  The Prince of Wales to Dublin, 31 May-1 June 1995*

  3,900

  The Princess Margaret to the USA 23–29 June 1995

  22,300

  The Prince of Wales to Tel Aviv, 6 November 1995*

  400

  The Princess Royal to Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, 12 to 17 November 1995*

  11,500

  The Princess Royal to the Republic of Ireland, 19 to 20 January 1996*

  700

  The Princess Royal to The Falkland Islands 28 January to 8 February 1996

  900

  State Visit to Poland and the Czech Republic 25–29 March 1996*

  126,900

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the different factional groups in southern Sudan; if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's communications with each group. [38917]

  Mr. Hanley
  There are a number of different groups of varying importance. The Sudan People's Liberation Army is the largest. Officials have frequent contacts with representatives of the main groups in London and Nairobi, as well as with those southern leaders resident in Sudan.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the past 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39148]

  Mr. Hanley
  Small and medium-sized businesses are the main target of the chargeable services provided by the FCO's 218 commercial overseas posts. Users of these services are surveyed for their assessment of the help provided. We publish the results in the FCO's annual departmental report. In April 1996 the National Audit Office concluded that in four south-east Asian markets the assistance available to small firms provided by the FCO and DTI helped to stimulate extra exports worth almost 80 times the cost of providing the services. We also help open markets to small and large businesses alike by advocating the progressive liberalisation of world trade through forums such as the World Trade Organisation and by developing closer relations with major trading partners.

  Torture
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he takes in diplomatic and trading relations with foreign countries of their record in relation to torture of individual citizens and if such countries are complying with the United Nations convention against torture. [38992]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We take full account of a country's human rights record in our bilateral relations, including the practice of torture, which we deplore. We urge all states to ratify the convention against torture and abide by its provisions.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part-time,(a) to work on the press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39366]

  (2) what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994– 95 and (c) 1993–94; [39432]
  323
  (3) what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media; [39350]

  (4) how many staff were employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94; [39418]

  (5) what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39443]

  (6) what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full-time or part-time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39983]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Middle East Visit (Aircraft Charter)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis he decided to charter an aircraft registered in the United States for his recent visit to the middle east; and what account he took of the approach of the United States authorities to applications for similar operations by United Kingdom airlines. [39458]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Our brokers informed us that the aircraft was the only suitable one available at the time. Had a British charter company been able to supply an alternative UK aircraft, we would have used it.

  We continue to urge the US Government to approve discretionary fifth freedom charters by UK companies. The decision on individual charter applications is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the forthcoming review conference of the biological and toxin weapons convention; and if he will make a statement. [38307]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our main aim at the biological and toxin weapons convention fourth review conference in November and December this year is the endorsement of work of the ad hoc group set up to consider measures to strengthen the convention. This should include endorsement of the key elements of a future compliance regime. The Government will also play a full part in the wider review of the biological weapons convention, which we believe makes an important contribution to restraining proliferation and enhancing international security. The United Kingdom will chair the conference.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards ensuring that the obligations under article X of the biological and toxin weapons convention are upheld; and what proposals his Department will present to the forthcoming review conference in relation to article X. [38308]

  Mr. Davis
  We expect states parties to the biological and toxin weapons convention to meet fully their obligations under all articles of the convention. Discussion of the implementation of article X is currently 324
  taking place in the ad hoc group on strengthening the convention established in 1994. The ad hoc group will present a report to the fourth review conference.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals his Department will present to the forthcoming biological and toxin weapons convention review conference with regard to controlling dual-use technologies. [38309]

  Mr. Davis
  We do not intend to present any proposals to the conference in this area. The United Kingdom believes that national export licensing measures, harmonised multilaterally through our membership of the Australia Group, are a key tool in controlling the proliferating of biological weapons, and are necessary to implement article III of the convention in which states parties undertake not to transfer biological weapons to any recipient.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards strengthening the verification regime of the biological and toxin weapons convention; what activities his Department is already undertaking to that end; and what assistance the United Kingdom is receiving from other states in developing on-site inspection procedures. [38310]

  Mr. Davis
  We are working, through the ad hoc group set up in 1994 to examine measures to strengthen the biological weapons convention, for the establishment of a verification system for the convention in the form of a legally binding protocol. The Government believe that the protocol should at least include provisions on mandatory declarations, challenge inspection and the investigations of alleged use of biological weapons. The United Kingdom chairs the compliance measures sessions of the group, which deal specifically with these issues. The ad hoc group is open to participation by all states parties to the convention.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the future of the Australia Group, and the controls therein, in relation(a) to the chemical weapons convention and (b) to the biological and toxin weapons convention. [38311]

  Mr. Davis
  The Australia Group makes an effective contribution to our overall efforts to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. It has stated that it will review, in the light of the implementation of the chemical weapons convention, the measures its members take to prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons. The UK believes that national export controls will remain an effective means of implementing article III of the biological and toxin weapons convention in which states parties undertake not to transfer biological weapons to any recipient.

  Kurdish People
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Turkey concerning the civil rights of the Kurdish people. [38517]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have taken a number of opportunities in the last few weeks to express, at a senior
  325
  level in Ankara, the depth of our on-going concern at Turkey's human rights performance. We will continue to urge the Turkish Government to act on their intention to develop religious, democratic and personal freedoms.

  Pitcairn Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the letter from Dr. de Brooke of the Department of Zoology, Cambridge university, a copy of which has been supplied to him, on measures to eradicate rats in the Pitcairn Islands; what priority he is giving to the island of Oeno; and if he will make a statement. [38976]

  Mr. Hanley
  For both human health and biodiversity reasons we would welcome the elimination of the rats on Pitcairn. We are studying proposals to do this. No decision has yet been taken on the measures needed or on the priority to be given to each of the islands in the group.

  Overseas Visits (Royal Family)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the countries visited by Princess Alexandra at Her Majesty's Government's request since 1986–87; [39535]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 4 June, Official Report, columns 364–65, which of the listed overseas visits by members of the royal family were initiated (a) at Her Majesty's Government's request, (b) by overseas Governments and (c) by others, specifying whom; [39543]

  (3) if he will list the countries visited by the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, both separately and together, at Her Majesty's Government's request since 1986–87; [39534]

  (4) what are the checking mechanisms for processing requests for clothing submitted by members of the royal family undertaking visits overseas at Her Majesty's Government's request; [39542]

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 4 June, Official Report, column 364, if he will give details of the engagements undertaken by the Prince of Wales on his visits to Los Angeles and Hong Kong on 31 October to 10 November 1994; if he will give a breakdown of the £53,300 costs; and how much was spent on clothing associated with the visit; [39540]

  (6) pursuant to his answer of 4 June, Official Report, column 364, if he will give details of the engagements undertaken by the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester on their visit to Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan of 4 to 6 October 1994; and how much was spent on clothes in connection with the visit; [39536]

  (7) pursuant to his answer of 24 June, Official Report, column 26, if he will give details of the engagements undertaken by the Duke and Duchess of Kent on their visit to Hong Kong on 25 November to 2 December 1994; [39532]

  (8) pursuant to his answer of 4 June, Official Report, column 365, if he will give details of the engagements undertaken by the Duke of Kent on his visit to Singapore on 10 to 12 September 1995; and what was the cost to his Department for clothes; [39538]
  326
  (9) pursuant to his answer of 18 July 1996, Official Report, columns 607–610, what was the composition of the party accompanying Princess Margaret to San Francisco on 23 to 29 June 1995; [39362]

  (10) pursuant to his answer of 4 June, Official Report, column 363, if he will list the engagements undertaken by the Princess Alexandra on her visit to the United States of America on 31 October to 3 November 1993; if he will give a breakdown of the costs; and how much was spent on clothes associated with the visit; [39541]

  (11) pursuant to his answer of 4 June, Official Report, column 364, if he will give a breakdown of the costs arising from the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan on 4 to 6 October 1994; and how much was spent on clothing; [39537]

  (12) pursuant to his answer of 4 June, Official Report, column 364, if he will give details of the engagements undertaken by the Princess Alexandra on her visit to Hong Kong on 14 October 1994; [39339]

  (13) if he will list the countries visited by the Duke and Duchess of Kent, both separately, and together, at Her Majesty's Government request since 1986–87. [39363]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received and what action he has taken regarding human rights abuses in Kosovo. [39323]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have consistently expressed our concern about the treatment of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in contacts at all levels with the Government of the Federal of Yugoslavia, FRY. The European Union declaration of 9 April 1996, on recognition by EU member states of the FRY, stated that the development of good relations between the EU and FRY, and the FRY's reintegration with the international community, would depend, inter alia, on full respect for human and minority rights and the granting of a large degree of autonomy for Kosovo within the FRY.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of opening a European Union office in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [39327]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We support a European Union presence in Kosovo. The form of any such presence would need to be agreed with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to ensure the return of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors to Kosovo. [39325]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We and our EU partners have stated publicly that an OSCE mission should be allowed to return to Kosovo. The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are well aware that their participation in the OSCE is dependent on their co-operation in this matter.
  327
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by the European Council to act upon the declaration—conclusions of the presidency—of the European Council summit in Edinburgh on 10 to 12 December 1992 with regard to Kosovo. [39329]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We and other European Union member states have repeatedly expressed concern to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities about the human rights position in Kosovo and urged them and the leaders of Albanian community in Kosovo to begin discussions about the restoration of the autonomy of Kosovo within the FRY. The EU declaration of 9 April 1996 made it clear that the development of good relations between the FRY and the EU, and the FRY's reintegration into the international community, were dependent on progress in these areas.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the consequences of Serbia's policy of resettling Serbian refugees in Kosovo. [39324]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We recognise that a resettlement of disproportionate numbers of Serbian refugees in Kosovo would add to tensions in the region. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees continues to monitor the situation closely.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with (i) Slobodan Milosevic and (ii) representatives of his regime on(a) human rights in Kosovo and (b) restoration of Kosovo's autonomy. [39328]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are in frequent contact with President Milosevic and members of his Government. We consistently express concern about the human rights situation in Kosovo, and our support for the restoration of the autonomy of Kosovo within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had recently with (i) Ibrahim Rugova and (ii) Dr. Bujar Bukoshi on the situation in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [39322]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  (i) My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary had a meeting with Dr. Rugova on 1 March during his visit to London.

  (ii) None.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to open an office in Pristina. [39326]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  This issue is under consideration. No decisions have been taken. Any official UK presence in Kosovo would need to be agreed with the Government the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Spain (Holiday makers)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security arrangements being made to protect British holidaymakers in Spain. [39623]
  328
  Dr. Liam Fox
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative hon. Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39528]

  Mr. Hanley
  Nil.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39308]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits (i) he and (ii) his ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39866]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Visa Status (Information)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the guidelines provided by his Department to Her Majesty's permanent representatives abroad with respect to the access of potential immigrants to information on their denial of visa status. [40026]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  European Movement
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what grants his Department made to the European Movement in each year since 1985; and what plans he has to offer financial assistance in future years. [40081]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Government Communications Headquarters (Recruitment)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recruitment at GCHQ covering the information that is required to be published under the provisions of the recruitment code of the civil service commissioners. [40087]
  329
  Mr. Rifkind
  It is GCHQ's policy that all recruitment to the Department is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit, subject to the exception permitted by the civil service commissioners and in accordance with the guidance issued by them. This policy is given force by the regulations in the staff handbook and on a more detailed level by the manual of recruitment produced by the recruitment office. The primary responsibility for ensuring that these

  Total

  Women

  Ethnic minorities

  Disabled

  Grade

  Applied

  Recruited

  Applied

  Recruited

  Applied

  Recruited

  Applied

  Recruited

  GC8 CS

  128

  2

  5

  1

  4

  0

  0

  0

  GC9 CS

  5

  0

  0

  0

  GC8 LB

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  GC9 LB

  20

  1

  16

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  GC9 IO

  562

  5

  98

  1

  20

  0

  7

  0

  GC10 CS

  403

  25

  55

  1

  25

  0

  l

  0

  GC10 AA

  202

  12

  112

  7

  13

  0

  0

  0

  GC10 LB

  61

  2

  34

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  GMT

  903

  4

  355

  4

  24

  0

  3

  0

  GC11 SY

  61

  1

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  GC13 SY

  108

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  GC14 AA

  6

  1

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  GC14 GS

  41

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  GC12 CE

  154

  8

  18

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Totals

  2,652

  72

  711

  19

  89

  2

  16

  0

  Percentage

  —

  3

  27

  3

  3

  2

  1

  0

  Explanations:

  GC14 GS is a former Industrial Grade;

  GC12 CE are student Scientist and Engineers;

  GC11 and 13 SY are Security Officer Grades;

  GC10 AA broadly equates to EO in the Home Civil Service;

  GC10 CS broadly equates to SO in the Home Civil Service;

  GC10 LB, GC9 LB and GC8 LB are Librarian Grades;

  GC9 10 are Investigating Officers;

  GC9 CS broadly equates to HSO in the Home Civil Service;

  GC8 CS broadly equates to SSO in the Home Civil Service;

  GMT = Graduate Management Trainee—GCHQ's Fast Stream.

  The only category of exceptions to the general recruitment policy permitted by the commissioners and used by GCHQ during the period, excluding appointments for less than 12 months, was the reappointment of former members of the Department. Reinstatement has been a long-standing feature of GCHQ's recruitment both because of the unique nature of many of the skills used in the Department and because it provides an opportunity for members of staff to return after informal career breaks. In 1995 there were two female reinstatements, at GC10 and GC11 level respectively. There were no applications for reinstatements by people from ethnic minorities or with a disability.

  Consular Fees
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase consular fees. [40088]

  Mr. Hanley
  An Order in Council was made on 23 July which provides for an overall average increase of 20 per cent. in consular fees with effect from 14 August 1996. It is Government policy that the cost of consular and entry clearance services should be borne by the users as far as possible.

  Foreign Land Ownership
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made during the Maastricht 330
  requirements are adhered to rests with the head of the recruitment branch. The recruitment process forms part of the regular programme of inspection by GCHQ's internal audit unit. The recruitment office was inspected by the civil service commissioners in 1993.

  The table gives details of the number of staff applying and recruited and the overall percentages at each grade during the calendar year 1995. Some candidates recruited in 1995 will be joining the Department within the calendar year 1996.

  negotiations concerning the opt-out which enables the Danish Government to restrict foreign land ownership; and if he will make a statement. [38040]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: Protocol No. 1 to the European Community treaty deals with an issue which is specific to Denmark. The UK Government had no objection to it.

  Beef Ban
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what legislative powers the Commission of the European Union has placed a ban on the export of British beef to any nation; what are the penalties for breaching such a ban; and how the decision of the Commission will be enforced. [24069]
  331
  Mrs. Browning
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 July 1996, c. 87–88]: I have been asked to reply and very much regret that my hon. Friend has had to wait so long for that to be done.

  Commission decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996, which prohibited both the dispatch to other member states and the export to third countries of British beef and beef products from the UK, and Commission decision 96/362/EC of 11 June, amending decision 96/239/EC and allowing the export of certain beef products from the UK under strictly controlled conditions were based on Council directive 90/425/EEC and 89/662/EEC. The treaty base of both these directives is article 43 EC. This treaty provision allows the Council to adopt proposals relating to implementation of the common agricultural policy.

  The decision is legally binding on the United Kingdom, and in the event of a failure to comply with the ban, the Commission or other member states would be able to take action in the European Court to require the UK to comply.

  As regards implementation of the Commission decision, so far as exports to other member states are concerned, it is an offence under the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3298) to export or consign for export any product of animal origin unless it complies with Community rules as set out in schedule 3 to the regulations or, in their absence, the national rules of the importing member state. Directive 64/433/EEC governing trade in red meat provides for only two possibilities: consignments must be accompanied by commercial documents or an export health certificate. The issue of all such certificates has been suspended. It is an offence under the regulations to export a product without the documentation required. Penalties for the breach of the regulations are set out in regulation 28. The maximum penalty on conviction for export without the necessary certificate would be two years' imprisonment and a fine.

  Enforcement of the regulations is shared between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the local authority concerned. In practice, local authorities generally take prosecutions under the regulations, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in some circumstances the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Health, have powers to act where a local authority has failed to enforce.

  Exports to third countries are governed by the import conditions established by the authorities of the third countries concerned and enshrined in export health certificates. To give force to this aspect of the Commission decision the issue of all such certificates for meat and meat products has been suspended. Any attempt to import one of the prohibited products without the necessary health certification would be a transgression of the rules of the importing country.

  HM Custom and Excise is the enforcement authority for goods intended for export to third countries. Operational staff at all customs export stations have been informed of the terms of the EC ban and have been instructed to refuse to release for export to third countries any goods covered by the ban. Customs' legal powers in respect of properly declared goods of the descriptions covered by the Commission directive extend no further than refusing permission to export. In the case of wilful breach of customs controls, for example, by
  332
  misdescription of banned beef and beef products, powers in the Customs and Excise Management Act, provide for the prosecution of offenders and in some circumstances the forfeiture of goods. The commissioners of Customs and Excise will consider prosecution of such offences in individual cases using the criteria they apply in all prosecutions

ENVIRONMENT

  Non-domestic Rateable Value Prescriptions
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those industries for which he prescribes the non-domestic rateable value; and if he will make a statement. [39662]

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I currently prescribe the rateable values of the National Grid, National Power, PowerGen and other electricity generators, British Gas, British Rail, Railtrack, London Underground and all electricity distribution companies, water supply companies and certain statutory docks and harbours. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, under separate powers, prescribes the rateable values of utility undertakings in Scotland, including British Gas, water authorities, electricity companies, railways and certain docks and harbours.

  It is our intention that from the date of the next revaluation—1 April 2000—these industries should be conventionally assessed by the Valuation Office in England and Wales and the Scottish Assessors in Scotland.

  To this end, the Valuation Office is currently working with the industries to determine the feasibility of conventional assessment; and the Scottish Assessors Association has set up the public utilities co-ordination committee to work with the industries in Scotland.

  We are also setting up an advisory committee to examine how the plant and machinery of the industries should be treated under conventional assessment, and we are today inviting applications from people interested in chairing or serving on that committee. Its terms of reference will be:

  To consider:

  (i) the extent to which the plant and machinery of industries currently subject to prescribed assessments would be rateable under existing legislation; and,

  (ii) having regard to the financial and other considerations involved, to recommend any legislative changes required to ensure fairness of treatment and consistency with the principles that underlie present legislation governing the rating of plant and machinery in the UK.

  Further details can be obtained from my Department.

  I expect the committee to report by the end of September 1997.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 116, how many of the 372,000 households registered for home energy efficiency grants at 1 April

  333
  have not had the work carried out, what estimate he has made of the time scale required to clear the backlog of applications; and if he will make a statement. [37918]

  Mr. Clappison
  At the end of June, 334,691 pre-registrations remained on the list. Not all of these will result in claims for grant; but if they were to do so, and the current pattern and rate were maintained, all the pre-registrations would be cleared in less than 10 months. Over 140,000 HEES grants were paid in the first quarter of this year, of which some 37,000 were to people who had pre-registered their interest.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households to date have taken up the 25 per cent. grant payable under the home energy efficiency scheme. [37919]

  Mr. Clappison
  By 30 June 1996, 129 such grants had been paid.

  Reference Rents (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the current level of local reference rents applying to flats at(a) 76 Gilnow road and (b) 10 Columbia road, Bolton; and if he will make a statement on (i) delays relating to and (ii) levels of rent determinations in Bolton relative to (1) the north-west and (2) England. [38689]

  Mr. Clappison
  Rent officers are independent statutory officers. They are not accountable to the Secretary of State for their decisions on rent levels.

  The Department is aware of concerns about delays to rent determinations in the Greater Manchester rent registration area. This problem has now been addressed by the appointment of four additional rent officers to the area.

  Data on rents determined by rent officers since 2 January, including local reference rents, will be published in the Department's quarterly bulletin, Rent Officer Statistics. I will arrange for a copy of the bulletin covering the first quarter of 1996 to be sent to the hon. Member when published.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to allow those businesses whose rates are being kept up by the transitional arrangements to be reduced to the full amount applicable to their valuation at the next Budget. [37670]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I shall, before the start of the next financial year, review the limits on reductions in the rates bills of properties in downward transition. A commitment was given to this House to carry out such reviews before the start of each financial year,Official Report, 14 December 1994, column 950.

  If no change is made to the limits then, for 1997–98, the bills for properties still in downward transition and with a rateable value of less than £10,000 or less than £15,000 in Greater London, will fall by a further 20 per cent. in real terms. For larger properties this further reduction in bills will be 15 per cent. in real terms.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many HSE prosecutions there were in agriculture during 1995–96; and what was the(a) average, (b) highest and (c) lowest fine. [39124]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Proceedings instituted by HSE's field operations division inspectorates in the agricultural sector 1995–96 were:

  Informations laid: 177

  Convictions: 114

  (a) Average fine per conviction: £1,095

  (b) Highest fine £10,000 (on two occasions)

  (c) Lowest fine £50 (on one occasion).

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) improvement notices and (b) prohibition notices were issued by the HSE in agriculture for each of the past 10 years. [39126]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is as follows:

  Notice type

  Year

  Improvement

  Deferred prohibition

  Immediate prohibition

  Total

  1986–87

  5,607.00

  172.00

  1,660.00

  7,439.00

  1987–88

  4,094.00

  153.00

  1,087.00

  5,334.00

  1988–89

  3,671.00

  56.00

  1,134.00

  4,861.00

  1989–90

  3,848.00

  58.00

  1,004.00

  4,910.00

  1990–91

  3,737.00

  99.00

  1,027.00

  4,863.00

  1991–92

  3,493.00

  122.00

  950.00

  4,565.00

  1992–93

  3,034.00

  98.00

  978.00

  4,110.00

  1993–94

  2,574.00

  35.00

  998.00

  3,607.00

  1994–95

  2,458.00

  37.00

  695.00

  3,190.00

  1995–961

  1,539.00

  21.00

  599.00

  2,159.00

  1 Provisional.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average fine for all industry in 1995–96 resulting from HSE prosecutions. [39125]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The provisional figure for the average fine per conviction arising from prosecutions by the HSE was £2,567 in 1995–96.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of how many of the recorded deaths in agriculture in 1995 mere were HSE prosecutions; and what was the(a) average, (b) highest and (c) lowest fine in those cases. [39123]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the year commencing 1 January 1995, of the 42 deaths in the agriculture sector, five resulted in prosecutions. The average fine was £2,367.

  The highest fine was £5,000 and the lowest was £100.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average frequency of visits by HSE inspectors to a farm where there are(a) five or less, (b) six to 10, (c) 11 to 50 and (d) more than 50 employees. [39127]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the standard spending assessment for 1996–97 in terms of pounds per head for each district council in Leicestershire. [39070]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The standard spending assessments for 1996–97 were as follows:

  £

  Blaby

  64.32

  Charnwood

  78.02

  Harborough

  72.88

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  69.46

  Leicester

  136.42

  Melton

  80.76

  North West Leicestershire

  83.17

  Oadby and Wigston

  69.97

  Rutland

  79.25

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39514]

  Mr. Gummer
  None.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39309]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department does not currently own vehicles, following the transfer of the Security Facilities Executive to the Office of Public Service. Disproportionate cost would be incurred in researching the relevant records of the Crown Suppliers, which has been closed down, and of the Property Services Agency, which was privatised.

  Climate Change Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent conference of contracting parties to the global convention on climate change held in Geneva; and if he will place in the Library a copy of his address to the conference. [39763]

  Mr. Clappison
  In Geneva, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State urged others to follow the UK lead in meeting current commitments; strongly supported the view that the recent findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change constituted a clear scientific basis for urgent further action at the widest possible level; and reiterated his call for developed countries to agree, at the third conference in Japan in 1997, to aim to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.
  336
  I have placed in the Library a copy of my right hon. Friend's address to the conference, together with a copy of the conference ministerial declaration, which addressed most of the same key issues.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of each Government office's bills were paid late in 1994–95; and what proportion this was of the total; [39857]

  (2) what percentage of each Government office's bills were paid late in 1994–95; and what proportion this was of the total. [39856]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information was not collected in this form in 1994–95 and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visits (i) he and (ii) his Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39876]

  Mr. Gummer
  In the last 12 months I have made one visit to the Newbury constituency and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has made two.

  I will write to the hon. Member giving the information requested on visits to other constituencies in the last 12 months.

  Metropolitan Authorities (Boundary Review)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the ward boundaries last were reviewed; and when they are due to be reviewed again in each of the metropolitan authorities. [39654]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The last reviews of the ward boundaries of the metropolitan districts took place in the following years:

  Last review

  Bolton

  1978

  Bury

  1978

  Manchester

  1980

  Oldham

  1977

  Rochdale

  1979

  Salford

  1979

  Stockport

  1979

  Tameside

  1977

  Trafford

  1978

  Wigan

  1979

  Knowsley

  1980

  Liverpool

  1979

  St. Helens

  1979

  Sefton

  1977

  Wirral

  1979

  Barnsley

  1977

  Doncaster

  1978

  Rotherham

  1978

  Sheffield

  1979

  Gateshead

  1979

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1979

  North Tyneside

  1979

  South Tyneside

  1979

  Sunderland

  1979

  337

  Last review

  Birmingham

  1979

  Coventry

  1979

  Dudley

  1979

  Sandwell

  1976

  Solihull

  1977

  Walsall

  1978

  Wolverhampton

  1979

  Bradford

  1979

  Calderdale

  1978

  Kirklees

  1979

  Leeds

  1979

  Wakefield

  1979

  The Local Government Act 1992 provides that the Local Government Commission should, as far as reasonably practicable, conduct its own first periodic electoral review not less than 10 or more than 15 years after the Local Government Boundary Commission's review of the county in which the area is comprised. This does not apply where the Boundary Commission did not carry out a review of the county.

  The Boundary Commission reviewed the electoral arrangements of West Midlands county council in 1981 and of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Yorkshire county councils in 1984. It did not review the electoral arrangements of South Yorkshire or Tyne and Wear county councils.

  Housing Allocations
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will be taking into account the research his Department has commissioned from the university of Wales on housing allocations in the drafting of the new code of guidance on allocation which will accompany part UI of the Housing Bill, allocation of housing accommodation. [39622]

  Mr. Clappison
  Yes.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to commence the provisions on housing allocations and homelessness contained in the Housing Bill; and if he will make a statement. [39913]

  Mr. Curry
  We intend that the new legislation should have full effect from early January 1997. During the summer and autumn of this year my officials will be preparing the draft secondary legislation and preliminary guidance associated with these provisions, in liaison with the local authority associations, other housing providers, the housing profession and the voluntary sector. We intend to have all the essential provisions in place well before full commencement, so that local authorities will have the proper opportunity to establish the arrangements necessary to ensure the smooth implementation of this important new legislation.

  Cricket Stadium, Wakefield
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons his regional office in Leeds has issued an article 14 directive in respect of the outline 338
  planning application for a new stadium for Yorkshire county cricket in Wakefield; and if he will make a statement. [39653]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An article 14 direction was issued to Wakefield metropolitan council on 23 July, preventing the council from granting planning permission for the proposed development at Denby Dale road, Wakefield, The Secretary of State is concerned that planning issues of more than local importance may arise from the proposal and he wishes to consider it having regard to his policy on calling in planning applications.

  EU Ministers Meeting (Dublin)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters were discussed at the EU Environment Ministers informal meeting in Dublin on 19 and 20 July; and if he will place in the Library copies of the papers tabled at the meeting. [39738]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment attended the recent meeting of Environment Ministers in Dublin. Their informal discussion concentrated on an exchange of views about waste management issues in the EU. With their agreement, I have placed in the Library a copy of the paper produced by the Irish presidency to inform that discussion.

  Rural Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent guidelines his Department has published in respect of the uniform business rate relating to rural sub-post offices. [39798]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On Wednesday 8 May we published a consultation paper setting out proposals for a new rate relief scheme for village shops. The proposals would help certain small general stores and post offices in rural villages. Qualifying business would see a reduction of at least 50 per cent. in their rates bills. Local authorities would be able to top this up to 100 per cent. and, in addition, would be able to grant relief to other rural shops and businesses which are of benefit to the community.

  The consultation period has now ended. We shall consider carefully all comments received before reaching final decisions on the details of the scheme. We will then seek a suitable legislative opportunity to provide for the scheme.

  Standard Spending Assessments (Devon)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he is undertaking into the effect of standard spending assessments on the county of Devon; and if he will make a statement. [39880]

  Mr. Curry
  We have commissioned a number of studies on local government finance and will have their findings as we prepare for next year's local government settlement. These cover the following areas: the area cost adjustment; the effects on local authority costs of sparsity and density of population; and the costs of personal social services for children and for the elderly in residential care.
  339
  The findings are the subject of detailed discussions with interested parties, but the eventual decisions will necessarily apply to all local authorities.

  Advisory Group on Litter
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will respond to the recommendations of the advisory group on litter; and if he will make a statement. [39912]

  Mr. Clappison
  The advisory group made key recommendations on five areas of litter legislation in England and Wales: litter plans; litter problems on private land; litter problems on public land caused by commercial activity; dog fouling; and the fixed penalty notice system.

  We have carefully considered the recommendation that each district council should be statutorily required to publish information about how it plans to fulfil its litter duty. Local authorities are already required by the Audit Commission to publish information about their performance in street cleansing. It is doubtful what additional benefit would be gained from a statutory litter plan. However, when we republish the code of practice on litter and refuse, we intend to include examples of good practice about providing information to the public on local authority powers and duties in relation to litter.

  Primary legislation would be needed to fulfil the advisory group's recommendations about litter problems on private land and litter problems on public land caused by commercial activities. We are not convinced that this is appropriate. However, we shall look at the possibility of amending the Litter Control Areas Order 1991 and the Street Litter Notices Order 1991 to meet the main concerns of the advisory group.

  The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 carries forward the recommendations for national legislation to replace dog fouling byelaws and for the introduction of a fixed penalty scheme. We are currently consulting on the detailed arrangements with a view to full implementation of these new simpler arrangements by the end of the year.

  We agree that the fixed penalty for both littering and the new dog fouling offence should be set at £25. I propose that this should take effect in the autumn.

  We shall consult local authorities and other interested bodies later this year on the draft revision to the code of practice on litter and refuse and on any proposals to change the orders relating to litter control areas or street litter control notices.

  Automotive Air Conditioning Industry
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached agreement with the automotive air conditioning industry on their use of hydrofluorocarbons. [39948]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have today concluded a voluntary agreement with the automotive air conditioning industry on the use of hydrofluorocarbons. This agreement, which takes the form of a declaration of intent by the industry, is the fifth to be concluded on the use of HFCs, and will help us to meet our commitment to reduce HFC emissions in accordance with the UK climate change programme. It also reflects the Government's340
  desire to achieve environmental objectives through voluntary action by industry, rather than regulation, wherever possible.

  The declaration recognises that, in certain applications, HFCs are important alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. However, HFCs are greenhouse gases, and the declaration, with its industry guidelines, sets out strategies whereby emissions to atmosphere can be minimised. It thus provides a framework for the responsible use of HFCs by the industry as replacements for ozone-depleting substances.

  The declaration is welcomed by the Government as a sign that the UK automotive air conditioning industry is contributing to the UK climate change programme.

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if evidence will be invited from outside organisations before the Government respond to the royal commission on environmental pollution's 19th report. [39949]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have invited the Peat Producers Association to submit its evidence to the Department so that it can be taken into account when the Government respond to the commission's report on the sustainable use of soil. The Government plan to respond by the end of the year.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39984]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her yesterday.

  War Memorials
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is her policy with respect to the removal of or change of site of war memorials(a) throughout the country and (b) in the district local authority area of Stafford district council. [40006]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There is no national planning policy guidance expressly relating to the location of war memorials in general. This is normally a matter for the local planning authority to consider.

  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans the Government have to review the local government superannuation scheme, with particular reference to the payment of a full spouse's pension to the person to whom the contributor was married at the date of death; [40027]

  (2) what is the estimated cost of extending the provisions of the 1978 amendments to the local government superannuation scheme to those who are currently receiving LGSS pensions and who retired prior to 1978. [40028]
  341
  Sir Paul Beresford
  As I announced to the House on 22 July,Official Report, column 27, we have decided to adopt the proposals for the future of the local government pension scheme on which we consulted earlier this year. Within the framework of these proposals, we are continuing to assess, including the cost implications, a number of possible scheme improvements, including the payment of pensions for post-retirement marriages. It is our intention to announce the outcome of these assessments as part of the proposed consultation on the new draft regulations to which I referred in my 22 July announcement.

  European Movement
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance his Department made to the European Movement in each year since 1985(a) directly and (b) through local government; and what plans he has to offer financial assistance in future years. [40076]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has made no direct financial assistance to the European Movement and has no plans to do so in future. Information relating to any financial assistance made through local government is not held centrally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the total number of magistrates courts in each region, for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [39116]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested is not readily available; I will reply as soon as possible.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39531]

  Mr. Streeter
  None.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39305]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals 342
  he has for capital schemes for the improvement of courts to be paid for by private sources; and if he will make a statement. [39074]

  Mr. Streeter
  There are proposals to provide new or improved facilities at 50 magistrates courts under the private finance initiative. In the Court Service, there are two major refurbishment schemes at early stages of planning which are possible candidates for PFI funding. They are the provision of a civil hearing centre in Bristol and the improvement of facilities at the Crown court at Knutsford.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines have been published concerning magistrates court committees and the private finance initiative; how many schemes have been started; and if he will make a statement. [39073]

  Mr. Streeter
  Guidelines are being issued this week to all magistrates court committees providing guidance on the private finance initiative. No schemes have yet been started.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94. [39408]

  Mr. Streeter
  The cost of staff employed full time and part time providing information and publicity and working on the press and media in 1995–96 was £207,994; in 1994–95 was £232,204; and in 1993–94 was £203,390.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff are assumed, in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time,(a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39467]

  Mr. Streeter
  Ten full-time staff and one part-time member of staff are assumed in my Department's budget employed to work on press and media, and to provide information and publicity in 1996–97.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39422]

  Mr. Streeter
  Eight full-time and one part-time member of staff were employed to provide information and publicity and on press and media in 1995–96; the same number were employed in 1994–95 and in 1993–94.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39448]

  Mr. Streeter
  The cost budgeted for staff, employed full and part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97 is £292,779.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39346]
  343
  Mr. Streeter
  My Department has no budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39976]

  Mr. Streeter
  The cost assumed in the budget of people employed full time or part time, to work on press and media in 1996–97 is £279,779.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the past 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39151]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions— keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens; and, where appropriate, providing direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department has a continuing programme to reduce the cost delay and complexity of civil litigation. This is of direct benefit to small firms. Measures undertaken in the past 12 months include an increase in the limit for automatic referral to the small claims procedure from £1,000 to £3,000; the publication of a plain English booklet to increase awareness of methods of resolving disputes without going to court; and a review to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the bailiff service, which should assist small firms in the enforcement of commercial debt. At present, statistical collection of data on court proceedings does not differentiate small firms from other classes of litigant.

  The Department is a signatory to the CBI's prompt payment code. As previously measured, its payment record improved from 93.5 per cent. to 93.7 per cent. of invoices paid on time. It is now pursuing the new targets devised by the Prime Minister and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in consultation with Departments following the "Your Business Matters" conferences.

  Solicitors (Costs)
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 402, what is the name, and firm, of the practising solicitor nominated by the president of the Law Society to assist the judge reviewing taxation of costs. [38914]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked him to reply direct.
  344
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Sir Julian Critchley, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the name of the practising solicitor nominated to assist with reviews of taxation of costs.
  Such reviews are governed by Order 62, rule 35 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which provides that, if he decides assistance from assessors is required, the judge shall appoint not less than two assessors, one of whom shall be a taxing officer and one a practising solicitor. When a solicitor assessor is required, the court asks the Law Society for a nomination. The Court Service does not maintain an independent list of solicitor assessors.

  Debt Judgments (York)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of households in York had one or more judgments in respect of debt made against them at York country court in each of the last five years. [39566]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about debt judgments at York County Court.
  These figures are not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many county court judgements in respect of debt were made against(a) persons resident in York and (b) all persons at York county court in each of the last five years. [39568]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about judgments against people resident in York and at York County Court.
  It is not possible to give a figure for debt judgments but the total number of judgements made at York County Court in the last five years is:

  1991: 22,161

  1992: 19,500

  1993: 19,697

  1994: 10,768

  1995: 5,638

  Figures about where the people concerned live are not held centrally and could also only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Solicitors (Overcharging)
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints of overcharging on the part of solicitors were received from the public and directed to the taxation
  345
  master in the years 1995, 1994, 1993 and 1992; and what proportion of them resulted in a reduction of the original fees charged. [37857]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Sir Julian Critchley, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of complaints referred to the Taxation Master concerning solicitors overcharging.
  I am unable to provide the information because no details are kept of the reasons given for requesting taxation of solicitors' charges.

  Commonhold Property Ownership
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Government intend to implement their proposals for commonhold property ownership. [40022]

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how the Government intend to implement their proposals for commonhold property ownership. [39911]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Government have today published a draft Bill and consultation paper to show in detail how they propose to implement their proposals. The draft Bill represents a thorough reworking of the principles on which commonhold is based and, subject to the results of the consultation, the Government intend to bring forward legislation in this form as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.

  Juvenile Crime (Custodial Sentences)
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many juvenile cases in which guilty pleas were entered were dealt with by the Crown courts in 1995–96; and how many resulted in custodial sentences. [39105]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information regarding 1995 plea data will not be available until the autumn.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the £4.3 million paid out as legal aid in 1995–96 in respect of juvenile cases in the youth courts in which the defendant pleaded guilty(a) was paid out in respect of cases that resulted in custodial sentences and (b) was paid out in respect of cases that resulted in non-custodial sentences or some other non-custodial form of discharge. [39106]

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

TRANSPORT

  Automated Train Protection
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget his Department has allocated to the introduction of automated train protection. [38523]
  346
  Mr. Watts
  Since April 1994, Government support for the railway industry takes the form of grants paid by the franchising director. These grants enable the railway industries to meet their expenditure requirements, including those with safety benefits. Safety expenditure by the railway has not been separately identified since 1992–93, because the finance and resources to manage safety have been fully integrated with other management decisions.

  Trackworks (Advance Warning)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy to put in place regulations to ensure that train drivers are given adequate warning of workers on or near the track in a similar way to which prior warning is given to motorists approaching roadworks. [38535]

  Mr. Watts
  I have no plans to make new regulations for the giving of warnings to train drivers. Railway operators are already required by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to ensure the safety of their employees and others who might be affected by their undertakings, so far as is reasonably practicable.

  Guidance on securing safety on the track and meeting the legal obligations has been published by the Health and Safety Commission's Railway Industry Advisory Committee.

  Stafford and Ais Gill Rail Crashes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the report into the Stafford and Ais Gill rail crashes. [38531]

  Mr. Watts
  The report of the inquiry into Ais Gill is to be compiled by an inspecting officer of the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate, who has been appointed as an assessor to the coroner under the regulation of the Railways Act 1871 to assist with the inquest. The inspector's report will be completed and published as soon as the coroner has conducted the inquest. In the meantime, the recommendations made by the inspecting officer as a result of his investigations have been implemented by the railways.

  The publication of the report into the Stafford (Rickerscote) rail crash is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission. A report will be issued when the HSE's complex technical investigation into the crash is complete.

  Level Crossings (Fatalities)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities have occurred at railway level crossings during each of the last five years(a) on the west coast main line and (b) on the national railway network; and what action he is taking to prevent further fatalities. [38231]

  Mr. Watts
  Information on fatalities that have occurred at level crossings on the west coast main line is only available at disproportionate cost. Fatalities on the national railway network from 1990 to 1994–95 are as listed.
  347

  Pedestrian

  Occupant of road vehicle

  Total

  1990

  19

  3

  22

  1991–92

  11

  7

  18

  1992–93

  6

  4

  10

  1993–94

  9

  5

  14

  1994–95

  10

  3

  13

  Chapter 12 of the chief inspecting officer of railways annual report on the safety record of the railway in Great Britain in 1994–95 lists the initiatives under way to reduce the accident rate at level crossings. A copy of the report is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Track Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the red/green zone working group report from Her Majesty's railways inspectorate on track safety—recommendation 6(h)—with particular reference to the conflict between the safe system of work for track workers and penalty repayments for the delays to trains. [38537]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is following up its report with Railtrack plc. I am confident that HSE and Railtrack will ensure that safety is not compromised.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on advertising in relation to railway privatisation. [38587]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government have spent some £2.9 million on advertising in relation to the flotation of Railtrack. The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising has spent some £23,000 on advertising in relation to franchising. Both these figures exclude VAT, which is not a net cost to the Exchequer. The British Railways Board is responsible for any expenditure on advertising the sales of its businesses.

  Clapham Rail Disaster (Inquiry Recommendations)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations of the inquiry into the Clapham rail disaster which have not been implemented in full and the target dates for implementation. [38530]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 16 October,Official Report, columns 86–87. Further to that reply, I understand that fitment of the national radio system of communication is now virtually complete.

  Rolling Stock
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the financial value of the railway rolling stock units ordered for each year since 1979. [38548]

  Mr. Watts
  Figures on a year-by-year basis are not available. However, since 1979 over £4 billion has been invested in railway rolling stock.

  Train Doors (Fatalities)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities due to passengers falling from train doors have occurred during each of the last five years(a) on the west coast main line and (b) on the national railway network; and what action he is taking to prevent further fatalities. [38232]

  Mr. Watts
  Information on fatalities involving passengers falling from train doors on the west coast main line is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Passenger fatalities on the national railway network involving falls from trains from 1991–92 to 1995–96 are as follows:

  1991–92: 19

  1992–93: 9

  1993–94: 8

  1994–95: 6

  1995–96: 3 (figures for 1995–96 are provisional)

  The statistics up to 1994–95 are taken from the 1994–95 chief inspecting officer of railways annual report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain, a copy of which is held in the Library.

  In 1993 the Health and Safety Executive published its report into passenger falls from train doors. This raised passenger and staff awareness and maintenance standards. As a result the accident rate has fallen. Although much progress has been made by the railways, HSE's railway inspectorate continues to monitor maintenance standards of doors and locks and technical modifications. All InterCity trains now have a centralised locking system fitted, operated by the guard, who normally will free the doors to be opened only when trains are stationary at the platform.

  Rail Routes
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made for purchasers of land to be able to search for the proposed routes of railways to which his approval is required. [38913]

  Mr. Watts
  Promoters of new railways are required, by the statutory procedures under the Transport and Works Act 1992, to notify relevant local planning authorities of the intended application. This notice should provide sufficient evidence of intent to make an application for the authority to make the information available in response to searches. However, the authorities may decide to do so earlier or, possibly, as late as the date of the application, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and all relevant information available to them.

  Manchester Airport
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the factors preventing a regular through train service from Birmingham to Manchester airport. [39401]
  349
  Mr. Watts
  None. The level of service on a particular routes is a matter for the train operating units and, where appropriate, the franchising director.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to support a bid for European funding for a multi-modal transport interchange at Manchester airport. [39400]

  Mr. Bowis
  Departmental and airport company officials will be meeting to discuss the company's plans and how they might best be packaged.

  Traffic Bottlenecks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he expects to be made(a) this year and (b) over the next five years in eliminating the current bottlenecks on motorways and trunk roads, identified by the congestion maps published by his Department. [39495]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department's plans for eliminating bottlenecks over the current year were spelt out in November 1995 in "Managing the Trunk Road Programme" and in the Highways Agency's business plan, 1996–97. Progress over the next five years will include schemes to be taken from the design, build, finance and operate system and main programmes set out in tables 4 and 5 respectively of "Managing the Trunk Road Programme". We shall also continue to make improvements under the network enhancement programme and to introduce further measures for the better management of the network.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the existing controls on the hours of work of train drivers and safety critical staff are maintained. [39387]

  Mr. Watts
  Under the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994, employers have a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that staff undertaking safety critical work do not work such number of hours as would be liable to cause fatigue which could endanger safety.

  The Health and Safety Commission has recently consulted on a draft approved code of practice which would give practical guidance to employers on their duty, including guidance on carrying out a risk assessment before making changes to existing working time patterns. The HSC expects to submit the draft ACOP to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the next few weeks for his consent prior to formal approval and issue.

  Traffic Statistics
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the annual growth in traffic on(a) all roads and (b) motorways and trunk roads for each of the last 10 years. [39496]

  Mr. Watts
  The annual growth in all motor vehicle traffic—measured in vehicle miles—on all roads and motorways and trunk roads for each of the last 10 years is given in the table.
  350

  Annual growth in all motor vehicle traffic

  Year

  All roads per cent.

  Motorways and Trunk Roads per cent.

  1985–86

  5.0

  7.5

  1986–87

  7.7

  13.2

  1987–88

  7.2

  7.1

  1988–89

  8.3

  9.1

  1989–90

  1.0

  2.5

  1990–91

  0.2

  -0.2

  1991–92

  0.1

  -0.2

  1992–93

  0

  1.8

  1993–94

  2.5

  2.9

  1994–95

  2.0

  3.5

  Source:

  National Traffic Census.

  Traffic Noise
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the number of households in Great Britain where the level of noise as a result of traffic is(a) between 55dB and 68dB, and (b) greater than 68dB. [39483]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning estimates of the number of households in Great Britain where the level of noise as a result of traffic is (a) between 55dB and 68dB and (b) greater than 68dB.
  In 1980 the Noise Advisory Council estimated that about 3 million households in England suffered a level of noise exceeding 68dB(A) as a result of road traffic. The Highways Agency has in hand a research project scheduled to finish in late 1997 which includes a review of the data on which this estimate was based.
  No estimate has been made of the number of households where the noise levels lie between 55 and 68dB(A).

  BAA Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the percentage of total United Kingdom air traffic currently handled at airports owned by BAA in terms of(a) passengers and (b) air transport movements. [39501]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1995, 70 per cent. of all United Kingdom air passengers and 56 per cent. of air transport movements were handled by BAA airports.

  Trunk Road Programme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current time scale for construction on each of the schemes listed under the main programme in the trunk road programme. [39485]

  Mr. Watts
  No. Decisions on which schemes will start in a particular financial year are taken in the light of the public expenditure settlement and are announced before the start of the year in question.

  Track Access Grants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individual track access grant payments made in each of the last five years. [39361]
  351
  Mr. Watts
  None as yet, but the first claim for payment in respect of Freightliner is imminent and offers of grant have been made in five other cases. The track access grant scheme was introduced in April 1994

  Bypasses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received over the last six months in support of the building of bypasses. [39481]

  Mr. Watts
  I have received many positive representations from residents of towns and villages wanting bypasses and from representatives of motoring organisations and the road haulage industry.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new bypasses were constructed between(a) 1979 and 1991 and (b) 1991 and 1996. [39294]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about how many new bypasses were constructed between (a) 1979 and 1991 and (b) 1991 and 1996.
  The number of new bypasses opened between 1979 and 1991 was 120, and between 1991 and 1996, 53.

  Foreign Airlines
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require foreign airlines which base their aircraft in the United Kingdom to comply with the United Kingdom's normal operational and safety requirements. [39378]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. As a signatory to the Chicago convention the United Kingdom is obliged to accept certificates and licences issued in respect of foreign registered aircraft provided that the minimum safety standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation are being met. However, the new measures on fifth freedom charter flights, which my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced on 19 June, should discourage foreign airlines from basing passenger aircraft in the UK.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to prevent the selling of capacity on foreign registered aircraft in advance of their operators receiving authorisation to operate from the United Kingdom or obtaining flight slots. [39507]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. If tour operators were prevented from selling air holidays or air seats before entering a contract with an airline, this could severely affect their ability to respond to consumer demand, leading to restricted choice for customers and higher holiday prices.

  Noise Barriers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to extend the use of acoustically absorbent noise barriers alongside roads. [39484]
  352
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning any plans for extending the use of acoustically absorbent noise barriers alongside roads.
  Noise mitigation barriers are prescribed in principle by location, length and height; various other characteristics may be provided for in particular contracts to prescribe quality and type of materials, structural form and acoustic properties.
  Decisions on the use of absorbent materials in noise barriers are made on a case by case basis on the grounds of technical merit and cost-effectiveness. They do provide a measure of relief from reverberation of traffic noise which reduces the effectiveness of conventional barriers in some circumstances.
  There are no forward plans to specifically extend the use of absorbent materials, except to the extent that circumstances may justify it.

  Air Traffic
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to update his Department's forecasts for air traffic for (i) passengers and (ii) air transport movements. [39389]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department intends to publish updated air traffic forecasts early next year. In common with previous forecasts these will cover passengers at United Kingdom airports, but not air transport movements.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of air traffic at United Kingdom airports is interlining (i) to United Kingdom destinations, (ii) to European destinations and (iii) intercontinental destinations. [39546]

  Mr. Bowis
  No estimates of the proportion of total UK traffic that is accounted for by interlining have been published, but the Civil Aviation Authority has produced estimates for Heathrow and Gatwick on the CAA's survey of passengers at London airports in 1991—CAP610, tables 25 and 26. This showed that 26 per cent. of passengers at Heathrow were interlining in that year. Of these, 37 per cent. were travelling either to or from UK destinations, 54 per cent. were travelling either to or from other European destinations and the remaining 9 per cent. were interlining between non-European destinations. At Gatwick, 9 per cent. of passengers were interlining in 1991. Of these, 38 per cent. were travelling either to or from UK destinations, 50 per cent. were travelling either to or from other European destinations and the remaining 12 per cent. were interlining between non-European destinations. Figures for Manchester and other regional airports are given in the CAA survey of passengers at central England airports, CAP 618, Table 67.

  Road Schemes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by name those road schemes at the preferred route stage which will have an impact on(a) lowland heath, (b) Caledonian pine, (c) chalk grassland and (d) reedbeds, and if he will indicate in percentage terms the total area of the United Kingdom currently covered by these four habitats. [39498]
  353
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 21 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if he will list by name those road schemes at the preferred route state which will have an impact on (a) lowland heath, (b) Caledonian pine, (c) chalk grassland and (d) reedbeds, if he will indicate in percentage terms the total area of the United Kingdom currently covered by these four habitats.
  I have set out the schemes in the current programme which the Highways Agency expect to reach preferred route state during 1996/97.
  Information on the impact, if any, these schemes will have on the four habitats listed is being collected and I will write to the hon. Member separately as soon as it is available. My Department does not have information on the total area of the UK covered by these habitats.

  A1(M) Bramham—Wetherby

  A1(M) Wetherby Bypass

  A14 Rookery Crossroads Grade Separated Junction

  A36 Beckington—East of Bath Improvement

  A259 Guestling Thorn Bypass

  M1 Junction 10 to 15 Widening

  M5 Junction 17 to 21 Widening

  M6 Junction 11A to 16 Widening

  M6 Junction 16 to 19 Widening

  M11 Junction 8 to 9 Widening

  M40 Junctions 3 to 4 Widening and Junction 4 Improvement

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what projections he has made of the annual cost to public funds in the years beyond 1998–99 of the road schemes already let as design, build, finance and operate schemes and those schemes expected to start in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [39491]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about DBFOs.
  Tranche 1 contracts have been signed. Annual payments will be around £100m in 1999–2000 and will range up to £144m per year during the contract period. Negotiations on tranche 1A contracts are not all concluded, although they are expected to be completed during 1996/97. Tranche 2 has been announced but tenders have yet to be invited. At this stage any estimates of payments must be highly speculative but we expect the annual payments for both tranches together to range between £130m and £300m from 1999–2000 to the end of the contract period.

  Heathrow and Gatwick Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the channel tunnel on development of traffic at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. [39390]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport's 1994 air traffic forecasts estimated the number of passengers the channel tunnel will divert away from the London airports taken together. No estimates were made of the likely impact on individual airports. The forecasts found that in 2010 between 7.6 and 12.8 million air passengers will divert to the channel tunnel from London airports.
  354
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments he has made of the effect of the opening of a fast rail link between London and the channel tunnel on the number of (i) air passengers and (ii) air traffic movements at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. [39391]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport's 1994 air traffic forecasts estimate diversion from air to the channel tunnel of 7.6 million passengers a year under the low scenario assuming no high-speed rail link from London is in place and 12.8 million under the high scenario which includes a high-speed rail link in addition to a number of other more favourable assumptions. The Department has made no individual forecasts of the impact of the high-speed rail link on air transport movements at Heathrow and Gatwick.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last 10 years the average passengers per air traffic movement at Heathrow and Gatwick airports for(a) scheduled operations and (b) charter operations. [39511]

  Mr. Bowis
  The table gives the figures requested:

  Passengers per air traffic movement: 1986–1995

  Heathrow

  Gatwick

  Scheduled

  Non-scheduled

  Scheduled

  Non-scheduled

  1986

  110

  12

  80

  136

  1987

  116

  11

  87

  146

  1988

  116

  12

  89

  151

  1989

  116

  12

  91

  148

  1990

  118

  18

  94

  153

  1991

  113

  25

  96

  154

  1992

  117

  45

  92

  161

  1993

  122

  41

  92

  164

  1994

  127

  36

  92

  167

  1995

  130

  33

  92

  172

  British Rail Vendor Unit
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) statutory and (b) other procedures govern the activities of the British Rail vendor unit. [39261]

  Mr. Watts
  The board of British Railways, appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, prepares businesses for sale and sell them subject to the direction and consent of the Secretary of State whose objectives for such sales are set out in section 113 of the Railways Act 1993. The vendor unit carries out the day-to-day implementation of the board's sale strategy on certain disposals. The vendor unit follows procedures approved by the board and where appropriate agreed by the Department.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by(a) classification society, (b) country of registration and (c) port in which they were detained, the number of ships detained by the MSA in each of the last two years. [39358]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  355
  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of ships detained by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) in each of the last two years.
  The numbers of foreign flagged vessels detained by the MSA, listed by classification society, country of registration and port in which they were detained, in the calendar years 1994 and 1995 are given in the attached tables.
  A list containing information about the foreign flagged ships under detention in UK ports, including the ships' particulars and the reason for detention, is published monthly by the MSA.

  A27
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the report of the inspector at the public inquiry into his Department's proposals for the development of the A27 in the Worthing area; and when he expects to announce a decision on the route. [39631]

  Mr. Watts
  The inspector's report was received on 2 February and is being considered by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport. They will announce their decision as soon as possible.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorway service areas have been closed since the financial year 1991–92. [39289]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Departmental Staff
  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, broken down by grade, the number of(a) male staff and (b) female staff. [38138]

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

  Traffic Area Office, Manchester
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals have been put to the traffic area network unit within his Department for reducing accommodation costs at the traffic area office in Manchester; and what action was taken to following up these proposals. [38139]

  Mr. Bowis
  The traffic area office in Manchester, in consultation with the local representatives of Property Holdings, put to the traffic area network unit three possible proposals in September 1994:Stay in Portcullis house until the lease expired and await re-location to Ashburner house.
  Give notice to Property Holdings and move to another property on the Government estate.
  Look for alternative accommodation within the commercial market.

  It was agreed between the traffic area office and the traffic area network unit that the third of these options was not viable due to vacant accommodation being available on the Government's own estate. No action was
  356
  taken to follow up the other two proposals and the second option was overtaken by the timetable for the transfer of Property Holdings responsibilities to Departments.

  Drivers' Hours
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to provide enforcement officers with powers to issue prohibition notices to United Kingdom drivers who have exceeded their drivers' hours regulations. [38147]

  Mr. Bowis
  None at present. We are keeping the situation under review but the change proposed would require primary legislation.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to carry out an annual survey into the unlicensed operation of heavy goods vehicles. [38144]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no current plans to repeat the survey of illegal goods vehicle operators which was carried out in October last year.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of heavy goods vehicles divided by weight involved in road accidents which have resulted in(a) fatal, (b) serious and (c) slight injuries during 1995. [38202]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of HGVs involved in injury road accidents, by gross weight and accident severity in Great Britain in 1995 was as follows:

  Vehicles

  Accident severity

  Gross weight

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  3,501–16,000

  126

  735

  3,164

  4.017

  16,001–24,000

  107

  495

  1,899

  2.501

  24,001–33,000

  134

  599

  2,256

  2,990

  33,001–38,000

  247

  883

  3,119

  4,258

  Total

  614

  2,713

  10,438

  13,765

  1. The weight distributions are estimated from road accidents data submitted by the police. Differences in totals are due to rounding.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budgets were allocated to the enforcement of heavy goods and public service safety regulations for each of the last 10 years. [38146]

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures for years before 1991–92 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Figures for the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  HGV traffic and roadworthiness enforcement budgets (£)

  PSV traffic and roadworthiness enforcement budgets (£)

  1991–92

  11,223,746

  2,268,680

  1992–93

  11,303,161

  2,347,610

  1993–94

  11,112,988

  2,116,650

  1994–95

  10,921,773

  2,186,787

  1995–96

  11,063,032

  2,281.217

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to commit further funds into
  357
  front-line enforcement of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles safety regulations by Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement officers. [38212]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no such plans at present.

  Mrs. Dun woody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to use laden heavy goods vehicles in heavy goods vehicle driving tests. [38206]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are currently looking at the case for requiring learner lorry drivers to use ballasted vehicles when taking a lorry driving test. It could have significant implication for the cost of training and testing new lorry drivers, and there would need to be detailed consultation with the parties affected before the necessary regulations could be put before Parliament.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents(a) in total, (b) involving serious injuries and (c) involving fatalities involved heavy goods vehicles in each of the years 1979 to 1996. [39285]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Accidents involving HGVs: by accident severity: GB: 1979–1995

  Accident severity

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1979

  940

  4,690

  16,471

  1980

  782

  4,051

  14,117

  1981

  761

  3,859

  13,283

  1982

  786

  3,808

  13,307

  1983

  722

  3,387

  12,328

  1984

  777

  3,570

  12,950

  1985

  728

  3,457

  13,073

  1986

  794

  3,503

  13,435

  1987

  776

  3,509

  13,642

  1988

  802

  3,737

  14,775

  1989

  878

  3,795

  16,107

  1990

  791

  3,387

  15,063

  1991

  683

  2,885

  13,616

  1992

  650

  2,706

  13,016

  1993

  608

  2,520

  13,173

  1994

  540

  2,598

  13,178

  1995

  530

  2.445

  12,613

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the amount of revenue lost due to the illegal operation of heavy goods and public service vehicles. [38143]

  Mr. Bowis
  No estimate of lost income has been made.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to apply the income raised from heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicle operator licences for the enforcement of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicle regulations. [38142]

  Mr. Bowis
  Income raised from both heavy goods and public service vehicle operators is part of general taxation and as such is paid into the central Exchequer funds and not ring fenced. The Department is, however, required to set fees at such a level as to recover from operators the total sums spent both on enforcement and on running the traffic area offices.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of public service vehicles involved in road accidents resulting in(a) fatal, (b) serious and (c) slight injuries during 1995. [38203]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1995, there were 134 public service vehicles involved in fatal accidents, 1,487 serious accidents and 9,359 in slight injury accidents.

  British Rail
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was British Rail's external finance limit for 1992–93. [39295]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Railways Board's external finance limit for 1992–93 was set at £2,096 million. The outturn for the board's external finance requirement for that year was £2,064 million.

  New Roads and Rail
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of(a) new trunk roads were constructed and (b) new railway track were electrified between (i) 1979 and 1992 and (ii) 1992 and 1996. [39293]

  Mr. Watts
  The length of new trunk roads completed in England between 1979 and 1992 was 842.4 miles and between 1992 and 1996, 268.5 miles. The length of newly electrified railway track between 1979 and 1992 was 725.3 miles and between 1992 and March 1995, 52.2 miles. There are no figures yet for 1995–96.

  Staff Annual Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a table showing separately for each grade in the central transport group the numbers of staff who received(a) a fitted, (b) a well fitted and (c) not fitted marking in their 1995 annual staff report broken down by gender and ethnic grouping; [38134]

  (2) if he will list for each traffic area office the annual staff reporting performance and promotion markings received for the various grades in the offices, broken down by gender and ethnic grouping. [38135]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information cannot be provided in the form requested without identifying individual members of staff.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the annual staff performance and promotion markings obtained for grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the central transport group. [38136]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have placed a table containing the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Annual Leave
  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, broken down by grade and number, the(a) male staff and (b) female staff eligible for 30 days' annual leave. [38137]
  359
  Mr. Bowis
  I have placed a table containing the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Staff Statistics
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed by(a) the Vehicle Inspectorate and (b) the Transport Research Laboratory in each year between 1979 and 1996. [39284]

  Mr. Bowis
  The average number of staff employed each year by the Vehicle Inspectorate in the period 1986–87 to 1995–96, and by the Transport Research Laboratory in the period 1992–93 to 1995–96, is as set out. Information on staff employed in prior years is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Transport Research Laboratory

  1986–87

  1,492

  —

  1987–88

  1,530

  —

  1988–89

  1,590

  —

  1989–90

  1,620

  —

  1990–91

  1,651

  —

  1991–92

  1,613

  —

  1992–931

  1,861

  625

  1993–94

  1,768

  600

  1994–95

  1,649

  487

  1995–96

  1,559

  432

  1 Responsibility for traffic examiners and some support staff transferred from the central Department to the Vehicle Inspectorate on 1 April 1992.

  Bridges
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many bridges are awaiting strengthening work to comply with the EU plan to permit 40 tonne trucks; [38152]

  (2) which bridges carrying motorways require strengthening work to comply with the EU plan to permit 40 tonne trucks; and in each case what is the target date for the work to be undertaken. [38153]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions asking how many bridges are awaiting strengthening work to comply with the EU plan to permit 40 tonne trucks; which bridges carrying motorways require strengthening work; and what is the target date for the work to be undertaken. This response relates only to the trunk road network; non-trunk roads are the responsibility of local highway authorities.
  Trunk road bridges are being assessed to ensure not only that they can carry heavier 40 tonne lorries from 1999 but also that they can continue to carry safely existing 38 tonne lorries. The Highways Agency's aim is to minimise the number of bridges requiring strengthening by putting maximum effort into the assessment process. If a bridge fails an initial assessment, using simple techniques, then an increasingly more sophisticated analysis will be undertaken to ensure that we do not strengthen any bridge unnecessarily. 1,756 trunk road bridges have not yet passed their assessment, but it is expected that only a proportion of these will ultimately require strengthening.
  360
  Where there is concern that a bridge may not have sufficient load-carrying capacity, temporary measures are put in place to ensure the safety of road users. The Agency's objective is to make certain that, from 1 January 1999, all vehicles up to and including the new 40 tonne maximum gross vehicle weight standard will be able to use all structures carrying trunk roads and other important routes over trunk roads. The attached list gives details of bridges carrying motorways which we are currently planning to strengthen. In other cases, temporary measures, such as propping, will remain in place until full strengthening can be undertaken.

  Motorway underbridges in strengthening programme

  Road

  Bridge name

  Target completion

  A2821

  Dartford Tunnel East, Kent

  September 1998

  A2821

  Essex Viaduct, Essex

  September 1998

  A1(M)

  Otterspool, Hertfordshire

  February 1998

  A1(M)

  Reservoir Railway, South Yorkshire

  Not decided

  M1

  Five Way Flyover North bound, Barnet

  June 1997

  M1

  Five Way Flyover South bound, Barnet

  June 1997

  M1

  Transport Farm Subway, Barnet

  1998–99

  M1

  Berrygrove interchange North Hertfordshire

  February 1998

  M1

  Berrygrove interchange South Hertfordshire

  February 1998

  M1

  Berrygrove interchange North A41, Hertfordshire

  February 1998

  M1

  Berrygrove Service Road South Herfordshire

  November 1998

  M1

  Berrygrove Service Road North Hertfordshire

  November 1998

  M1

  Berrygrove South A41, Hertfordshire

  November 1998

  M1

  Old Paul, South Yorkshire

  April 1998

  M2

  Medway Viaduct East, Kent

  March 1998

  M2

  Medway Viaduct West, Kent

  March 1998

  M2

  Medway River, Kent

  March 1998

  M4

  Grand Union Canal, Hounslow

  September 1996

  M4

  Thames Bray, Berkshire

  February 1997

  M5

  Huntspill River, Somerset

  February 1998

  M5

  River Brue, Somerset

  February 1998

  M5

  Huntworth Viaduct, Somerset

  February 1997

  MS

  River Tone, Somerset

  November 1998

  M6

  Ray Hall Viaduct Bents 12/0–13/10, West Midlands

  December 1997

  M6

  Ray Hall Viaduct Bents 11/0–12/10, West Midlands

  June 1998

  M11

  Woodford West Viaduct, Hertfordshire

  November 1998

  M40

  Tetsworth Pedestrian Underpass, Oxfordshire

  Not decided

  M40

  Stoke Talmage, Oxfordshire

  Not decided

  M40

  Nethercote Lane, Oxfordshire

  Not decided

  M62

  Gelderd Road, West Yorkshire

  Not decided

  M62

  Narrowbeck Railway, West Yorkshire

  Not decided

  M621

  South Leeds interchange 13 Railway

  Not decided

  M621

  Beeston interchange South, West Yorkshire

  Not decided

  M621

  Beeston Interchange North, West Yorkshire

  Not decided

  1 These structures are included because they are on the line of M25.

  Driver Offences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask me Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there were for mechanical offences and for drivers' hours and tachograph offences in magistrates and sheriff courts for each of the last five years. [38205]
  361
  Mr. Bowis
  Information relating to numbers of prosecutions and convictions is contained in Home Office and Scottish Office statistics.

  The relevant figures are shown in the tables.

  Mechanical offences

  England and Wales1

  Scotland2

  Year

  Prosecutions in magistrates' courts

  Convictions

  Offences prosecuted in sheriffs' courts

  Offences proven

  1990

  89,419

  70,838

  5,629

  4,818

  1991

  91,809

  69,650

  5,119

  4,284

  1992

  93,504

  67,793

  4,772

  3,921

  1993

  87,354

  62,336

  3,844

  3,068

  1994

  89,643

  65,437

  3,688

  2,915

  1 These figures relate to prosecutions and convictions for offences where a vehicle or vehicle part has been found to be in a dangerous or defective condition including brakes, steering gear, tyres.

  2 These figures are the number of offences under the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 prosecuted and proven. In addition, a significant number of offences are handled annually at Scottish District and Stipendiary Magistrates Courts.

  Drivers' hours and tachograph offences

  England and Wales1

  Scotland2

  Year

  Prosecutions in Magistrates' Courts

  Convictions

  Offences prosecuted in Sheriffs' Courts

  Offences proven

  1990

  11,557

  9,010

  1,971

  1,649

  1991

  12,283

  9,504

  2,115

  1,774

  1992

  12,282

  8,943

  2,519

  2,070

  1993

  9,817

  6,965

  1,866

  1,534

  1994

  9,506

  6,970

  2,301

  1,939

  1 These figures are for prosecutions and convictions relating to offences of failure to observe limits on hours of driving and duty or rest requirements.

  2 These figures are the number of offences relating to motor vehicle records of work including tachographs prosecuted and proven. In addition, a significant number of offences are handled annually at Scottish District and Stipendiary Magistrates Courts.

  Operators' Licence Fees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the income raised from the operators' licence fees for each of the last 10 years. [38141]

  Mr. Bowis
  Allowing for the attribution to the year in question of the five-yearly element of the licence fee, the income generated is as follows:

  £

  Year

  HGV operator licensing

  PSV operator licensing

  Bus registration

  1986–87

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  1987–88

  Not available

  3,364,042

  582,887

  1988–89

  12,141,076

  4,460,042

  609,441

  1989–90

  14,585,408

  2,885,750

  715,585

  1990–91

  13,928,538

  3,901,241

  691,427

  1991–92

  14,588,537

  3,847,562

  673,826

  1992–93

  15,424,930

  3,758,355

  633,550

  1993–94

  19,093,817

  3,959,235

  668,594

  362

  £

  Year

  HGV operator licensing

  PSV operator licensing

  Bus registration

  1994–95

  21,442,222

  4,289,297

  779,667

  1995–96

  22,108,672

  4,796,730

  720,712

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the annual operator licensing fees for heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles in each of the last 10 years. [38140]

  Mr. Bowis
  Fees for operator licensing of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles are as listed.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles—Operator Licensing Fees (covering a five year period)

  Date

  Grant fee (£)

  Vehicle fee(£)

  From 1 May 1986

  20 (grant of licence) 15 (grant of major variation)

  100

  3 January 1989

  60 grant of licence or major variation

  100

  1 October 1991

  70 grant of licence or major variation

  140

  1 April 1993

  170 grant of licence or major variation

  140

  1 June 1994

  185 grant of licence or major variation

  160

  1 July 1995

  185 grant of licence or major variation

  170

  New Fee structure from 1 January 1996

  Application for a licence or major variation

  160 (one-off)

  Issue of licence

  250

  Continuation of licence

  250

  Vehicle fee (£34 per annum if paid annually)

  140

  Public service vehicle—operator licensing fees

  Effective date

  Fee type

  Fee

  Period

  26 October 1986

  Licence Grant

  £3.50 per month

  For validity of licence (normally 5 years)

  Vehicle discs

  £3.50 each

  For validity of licence per month (normally 5 years)

  Special licence (for holders of taxi licences)

  £40

  5 years

  Note: Fees to be paid five years in advance to cover period of validity of licence. 1 December 1993 Fees raised, but structure and payment system remained the same:

  1 December 1993

  Licence grant

  £4.50

  Vehicle discs

  £4.50

  1 January 1996 Fees structure changed with introduction of continuous licensing—some new fees introduced but vehicle disc fees unchanged for operators who elect to pay 5 years fees in advance. Operators paying disc fees on annual basis, pay an increased fee;

  1 January 1996

  Application for standard licence

  £150 one — off fee

  363

  Public service vehicle—operator licensing fees

  Effective date

  Fee type

  Fee

  Period

  Application for restricted licence Grant charge

  £100 one— off fee £100 First 5 years of licence

  Continuation in force of licence

  £100 subsequent 5 years

  Application to vary a licence Vehicle discs

  £75 one— off fee £4.50 each per month

  If paid 5 years in advance; or

  £5.25 each per month

  If paid one year in advance

  Special licence

  £40

  5 years

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sums he expects to be spent on the computerisation of enforcement intelligence by the Vehicle Inspectorate and the traffic area offices during 1996–97. [38149]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have nothing to add to the answer given on 22 March 1996,Official Report, column 387.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources have been allocated to the Vehicle Inspectorate for roadworthiness enforcement spot checks in each of the last 10 years. [38148]

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures for years before 1991–92 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Figures for the last five years for all types of vehicles are as follows:

  Year

  Budgets for roadworthiness spot checks on GB and foreign vehicles (£)

  1991–92

  2,612,000

  1992–93

  3,673,000

  1993–94

  2,777,000

  1994–95

  3,011,000

  1995–96

  3,211,000

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39518]

  Sir George Young
  Nil.

  London Transport
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the levels of investment in London Transport in (i) 1992–293, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95. [39296]
  364
  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is in the table, in both outturn and constant prices:

  Investment in London Transport 1992–93 to 1994–95

  Year

  Investment (£ million) outturn

  Investment(£ million)—1996–97 prices

  1992–93

  789

  873

  1993–94

  821

  883

  1994–95

  955

  1,008

  Catalytic Converters
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars in the United Kingdom are currently fitted with catalytic converters. [39290]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is estimated that there are some 5 million cars in the United Kingdom currently fitted with catalytic converters.

  Franchising Director
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the franchising director's annual report for 1995–96 made to him under section 75 of the Railways Act 1993. [39990]

  Sir George Young
  I have today laid before Parliament the franchising director's annual report for 1995–96, which records the very good progress achieved in franchising during that period. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further instructions he has issued to the franchising director. [40029]

  Sir George Young
  I have today written to the franchising director instructing him under section 5 of the Railways Act 1993 to take into account any Government policies which are relevant to the provision of passenger services insofar as they affect, or may be affected by, the fulfilment of his objectives. I am placing a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Harbour Order, Southampton
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has reached a decision after the public inquiry into the proposal by Associated British Ports for a harbour order to extend the limits of the port of Southampton to include the western Solent. [39938]

  Sir George Young
  I have agreed with the inspector that the order should not be made. I have considered the reasons for making it and taken careful note of the arguments put forward by the applicants and their supporters and by the objectors. I agreed with the inspector that the order is unnecessary, and that none of the concerns in the case for the order is so important, or incapable of resolution by current practices or regulations.

  Business Aviation
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for enhancing facilities for business aviation at RAF Northolt; and if he will make a statement. [39914]
  365
  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport has confirmed to the Transport Select Committee that it does not consider Northolt to be a suitable site for the development of a civil airport on the scale that would be necessary to provide significant relief to Heathrow, as the Committee had supported. However, RAF Northolt does have the potential to provide useful, if limited, facilities for business aviation.

  The Government have made clear their recognition that business aviation can bring economic and wider benefits to national competitiveness as well as to local and regional economies. Whilst they would not subsidise the necessary facilities, Government are keen to ensure that the industry is not unreasonably denied access to capacity.

  The pressure on runway capacity in the south-east of England has already led to RAF Northolt becoming an increasingly attractive option for business aviation seeking access to London. The Government have been considering how the needs of business aviation can best be accommodated alongside the continuing military requirements at the station. Last year the Government announced they would not proceed with the option of a separate civil enclave at RAF Northolt; consultation with interested parties had shown that the high capital costs and physical constraints would not make it commercially viable. Instead, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport have been working jointly to identify possible changes to working arrangements at the station to improve the service offered to users and to businesses in the south-east more generally.

  The two Departments are now able to announce a package of practical measures which arise from further consultation with existing users of the aerodrome, but which also recognise the concerns of the local communities about the impact of aviation activities. We believe these measures respond to the needs of the business aviation industry while preserving RAF Northolt's operational effectiveness and safeguarding the interests of local people.

  The key element of the package is an extension to the station's operating hours of one hour each weekday morning, on a trial basis. From 1 October 1996 RAF Northolt will open for civil use at 0700, rather than 0800 as at present. There will be no change to the closing time of 2000, or to the standard closure at weekends, nor will the existing arrangements under which military operations take precedence be affected. This change will give business aviation extra flexibility, and in particular it will make it able to deliver its customers to European destinations early enough to meet continental business schedules. Air traffic control constraints will in any case limit the use that can be made of the extra hour.

  Over the coming months MOD and DOT will closely monitor the number of civil movements to assess the amount of flexibility provided by the existing movement limit; in the meantime, the station will continue to operate on the basis of a maximum of 7,000 civil movements per year. This figure includes business aviation and other civil operations, but excludes movements on MOD or other Government business. The station expects around 6,000 civil movements in the current financial year.
  366
  The extended opening hours will begin on a trial basis for six months. MOD and DOT will be assessing the practical impact of the change, on the industry and on local residents as well as on the station itself, before a decision on its continuation is taken.

  The other elements of the package, whose impact will largely be restricted to the users themselves, will not form part of that review. In addition to minor operational improvements at the station, there will be readiness on the part of the MOD to consider any proposals from private sector operators to utilise currently unused areas of the RAF Northolt site to establish their own hangars, subject to operational considerations. This would mean that civil users could in the long-term base some of their aircraft on site, thus reducing the need for positioning movements at the beginning and end of the day. Responsibility for taking forward any such development through the necessary planning procedures would of course rest with the civil promoter.

  Bom Rei Dredger
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to investigate the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the dredger, Bom Rei. [39287]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. The Bom Rei, formerly the Bowbelle, was registered under the Portuguese flag. The Portuguese authorities will be investigating the incident. The marine accident investigation branch has no jurisdiction to carry out an investigation into an incident involving a foreign flagged vessel sailing outside UK territorial waters. The MAIB has, however, provided the Portuguese authorities with a copy of the MAIB report into the Bowsprite, a sister ship, which was lost off the coast of Belgium in 1988.

  Trunk Roads
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contractors were subject to financial penalties for late completion of contracted works on the trunk road network; and what was the additional revenue raised from those penalties, in each year since 1991. [39291]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 24 July 1996:
  As you know, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many contractors were subject to financial penalties for late completion of contracted works on the trunk road network; and what was the additional revenue raised from those penalties, in each year since 1991.
  The information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Coaches
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger rail coaches were in service in each of the last five years. [39036]
  367
  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The number of passenger rail coaches 31 March in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1992: 12,925

  1993: 12,309

  1994: 11,802

  1995: 11,483

  1996: 9,928

  The declining trend is due mainly to the introduction of new rolling stock, which is of a higher seating capacity and is more efficient to use, permitting operators to replace older stock with fewer new units. The larger drop in 1996 arises because of changes to the statistical base. Prior to 1996, all British Rail vehicles were included in annual statistics. The 1996 figure includes only those currently in service with BR and franchise operators.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current provision of road signage on the road network marking the border between(a) England and Scotland and (b) England and Wales. [38631]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 24 July 1996:
  As you know, I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the current provision of road signage on the road network marking the border between (a) England and Scotland and (b) England and Wales.
  The current provision of signs on the trunk road network marking the English border is as follows:

  Road

  Sign type

  Legend

  (a) Border between England and Scotland

  A1

  (i) White on brown

  English Border 1 mile

  (ii) White on brown

  English Border

  (iii) Stone

  England

  (iv) Black on white

  Welcome to Northumberland England's Border Country Borough of Berwick on Tweed

  A68

  (i) White on brown

  English Border 1 mile

  (ii) Stone

  England

  A7

  Blue on white

  England (with St. George's shield)

  A74

  White on brown

  Welcome to England. Cumbria and the Lake District (with county crest)

  (b) Border between England and Wales

  A5501

  Black on white

  England

  A55

  Cheshire

  A483

  (with St. George's shield and county crest)

  A5

  Black on white

  Welcome to Shropshire

  A483

  (i) Slate

  Welcome to Shropshire

  (ii) Black on white

  You are now entering Shropshire and Oswestry Borough Council

  A458

  Black on white

  Welcome to Shropshire(with county crest)

  368

  Road

  Sign type

  Legend

  A465

  Black on white

  The County of Hereford and Worcester Welcome to England (with red rose symbol and county crest)

  A40

  A48

  (i) Black on white, blue border

  The County of Gloucestershire Welcome to England (in English and Welsh) (with red rose symbol and county crest)

  (ii) White on blue

  Welcome to Gloucestershire (with county crest)

  M48

  Black on white

  Welcome to England

  M49

  (in English and Welsh)

  M4

  (with red rose symbol)

  1The sign on the A550 has been temporarily removed because of major roadworks.

  Dartford River Crossing Ltd.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the level of interest payments required to service the capital for the Dartford River Crossing Ltd. using(a) the interest rate set out in schedule 10 to the agreement with Dartford River Crossing Ltd. and (b) the interest rate which the Government would reasonably expect to pay if they had raised the capital themselves showing in both cases the size of interest payments for (i) each year of the project and (ii) the whole life of the project. [39019]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the level of interest payments required to service the capital for the Dartford River Crossing Ltd.
  The likely level of interest payments necessary to finance Dartford River Crossing Ltd's proposals to design, build, finance and operate the new Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and to operate and maintain the existing Dartford Tunnels was considered as part of the overall financial and technical assessment undertaken in August 1986 when the decision was taken to procure this project in the private, rather than the public sector. For obvious commercial reasons, you will appreciate that the actual figures used in this assessment are confidential.

  Coastguard
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the reduction in the number of full-time coastguard officer posts from the implementation of "Focus for Change"; [39379]

  (2) what accommodation facilities are provided for the crew of the helicopter search and rescue centre at Portland; and if the crew are accommodated overnight; [39370]

  (3) how many (a) coastguard officers and (b) auxiliary coastguards were employed at each coastguard station in each of the last five years; [39480]
  369
  (4) if he will list by coastguard station the number of false alarms received by the global maritime distress safety system for each of the last 12 months; and what action he intends to take to reduce the number; [39372]

  (5) what training is (a) required for coastguard officers and (b) provided to auxiliary coastguards before they take up their post; [39476]

  (6) if he will list for each of the last 12 months, by coastguard station, the dates when the station was staffed below the recognised minimum staffing level and by how many staff the station was understaffed; [39357]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the savings to (a) the Coastguard agency and (b) his Department from implementation of the focus for change report into the Coastguard agency; [39477]

  (8) what estimate he has made of the effect on the take off times of search and rescue helicopters at Portland of the crew not being based at the search and rescue centre. [39371]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to a number of your recent Questions which are primarily matters for the Coastguard Agency.

  PQ 39379
  Focus for Change will, in fact, result in a net increase of approximately eight full time posts.

  PQ 39370
  The accommodation provided at the Coastguard helicopter unit at Portland consists of four modern portakabins comprising: kitchen; rest room (TV/Radio etc.); operations room; Senior Pilots office; Chief Engineers office; storage space for personal effects (flying suits/helmets etc.); aircraft Hangar; car parking spaces. The crew are not accommodated overnight.

  PQ 39480
  The number of Coastguard Officers employed by the Department of Transport and subsequently by the Coastguard Agency in the last five years are given below. The figures up to April 1993, pre-Agency, are only available on a Regional basis.

  Region

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  Dover

  81

  80

  Falmouth

  66

  68

  Swansea

  92

  89

  Clyde

  79

  76

  INMARSAT

  121.5MHz

  243MHz

  406MHz

  MFDSC

  Monthly total

  July 1995

  31

  8

  10

  31

  7

  87

  August 1995

  38

  13

  9

  25

  2

  87

  September 1995

  26

  10

  2

  28

  8

  74

  October 1995

  50

  8

  8

  22

  13

  101

  November 1995

  42

  22

  8

  16

  7

  95

  December 1995

  29

  8

  6

  18

  16

  77

  January 1996

  24

  14

  6

  24

  10

  78

  February 1996

  29

  13

  3

  23

  15

  83

  March 1996

  32

  6

  2

  23

  16

  79

  April 1996

  29

  6

  4

  22

  10

  71

  May 1996

  38

  7

  4

  20

  6

  75

  June 1996

  48

  15

  3

  19

  1

  86

  Totals

  416

  130

  65

  271

  111

  993

  370

  Region

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  Aberdeen

  86

  82

  Yarmouth

  62

  64

  Total

  466

  459

  The figures for the next three years are available on a station by station basis.

  Station (MRSC)

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Dover

  31

  29

  27

  Thames

  21

  18

  20

  Solent

  27

  25

  23

  Portland

  21

  20

  21

  Brixham

  21

  18

  19

  Falmouth

  25

  25

  25

  Swansea

  25

  25

  24

  Milford Haven

  18

  19

  19

  Holyhead

  19

  17

  17

  Liverpool

  22

  21

  19

  Clyde

  19

  19

  19

  Oban

  16

  17

  16

  Belfast

  17

  18

  19

  Stornoway

  16

  17

  18

  Pentland

  18

  16

  17

  Shetland

  15

  16

  16

  Aberdeen

  29

  25

  28

  Forth

  19

  17

  18

  Tyne Tees

  20

  19

  19

  Humber

  23

  22

  21

  Yarmouth

  22

  22

  21

  Total

  444

  425

  426

  Figures for the regional coastguard stations

  Station (MRCC)

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  Dover

  2

  2

  2

  Falmouth

  2

  2

  2

  Swansea

  2

  3

  2

  Clyde

  2

  2

  1

  Aberdeen

  2

  2

  2

  Yarmouth

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  12

  13

  11

  These figures include Regional and Deputy Regional Controllers only. The Agency does not employ any Auxiliary Coastguards, they are all volunteers.

  PQ 39372
  All GMDSS alerts received via INMARSAT, 121.5MHz, 243MHz and 406MHz are processed by the Coastguard Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre at Falmouth. GMDSS alerts received via Medium Frequency Digital Selective Calling (MF DSC) may be picked up simultaneously by several stations. In order to ensure there is no duplication of alerts, MRCC Falmouth collate the alerts (including false alarms) from the 8 other MF DSC stations around the UK. The number of false alerts received in the last 12 months are as follows:

  371
  The Marine Safety Agency (MSA) are taking a number of measures to reduce the number of false alerts on GMDSS. These include:
  issuing an Merchant Shipping Notice detailing the measures to prevent false alerts and making it widely available to the marine community;
  contributing to the examiners panel for operator examinations and introducing the topic of preventing false alarms into the examination syllabus;
  taking an active role in the International Standardisation bodies which produce equipment specifications for marine radio and have introduced improved requirements to make the equipment more foolproof. MSA have also contributed to a national specification for a leisure market GMDSS radio which is based on simple, foolproof operation.

  PQ 39476
  All new entrant Coastguards undertake an initial training lasting approximately one year. After a short familiarisation period (usually six to eight weeks) at their parent station, they undertake six weeks intensive training at the Coastguard Training Centre. They then return to their parent station for about nine months, during which time, under the guidance of the District Management Team, they work through a taskbook compiled by the Training Centre. They return to the Training Centre for a two week revision and examination period at the end of the year. Subject to successful completion of the taskbook, the exams, an interview board and management reports, they are appointed Coastguard Watch Officers.
  Auxiliary Coastguard Operations Room Assistants receive up to 80 hours initial training locally during which time they are supernumery to the normal staff. They are required to pass examinations before being allowed to become a part of the watch. They receive 20 hours refresher training per annum thereafter.

  PQ 39357
  The information relating to dates when Coastguard stations were staffed below the recognised minimum staffing level is not readily available and will take time to compile. I will write separately when it is available.

  PQ 39477
  The financial effect of the introduction of Focus for Change will result in an overall reduction in costs as a result of more flexible shift patterns and reductions in overtime and payments to auxiliaries.

  PQ 39371
  The Portland SAR helicopter is on 15 minutes notice throughout the day, during which time the duty crew are permanently on station. There is no effect on take off times.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the contracting out of Coastguard services. [39479]

  Mr. Bowis
  Coastguard has already contracted out much of its support services and its chief executive is considering the possibility of contracting out aspects of the agency's training services.

  Driver Fatigue
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the extent to which driver fatigue was a significant contributory factor among(a) heavy goods drivers and (b) public service vehicles in the cause of road accidents involving (i) fatal, (ii) serious and (iii) slight injuries. [38201]
  372
  Mr. Bowis
  A recent survey of heavy goods vehicle and car drivers found that tiredness was a principal factor in around 10 per cent. of accidents. The survey did not cover public service vehicle drivers. The survey included both damage-only and injury accidents. The number of fatal and serious accidents was too small to draw separate conclusions about.

  Air Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require air travel organisers' licence holders to ensure that all aircraft which they charter meet the United Kingdom standards of United Kingdom passenger liability insurance. [39360]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. My Department already requires evidence of adequate insurance to meet potential liabilities before granting permission for foreign aircraft to operate passenger services to and from the United Kingdom. However, the liability of air carriers in the event of loss or accident is a matter for each contracting state to determine in respect of its own carriers subject to minima, agreed internationally under the Warsaw convention.

  Ferry Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries that have signed the Stockholm agreement relating to ferry safety; and when the agreement comes into effect. [39392]

  Mr. Bowis
  As of 23 July 1996, the agreement had been signed by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The agreement will come into effect on 1 April 1997.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects all the requirements of the Stockholm agreement relating to ferry safety to have been met. [39393]

  Mr. Bowis
  The requirements of the Stockholm agreement will be implemented on a progressive basis between 1 April 1997 and 1 October 2002, in accordance with the internationally agreed timetable.

  Fuel Consumption (New Cars)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average mileage per gallon for new cars bought in Britain(a) in 1975, (b) in 1985 and (c) in 1995. [39841]

  Mr. Bowis
  The first year when average fuel consumption was calculated was 1978. The figure for 1995 is not yet available, but for 1978, 1985 and 1994, the figures are 30.91, 37.53 and 36.73 miles per gallon respectively.

  Port Waste Management Plans
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to establish a formal approval process for individual port waste management plans; if he will examine the need for additional resources for the Marine Safety Agency to carry out an approval process; and if he will make a statement. [39676]

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidelines issued by the Marine Safety Agency require local consultation between ports and their regular users in the preparation of port waste management
  373
  plans. We are currently consulting on proposed primary legislation which would enable the MSA to ensure that there is compliance with these guidelines.

  Accident Costs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of an accident resulting in(a) fatal, (b) serious and (c) slight injury. [38204]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 16 April 1996,Official Report, column 509.

  Wheel Loss
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 5, when he intends to update the information leaflet outlining aspects of wheel loss and suggesting ways of dealing with the problem. [38213]

  Mr. Bowis
  The British standard code of practice for the selection and care of tyres and wheels for commercial vehicles, BS AU50 part 2 section 7a, was published on 15 December 1995. The Department's leaflet will be revised to reflect the guidance in the code of practice and it is intended to issue the leaflet by the end of October 1996.

  Vehicle Fuel Trials
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the results of the trials on the use of(a) liquefied petroleum gas, (b) compressed natural gas, (c) biodiesel, (d) city-diesel and (e) electric vehicles, were concluded; and when the plans to publish them. [39755]

  Mr. Bowis
  The alternative fuels trails are not due for
  completion until the end of this year. Results will be published in the spring of 1997.

  Diesel Vehicles
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many urban-based heavy and car diesel vehicles are currently licensed; and what was the figure 10 years ago. [39754]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures for registered keepers of diesel-powered vehicles in Great Britain for 1985 and 1995, with those in London boroughs and former metropolitan counties at the end of 1995, are as follows:

  Total diesel registered keepers (thousands)

  Private and light goods

  Heavy goods vehicles

  Others

  All

  End of 1985

  396

  497

  584

  1,477

  End of 1995

  3,094

  415

  564

  4,073

  End of 1995 data:

  London

  242

  33

  27

  301

  Manchester

  155

  26

  12

  193

  Merseyside

  48

  7

  8

  62

  374

  Total diesel registered keepers (thousands)

  Private and light goods

  Heavy goods vehicles

  Others

  All

  South Yorkshire

  67

  10

  11

  88

  Tyne and Wear

  42

  5

  7

  54

  West Midlands

  221

  29

  13

  263

  West Yorkshire

  106

  17

  12

  135

  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the length of time required after the introduction of European directives 1 and 2 concerning the reduction in emission from diesel vehicles for the entire United Kingdom fleet to comply with the lower limits. [39762]

  Mr. Bowis
  Departmental models used to estimate emissions from the diesel vehicle fleet assume that fewer than 2 per cent. of cars, heavy lorries and buses will fail to comply with the more stringent standards after 15, 16 and 19 years respectively. Since buses are commonly re-engined, the latter figure should be treated with caution.

  Passenger Aircraft
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger aircraft more than(a) 15, (b) 20 and (c) 25 years old are registered by the Civil Aviation Authority. [39025]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The information, drawn from the UK register of civil aircraft as at 22 July 1996, is set out in the table:

  Aircraft over 5,700 kg maximum take-off weight with a Transport Category (Passenger) Certificate of Airworthiness

  Construction date

  Number on the UK register of civil aircraft

  1977 to 1981

  85

  1972 to 1976

  34

  Before 1972

  88

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger aircraft more than(a) 15, (b) 20 and (c) 25 years old are in service with (i) Air 2000, (ii) Air UK, (iii) Virgin, (iv) British Midland and (v) British Airways. [39024]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The information, drawn from the UK register of civil aircraft as at 22 July 1996, is set out in the table:

  Aircraft over 5,700kg maximum take-off weight with a Transport Category (Passenger) Certificate of Airworthiness

  Airline

  Number of aircraft

  Constructed 1977 to 1981

  Constructed 1972 to 1976

  Constructed before 1972

  Air 2000

  0

  0

  0

  Air UK

  1

  0

  6

  British Airways

  38

  15

  7

  375

  Aircraft over 5,700kg maximum take-off weight with a Transport Category (Passenger) Certificate of Airworthiness

  Airline

  Number of aircraft

  Constructed 1977 to 1981

  Constructed 1972 to 1976

  Constructed before 1972

  British Midlands Airways

  0

  0

  0

  Virgin Atlantic Airways

  0

  3

  3

  Contractors (Financial Penalties)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contractors were subject to financial penalties for late completion of contracted works on the trunk road network; and what was the additional revenue raised from those penalties, in each year since 1991. [39291]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 24 July 1996:
  As you know, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many contractors were subject to financial penalties for late completion of contracted works on the trunk road network; and what was the additional revenue raised from those penalties, in each year since 1991.
  The information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Search and Rescue
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the action his Department has taken for each of the recommendations made in (i) the Transport Committee's first report of Session 1994–95, on the future of the Coastguard Service (HC89) and (ii) the Transport Committee's first report of Session 1993–94 on the provision of search and rescue services (HC95). [39373]

  Mr. Bowis
  (i) The report made no specific recommendations.

  (ii) An interdepartmental review group was set up in July 1995 to examine the national requirement for search and rescue helicopters. The group has submitted its report and a copy has been placed in the Library. A formal consultation was undertaken on the conclusions of the report and on the future locations of search and rescue helicopters on the south coast. We are currently considering the results of that consultation.

  Flight Statistics
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the percentage of flights operated on scheduled services by British Airways and its franchises from(a) all United Kingdom airports, (b) London area airports and (c) Heathrow and Gatwick. [39500]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1995, British Airways and its franchisees operated 38 per cent. of lights from all United Kingdom airports, 37 per cent. of those from London area airports and 42 per cent. of those at Heathrow or Gatwick taken together.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require the Civil Aviation Authority to give greater representation on its board to passenger representatives. [39463]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. The board is not designed to represent specific groups. Passenger interests are safeguarded in other ways. For example, there exists the Air Transport Users Council which was set up by the CAA in 1973 to assist it in safeguarding the interests of airline users, as well as advising the CAA on matters of interest to air transport users.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent review he has conducted of the role, functions and structure of the non-ATC related parts of the Civil Aviation Authority; and if he will make a statement. [39461]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is currently reviewing the role of the economic regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority and its relations with the Department of Transport and other agencies. No decisions have yet been reached on the review's conclusions.

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that the reduction in planned expenditure on roads will not have an adverse effect on(a) routine maintenance of motorways and trunk roads, (b) road marking and traffic sign replacement, (c) grass cutting, litter collection and scavenging and (d) road safety measures; and if he will make a statement. [39266]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Simon Coombs, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question asking how he proposes to ensure that the reduction in planned expenditure on roads will not have an adverse effect on (a) routine maintenance of motorways and trunk roads, (b) road marking and traffic sign replacement, (c) grass cutting, litter collection and scavenging, and (d) road safety measures.
  The Highways Agency has reacted professionally and methodically to the reductions in funds available for trunk roads in the financial year 1996/97. As regards routine maintenance, we have identified and discussed with our Maintenance Agents areas of work where a temporary reduction in, or cessation of, activity would have least effect on safety and serviceability. For example, grass cutting will only be carried out where necessary to maintain safety and litter collecting and scavenging only as necessary for safety or to meet the requirements of environmental legislation.
  Programmes of capital maintenance works have been thoroughly examined, using value management and value engineering techniques, to ensure that the Agency's prime objectives of safety and serviceability are achieved as economically as possible. Some schemes, providing good value for money, have had to be postponed until next year.
  We have made a small contingency provision to ensure that all urgent safety problems will be investigated and work essential to maintaining safety will be carried out.

  Road Surfaces
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future use of porous asphalt and whisper concrete as surfaces on motorways and trunk roads. [39494]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the future use of porous asphalt and whisper concrete as surfaces on motorways and trunk roads.
  It is the Agency's standard practice to invite bids for road construction leaving the tenderers as many options to choose from as is technically possible. In the case of porous asphalt its use has been permitted since 1993. Its adoption is encouraged where conditions are technically suitable and where the benefits can be shown to outweigh the higher costs associated with its use.
  In the case of whisper concrete following the successful completion of trials its use was permitted from this Spring as an option for all trunk roads and motorways. Where flows exceed 75,000 vehicles per day whisper concrete is the only permitted concrete running surface.

  M6 and M1 (Congestion)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for congestion on the M6 and M1 of the use of Heathrow and Gatwick airports by passengers from northern England. [39402]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what assessment he has made of the implications for congestion on the M6 and M1 of the use of Heathrow and Gatwick Airports by passengers from northern England.
  We have made no such assessment.

  M6
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made in the review to determine the practicality of small-scale improvements on the M6 between the west midlands and the north-west, announced in the document, "Managing the Trunk Road Programme;" and if these schemes are considered main programme or longer term schemes. [39493]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about M6 widening.
  We have made good progress with the reviews of the widening schemes between Junctions 11 and 16 in Staffordshire and Junctions 16 and 19 in Cheshire.
  378
  The reviews aim to reduce the scale and impact of the schemes, obtain best value for money and to protect the environment. All objections and comments on the published schemes are being taken into account as part of the review.
  The M6 in the West Midlands and the North West is a strategically important route in need of additional capacity. The widening schemes between these junctions are in the main programme.

  Road Programme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of schemes in the current road programme which have had their route protection orders removed; and what effects this will have on their programmes for construction. [39492]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if he will list the number of schemes in the current road programme which have had their route protection orders removed; and what effects this will have on their programmes for construction.
  For schemes in the current main programme no route protection notifications to local authorities have been removed. For schemes in the longer term programme, I have set out the schemes which have had their route protection withdrawn. Given current funding constraints, preparation work on all schemes in the longer term programme has been stopped and will be brought forward only after substantial progress has been made with the main programme.

  A2 Kidbrooke Park Road Interchange improvement

  A23 Handcross-Warninglid

  A40 Witney-Cassington

  A40 Witney-Stuart Farm

  A46 Upper Swainswick-Pennsylvania

  A46 Pennsylvania-Tormarton

  M27 Junction 4 to 11

  Air Travel (Staff)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the number of people employed by(a) airlines and (b) airports in the United Kingdom. [39509]

  Mr. Bowis
  Statistics on employment in air transport in the UK can be found in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1995", table 1.26.

  Disabled Passengers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will encourage United Kingdom airports to spread charges for handling of disabled passengers across all passengers. [39506]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a commercial matter for aiports and airlines to decide.

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch Report
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the air accidents investigation branch report into the engine failure suffered by a Boeing 737, registration No. G-OBMM in 1995. [39369]
  379
  Mr. Bowis
  The report will be published on Thursday 25 July 1996.

  Commercial Airlines (Revenue)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total revenues received by the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services from commercial airlines for the most recent year for which data are available. [39462]

  Mr. Bowis
  The CAA has assessed that, in 1995–96 £464.4 million was received, of which £428.3 million was received by NATS.

  Roadside Checks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport(a) how many roadside spot checks are planned to be undertaken in Scotland by Vehicle Inspectorate officers during 1996–97; [38209]

  (2) how many (a) heavy goods vehicles and (b) public service vehicles were (i) examined at roadside spot checks and (ii) issued with immediate prohibition notices by Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement officers broken down by traffic area office in each of the last five years; [38150]

  (3) how many heavy goods vehicles were weighed by the Vehicle Inspectorate for each of the last five years; [38210]

  (4) if he will list the 10 most common mechanical defects found on (a) heavy goods vehicles and (b) public service vehicles at roadside spot checks; [38211]

  (5) what actions are available to enforcement officers when an unlicensed heavy goods vehicle is discovered at a roadside check. [38145]

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on:

  1 The 10 most common mechanical defects found at roadside spot checks;

  2 The number of HGVs weighed for the last 5 years';

  3 Action available to enforcement officers if an unlicensed HGV is discovered at a roadside check;

  4 The number of HGVs and PSVs issued with immediate prohibitions at roadside checks by traffic area for the last 5 years; and

  5 The number of roadside spot checks planned for Scotland in 1996/97.

  Information on the 10 most common mechanical defects at roadside spot checks for HGVs and PSVs can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The number of HGVs weighed by VI for each of the last 5 years was:

  1991/92: 119,758

  1992/93: 124,004

  1993/94: 100,453

  1994/95: 120,297

  1995/96: 107,417

  380
  Details of the number of HGVs and PSVs i. examined at roadside spot checks and ii. issued with immediate prohibition notices in each of the last 5 years are shown in the attached table.
  If enforcement officers discover an unlicensed heavy goods vehicle at a roadside check they can report the operator for prosecution or for investigation. If the vehicle stopped has serious roadworthiness defects and the operator is unlicensed, the vehicle will be prohibited and the operator will be prosecuted for the mechanical defects and the unauthorised use of the vehicle.
  The number of roadside spot checks planned for Scotland is 587 (including special multi-agency checks). The numbers planned may vary, for example because of weather conditions or availability of the police. Checks in addition to these may also be arranged if police resources allow or if we are asked by the Department to carry out any particular special checks.

  (a) HGV

  (i) Spot checks

  (ii) Immediate prohibitions

  1995–96

  Scotland

  10,932

  977

  North West

  20,682

  1,785

  North East

  18,958

  1,672

  Western

  18,354

  1,550

  South Wales

  5,583

  357

  West Midlands

  13,201

  1,217

  East

  21,119

  1,235

  South East

  16,434

  1,416

  National

  125,286

  10,209

  1994–95

  Scotland

  13,278

  844

  North West

  22,565

  1,703

  North East

  18,577

  1,377

  Western

  19,395

  1,482

  South Wales

  5,571

  278

  West Midlands

  12,641

  1,161

  East

  19,961

  1,412

  South East

  18,047

  1,446

  National

  130,035

  9,703

  1993–94

  Scotland

  19,141

  1,330

  North West

  22,728

  1,377

  North East

  15,402

  1,279

  Western

  18,818

  1,404

  South Wales

  9,398

  473

  West Midlands

  15,348

  878

  East

  19,106

  1,358

  South East

  14,325

  852

  National

  134,266

  8,951

  1992–95

  Scotland

  13,588

  1,258

  North West

  24,313

  1,510

  North East

  20,291

  1,141

  Western

  16,472

  1,275

  South Wales

  5,889

  457

  West Midlands

  10,145

  740

  East

  25,593

  1,516

  South East

  18,090

  1,271

  National

  134,381

  9,168

  1991–92

  Scotland

  10,684

  1,020

  North West

  19.244

  1,504

  North East

  17,021

  1,214

  Western

  13,609

  1,072

  South Wales and West Midlands

  15,205

  1,281

  East

  28,315

  1,631

  South East

  13,403

  960

  National

  117,461

  8,682

  381

  (b) PSV

  (i) Spot checks

  (ii) Immediate prohibitions

  1995–96

  Scotland

  4,377

  288

  North West

  5,656

  455

  North East

  6,145

  285

  Western

  3,816

  197

  South Wales

  1,837

  59

  West Midlands

  3,003

  103

  East

  4,777

  169

  South East

  4,516

  174

  National

  34,127

  1,730

  1994–95

  Scotland

  4,020

  203

  North West

  6,261

  432

  North East

  6,006

  240

  Western

  2,933

  155

  South Wales

  1,821

  68

  West Midlands

  2,441

  96

  East

  3,768

  174

  South East

  5,576

  277

  National

  32,826

  1,645

  1993–94

  Scotland

  4,292

  234

  North West

  5,191

  316

  North East

  4,604

  277

  Western

  2,947

  89

  South Wales

  2,035

  81

  West Midlands

  3,491

  86

  East

  3,060

  150

  South East

  4,066

  164

  National

  29,686

  1,397

  1992–93

  Scotland

  4,059

  264

  North West

  4,813

  245

  North East

  4,237

  138

  Western

  2,883

  139

  South Wales

  1,853

  110

  West Midlands

  2,471

  68

  East

  2,995

  124

  South East

  6,231

  211

  National

  29,542

  1,299

  1991–92

  Scotland

  3,105

  304

  North West

  2,650

  257

  North East

  3,594

  163

  Western

  2,081

  144

  South Wales and West Midlands

  3,989

  182

  East

  2,698

  178

  South East

  2,989

  245

  National

  21,106

  1,473

  Bypasses and Service Stations
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) road bypasses and (b) motorway service stations constructed in each financial year since 1991–92 together with their cost and location. [39288]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  382
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if he will list the (a) road bypasses and (b) motorway service stations constructed in each financial year since 1991–92 together with their cost and location.
  I have set out the bypasses and motorway service areas built since 1991–92 according to the financial year in which construction was completed. Since motorway service areas are built by private sector operators and the costs fall to them rather than the public purse, there is no comprehensive record of construction costs.

  Bypasses constructed in each financial year since 1991–92

  Title

  Location

  Works cost

  1991–92

  A11 Red Lodge Bypass

  Suffolk

  5.6

  A14 Kettering Southern Bypass

  Northamptonshire

  36.7

  A16 Louth Bypass

  Lincolnshire

  5.6

  A27 Brighton and Hove Bypass (Dyke Road-Patchem and Hangleton-Dyke Road)

  i East Sussex

  34.7

  A30 Zelah Bypass

  Cornwall

  3.9

  A35 Axminster Bypass

  Devon

  10.4

  A43 Blisworth and Milton Maisor Bypass

  Northamptonshire

  17.2

  A47 Castor—Ailsworth Bypass

  Cambridgeshire

  9.0

  A47 Eye Bypass

  Cambridgeshire

  7.2

  A518 Etwall Bypass

  Derbyshire

  3.5

  A59 Mellor Brook Bypass

  Lancashire

  2.6

  A595 Hensingham Bypass

  Cumbria

  7.4

  A6 Burton Latimer Bypass

  Northamptonshire

  2.3

  A6 Quorn—Mount Sorrel Bypass

  Leicestershire

  34.2

  A65 Draughton Bypass

  North Yorkshire

  3.0

  A650 Drighlington Bypass

  Leeds

  7.0

  A69 Brampton Bypass

  Cumbria

  5.8

  Total

  196.1

  1992–93

  A16 Ludborough Bypass

  Lincolnshire

  1.9

  A16 Stickford Bypass

  Lincolnshire

  1.3

  A27 Brighton and Hove Bypass (Patchem-Coldeen)

  East Sussex

  21.1

  A3 Liphook-Peterborough Bypasses

  Hampshire

  54.1

  A3 Milford Bypass

  Surrey

  9.4

  A41 Whitchurch Bypass

  Shropshire

  13.7

  A420 Kingston Bagpuize and Southmoor Bypass

  Oxfordshire

  6.0

  A47 Narborough Bypass

  Norfolk

  2.8

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass

  Norfolk

  11.5

  A5 Little Brickhill Bypass

  Buckinghamshire

  7.8

  A523 Macclesfield Relief Road (Bypass)

  Cheshire

  29.2

  A5A49 Telford-Shrewsbury Bypass

  Shropshire

  79.0

  A6 Market Harborough Bypass

  Leicestershire

  10.3

  Total

  248.0

  1993–94

  A14 Kettering Northern Bypass

  Northampton

  7.6

  A27 Crossbush Bypass

  West Sussex

  4.4

  A27 Westhampnett Bypass

  West Sussex

  10.6

  A39 Wadebridge Bypass

  Cornwall

  10.7

  A41 Berkhamsted Bypass

  Hertfordshire

  23.9

  A41 Kings Langley Bypass

  Hertfordshire

  27.2

  A41/A421 Bicester Bypass Stage 2 (A421 Bicester-Wendlebury (M40))

  Oxfordshire

  4.0

  A590 Dalton in Furness Bypass

  Cumbria

  9.0

  A595 Egremont Bypass

  Cumbria

  9.8

  A596 Wigton Bypass

  Cumbria

  6.9

  Total

  114.1

  1994–95

  M1 Leadenham Bypass

  Lincolnshire

  3.3

  A19 Easingwold Bypass

  North Yorkshire

  4.6

  A568 Widnes Eastern Bypass (North)

  Cheshire

  14.6

  A66 Stainmore-Banksgate Bypass

  Cumbria

  7.7

  Total

  30.2

  383

  Bypasses constructed in each financial year since 1991–92

  Title

  Location

  Works cost

  1995–96

  A17 Wigtoft—Sutterton Bypass

  Lincolnshire

  4.4

  A27 Brighton and Hove Bypass (Kingston-Hangleton)

  East Sussex

  19.5

  A30/A39 Indian Queens, Fraddon and

  Cornwall

  12.7

  St Columb Road Bypass

  A417 Brockworth Bypass

  Gloucestershire

  36.0

  A46 Leicester Western Bypass

  Leicestershire

  36.0

  A46 Norton—Lenchwick Bypass

  Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcestershire

  19.2

  A5 Fazeley, Two Gates and Wilnecote Bypass

  Staffordshire

  26.0

  A564 Foston, Hatton, Hilton Bypass

  Derbyshire

  19.4

  A65 Burley in Wharfedale Bypass

  Bradford MB

  5.5

  Total

  178.7

  MOTORWAY SERVICE AREAS CONSTRUCTED IN EACH FINANCIAL YEAR SINCE 1991–92

  1991–92: None

  1992–93: None

  1993–94: Strensham northbound replacement (M5 between Junctions 7 and 8)

  Tebay east (M6 between Junctions 38 and 39)

  Clacket Lane (M40 Junction 10)

  Cherwell Valley (M40 Junction 10)

  1994–95: Durham A1 (M)

  Warwick (M40 between Junctions 12 and 13)

  1995–96: Reading (M4 between Junctions 11 and 12)

  Strafford north (M6 between Junction 14 and 15)

  Birchanger Green (M11 Junction 8)

  1996–97: None.

WALES

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the animal welfare issues for which his Department has responsibility. [34284]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The Welsh Office has responsibility for the welfare of livestock on farm, at market, at slaughter, for the welfare of all animals during transport and for domestic, wild and captive animals covered by the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Dangerous Dogs Acts of 1989 and 1991.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) United Kingdom legislation, (b) EU legislation and (c) international treaties, conventions or other obligations concerning animal welfare for which his Department has responsibility. [34285]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The information requested is as follows:

  DOMESTIC LEGISLATION

  Welfare of animals on farm

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949 (Ch 70);

  The Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954 and 1964 (Ch 46 and Ch 39);

  Veterinary Surgeons (Exemptions) Order 1962 (SI 1962 No. 2557);

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (1966 Ch 36);

  384

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (1968 Ch 34);

  Veterinary Surgeons (Exemptions) Order 1973 (SI 1973 No. 308);

  The Docking of Pigs (Use of Anaesthetics) Order 1974 (SI 1974 No. 798);

  The Welfare of Livestock Deer Order 1980 (SI 1980 No. 593);

  The Removal of Antlers in Velvet (Anaesthetics) Order 1980 (SI 1980 No. 685);

  The Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) Regulations 1982 (SI 1982 No. 1884);

  The Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) (Amendment) Order 1982 (1982 No. 1626);

  Veterinary Surgeons (Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 1982 (SI 1982 No. 1627);

  The Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 114);

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 526);

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1991 (SI 1991 No. 1412);

  The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 2126).

  WELFARE OF ANIMALS AT MARKET

  The Welfare of Animals at Market Order 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2628);

  The Welfare of Animals at Market (Amendment) Order 1993 (SI 1993 No. 3085);

  The Welfare of Horses at Markets (and Other Places of Sale) Order 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2627).

  THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT

  The Transit of Animals Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 289);

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 399);

  The Animals (Sea Transport) Order 1930 (SI 1930 No. 923);

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1931 No. 750);

  The Transit of Animals (Sea Transport) (Amendment) Order 1939 (SI 1939 No. 5842);

  The Horses (Sea Transport) Order 1952 (SI 1952 No. 1291);

  The Horses (Sea Transport) (Amendment) Order 1958 (SI 1958 No. 1272);

  The Export of Horses (Veterinary Examinations) Order 1966 (SI 1966 No. 507);

  The Export of Horses and (Excepted Cases) Order 1969 (SI 1969 No. 1784);

  The Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 (SI 1973 No. 1377);

  The Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 (SI 1975 No. 1024);

  The Export of Horses and Ponies (Increase in Minimum Values) Order 1978 (SI 1978 No. 1748);

  The Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) (Amendment) Order 1979 (SI 1979 No. 1013);

  The Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981 (SI 1981 No. 1051);

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 815);

  The Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 851);

  The Welfare of Poultry (Transport) (Amendment) Order 1989 (SI 1989 No. 52);

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport Order (SI 1994 No. 3249);

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport (Amendment) Order 1995 (SI 1995 No. 131).

  385

  Welfare of animals at slaughter

  The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 731).

  Other Legislation which has Welfare Implications

  The Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 290);

  The Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1938 (SI No. 5694);

  Animal Health Act 1981 (Ch 22);

  Animal Health Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3293);

  Dangerous Dogs Acts 1989 and 1991;

  Protection of Badgers Act 1992;

  Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

  EC Legislation

  EC Directive 88/166 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens Kept in Battery Cages;

  EC Directive 91/628 on the Protection of Animals During Transport;

  EC Directive 91/629 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Calves;

  EC Directive 91/630 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs;

  EC Direction 93/119 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Slaughter or Killing;

  EC Directive 95/29 Amending EC Directive 91/628 on the Protection of Animals During Transport.

  EUROPEAN CONVENTIONS

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes;

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport;

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by group, division or other work unit the number of grades of staff working within his Department on animal welfare issues. [34286]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: Animal welfare matters are part of the duties of a grade 7, a higher executive officer, an executive officer and an administrative officer in the Agriculture Department of the Welsh Office and of an HEO and an EO in the local government division. Senior officers and lawyers deal with animal welfare as necessary.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of Government money has gone to the assisted places scheme since its inception. [38227]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Total Government expenditure on the assisted places scheme in Wales, since inception in 1981, amounts to some £23.7 million. This has enabled almost 1,900 students from lower income households to lave access to good educational opportunities in the independent sector.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public engagements he has carried out since his appointment. [38830]
  386
  Mr. Hague
  Since taking office I have undertaken at least 220 public engagements.

  Village Shops
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the consultation exercise undertaken on his proposals for rate relief for village shops. [39335]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Following the commitment given by my right hon. Friend in January this year, 325 copies of the consultation paper were issued to local authorities and to a wide range of organisations and many individuals who expressed an interest: 93 responses were received. Of these, 54 comment on the definition of a rural area for the purposes of the scheme and 18 suggest additional communities which should be included. We have carefully considered these responses and decided to include an additional 48 communities. The list will now comprise of all those communities which meet the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development definition of rurality, based on low population density, and all those communities which have a population in total of 3,000 or less and which border one or more communities which meet the OECD definition. This will bring in communities such as Llanrug in Gwynedd and Faenor in Ceredigion.

  A list of respondents to the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House, with the name of a person in the Welsh Office from whom copies of individual responses can be obtained. A list of communities to be covered by the rate of relief scheme, has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Decisions on other aspects of the scheme will be announced in due course.

  Purchase Grant Scheme
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the consultation exercise undertaken on his proposals for exempting rural areas in Wales from the purchase grant scheme for housing association tenants. [39635]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Following the commitment given in January this year by my right hon. Friend, around 200 copies of the consultation paper were issued to local authorities, housing associations and other interested organisations: 12 responses were received. I have carefully considered these. I am confirming the proposals for the exemption which recognises the scattered population pattern which characterises much of rural Wales and provide protection to those sensitive areas which need it most. I am not making any changes to the list of exempted areas upon which we consulted.

  The deadline for responses to the final consultation paper giving detailed proposals for England is 29 July. My right, hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be announcing the outcome in due course.

  A list of respondents to the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House, and this contains a contact point in the Welsh Office for copies of individual responses.
  387
  List of Respondents to the Consultation Paper "Purchase Grant Scheme for Housing Association Tenants in Wales—Rural Exemption Proposals"

  The Countryside Council for Wales;

  The Country Landowners Association;

  Glamorgan and Gwent Housing Association;

  Wrexham County Borough Council;

  Conwy County Borough Council;

  Monmouthshire County Council;

  City and County of Swansea;

  Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council;

  Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council;

  Vale of Glamorgan Council;

  Newport County Borough Council;

  The Chartered Institute of Housing.

  Copies of individual responses can be obtained from Mrs. K. M. Worsey on 01222 823903.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of how the proposed changes in the extra-contractual referral system reducing the prior notification and approval system will affect the access to treatment of patients of(a) fundholding and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [39691]

  Mr. Hague
  Proposed changes in the extra-contractual referral system will not reduce the access to treatment of patients of either fundholding or non-fundholding general practitioners.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those making representations concerning the contents of the departmental letters of 12 and 20 June concerning extra-contractual referral administration. [39715]

  Mr. Hague
  In response to departmental letters of 12 and 20 June about extra-contractual referrals, commetns were received from the following:

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  Derwen NHS Trust

  Rhondda NHS Trust

  Carmarthen & District NHS Trust

  Nevill Hall & District NHS Trust

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) cost of treatments no longer requiring to be notified to purchasers in advance of treatment by virtue of the 2 July letter of guidance to health authorities, trusts and fundholders (i) between 1 August 1996 and 31 March 1997 and (b) in a typical year; and what is the estimated net annual administrative cost saving; [39739]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the level of extra-contractual referral activity in Wales in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what proportion of the total cost of extra-contractual referral was for (a) tertiary referral and (b) emergency reasons; what the total cost
  388
  was of administering the extra-contractual referral system for the latest available financial year; and if he will make a statement. [39710]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of the requirement for notification of extra-contractual referrals from 1 August on the explicit exclusions from current contracts with trusts for certain interventions(a) on grounds of clinical ineffectiveness and (b) on all other grounds. [39743]

  Mr. Hague
  It is not anticipated that the abolition of the requirement for notification of ECRs from 1 August will have any effect on explicit exclusions from current contracts either on grounds of clinical ineffectiveness or on any other grounds.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current system for resolving disputed extra-contractual referral cases; and what proposals he has to revise the disputes procedure in the light of the new guidance letter of 2 July. [39705]

  Mr. Hague
  Disputed extra-contractual referral cases are referred to the Welsh Office for arbitration. Details were set out in guidance issued on 31 March 1995. It is not anticipated that these arrangements will be changed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he is making to consult non-fundholding GPs on the proposed changes in the notification procedure on extra-contractual referrals which terminate the requirement for trusts to seek prior approval from health authorities before providing elective treatment to patients outside existing contracts. [39716]

  Mr. Hague
  Health authorities will be expected to work closely with all GPs in their area to agree suitable arrangements for dealing with extra-contractual referrals for elective treatments following the proposed abolition of the requirement for trusts to seek prior approval.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what arrangements he is making to publicise the changes in the extra-contractual referral system due on 1 August; [39712]

  (2) what provision he made for non-fundholding GPs to be notified of the proposed changes in the extra-contractual referral system as regards (a) the termination of the requirement to notify purchasers of emergency or tertiary extra-contractual referrals and(b) the exceptions to the changes. [39714]

  Mr. Hague
  Health authorities, NHS trusts and GP fundholders received formal notification of changes in the extra-contractual referral system in departmental guidance issued on 2 July. In the normal way, health authorities will be expected to ensure that the information is brought to the attention of all general practitioners in their area.
  389
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of requirement for notification of extra-contractual referrals from 1 August on the practice of general practitioner fundholder contracts with trusts requiring prior authorisation in advance of elective tertiary referrals; and if he will make a statement. [39744]

  Mr. Hague
  The abolition of the requirement for prior notification of elective tertiary referrals will apply equally to general practitioner fundholder contracts and those of health authorities.

  Emergency Hospital Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Trust Executive Advisory Group in relation to the demand for medical emergency beds. [39674]

  Mr. Hague
  The chairman of the Trust Executive Advisory Group has written to my Department expressing a number of concerns about the allowance made for medical emergency care in health authority contracts for the present financial year.

  A joint action plan was agreed earlier this year between trusts and health authorities to minimise the risk of hospitals closing to emergency patients next winter. Health authorities have recently confirmed their commitment to this action plan and that this area of care is their top priority and the first call on the additional £55 million made available to them for 1996–97.

  Health authorities will shortly be sending my Department details of the allowance made for emergency admissions in their contracts for the present financial year. When this information is available, it will be possible to make an informed judgment of whether the concerns of trust chief executives are well based. If they are, health authorities will be asked to review their existing contracts and to adjust them accordingly.

  St. David's Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS trust and the Bro Taf health authority concerning the finalising of proposals for the replacement neighbourhood hospital on the St. David's hospital site. [39711]

  Mr. Hague
  None. My officials are in close touch with officers from both organistions who are responsible for preparing and agreeing the business case.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the fifth version of the Welsh ambulance policy and advisory group's proposals for Welsh ambulance trusts mergers; when it was received in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [39850]

  Mr. Hague
  I have not received any formal proposals. My Department would consult publicly on any formal 390
  application that was submitted and a copy would be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the introduction of a deficiency payments system for the under-30-month clean beef trade pending the return of normal market conditions; and if he will make a statement. [39713]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received representations from the Farmers Union of Wales asking for a deficiency payment system for the under-30-month clean beef trade.

  Resurgam Submarine Vessel
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will take steps to establish who(a) now owns the submarine vessel Resurgam and (b) has legal right of access to the vessel; and if he will make a statement; [39648]

  (2) if he will ensure that appropriate arrangements are made to salvage the submarine vessel Resurgam and to place it on public display in a suitable place; [39647]

  (3) what steps he is taking to protect against vandalism the British-powered submarine vessel Resurgam sunk off the north Wales coast in 1880 and found in October 1995. [39649]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Child Abuse
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 17 June,Official Report, columns 521–24, how long the tribunal of inquiry into north Wales child abuse is likely to sit. [40096]

  Mr. Hague
  I have discussed the question of a target date with Sir Ronald Waterhouse and have agreed with him that the aim should be for the tribunal to complete the taking of written and oral evidence by the end of 1997.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many parliamentary questions to his Department have been referred for answer to non-departmental public bodies for which he has responsibility, in each of the last six parliamentary sessions, and so far in the 1995–96 Session; and if he will make a statement. [38698]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The information requested is available only for the 1994–95 and current parliamentary Sessions.

  Parliamentary session

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of Parliamentary Questions referred to NDPBs

  38

  37

  391
  I have the discretion to decide whether, in answering a parliamentary question, I should ask the chief executive of the relevant NDPB to write direct to the hon. Member as an operational matter. Copies of all letters are placed in the Library of the House.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients receiving(a) hip replacement, (b) cataract extraction, (c) kidney transplant and (d) hernia operations carried out by the NHS in Wales had to wait

  Percentage of cases1 admitted in 1995–96 who waited

  Operation

  More than 6 months

  More than 9 months

  More than 12 months

  More than 15 months

  More than 18 months

  Hip replacements

  27.9

  16.0

  8.0

  3.3

  0.8

  Cataract extraction

  30.2

  19.1

  10.3

  3.8

  1.5

  Hernia operations

  16.4

  8.3

  3.7

  1.4

  0.8

  1 Based on data available for 1,529 hip replacements, 8,551 cataract extractions and 3,502 hernia operations.

  NHS Staff
  Mr Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by family health services authority the number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) administration and clerical staff and (f) managers in (i) 1990, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 1995. [39201]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the following table. It relates to general medical practitioners, the staff they employed and the staff directly employed by the former family health services authorities but does not include staff employed by NHS trusts or the former health authorities.

  Staff in post at 1 October (whole-time equivalent numbers except for doctors)

  1990

  1992

  1994

  1995

  Clwyd

  Doctors1

  224

  226

  228

  230

  Practice nurses

  53

  37

  70

  n/a

  GP receptionist/secretarial2

  262

  281

  298

  n/a

  Practice management staff

  39

  54

  56

  n/a

  FHSA managers

  n/a

  15

  15

  16

  FHSA administrative and clerical staff3

  n/a

  59

  59

  57

  Dyfed

  Doctors1

  212

  221

  225

  227

  Practice nurses

  69

  82

  87

  n/a

  GP receptionist/secretarial2

  217

  292

  291

  n/a

  Practice management staff

  34

  45

  55

  n/a

  FHSA managers

  n/a

  12

  14

  11

  FHSA administrative and clerical staff3

  n/a

  52

  60

  61

  Gwent

  Doctors1

  243

  245

  249

  252

  Practice nurses

  77

  87

  85

  n/a

  GP receptionist/secretarial2

  292

  268

  271

  n/a

  Practice management staff

  44

  49

  49

  n/a

  FHSA managers

  n/a

  7

  8

  8

  FHSA administrative and clerical staff3

  n/a

  60

  68

  64

  Gwvnedd

  Doctors1

  152

  157

  163

  167

  Practice nurses

  49

  55

  54

  n/a

  GP receptionist/secretarial2

  166

  177

  188

  n/a

  Practice management staff

  31

  32

  35

  n/a

  FHSA managers

  n/a

  14

  16

  15

  FHSA administrative and clerical staff3

  n/a

  46

  49

  47

  392
  for (i) more than six months, (ii) more than nine months, (iii) more than 12 months, (iv) more than 15 months and (v) more than 18 months in the most recent year for which figures are available. [38850]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the following table. Not all hospitals provide the relevant data and therefore percentages are based only on cases where full data are available. There is no information on kidney transplant patients for 1995–96 but in the preceding year all such patients had their operations within six months.

  Staff in post at 1 October (whole-time equivalent numbers except for doctors)

  1990

  1992

  1994

  1995

  Mid Glamorgan

  Doctors1

  296

  306

  304

  296

  Practice nurses

  76

  99

  144

  n/a

  GP receptionist/secretarial2

  358

  364

  544

  n/a

  Practice management staff

  26

  41

  X4

  n/a

  FHSA managers

  n/a

  13

  15

  17

  FHSA administrative and clerical staff3

  n/a

  69

  74

  68

  Powys

  Doctors1

  79

  78

  85

  87

  Practice nurses

  22

  21

  22

  n/a

  GP receptionist/secretarial2

  115

  101

  112

  n/a

  Practice management staff

  17

  18

  23

  n/a

  FHSA managers

  n/a

  8

  10

  10

  FHSA administrative and clerical staff3

  n/a

  26

  30

  27

  South Glamorgan

  Doctors1

  234

  239

  245

  250

  Practice nurses

  56

  63

  69

  n/a

  GP receptionist/secretarial2

  272

  298

  324

  n/a

  Practice management staff

  48

  56

  57

  n/a

  FHSA managers

  n/a

  7

  10

  10

  FHSA administrative and clerical staff3

  n/a

  60

  65

  66

  West Glamorgan

  Doctors1

  195

  204

  211

  210

  Practice nurses

  56

  75

  80

  n/a

  GP receptionist/secretarial2

  262

  274

  317

  n/a

  Practice management staff

  36

  56

  44

  n/a

  FHSA managers

  n/a

  6

  9

  9

  FHSA administrative and clerical staff3

  n/a

  48

  47

  48

  1 Numbers of unrestricted principals.

  2 Includes receptionists, secretarial/clerical staff and computer operators but excludes practice managers.

  3 Includes managers.

  n/a = Reliable information is not yet available.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the overall number of(a) administrative staff, (b) managerial staff, (c) nurses, (d) junior doctors and (e) other medical staff employed in each region for each of the last four years. [39202]
  393
  Mr. Jones
  The available information is given in the following table. The figures relate to staff directly employed by health authorities, NHS trusts, Welsh Health Common Services Authority and family health services authorities but excludes GPs and the staff they employ.

  Staff in post at 30 September (whole-time equivalent numbers)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Administrative and clerical staff1

  9,498

  10,082

  9,905

  9,875

  Managers

  893

  1,159

  1,292

  1,350

  Nursing and midwifery staff2

  25,555

  25,422

  25,220

  24,728

  Junior doctors3

  1,472

  1,561

  1,604

  1,651

  Other medical staff4

  1,333

  1,371

  1,438

  1,493

  1 Including managers, some of whom have been reclassified from other staff groups in recent years.

  2 Excluding pre-registration learner nurses.

  3 House officers, senior house officers, registrars and senior registrars.

  4 Other grades in the hospital service and medical staff in the community service.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils in each education authority in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [39192]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of full time equivalent pupils as at January 1995 in local education authority maintained schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,416

  3,949

  Bridgend

  12,729

  9,129

  Caerphilly

  17,807

  11,981

  Cardiff

  29,092

  19,450

  Carmarthenshire

  15,453

  11,845

  Ceredigion

  5,661

  4,949

  Conwy

  8,568

  3,098

  Denbighshire

  8,284

  6,580

  Flintshire

  13,875

  10,057

  Gwynedd

  9,904

  7,267

  Isle of Anglesey

  5,949

  4,938

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,571

  4.551

  Monmouthshire

  6,646

  5,224

  Neath Port Talbot

  13,508

  9,120

  Newport

  14,302

  9,489

  Pembrokeshire

  10,702

  8,067

  Powys

  11,060

  8,071

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  25,404

  17,627

  Swansea

  21,774

  14,230

  Torfaen

  9,370

  6,492

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  11,796

  5,556

  Wrexham

  11,757

  6,796

  Wales

  277,628

  188,466

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of administration for his Department, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [39190]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is contained in my Department's annual report, which was published in March 1996, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Beaches
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what step the Welsh Office has taken to improve the standards of Welsh beaches; how much funding has been given to projects designed to improve the quality of Welsh beaches; and if he will make a statement. [39090]

  Mr. Hague
  Since privatisation of the water industry in 1989, water undertakers have been engaged in a programme of improvements to coastal discharges designed to achieve compliance with the mandatory standards of the EC bathing water directive (76/160/EEC) at all identified bathing waters. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's programme of improvements approved in 1989 and costing over £200 million should be completed in 1997.

  In the five years to the year 2000 the company will invest a total of some £600 million on improvements to discharges affecting coastal waters. Together with the chairmen of the Wales tourist board and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water, I launched the green sea initiative on 1 May. The objective of the collaborative environmental initiative, which is unique to Wales, is to achieve the more stringent guideline standards under the bathing water directive around the coast of Wales and to aim for 50 blue flag beaches by the year 2000.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beaches in Wales failed to meet EU standards in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [39089]

  Mr. Hague
  The numbers of bathing waters in Wales identified under EC directive 76/160/EEC which passed and failed to meet the directive's mandatory bacteriological standards since 1990 are as follows:

  Year

  Number passing EC mandatory standards

  Number failing to meet EC mandatory standards

  1990

  35

  15

  1991

  45

  5

  1992

  39

  11

  1993

  42

  8

  1994

  38

  12

  1995

  49

  6

  Secretary of State (Work in Wales)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the percentage of his working time which he spends in Wales. [39078]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on Tuesday 4 June, column 369.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of 16-year-olds left school in Wales with no formal qualifications, for each education authority, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [39080]
  395
  Mr. Hague
  The readily available information for the years specified relates to those pupils, aged 16 and over, who left school without any GCSE, A or AS-level

  Number and percentage of pupils leaving school, aged 16 and over, without any GCSE, A or AS level qualifications

  Maintained schools in:

  1989–901

  1990–911

  1991–922

  1992–932

  1993–942

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  355

  7

  335

  8

  450

  10

  380

  9

  310

  7

  Dyfed

  565

  14

  570

  15

  335

  9

  405

  10

  350

  9

  Gwent

  815

  15

  900

  18

  645

  13

  635

  14

  620

  13

  Gwynedd

  325

  11

  280

  10

  235

  9

  205

  7

  145

  6

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,570

  24

  1,280

  20

  1,100

  19

  915

  16

  950

  17

  Powys

  105

  7

  45

  3

  75

  6

  65

  5

  70

  6

  South Glamorgan

  680

  15

  560

  13

  645

  14

  575

  14

  555

  13

  West Glamorgan

  650

  15

  385

  9

  500

  12

  470

  12

  375

  9

  Wales (including Independent Schools)

  5,080

  14

  4,400

  13

  4,030

  12

  3,695

  12

  3,395

  11

  1 From School Examinations Survey, of a sample of school leavers.

  2 From Intended Destinations of Pupils (RD1) Survey.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Welsh schools which have sold playing fields to private companies; and if he will make a statement. [39082]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Number of full time equivalent qualified teachers in LEA maintained primary schools1

  School year

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  1,799

  1,745

  1,636

  1,579

  1,540

  1,521

  1,494

  1,466

  Dyfed

  1,765

  1,671

  1,592

  1,536

  1,522

  1,465

  1,402

  1,431

  Gwent

  2,001

  1,907

  1,830

  1,782

  1,732

  1,729

  1,739

  1,769

  Gwynedd

  1,166

  1,149

  1,127

  1,058

  1,033

  995

  971

  950

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,577

  2,467

  2,371

  2,264

  2,332

  2,252

  2,241

  2,200

  Powys

  599

  578

  541

  544

  546

  515

  603

  505

  South Glamorgan

  1,590

  1,559

  1,492

  1,430

  1,423

  1,425

  1,434

  1,450

  West Glamorgan

  1,753

  1,710

  1,616

  1,546

  1,522

  1,497

  1,501

  1,542

  Wales

  13,250

  12,786

  12,205

  11,739

  11,651

  11,399

  11,285

  11,313

  School year

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  1,488

  1,482

  1,510

  1,550

  1,563

  1,610

  1,569

  1,547

  Dyfed

  1,448

  1,554

  1,597

  1,599

  1,614

  1,625

  1,636

  1,599

  Gwent

  1,745

  1,756

  1,798

  1,801

  1,801

  1,843

  1,855

  1,870

  Gwynedd

  958

  951

  945

  926

  907

  926

  905

  941

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,279

  2,308

  2,347

  2,311

  2,355

  2,386

  2,416

  2,409

  Powys

  514

  518

  519

  508

  510

  513

  522

  531

  South Glamorgan

  1,498

  1,536

  1,607

  1,691

  1,716

  1,737

  1,747

  1,798

  West Glamorgan

  1,552

  1,566

  1,609

  1,615

  1,617

  1,646

  1,673

  1,668

  Wales

  11,482

  11,671

  11,932

  12,001

  12,083

  12,286

  12,323

  12,363

  1 At January each year. Excluding Grant Maintained schools.

  The Maximum weekly hours worked figure used to calculate the full time equivalent teacher numbers was changed in 1988–89 from 25 to 32.5, with the effect of reducing the overall number of full time equivalent teachers.

  396
  qualifications. Some of these pupils will have achieved other qualifications, such as the certificate of education. The information is contained in the following table.

  School Teachers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) primary school and (b) secondary school teachers employed in each education authority in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [39084]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows.
  397

  Number of full time equivalent qualified teachers in LEA maintained secondary schools1

  School year

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  1,945

  1,956

  1,930

  1,973

  1,973

  1,933

  1,871

  1,821

  Dyfed

  1,636

  1,646

  1,658

  1,660

  1,659

  1,636

  1,601

  1,573

  Gwent

  2,453

  2,375

  2,356

  2,343

  2,330

  2,245

  2,186

  2,115

  Gwynedd

  1,178

  1,192

  1,212

  1,244

  1,269

  1,261

  1,252

  1,200

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,856

  2,835

  2,689

  2,700

  2,784

  2,721

  2,624

  2,550

  Powys

  574

  575

  575

  570

  579

  591

  585

  577

  South Glamorgan

  1,985

  1,957

  1,929

  1,938

  1,895

  1,843

  1,801

  1,723

  West Glamorgan

  1,912

  1,904

  1,876

  1,845

  1,806

  1,739

  1,684

  1,640

  Wales

  14,539

  14,440

  14,225

  14,273

  14,295

  13,970

  13,604

  13,199

  School year

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  1,804

  1,718

  1,679

  1,676

  1,711

  1,680

  1,431

  1,376

  Dyfed

  1,539

  1,495

  1,469

  1,472

  1,480

  1,517

  1,535

  1,528

  Gwent

  2,035

  1,966

  1,889

  1,857

  1,817

  1,825

  1,761

  1,754

  Gwynedd

  1,170

  1,142

  1,110

  1,082

  1,074

  1,074

  1,035

  1,019

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,459

  2,380

  2,297

  2,271

  2,328

  2,378

  2,452

  2,500

  Powys

  567

  555

  544

  529

  537

  535

  544

  553

  South Glamorgan

  1,665

  1,606

  1,651

  1,641

  1,656

  1,675

  1,504

  1,502

  West Glamorgan

  1,618

  1,592

  1,531

  1,498

  1,421

  1,427

  1,451

  1,462

  Wales

  12,857

  12,454

  12,170

  12,026

  12,024

  12,111

  11,713

  11,694

  1 At January each year. Excluding Grant Maintained schools.

  The Maximum weekly hours worked figure used to calculate the full time equivalent teacher numbers was changed in 1988–89 from 25 to32.5, with the effect of reducing the overall number of full time equivalent teachers.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the capital projects which have been funded by EU money in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [39086]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Wales how much(a) objective 2 and (b) objective 5b funding Wales received from the EU in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [39085]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Objective 21

  45.2

  24.2

  4.1

  Objective 5(a)2

  8.5

  7.3

  8.5

  EAGGF guidance fund

  Objective 5(b)1

  0.0

  21.2

  4.6

  1 Does not include ESF receipts which are the responsibility of DFEE.

  2 Does not include receipts that come to Wales via the Intervention Board Executive Agency (IBEA).

  Overall receipts of £241.3 million are anticipated for the programmes under objectives 2 and 5b which cover the years 1994–96 and 1994–99 respectively. The rules governing the drawdown of receipts from the European

  Average daily available beds

  Health Authority area

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1979

  3,052

  2,098

  3,883

  1,570

  4,943

  466

  1,266

  3,584

  2,594

  1980

  3,015

  2,064

  3,923

  1,568

  4,864

  467

  1,180

  3,515

  2,607

  398
  Commission produce an uneven distribution across financial years. The first tranches were received during 1994–95, on approval of the programmes. Subsequent tranches can be drawn down only when certified eligible expenditure, declared in claims submitted by recipients of grant, reaches specific trigger levels. Payments under these programmes continue into the subsequent two financial years following the closure of the programme.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of people currently on housing waiting lists in each local authority in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [39088]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of hospital beds available for use in each Welsh health authority in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [39092]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is given in the following table. Data for NHS trusts are included within the health authority area in which the trust was situated. The changes in bed numbers reflect shorter hospital stays and more patients requiring long-term care being treated in the community. Over the same period of time the number of in-patients and day cases admitted to hospitals in Wales has almost doubled.
  399

  Average daily available beds

  Health Authority area

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1981

  2,991

  2,015

  3,836

  1,545

  4,793

  461

  1,161

  3,521

  2,618

  1982

  2,926

  1,800

  3,714

  1,529

  4,726

  473

  1,144

  3,523

  2,606

  1983–84

  2,946

  1,845

  3,697

  1,512

  4,725

  476

  1,072

  3,555

  2,584

  1984–85

  2,869

  1,796

  3,664

  1,564

  4,749

  465

  1,086

  3,553

  2,548

  1985–86

  2,792

  1,764

  3,595

  1,619

  4,585

  472

  1,049

  3,536

  2,587

  1986–87

  2,759

  1,737

  3,500

  1,628

  4,476

  472

  1,000

  3,434

  2,559

  1987–88

  2,669

  1,659

  3,477

  1,599

  4,364

  453

  998

  3,390

  2,494

  1988–89

  2,563

  1,623

  3,344

  1,594

  4,232

  470

  952

  3,357

  2,369

  1989–90

  2,443

  1,579

  3,208

  1,587

  4,047

  469

  908

  3,272

  2,343

  1990–91

  2,362

  1,562

  3,120

  1,552

  3,959

  460

  896

  3,203

  2,300

  1991–92

  2,304

  1,507

  2,889

  1,426

  3,826

  443

  848

  3,110

  2,288

  1992–93

  2,252

  1,491

  2,778

  1,434

  3,646

  437

  854

  2,940

  2,244

  1993–94

  2,168

  1,454

  2,630

  1,420

  3,499

  438

  815

  2,834

  2,217

  1994–95

  2,083

  1,369

  2,421

  1,431

  3,302

  424

  773

  2,808

  2,224

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) managers and (b) senior managers employed by each (i) Welsh health authority and (ii) Welsh health trust, and in total, in each applicable year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [39075]

  Mr. Hague
  Information on staff classified as managers as a separate group is available from 1987 but

  Managers in post (whole-time equivalent numbers) at 30 September

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Health authorities including staff in directly managed units and staff directly employed by FHSAs

  Clwyd

  6

  10

  27

  49

  99

  136

  40

  35

  37

  Dyfed

  4

  7

  22

  50

  83

  70

  48

  39

  36

  Gwent

  3

  6

  7

  54

  77

  90

  48

  30

  30

  Gwynedd

  5

  8

  8

  21

  32

  66

  74

  28

  27

  Mid Glamorgan

  6

  10

  12

  32

  90

  103

  119

  81

  77

  Powys

  2

  3

  8

  26

  39

  39

  15

  16

  16

  South Glamorgan

  4

  8

  61

  92

  142

  194

  159

  178

  43

  West Glamorgan

  5

  7

  29

  67

  80

  89

  78

  59

  54

  WHCSA1

  1

  5

  13

  46

  71

  86

  128

  153

  141

  NHS Trusts

  Bridgend and District

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  29

  35

  36

  Cardiff Community Healthcare

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  45

  Carmarthen and District

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  21

  22

  24

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  16

  20

  21

  Clwydian Community Care

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  53

  54

  52

  Derwen

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  19

  20

  East Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20

  23

  Glan Clwyd Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  29

  28

  Glan Hafren

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  53

  52

  Gwent Community

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  49

  58

  69

  Gwynedd Community Health

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23

  25

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  9

  Llandough

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  72

  72

  78

  Lanelli/Dinefwr

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  17

  19

  22

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  32

  36

  Morriston

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  22

  38

  Nevill Hall and District

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  18

  20

  North Wales Ambulance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  11

  Pembrokeshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  21

  21

  17

  17

  Powys Health Care

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  37

  37

  31

  Rhondda Health Care

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20

  29

  South and East Wales Ambulance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  25

  25

  400
  data for managers and senior managers cannot be split reliably. The figures are given in the following table but data are not comparable from year to year. Later years' figures include staff who have been reclassified as managers following the extension of senior managers terms and conditions of service to allow inclusion of other staff. Information on the number of administrative and clerical staff, including managers, in Wales since 1979 is also shown in a following table.
  401

  Managers in post (whole-time equivalent numbers) at 30 September

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Swansea

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  17

  17

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  108

  University Dental Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  Velindre

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  12

  West Wales Ambulance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  30

  32

  Wales

  36

  64

  187

  436

  711

  893

  1,159

  1,292

  1,350

  1Welsh Health Common Services Authority including Health Promotion Wales.

  n/a = not applicable.

  Administrative and clerical staff (including managers) in post (whole-time equivalent numbers) at 30 September

  Number

  1979

  6,229

  1980

  6,287

  1981

  6,398

  1982

  6,446

  1983

  6,530

  1984

  6,675

  1985

  6,837

  1986

  6,969

  1987

  7,136

  1988

  7,326

  1989

  7,667

  1990

  8,185

  1991

  8,865

  1992

  9,498

  1993

  10,082

  1994

  9,905

  1995

  9,875

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of(a) three-year-old and (b) four-year-old children currently receiving nursery education in Wales; what is his estimate of the change in the number of three and four-year-olds who would receive nursery education under the nursery voucher scheme; and what evidence this estimate is based on. [39096]

  Mr. Hague
  At January 1995, an estimated 19,625 three-year-olds and 35,031 four-year-olds were in maintained and independent schools1. The voucher scheme will enable the parents of all four-year-olds to seek nursery education for their children for a full three terms in the setting of their choice, which is not always available under current arrangements. Take-up will depend on parental choice and the availability of places. The voucher scheme need not affect provision for three-year-olds, which remains at the discretion of local education authorities.
  1Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools No. 4 1996; Table 2.2.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many 11 to 16-year-old pupils are 402
  (a) permanently excluded from (i) local education authority secondary schools and (ii) grant-maintained secondary schools, for the most recent year for which figures are available and (b) have been admitted following permanent exclusion from another school to (1) local education authority secondary schools and (2) grant-maintained secondary schools; and if he will make a statement. [39079]

  Mr. Hague
  The information available is in respect of pupils of all ages. In the 1994–95 academic year (i) 367 pupils were permanently excluded from local education authority secondary schools and (ii) 31 pupils were permanently excluded from grant-maintained secondary schools. Information on the numbers admitted to schools following permanent exclusion from another school is not currently available centrally.

  Empty Council Properties
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many empty local authority properties there are in each local authority in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [39118]

  Mr. Hague
  The information the hon. and learned Member has requested is not yet available by unitary authority as the figures are gathered on an annual basis. However, the following table shows the numbers of vacant properties in the areas of the old district councils.

  Vacant local authority dwellings1

  Number of vacant dwellings

  Aberconwy

  16

  Alyn and Deeside*

  88

  Arfon

  84

  Blaenau Gwent

  140

  Brecknock

  7

  Cardiff

  284

  Carmarthen

  8

  Ceredigion

  23

  Colwyn

  40

  Cynon Valley

  75

  Delyn*

  33

  Dinefwr

  33

  Dwyfor

  23

  Glyndwr

  26

  Islwyn

  61

  Llanelli

  160

  Lliw Valley

  60

  Meirionnydd*

  22

  Merthyr Tydfil

  203

  403

  Vacant local authority dwellings1

  Number of vacant dwellings

  Monmouth

  33

  Montgomeryshire

  20

  Neath

  118

  Newport

  140

  Ogwr

  325

  Port Talbot

  136

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  63

  Radnorshire

  22

  Rhondda

  140

  Rhuddlan

  11

  Rhymney Valley

  99

  South Pembrokeshire

  15

  Swansea

  320

  Taff-Ely

  67

  Torfaen

  281

  Vale of Glamorgan

  97

  Number of people statutorily recognised as homeless

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Aberconwy

  137

  104

  151

  148

  187

  195

  Alyn and Deeside

  474

  499

  633

  471

  476

  536

  Arfon

  77

  93

  103

  87

  56

  85

  Blaenau Gwent

  841

  761

  417

  668

  591

  584

  Brecknock

  269

  318

  318

  281

  359

  226

  Cardiff

  2,483

  4,052

  4,555

  5,649

  4,638

  2,052

  Carmarthen

  189

  227

  363

  301

  282

  259

  Ceredigion

  331

  373

  340

  359

  269

  288

  Colwyn

  103

  178

  176

  274

  241

  210

  Cynon Valley

  623

  1,017

  543

  434

  241

  243

  Delyn

  825

  683

  503

  384

  414

  281

  Dinefwr

  181

  410

  542

  626

  519

  375

  Dwyfor

  162

  127

  104

  97

  65

  87

  Glyndwr

  46

  87

  70

  86

  58

  91

  Islwyn

  370

  399

  414

  442

  807

  332

  Llanelli

  297

  383

  284

  259

  241

  156

  Lliw Valley

  379

  369

  192

  169

  190

  111

  Meirionnydd

  250

  257

  174

  141

  145

  174

  Merthyr Tydfil

  496

  365

  238

  355

  296

  385

  Monmouth

  281

  388

  286

  338

  278

  247

  Montgomeryshire

  188

  259

  296

  273

  251

  316

  Neath

  610

  656

  757

  652

  526

  514

  Newport

  2,696

  2,936

  2,283

  1,819

  1,540

  1,414

  Ogwr

  1,332

  1,809

  2,095

  2,520

  2,260

  2,693

  Port Talbot

  303

  340

  369

  363

  308

  269

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  209

  255

  359

  311

  269

  312

  Radnorshire

  64

  45

  82

  55

  100

  98

  Rhondda

  166

  358

  374

  240

  192

  212

  Rhuddlan

  293

  177

  91

  162

  111

  143

  Rhymney Valley

  439

  395

  335

  424

  340

  333

  South Pembrokeshire

  248

  205

  171

  214

  192

  231

  Swansea

  450

  1,779

  1,622

  1,864

  3,072

  2,506

  Taff-Ely

  568

  743

  770

  845

  612

  584

  Torfaen

  1,216

  1,038

  952

  818

  737

  410

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,160

  1,184

  1,139

  458

  391

  553

  Wrexham Maelor

  863

  730

  864

  613

  692

  660

  Ynys Mon

  97

  111

  204

  294

  176

  197

  Wales

  19,716

  24,110

  23,169

  23,494

  22,122

  18,362

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage of(a) primary school children and (b) secondary school children, who are taught in classes of 30 or more in Wales, and if he will make a statement. [39193]
  404

  Vacant local authority dwellings1

  Number of vacant dwellings

  Wrexham Maelor

  177

  Ynys Mon

  71

  Wales

  3,521

  1The data relate to the position on 1 April 1996 except when marked* where they relate to 1 April 1995.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were statutorily recognised as homeless in each Welsh local authority in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [39191]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Mr. Hague
  Information about primary school class sizes is collected centrally only in respect of the number of classes, not the number of pupils in the classes. Twenty-two per cent. of ordinary classes in primary schools had more than 30 pupils at January 1995. The information requested in respect of secondary school class sizes is not collected centrally.
  405
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what research he has evaluated on the effect of class size on(a) primary and (b) secondary school children's education; and if he will make a statement; [39076]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the average size of classes in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales. [39117]

  Mr. Hague
  Average class sizes in 1994–95—the latest year for which figures are available—were 20.2 in secondary schools and 25.9 in primary schools.

  It is for individual schools to determine class sizes according to their own circumstances and priorities.

  I have made no evaluations of research in this area. Good education depends on good planning and effective teaching.

  In-patient Admissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of ordinary in-patient admissions by region in each of the last four years. [39203]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table. Data for NHS trusts are included within the health authority area in which the trust was situated.

  Number of in-patient cases1

  Health authority area

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–962

  Clwyd

  73,209

  72,527

  73,906

  69,876

  East Dyfed

  40,606

  42,353

  41,033

  39,747

  Gwent

  74,455

  75,450

  74,423

  73,381

  Gwynedd

  39,567

  40,123

  40,421

  40,180

  Mid Glamorgan

  96,152

  97,597

  98,766

  101,283

  Pembrokeshire

  17,613

  17,131

  17,437

  17,714

  Powys

  9,180

  8,962

  9,736

  9,718

  South Glamorgan

  83,940

  84,105

  84,268

  86,732

  West Glamorgan

  69,625

  69,907

  73,427

  75,177

  Total

  504,347

  508,155

  513,417

  513,808

  1Discharges and deaths.

  2Provisional.

  MRSA
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wales that have recorded incidents of MRSA—methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—since 1990; and how many patients suffered in each incident. [39020]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 22 January,Official Report, column 102. Data available from the MRSA surveillance project under way in Wales need to be addressed with caution. Data from this project are shown in the following table:

  Laboratory confirmed cases of MRSA in Wales

  Laboratory

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Bangor Public Health Laboratory

  92

  132

  113

  Bridgend Princess of Wales

  0

  0

  12

  Bronglais Hospital

  9

  25

  28

  406

  Laboratory confirmed cases of MRSA in Wales

  Laboratory

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Caerphilly Hospital

  18

  29

  55

  Cardiff Public Health Laboratory

  5

  29

  55

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  179

  0

  0

  Carmarthen Public Health Laboratory

  18

  36

  49

  East Glamorgan Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  Llandough Hospital

  104

  19

  204

  Llanelli Prince Phillip

  18

  0

  0

  Merthyr Prince Charles

  80

  93

  50

  Nevill Hall

  1

  0

  145

  Newport Royal Gwent

  2

  2

  53

  Rhyl Public Health Laboratory

  3

  4

  31

  Swansea Morriston

  9

  0

  0

  Swansea Singleton

  2

  65

  219

  Withybush Hospital

  1

  0

  13

  Wrexham

  0

  8

  149

  Wales

  541

  442

  1,176

  Source:

  CDSC Welsh Unit MRSA Surveillance Programme in Wales.

  Notes:

  Data on MRSA collected during the period 1994 to 22 July 1996.

  Completeness of reporting by laboratory is variable.

  Increased emphasis was placed on reporting in 1996 and additional features requested.

  Data may include some GP referrals.

  The numbers indicated are patients identified with MRSA. Only a proportion of these will have clinical illness, (estimated at 50 per cent.) due to MRSA infection. The remainder will be carriers of the organism.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the cottage hospitals which have been closed in Wales since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [39091]

  Mr. Hague
  Hospitals which have been closed since 1979 and were not district general or psychiatric hospitals are given in the following list. The list excludes St. Lawrence hospital, Chepstow and Talgarn miners rehabilitation hospital which were not classed as cottage hospitals. During the same period six cottage hospitals have opened.

  The NHS in Wales is treating more patients than ever. Since 1979 the number of in-patients and day cases admitted to hospitals has nearly doubled and the number of new out-patients seen has increased by about 50 per cent.

  Adelina Patti

  Allt-yr-yn

  Blackmill

  Bridgend and District

  Caernarfon Cottage

  Catherine Gladstone

  Chatsworth House

  Cefn Hirgoed

  Cefn Mably

  Children's ENT, Cardiff

  Cilymaenllwyd

  Colwyn Bat Maternity

  Cwmdonkin

  Druid

  Energlyn

  Fedw Hir

  Galltysil

  407

  Glan Ely

  Glyncornel

  Gors Maternity

  Groesynyd

  LLangwyfan

  Llwynderw

  Madoc Memorial

  Merthyr General

  Mount Pleasant, West Glamorgan

  Neale Kent

  Neath Annexe

  Pentwyn Cottage

  Pontypool and District

  Pontypridd Cottage

  Port Talbot1

  Prince Edward's War Memorial

  Rhiwfelin

  Snatchwood

  St. David's, Brecon

  St. David's Cardiff

  St. David's, Gwynedd

  Stanley Sailors

  Tyntyla

  1As no in-patients are treated the building is no longer classed as a hospital.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the expenditure by his Department on crime prevention, in each of the last five years for which the figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [39077]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has no formal policy responsibility for crime prevention, although some expenditure within Welsh Office programmes is for crime prevention activity.

  Identifiable Welsh Office expenditure on crime prevention in each of the last three years is listed as follows:

  1994–95: £1,083,000

  1995–96: £1,729,000

  1996–97: £1,832,000

  Comparable figures are not available for previous years.

  Other schemes funded by the Welsh Office also include elements of crime prevention, but it is impossible to quantify the amounts specific to it.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh language schemes as set out in the Welsh Language Act 1994 have been(a) submitted to and (b) approved by the Welsh Office; and if he will make a statement. [39081]

  Mr. Hague
  This is an operational matter for the Welsh Language Board, established by the Welsh Language Act 1993, the responsibilities of which include the receipt and 408
  approval of schemes. I have asked the chief executive to write directly to the hon. Member and will place a copy of his letter in the Library of the House.

  Education Authority Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Welsh Office grant for each education authority in Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [39083]

  Mr. Hague
  Support for local government spending through revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates is not hypothecated to specific services. Allocations of education related specific grants paid to local authorities are shown in the following table: Details of grant allocations to unitary authorities for 1996–97 are not available.

  Specific and supplementary grants relating to education1

  £ Million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Clwyd

  15.1

  21.9

  25.5

  25.9

  22.0

  20.1

  Dyfed

  15.7

  21.6

  25.8

  26.1

  22.9

  21.5

  Gwent

  16.3

  23.5

  28.6

  28.5

  23.8

  23.4

  Gwynedd

  11.0

  15.8

  17.1

  17.6

  15.3

  14.3

  Mid Glamorgan

  15.9

  24.2

  27.5

  28.9

  17.8

  22.5

  Powys

  4.5

  6.7

  8.0

  7.8

  6.7

  6.1

  South Glamorgan

  16.0

  23.1

  28.2

  28.9

  24.6

  20.9

  WestGlamorgan

  14.9

  20.7

  23.5

  23.2

  20.0

  18.0

  1Includes grants for Education Support and Training (GEST), Welsh language education, education of children of travellers and displaced persons, mandatory student awards, training agency (TVEI) and Work Related Further Education (WRFE).

  Forestry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of forest have been cut down and built on since 1979; what percentage of the total area of forest in Wales this represents; and if he will make a statement. [39087]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Housing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing association houses were built in each Welsh local authority in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [39093]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is given in the following table. The numbers shown are based on local authority returns which may underestimate the level of activity.

  New housing association dwellings completed, by district 1993 to 1995

  District

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Aberconwy

  82

  72

  87

  Alyn and Deeside

  50

  23

  107

  Arfon

  74

  70

  29

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  3

  71

  Brecknock

  21

  71

  54

  Cardiff

  420

  385

  356

  Carmarthen

  45

  24

  23

  409

  New housing association dwellings completed, by district 1993 to 1995

  District

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Ceredigion

  0

  12

  32

  Colwyn

  12

  36

  52

  Cynon Valley

  66

  36

  50

  Delyn

  131

  46

  49

  Dinefwr

  107

  7

  16

  Dwyfor

  49

  17

  4

  Glyndwr

  22

  25

  0

  Islwyn

  54

  0

  9

  Llanelli

  0

  6

  27

  Lliw Valley

  0

  71

  27

  Meirionnydd

  27

  32

  51

  Merthyr Tydfil

  30

  51

  51

  Monmouth

  124

  39

  89

  Montgomeryshire

  130

  203

  56

  Neath

  43

  60

  69

  Newport

  67

  10

  49

  Ogwr

  268

  234

  55

  Port Talbot

  22

  72

  11

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  66

  72

  73

  Radnorshire

  63

  38

  50

  Rhondda

  58

  79

  40

  Rhuddlan

  24

  108

  30

  Rhymney Valley

  87

  38

  69

  South Pembrokeshire

  22

  95

  39

  Swansea

  347

  369

  356

  Taff Ely

  31

  82

  67

  Torfaen

  222

  105

  79

  Vale of Glamorgan

  32

  41

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  56

  200

  17

  Ynys Mon

  1

  0

  14

  Wales

  2,721

  2,746

  2,064

  Source:

  Local authority and NHBC returns.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers of council houses(a) newly built and (b) restored to use in each local authority in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [39102]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of council houses completed in the last five years is given in the following table. Information on the number of council houses restored to use is not collected centrally.

  New local authority dwellings completed, by district

  District

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Aberconwy

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  Alyn and Deeside

  67

  22

  0

  16

  0

  Arfon

  1

  20

  0

  0

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  2

  0

  0

  0

  26

  Brecknock

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  35

  6

  0

  0

  1

  Carmarthen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ceredigion

  37

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colwyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cynon Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Delyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dinefwr

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Dwyfor

  8

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Glyndwr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Llanelli

  98

  0

  31

  45

  78

  Lliw Valley

  0

  0

  5

  0

  29

  Meirionnydd

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  410

  New local authority dwellings completed, by district

  District

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Monmouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  31

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neath

  33

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newport

  0

  0

  6

  108

  4

  Ogwr

  0

  13

  0

  0

  0

  Port Talbot

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  18

  8

  14

  12

  0

  Radnorshire

  0

  28

  0

  6

  0

  Rhondda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rhuddlan

  26

  20

  25

  0

  6

  Rhymney Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Swansea

  0

  0

  58

  20

  6

  Taff Ely

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Torfaen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Vale of Glamorgan

  29

  16

  24

  0

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  21

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ynys Mon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wales

  418

  133

  172

  227

  176

  Source:

  Local authority and NHBC returns.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of civil servants employed by his Department(a) broken down by category and (b) in total, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [39119]

  Mr. Hague
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies (Women Appointees)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 84, what was, in each year since 1990, (a) the percentage of women holding appointments on public bodies and (b) the percentage of women appointees to public bodies by the year of appointment. [39545]

  Mr. Hague
  The information for the years 1993 to 1996 on women holding appointments is contained in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  For previous years, the available information is contained in the annual publication "Public Bodies", available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39298]

  Mr. Hague
  There have been three violations since 1986:

  1986: Speeding offence—No cost to the Department (paid by driver);

  411

  1990: Parking offence—£16;

  1990: Speeding offence—No cost to the Department (paid by driver).

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative hon. Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39526]

  Mr. Hague
  Nil.

SCOTLAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 343, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested; [37520]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 28 March, Official Report, columns 671–72, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37523]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The examination of more than 20,000 files dating back to 1987–88.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current provision of road signage on the road network marking the border between Scotland and England. [38633]

  Lord James-Douglas Hamilton
  The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for signing on the motorway and trunk road network in Scotland which includes the border routes of A7, A68, Al and A74(M). There are currently signs on all these routes to mark the border crossings. Discussions are in progress with the Scottish tourist board to upgrade the existing signs to complement the new tourist signposts which have recently been approved throughout the rest of the trunk road network.

  Basking Sharks
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of proposals to give basking sharks endangered species protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Acts; and if he will make a statement. [38810]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This matter is being considered as part of the current quinquennial review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has already consulted widely over its proposals for additional species which should receive protection as part of the current reviews. The committee's412
  recommendations are expected to be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State for the Environment in the autumn. Full consideration will be given to the committee's recommendations before a decision is taken as to which species should be afforded protection.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39137]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget as employed (i) full time and (ii) part time,(a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39471]

  (2) what is the cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time to provide information and publicity in 1996–97, specifying the law officers separately; [39453]

  (3) how many staff were employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94; [39427]

  (4) what was the cost of staff employed full time and part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) to work on the press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95, and (iii) 1993–94, specifying separately staff of the law officers; [39403]

  (5) what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media, specifying separately staff of the Law Officers. [39344]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Examination Subjects (Pre-testing)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those examination subjects at(a) standard grade, (b) higher grade and (c) certificate of sixth year studies in which the pre-testing of questions by the Scottish Examination Board has been discontinued since 1992. [37870]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are no subjects in which pre-testing of examinations has been discontinued since 1992. For operational reasons higher English interpretation was not pre-tested in 1996. Pre-testing will take place as usual in 1997.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients receiving(a) hip replacements, (b) cataract extraction, (c) kidney transplants and (d) hernia operations were carried out by the NHS in Scotland had to wait for (i) more than six months, (ii) more than nine months, (iii) more than 12

  Year ended 31 December 1995

  Number of patients waiting

  Operation

  Total number of operations

  Greater than six months

  Greater than nine months

  Greater than 12 months

  Greater than 15 months

  Greater than 18 months

  Cataract extraction

  15,010

  2,951

  957

  226

  109

  37

  Kidney transplants

  43

  18

  11

  6

  4

  2

  Hernia operation

  9,045

  1,296

  552

  171

  74

  36

  Hip replacements

  3,975

  916

  387

  103

  31

  12

  All figures are provisional.

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the consortiums bidding to develop the new Edinburgh royal infirmary under the private finance initiative; and when he expects to announce the preferred bidder. [38800]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are two consortiums currently under consideration by the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust for the development of the new facility. These are:

  Consort (consisting of Royal Bank of Scotland, BICC and others).

  Alliance (consisting of John Laing, the British Linen Bank and others).

  The selection and announcement of preferred bidder is entirely a matter for the trust, which is currently indicating a decision in September.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his current estimate of the cost of the new Edinburgh royal infirmary(a) under the private finance initiative scheme and (b) as a conventional public sector development; and if he will publish an analysis of the differences between those alternatives. [38802]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current conventional public sector option estimate of capital cost of the new royal infirmary building is £178 million. Fees, on-costs and equipment may add approximately £60 million to this figure.

  The private finance costs are currently subject to a competitive process and figures are not yet known.

  The preferred private sector bid will be compared to the public option in a full business case, to be approved by Scottish Office Ministers, who will be accountable to Parliament for the decision process outlined in the document.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations are being undertaken with 414
  months, (iv) more than 15 months and (v) more than 18 months in the most recent year for which figures are available. [38853]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table. The main factor in waiting times for kidney transplants is the availability of organs and not hospital resources.

  NHS trusts and local authorities in the Lothian area about reductions in existing hospital services in anticipation of the development of the new Edinburgh royal infirmary; what is the timetable for those consultations; and if he will make a statement. [38799]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Clinical activity is expected to rise in the Lothian health board area in future years. The new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh will play a key part in providing the services needed to meet this increased activity. Lothian health board consulted widely on its plans for acute hospital services before its acute services strategy was approved.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds are being planned for the new Edinburgh royal infirmary; and if he will make a statement on changes from the original proposal. [38801]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of beds at the new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh will be determined in the light of forecast numbers of patients to be treated and developments in patterns of treatment. These are matters for the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust to discuss with the consortiums tendering for the project.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the health service projects in Scotland in respect of which unsuccessful efforts have been made to pursue funding under the private finance initiative since 1 January 1995. [38814]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following projects have actively explored PFI options in that they have openly advertised inviting proposals, and have been unsuccessful in these explorations.
  415

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust (Day Case Unit)

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust (Child and Family Psychiatry Unit)

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust (Challenging Behaviour Unit)

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust (Infectious Diseases Unit)

  Yorkhill NHS Trust (Theatres Complex)

  West Lothian NHS Trust (Intensive Psychiatric Care Unit)

  Southern General Hospitals NHS Trust ('Westmarc' Centre)

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has collated regarding expenditure incurred by each health board and NHS hospital trust in Scotland in unsuccessfully pursuing funding for projects through the private finance initiative since 1 January 1995; and if he will make a statement. [38815]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The projects which have unsuccessfully pursued PFI options have been listed previously. Expenditure incurred during these explorations is not recorded and held centrally. However, expenditure will be minimal as each project discovered that PFI was not a viable option at an early stage, shortly after advertising the scheme. Only internal management time can be attributed to this exploration. Each scheme is now proceeding as a publicly funded project.

  The NHS executive operates a capital investment panel which advises trusts on the capital investment process. All capital schemes should normally explore PFI options. However, where a PFI option is not realistic, Government guidance allows that a full exploration need not take place. Based on the evidence of precedents, experience and informal soundings, the capital investment panel is able to indicate to a trust or board that a PFI exploration is likely to be fruitless and that a full exploration is not expected.

  In-patient Admissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of ordinary in-patient admissions by region in each of the last four years. [39200]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Health board of residence

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  80,883

  83,740

  86,547

  87,814

  Ayrshire and Arran

  68,557

  70,219

  76,128

  75,154

  Borders

  18,274

  19,109

  19,633

  19,836

  Dumfries and Galloway

  26,808

  27,533

  29,800

  30,139

  Fife

  56,348

  57,967

  57,128

  58,964

  Forth Valley

  45,934

  47,979

  47,909

  47,438

  Grampian

  91,121

  92,807

  94,934

  95,101

  Greater Glasgow

  180,740

  179,048

  188,255

  188,190

  Highland

  34,960

  36,673

  37,320

  38,711

  Lanarkshire

  95,097

  96,623

  102,722

  102,524

  Lothian

  127,082

  134,493

  140,267

  141,913

  Orkney

  3,082

  3,196

  3,332

  3,267

  Shetland

  3,682

  3,933

  4,035

  4,241

  Tayside

  74,864

  75,794

  75,149

  74,776

  Western Isles

  5,654

  5,989

  6,421

  6,729

  Scotland Total

  913,086

  935,103

  969,580

  974,797

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list by health board the number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) administration and clerical staff and (f) managers in (i) 1990, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 1995; [39198]

  (2) if he will list the overall number of (a) administrative staff, (b) managerial staff, (c) nurses, (d) junior doctors and (e) other medical staff employed in each region for each of the last four years. [39199]

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) managers, (b) nurses and (c) nurses in training there were in the Scottish NHS in (i) 1989 and (ii) 1995. [39321]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Members as soon as possible.

  Speech Therapy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial resources he made available to local authorities in Scotland in each of the last three financial years to make provision for speech therapy for recorded children; and what level of resources has been made available for 1996–97. [38980]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Under arrangements which came into force in 1992, education authorities contract with health boards or other providers for the provision of speech therapy services to meet the needs of recorded children. The following sums have been included in the annual local government settlement for this purpose: in 1993–94, £2 million; in 1994–95, £3 million; in 1995–96, £3 million; and in 1996–97, £3 million.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recorded children in each local authority area received speech therapy as a direct result of the funding made available by him for that purpose in each of the last three financial years. [38982]

  Mr. Robertson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are taken to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of expenditure incurred for the provision of speech therapy for recorded children. [38981]

  Mr. Robertson
  The discharge of the statutory duty to make adequate provision of speech and language therapy for a recorded child, where this has been identified as one of the child's special educational needs, is the responsibility of the education authority. This is achieved by the education authority contracting with health boards and other providers of speech and language therapy services, and it is for the education authority to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of this expenditure.

  School Placements
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the target period within which a parent should receive a decision, by a local authority, on a requested school placement. [38977]
  417
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Section 28 A(l) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended, requires education authorities to respond to requests for a place at school at the start of the school year in August by 30 April of that year if the request was lodged before 15 March in the same year, or within two months of receipt if the request was made after that date. Education authorities must also respond within two months of receipt of placing requests made in-year. Where an education authority fails to respond within the time limit it is deemed to have refused the request.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory duty a local authority has in relation to considering a school placement request by a parent. [38978]

  Mr. Robertson
  Where the parents of a child make a written request to an eduation authority to place that child in a specified school, section 28A(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 places a duty on the education authority to place that child accordingly unless one or more of a number of grounds of exception set out in section 28A(3) applies. Those grounds are as follows:

  (a) If placing the child in the specified school would

  i. make it necessary for the authority to take an additional teacher into i employment;

  ii. give rise to significant expenditure on extending or otherwise altering the accommodation at or facilities provided in connection with the school;

  iii. be seriously detrimental to the continuity of the child's education; or

  iv. be likely to be seriously detrimental to order and discipline in the school or the educational well-being of the pupils there;

  (b) if the education normally provided at the specified school is not suited to the age, ability or aptitude of the child;

  (c) if the education authority has already required the child to discontinue his attendance at the specified school;

  (d) if, where the specified school is a special school, the child does not have special educational needs requiring the education or facilities normally provided at that school;

  (e) if the specified school is a single sex school (within the meaning givne to that expression by section 26 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) and the child is not of the sex admitted or taken (under that section) to be admitted to the school.

  A change in the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 which will come into force shortly introduces a further ground which will enable an education authority to refuse a placing request. That further ground is where the acceptance of a placing request in respect of a child who is resident outwith the catchment area of the school specified in the request would prevent the education authority from retaining reserved places at the school for children moving into the area.

  Under the 1980 Act authorities are also obliged to formulate guidelines to be followed in respect of placing in schools generally, or in the event of there being more placing requests than there are places available at a particular school.

  Records of Needs
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the target period for completion of an appeal to the Secretary of State on a record of needs; how many appeals on records of needs he has received in each of the 418
  last three financial years; and what was the average time taken in each of the last three financial years to finalise Secretary of State appeals on record of needs. [38979]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The number of appeals to the Secretary of State under section 64 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 in each of the last three financial years was seven in 1993–94, nine in 1994–95 and 14 in 1995–96. There is no target period set for completion of an appeal to the Secretary of State. Appeals determined in each of the last three financial years took on average 54 weeks in 1993–94, 93 weeks in 1994–95 and 85 weeks in 1995–96.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of traffic violations involving Departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39302]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally; traffic violations are dealt with between the individual concerned and the police.

  Private Hospital Beds
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private beds there were in(a) NHS hospitals and (b) private hospitals in 1989 and 1995. [39316]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There were 113 private beds available in NHS hospitals in 1989. Data on private beds in the NHS are no longer collected. Information on private hospitals is not held centrally.

  Elective Surgery
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of elective surgery operations carried out(a) under the NHS and (b) privately in (i) 1989 and (ii) 1995. [39318]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account measures to reduce hospital waiting lists take of medical priority; and if he will make a statement. [39283]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Health boards and NHS trusts must always give priority to medical considerations when undertaking measures to reduce the time patients wait for treatment.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were covered by private medical insurance in 1989 and 1995. [39317]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to reduce waiting lists in the NHS; and what estimate he has made of the costs of these plans. [39282]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The national health service in Scotland has successfully reduced the time patients wait for treatment. The Government expect health boards to increase and improve the guarantees on waiting times that they give to their resident population, and provide appropriate funding through the revenue allocation formula.

  MEP for Strathclyde, West
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in the last year from the Member of the European Parliament for Strathclyde, West concerning constituents of the hon. Member for Eastwood; and if he will send copies of these representations to the hon. Member for Eastwood. [39646]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Member of the European Parliament for Strathclyde, West wrote to my right hon. Friend on 13 June making representations about press reports on the alleged distribution of material relating to Reid Kerr college by a political party. I replied on 8 July indicating that the matter was being investigated. These inquiries are continuing.

  Reid Kerr College, Paisley
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of staff of Reid Kerr college, Paisley, who are elected representatives of the Labour party. [39658]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will examine all contracts for roofing and re-roofing allocated by Reid Kerr college, Paisley, since it came under Scottish Office control, with special reference to ensuring these contracts conformed to the Government's announced policy on competitive tendering. [39645]

  Mr. Robertson
  As the House is rising today for the summer recess, I shall make the necessary inquiries and write to my hon. Friend when these are complete.

  Crofting Land (Allocation)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he uses for the allocation of crofting land to new tenants; and if he will make a statement. [39576]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Clyde Port Authority
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the years in which the Clyde port authority has failed to make annual reports to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [39563]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Residential Care Home Registration (Report)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report from the working group on residential care home registration procedures; and if he will make a statement. [39973]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The working group recently submitted its report to my right hon. Friend and copies will be placed in the Library of the House and distributed widely among interested bodies. The report makes a large number of recommendations for change under three main groups: guidance and administrative action, subordinate legislation and primary legislation. The Government have a duty to ensure that people in residential care are properly looked after and that high standards of care prevail and we therefore propose that work be put in hand now to take forward a substantial number of these recommendations straight away.

  We accept and have already begun work on the guidance recommendations. These cover closer working arrangements between local authorities and health boards, particularly the development of joint inspection units, training, pre-registration activity and registration criteria including those for supported housing and, subject to further consideration, cancellation procedures and the removal of residents from homes. In addition, we propose to take forward the recommendations for setting up a national consultative group to devise and promote nationally recommended guidelines and quality of care standards and for a national list of persons whose registration has been refused or cancelled. The recommendations requiring subordinate legislation will also be taken forward, notably reviewing the prescribed form of application for registration, Scottish Criminal Record Office checks, notification of change of key personnel and maintenance of residents' records. These changes, taken together, will help clarify local authority procedures and promote good practice.

  The usual consultations with the appropriate bodies will be undertaken on all of these matters. We will also consider very carefully those recommendations which are dependent on primary legislation. Some are quite far-reaching such as the recommendation that the manager of a care home should not also be a resident's GP or professional adviser. Others are designed to simplify and streamline existing procedures. We intend to consult fully on these proposals before reaching a firm view.

  Finally, I would like to acknowledge the commitment of the members of the working group and the helpful and co-operative way which they went about their task.

  Fishing Vessels (Transfers)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instigate a joint policy with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to implement the option available under article 8 of Council regulation EC No. 3699/93 of allowing vessels to be permanently transferred to a third country and permanently re-assigned for uses other than fishing in Community waters; and if he will make a statement. [40099]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Scottish Water Authorities
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reduction has been made to the external financing limits of the Scottish water authorities consequent upon the commutation of debt announced on 8 February 1996. [39972]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Local authority debt of £0.7 billion was commuted before being transferred to the new water authorities on 1 April this year.

  As a consequence, a reduction has been made in the authorities' external financing limits to reflect the reduced debt servicing charges. The table shows the external financing limits for 1996–97, pre- and post-commutation, of the three authorities:

  £ million

  Pre-commutation

  Post-commutation

  North of Scotland Water Authority

  82

  65.9

  East of Scotland Water Authority

  87

  70

  West of Scotland Water Authority

  105.3

  83.9

  Total

  274.3

  219.8

  These reductions ensure that there is no increase or decrease in public expenditure provision for the water authorities as a result of the debt commutation.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of the other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative hon. Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39515]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Meetings at which hon. Members of only one party are present are not the responsibility of my Department.

  Knab Graveyard Extension
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to issue a consent notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in response to a request from Shetland Islands Council relating to an alleged statutory nuisance at the Knab Graveyard extension, Lerwick. [37864]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: No. On the basis of the information available at the time of the request from Shetland Islands council, it was not considered appropriate to use the consent power in section 79(10) of the Act. I understand that the matter has been referred to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency which is considering the terms of an authorisation under part I of the Act. The agency has received no complaints about dust nuisance at the site since 4 June.

  Rural Land Use
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what strategic powers he has over development on private landed estates in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [37994]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The cornerstone of the legislative framework governing development on private landed estates in Scotland is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 as amended. This provides the basis for development plans—structure and local plans—and for development control and other related matters.

  Structure plans provide the strategic land use planning framework for 10 to 15 years ahead and are prepared by planning authorities. They must be approved by the Secretary of State before they come into force. He may approve structure plans with or without modification, or reject them.

  The vast majority of decisions on planning applications are taken by planning authorities. However, the Secretary of State has powers to call in any planning application or appeal for his own determination.

  Mortality Statistics
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many deaths have been recorded in Scotland for each of the past 10 years in the period December to March; [38051]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the number and (b) the percentage rate of excess winter mortalities in each of the last 10 years. [38053]

  Mr. Michael Forysth
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: There is no universally accepted definition of excess winter deaths and it would not be possible to calculate a rate for these. The total number of deaths in the period December to March for each of the past 10 years are as follows:

  Winter

  December-March

  1985–86

  24,762

  1986–87

  22,577

  1987–88

  22,317

  1988–89

  22,079

  1989–90

  25,497

  1990–91

  21,859

  1991–92

  22,217

  1992–93

  22,416

  1993–94

  22,504

  1994–95

  21,510

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the Scottish Office Marine Laboratory survey in and around Beaufort's dyke; when and how he expects the results to be published; and if he will make a statement. [38974]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The survey is in progress and will, on present plans, conclude at the end of July 1996. The results will thereafter be published in full as soon as they have been collated and analysed.

DEFENCE

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United States Government have since 1966 requested the United Kingdom to provide reactor grade plutonium for the purpose of conducting a nuclear test explosion under the provisions of the US-UK mutual defence agreement on atomic energy co-operation. [38500]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No such requests have been made by the United States.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39141]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions— keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative administrative and taxation burdens; and where appropriate provide direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  My Department supports the DTI's small business measures and initiatives. I am the Minister within this Department for small businesses and I attend or am represented at the DTI's regular meetings.

  The Defence Suppliers Service assists companies, including small businesses, in making contact with appropriate contracts branches. It also arranges for details of many forthcoming tenders to be published in the fortnightly MOD Contracts Bulletin which is available to any interested party on subscription. This enables small businesses either to seek to tender directly for specific requirements or, more commonly, to become sub-contractors to larger companies.

  Since the Procurement Executive of the Ministry of Defence moved to the new procurement headquarters at Abbey Wood near Bristol earlier this year, the Defence Suppliers Service is in contact with the Bristol chamber of commerce and DTI's business links, whose south-west regional supply network office has become their national focal point for the defence industry. Other areas of the country can reach my Department, and be reached by us, through the business links network.

  As much of the assistance provided by my Department to small businesses tends to be in the sub-contractor sector, it is not possible to establish suitable performance parameters and therefore no statistics are available.

  Rendlesham Forest (Incident)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what response his Department made to the report submitted by Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt 424
  relating to events in Rendlesham forest in December 1980; what interviews were held; and if he will make a statement; [39247]

  (2) who assessed that the events around RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters in December 1980, which were reported to his Department by Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt were of no defence significance; on what evidence the assessment was made; what analysis of events was carried out; and if he will make a statement. [39249]

  Mr. Soames
  The report was assessed by the staff in my Department responsible for air defence matters. Since the judgment was that it contained nothing of defence significance no further action was taken.

  Uncorrelated Radar Tracks (Investigations)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions RAF aircraft have been(a) scrambled and (b) diverted from task to investigate uncorrelated targets picked up on radar; and if he will make a statement. [39218]

  Mr. Soames
  In the past five years RAF aircraft have been scrambled or diverted from task on two occasions to intercept and identify uncorrelated radar tracks entering the United Kingdom air defence region.

  Unidentified Craft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's assessment of the incident that occurred on 5 November 1990 when a patrol of RAF Tornado aircraft flying over the North sea were overtaken at high speed by an unidentified craft; and if he will make a statement; [39245]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the unidentified flying object sighting reported to his Department by the meteorological officer at RAF Shawbury in the early hours of 31 March 1993. [39246]

  Mr. Soames
  Reports of sightings on these dates are recorded on file and were examined by staff responsible for air defence matters. No firm conclusions were drawn about the nature of the phenomena reported but the events were not judged to be of defence significance.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department made of the photograph of an unidentified craft at Calvine on 4 August 1990; who removed it from an office in secretariat (air staff) 2a; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [39248]

  Mr. Soames
  A number of negatives associated with the sighting were examined by staff responsible for air defence matters. Since it was judged that they contained nothing of defence significance the negatives were not retained and we have no record of any photographs having been taken from them.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39353]
  425
  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94; [39436]

  (2) how many staff were employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39415]

  Mr. Soames
  In 1995–96 we employed a combination of 170 military and civilian staff to cover both the MOD and the armed forces press and public relations activities worldwide. They include staff working on the major service and civilian in-house newspapers and magazines. Of the total number of staff employed 69 were service personnel.

  As at March 1995—for 1994–95—the figure was 160. For 1993–94 the figure was 175.

  The total annual salary bill for these personnel for 1995–96 is estimated at £6.6 million. Actual outturn is spread across many budgets and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1994–95 and 1993–94 are not available.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, are budgeted to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39380]

  (2) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on the press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39364]

  (3) what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39440]

  (4) what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and media in 1996–97. [39974]

  Mr. Soames
  We employ a combination of 174 military and civilian staff to cover both the MOD and the armed forces press and public relations activities worldwide. They include staff working on the major Service and civilian in-house newspapers and magazines. Of the total number of staff employed, 59 are service personnel.

  The total annual salary budgeted for these personnel in 1996–97 is £6.6 million.

  It is not practical to differentiate between work on press and media, and information and publicity.

  Recruitment and Retention
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve recruitment and retention in the armed forces. [39640]

  Mr. Portillo
  A number of measures are being taken to encourage recruiting and retention in the armed forces. These include targeted recruitment advertising campaigns; payment of a recruiting bounty to marines and soldiers 426
  who persuade others to enlist; and payment of a retention bonus to those who serve beyond the three-year commitment in the Royal Marines and the Army where most shortages occur.

  There was a much improved level of recruitment in the final quarter of 1995–96 and that has continued into the current year. In the first quarter of this year there was a 53 per cent. increase in Army enlistments compared with the same period last year; enlistments into the infantry have almost doubled. In addition, over a similar period, there has been a 35 per cent. increase in applications for Royal Marines, general duties.

  The Government have also been considering the proposals made by Sir Michael Bett's independent review of the services' manpower, career and remuneration structure.

  My guiding principle is to seek to develop terms and conditions that will enable the services to recruit and retain people of the right calibre and with the mix of skills required for our armed forces in the future.

  More work is still required on detailed options. It is likely that those will be set out in a report later this year which would provide the basis for an information exercise within the forces.

  Medical Reservists (Bosnia)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical reservists are currently serving in Bosnia, broken down by medical specialty. [38688]

  Mr. Soames
  There are 58 medical reservists currently serving in Bosnia, 52 of whom are attached to the Royal Army Medical Corps. They comprise 48 combat medical technicians, three medical officers and one anaesthetist. The remaining six reservists are nursing officers with the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps.

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of 9 July,Official Report, column 130, (1) if he will publish a similar table covering the sale of Government-to-Government warlike platforms; and if he will define the term warlike platform; [38208]

  (2) if he will state if the sales included (a) special clothing and (b) laundry or decontamination equipment for biological and chemical protection. [38207]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These are matters 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. Jim Cousins, dated 24 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, asked in response to the Answer given to the Honourable Member for Pendle on 9th July, Official Report, Column 130. These matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.
  The question to which my answer of 9 July referred, related to surplus uniforms, other clothing and non-combat equipment. In order to respond to the question, the term non-combat equipment was deemed to exclude Government to Government sales of ships, aircraft, armoured vehicles, artillery, missiles, ammunition and other armaments. The figures requested for these sales are as follows:
  427

  Financial year

  £ million

  1990–91

  16.8

  1991–92

  8.2

  1992–93

  21.6

  1993–94

  39.1

  1994–95

  23.3

  1995–96

  38.6

  The figures given in my earlier answer did not include sales of laundry or decontamination equipment for biological and chemical protection. Nor did they include sales of special clothing, if special clothing is to be interpreted as Nuclear Biological and Chemical clothing.

  Military Provost Guard Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will include a psychological testing programme as part of selection procedures used for military provost guard service personnel to be employed in the policing of his Department's establishments before the commencement of the pilot study in April 1997. [38151]

  Mr. Soames
  Military provost guard service personnel will be trained soldiers, employed on guarding duties at Army establishments, not policing duties. There are no plans to include a psychological testing programme in the selection procedures for military provost guard service personnel.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed procedures of independently investigating complaints against personnel of the military provost guard service; [38125]

  (2) if he will set up an independent investigation authority to investigate complaints against personnel of the military provost guard service, before the commencement of the pilot study of the policing of his Department's establishments in April 1997. [38126]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department will not be setting up an independent investigation authority to investigate complaints against personnel of the military provost guard service. All military provost guard service soldiers will be subject to military law and Queen's Regulations for the Army and are answerable to their commanding officers, like any other soldier, on all discipline issues. Any complaints by members of the public against military provost guard service will be investigated fully by the relevant authorities. Offences by service personnel in the United Kingdom affecting the persons or property of civilians must, except in some minor cases, be reported to the civil police so that a decision can be taken by the appropriate prosecuting authority on jurisdiction.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what types of checks are proposed for the military provost guard service personnel before they are able to carry and use the 5.56 mm SA80 high velocity rifle; and how frequently these checks are made; [38119]

  (2) what type of assessment is proposed for the military provost guard service personnel's ability to carry and use arms; what checks will exist for different types of arms; and how frequently these checks will be made before the commencement of the pilot study of the policing of Ministry of Defence establishments in April 1997. [38128]
  428
  Mr. Soames
  Military provost guard service soldiers will be recruited to Army training directive standards. All soldiers complete an annual personal weapons test (trained soldier)—valid for one year—on their personal weapon each year. MPGS soldiers will make periodic practices with their personal weapon at the direction of their commanding officer as a routine part of their soldiers' continuation training.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has held over the suitability of the 5.56 mm SA80 high velocity rifle, for the policing, guarding and security of Ministry of Defence establishments. [38120]

  Mr. Soames
  Consultation has taken place with specialist departments within Government on the suitability of the 5.56 mm SA80 high velocity rifle to meet the policing, guarding and security requirements of my Department's establishments.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the length and type of training which will be required of military provost guard service for the policing of his Department's establishments, before the commencement of the pilot study of the policing of his Department's establishments in April 1997. [38122]

  Mr. Soames
  Military provost guard service personnel will be employed on guarding duties at Army establishments. They will not undertake any policing duties. The training requirements for military provost guard service soldiers were set out in a consultative document, "Defence Policing and Guarding Structures", issued by my Department in December 1995, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the selection procedures proposed for selection of military provost guard service personnel. [38124]

  Mr. Soames
  The main source of recruits for the military provost guard service is expected to be full engagement regular soldiers who have served six years in the armed forces. Their suitability for employment in the military provost guard service will be based on their service confidential reports and an interview. Any recruits without previous military experience will first be required to undergo and pass the Army common military syllabus (recruits) course. All military provost guard service recruits will be expected to meet physical standards which enable them to pass the Army bi-annual basic fitness test for their age group.

  MOD Police
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the selection procedures currently used for Ministry of Defence police personnel employed in policing his Department's establishments. [38123]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence police apply recruitment criteria similar to those in general use in the police service. These include the national police initial recruitment test, a medical examination and a physical fitness test. There is also a group discussion exercise, two written exercises and a structured interview, evaluated by
  429
  trainee assessors. The process accords with procedures set out by the Bramshill police staff college. The assessment also includes consideration of the suitability of the applicant to be trained in the use of and to handle firearms.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what type of assessment is currently made on the Ministry of Defence police personnel's ability to carry and use arms; what checks exist for different types of arms; and how frequently these checks are made; [38127]

  (2) what checks are currently made on Ministry of Defence police personnel before they are able to carry and use the 5.56 mm SA 80 high velocity rifle; and how frequently these checks are made. [38129]

  Mr. Soames
  All potential recruits to the Ministry of Defence police prior to recruitment are assessed over a three-day period for their suitability for police training. This includes an assessment of their suitability for firearms training, made by experienced trainers qualified to Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines standards. Those who are successful and join the MDP receive a 15-week recruit course which contains 20 days' training on two types of firearms, the 5.56 mm SA80 high velocity rifle and the 9 mm Browning pistol. Failure to achieve a satisfactory and safe standard on both weapons leads to failure of the course and termination of employment with MDP. The recruits are assessed on their skills, attitude, accuracy and safe handling of the weapons. Dependent on the role of the police officer, the qualities are re-checked, and the individual officers required to re-qualify on the weapons, every three or four months throughout their careers.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the length and type of training required of Ministry of Defence police for the policing of his Department's establishments. [38121]

  Mr. Soames
  Recruits to the Ministry of Defence police undertake a 15-week residential probationer's foundation training course at the police training centre, MDP Wethersfield. Its purpose is to help officers develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes to act competently, with confidence and integrity and to provide a high quality service to my Department and the community. It includes training in essential skills and knowledge of the law through written, oral and practical exercises. Further training in supervisory and specialist skills, and refresher courses, is given during an MDP officer's career.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39519]

  Mr. Portillo
  So far as I am aware, no bookings have been made in my name or those of my departmental ministerial colleagues. But it is my practice to meet Conservative Members who have an interest in defence 430
  matters, on the day of defence questions, usually in a ministerial conference room.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [38985]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 10 July 1996,Official Report, column 216.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the areas of land involved in his Department's sale of the married quarters estate which were acquired or requisitioned under the Defence Acts of 1842 and 1873 and the Land Powers (Defence Act) 1958; [39331]

  (2) if land compulsorily purchased or requisitioned will be first offered back to the original owners involved in his Department's sale of the married quarters estate; [39332]

  (3) what assessment he made of the Crichel Down regulations in the formulation of his Department's plans to sell the married quarters housing stock; [38780]

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the legal advice he has received on the implications of the Crichel Down regulations for his Department's plans to sell the married quarters housing stock; [38782]

  (5) if he will list the properties which his Department proposes to include in the sale of married quarters housing stock which are currently being considered in relation to the Crichel Down regulations; and what is the estimated retail value of these properties. [38781]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of traffic violations involving Departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39311]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally.

  Radiation (Greenham)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the 1997 report by W. N. Saxby into radiation levels around Greenham. [39699]

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

  Hospital Beds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hospital beds were managed by his Department in each of the last five years. [39767]

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

  Parliamentary Questions (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to report to Parliament on his review of the criteria adopted to judge whether to provide substantive answers to parliamentary questions tabled on arms sales. [39735]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) yesterday Official Report, columns 212–13.

  Greenham Airbase (Accident)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) where the remains of the B47 bomber which was destroyed by fire at Greenham airbase on 28 February 1958 are; and when and how they were put there; [39695]

  (2) how many (a) British and (b) United States reports were produced concerning the accident at Greenham airbase which was referred to in the report by Cripps and Stimson; how many of the reports have been made public; and if he will place a copy of each of these reports in the Library; [39697]

  (3) if (a) the hangar and (b) the B47 bomber, referred to in the report by Cripps and Stimson, contained uranium. [39700]

  (4) where the remains of the hangar which was destroyed by fire at Greenham airbase on 28 February 1958 are; and when and how they were put there; [39696]

  (5) what reports there have been into accidents at Greenham airbase involving uranium since 1966; and if he will place a copy of each in the Library; [39766]

  (6) where, in relation to the main runway at Greenham airbase, was the B47 bomber which was referred to in the report by Cripps and Stimson which he placed in the Library; [39694]

  (7) for what reasons the report by Cripps and Stimson which he placed in the Library last week was not released in accordance with the normal 30-year rule. [39698]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the official service inquiry report of the accident at Greenham common on 28 February 1958 involving a B47 bomber. [39790]

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

  Housing Stock
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are his Department's current plans for the construction of accommodation at RAF Boulmer; and what is the cost to his Department; [39787]

  (2) if accommodation currently being constructed by his Department at (a) Catterick garrison, (b) RAF Boulmer and (c) Albemarle barracks is included in his plans for the sale of his Department's housing stock; [39789]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 15 July, Official Report, column 359, what is the total cost of his Department's current accommodation construction projects. [39786]

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

  Radiation (Newbury)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what further tests of radiation levels in the Newbury district he proposes should be carried out; [39801]

  (2) what tests of radiation levels in the Newbury district, other than those reported in the Cripps and Stimson 1961 report, and the Boocock and Marriage 1986 report, have been conducted since 1958. [39802]

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

  Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's 1991 report "Kuwait—Depleted Uranium Contamination"; [39737]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a list of all reports prepared or commissioned by his Department since August 1990, on the potential hazards to human health and the environment posed by the use of depleted uranium shells; and what discussions Ministers or officials of his Department have had with Kuwaiti Ministers or officials regarding the use of depleted uranium shells by allied forces during Operation Granby. [39764]

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

  Reserve Forces (Doctors and Nurses)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many doctors and nurses there were(a) in the forces and (b) in the reserve forces in each of the last five years. [39768]

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

  Defence Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under which sub-heads in tables 1.2 and 1.8 inclusive of the UK Defence Statistics 1996 his Department's nuclear weapons and nuclear submarine propulsion costs are subsumed. [39734]

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

  Albemarle Barracks
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's current plans for the construction of accommodation at Albemarle barracks; and what is the cost to his Department. [39788]

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

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits (i) he and (ii) his Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39872]

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

  Postal and Courier Services Agency
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency in 1996–97. [39882]
  433
  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency has been set the following key targets for 1996–97:

  (a) Under "Competing for Quality", expose £2 million of agency business to competition by 31 March 1998.

  (b) Under the private fiance initiative, pursue the automation fo FPO counters worldwide with Post Office Counters Ltd., ICL. IBM and the Benefits Agency, by 31 March 2001.

  (c) Implement the triennial review recommendations by 31 March 1999.

  (d) Identify the ratio of overheads to outputs (year 1) and establish savings targets (year 2) and achieve targets (year 3), by 31 March 1999.

  (e) Achieve the quality mark BS EN ISO 9002 for the Defence Courier Service by 31 March 1997.

  (f) Achieve "Investors in People" standard for DPCSA by December 1996.

  (g) Update military core capability to respond to the armed forces requirements for peace, international tension and war, ratify and implement the force requirement table by 31 March 1998.

  (h) Rationalise funding, technical responsibility and reorganisation of PCS assets currently operating under other TLBs after the triennial review by 31 March 1998.

  (j) Benchmark unit costs of output with the Post Office over a three-year period ending 31 March 1999.

  Procurement Announcements
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on(a) the replacement maritime aircraft, (b) the conventionally armed stand-off missile and (c) the air-launched anti-armour missile; and if he will make a statement. [39176]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: Announcements will be made at the earliest convenient time after our decisions have been made.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39146]

  Mr. Newton
  The functions of the Privy Council Office do not include the provision of assistance to small businesses.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39517]
  434
  Mr. Newton
  I have meetings with hon. Members as and when necessary to discuss a wide variety of matters. Records are not kept which would enable the distinction on the type of meeting to be drawn.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94; [39425]

  (2) what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39450]

  (3) what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94; [39405]

  (4) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39469]

  (5) what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and the media. [39383]

  Mr. Newton
  No Privy Council staff have been employed full time or part time for duties exclusively concerned with information and publicity or the press and the media in any of the years 1995–96, 1994–95 and 1993–94, and none is so employed during the current financial year. There is no provision in my Department's budget for the current financial year for consultants to assist with these matters.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what account the Government's tackling drugs strategy has taken of the use of(a) Khat, (b) GHB and (c) Cake in the United Kingdom. [38969]

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy focuses on controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The ministerial sub-committee of the Cabinet on the misuse of drugs, which I chair, keeps under review the position on all other drugs.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (Security)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what extra resources she is making available for security in schools. [37285]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the security of children in schools. [37296]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring).

  Sensory Impairment
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to monitor the levels of employment and unemployment among young people with sensory impairments after they leave full-time education or training. [37286]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she intends to take to improve access to mainstream education for children with sensory impairments. [37301]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Local education authorities have a duty to secure, subject to certain conditions, education of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. Governing bodies of such schools are under a duty to use their best endeavours to secure the special educational provision needed for a pupil with SEN. Some 800 mainstream schools will benefit from schools access initiative projects in 1996–97 to improve access to the curriculum for disabled pupils, including those with sensory impairments.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the take-up of nursery vouchers in the designated pilot areas. [37287]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Applications for nursery education vouchers have been made in respect of 91 per cent. of the estimated number of eligible four-year-olds in the four areas in the first phase of the scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 736, what research has been commissioned to evaluate the operation of the nursery voucher scheme, by organisations other than her Department, including voluntary organisations and non-governmental agencies; and in each case, what was (a) the objective of the research project, (b) the cost, (c) the time frame and (d) the expected date of the publication of the findings. [38851]

  Mr. Squire
  I understand that the Audit Commission, the National Children's Bureau, the Pre-school Learning Alliance and the Day Care Trust have plans to evaluate or have already evaluated aspects of the nursery education voucher scheme. Detailed information on their studies is a matter for these bodies.

  The scheme comes within the ambit of the Department's internal audit division and will be reviewed by them, working with the National Audit Office, in the usual way.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total costs of the nursery voucher initiative to her Department, separately identifying(a) staffing costs and (b) consultancy and outside agency fees (i) to date and (ii) projected up to 31 March 1997. [38852]
  436
  Mr. Squire
  The estimated cost of the nursery voucher scheme from April 1995 is £26,950,000 to 31 March 1997. Of this, payments in respect of vouchers account for by far the largest proportion; departmental staffing costs are estimated at £340,000 to date, and £950,000 to March 1997. Figures exclude consultancy and outside agency fees which remain commercially confidential.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has made of the capital programme required for each of the education authorities operating the pre-school voucher scheme for the year 1997–98 that will enable them to provide sufficient accommodation for pupils eligible to receive pre-school education and not able to attend additional settings provided by the voluntary sector. [39684]

  Mr. Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to monitor standards in the grant-maintained sector. [37289]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each local education authority in England and Wales the number of children aged five to 16 years attending grant-maintained schools as a percentage of all children aged five to 16 years resident in the authority's area. [39560]

  Mr. Squire
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Universities (Standards)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to monitor standards in universities. [37291]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright).

  Television and Video Violence
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans her Department has to carry out research into the possibility that behavioural changes in school children may be caused by the viewing of excessive television and video violence. [37292]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has no plans to carry out research in this area.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to monitor the impact of the new employer contributions on support for disabled people through the access to work scheme. [37293]
  437
  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker).

  Examination Results
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the 10 worst performing local authorities with regard to examination results, and place a full list in the Library. [37295]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 10 local education authority areas with the lowest percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more A* to C grades at GCSE last year were Islington, Knowsley, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Manchester, Lambeth, Newham, Hackney, Liverpool and Sandwell. A full list has been placed in the Library.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her policy with regard to the monitoring of the quality of jobs on offer in jobcentres. [37297]

  Mr. Forth
  A wide range of vacancies is notified to jobcentres and there is no single definition of quality which could be used for monitoring purposes. Jobcentres can refuse vacancies only where there are strong reasons for doing so, for example where the vacancy may put jobseekers at risk or there is evidence that the employer is not genuine.

  Educational Structures (European Union)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next plans to meet her European Union counterparts to discuss matters of mutual interest in secondary and higher educational structures. [37298]

  Mr. Forth
  I hope to meet my European Union counterparts at the next Education Council on 21 November 1996.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about the criteria for funding training and enterprise councils. [37299]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department negotiates funding locally with training and enterprise councils for the activities in their business plan, according to the criteria set out in their contract with Government.

  Graduates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her projection of the number of(a) medical, (b) dental, (c) nursing and (d) veterinary students who will graduate in each of the next five academic years. [37303]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has not published projections in precisely this form. The most recent projections were published in the Department's annual report in 1994 and covered the period to 1996–97. They showed, in figures rounded to the nearest thousand, a projection of 4,000 graduates in medicine and dentistry, combined, and 2,000 graduates in veterinary, agriculture 438
  and related subjects, combined in Britain for each year. Projections of the number of nurses who will graduate are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about employment rates for new graduates. [39686]

  Mr. Forth
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Hearing Impaired People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the proportion of people with hearing impairments reaching national educational and training targets. [37304]

  Mrs Gillan
  The proportion of people in the United Kingdom with a long-term hearing impairment which affects the kind of work that they can do who have reached the lifetime target 1 standard is 38 per cent. For the lifetime target 2 standard it is 16 per cent.

  Disabled People (Employment Schemes)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received about the performance of supported employment schemes for disabled people. [37302]

  Mrs. Gillan
  In the last three months representations have been made to the Secretary of State, and to my noble Friend the Minister of State, about the following supported employment programme issues:

  the future for the Blindcraft supported workshop in Aberdeen;

  the number of Section 1 and Section 2 registered disabled people employed in Remploy factories; and

  the level of grant-in-aid allocated to Remploy for 1996–97.

  GCSE Passes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each local education authority with more than 30 per cent. of secondary pupils in grant-maintained schools the percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C in(a) grant-maintained and comprehensives and (b) local education authority comprehensives banded by the proportion of pupils taking or entitled to free school meals being (i) less than 5 per cent., (ii) 5 to 9 per cent., (iii) 10 to 19 per cent., (iv) 20 to 29 per cent., (v) 30 to 39 per cent. and (vi) more than 40 per cent., stating in each case how many schools contribute to the figures given. [38022]

  Mr. Paice
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Bradford Breakthrough Ltd.
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the letter, dated 20 May from the chief executive of Bradford Breakthrough Ltd.,
  439
  addressed to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), and her reply. [38095]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the letter of 20 May 1996 from the chief executive of Bradford Breakthrough Ltd., and my reply of 12 June.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary school staff receive an extra pay allowance for responsibility in physical education or sport using the data collated in her Department's survey into physical education in schools. [38506]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Results of the survey of PE and sport in schools 1996 show that 2.1 per cent. of school staff in maintained primary schools in England are receiving an extra pay allowance for responsibility in physical education and/or sport. The equivalent figure for maintained secondary schools is 3 per cent.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by gender the average percentage of pupils participating in extra-curricular sport in each of the school years 1 to 12 using the data collated in her Department's survey into physical education in schools. [38502]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Average percentage of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England participating in extra-curricular sport by year group and gender

  Year group

  Boys

  Girls

  1

  3.6

  3.0

  2

  6.7

  5.1

  3

  20.0

  16.5

  4

  27.6

  23.3

  Table 1: Time spent per week by maintained primary and secondary schools in England on national curriculum PE by year group

  Year group:

  Percentage of schools1

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  Two hours or less

  88.4

  88.0

  81.3

  78.6

  70.7

  72.0

  57.4

  64.3

  74.5

  89.9

  91.5

  94.4

  90 minutes or less

  63.5

  61.1

  48.2

  43.0

  33.6

  33.8

  8.0

  11.2

  20.0

  61.2

  60.3

  76.1

  60 minutes or less

  21.0

  19.9

  12.4

  10.1

  7.5

  7.3

  1.3

  2.7

  4.4

  29.8

  30.1

  50.0

  1 Total number of schools with the relevant year group doing 2 hours or less, 90 minutes or less and 60 minutes or less per week on national curriculum PE, expressed as a proportion of all schools with the relevant year group which responded to the question.

  Table 2: Time spent per week by maintained primary and secondary schools in England on traditional sports by year group

  Percentage of schools1

  Year group:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  Boys

  2 hours or less

  98.0

  97.3

  96.2

  95.2

  92.9

  94.6

  95.7

  96.0

  96.1

  96.8

  97.3

  97.8

  90 minutes or less

  95.6

  94.0

  90.4

  88.7

  83.3

  84.4

  71.9

  73.5

  78.3

  87.3

  87.2

  92.2

  60 minutes or less

  90.0

  87.4

  77.0

  73.5

  61.8

  61.1

  35.1

  36.6

  42.1

  62.2

  67.7

  76.7

  Girls

  2 hours or less

  98.2

  97.5

  96.2

  95.2

  92.9

  94.6

  95.5

  96.1

  96.5

  97.1

  97.7

  98.9

  90 minutes or less

  95.7

  94.2

  90.3

  88.4

  83.3

  84.4

  74.5

  77.9

  82.4

  90.5

  91.0

  95.5

  60 minutes or less

  90.2

  87.5

  76.9

  73.3

  61.8

  61.1

  38.3

  41.6

  48.0

  68.3

  72.8

  79.9

  1 Total number of schools with the relevant year group doing 2 hours or less, 90 minutes or less and 60 minutes or less per week on traditional sports, expressed as a proportion of all schools with the relevant year group which responded to the question.

  440

  Average percentage of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England participating in extra-curricular sport by year group and gender

  Year group

  Boys

  Girls

  5

  43.4

  38.2

  6

  47.6

  42.1

  7

  42.2

  36.7

  8

  40.9

  35.4

  9

  38.3

  31.4

  10

  32.9

  24.9

  11

  28.9

  20.8

  12

  18.9

  11.6

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list for each of the school years 1 to 12 the percentage of schools(a) timetabling two hours or less physical education in the school week, (b) devoting two hours or less to national curriculum physical education and (c) timetabling two hours or less to traditional sports using the data collected in her Department's survey into physical education in schools; [38509]

  (2) if she will list for each of the school years 1 to 12 the percentage of schools (a) timetabling one hour or less physical education in the school week, (b) devoting one hour or less to national curriculum physical education and (c) timetabling one hour or less to traditional sports using the data collected in her Department's survey into physical education in schools; [38512]

  (3) if she will list for each of school years 1 to 12 the percentage of schools (a) timetabling 90 minutes or less physical education in the school week, (b) devoting 90 minutes or less to national curriculum physical education and (c) timetabling 90 minutes or less to traditional sports using the data collated in her Department's survey in physical education in schools. [38510]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The available information is shown in the following tables:
  441
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the average amount of physical education to the nearest minute for each of school years 1 to 12(a) timetabled in the school week, (b) devoted to national curriculum physical education and (c) timetabled to traditional sports using the data collated in her Department's survey into physical education in schools. [38508]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Average time devoted to national curriculum physical education, and to traditional sports in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  Year group

  Average minutes per week devoted to: National curriculum PE Traditional sports

  Boys

  Girls

  1

  96

  36

  36

  2

  97

  40

  40

  3

  104

  58

  58

  4

  108

  63

  63

  5

  115

  73

  72

  6

  113

  72

  72

  7

  134

  98

  97

  8

  127

  95

  93

  9

  122

  91

  89

  10

  97

  74

  70

  11

  95

  65

  61

  12

  69

  39

  34

  Percentage of maintained primary and secondary schools in England offering extra-curricular sport by activity, gender and year group

  Football

  Percentage of schools

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Primary-Boys

  9.0

  13.5

  45.8

  64.0

  87.5

  89.5

  100.0

  Primary-Girls

  8.3

  11.6

  38.9

  52.0

  69.9

  71.0

  60.0

  Percentage of schools

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Secondary—Boys

  88.9

  87.3

  88.5

  88.1

  88.3

  87.7

  86.3

  64.5

  Secondary—Girls

  50.0

  49.1

  43.0

  44.7

  39.9

  34.7

  29.9

  14.8

  Cricket

  Percentage of schools

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Primary—Boys

  3.1

  3.5

  16.4

  24.3

  45.5

  48.3

  80.0

  Primary—Girls

  2.8

  3.3

  14.9

  20.5

  36.1

  39.3

  46.7

  Percentage of schools

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Secondary—Boys

  66.7

  76.4

  80.7

  82.6

  80.6

  79.5

  54.0

  33.5

  Secondary—Girls

  27.8

  34.5

  18.0

  16.4

  12.6

  10.4

  8.5

  3.0

  Hockey

  Percentage of schools

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Primary—Boys

  1.7

  2.0

  9.8

  11.9

  17.1

  19.0

  40.0

  Primary—Girls

  1.5

  2.0

  9.8

  11.9

  17.3

  19.8

  33.3

  442
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average amount of time to the nearest minute that(a) primary school staff, (b) physical education staff in secondary schools, (c) non-physical education staff in secondary schools, (d) volunteers devote to extra-curricular sport using the data collated in her Department's survey into physical education in schools. [38504]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Average time devoted to extra-curricular sport per week in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  Hours (to nearest half hour)

  By all primary school staff

  2.0

  By secondary school PE teaching staff

  18.5

  By secondary school non-PE teaching staff

  4.5

  By volunteers

  1.5

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by gender the percentage of schools offering extra-curricular(a) football, (b) cricket, (c) hockey, (d) netball, (e) rugby, (f) tennis, (g) athletics and (h) swimming in each of the school years 1 to 12 using the data collated in her Department's survey into physical education in schools. [38507]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The available information is shown in the following tables:
  443

  Percentage of schools

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Secondary—Boys

  22.2

  27.3

  37.5

  40.7

  42.6

  42.3

  37.5

  28.1

  Secondary—Girls

  29.6

  38.2

  72.7

  74.2

  73.5

  68.6

  63.6

  43.8

  Netball

  Percentage of schools

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Primary—Boys

  2.6

  3.9

  21.6

  32.9

  50.8

  52.9

  46.7

  Primary—Girls

  2.8

  4.4

  28.6

  42.6

  69.7

  70.7

  2.8

  Percentage of schools

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Secondary—Boys

  18.5

  20.0

  10.4

  8.7

  7.4

  7.1

  6.0

  1.5

  Secondary—Girls

  66.7

  76.4

  92.2

  91.3

  89.3

  87.4

  80.5

  46.8

  Rugby

  Percentage of schools

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Primary—Boys

  0.9

  1.1

  8.0

  9.7

  17.6

  20.5

  33.3

  Primary—Girls

  0.9

  0.9

  6.9

  8.6

  15.7

  18.0

  26.7

  Percentage of schools

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Secondary—Boys

  42.6

  49.1

  62.5

  62.3

  60.9

  50.8

  46.0

  32.5

  Secondary—Girls

  16.7

  21.8

  7.3

  8.2

  7.7

  7.4

  6.6

  3.0

  Tennis

  Percentage of schools

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Primary—Boys

  2.8

  4.4

  10.9

  11.9

  15.9

  16.6

  26.7

  Primary—Girls

  2.8

  4.4

  10.4

  11.5

  15.7

  16.6

  26.7

  Percentage of schools

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Secondary—Boys

  38.9

  43.6

  55.2

  59.6

  62.6

  60.1

  49.0

  32.0

  Secondary—Girls

  40.7

  47.3

  65.4

  67.2

  69.7

  67.5

  55.3

  36.0

  Athletics

  Percentage of schools

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Primary—Boys

  7.2

  8.5

  30.2

  38.1

  49.4

  50.2

  60.0

  Primary—Girls

  6.8

  8.1

  30.4

  38.1

  49.9

  50.5

  60.0

  Percentage of schools

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Secondary—Boys

  79.6

  81.8

  86.7

  88.1

  88.3

  82.2

  63.8

  35.0

  Secondary—Girls

  74.1

  78.2

  90.1

  90.8

  90.4

  83.9

  66.8

  32.5

  Swimming

  Percentage of schools

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Primary—Boys

  4.8

  5.5

  14.0

  18.2

  23.4

  22.2

  33.3

  Primary—Girls

  4.8

  5.7

  14.2

  18.0

  22.9

  21.5

  20.0

  Percentage of schools

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Secondary—Boys

  35.2

  20.0

  27.3

  25.8

  26.2

  26.0

  24.7

  18.7

  Secondary—Girls

  37.0

  23.6

  29.9

  28.3

  27.9

  27.0

  24.9

  20.2

  444 445
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of(a) secondary schools and (b) primary schools offer extra-curricular sport (i) every lunchtime and (ii) after school every day using the data collated in her Department's survey into physical education in schools. [38505]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Percentage of maintained primary and secondary schools in England offering extra-curricular sport every lunch-time and everyday after school

  Primary

  Secondary

  Every lunch-time

  6.2

  67.0

  Every day after school

  2.4

  39.2

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of(a) primary' and (b) secondary schools give swimming tuition at (i) a local swimming pool, (ii) an on-site pool used only by that school, (iii) an on-site pool used also for community provision and (iv) an on-site pool of a neighbouring school using the data collated in her Department's survey into physical education in schools. [38513]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Percentage of maintained primary and secondary schools in England providing swimming tuition.

  Primary

  Secondary

  Percentage of schools providing swimming tuition

  85.4

  59.2

  Of the schools providing swimming tuition the percentage giving tuition at1:

  A local swimming pool

  77.5

  51.6

  On-site pool used only by that school

  10.7

  13.2

  On-site pool also used for the community

  4.2

  29.2

  On-site pool of a neighbour primary school

  5.9

  2.0

  On-site pool of a neighbour secondary school

  9.8

  5.6

  Other site

  2.6

  2.4

  1 Figures add up to more than 100 per cent. because some schools use more than one location.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the impact of(a) her policies and (b) the work of her Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if she will publish the performance indicators by which her Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39142]

  Mr. Paice
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Free School Meals, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary school children in North Yorkshire received free school meals in each year since 1979. [38928]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The available information is shown in the following table. Comparable information prior to 1989 is not available, but figures from earlier school meals censuses were published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in its "School Meal Statistics" volumes, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Day-pupils taking free school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools in North Yorkshire Local Education Authority area: 1989–1995

  Position in January each year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  1989

  3,403

  6

  1,880

  4

  1990

  3,566

  6

  1,642

  4

  1991

  4,033

  7

  1,682

  4

  1992

  4,938

  9

  1,987

  5

  1993

  5,513

  9

  2,288

  5

  1994

  6,073

  10

  2,591

  6

  1995

  6,336

  10

  2,803

  6

  1 The number of day pupils who took a free meal on the census day expressed as a percentage of the number of day pupils on roll.

  Skill Centres (Sales)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which skill centres formerly belonging to the skills training agency have now been sold; what is the total amount so far received from the sales; and what has been the expenditure since 1993 on the administration of the sales. [39066]

  Mr. Paice
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39352]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has no budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff are assumed in her Department's budget employed (i) full time and (ii) part time,(a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39340]

  Mr. Squire
  The number of departmental staff allocated for this purpose in 1996–97 is as follows:

  (a) Press and media

  (i) Full-time 21

  (ii) Part-time 2

  (b) Information and publicity

  (i) Full-time 46

  (ii) Part-time 6

  447
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39416]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department for Education and Employment was formed in July 1995, following the merger of the Department for Education and the Employment Department. With regard to information and publicity and press and media work, the merged Department was treated for accounting purposes as separate units throughout 1995–96.

  The number of staff employed, full time or part time, in the two former departments was as follows:

  Information and publicity

  Press and media

  Department for Education

  1993–94

  16

  11

  1994–95

  17.5

  13

  1995–96

  16

  13

  Employment Department

  1993–94

  37

  12.5

  1994–95

  35

  12.5

  1995–96

  34.5

  10

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39441]

  Mr. Squire
  The cost budgeted by the Department for staff, full time and part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97 is £1,341,000.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94. [39435]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department for Education and Employment was formed in July 1995, following the merger of the Department for Education and the Employment Department. With regard to information and publicity and press and media work, the merged Department was treated for accounting purposes as separate units throughout 1995–96.

  The cost of staff employed, full time and part time, in the two former departments is shown in the table.

  £thousand

  Information and publicity

  Press and media

  Department for Education

  1993–94

  400

  363

  1994–95

  544

  439

  1995–96

  551

  442

  Employment Department

  1993–94

  830

  276

  1994–95

  891

  319

  1995–96

  864

  267

  448
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39986]

  Mr. Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Secondary Modern Schools
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to reintroduce secondary modern schools in areas currently served by comprehensive schools. [37728]

  Mrs. Gillan
  None.

  Back-to-Work Schemes
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people participated in work trials during 1995–96; and how many of these subsequently(a) obtained employment, (b) signed on as unemployed and (c) claimed an incapacity benefit; [39097]

  (2) how many employers were contracted with the Employment Service to run work trials during 1995–96. [39098]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert Horne to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked Mike Fogden to reply to your questions about the operation of Work Trials. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to him as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am answering in his absence as Finance Director of the Agency.
  During the 1995/96 operational year 29,434 people participated in a Work Trial. Of these, 17,416 obtained employment following the trial. Work Trial participants remain registered unemployed and in receipt of benefit during their trial; participants whose trials do not lead to employment may consequently continue to be unemployed. Information is not collected about people participating in Work Trials whilst on an incapacity benefit.
  We do not collect information on the number of individual employers participating in Work Trials.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unemployed people have taken part in workstart schemes; and what assessment she has made of their effectiveness. [39101]

  Mr. Forth
  Various workstart schemes have been piloted during the last three years. In total, almost 2,900 people have been placed into work. Assessment of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of workstart is getting very long-term unemployed people into work is continuing.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated cost to her Department of running(a) the work trials scheme, (b) the jobmatch scheme and (c) workstart. [39099]
  449
  Mr. Forth
  In this financial year, £6,435,000 has been allocated for running work trials, £5,104,000 for jobmatch and £2,350,000 for workstart. This includes expenditure by both the Employment Service, and the training and enterprise councils involved in the jobmatch pilots.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people participated in the jobmatch schemes during 1995–96; what was the average amount payable to each participant; and how many participants subsequently(a) obtained employment, (b) signed on as unemployed or (c) claimed an incapacity benefit. [39100]

  Mr. Forth
  Between April 1995 and March 1996, 3,361 people started the jobmatch programme. The estimated average amount paid to participants in allowances during this period was around £1,200. Jobmatch participants are in employment. Information is not yet available on the employment status of participants after the jobmatch allowance ceases. A follow-up survey of people who started jobmatch during 1995–96 is being conducted.

  Castle Hall School, Mirfield
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what legal advice she has received on the consultation process following the application by Castle Hall grant-maintained schools' Mirfield to admit pupils over the age of 16 years. [39319]

  Mr. Paice
  I wrote on 18 July to the head teacher in reply to his letter regarding the status of their application. As a result of legal advice I informed him that the application could not be considered due to inadequate consultation. I therefore invited the governors to withdraw their proposals and resubmit them in compliance with the regulations. The governors have now written withdrawing their proposals.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39310]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The driver is responsible for any fines and penalties incurred while driving a DFEE vehicle. Not all traffic violations are notified to the Department. Where violations have been notified, details are kept on vehicle specific files and no central records are maintained.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in her name, or that of other Ministers in her Department, for meetings with Conservative hon. Members immediately preceding questions to her Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39520]
  450
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Ministers have meetings with honourable Members as and when necessary to discuss a wide variety of matters. Records are not kept which would enable the distinction on the type of meeting to be drawn.

  Asthma
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school days were lost by children as a result of asthma in the last year for which figures are available. [39558]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally. Information on levels of authorised and unauthorised absence is collected annually in respect of all day pupils of compulsory school age, but schools are not required to break their authorised absence totals down by cause of absence.

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish her decisions regarding the bids entered by local education authorities for the schools renewal challenge fund. [39784]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Schools Pupils (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduation and Employment if she will list, by local authority, the number of(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils resident in London boroughs and the City of London, who attend schools in local authorities other than the one they live in; for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [39626]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Degree Courses
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will discourage universities from providing degree courses in vocational disciplines where job opportunities are limited. [39687]

  Mr. Forth
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will state the proportion of their budgets which each training and enterprise council spent on small firms last year. [39851]

  Mr. Paice
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Professors (Medicine)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many professors there are(a) of general practice, (b) related to hospital specialties and (c) in total in medical schools. [39824]
  451
  Mr. Forth
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Universities (Career Guidance)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will take measures to improve career guidance provided at or by universities. [39688]

  Mr. Forth
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Technology Colleges
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, by parliamentary constituency, those schools which have been awarded technology college status in the last two bidding rounds. [39657]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many visits (i) she and (ii) her Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39871]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Employment Code of Practice
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she proposes to publish the employment code of practice under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if she will make a statement. [40008]

  Mr. Paice
  We will be publishing the employment code of practice tomorrow and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  The code of practice, which has now been approved by Parliament, will come into force on 2 December, the same day that the employment provisions will be commenced. The code gives practical guidance through a wide range of examples to illustrate how employers and others can comply with the employment provisions, although the action required in any given situation will depend on the particular circumstances. By publishing the code now we are giving employers, and others affected by the employment provisions time to familiarise themselves with its guidance and take whatever action they wish in order to prepare for implementation of the new duties and rights.

  As well as the printed version, the code will also be available in braille and on audio cassette tape. All formats will be available through Her Majesty's Stationery Office outlets.

  Higher Education (Inquiry Evidence)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library the Government's evidence to the national committee of inquiry into higher education. [40002]

  Mr. Forth
  Yes. Copies of papers submitted so far to the committee have been placed in the Library.

  European Movement
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial assistance the European Movement has given to(a) the Liberal European Action Group, (b) the Labour Committee for Europe, (c) the Conservative Group for Europe, (d) the Association for a Social Democratic Europe, (e) trade union activities and (f) the Youth Group for Europe in the last 10 years. [40077]

  Mr. Forth
  The matters raised by my hon. Friend are not the responsibility of the Department.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the recent representations made to her about capital funding of higher education and the role of the PFI. [37288]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about capital funding in higher education and the role of the PFI. She has set up two working groups to consider the issues, and they are expected to report soon.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the statistical forms issued to businesses by her Department, indicating the number of each sent out. [38680]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Name or purpose of form

  Number issued

  A. Forms completed by training providers1

  TfW2 (Training for Work)

  Approximately 500,000

  YT2 (Youth Training)

  Approximately 500,000

  MA1 (Modem Apprenticeships)

  Approximately 500,000

  B. Forms completed by independent schools2

  Annual schools' census

  Approximately 2,250

  Annual survey of absences

  3see below

  Annual survey of assisted places

  Approximately 300

  Annual survey of examination results in the assisted places scheme

  Approximately 300

  1 These forms are completed in part by trainees and in part by training providers, some of which are businesses. The information obtained is used for both statistical and financial control purposes.

  2 For purposes of deregulation the Department regards independent schools as businesses. Some of the information obtained from independent schools is used for both statistical and administrative purposes.

  3 Completed by all schools, including independent schools, with day pupils of compulsory school age.

  Training Schemes (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of people leaving Government supported training schools in North Yorkshire between September 1994 and August 1995 obtained a full-time job in a field closely related to that in which they received training. [38936]

  Mr. Paice
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39152]

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39154]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative administration and taxation burdens; and where appropriate provide direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  The Office of Public Service is responsible for taking forward the competitiveness agenda across Government, promoting deregulation and promoting best practice in all aspects of the Government's relationship with the private sector. Helping small business is a key part of these activities. The third competitiveness White Paper, "Creating the enterprise centre of Europe", provides a summary of these activities. A copy of the document is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94; [39426]

  (2) what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39452]

  (3) what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media; [39343]
  454
  (4) what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94; [39404]

  (5) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39470]

  (6) what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39987]

  Mr. Willetts
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore be writing to the hon. Member and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will name the members and terms of reference of the exhibition committee of the Millennium Commission chaired by Robert Ayling Esq. and the financial resources now available to it to fulfil its remit; [39915]

  (2) pursuant to his oral answer of 22 July, Official Report, column 6, concerning the millennium exhibition if he will list the financial commitment made by each of the institutions. [39946]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore be writing to the hon. Member and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39315]

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore be writing to the hon. Member and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Ministerial Car Fleet
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of traffic violations involving cars of the ministerial fleet, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39297]

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated under the terms of the framework document to the Security Facilities Executive. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. John King, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. King to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to respond to your Questions about the Government Car Service (GCS). As Chief Executive of the Security Facilities Executive, I have operational responsibility for the GCS.

  455
  GCS Drivers are responsible for driving safely and responsibly. With the exception of parking offences, they meet the cost of any fines for motoring offences from their own pockets, and we do not keep details.
  Our records show that the Government Car Service covered the cost of the following parking violations from 1986:

  Year

  Total

  Total cost (£)

  1986

  282

  2,820

  1987

  98

  1,116

  1988

  238

  2,856

  1989

  90

  1,080

  1990

  125

  1,500

  1991

  37

  666

  1992

  43

  1.075

  1993

  33

  990

  1994

  17

  510

  1995

  35

  1,050

  1996 (to date)

  8

  240

  These costs cover the whole of the Government Car Service, including the Ministerial vehicles. It would, however, be disproportionately costly to disaggregate this information by customer.

  Civil Servants (Secondments)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants have been seconded to the European Commission and to which directorates in each of the last five years. [38690]

  Mr. Freeman
  For the past five years around 100 United Kingdom and Northern Ireland civil servants have been on secondment to the European Commission as national experts at any given time. The total number of secondees in post at the end of each of the last four years, together with the current figures, broken down by directorates general, are as follows:

  Detached national experts

  As at 31 December 1992

  As at 31 December 1993

  As at 31 December 1994

  As at 31 December 1995

  As at 22 July 1996

  DGI

  11

  13

  15

  8

  6

  DGIA

  —

  —

  1

  3

  5

  DGIB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  DGII

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  DGIII

  11

  10

  10

  6

  7

  DGIV

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  DGV

  17

  12

  4

  8

  8

  DGVI

  15

  15

  11

  8

  4

  DGVII

  2

  1

  5

  4

  4

  DGVIII

  1

  2

  3

  4

  6

  DGIX

  2

  2

  1

  2

  1

  DGX

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  DGXI

  10

  11

  12

  15

  14

  DGXII

  3

  3

  4

  4

  5

  DGXIII

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  DGXIV

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  DGXV

  1

  3

  5

  6

  4

  DGXVI

  7

  5

  5

  4

  4

  DGXVII

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  DGXVIII

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  DGXIX

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  DGXX

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  DGXXI

  4

  8

  3

  7

  7

  DGXXII

  2

  0

  2

  3

  2

  DGXXIII

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  DGXXIV

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Sec General

  2

  4

  2

  2

  4

  456

  Detached national experts

  As at 31 December 1992

  As at 31 December 1993

  As at 31 December 1994

  As at 31 December 1995

  As at 22 July 1996

  Legal Service

  2

  2

  3

  1

  1

  Eurostat

  4

  8

  9

  8

  8

  Cabinet

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  109

  115

  109

  103

  102

  HMSO
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who will hold archives of parliamentary papers(a) in paper form and (b) in electronic form, currently held by HMSO following the proposed privatisation; and what estimate he has made of their value. [39624]

  Mr. Freeman
  The national archive of parliamentary papers in paper form is held by the British Library and not HMSO. This archive will be unaffected by the privatisation. HMSO's own archive of parliamentary papers is held as a mixture of paper and microfilm. It is extensive but not comprehensive. HMSO has only a limited archive of material in electronic formats.

  The draft contract between the House and the privatised stationery office sets out the periods for which the Official Report and other papers must be kept in print by the stationery office.
  No valuation of this material has been made.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what performance targets he has set for the Central Office of Information for the current year. [39939]

  Mr. Freeman
  My primary objective for the Central Office of Information is to complete the implementation of changes announced on 23 November last year that will refocus the work of the agency and increase its efficiency.

  The key performance targets for COI in 1996–97 will be:

  Finanicial

  To break even before exceptional items in modified historical cost terms, after recovering all costs, including interest on borrowings.

  Efficiency

  To achieve a 3 per cent. reduction in unit cost of output in real terms, before exceptional costs, while maintaining suitable levels of quality.

  Quality

  To equal or better the proportion of work delivered in accordance with specification during 1995–96.

  To equal or better the proportion of work delivered on time during 1995–96.

  To achieve an average score of 8.2 out of 10 for the COI customer satisfaction index.

  Security Facilities Executive
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has set the performance targets for the Security Facilities Executive; and if he will make a statement. [39940]
  457
  Mr. Freeman
  I have set the following performance targets for SAFE for the financial year 1996–97. I recognise that the income and expenditure of the agency will be affected by the proposed sale of the custody service in early 1997. I will take this into account in due course.

  Financial

  Achieve:

  100 per cent. full cost recovery in accruals terms including 6 per cent. cost of capital but excluding restructuring costs

  91 per cent. full recovery in accruals terms including 6 per cent. cost of capital and restructuring costs

  The 100 per cent. full cost recovery target was achieved for 1995–96.

  Produce a surplus of £1 million (excluding restructuring costs). This target was not achieved in 1995–96.

  Sales

  Achieve a sales turnover of £40 million. This target was achieved in 1995–96.

  Efficiency

  Achieve no less than 4 per cent. efficiency gain in running costs.

  Quality of Service

  Achieve a weighted 91 per cent. satisfaction rating in customer satisfaction surveys. The target of 90 per cent. was achieved in 1995–96.

  Achieve for GCS and IDS operations and maintain for all other businesses the standards of ISO 9000 on quality management systems. This target was achieved for GCS/IDS workshop, custody services and special services group in 1995–96.

  Prepare statement of intent and begin programme leading to Investors in People accreditation in 1998. This is a new target.

  Environment

  Achieve an annual average of 25.5 miles per gallon for the GCS/IDS fleet. The target—of 25 miles per gallon—was achieved in 1995–96.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Bowbelle
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to make a decision on whether to prosecute the master of the Bowbelle. [39455]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the written answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes),Official Report, column 206.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Crown Prosecution Service received the transcripts of the evidence given at the inquest which followed the sinking of the Marchioness; what factors have prevented a decision being taken on whether to initiate a prosecution; when such a decision is expected; and if he will make a statement. [39017]

  The Attorney-General
  The transcripts became available in stages, the final instalment have being received on Friday 15 December 1995. The Crown 458
  Prosecution Service has sought the advice of senior counsel. The matter is complex but the Director of Public Prosecutions expects to issue her decision very shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of the Solicitor-General, for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39525]

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the number of traffic violations involving Departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39314]

  The Solicitor-General
  The following information relates to vehicles operated by the Crown Prosecution Service under arrangements which began in 1991. It does not include vehicles provided to the Law Officers' departments by the Government car service:

  Year

  Number of violations

  Nature

  Total fines(£)

  1991

  1

  Parking offence

  16

  1992

  4

  Parking offences

  135

  1993

  2

  Parking offences

  90

  1994

  5

  Parking offences

  300

  1995

  3

  Parking offences

  80

  1

  Failure to comply with traffic lights

  nil

  Crown Prosecutors
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidance the director of Public Prosecutions has issued to Crown prosecutors on the application for the code of Crown prosecutors. [40012]

  The Attorney-General
  An explanatory memorandum was issued to all Crown prosecutors in June 1994, giving guidance on how the code for Crown prosecutors should be applied in individual cases. That explanatory memorandum has recently been revised and will also be made available to other prosecuting authorities, the police and other interested agencies.

  The revisions focus on the evidential sufficiency test and amount to a shift in emphasis in three principal ways. First, Crown prosecutors are encouraged to try to secure further evidence when they do not think there is sufficient to prosecute and, in cases of doubt, to ask themselves whether there is no realistic prospect of conviction rather than conclude that the case is too evenly balanced to prosecute. Secondly, Crown prosecutors are urged to focus their attention only on specific identifiable lines of defence which the prosecution must seek to overcome from the outset, and to ignore speculative defences.

  459
  Thirdly, guidance is given on the distinction between those cases that are evidentially complex or difficult and those that are simply weak. Confusing the two types of case may cause some prosecutors to conclude that there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, when a more experienced prosecutor would explore and find ways of overcoming what are difficulties, than inherent weaknesses. The guidance should increase the ability of Crown prosecutors to identify and then overcome what might otherwise be perceived as insurperable obstacle to a successful prosecution.

  The revised explanatory memorandum is being printed and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as they are available.

  ISC-Ferranti
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General on what date the offices of ISC in West London were sealed by agents of Her Majesty's Government. [36698]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: The offices of ISC in west London were never sealed by officials of the Serious Fraud Office or by the police who worked in conjunction with them.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General when his office was advised of evidence of fraud related to ISC-Ferranti committed within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom; and what subsequent action was taken. [36696]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: In September 1989 the Serious Fraud Office commenced an investigation into suspected fraud relating to ISC-Ferranti, and my office was informed. The investigation was carried out in close co-operation with the United States prosecuting authorities, because they had already commenced a separate investigation and it was apparent that all the potential defendants were United States citizens residing in the United States.

  At the conclusion of the investigation, 17 individuals and three corporations were indicted in the United States on charges of fraud.

  In December 1991, James Guerin, the former deputy chairman of Ferranti International Signals plc—the company which resulted from the merger of Ferranti and ISC in 1987—pleaded guilty before the federal court in Philadelphia to offences involving fraud in respect of the merged company, committed both in the United Kingdom and in the USA. All offences which might have been the subject of a United Kingdom trial were encompassed in the US indictment, and thus no proceedings were taken in the United Kingdom. James Guerin was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list each instance in which he exercised the power of the nolle prosegui in relation to the collapse of ISC-Ferranti. [36697]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: No nolle prosequi was issued in relation to the collapse of ISC-Ferranti. James Guerin, the former deputy chairman of Ferranti International Signals plc, and Robert
  460
  Shireman, former financial director of ISC (Technologies) Ltd., who had entered into plea agreements with the United States Attorney were granted limited immunity from prosecution by the then director of the Serious Fraud Office. The Serious Fraud Office undertook, in return for their co-operation with the investigation, not to prosecute Mr. Guerin and Mr. Shireman here for any offence in respect of which they were to be prosecuted in the United States. Mr. Geurin was subsequently sentenced to the United States to 15 years' imprisonment.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General when his office was advised that there was evidence of fraud related to the merger of ISC and Ferranti; and which agency or agencies so advised. [36695]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: My office was first advised on the inquiry by the Serious Fraud Office in September 1989, and was thereafter kept informed of the progress of the inquiry.

PRIME MINISTER

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget to be employed (i) full time and (ii) part time,(a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39473]

  The Prime Minister
  Ten people are employed in press, media, information and publicity.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39413]

  The Prime Minister
  Ten people were employed, on a full-time basis, to work in information publicity press and media, in each of the years 1995–96, 1994–95 and 1993–94.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94. [39437]

  The Prime Minister
  The cost for staff employed in the No. 10 press office for each year since 1993–94 is as follows:

  1993–94: £450,000

  1994–95: £450,000

  1995–96: £480,000

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39439]

  The Prime Minister
  The expenditure on staff in the No. 10 press office in 1995–96 was £480,00. The outturn expenditure in 1996–97 will be published after the end of the financial year.
  461
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost assumed in the budget of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39991]

  The Prime Minister
  The expenditure on staff in the No. 10 press office in 1995–96 was £480,000. The outturn expenditure in 1996–97 will be published after the end of the financial year.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39355]

  The Prime Minister
  My office does not use consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media.

  Honours Awards (Health Service)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of honours awarded in each of the last five years were awarded to people working in the health service. [39765]

  The Prime Minister
  The percentages are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1992

  7.1

  1993

  6.1

  1994

  6.5

  1995

  6.1

  1996

  6.1

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for the operation of the independent tribunal service. [39629]

  The Prime Minister
  The independent tribunal service is an independent statutory body, sponsored by the Department of Social Security. The President is responsible for its operation. He and its full and part-time chairmen are appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Ministers' Pay
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers(a) will be and (b) will not be accepting the pay increases recommended by the senior salaries review body and approved by the House. [39675]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers(a) will be and (b) will not be accepting the pay increases recommended by the senior salaries review body and approved by the House. [40015]

  The Prime Minister
  These are private matters for the individuals concerned.

  European Movement
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Prime Minister what financial assistance the Government made to the European 462
  Movement in 1985; and what plans he has to offer financial assistance in future years. [40078]

  The Prime Minister
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Government Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy to require Ministers within his Government to read and initial answers to parliamentary questions which relate directly to the work of their Departments when those answers are prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his assumption of responsibility for the preparation of Government statistics; and if he will make a statement; [37742]

  (2) what specific steps he has taken to ensure that individual Ministers within his Government are made aware of each of the answers being given to parliamentary questions relating directly to the work of their Department in those cases where the answers to those questions are givne by the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his assumption of responsibility for the preparation of Government statistics; what steps he is taking to ensure that those Ministers are required to record their awareness of such questions on each occasion upon which they arise; and if he will make a statement; [37741]

  (3) what public policy objectives are served by having the Chancellor of the Exchequer respond to written parliamentary questions dealing with abortion statistics; [37745]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the handling by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Government statistics relating to the work of other Government Departments is consistent with the enhancement of the constitutional role of the House in scrutinising the actions of the Executive; [37743]

  (5) what consultation he had with right hon. and hon. Members prior to the decision that questions in respect of certain Government statistics were to be handled in future by the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than by the Minister to whose actions and policies they refer. [37744]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: The arrangements for answering parliamentary questions relating to the work of the Office for National Statistics have been reviewed, the aim being to enhance the accountability of Ministers to Parliament for the policies for which they are responsible and to emphasise that the statistics themselves are the responsibility of the director of the ONS, thereby improving public confidence in them.

  With effect from the start of the 1996–97 Session the following procedures will apply:

  all oral questions, and written questions which have some policy aspect, will be answered by the relevant Minister in whichever Department has responsibility for the subject concerned;

  written questions simply seeking statistics that are the responsibility of the director of the ONS, will be delegated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the director of the ONS for answer, which will also be printed in the Official Report; and

  463
  the director of the ONS will routinely copy his answers to whichever Ministers he considers may have an interest.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Pay and Allowances
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his estimate of the annual saving to public funds(a) gross and (b) net arising from the reduction of the top rate of car mileage allowance for hon. Members from 74.lp per mile to 47.2p per mile. [37848]

  Mr. Newton
  The single rate of car mileage allowance, 47.2p per mile for the first 20,000 miles and 21.7p thereafter, will come into effect from 1 April 1997, uprated by the percentage increase, if any, by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with March 1996. The supply estimate for the Members vote for the financial year 1997–98, the first year of the single mileage rate, has not yet been compiled. I have therefore taken the year 1995–96, the most recent complete year for which data are available, as the base upon which to estimate an order of savings. On that basis I would anticipate an annual overall saving of around £2 million. It is not possible at this stage to calculate net savings.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the annual cost to public funds, gross and net, arising from the increase in the salary rate of hon. Members to £43,000. [37849]

  Mr. Newton
  The estimated annual cost to public funds arising from the increase in the salary rate of hon. Members from £34,000 to £43,000 is £7.6 million. The cost in 1996–97 is estimated to be £5.7 million.

  Ministers
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members who were elected at each of the 1966, 1970 and 1979 general elections have been at some time Ministers in the Government, in receipt of ministerial salaries; and in each case what percentage of the total membership of the House this constituted. [37893]

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  EU Memoranda
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many explanatory memoranda on European Union matters have been submitted to Parliament by Ministers in each of the last three years. [38807]

  Mr. Newton
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, the table gives the numbers of European Community documents deposited in Parliament in the last three years for consideration by the House of Commons Select Committee on European 464
  Legislation and the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities. Explanatory memoranda will have been produced on all but a small number of these documents and many will also have been the subject of supplementary memoranda updating Parliament on developments in negotiations or answering specific questions raised by either Select Committee. In addition, unnumbered explanatory memoranda are sometimes submitted to Parliament when a formal Community document is not available.

  European Community documents deposited in Parliament

  Year

  Documents

  1993

  732

  1994

  769

  1995

  727

  Water Consumption
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) what steps have been taken to promote water efficiency in phase 2 of the new parliamentary building; what will be the capacity of lavatory cisterns in the new building; and what is the projected average daily water use per regular occupant of the building; [39884]

  (2) what were the figures for overall water consumption on the parliamentary estate over the last five years; what are the figures for average daily water use per regular occupant of the estate; what water conservation devices are in place on the estate; and what plans there are (a) to improve the efficiency of and (b) to reduce water use; [39885]

  (3) what steps have been taken to investigate the feasibility, costs and benefits of (a) reducing the flush volume of lavatories and (b) fitting automatic timers to urinal flushing systems on the parliamentary estate; [39886]

  (4) what is the estimated annual volume of water use on lawns, plants and flowers on the parliamentary estate; and what studies have been made of the potential for using trickle or drop feed irrigation for such watering; [39887]

  (5) what steps have been taken to investigate the feasibility, costs and benefits of fitting spray taps to basins on the parliamentary estate. [39888]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  I will ask the Director of Parliamentary Works to write to the hon. Member.

  President Mandela (Brass Plaque)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has to instal a brass plaque on the steps of Westminster Hall to commemorate the visit of President Mandela. [39731]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have seen my hon. Friend's early-day motion 1155 on President Mandela's speech in Westminster Hall which I note has attracted the support of hon. Members from many of the parties represented in the House.

  The final decision on whether such a plaque should be installed is, of course, a matter for the authorities controlling Westminster Hall. I propose to put the matter

  465
  before the Administration Committee at its first meeting in the new Session, with a view to formulating a possible recommendation to Madam Speaker.

  Members' Pay Increase
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have informed the Fees Office that they will be approving payment to a charity of the whole or part of the increases payable on the decisions taken by the House on 10 July. [39673]

  Mr. Newton
  I am advised by the Fees Office that five "Give As You Earn" amendment forms have been issued since 10 July, but I am unable to say whether these forms have been requested as a result of the decision of the House that day.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each occasion in the last two months in which his Department has consulted farmers directly about policy development concerning BSE and the beef crisis; and if he will make a statement. [37362]

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend Baroness Denton will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Banned Feed
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [37355]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 19 July,Official Report column 699.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC officers arrived by helicopter in a field adjacent to Stonebridge roundabout, Rickhill on 9 July at approximately 1500 hours; how many of these officers had their services number openly displayed on their uniforms; how many plastic bullets were fired at the crowd at the roundabout; what warning was giving by the RUC offices that they intended to fire plastic bullets; what factors underlay the decision to use plastic bullets; if the principle of the use of minimum force was applied; and if he will make a statement. [373790]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Operational matters are issues for the Chief Constable of the RUC. However, plastic bullets are not in use in Northern Ireland.
  466
  In general terms, during the very grave incidents of the 10-day period between 7 and 16 July the RUC undertook many security duties which put them in danger. At different times it became necessary to use plastic baton rounds against identified targets actively involved in attacking police officers.

  Demonstration (Comber)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons he estimates were involved in a protest at Bridge street, Comber on 10 July; if he will list the recorded incidents of attacks on(a) people and (b) property; how many Royal Ulster Constabulary officers arrived at the location by 2300 hours; what warnings the RUC issued to the protesters; what factors underlay the decisions of the RUC to use batons against protesters; and if he will make a statement. [37890]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Medical Equipment
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of arrangements for replacing X-ray and nuclear medicine equipment in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the provision of such equipment. [38228]

  Mr. Moss
  The replacement of X-ray and nuclear equipment in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of health service providers. Annual allocations of general capital made to these providers enables them to set their own local priorities and make any arrangements for the replacement of equipment including X-ray and nuclear medical.

  Since October 1991 the contracting and purchase of diagnostic imaging equipment have been arranged centrally through the regional supplies service. The effectiveness of these procedures is demonstrated by the substantial discounts in excess of 20 per cent. which have been achieved since their introduction. Increasingly in the future I will be looking to the private finance initiative to help tackle some of the problems in equipment replacement.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary visited the Anglo-Irish secretariat at Maryfield, Belfast between 1 June and 6 July; and if he will make a statement on discussions between RUC officers and members of the Anglo-Irish secretariat. [38920]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39449]

  (2) what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media; [39342]

  (3) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39384]

  (4) how many staff were employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94; [39424]

  (5) what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide nformation and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94; [39406]

  (6) what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39978]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of(a) men and (b) women, convicted by courts, of drug offences in Northern Ireland during 1995. [39222]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39527]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39303]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Northern Ireland Forum
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Northern Ireland Forum have submitted their resignations; and if he will make a statement. [39330]

  Mr. Ancram
  I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Housing Benefit (Abbeyfield Society)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the Abbeyfield Society regarding recent changes in housing benefit. [39592]

  Mr. Moss
  I have received six letters from elected representatives on behalf of the Abbeyfield Society.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed changes to housing benefit on residents of Abbeyfield homes with particular reference to the increases in fees for residents; and if he will make a statement. [39593]

  Mr. Moss
  The Government have carefully considered all representations on this matter and have concluded that the sudden removal of this source of income may cause significant difficulties for many vulnerable people in supported accommodation.

  On 8 July my right hon. and learned Friend withdrew the proposed draft regulations and has commissioned a review of the arrangements for funding supported accommodation.

  No decision to proceed with the proposed legislation will be taken in Great Britain or Northern Ireland until the Government have considered the findings of the review and taken account of all matters raised by interested organisations.

  School Transport
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to abolish the three-for-two rule on Ulsterbus buses used for the transport of school children. [39597]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no plans to abolish the rule. However, under the Public Service Vehicle (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment and Use) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, which came into operation on 24 January of this year, the three-for-two concession for buses no longer applies where seat belts are fitted.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure that Ulsterbus is paid by the education and library boards only for passes which are used; and what plans he has to ensure that Ulsterbus is paid for each journey undertaken by schoolchildren with passes. [39598]

  Mr. Ancram
  The current contractual arrangements whereby boards pay to Ulsterbus Ltd. an average sessional ticket price for pupils incorporates a reduction in the actual cost to reflect non usage. There are no plans to alter these arrangements.

  Training Schools
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much Government funding has been provided in total to Rathgael training centre in each of the last 20 years; and what is the breakdown of this funding under care and justice functions; [39564]

  (2) how much Government funding has been provided in total to St. Patrick's training school in each of the last 20 years. [39565]
  469
  Sir John Wheeler
  Records readily available of Government funding at St. Patrick's or Rathgael training schools date only from 1987–88. Funding provided to the two training schools was as follows:

  Rathgael £000

  St. Patrick's £000

  1987–88

  3,200

  1,852

  1988–89

  2,907

  2,247

  1989–90

  3,511

  1,931

  1990–91

  3,314

  2,237

  1991–92

  3,996

  2,558

  1992–93

  3,874

  3,077

  1993–94

  3,971

  3,835

  1994–95

  4,209

  4,015

  1995–96

  6,154

  3,225

  Funding levels are primarily based on average occupancy levels at the training schools. It is not readily possible to distinguish between care and justice functions.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many applications for dumps in the Ballygowan area have been(a) approved and (b) rejected in the last five years; [39590]

  (2) how many objections have been received in respect of planning application 0408 relating to 35 Magherascouse road, Ballygowan; and what is the current status of this application. [39589]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subjects in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 24 July 1996:
  Mr Moss has asked me to reply to your questions about how many applications for dumps in the Ballygowan area had been approved or rejected in the last 5 years, and how many objections had been received in respect of Planning Application 0408 relating to 35 Magherascouse Road, Ballygowan.
  During the last 5 years, The Planning Service has approved 4 and rejected no applications for dumps in the Ballygowan area. As regards Planning Application 0408, the application was received on 22 May 1996 and is at an early stage in the consultation process. To date, 23 letters and 1 petition have been received objecting to the proposal.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received regarding the proposed fluoridation of water in Northern Ireland; and how many have been(a) in favour and (b) against. [39594]

  Mr. Moss
  I have to date received a total of 158 representations, of which 30 have been in favour and 128 against the proposal.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat (Protests)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the formal protests lodged by the Irish Government with the Anglo-Irish secretariat since November 1985, with the subject matter in each case; [39577]
  470
  (2) if he will list the protests lodged with the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat since 1985 and the subject matter. [39580]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

  Indecency Convictions
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many males(a) were convicted and (b) were cautioned in respect of the offences of gross indecency, indecent behaviour and indecent assault in 1995 which involved only males separately identifying those involving minors. [39578]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

  Belfast International Airport
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria will be used to decide(a) the price and (b) the buyer in the sale of Belfast international airport; and if he will make a statement. [39579]

  Mr. Moss
  The price offered for Belfast international airport is a matter for the commercial judgment of the existing owners and the proposed purchaser.

  The Government retained a reversionary interest in BIAL the principal purpose of which was to enable it to retain, for security reasons, an element of control over the identity of the owners of the property. The control mechanisms can be exercised by means of a special share and a 999-year lease. The current management of BIAL, has complied with the requirements of the special share in consulting the department with regard to the identity of the proposed purchasers.

  The Government welcome this important vote of confidence in the strength and potential of the Northern Ireland economy.

  Phoenix Criminal Record System
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what access the Royal Ulster Constabulary has to the Phoenix criminal record system used in Great Britain; and what is the Northern Ireland equivalent of that system. [39581]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary, through designated offices, can access the Phoenix criminal record system to:

  (i) search and extract conviction details; and

  (ii) enter and extract details of wanted or missing persons.

  Criminal records within the RUC are retained on computer; the system is called CIRS—criminal information retrieval system.

  Border Markers (Discussions)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to enter into discussions with the Irish Government with a view to the authorities
  471
  in the Republic of Ireland marking clearly on every cross-border road where British territory ends and Irish territory begins. [39671]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government will consider raising the issue via the intergovernmental conference arrangements, but essentially the way in which roads are marked in the Republic of Ireland is a matter for the Irish Government.

  Car Park Charges
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the average increase in car park charges in Department of Environment car parks in 1996; and what was the increase in car parks in Newtownards. [39655]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. J. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about car park charges in Department of Environment car parks.
  The average increase in car parking charges across Northern Ireland is 30%. The average increase in Newtownards is approximately 39%.

  Civilian Disturbances (Deaths)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Great Britain and (c) the Republic of Ireland have been killed by (i) loyalist terrorists, (ii) republican terrorists, (iii) the police and (iv) the Army since 1968 in civil disturbances in Northern Ireland; and how many in (i) to (iv) are assessed to have been (1) Protestant and (2) Roman Catholic. [39591]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Ulsterbus (Overcrowding)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to prevent overcrowding of buses operated by Ulsterbus. [39595]

  Mr. Moss
  Each bus is certified as to the number of seats and the level of standing by the public service vehicle authorities and the company adheres to these regulations. Enforcement of the regulations is carried out by the bus driver. Periodic checks, involving a physical count of passengers, are carried out by inspectors. The maximum carrying capacity is displayed on each bus.

  Business Development Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing the business development service of the 472
  Department of Finance and Personnel as a next steps agency. [39935]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The business development service of the Department of Finance and Personnel will be established as an executive agency on 1 October 1996. It will continue to be known as the business development service.

  I have set a number of key performances targets for the agency to achieve by April 1997, as follows:
  at least 80 per cent. of customers to be satisfied with the services that they have received;
  at least 80 per cent. of customers to be satisfied with the way in which services were assessed and provided;
  an efficiency saving of 5 per cent. to be achieved in running costs over 1995–96 along with an improvement of 4 per cent. in unit costs across all services; and
  the agency to be positioned to recover the costs of its services of Telecommunications, Information Systems Services, Information Systems Personnel and Training, Thinklink, the Human Resource Management System, Forms Design and the Central Print Unit commencing on 1 April 1997, and to continue to develop mechanisms for charging for all other services.

  Copies of the framework document which sets out the terms within which the agency will operate will be placed in the Library prior to the agency's launch along with its first corporate and business plan.

  Parades and Marches
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the terms of reference for the proposed review of parades and marches in Northern Ireland. [39936]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The review of parades and marches in Northern Ireland which I announced in the House on 15 July will have the following terms of reference:"To review, in the light of evidence received from any interested party and having regard to the particular experience of 1996, the current arrangements for handling public processions and open-air public meetings and associated public order issues in Northern Ireland, including
  the adequacy of the current legal provisions, and in particular the adequacy of the statutory criteria used in making decisions on public processions and open-air public meetings
  the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of State, police and others
  the possible need for new machinery, both formal and informal, to play a part in determining whether and how certain public processions and open-air public meetings should take place
  the possible role for and composition of Codes of Practice for organisers of and participants in public processions and open-air public meetings
  and to make recommendations by the end of January 1997."

  The review will begin as soon as possible. I hope to announce the names of those conducting the review shortly.

  Health and Safety Division
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the prior options study of the health and safety division of the Department of Economic Development has been completed; and what was the outcome. [39937]

  Mr. Moss
  This study, which was undertaken by independent consultants, has been completed and Ministers have concluded that a new executive non-departmental public body, operating along next steps lines, should be established to carry out the functions presently exercisable by both the division and the existing Health and Safety Agency in Northern Ireland.

  An Order in Council will be required to implement the recommendations and the timetable will therefore be governed by progress in the making of that order.

  Public Order (Review)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review the handling of public order situations and the use of plastic baton rounds in Northern Ireland. [40013]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, as part of this year's formal inspection process, will conduct a review of the RUC 's procedures and training for handling public order situations including those relating to the use of plastic baton rounds. That review will take account of the disorders associated with recent marches, including the need to ensure adequate protection of RUC officers faced with determined assaults and petrol bombs. HMI's inspection report will be publicly available later this year.

  Pre-school Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to have a pilot scheme in Northern Ireland to introduce the voucher system for pre-school education; and if he will make a statement. [40095]

  Mr. Ancram
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the licences currently issued by his Department, indicating their function and the annual administrative costs for each. [37816]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: The information requested has been placed in the Library. Other than where indicated, to provide the administrative costs of the licences would incur disproportionate cost.

  Ulster Hospital (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been waiting more than two years for initial appointments with consultants at the Ulster hospital; in what specialties; and what is the longest waiting time currently outstanding. [36663]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Information is not held centrally for waiting times at individual hospitals. The figure given shows the total for the Ulster
  474
  North Down and Ards health and social services trust of out-patients who are waiting 24 months and over for their first out-patient appointment at the end of March 1996:
  Plastic Surgery—1

  Information held centrally relates only to those people waiting 24 months and over. The longest waiting time currently outstanding is not therefore readily available.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the past 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39143]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Assistance towards small firms in Northern Ireland is delivered for the Department of Economic Development by its agency the local enterprise development unit— LEDU.

  LEDU's strategy forms an integral part of the Government's approach to encourage competitiveness and growth among small businesses and I am extremely encouraged that LEDU continues to build upon its excellent performance over past years. The recent study by the Northern Ireland Economic Research Council on LEDU's impact on small firm performance in Northern Ireland from 1989 to 1994, concluded that the agency is making a considerable impact on the small business population, with a 54 per cent. employment increase amongst LEDU-assisted firms over the period. In addition, turnover amongst LEDU "growth" clients increased by 40 per cent. in real terms and external sales by these companies increased by 63 per cent.

  LEDU launched its new corporate plan for the period 1995 to 1998 on 29 June 1995 and it includes a revised range of performance indicators, the key ones being:

  Performance indicators

  1995–96 Targets

  1995–96 Actual

  Contracts with growth companies

  150

  218

  Contracts with established companies

  200

  228

  Companies participating in export development programmes

  12

  12

  Companies participating in market awareness programmes

  120

  67

  Startups with export potential

  90

  127

  LEDU's end of year results for 1995–96 will be announced in September with the publication of its annual report. These will include the NIERC survey results for 1995–96.

  Non-fossil Fuel Generation Targets
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the generation targets for Northern Ireland from non-fossil fuel sources for the 15 years following inception of the scheme; what amount of that generation has been installed to date; what was the original target; what amount of electricity is generated from
  475
  each source at present; what is the forecast for generation until 2011; how much electricity has been available on average to date and what percentage of installed capacity this represents from each source; and what is the cost per unit of such electricity to (a) the customer and (b) Northern Ireland Electricity. [38622]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Government established in 1993 a target of 45 MW of renewable plant by the year 2005. The first non-fossil fuel obligation order was made on 31 March 1994 requiring NTE to purchase 15.6 MW of renewable energy. Three renewable technologies; wind (12.6 MW), water (hydro) (2.4 MW) and sewage gas (0.5 MW) were for inclusion in the order. An announcement on the size and composition of a second NFFO order is expected to be made within the next few weeks.

  To date, schemes with a declared net capacity of 10.8 MW—wind 10.5 MW and hydro 0.3 MW—have been installed. The wind schemes are currently generating 57 GWh per month; and the hydro schemes 0.1 GWh per month. These figures can vary significantly from month to month. The average monthly power produced by wind schemes since commissioning has been 47.0 GWh and by hydro schemes 0.06 GWh.

  There will be 45 MW of electricity generated from renewable schemes by 2005. All such schemes will still be operational in 2011. It is not possible to predict the level of additional renewables capacity which may come on line between 2005 and 2011.

  The installed capacity currently available from NFFP 1 is 24.7 MW—wind 98.8 per cent. and hydro 1.2 per cent.

  The average cost of electricity contracted to NIE under the first NFFO order is approximately 6.0p/kWh. For consumers, when all schemes are commissioned, this will represent an increase of under 1 per cent. in electricity prices.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland; what disciplinary action has been taken against Royal Ulster Constabulary over the firing of plastic bullets; and if he will undertake a review of the numbers of people who have received injuries from plastic bullets, and the occasions on which the RUC has fired in breach of the existing rules relating to the use of baton rounds. [38960]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: Plastic bullets are not used in Northern Ireland.

  On the question of a review of the use of plastic baton rounds, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).

  Allegations of breaches of the existing rules in respect of the use of baton rounds are treated as complaints against the police and are subject to thorough investigation. Statistics show that since 1990 no RUC officer has been the subject of disciplinary action as a result of the firing of a plastic baton round.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Development Boards
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the publication date of the code of practice for industrial development boards. [36250]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies applies to the regional industrial development boards. No additional code of practice is to be published.

  Missile Exports
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times since 1979 his Department has approved export licences for missiles which are capable of conversion to nuclear use; and for each occasion if he will give the date of approval and the end user specified in the licence. [36763]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  An initial sweep of computer data— which reliably extends back only to March 1990—has shown that, even for that period, the exercise would involve the manual examination and individual technical assessment of several hundred separate licensing records. That in itself would involve disproportionate cost.

  To cover the whole period would multiply that resource requirement several times, involving considerably more time-consuming manual searches.

  However, the UK has been, since its inception in 1987, a full and active member of the missile technology control regime and views every application for export licences for missiles, missile systems and associated technology with care.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with leaders of industry to discuss the effect of the century date change on computer systems. [37491]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I held a meeting on 9 July with representatives of industry and the Bank of England to discuss the impact of the century date change on computer systems in the private sector. The common assessment was that the problem was serious and that reaction by senior management was inadequate. Many companies are not aware of the issue. Others are aware but have yet to audit their own systems, or to tackle the problem with the necessary urgency. Those who are furthest advanced in taking action are reporting very significant costs to put it right.

  I therefore asked the Confederation of British Industry, representing users, and the Computer Services and Software Association, representing suppliers, to set up a joint task force to take stock of activities already under way, and to co-ordinate action across the UK. The objectives are to ensure that senior management in all companies are aware of the issue and that they have access to appropriate help. The Federation of the Electronic Industry will support the task force, the DTI will work closely with it and links will be made with the

  477
  central IT unit and CCTA to share experience and address issues across the public/private sector boundary. The task force will report on progress in September.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39147]

  Mr. Page
  The DTI report "Small Firms in Britain 1996" was published at the beginning of July and a copy was sent to all Members. The report sets out current Government policy for small businesses and includes key statistical indicators.

  "Your Business Matters—Government Response" was published as a companion document to the third competitiveness White Paper. The response outlines 30 measures aimed at helping small businesses to prosper and grow. The progress in implementing these measures will be monitored closely.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative hon. Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39523]

  Mr. Lang
  Meeting rooms have been booked on five occasions this Session.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many visits(a) the Secretary of State and (b) other Ministers in his Department have made to (i) the Newbury constituency and (ii) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39778]

  Mr. Lang
  According to our records, four visits have been made by DTI Ministers to the Newbury constituency during the last 12 months.

  It would not be possible to answer the second part of the question except at disproportionate cost.

  Domestic Telephone Bills
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average domestic telephone bill in the year before the privatisation of British Telecom; and what is the current equivalent. [37668]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Prices for a basket of BT's commonly used services have fallen by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1984. I understand from BT that the median quarterly bill of a typical residential customer in the year prior to privatisation was £25.82—excluding connection charges. This represents £45.59 in 1995–96 terms— adjusted for inflation. Since then, residential phone users on average have increased their use of the telephone, and this is reflected in the median quarterly BT residential 478
  bill in 1995–96 being £46.31. Over this period, residential phone users have benefited from significant reductions in the real price of individual services, and innovative improvements in quality.

  Universities
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department is doing to help increase the flow of resources from industry to the university sector. [37281]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department's support for technology foresight, Link and the industrial units scheme and our funding of relevant and collaborative research through the research councils are examples of support which encourages companies to work with the university sector to improve national competitiveness and quality of life. Other schemes such as the realising our potential award and foresight challenge have brought industrial funds into academia. Further information is given in our annual report, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints of(a) victimisation, (b) unfairness and (c) discrimination have been made in respect of Companies House in each of the last two years; how many have gone to (a) appeal and (b) tribunal; how many have been settled; and in each case what was the cost involved. [39533]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have asked the chief executive of Companies House executive agency to reply to the hon. Member directly.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 24 My 1996:
  In response to your recent Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade, I trust the following information is helpful.
  The table summaries formal complaints made during the last two years (to July 1996) at Companies House.

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Appeal

  Tribunal

  Settled

  Victimisation

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Unfairness

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  Discrimination

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Apart from internal management time and costs associated with investigation, appeal and legal advice no other costs have been incurred to date. Two cases remain to be settled and any potential cost involved in settlement has not yet been finalised.

  Working Time Directive
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss the working time directive. [37290]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no such plans at present. If the judgment of the European Court of Justice follows the opinion of the Advocate General, we will raise the question of treaty changes in the intergovernmental conference.
  479
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the numbers of people likely to be affected by the working time directive; and what percentage he estimates would refuse to agree in any circumstances to work more than 48 hours. [37300]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department estimates that some 2.1 million employees do not conform with the daily and weekly rest provisions in the working time directive; 2.7 million regularly work more than 48 hours a week; and about 0.2 million work over the directive's night work limit. Up to 3.8 million workers could be affected by the directive's paid holiday provisions. There is no information about how many of those who currently work more than 48 hours a week might refuse to do so.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the financing implications for the United Kingdom's economy of a maximum 48-hour working week. [37683]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department has received a wide range of representations about the working time directive. Many of these have been from organisations concerned about its potential cost implications.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government proposes to prevent the application of the working time directive in the United Kingdom from 23 November. [37283]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Government have challenged the legal basis of the working time directive in the European Court of Justice, and will be pursuing their fundamental concerns in the intergovernmental conference.

  Power Stations (Bovine Wastes)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made with the proposals for burning bovine wastes in power stations; what further regulatory clearances will be required for such disposal; and how environmental costs will be addressed. [40101]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are exploring all practical options for the disposal, after rendering, of wastes arising from the over 30-month slaughter scheme, that is, tallow and meat and bone meal. Among other steps, it has asked the power generators to consider the possibility of burning such wastes in power stations. National Power and PowerGen are currently conducting combustion testing on the materials at combustion test facilities at Didcot, Oxfordshire and Ratcliffe on Soar, Nottinghamshire, respectively. These tests are being monitoring by the Environment Agency.

  It is too early to say whether burning of these materials in power stations will be feasible. If it is, however, authorisation by the Environment Agency—or in Scotland by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would be required for any variations in the authorised process at any station proposed to be used. The relevant agency would have to consider whether any proposed variations were substantial. If it so concludes, the proposals must be advertised, and 28 days allowed for representations before the agency decides whether to authorise the proposed variations.
  480
  There might also be a need to vary the consents which have been given to the operation of power stations under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to disapply section 36 as provided for in section 36(4), in which case normal planning rules would apply in respect of any proposed changes to any station for this purpose. In either case, an environmental impact assessment may be required if the proposed changes were likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

  British Coal (Recreational Land)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are in place to ensure that British Coal's recreational land is safeguarded for future recreational use. [40102]

  Mr. Page
  The Government have consistently made clear their intention that British Coal land currently in active use for sport and recreation should be retained for those purposes. To that end, the Prime Minister announced today, at the launch of the first annual report for "Sport Raising the Game", that it has now been agreed by British Coal and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation that British Coal's freehold interest in its recreational land should be transferred to CISWO. This transfer will be on the basis that existing tenants will, generally, be offered new, long-term leases requiring that the land continues to be used for recreational purposes.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the forthcoming prior options reviews of units sponsored by the Medical Research Council. [40103]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government announced on 29 September 1995 that all public sector research establishments would be subject to prior options reviews.

  Reviews are now beginning of the MRC's arrangements for sponsoring the Dunn nutrition unit, virology unit, toxicology unit, reproductive biology unit, radiation and genome stability unit and mammalian genetics unit.

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

  I should welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 15 September 1996 to:
  Dr. Declan Mulkeen, Corporate Affairs Group, MRC Head Office, 20 Park Crescent. London WIN 4AL.

  Management Information System for Ministers
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish his Department's annual MINIS return. [40105]

  Mr. Lang
  The MINIS 96 returns for the Department, including its efficiency plan, were published on 24 July 1996. A set has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the revised framework document for the Radiocommunications Agency is to be published. [40100]

  Mr. Lang
  The Radiocommunications Agency's revised framework document has been published today. A copy of the revised framework document and a copy of an evaluation report on the performance of the Radiocommunications Agency since its inception as an executive agency in April 1990 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government have taken to follow up Sir Richard Scott's recommendation for a review of export controls. [40104]

  Mr. Lang
  In line with Sir Richard's recommendation at chapter K3.6 of his report, I am today publishing a consultative document on strategic export controls, Cm 3349, which will be available via HMSO, and am placing copies in the Libraries of both Houses. I have asked for responses to be made to my Department by 31 October. After this consultation, and depending on what decisions are taken, the Government may need to undertake further more detailed consultation with directly interested parties as proposals for change are worked up in detail.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the current state of industrial relations; and if he will make a statement. [37276]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Industrial relations have improved immensely since the 1960s and 1970s. Strikes in Britain remain at historically very low levels, with only 0.42 million working days lost in the 12 months to April 1996 compared with annual averages of 7.2 million in the 1980s and 12.9 million in the 1970s.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter of last week to the chairman of Royal Mail concerning a suspension of Royal Mail's monopoly on letters costing less than £1 to send. [38489]

  Mr. Lang
  I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of my letter dated 12 July to Sir Michael Heron, the chairman of the Post Office, which initiated consultations with the Post Office about the implications of a suspension of the statutory monopoly on the delivery of letters for under £1.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39300]
  482
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Any driver of a DTI vehicle is personally accountable for any traffic violations when in charge of the vehicle and for any costs incurred as a result. The Department's records are, therefore, very limited. We are aware of three tickets for speeding between 1990 and 1994 and six parking tickets between 1993 and 1996. We do not know the amount of the fines that were paid.

  The vehicles currently owned by the Department are not used and are in the process of being sold. There is no intention to replace them.

  Low Pay
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to combat low pay; and if he will make a statement. [37294]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The improved performance of the British economy since 1979, particularly the huge increase in productivity and low inflation, has allowed for significant increases in real wages at all levels, including the lower paid. This is in direct contrast to the late 1970s when low productivity meant that increases in earnings fed through to higher prices and increased inflation.

  South West Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the occasions between January 1980 and December 1984 on which members of his Department's south-west industrial office have absented themselves from board meetings because of potential conflicts of interest, indicating(a) the date, (b) the board members, (c) the company, (d) the value of the financial assistance applied for, (e) the value of the assistance subsequently offered and (f) the potential conflict of interest; [35244]

  (2) if he will list the occasions between January 1985 and December 1989 on which members of his Department's south-west industrial office have absented themselves from board meetings because of potential conflicts of interest, indicating (a) the date, (b) the board members, (c) the company, (d) the value of the financial assistance applied for, (e) the value of the assistance subsequently offered and (f) the potential conflict of interest. [35245]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answers 1 July 1996]: Listed in the table are the occasions when members of the South West industrial development board are known to have absented themselves—because of potential conflicts of interest— from discussions between 1980 and 1989 of cases which subsequently resulted in offers of regional selective assistance.

  Unfortunately, this list may be incomplete. The files containing the full minutes of the board before early 1988 were destroyed after a set period in accordance with the records management procedures then in place in the Department's south-west regional office—now absorbed in the Government office for the south-west. We have, however, been able to establish some earlier abstentions from other sources.

  I should make it clear that, throughout this period, board members declared directorships and similar substantial interests in companies both on appointment and when lists of forthcoming cases were regularly

  483
  circulated. Where such declarations had been made, the members concerned would neither have seen the papers relating to applications from those companies nor have attended relevant discussions of the board.

  Date

  Board member

  Cases

  Grant applied for £

  Grant offered £

  13 December 1983

  K. Holmes

  Marine Projects (Plymouth) Ltd.

  76,000

  1110,000

  29 October 1985

  V. Parsons

  Wandel and Goltermann Ltd.

  400,000

  400,000

  28 October 1986

  K. Holmes

  Marine Projects (Plymouth) Ltd.

  300,000

  300,000

  22 March 1988

  G. Hoare

  J and F Pool Ltd.

  250,000

  75,000

  28 February 1989

  K. Holmes

  Marine Projects (Plymouth) Ltd.

  1,000,000

  800,000

  25 July 1989

  R. Harris

  Ranco Controls Ltd.

  400,000

  400,000

  1 For expanded project.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 458–59, in what circumstances the financial assistance schemes mentioned go before the industrial development board for scrutiny and approval; and what other procedures are followed. [37713]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: Offers of regional selective assistance cases involving potential grant above a set level—which in the case of the south-west was until recently £100,000 but is now £250,000—but not exceeding £2 million are considered by a regional industrial development board—or, exceptionally, by the national industrial development advisory board. Offers of grant below the set level may be approved by officials without reference to the boards but officials have discretion to seek board advice in any case where they consider it desirable to do so. Offers of regional selective assistance above £2 million are normally appraised in headquarters and considered by the industrial development advisory board. All offers of £1 million or more are subject to ministerial approval.

  Offers of assistance under the other schemes referred to in my earlier answer have been considered by officials within guidelines and against criteria approved by Ministers, without reference to external advisory boards but subject to ministerial approval above certain thresholds.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance has been given by his Department since 1980 to Company A, the identity having been supplied to him, by(a) type of grant, (b) date offered, including month and (c) date of payment, including month. [37644]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: Company A was offered regional selective assistance of £2 million in October 1989. Payment was made in four instalments as follows:

  January 1991: £400,000

  December 1991: £800,000

  December 1992: £400,000

  December 1993: £400,000

  484
  No other assistance has been offered under the Department's principal regional, enterprise and technology schemes; nor has any loan to the company been covered under the small firms loan guarantee scheme.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 461–64, under what terms the financial assistance to Magrathea (Pendennis) Ltd. was granted; what is the company's current status; what assessment he has made of the productiveness of the grant; and if he will make a statement. [37647]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: Magrathea (Pendennis) Ltd. was offered regional selective assistance of £400,000 on 31 May 1994 to enable the company to establish a facility for the manufacture of marine components at Pendennis shipyard, Falmouth. The project had created 13 full-time jobs out of a total expected of 32 when the company suffered a major fire at the yard in October 1994 and subsequently went into receivership. A liquidator was appointed in February this year, and the Government office for the south-west has sought recovery of the total grant paid—£320,000. It is possible that Magrathea 2000 Ltd., which has bought the assets of Magrathea (Pendennis) Ltd. will continue the project.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if Mr. D was a member of his Department's South West industrial development board at the time of(a) the application and (b) the offer of any financial assistance since 1985 to company A, the identities having been supplied to him; [37642]

  (2) if, during his tenure on his Department's South West industrial development board, Mr. D was obliged to absent himself from any meetings due to a potential conflict of interest arising from his directorship and shareholding in company A, the identities having been supplied to him; [37645]

  (3) what role Mr. D has played in the granting of financial assistance by his Department to company A, the identities having been supplied to him. [37646]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answers 17 July 1996]: Mr. D was a member of the industrial development board when regional selective assistance was applied for, and offered to, company A in 1989. Because of the size of the application, the case was—in accordance with normal procedures—appraised centrally and not considered by the regional board; nor did Mr. D play any other role in the granting of the assistance. The Department is unaware of any instance where Mr. D's interests in company A necessitated his abstention from discussion by the board of applications by other companies.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board if Mr. B of his Department's South West industrial development board absented himself from board meetings discussing grant applications from company A due to a potential conflict of interest as a senior partner of the firm advising this company on its grant application; and if he will make a statement. [37643]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: As explained in my answer to a previous question, the board did not discuss the regional selective assistance application from company A.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the 10 largest industrial or commercial developments in England which resulted from inward investment since 1993; and, in each case, what estimate he has made of the number of jobs created and the average cost to public funds for each of these jobs. [37637]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: A full answer can be given only at disproportionate cost. Inward investment includes takeovers, expansions and joint ventures as well as new greenfield projects. Not all these will be eligible for public assistance.

  Sellafleld (Plutonium Store)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings have been held under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency or other relevant bodies concerning the establishment of an international regional plutonium store at Sellafield since his answer of 13 July 1993,Official Report, columns 430–31. [38242]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: None.

  Non-toxic Gunshot
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to amend the international proof convention on small arms to permit and facilitate the use of non-toxic gunshot. [38793]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: No steps are necessary. There is no current rule either domestic or made under the Permanent International Commission for the Proof of Small Arms—CIP—which restricts the use of non-toxic shot in guns. However, in certain situations, steel shot can damage gun barrels with implications for consumer safety. CIP has now produced regulations to avoid the sale of steel shot cartridges above a certain size and velocity.

  Exports
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the 10 largest manufactured exports from the United Kingdom at the eight digit standard international trade classification level. [38970]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The information is given in the following table:

  UK top ten exports—1995

  Rank

  Commodity code

  Description

  £ million

  1

  84719180

  Digital processing units other than for use in civil aircraft

  3,398

  2

  71023100

  Diamonds, sorted

  2,410

  3

  87032319

  Motor vehicles, new, with an engine exceeding 1,500 cc not exceeding 3,000 cc

  2,397

  4

  30049019

  Medicaments (including veterinary) other than containing iodine, packaged for retail sale

  2,054

  5

  87032410

  Motor vehicles, new, with an engine exceeding 3,000 cc

  1,733

  6

  84733010

  Electronic assemblies of automatic data processing machines

  1,642

  486

  UK top ten exports—1995

  Rank

  Commodity code

  Description

  £ million

  7

  84733090

  Other parts and accessories of automatic data processing machines

  1,638

  8

  85252090

  Radio transmitters-receivers, other than for use in civil aircraft

  1,467

  9

  88033010

  Other parts of civil aircraft, other than propellers, undercarriage, tyres, electrical parts

  1,353

  10

  87089998

  Parts and accessories for motor vehicles chassis without engines

  1,327

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the UK.

  Space Policy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was discussed, and what conclusions were reached, at his seminar on space policy with industry on 25 June; and what date has been set for the next one. [38891]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The space policy forum I held on 25 June was extremely successful and was attended by representatives from across the space community. The forum considered the whole range of issues affecting the sector and made an invaluable contribution to the forward plan for UK space activities, which I am publishing today. This process forms an essential part of UK space policy. I look forward to further regular consultation with the space community within the framework set by the plan.

  Export Guarantees Advisory Council
  Dr. 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.

  Enterprise Zones
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the enterprise zones created in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [39559]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the last three years, the enterprise zones created have been east midlands, Dearne Valley and east Durham—all designated in 1995—and Tyne riverside which is in the process of being designated this year.

  Since the enterprise zone scheme was introduced in 1981, the Government have developed a range of alternative schemes to promote regeneration and growth. These are generally better targeted and can be

  487
  implemented more rapidly than the enterprise zones scheme which, in part as a result of EC regulations, can take up to three years to designate. Enterprise zones can affect economic activity over wide areas through displacement effects and are not the appropriate regeneration measure in most circumstances. In December 1987, the Government announced that the enterprise zone scheme would not be extended other than in exceptional circumstances.

  Considerate Constructors Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department has taken to support and promote the building industry's considerate constructors scheme; and if he will make a statement. [39797]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The considerate constructors scheme is an initiative being piloted by the Construction Industry Board, chaired by Sir Michael Latham. Both the board and the scheme have the full support of the Government.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39341]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. My Department does not employ consultants within these areas.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff are assumed in her Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time,(a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39468]

  Mr. Sproat
  Staff in the information division work on publicity and press projects. There are currently 12 full-time information grade posts, and no part-time posts.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (bj on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39423]

  Mr. Sproat
  Staff in the information division work on publicity and press projects. The number of information grade posts in each of the past three years has been:

  1995–96: 10

  1994–95: 11

  1993–94: 11

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94. [39407]
  488
  Mr. Sproat
  Staff in information division of the Department of National Heritage work on press and publicity projects. The total cost for both (i) and (ii) of staff employed full time or part time was:

  (a) £390,864

  (b) £435,818

  (c) £428,685

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97; [39977]

  (2) what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39447]

  Mr. Sproat
  The total cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time in the Department of National Heritage, to provide information and publicity and to work on the press and the media in 1996–97 is £455,380.

  Staff in information division of the Department of National Heritage work on both press and publicity projects.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to receive the report from the Middleton committee on the future financing of the film industry; and if she will make a statement. [39693]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive the report on 31 July.

  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to receive the report from the Advisory Committee on Film Finance on the future financing of the United Kingdom film industry. [39584]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive the report on 31 July.

  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the levels of investment in United Kingdom film production in 1996–97. [39586]

  Mr. Sproat
  Figures for 1996–97 are not available, but the total investment in UK-linked films going into production in the first half of the calendar year 1996 was reported to be £333 million.

  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the agencies which have made representations to the Middleton committee on the film industry. [39585]

  Mr. Sproat
  The following organisations have made representations to the advisory committee:

  Premier Media Ltd.

  British Film Institute

  British Screen Advisory Council

  Candover Services Ltd.

  Cinema Exhibitors Association

  Durlacher and Co., Plc

  European Film Finance and Insurers Association

  Film Financing Ltd

  Film Investment and Loan Management Services Ltd.

  489

  Guardian Royal Exchange

  Heath Martens Horner Ltd.

  Hydra Associates Ltd.

  KPMG

  Legal and General Investment Management

  Mercury Asset Management

  Midland Bank Plc

  Nat West Markets

  National Film and Television School

  Pearson Television

  Rank Organisation

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Rutherford Asset Management

  Shepperton Studios

  Society of Film Distributors

  United International Pictures (UK)

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in her name, or that of other Ministers in her Department, for meetings with Conservative hon. Members immediately preceding questions to her Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39530]

  Mr. Sproat
  On no occasions.

  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many applications for support from the national heritage memorial fund have been received for projects(a) of a specifically Christian nature and (b) which recognise the millennium as marking 2,000 years since the birth of Jesus Christ; of those how many have been approved; and at what COSt. [39583]

  Mr. Sproat
  The heritage lottery fund does not categorise by religious denomination. However, to date 566 applications have been received from religious organisations 31 per cent. of total—asking for grants amounting to £57,505,362. Eighty-seven grants have been awarded to religious organisations, 23 per cent. of total grants awarded amounting to £8,024,510.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total national lottery funding allocated for distribution through the heritage commission in 1995–96; what sum is planned for 1996–97; what was the total sum allocated and paid through the commission in 1995–96; and what sum has been allocated and paid to date in 1996–97. [40039]

  Mr. Sproat
  The total national lottery funding allocated for distribution through the national heritage memorial fund in 1995–96 was £305 million; of this, £40.4 million was drawn down in that year. A total of £33.6 million has been drawn down in 1996–97 out of a planned expenditure of £197 million. Estimated income for the NHMF in 1996–97 is £250 million.

  Loan Indemnification
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total value of contingent liabilities arising from her indemnification, under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980, of loans from the Gilbert collection to the Victoria and Albert museum. [40030]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend made a written statement to the House on 5 June 1996 at columns 499–500 setting out the total value of statutory contingent liabilities arising from all section 16 indemnities that remained outstanding at 31 March 1996. Since making that report, we have indemnified, under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980, a number of loans by the Gilbert Public Arts Foundation to the Victoria and Albert museum. The current total value of statutory contingent liabilities arising from these particular undertakings is £33,140,563. The Gilbert loans comprise an outstanding collection of more than 600 pieces of historic English and continental gold and silversmiths' work from about 1500 to 1830 and the definitive group of micromosaics and pietra dura furniture. The objects will be with the V and A for about three years and a number of them will be on display to the public.

  British Academy of Sport
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made in establishing the British academy of sport. [40021]

  Mr. Sproat
  Details of the Government's proposals for the British academy of sport, as the pinnacle of a regional network of centres of sporting excellence and academies for particular sports, are set out in the bid prospectus, which is published today. Bidders have until 31 October to submit their bids, and it is hoped that a final decision will be reached by the end of January 1997.

  I have placed copies of the prospectus in the Libraries of the House.

  "Sport: Raising the Game"
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on implementing the initiatives set out in "Sport: Raising the Game". [40086]

  Mr. Sproat
  We have today published "Sport: Raising the Game—The First Year Report", which reports progress on all 38 action points set out in the sports policy statement published last July.

  The report shows that real progress has been made in the past year, but it also emphasises our determination to sustain the momentum in the coming year.

  In schools, a revised physical education curriculum, with greater emphasis on team games, was introduced in August 1995.

  From the 1996–97 academic year, schools' annual reports and prospectuses will include information on sporting aims, provision and achievements.

  In October, secondary schools, which have particularly good policies for sport, will be able to apply for a sportsmark award. The first awards will be made in April 1997.
  491
  From this summer, games that are offered as part of the formal PE curriculum will be inspected and reported on by Ofsted. Inspectors will also report on extra-curricular sporting provision made by the school.

  The Ofsted survey of good practice in school PE was published in December 1995, and a summary was sent to all schools in January 1996.

  For the first time, Her Majesty's chief inspector's annual report in February 1996 addressed the state of both curriculum PE and extra-curricular activities and sport in schools.

  Pilot "Coaching Weeks for Teachers" are under way, involving 300 to 500 teachers and trainee teachers. The aim is to mount a nationwide programme in 1997–98.

  Schools can claim up to 80 per cent. of the costs of a new facility from the lottery sports fund for projects linked with their communities and sports clubs.

  A £2 million challenge fund, to promote links between schools and clubs, has been established by the Sports Council. Applications will be invited from schools, clubs and governing bodies of sport this October.

  From 5 August, following concern that too many school, and other, playing fields had been sold off, the Sports Council will be a statutory consultee for planning applications affecting playing fields.

  Under the Sports Council's priority areas initiative, announced earlier this year, up to 90 per cent. lottery funding is now available for projects in defined areas of recreational and social deprivation.

  The Further Education Funding Council published a report last month focusing on good sporting practice in further education colleges.

  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Standing Conference of Principals will be publishing an audit of higher education sports facilities and provision in the autumn.

  The report of the working group on university sports scholarships, chaired by Sir Roger Bannister, was published last month. The report highlights the increasing importance of the higher education sector in providing opportunities for the development of sporting excellence. Its main recommendation is that increased investment in talented sports men and women attending university, through lottery-funded sports scholarships, is an essential step in ensuring the development of our sporting elite.

  Details of the Government's proposals for the British academy of sport, as the pinnacle of a regional network of centres of sporting excellence and academies of particular sports, are included in the bid prospectus which is published today. Bidders have until 31 October to submit their bids, and it is hoped that a final decision will be reached by the end of January 1997.

  The first year report also reports on the restructuring of the sports councils, the very successful first year of the lottery sports fund, the launch in March 1996 of the national junior sport programme, and on initiatives taken
  492
  by governing bodies of sport and local authorities relating to school sport.

  I have today placed copies of "Sport: Raising the Game—The First Year Report" in the Libraries of the House.

  BBC Transmitter Network
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the proposals for the privatisation of the BBC's transmitter network; and what assessment she has made of the impact this will have on the provision of NICAM broadcasting facilities throughout the BBC s transmitter network. [38643]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: As we announced last November, the BBC is handling the arrangements for the sale of its transmission assets. I understand that the BBC remains committed to an extension of NICAM stereo sound coverage as part of its continuing programme of investment in its transmitter network. It is for the BBC to determine the rate and order of this programme in the light of its resources and other engineering priorities. This position will not be affected by the privatisation of the transmission network.

  Lottery Funding (Wales)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list under each head through which money is available from the national lottery the organisations in Wales which have been allocated money; and what assessment she has made of the take-up rate of the allocations. [38840]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: To date, 767 awards in Wales totalling £152,278,948 have been made. I will write to the hon. Member with a full list of these awards. National lottery awards are made in response to applications.

  Millennium Fund
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many projects supported by the millennium fund(a) recognise the millennium as marking 2,000 years since the birth of Jesus Christ and (b) otherwise have a specifically Christian character; [39582]

  (2) how many schemes have been approved and of what value from the millennium fund; how many of these and at what value (a) specifically recognise that the year 2,000 as marking the birth of Jesus Christ and (b) are of a Christian nature; and what percentage of the total approved schemes by number and value these represent. [39652]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will reply to the hon. Member in her capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of her reply in the Libraries of the House.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the grants awarded by the national lottery organisations in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) the South Tyneside district council area and (c) the Tyne and Wear area. [38014]

  Awards made in the Jarrow Constituency to date

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title/description

  Award amount £

  Arts

  24 January 1996

  Groundwork South Tyneside

  Groundwork Eco Office proposal

  95,000.00

  NLCB

  11 June 1996

  The Jazzmanelles

  Purchase of new uniforms for 35 members, including musical equipment to encourage self respect and participation

  5,500.00

  Sports

  5 June 1995

  Whitburn Cricket Club

  Purchase of Cricket Pitch and Clubhouse

  78,000.00

  Sports

  7 November 1995

  Whitburn Community Association

  Extend existing changing block

  22,948.00

  4 Awards

  Total

  201,448.00

  Awards to date in the South Tyneside District Council area

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title/description

  Award amount £

  Arts

  24 January 1996

  Groundwork South Tyneside

  Groundwork Eco Office proposal

  95,000.00

  NLCB

  11 June 1996

  The Jazzmanelles

  Purchase of new uniforms for 35 members, including musical equipment to encourage self respect and participation

  5,500.00

  Sports

  5 June 1995

  Whitburn Cricket Club

  Purchase of Cricket Pitch and Clubhouse

  78,000.00

  Sports

  7 November 1995

  Whitburn Community Association

  Extend existing changing block

  22,948.00

  Arts

  15 May 1996

  The Customs House

  Feasibility study

  61,450.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Apna Ghar Women's Centre

  Technology Training for Ethnic Minority Women

  193,500.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  South Tyneside Womens Aid

  Improve Safety and Surroundings for Distressed Women and Children

  9,176.00

  NLCB

  11 June 1996

  South Tyneside Training and Enterprise Network (Ten)

  50% contribution to TEN's core funding enabling further economic regeneration at grass-roots. Salary and office costs.

  96,662.00

  NLCB

  11 June 1996

  Simonside Youth Centre

  Outdoor clothing, camping and sports equipment for 10 disadvantaged youth for Duke of Ed.Award South Shields

  8,000,00

  NLCB

  11 June 1996

  South Tyneside Citizens Advice Bureau

  Refurbishment 2 offices, employment 1 full time, 2 part time and support for tribunal representation and housebound South Shields

  197,710.00

  NLCB

  11 June 1996

  John Wright Centre Social Club

  The acquisition of a replacement ambulance for a social club for people with physical and/or learning disabilities.

  29,360.00

  NLCB

  11 June 1996

  Womens Hath in South Tyneside

  The provision of health information, counselling and support for women

  336,845.00

  Sports

  7 July 1995

  South Shields Sports Club

  New Hardcourts

  29,420.00

  13 Awards

  Total

  1,163,571.00

  British Cycling Federation
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what monitoring she conducts of the extent to which sports governing bodies let contracts in receipt of Sports Council grants to suppliers of goods and services in ways which are open and transparent and which comply with proper codes of accounting practice, with particular reference to the British Cycling Federation. [38695]

  Mr. Sproat
  Government support to individual governing bodies of sport is primarily channelled through the Sports Council, an independent body set up by royal charter. All sports governing bodies in receipt of Sports Council grants are required to have their annual accounts audited and to supply a copy of these audited accounts to the Sports Council. The Sports Council's liaison officers have regular informal meetings with officials of the governing bodies and have the right to attend meetings of relevant committees. This applies to the British Cycling Federation. The Comptroller and Auditor General may
  494
  Mr. Sproat
  Lottery grants to the Jarrow constituency and South Tyneside district council are listed. It is not possible to generate figures for Tyne and Wear because it does not have precisely defined boundaries. To date, there have been 346 awards in the north-east region for a total of £91,646,291. I will write to the hon. Member with a full list of these awards.

  conduct more detailed audits. The Sports Council also has the right to conduct more detailed audits and the council's management audit programme includes a review of the operations of a sample of governing bodies in receipt of Sports Council grants. The British Cycling Federation has a formal tendering process for contracts which is administered by the directors of the British Cycling Federation/British Cycling Federation Promotions Ltd. It is established custom and practice for members of the Executive to declare any conflict of interest.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what reports he has received from the auditors of the British Cycling Federation in relation to contractual links between the federation and(a) Impsport Ltd., (b) Fletcher Marketing and (c) Sports Ambassador Ltd. [38636]

  Mr. Sproat
  Government support to the individual governing bodies of sport is primarily channelled through the Sports Council, an independent body set up by royal charter. All sports governing bodies in receipt of Sports
  495
  Council grants are required to have their annual accounts audited and to supply a copy of these audited accounts to the Sports Council. I understand from the Sports Council that no report has been received, nor has one been requested, from the auditors of the British Cycling Federation in relation to contractual links between the Federation and (a) Impsport Ltd. (b) Fletcher Marketing and (c) Sports Ambassador Ltd.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she will take to protect public funds given to the British Cycling Federation by the Sports Council in respect of the legal proceedings between the British Cycling Federation and its former president. [39135]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council has advised the British Cycling Federation formally that the grant it receives cannot be used to pay any legal fees or costs associated with the legal proceedings between the British Cycling Federation and its former president. The Sports Council's liaison officers have regular informal meetings with officials of the governing bodies and have the right to attend meetings of relevant committees. The Sports Council also has the right to conduct detailed audits and review the operations of governing bodies in receipt of Sports Council grants. The Sports Council will continue to monitor the position closely to ensure that the British Cycling Federation honours the terms of its agreement with the council.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the impact of(a) her policies and (b) the work of her Department in helping small businesses in the past 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if she will publish the performance indicators by which her Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39153]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions— keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens; and where appropriate providing direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support, and easing access to finance.

  My Department has particular interest in the tourism industry. The overwhelming majority of tourism-related businesses are small firms, so the Department's sponsorship support for the industry mainly helps the small firms sector.

  My Department has continued to pursue an active sponsorship role in relation to the tourism industry and develop its strategy to assist the industry in improving its competitiveness.

  In November 1995, the Department and the English tourist board published "Hotels: The Consumer View", which summarised findings from research into consumer expectations of hotel accommodation. In March 1996, we published "Benchmarking for Smaller Hotels", the outcome of an innovative project to help small hoteliers improve quality, value for money and profitability. Some 50,000 copies of the report and a user-friendly
  496
  self-assessment test have been disseminated. We will publish the findings of a wide-ranging review of the use of human resources in the tourism industry in the autumn, and with the ETB we have commissioned a study of the domestic tourism market designed to help us determine how the Department and tourist boards can most productively intervene in the future.

  The Department has continued to work within the Government to ease the burden of regulation and red tape on the tourism industry. There has been significant progress in this area, with many measures that we have taken benefiting the industry. For example, new risk assessment-based food hygiene regulations came into effect on 15 September 1995. Liquor licensing and Sunday trading restrictions have been relaxed. Revised regulations, significantly widening eligibility for white-on-brown directional road signs to tourist attractions and facilities, came into effect in January 1996. The industry was able to voice its current concerns on regulatory issues at the tourism and hospitality deregulation seminar in Brighton on 15 May 1996. The tourism industry is represented on the permanent deregulation task force. On 14 June 1996, the Department announced the formation of a group of tourism and hospitality experts to complement the work of the Department and the tourist boards in helping to improve the industry's international competitiveness.

  The national lottery, which began in November 1994, has also benefited many small businesses; in particular, the thousands of small retailers who sell tickets, and businesses offering ancillary services to the lottery operator. Camelot Group plc's 1995–96 results revealed that a total of £265 million had been paid to retailers in the financial year, an average of £8,750 per outlet.

  My Department will continue to work within Government to set the right climate within which small tourism-related businesses can flourish. The Department is represented on the ministerial group on small firms.

  Manchester Velodrome
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the financial future of the Manchester velodrome following the threat of legal action between the British Cycling Federation and its former president; and what contingency plans the Government have in place to protect the future of the velodrome. [39136]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Manchester velodrome is protected by being operated by a separate legal entity—Manchester Velodrome Ltd. This company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Cycling Federation. The Sports Council has entered into a formal agreement with Manchester Velodrome Ltd. which requires the operational and accounting records of the company to be kept clearly separate from the records of any other activities of the British Cycling Federation and its associated companies and any related organisations, and that all transactions between these parties is to be on a full commercial basis.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the appointment of ministerial nominees to the new English Sports Council. [40020]

  Mr. Sproat
  I am pleased to announce that, at a meeting of the Privy Council on 23 July, Her Majesty the Queen approved the grant of charters establishing the English and United Kingdom sports councils. The new charters will come into effect later in the summer and the sports councils will be fully operational on the new basis after the summer break.

  The Secretary of State for National Heritage intends to appoint up to five ministerial nominees in each region of the English Sports Council to promote the development and practice of sport in those regions. Further nominees will be announced in due course, drawing on suggestions from the sector. For the present the Secretary of State proposes to appoint the following persons and designate them under provision in the new charter to work alongside the English Sports Council:
  Ministerial Nominees to the Regions of the English Sports Council

  North

  Sam Stoker

  John O'Connor

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  David Oxley

  John Walsh

  North West

  Jim Cochrane

  Professor John Last

  Rick Parry

  Philip Marsden

  West Midlands

  Jim Munn

  Eastern

  Patrick Whittingdale

  Andrew Chance

  William Bleakley

  London

  Ramon Subba Row

  Dane Rawlins

  Richard Nunneley

  Nicholas True

  South East

  Robbie Brown-Clayton

  Kay Burley

  Southern

  Phyllis Avery

  Ralph Dellor

  Jacqueline Smithson

  Bob Phillis

  David Collier

  South West

  Dennis Silk

  National Lottery (Interest Receipts)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what interest was received in 1995 by the Treasury for national lottery funds it holds for distribution to each of the commissions with responsibilities for the allocation of funds to individual projects. [40041]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for the national lottery distribution fund and interest on funds not yet drawn down by the distributing bodies accrue to the NLDF itself for the benefit of the good causes.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what interest was received in 1995–96 by Camelot for national lottery funds it holds for distribution to each of the commissions with responsibilities for the allocation of funds to individual projects. [40040]

  Mr. Sproat
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the interest received in 1995– 96 on funds held prior to such allocation and payment in respect of each of the commissions set up for the distribution of national lottery funds allocated to individual projects. [40042]

  Mr. Sproat
  Interest gains on moneys held in the national lottery distribution fund were £66,416,000 for 1995–96.

  War Memorials
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy with respect to the removal of or change of site of war memorials(a) throughout the country and (b) in the district local authority area of Stafford district council. [40005]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department's interest in war memorials relates to whether they are statutorily protected as scheduled ancient monuments or listed buildings. In such cases, under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, scheduled monument or listed building consent would be required for their resiling or removal. Applications for scheduled monument and listed building consent are made to the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the local planning authority respectively. Any such applications would be considered in the light of the policies set out in planning policy guidance notes 15 and 16.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the constituencies she has visited in the past three months on official business and the constituencies she intends to visit in the next three months; and if she will make a statement. [34358]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the three months to 20 June, I visited the following constituencies on official business: Battersea; Brent, North; Brighton, Kemptown;
  499
  Brighton, Pavilion; Cambridge; City of London and Westminster, South; Croydon, North-West; Ellesmere Port and Neston; Guildford; Hackney, South and Shoreditch; Hampstead and Highgate; Islington, South and Finsbury; Islington, North; Kensington; Liverpool Riverside; Southwark and Bermondsey; Staffordshire Moorlands; Stratford-on-Avon; Twickenham; Vauxhall; Watford; Westbury; and Worthing.

  It is not normal practice to make public details of forward diaries.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many visits (i) she and (ii) her Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39873]

  Mr. Sproat
  No Minister in the Department of National Heritage has visited the Newbury constituency in the last 12 months.

  A full breakdown of visits that Ministers in the Department of National Heritage have made to other constituencies could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Channel 5
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the parliamentary constituencies in which(a) no reception and (b) partial reception of the channel 5 television service will be available. [39741]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39304]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department owns no vehicles. Of my two agencies a departmental vehicle of Historic Royal Palaces was issued with a parking ticket in 1993. The fine was £20.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a progress report on the plans for the millennium exhibition funding. [39785]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Millennium Commission, which is responsible for the organisation and funding of the millennium exhibition, is making satisfactory progress. My right hon. Friend will reply to the hon. Member in her capacity as chairman of the commission setting out the current position in more detail, placing copies of her response in the Libraries of the House.

  Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the licences issued by her Department; for what purpose they are issued; and what are the administrative costs for each. [38676]
  500
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: My Department issues only one licence. This is used to permit the legal export of cultural objects from the UK. The administrative costs are not available.

HEALTH

  Nurses (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of nurses employed by the health authorities in Cheshire for each of the last five years; and what was the national average number of nurses employed by health authorities in each of those years. [36492]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table. Figures in the table represent nursing and midwifery staff employed by district health authorities and, therefore, do not include staff employed by national health service trusts.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) Nursing and Midwifery Staff (excluding Agency) employed by District Health Authorities (DHAs) in Cheshire and the Average Number of Nursing and Midwifery Staff employed by Health Authorities in England at 30 September 1990 to 1994

  Whole-time equivalents

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Chester DHA

  2,050

  1,720

  1,570

  760

  150

  Crewe DHA

  1,950

  1,100

  810

  1—

  n/a

  Halton DHA

  560

  360

  320

  1—

  n/a

  Macclesfield DHA

  1,360

  1,270

  1,240

  1—

  n/a

  Warrington DHA

  2,110

  1,810

  1,930

  1—

  n/a

  South-east Cheshire DHA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  North Cheshire DHA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  Average number (wte) of nursing and midwifery staff in English district health authorities

  2.050

  1,820

  1,430

  850

  170

  Notes:

  Nursing and midwifery staff working in directly managed units are employees of DHAs. Nurses employed by Trusts are not included. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10, consequently totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding.

  1 Denotes 5 or less.

  n/a = not applicable.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information the national health service litigation authority has compiled or is compiling on medical negligence cases and claims. [37332]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service litigation authority compiles such information as it deems to be necessary to carry out its delegated functions.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of trusts in each region which(a) have and (b) have not subscribed to the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, indicating the cost of each annual premium. [37331]
  501
  Mr. Horam
  An updated list of members and non-members of the clinical negligence scheme for trusts will be placed in the Library. The scheme is voluntary and is open to all national health service trusts in England. The clinical negligence scheme for trusts represents a pooling arrangement between trusts which is in its first year of operation. Until the scheme has had an opportunity to mature it would not be appropriate to give details of the contribution of individual trusts.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 44, if he will publish the latest information on clinical negligence claims settled by individual trusts. [37442]

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

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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, Pannell Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37327]

  Mr. Horam
  Information regarding the number of contracts awarded by this Department is not available centrally. The total sums paid those firms listed in 1995–96 are as follows:

  1995–96 £

  Coopers and Lybrand

  nil

  KPMG

  620,110

  Price Waterhouse

  97,932

  Ernst and Young

  nil

  Deloitte and Touche

  63,150

  Arthur Andersen

  nil

  Grant Thornton

  nil

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  42,000

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  nil

  Robson Rhodes

  nil

  NHS Litigation Authority
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members and occupations of the litigation authority and place in the Library all declarations of interests they have made. [37333]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service litigation authority currently has two members: the chairman, Sir Bruce Martin QC, who is a company chairman, and Mr. Ron Bradshaw, a solicitor. An exercise to appoint additional members is currently under way. Declarations of interests for all members will be available from the litigation authority.

  HIV (Drug Therapy)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether two or three drug combination therapy for those with HIV is approved for support within(a) the GP prescribing scheme and (b) hospital trust pharmacies, and if he will make a statement. [37564]
  502
  Mr. Horam
  Where different drug regimes are available, it is a matter for general practitioners to discuss with patients and decide on the best form of treatment. Likewise, hospital clinicians prescribe medicines to meet patients' clinical needs, and these are supplied by the hospital pharmacy. Unlicensed drugs can be prescribed on a named patient basis. No specific instructions have been issued on drug combination therapies for HIV, but the Department recommends developing local strategies for the managed entry of new medicines into the national health service, making use of evidence of their clinical and cost effectiveness.

  Pharmaceutical Services
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy for the future of independent community pharmacists. [38013]

  Mr. Malone
  Community pharmacists play an important part in the primary care team. We are committed to using their skills more effectively in a wider role.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those dispensing companies with more than 10 outlets and the number of prescriptions each of those companies dispensed in each year since 1990; [38011]

  (2) what proportion of prescriptions were dispensed by independent pharmacists or companies with fewer than 10 outlets in each year since 1990. [38012]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospitals (Joint Ventures)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many joint ventures are currently established between the NHS and the private sector in hospitals covering the Greater London area; and if he will list each project and hospital involved. [37858]

  Mr. Horam
  There are eight schemes currently completed or under way in the Greater London area— London boroughs included—that have gone forward under the private finance initiative. A number of other joint ventures are established for schemes which have not yet had full business case approval. Information is shown in the table.

  PFI schemes with a capital value of £1 million or more in the Greater London Area

  Trust

  Scheme

  Status

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority

  Residential accommodation for elderly mentally ill

  Complete

  Central Middlesex NHS Trust

  Ambulatory Care and Diagnostic Centre

  FBC approved

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Agency

  Office accommodation

  Complete

  Enfield and Haringey Health Authority

  Office accommodation

  Complete

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  Estates services

  Under way

  Hillingdon Health Agency

  Office accommodation

  Complete

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Clinical waste incinerator

  Complete

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority

  Office accommodation

  Complete

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  Endoscopy Unit

  Complete

  503

  PFI schemes with a capital value of £1 million or more in the Greater London Area

  Trust

  Scheme

  Status

  Barking, Havering and

  Reprovision of acute

  ITN issued

  Brentwood Community NHS Trust

  psychiatric services

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Rationalisation onto Farnborough Hospital site

  ITN issued

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Development/conversion of QEII Hospital

  ITN issued

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  Consolidation of specialist acute services

  ITN issued

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Centralisation onto Denmark Hill Site

  ITN issued

  Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Redevelopment of City and East London acute services

  ITN issued

  University College London

  Consolidation of acute

  ITN issued

  Hospitals NHS Trust

  services onto University site

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  Bamet General Hospital

  ITN issued

  Key:

  FBC = full business case.

  ITN = invitation to negotiate.

  Disease Research
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public funds were spent in the last financial year on research to find a treatment or cure for(a) AIDS, (b) cancer, (c) heart disease and (d) Alzheimer's disease per victim of that disease. [37891]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not available to produce comparable estimates of research expenditure per individual.

  Hospital Building Projects
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new NHS hospital building projects are currently being carried out in England and Wales; and for how many funding has been allocated. [37859]

  Mr. Horam
  There are currently 70 major national health service building projects under construction in England. Information on minor schemes is not available centrally.

  Funding must be secured prior to any project being approved.

  Doctors (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last 10 years the number of NHS doctors who (i) applied for retirement on grounds of ill health, (ii) were successful in such applications without resorting to appeal, (iii) were unsuccessful and(a) appealed and (b) were successful on appeal and (iv) retired early by staff grade; if he will estimate the annual cost of these early retirements in terms of payments made to former NHS doctors prior to their normal retirement age; and if he will make a statement on the retirement rate for NHS doctors on grounds of ill health relative to other similar professionals. [38029]

  Mr. Malone
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the National Health Service Pensions Agency under its chief executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.
  504
  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 22 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  The only information readily available on ill-health retirement for specific categories of NHS employees is derived from the Government Actuary's Department quinquennial valuation of the Pension Scheme. Unfortunately it does not provide a yearly breakdown.
  Figures in respect of doctors retiring on the grounds of ill-health are:

  Doctors—early retirement due to ill-health

  1985–1989

  1990–1994

  554

  748

  These statistics relate to successful applications where ill-health retirement was granted. No information is gathered about unsuccessful applications by employment type.

  Water Tower Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 111, whether the national survey by the NHS executive of the water tower mental hospitals in England will provide the same information as the previous surveys conducted for the mental health task force. [38434]

  Mr. Malone
  The survey will be conducted by the national health service executive regional offices. It will provide information on water tower hospitals in the context of health authority plans whereas the review commissioned by the mental health task force collected information on a trust-by-trust basis.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39140]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative administrative and taxation burdens; and where appropriate provide direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  In October 1995 the Department appointed a small business Minister who continues to be actively involved in the various measures being taken forward across government by the small business Ministers' initiative.

  The Department has created a new sponsorship branch to deal with the health care medical systems industry, which is dominated by small businesses, and has begun a regular series of meetings with the lead trade association to identify those issues which need to be addressed if the industry is to maintain its competitive performance.

  The Department is particularly sensitive to the effect of new regulations on business, especially small businesses. It is taking action to stem the flow of new regulations and to make sure that those that are

  505
  introduced are better regulations. We have promoted a sensitive approach to small businesses on food safety enforcement matters. This has included issuing guidance to local authorities and, recently, making an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to provide new rights of representation and a period of notice before certain enforcement action is taken. On 15 September 1995, 12 sets of regulations were replaced with two for general food hygiene and temperature controls. Temperature controls provide for significant potential savings in the food industry, which includes many small businesses. Two regional small business panels have been set up to act as sounding board for small food businesses.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total number of persons, (b) persons aged under 16, (c) persons aged 16 to 64, (d) persons aged 65 to 74 and (e) persons aged over 65 years who were provided with (i) telephones and attachments, (ii) telephone rentals and (iii) other services by local authorities for the year ended 31 March 1995 under the terms of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and if he will provide this information by (1) county councils, (2) metropolitan districts, (3) inner London boroughs, (4) outer London boroughs and (5) in total. [38910]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will encourage the free distribution of smoke alarms by health visitors and community care organisations. [38912]

  Mr. Malone
  Safety in the home is something v/hich all agencies concerned with community care seek to promote. Fire precautions specifically, however, are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Accident Survivors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into factors affecting help-seeking behaviour in survivors of accidents with psychological trauma symptoms; and if he will make a statement. [39228]

  Mr. Malone
  No. The factors affecting help-seeking behaviour by survivors of trauma are many and varied. In each individual case, referral for specialist help is a matter for each patient and his or her general practitioner. Many non-national health service and other organisations provide valuable assistance in this area and complement that which is provided in the NHS.

  Tamoxifen
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into adjuvant Tamoxifen treatment; and if he will make a statement. [39206]
  506
  Mr. Horam
  The Department has no such plans. At least 20 studies have been undertaken into adjuvant Tamoxifen treatment for breast cancer in this country and abroad since 1994.

  ALFINN Study
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research into an ALFINN study; and if he will make a statement. [39207]

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

  Drugs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into an extended access programme for 3TC1; and if he will make a statement. [39208]

  Mr. Horam
  We do not run extended access programmes in the United Kingdom but clinicians can approach manufacturers of unlicensed drugs, such as 3TC—lamivudine—to request permission to prescribe the drug for named patients.

  Commissioned Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will commission double-blind, multi-centre, randomised, parallel group study on the effect of varying dosages and frequency of the use of Colofac; and if he will make a statement; [39209]

  (2) if he will commission a study into a double-blind, randomised, parallel group, placebo-controlled, multi-centre to evaluate the efficacy of Lexipafant (BB-882) in patients with acute pancreatitis; and if he will make a statement; [39220]

  (3) if he will commission a study into Famotidine as a treatment for nocturnal heartburn; and if he will make a statement; [39211]

  (4) if he will commission a randomised, double-blind, parallel group multi-centre study to compare Ranitidine Bismuth CXitrate (GC311) 400 mg bd in combination with either (a) clarithromycin 250 mg qds or (b) 500 mg bd for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori with duodenal ulcer; and if he will make a statement; [39213]

  (5) if he will commission a study, into the relationship biochemical properties, biochemical composition and the ultrastructural organisation of human articular cartilage; and if he will make a statement. [39219]

  Mr. Malone
  There are no plans at present to commission these studies. Research commissioned within the Department's policy research programme is set out in "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions 1994/95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Pressure Ulcers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into the effects of IodoflexR versus IntraSiteR gel in the treatment of pressure ulcers; and if he will make a statement. [39210]
  507
  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health, and the Medical Research Council, which is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research, normally commission studies which compare the effectiveness of a broad range of possible treatments and interventions. The Department and the MRC are, however, always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  St. Ann's Hospital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received about patients sleeping on the floor at St. Ann's hospital in north London. [39258]

  Mr. Malone
  A recent Mental Health Act Commission report on a visit to St. Ann's hospital criticised Haringey Healthcare NHS trust for the inappropriate use of seclusion rooms. The trust has now addressed this problem and patients no longer use the seclusion rooms as temporary bedrooms.

  General Practice
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extension of the NHS performance guide to include general practices. [39268]

  Mr. Malone
  The 1995–96 NHS performance guide includes information on four primary care indicators at health authority level. We have no plans to extend the NHS performance guide to include figures for individual practices.

  NHS Board Members
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are on the board of(a) the NHS executive and (b) the NHS policy board. [39272]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service director of nursing, Mrs. Yvonne Moores, is a member of both the NHS executive and the NHS policy boards.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many executive and non-executive directors of health authorities are qualified nurses. [39271]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about the executive membership of health authorities is not available centrally. Our records show that 13 non-executive members of health authorities have a background in nursing.

  Road Accidents (Children)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (i) proposals he has and (ii) targets he set for reducing death and injuries to children on the road. [39280]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 23 July,Official Report, columns 139–40.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a multi-centre trial to assess the effect of a once-daily Epilim Chrono regimen in epileptic patients established on a twice-daily enteric-coated tablet regimen; and if he will make a statement. [39212]
  508
  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health, and the Medical Research Council, which is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research, normally commission studies which compare the effectiveness of a broad range of possible treatments and interventions. The Department and the MRC are, however, always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  The Department's health technology assessment programme intends to call for proposals for research comparing the effectiveness of new anti-epileptic drugs and existing therapies.

  Blood Pressure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into(a) a comparison of patient self-measurement of blood pressure using automatic sphygmomanometers with general practitioner measurements and its relevance to therapeutics decision making and (b) general practitioner use of Coversyl as standard treatment; and if he will make a statement. [39214]

  Mr. Horam
  Clinical studies are normally matters for the Medical Research Council which receives it grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and other bodies which fund clinical research.

  Nurse Prescribing Scheme
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about progress on the nurse prescribing scheme. [39274]

  Mr. Malone
  The nurse prescribing trial was extended on 1 April 1996 to a further 60 general practitioner sites in Bolton. The evaluation of the original eight pilot sites will be published in the autumn. The extended pilot will be evaluated separately, with a report due in late 1997.

  Consultant Psychiatrists
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of consultant psychiatrist vacancies. [39260]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is contained in the Department of Health annual medical and dental work force census, 30 September 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Teenage Mothers
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the proportion of teenagers having babies in each EU country. [39259]

  Mr. Horam
  The fertility rates per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 for 1990, the most recent year for which comparable data are available, are shown in the table.

  Fertility rate

  England and Wales

  33.3

  Scotland

  31.9

  Northern Ireland

  29.3

  509

  Fertility rate

  Portugal

  24.6

  Greece

  21.8

  Austria

  21.3

  Republic of Ireland

  16.2

  Sweden

  14.1

  Spain

  13.4

  Finland

  12.4

  West Germany

  11.6

  Italy

  9.8

  Belgium

  9.3

  Denmark

  9.1

  France

  8.8

  Netherlands

  6.4

  Luxembourg

  no data

  Source:

  Population Trends No. 74.

  Hospital Bedside Televisions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average charge to patients for bedside televisions in NHS hospitals. [39269]

  Mr. Horam
  Arrangements and charges for optional personal bedside television are a local management matter on which information is not available centrally.

  Nurses (Redundancies)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have been made redundant under his initiative to reduce management levels. [39273]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally.

  Emergency Bed Service (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the London emergency bed service in each of the last five years; and what were the sources of its budget. [39279]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Assaults on NHS Staff
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff have been assaulted on NHS premises in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [39267]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an open-label, multi-centre study to determine the efficacy and safety of a 24-day regimen of monophasic oral contraceptive preparation of gestodene 6µg and ethinyl estradion 15µg; and if he will make a statement. [39217]

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mental Health Tribunals
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken since March with regard to the constitution of mental health tribunals. [39244]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  NHS Doctors
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) GPs and (b) hospital doctors are currently in post in the NHS. [39823]

  Mr. Malone
  There were 26,702 unrestricted principals in England on 1 October 1995 and there were 44,660 whole-time equivalent hospital doctors on 30 September 1994.

  Pisces Project
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements were made to advertise the Pisces project in the contract supplement of the Official Journal of the EU; [39807]

  (2) if he will list the cost of the Track software acquired for the Pisces project from the Intelligent Office Company Ltd. of Hammersmith and the process by which it was selected; [39799]

  (3) what was the original estimated cost of the Pisces project; and what is his latest estimate of the outturn cost; [39809]

  (4) if he will list the methods used to select the project manager for Pisces; [39808]

  (5) if he will list the principal expected benefits from the Pisces project and the years in which they were expected to arise. [39810]

  Mr. Horam
  The Pisces project is an initiative of Liverpool health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman for details.

  Airborne Particulates
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the link between airborne particulates and premature death; [39553]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the potential beneficial effects of reducing airborne particulate levels in urban areas;[39554]

  (3) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the link between airborne particulate levels and asthma. [39556]

  Mr. Horam
  In November 1995 the Department of Health published a report of the expert advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, "Non-Biological Particles and Health", copies of which are in the Library.

  Further research has been commissioned under the joint Department of Health, Department of the Environment and Medical Research Council research strategy on air pollution and respiratory disease.
  511
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of airborne particulates his Department currently assesses to be safe. [39555]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of the Environment's expert panel on air quality standards, to which this Department contributes, has made a recommendation for an air quality standard for particulates (PM10) in the United Kingdom of 50 µg/m3, measured as a 24-hour running average. The panel considered that very few individuals in the population will react adversely to this concentration of particles.

  Health Authorities (Invoices)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of invoices sent out by health authorities in the last year. [39747]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held centrally.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dental practices in each South Yorkshire metropolitan borough council accepted NHS patients in 1995; [39791]

  (2) how many dental practices in each North Yorkshire borough council accepted NHS patients in 1995; [39793]

  (3) how many dental practices in each Humberside borough council accepted NHS patients in 1995; [39792]

  (4) how many dental practices in each West Yorkshire borough council accepted NHS patients in 1995. [39794]

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists claimed NHS fees in each of the last five years nationally and by region. [39826]

  Mr. Malone
  I will write to the hon. Members.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new NHS registrations with a dental practitioner occurred in each six-monthly period between January 1990 and January 1994 and in each month since January 1994; and how many of these are estimated to have been duplicate registrations. [38848]

  Mr. Malone
  The information available is shown in the table. It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of how many of the additions to dentists' registers were duplicate registrations.

  General Dental Service: additions to dentists' registers 1990–1996

  England

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  July-December 1990

  6,465,031

  2,263,895

  8,728,926

  January-June 1991

  7,831,462

  3,241,789

  11,073,251

  July-December 1991

  5,183,990

  1,746,359

  6,930,349

  January-June 1992

  5,237,498

  2,074,727

  7,312,225

  July-December 1992

  4,440,845

  1,465,821

  5,906,666

  January-June 1993

  4,522,199

  1,795,765

  6,317,964

  July-December 1993

  4,111,603

  1,344,462

  5,456,065

  1994

  January

  870,893

  383,089

  1,253,982

  February

  801,985

  352,813

  1,154,798

  March

  733,962

  295,643

  1,029,605

  April

  794,696

  305,957

  1,100,653

  512

  General Dental Service: additions to dentists' registers 1990–1996

  England

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  May

  789,391

  288,878

  1,078,269

  June

  706,418

  255,740

  962,158

  July

  713,735

  239,208

  952,943

  August

  743,716

  269,302

  1,013,018

  September

  799,398

  265,990

  1,065,388

  October

  781,429

  268,198

  1,049,627

  November

  667,813

  223,276

  891,089

  December

  620,948

  169,663

  790,611

  1995

  January

  877,115

  384,094

  1,261,209

  February

  760,316

  335,200

  1,095,516

  March

  726,532

  311,851

  1,038,383

  April

  712,238

  279,152

  991,390

  May

  757,928

  286,419

  1,044,347

  June

  679,884

  249,911

  929,795

  July

  703,433

  248,729

  952,162

  August

  738,928

  272,790

  1,011,718

  September

  749,902

  256,289

  1,006,191

  October

  712,630

  248,142

  960,772

  November

  620,966

  221,928

  842,894

  December

  693,125

  197,632

  890,757

  1996

  January

  786,674

  357,550

  1,144,224

  February

  661,091

  328,154

  989,245

  March

  702,332

  308,334

  1,010,666

  April

  674,820

  285,726

  960,546

  May

  696,760

  271,527

  968,287

  Formal registration system came into operation in October 1990 with the beginning of the new dental contract.

  Additions to registers include registration of patients after a break in attendance and reinstatement of registrations that have been cancelled in error. Additions also include transfers from one dentists to another, changes of surname, and patients being transferred from capitation to continuing care arrangements.

  The date refers to the month in which the addition would have first appeared in the registration statistics. Payment is made a month in arrears.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were registered with a dental practitioner in(a) April 1994, (b) April 1995 and (c) April 1996. [38847]

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

  Number of patients registered with a National Health Service dentist at the end of April, 1994–96

  Number of patients registered

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  April 1994

  21,447,217

  6,916,912

  28,364,129

  April 1995

  20,463,447

  6,746,544

  27,209,991

  April 1996

  19,782,487

  6,786,617

  26,569,104

  1. Excludes patients registered with salaried dentists.

  2. Since May 1994 the Dental Practice Board has improved procedures for eliminating duplicate registrations. This has produced downward pressure on the levels of registrations over this period.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of dentists in(a) Wiltshire and (b) Salisbury parliamentary constituency, in each of the last five years, who will treat (i) NHS patients only, (ii) NHS and private patients and (ii) private patients only; and if he will make a statement. [38984]
  513
  Mr. Malone
  The information available in set out in the table.

  General Dental Service: Number of dentists practising in Wiltshire Family Health Services Authority at 30 September

  Number of dentists at 30 September

  1991

  158

  1992

  173

  1993

  170

  1994

  175

  1995

  178

  Includes principals on the Family Health Services Authority list for Wiltshire together with assistants and vocational trainees. Some principals may be on more than one Family Health Services Authority list; these dentists have been included where Wiltshire was the FHSA in which the dentist's fee income was greatest. Salaried dentists are excluded.

  Single Tender Contracts
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued to civil servants regarding(a) their dealings with applicants for single tender contracts and (b) the provision of written advice to such applicants. [39815]

  Mr. Horam
  Guidance on single tender action is contained in two internal Department of Health publications, "Purchasing and Supply Manual" and "Guidance Notes on the use of Management Consultants".

  The Department's policy is generally to avoid single tender action, but accepts that it may be justifiable in very limited circumstances, for example, where the work is an extension of a recently completed contract and it can be clearly demonstrated that this achieves better value for money or where the expertise required is available only from one source. Applicants are not advised that they are providing the sole tender.

  NHS Number Programme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the initial cost of the new NHS number programme; and what is the estimated cost to date and his latest estimated full outturn cost. [39771]

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

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements were made to advertise the new NHS number programme in the contract supplement of the Official Journal of the EU. [39769]

  Mr. Horam
  The new national health service number programme has complied with the European Union regulations on procurement where these were applicable. The following contracts were advertised in the contract supplement of the Official Journal of the EU:
  The contract for development of a new NHS central register
  The contract for provision of a service to trace new NHS numbers

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the new NHS number programme was submitted for Treasury approval; on what date such approval was granted; and on what date the project commenced. [39770]
  514
  Mr. Horam
  The business case for the new NHS number was submitted for Treasury approval in March 1994. Approval was granted in April 1994, and the terms of reference for the programme were agreed by the new NHS number programme board in August 1994.

  Hospitality Budgets
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the hospitality budget of his Department, the NHS executive and the regional offices hospitality budget for(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1995–96. [39832]

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

  PIMS Project
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements were made to advertise the PIMS— performance indicators for management systems—project in the contract supplement of the Official Journal of the EU. [39811]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has framework agreements with a number of companies covering various categories of information technology work, which were awarded after an EC/GATT procurement. The contracts for the performance information management system were awarded following competitions between companies with framework agreements in appropriate categories.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the performance indicators for the management systems project was submitted for Treasury approval; on what date such approval was granted; on what date the project commenced; and at what estimated cost. [39813]

  Mr. Horam
  Performance indicators for management systems commenced in November 1994 at an estimated cost within departmental delegated limits. Treasury approval has not therefore been necessary.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent evaluation there has been of the expected benefits of the PIMS project as to volume standard and time scale. [39812]

  Mr. Horam
  These topics are covered in post-implementation reviews, which are carried out at the end of major information technology projects. They are conducted by independent companies drawn from those with which the Department has framework agreements. PIMS is still under development and a PIR is not yet appropriate.

  Mental Health
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the NHS budget was spent on mental health care in each of the last five years, nationally and by region. [39727]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available in the form requested.
  515
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 are currently residing in hospitals for the mentally handicapped. [39733]

  Mr. Malone
  In 1994–95, the latest year for which information is currently available, there were 304 formal admissions of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and classified as mentally impaired or severely mentally impaired.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if patients compulsorily detained on hospital sites under the Mental Health Act 1983 are allowed to mix with mentally handicapped patients residing in the same hospital. [39732]

  Mr. Malone
  The Mental Health Act 1983 does not prescribe such matters for those detained under its powers.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many formal admissions of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 there were by health authority in each year between 1990–91 and 1994–95. [39761]

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

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health beds there were in the NHS in each of the last five years. [39728]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), gave the hon. Member of Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 29 February,Official Report, columns 687–89.

  Prescribed Drugs
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the NHS of prescribed drugs dispensed(a) through a general practitioner dispensary and (b) in a pharmacy. [39751]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Average net ingredient cost per prescription, 1995 England

  Prescriptions dispensed by

  Average net ingredient cost per prescription fee£

  Dispensing doctors

  7.38

  Community pharmacists and appliance contractors

  7.65

  1. The data are from the Prescription Pricing Authority PD1 series of forms and prescriptions are based on fees.

  2. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

  Lung Cancer
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued on the maximum waiting time for treatment of lung cancer. [39828]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not appropriate to have a maximum waiting time for treatment of lung cancer. Each case is different and it must be for doctors to decide when 516
  treatment should be provided. Patients are placed on a waiting list only if, in the opinion of a clinician at the time of assessment, their condition is judged to be stable.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of administering the extra-contractual referrals system in each of the last 10 years. [39845]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health

  (1) how many extra-contractual referrals there have been in each of the last 10 years; [39844]

  (2) how many extra-contractual referrals were made in the last year (a) by trust, (b) regionally and (c) nationally. [39746]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the numbers of extra-contractual referrals is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 11 July,Official Report, column 274, for information on the value of extra-contractual referrals for all available years.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those trusts in South Yorkshire which have not to date signed contracts with their local authorities. [39795]

  Mr. Horam
  All health authorities in South Yorkshire have signed health care contracts with national health service trusts in South Yorkshire.

  Hospital Services
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospital units and (b) accident and emergency units there were in each year since 1979. [39819]

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

  "Primary Care—The Future"
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners, managers and nurses he has consulted in the course of the listening exercise "Primary Care—The Future". [39759]

  Mr. Malone
  The range and variety of consultation are outlined in the annexe to "Primary Care: The Future", published on 10 June 1996, copies of which were placed in the Library.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the newspaper article sent to him by the right hon. Member for Worthing in respect of the waiting lists for patients of(a) fundholding general practitioners and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners. [39630]

  Mr. Malone
  I will write to my right hon. Friend.

  GP Pharmacies
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the practice of general practitioners converting their dispensaries into pharmacies. [39749]

  Mr. Malone
  It is open to a dispensing doctor to apply to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to register his premises as a pharmacy. He would need to meet legal and ethical requirements such as the availability of a pharmacist whenever pharmaceutical services were being provided.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dispensing general practices there were in each of the last five years. [39750]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Dispensing General Practices 1992–95 in England

  Number of dispensing general practices

  1995

  1,214

  1994

  1,212

  1993

  1,202

  1992

  1,197

  Source:

  Derived from General Medical Services Census October 1992–1995.

  Note:

  Data on number of dispensing practices for 1991 are incomplete and unreliable.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on patients' preferences in relation to the dispensing of NHS prescriptions from (i) a general practitioner dispensary and (ii) a pharmacy. [39752]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Memphis Project
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the Memphis project was submitted for Treasury approval; on what date such approval was granted; and on what date the project commenced and at what estimated cost. [39817]

  Mr. Horam
  The Memphis project commenced in 1994 and was completed in August 1995. The cost was within departmental delegated limits. Treasury approval was therefore unnecessary.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the Track software and acquired for the Memphis project from the Intelligent Office Company Ltd. of Hammersmith; and if he will give details of the competitive tendering procedure used in the acquisition of the Track software for the Memphis project. [39800]

  Mr. Horam
  The cost of the software is subject to commercial confidentiality. It was procured from a company through one of the Department's EC/GATT contracts.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements were made to advertise the Memphis 518
  project in the contract supplement of the Official Journal of the EU. [39816]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has framework agreements with a number of companies covering various categories of information technology work, which were awarded after an EC/GATT procurement. The contracts for Memphis were awarded following competitions between companies with framework agreements in appropriate categories.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent evaluation there has been of the expected benefits of the Memphis project as to volume, standard and time scale. [39814]

  Mr. Horam
  These topics are covered in post-implementation reviews, which are carried out at the end of major information technology projects. They are conducted by independent companies drawn from those with which the Department has framework agreements. A PIR was carried out at the end of the Memphis project.

  Leukaemia (Newbury)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies(a) are taking place and (b) he proposes into levels of leukaemia and related disorders in the Newbury district. [39717]

  Mr. Horam
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—COMARE—has considered allegations of increased incidence of childhood cancer around a number of nuclear establishments. Its third report considered whether there was any association in local childhood cancer incidence in west Berkshire and north Hampshire and exposure to radioactivity from the nuclear establishments which were then known as the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, the Royal Ordnance factory, Burghfield, and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell. The report did not include RAF Greenham Common.

  In this report COMARE recommended that a study on the geographical distribution of childhood cancer incidence on a nationwide basis should be carried out. This study is currently under way and COMARE will consider all new data now available in assessing whether there is an association between local levels of contamination and cancer incidence.

  Breast Lumps
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued on the setting up of one-stop clinics for the treatment of breast lumps. [39834]

  Mr. Horam
  Guidance for purchasers on improving outcomes in breast cancer will be issued shortly. It will be for health authorities in consultation with their provider units to agree assessment, treatment and care arrangements for women with breast symptoms.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total savings of GP fundholders in the last year. [39729]
  519
  Mr. Malone
  Final audited information for 1995–96 is not yet available.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total cost of staff, equipment, computing and management costs in respect of GP fundholding practices in the last year. [39730]

  Mr. Malone
  Audited information is not available.

  NHS Expenditure
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of money reported by each health authority in England to his Department as its outturn spend for 1995–96 and its planned spend for 1996–97 in respect of(a) in-patient case for mental illness, (b) out-patient care for mental illness, (c) residential care for mental illness, (d) day care for mental illness, (e) community nursing care for mental illness, (f) in-patient care for learning disability, (g) out-patient care for learning disability, (h) residential care for learning disability, (i) day care for learning disability and (j) community nursing care for learning disability. [39830]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not yet available.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 367, how many highly suspect cases of the new strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have been reported to the national surveillance unit in Edinburgh (a) up to the end of 1995, (b) in the quarter ending 31 March 1996 and (c) in the quarter ending 30 June 1996. [39846]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 23 July,Official Report, column 215, which explained that the term "highly suspect case" is not used in respect of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There are now 12 confirmed cases of the new variant of CJD. Of these, three died in 1995, five in the first quarter of 1996 and three in the second; one patient is still alive.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incubation period for(a) the normal strain as reported conventionally world wide, (b) the strain accidentally caused by pituitary hormone treatment and (c) the new strain reported on 20 March of CJD. [39843]

  Mr. Horam
  The vast majority of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease are sporadic and occur spontaneously. It is not possible to ascertain how long a patient may have been incubating the disease before the clinical signs become evident. Studies of the Kuru epidemic in New Guinea showed incubation periods of between five and 30 years. In cases of iatrogenic infection incubation periods have varied from 18 months for central exposures to 25 years for peripheral exposures. The incubation time for the new variant of CJD is uncertain but is likely to be in the range of five to 20 years.

  Single-sex Wards
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of single-sex wards as a percentage of the total in each of the last six years. [39821]
  520
  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Trust Hospitals (Invoices)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of invoices sent out by trust hospitals in the last year. [39745]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits (i) he and (ii) his Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39870]

  Mr. Horam
  Since October 1995 no visits have been made to the Newbury constituency by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or his ministerial colleagues. There have been 29 visits to other constituencies by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and 199 visits by his ministerial colleagues.

  General Practice Audit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers the Audit Commission have to audit general practice. [39748]

  Mr. Horam
  Auditors appointed by the Audit Commission have powers to examine all general practice records necessary to validate national health service income and expenditure.

  Community Pharmacists
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS community pharmacists there were in each of the last five years. [39825]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) on 17 June,Official Report, columns 352–53.

  Young Runaways
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Centrepoint National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children report "Nowhere to Hide: Giving Young Runaways a Voice", a copy of which has been sent to him; and what proposals he has to address the problem for young runaways. [39651]

  Mr. Malone
  A copy of the published report has not yet been received. I shall consider the recommendations when I receive them.

  Health Authority Programme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what business case and option appraisal was carried out prior to the decision to commence the new health authority programme; and what is the estimated outturn cost of the new health authority programme. [39772]
  521
  Mr. Horam
  Family Health Systems supplies the software to which modifications are needed in order for existing family health services authority based databases to operate effectively within new health authority boundaries. This work can be carried out only by the supplier; therefore no business case is required. The maximum estimated cost of this work is £1.4 million.

  Modifications to the national health service central register will be needed in order for it to handle realigned databases. This work has yet to commence but a preliminary estimate of costs is that £300,000 will be required. The project initiation process will include more detailed consideration of costs and options.

  Abortions
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown by the procedure adopted of the number of abortions performed in the NHS South Thames region in the latest year for which figures are available. [39777]

  Mr. Horam
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Hospital Emergency Admissions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency admissions to hospitals there were in each of the last four quarters. [39833]

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

  Diabetes (Syringes)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the availability on prescription of needles for pen-type syringes for diabetes; and what consultations he has had recently concerning their inclusion on the prescription list. [39849]

  Mr. Malone
  We are considering representations on this matter which have been made by the British Diabetic Association.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the waiting time for breast cancer surgery at St. Bartholomew's hospital, London. [39828]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the Royal Hospitals national health service trust.

  Trent RHA (Compensation)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful claims for compensation have been made against the Trent regional health authority during each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [39796]

  Mr. Horam
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Practice Managers
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) practice managers and (b) practice administrative staff there were in each of the last five years. [39820]
  522
  Mr. Malone
  The available information is contained in "Statistics for General Medical Practitioners in England 1985–1995 Bulletin 96/6 May 1996", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Medical Audit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) his Department's and (b) the NHS executive's budget for medical audit in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. [39760]

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

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the reasons for the delay in publishing the health technology assessment project on cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the district general hospital; when he plans to publish it; and if he will make a statement. [39628]

  Mr. Horam
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Computer Projects
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the computer projects currently being(a) developed and (b) administered by the NHS executive and the cost to date of each and the latest estimated final outturn cost. [39818]

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

  Greenham Common (Radiation)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the investigation by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment into the incidence of childhood cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area was informed of the 1961 report by Cripps and Stimson into radiation around the Greenham air base. [39877]

  Mr. Horam
  The Cripps and Stimson report of July 1961 was not included in the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment investigation into the incidence of childhood cancer in the west Berkshire and north Hampshire area. This investigation, the results of which were published in COMARE's third report in 1989, was specifically related to the nuclear installations which were then known as the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, the Royal Ordnance factory, Burghfield, and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell.

  South Manchester University Hospital
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 727, for what reasons he was unable to specify the fees paid by South Manchester University Hospital NHS trust to the Audit Commission; and if he will make a statement. [39625]

  Mr. Horam
  The trust has paid no fees to the Audit Commission.

  Birth Rate
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the causes of current birth rate levels. [39831]

  Mr. Horam
  Birth data for 1996 are currently being processed by the Office for National Statistics and will not be published until later next year.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died from smoking-related diseases in each of the last five years. [39822]

  Mr. Horam
  It is estimated that in the United Kingdom about 110,000 deaths each year are smoking related.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39975]

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

  Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee. [40009]

  Mr. Horam
  The committee is chaired by Professor James McKillop, Muirhead Professor of Medicine at the University Department of Medicine, Glasgow. The 19 members are:

  Dr. Paul Abram, N. Ireland Centre for Clinical Oncology, Belfast (Clinical Oncology);

  Dr. Muriel Buxton-Thomas, King's College Hospital, London (Nuclear Medicine);

  Dr. Helen Carty, Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (Clinical Radiology);

  Dr. Susan Clarke, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital, London (Nuclear Medicine);

  Dr. Tony Coakley, Kent and Canterbury Hospital (Nuclear Medicine);

  Dr. Malcolm Frier, University Hospital, Nottingham (Radiopharmacy);

  Dr. Chris Gibson, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyll (Physics);

  Dr. Gerry Gillen, Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow (Physics);

  Dr. Michael Henk, Royal Marsden Hospital, London (Clinical Oncology);

  Dr. Stuart Hesselwood, City Hospital, Birmingham (Radiopharmacy);

  Dr. Stephen Mather, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London (Radiopharmacy);

  Professor Ralph McCready, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton (Nuclear Medicine);

  Dr. Peter Mountford, Royal Infirmary, Stoke on Trent (Physics);

  Dr. Tom Nunan, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital, London (Nuclear Medicine);

  524

  Dr. Mary Prescott, Manchester Royal Infirmary (Nuclear Medicine);

  Dr. John Stather, National Radiological Protection Board (Radiobiology);

  Dr. Wendy Tindale, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield (Physics);

  Dr. Derek Waller, Southampton General Hospital (Clinical Pharmacology);

  Mr. John Watkinson, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham (Surgery).

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to advertise for membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [40010]

  Mr. Horam
  There will be a number of vacancies in membership of the authority later this year. We are considering how best to ensure that applications for these vacancies are invited from as wide a field as possible of suitable people. This is likely to include advertising in the national press.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to make available the management statement agreed with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [40011]

  Mr. Horam
  Copies of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's management statement have today been placed in the Library.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up an inquiry into the delivery of paediatric cardiac surgical services at Bristol royal infirmary between 1990 and 1995. [40018]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am aware of the concerns surrounding the provision of paediatric cardiac surgery at the United Bristol hospital trust. A number of steps have been taken at local level to address those concerns.

  I understand that the General Medical Council is now considering whether to take formal proceedings in this case. In the light of its decision I shall consider whether any further action is justified.

  Professions Supplementary to Medicine
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with the review of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. [40019]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received a report of an independent review of the 1960 Act, copies of which have been placed in the Library. We welcome the report, and support its conclusion that new legislation is needed to streamline existing arrangements. We intend to prepare and consult widely on draft legislation based on the broad principles it establishes.

  HIV Prevention
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring is in place to ensure that HIV prevention money is being targeted at those communities most affected throughout the United Kingdom. [38312]

  Mr. Horam
  In England monitoring of health authorities' HIV prevention funding is carried out by means of half-yearly reports on planned expenditure, with an outturn report at the end of the financial year for inclusion in each health authority's AIDS (Control) Act Report.

  Guidance was issued to health authorities in March advising them of the need to allocate approximately 50 per cent. of the funds they receive for HIV prevention towards work with those populations most at risk from HIV.

  Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Terminally Ill Patients
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of(a) in-patient palliative care hospices and (b) Macmillan services in each region. [38844]

  Mr. Horam
  The total number of in-patient palliative care hospices and Macmillan services in each region is given in the table:

  In-patient palliative care services as at January 1996

  Region

  Number of units

  Anglia and Oxford

  21

  Northern and Yorkshire

  26

  North Thames

  19

  South Thames

  26

  North West

  28

  South and West

  28

  West Midlands

  12

  Trent

  11

  Figures obtained from Hospice Information Service at St. Christopher's hospice.

  Cancer Relief Macmillan Service as at January 1996

  Region

  Number of services

  Anglia and Oxford

  54

  Northern and Yorkshire

  88

  North Thames

  100

  South Thames

  63

  North West

  88

  South and West

  72

  West Midlands

  57

  Trent

  58

  Figures obtained from Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund (CRMF) and show the number of services employing CRMF staff (this includes those funded as well as those no longer funded by CRMF).

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities which have no in-patient palliative care hospice within their boundaries. [38845]
  526
  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Gender Dysphoria
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population in England and Wales he estimates suffers from gender dysphoria.[40023]

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

  Disabled Persons (Carers)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the public expenditure implications of implementing the Disabled Persons and Carers (Short Term Breaks) Bill [Lords]. [38846]

  Mr. Malone
  Any Bill which places a duty on a local authority to assess and provide for services will have significant cost implications.

  Operation Waiting Times
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients receiving(a) hip replacements, (b) cataract extraction, (c) kidney transplants and (d) hernia operations carried out on the NHS in Great Britain and Northern Ireland had to wait for (i) more than six months, (ii) more than nine months, (iii) more than 12 months, (iv) more than 15 months and (v) more than 18 months in the most recent year for which figures are available. [38849]

  Mr. Horam
  Information for England is contained in "Hospital Episode Statistics, Volume 2", copies of which are available in the Library. The most recent year for which figures have been published is 1993–94. Questions relating to the rest of the United Kingdom are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by family health services authority or equivalent body the number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses,(c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) administration and clerical staff and (f) managers in (i) 1990, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1994. [39128]

  Mr. Malone
  The number of general medical services general practitioners and their staff by family health services authority are published in "General Medical Services Statistics" at October and April for the years requested; copies are available in the Library.

  Data for the hospital and community health services non-medical staff cannot be listed by FHSA and could be provided in a different breakdown only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the overall number of(a) administrative staff, (b) managerial staff, (c) nurses, (d) junior doctors and (e) other medical staff employed in each region for each of the last four years. [39129]

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

  In-patient Admissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of ordinary in-patient admissions by region in each of the last four years. [39130]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest information is in the publication "ordinary and Day Case Admissions for England: Financial Year 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  MRSA
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in England and Wales were affected by MRSA—methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—in each year since 1990. [39021]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 28 February,Official Report, columns 569–70.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when an actuarial report was carried out on the effect on the NHS pension scheme's overall liabilities of including GP staff in the scheme, and if he will make a statement on the conclusions. [39131]

  Mr. Malone
  No actuarial report has been carried out. We last consulted the Government Actuary's Department in February this year.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39306]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held by the Department. Fines and other penalties are the responsibility of each driver to settle personally, and we would trace the driver only if there was a delay in paying the fine. Our management company, PHH, has records dated from 1994, which state the offence date and the vehicle in question, but does not state the nature of the violation.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative. Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39524]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Yorkshire RHA
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 528, how much was spent on the former Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters at Park
  528
  parade, Harrogate, on (a) refurbishment, repairs, maintenance and improvement, and (b) on furnishings, fixtures and fittings in each year since 1981. [39281]

  Mr. Horam
  Total spending on refurbishment, repairs, maintenance, improvement, furnishings, fixtures and fittings of the former Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters at Park parade, Harrogate for the financial years from 1981–82 onwards is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Expenditure£

  1981–82

  21,000

  1982–83

  672,000

  1983–84

  646,000

  1984–85

  462,000

  1985–86

  243,000

  1986–87

  54,000

  1987–88

  30,000

  1988–89

  1,400,000

  1989–90

  1,400,000

  1990–91

  46,000

  1991–92

  371,000

  1992–93

  88,000

  1993–94

  56,000

  The definitions of fixtures, fittings and building fabric are not distinct and expenditure was not collected separately under these headings at the time the work was carried out.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 334, regarding employment records for regional health authority staff, if he will provide the information requested on 7 June relating to the former Yorkshire regional health authority from the records held in the regional offices. [39189]

  Mr. Malone
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Care Homes
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if it is his policy that a local authority should not place people in its own directly managed residential care homes at a price, in real terms, higher than that obtainable for comparable quality care in the independent sector; [39879]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that the wish of an individual to be placed in a private residential home of his choice rather than a local authority home so long as the cost is no greater and the service provided is as thorough as the local authority establishment is respected. [39883]

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is for local authorities to manage their substantial community care resources efficiently and effectively taking full account of their statutory responsibilities. One of these is the responsibility to obtain value for money and we expect them to secure adequate and appropriate care for their clients and the most competitive services regardless of sector. The Government have also issued a statutory direction on choice to make sure that, within certain limits of cost and suitability, people are able to exercise real choice when selecting a care home.

  In addition, the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1996 will enable the Audit Commission and the Department's social services inspectorate to undertake

  529
  joint reviews of local authorities' social service departments. The reviews will cover every authority in the country on a cyclical programme with about 20 authorities being reviewed each year. Reviews will focus on the three aspects of performance—cost-effectiveness, quality of service and sensitivity to the wishes and needs of users and carers.

  Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the licences currently issued by his Department, indicating their function and the annual administrative costs for each. [37814]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 19 July 1996:]: The Department is responsible for issuing six types of licence. Their function is to protect public health by setting standards—and controls where appropriate—of safety, quality, efficacy and service. It is not possible to show the administrative costs for each licence.

  The types of licence are:

  Department of Health:

  Approval of private sector places for abortion.

  Medicines Control Agency:

  Marketing authorisations

  Clinical trials certificates

  Manufacturers' licences

  Wholesale dealers' licences

  Homoeopathic registration certificates.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the proportion of minority ethnic applicants for NHS management training schemes; and what proportion obtained a place in 1995. [37092]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: In 1995, 19 per cent. of applicants to the national health service financial management training scheme and 12 per cent. of those who successfully obtained a place on the scheme were from ethnic minorities. Figures for the NHS management training scheme in the same period were 9 per cent.—of applicants—and 3.3 per cent.—of successful applicants—respectively.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further developments have taken place to enable a casualty and emergency unit to replace the existing accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital; when he expects further arrangements to be proposed; and when he will write to the hon. Member for Hendon, North with full details. [38983]

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further developments have taken place to enable a casualty and emergency unit to replace the existing accident and emergency arrangements at Edgware general hospital; when he expects further new arrangements to be proposed; and when he will write to the hon. Member for Harrow, East with full details. [38986]

  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further developments have taken place to enable the casualty and emergency unit to replace the 530
  existing accident and emergency arrangements at Edgware general hospital; when he expects the new arrangements to be proposed; and when he will write to the hon. Member for Brent, North. [39602]

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of Edgware hospital. [39601]

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of Edgware general hospital and its casualty department. [39827]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Barnet health authority has today sent papers to members in advance of its next meeting on 31 July. The health authority will consider the following recommendations from its officers:(a) that, in line with the recommendation of the working group which reported to the health authority earlier this month, there should be a medical presence within the casualty service;
  (b) that a further working group should be established to explore the development of a GP type admissions unit or the elderly as a demonstration project for which central funding could be sought;
  (c) that the opening hours of the casualty service should be considered further in conjunction with the proposal for a demonstration project.

  In addition, the health authority will discuss progress on the possible development of a low-risk maternity unit, on which decisions will be made in September.

  The health authority will take a decision on these recommendations at its meeting next week. I will write to the local Members immediately after the meeting with further details.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the numbers(a) employed and (b) in training as (i) health visitors, (ii) school nurses, (iii) district nurses and (iv) community psychiatric nurses; [36711]

  (2)how many whole-time equivalent (a) health visitors, (b) school nurses, (c) district nurses and (d) community psychiatric nurses were in training in each region in September of each year since 1990 broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnic origin; [36710]

  (3) how many whole-time equivalent (a) health visitors, (b) school nurses, (c) district nurses and (d) community psychiatric nurses were employed in each region in September of each year since 1990 broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnic origin. [36705]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 11 July 1996]: Information on numbers of health visitors, school nurses, district nurses, and community psychiatric nurses employed by region and gender will be placed in the Library. Information about their ethnic origin is not available centrally.

  Such information as is available on the numbers in training is contained in the English National Board for

  531
  Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting's annual report for 1995–96 which was presented to Parliament on 22 July.

TREASURY

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the past 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39150]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative administration and taxation burdens; and, where appropriate, provide direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  Particular Budget measures aimed to boost small businesses include: cutting the small companies rate of corporate tax and the basic rate of income tax; reducing employers' national insurance contributions from April 1997; reducing the qualifying age for capital gains tax retirement relief; improving transitional relief for smaller properties whose rates bill are rising following the 1995 revaluation; reducing class 4 national insurance contributions by the self-employed and withdrawing the 50 per cent. tax relief from these contributions; increasing the VAT threshold; introducing a deregulation package; and introducing a tax code rewritten in simple user-friendly language.

  These measures build on last year's package to costs job cuts and ease access to finance.

  Transport Workers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average working weeks per year for a transport worker in(a) the road transport industry, (b) the rail industry, (c) the aviation industry and (d) the maritime industry currently and 10 years ago. [39396]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Available information on average weekly hours worked by industry is given in the new earnings survey, part C, tables 54 and 57, for 1986 and 1995, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96; (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94; [39412]

  (2) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39385]
  532
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Economic Performance
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will take to improve the United Kingdom's economic performance relative to other OECD countries. [37661]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will take to improve the United Kingdom's economic performance relative to other OECD countries. [37686]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government's policies will continue to deliver a stable macro-economic environment and efficient markets. These policies have been very successful. The UK is now performing better against its main competitors. We have enjoyed a stronger recovery since 1992 than any other major European economy, and the OECD expects us to grow significantly faster than Germany, France and Italy in both 1996 and 1997.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's economic performance in 1995. [37662]

  Mrs. Knight
  Last year, the UK economy continued its run of healthy growth, low inflation, falling unemployment and declining Government borrowing, and we were able to reduce taxes in the 1995 Budget, thanks to firm control of public spending.

  Cattle Slaughter Compensation Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 June to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks),Official Report, columns 234–35, if he will list the cost for each financial year from 1996–97 to 1998–99 of (a) the compensation arrangements to farmers for cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (b) the payments to slaughterhouses for handling cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (c) payments to renderers for handling cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (d) the cost of storage, prior to incineration, of the rendered remains of cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (e) the cost of incineration of the remains of cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (f) the calf slaughter premium, (g) the package of aid for the renderers, (h) the package of aid for the abattoirs, (i) the package of aid to the cutting industries, (j) the feed recall scheme and (k) the additional running costs for the agriculture departments; and if he will list where applicable the net EU contribution for each measure, taking account of both the UK's contribution to additional EU spending and the effect of additional receipts on the UK abatement. [38803]
  533
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The figures are given to the nearest million pounds in the table. Where applicable, the net EU contribution is given between parentheses.

  Measure

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  (a) compensation arrangements to farmers for cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain

  455 (153)

  455 (213)

  455 (47)

  (b) payments to slaughterhouses for handling cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (c) payments to renderers for handling cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (d) the cost of storage, prior to incineration of the remains of cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (e) cost of incineration of the remains of cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain1

  120

  120

  120

  (f) calf slaughter premium

  50 (36)

  50 (18)

  50 (14)

  (g) package of aid for the renderers

  118

  59

  0

  (h) package of aid for the abattoirs, (i) package of aid to the cutting industries2

  120

  0

  0

  (j) feed recall scheme

  6

  0

  0

  (k) additional running costs for the agriculture departments

  60

  61

  60

  (l) other miscellaneous BSE expenditure including top up payments on prime beef, beef stocks disposal schemes and compensation and destruction of young bulls in Northern Ireland

  108

  3

  0

  Total cost

  1,037

  748

  685

  These figures and the figures for the net EU contribution and the net cost to the UK taxpayer are unchanged from those given on 27 June (Official Report, columns 234–235).

  1 A break down of the costs of slaughter, rendering, storage and disposal of animals under the over 30 month scheme could only be carried out at present at disproportionate cost.

  2 A breakdown of the two costs could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role his Department is playing in improving the United Kingdom's competitiveness. [37665]

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the policies of his Department can make on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [37675]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  As the third competitiveness White Paper shows, the Government have created a climate where competitiveness can flourish based on an economy where interest rates are now at historically low levels, inflation has been below 4 per cent. for the longest period for nearly 50 years, corporation tax is among the lowest for major industrialised countries and public finances are under tight control.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress with the PFI in Yorkshire. [37664]

  Mr. Jack
  Detailed information on the progress of the PFI by region is not held centrally. However, Yorkshire has a successful track record of agreed PFI deals. The Royal Armouries in Leeds was one of the first PFI projects and makes an important contribution to the success and prosperity of the city. the £50 million project for St. James's hospital in Leeds was announced on 29 January 1996 and is a pioneering project in the health sector. The region will also benefit from deals in the transport sector such as the M1-A1 link road. Other PFI projects for the region, including transport and office accommodation projects, are currently being developed.

  EU Contribution
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the aggregate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Union for the past four years; what average annual percentage increase this represents; what is the estimated aggregate net British contribution for the next four years; and what is his estimate of the average annual percentage increase for this period. [37677]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The UK's net contribution over the four years from 1992–93 to 1995–96 amounted to nearly £10 billion, excluding private sector receipts of perhaps £1 billion or more. Estimates covering the whole of the next four-year period are not yet available. Percentage variations fluctuate enormously from year to year depending both on which years are chosen and on the method of calculation.

  Graduates
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of people who are economically active and who have a degree, in each ethnic group, are unemployed; [38758]

  (2) what percentage that is of the total unemployed; and if he will provide a breakdown by ethnic origin; [38768]

  (3) how many people, broken down by ethnic origin, who did not gain a higher education qualification are currently unemployed; and what is that figure as a percentage of the total unemployed; [38760]

  (4) what percentage of the total unemployed in each ethnic group (a) have a degree and (b) do not have a higher education qualification; [38702]

  (5) what percentage of people who are economically active and who do not have a higher education qualification, in each ethnic group, are unemployed.[38703]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The available information from the winter 1995–96—December 1995 to February 1996—labour force survey for Great Britain is given in the table.
  535

  Economic status of people of working age by highest qualification and ethnic origin winter 1995–96 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Great Britain, thousands and per cent.

  All origins

  White

  Ethnic minority groups

  Black

  Indian

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  Mixed/other origins

  Percentage of ILO unemployed

  —with degree

  7.2

  7.1

  7.4

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —with higher education qualification

  11.7

  11.6

  12.6

  17.7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —without higher education qualification

  88.3

  88.4

  87.4

  82.3

  88.8

  94.9

  85.7

  ILO unemployment rate (per cent.)

  —with degree

  4.3

  4.0

  8.0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —with higher education qualification

  4.2

  4.0

  8.4

  12.9

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —without higher education qualification

  9.6

  9.1

  19.8

  21.9

  14.7

  27.9

  17.8

  ILO unemployed (thousands)

  —with degree

  163

  146

  16

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —with higher education qualification

  265

  237

  28

  14

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —without higher education qualification

  1,999

  1,809

  191

  63

  45

  48

  34

  Note:

  1 Less than 10,000 in cell: estimate not shown.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total employed under 25-year-olds in each ethnic group are economically active graduates who completed their degree in 1995. [38756]

  Mrs. Knight
  The labour force survey does not ask people in which year they obtained their qualification.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the total under 25 years of age population in each ethnic group is unemployed; and what percentage of the total unemployed in each ethnic group is under 25 years of age; [38759]

  ILO unemployed of 16–24 year olds by ethnic origin in winter 1995–96 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Great Britain, thousands and per cent.

  All origins

  White

  Ethnic minority groups

  Black

  Indian

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  Mixed/other origins

  Numbers of ILO unemployed 16–24 year olds (thousands)

  656

  596

  61

  16

  14

  17

  14

  As a percentage of all 16–24 year olds

  10.4

  10.2

  12.4

  17.2

  10.3

  12.5

  11.0

  As a percentage of all ILO unemployed aged 16 and over

  28.5

  28.7

  27.3

  20.2

  26.3

  34.2

  33.8

  ILO unemployed rates for 16–24 year olds

  14.6

  14.0

  25.1

  31.4

  18.9

  30.1

  22.8

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current figures for unemployment among the under 25-year-olds in terms of(a) actual numbers, (b) percentage of total unemployment, (c) percentage of the under 25-year-old work force and (d) percentage of the under 25-year-old population. [38763]

  Mrs. Knight
  Latest information available from the labour force survey shows that in Great Britain in spring—March to May—1996, 658,000 people aged 16 to
  536
  (2) how many and what percentage of the economically active under 25-year-olds in each ethnic group are unemployed. [38764]

  Mrs. Knight
  The latest information available from the winter 1995–96—December 1995 to February 1996— labour force survey for Great Britain is given in the table.

  24 were ILO unemployed. This represents 29.1 per cent. of total ILO unemployment, 14.8 per cent. of those aged 16 to 24 who were economically active—the ILO unemployment rate—and 10.5 per cent. of the 16 to 24-year-old population.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the total unemployed under 25 years old in each ethnic group are economically active
  537
  people who did not have a higher education qualification and who had been a full-time student or pupil the previous year; [38755]

  (2) what are the current unemployment figures for economically active people aged under 25 years who did not have a higher education qualification and who had been a full-time student or pupil the previous year in terms of ethnic origin; [38761]

  (3) how many economically active people aged under 25 years who did not have a higher education qualification and who had been a full-time student or pupil the previous year are currently unemployed; and what is this figure as a percentage of (a) total unemployment, (b) total unemployment among under 25-year-olds and (c) the total work force of under 25-year-olds who did not have a higher education qualification and who had been a full-time student or pupil the previous year; [38766]

  (4) what percentage of the work force in each ethnic group, who are economically active, aged under 25 years without a higher education qualification and had been a full-time student or pupil the previous year, are currently unemployed. [38767]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The available information from the labour force survey is given in the table:

  ILO unemployed 16–24 year olds without higher education qualifications who were full-time students 1 year previously Spring 1996 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Great Britain, thousands and per cent.

  All persons

  White

  All ethnic minorities

  Numbers (thousands)

  160

  138

  22

  (a) as percentage of all ILO unemployed of working age

  6.6

  6.6

  8.8

  (b) as percentage of all ILO unemployed 16–24 year olds

  23.4

  22.7

  28.6

  (c) as percentage of all economically active 16–24 year olds without higher qualifications who were FT students 1 year previously full time

  21.2

  19.6

  43.6

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the work force in each ethnic group, who are economically active people aged under 25 years whose highest qualification was a degree and who had been a full-time student the previous year, are currently unemployed; [38757]

  (2) what are the current unemployment figures for economically active people aged under 25 years whose highest qualification was a degree and who had been a full-time student the previous year, in terms of ethnic origin; [38762]

  (3) what are the current unemployment figures for economically active people aged under 25 years whose highest qualification was a degree and who had been a full-time student the previous year in terns of (a) actual numbers, (b) percentage of total unemployment,
  538
  (c) percentage of total unemployment among the under 25-year-olds and (d) percentage of the total work force of under 25-year-olds whose highest qualification was a degree and who had been in full-time education in the previous year. [38765]

  Mrs. Knight
  This information is not available.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding public sector debt. [37659]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The UK has the third lowest debt to GDP ratio in the European Union, and unlike every other G7 economy our debt to GDP ratio is lower now than in 1979.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current estimate of receipts to the Treasury from privatisation sales in 1996–97. [37660]

  Mr. Jack
  The current estimate, as published in the summer economic forecast, is £4½ billion.

  Company Taxation
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax burden on companies in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other major European countries. [37663]

  Mr. Jack
  Britain's tax burden compares very favourably with other major European countries, as the most recent OECD survey confirms.

  Direct Taxation
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the level of direct taxation. [37666]

  Mr. Jack
  We have received a number of representations from the public on the level of direct taxation, many of which welcomed the steps towards a 20p basic rate taken in the last Budget.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the lower than projected yield of value added tax in 1995–96. [37667]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The matter is currently being looked at by a working group comprised of officials from HM Treasury and HM Customs and Excise. The probability is that there is no single explanation, but a range of contributory factors. Receipts for the first quarter of 1996–97 are showing healthy growth.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to ensure the consistency of his proposals with EU law for a retrospective limitation on claims for recovery of value added tax as a result of a customs mistake; [39604]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure the legitimate expectations of taxpayers in respect of repayment of VAT are met; and if he will make a statement; [39605]
  539
  (3) what considerations led to the setting of (a) the statutory limitation period for customs recovery of value added tax and (b) the proposal for the period regarding taxpayers recovery; and if he will make a statement. [39603]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no harmonised European Community rules applying to recovery of overpaid VAT. Member states are free to determine their own procedures for claims provided that they respect Community law principles. National time limits for VAT—which operate within an EC framework—cannot be less favourable than those applying for similar domestic taxes, and procedures must not make it excessively difficult for a taxpayer to exercise his Community rights.

  The new three-year cap on retrospective refunds of VAT will apply to all the indirect taxes and duties administered by customs. EC law already imposes a three-year limit in respect of repayment of customs duty.

  A three-year time limit on refunds achieves a proper balance between the rights of individual taxpayers and the public interest. The Government have become concerned at the increasing amounts of revenue at risk in taxation boundary disputes, in some cases back to the introduction of VAT in 1973. A three-year limit will introduce certainty both for taxpayers and the Exchequer, and is proportionate in effect because, at the time of the relevant transactions, both taxpayers and their customers will normally have worked on the assumption that the tax was due.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new registrations for VAT there were in South Derbyshire in each of the last five years. [39758]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Customs does not have information concerning the number of new registrations in South Derbyshire alone. The local VAT office at Derby covers, in addition to South Derbyshire, parts of Leicestershire and Staffordshire. The number of VAT registrations for that area in the last five calendar years is as follows:

  year

  New registrations

  1991

  1,869

  1992

  1,805

  1993

  1,900

  1994

  1,670

  1995

  1,766

  1996 (to 30 June 1996)

  1000

  Taxation
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him regarding the economic impact of current levels of taxation. [37669]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding the economic impact of current levels of taxation. [37679]

  Mr. Jack
  We have received a number of representations from the public on current levels of taxation, many of which have welcomed the tax cuts made 540
  in my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's November budget.

  Capital Taxation
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the reform of the taxation of capital. [37671]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have received a number of different representations, which will be carefully considered. The abolishing of capital taxes and inheritance tax remain stated objectives of the Government.

  House Prices
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the pattern of house price movements in the past 12 months. [37672]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Over the 12 months to June, national average house prices—as measured by the Halifax index—rose by 4 per cent. The disaggregated figures show that house prices have risen in all regions of the UK over this period. Rising living standards, low inflation and the lowest mortgage rates for nearly 30 years mean that the conditions are right for the recovery in the housing market to be sustained.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on present levels of public expenditure. [37674]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current level of general government expenditure is £308 billion. The Cabinet discussed the forthcoming public expenditure survey last week. We reaffirmed our commitment to reduce the share of national income taken by the state. We agreed that spending should be kept within the tightest possible limits, and certainly within the cash plans my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget last year.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the growth in living standards in the next year. [37680]

  Mr. Jack
  Real personal disposable income is expected to increase by 2½ per cent. this year and by a further 3 per cent. in 1997.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last me the Registrar of Friendly Societies to discuss the registration of industrial and provident societies. [37681]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have not met the Registrar of Friendly Societies to discuss registration of industrial and provident societies and have no plans to do so.

  Electricity Bills
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the average
  541
  domestic electricity bill since the industry was privatised; and how the privatisation has affected Government revenues. [37682]

  Mr. Jack
  The typical UK household electricity bill has fallen by £18 between 1990 and 1995, in real terms excluding VAT. On top of this, bills will fall by about a fifth this year. Privatising the electricity industry has contributed over £20 billion to Government revenues, and the privatised companies now contribute about £1 billion in corporation tax each year.

  Inward Investment
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of his policies for the economy on levels of inward investment. [37684]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government's economic policies have helped the UK to attract more inward direct investment, in relation to GDP, than any other major economy, with over £20 billion in 1995 alone. In 1995–96, the Invest in Britain bureau was notified of 477 inward investment projects, creating almost 50,000 new jobs and safeguarding as many again. This strong performance is being maintained this year, with LG of Korea announcing £1.7 billion investment in south Wales, creating 6,100 new jobs—the largest inward investment ever made in Europe.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the PSBR. [37673]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Borrowing is continuing to fall and is on a clear downward trend. As a share of GDP the PSBR for 1996–97 will be half its 1993–94 level.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission a study into the accuracy of his Department's original forecast of the current year's PSBR. [37687]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The PSBR is the difference between two large numbers and forecasts are subject to large margins of error. The average error on forecasts made in November for the year ahead is l½ per cent. of GDP, or £11 billion at current day prices. The error on the 1994 Budget forecast of the 1995–96 PSBR was just under £11 billion, an average-sized forecast error.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39299]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury does not own any vehicles.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions ministerial conference and 542
  meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39529]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised from air passenger duty since its introduction. [39286]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Air passenger duty receipts, together with those for all other Customs and Excise taxes, are published every month by the Office for National Statistics in table 2.1D of the publication "Financial Statistics", which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Diesel Vehicles
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what(a) fiscal and (b) other measures he has evaluated to encourage research into particulate traps for diesel vehicles; [39757]

  (2) what (a) fiscal and (b) other measures he has evaluated to encourage the use of low-sulphur diesel fuel. [39756]

  Mr. Jack
  I have continued to look at a wide range of measures to promote the use of cleaner vehicles, technologies and fuels. I will carefully consider all these measures before reaching a judgment for the forthcoming Budget.

  Publications
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average price of(a) "Social Trends" publications and (b) Economic Trends publications in each year since 1993. [39753]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The prices for the "Social Trends" and "Economic Trends" group of publications in each year since 1993 have been:

  £ pounds

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Social Trends (Annual)

  26.00

  27.00

  34.95

  35.95

  Economic Trends (Monthly)

  12.75

  13.25

  19.95

  21.00

  ET Quarterly Supplement

  9.00

  18.00

  18.00

  21.00

  ET Annual Supplement

  16.50

  17.00

  24.95

  26.95

  Economic Trends annual subscription (all three titles including postage)

  155.00

  196.00

  320.00

  335.00

  Prices and subscriptions are fixed for the calendar year.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many visits (i) he and (ii) his Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39867]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In the past 12 months my ministerial colleagues and I have made a number of visits to constituencies but have made no visits to the Newbury constituency.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many redundancies have been notified to his Department by employers in(a) the York parliamentary constituency, (b) the York travel-to-work area and (c) North Yorkshire in each of the last five years. [39569]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information is not available for York parliamentary constituency, the travel-to-work area, or for North Yorkshire. In the Yorkshire, Humberside region the 1995 winter labour force survey estimates 19,000 people had been made redundant in the three months prior to interview.

  Abortions
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give a breakdown by gestation of pregnancy of the number of abortions performed in the north-west region in the latest year for which figures are available; [39865]

  (2) how many abortions have now been performed in total within the north-west region under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; and how many and what percentage of those abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the woman; [39863]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the north-west region after the 24th week of pregnancy in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of (a) the age of the woman, (b) the marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds under which the abortion is performed; [39862]

  (4) if he will give a breakdown by the procedure adopted of the number of abortions performed in the north-west region in the latest year for which figures are available. [39864]

  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the NHS South Thames region after the 24th week of pregnancy, in the latest year for which figures are available, in terms of(a) the age of the woman, (b) the marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds under which the abortion is performed. [39781]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Members shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the north-west region in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of(a) the age of the woman, (b) the marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds under which the abortion is performed. [39861]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The statistically most likely candidate for an abortion for each of the variables listed is defined as the category with the highest recorded frequency of legal terminations. The percentages are based on all legal terminations performed in 1993, to women usually resident in the north-west health region.
  544
  The categories with the highest frequencies found in each of the variables are as follows:
  age of the woman: 20–24 age group comprised 32 per cent. (3,742) of all terminations.
  Marital status: single women comprised 29 per cent. (3,232) of all terminations.
  Number of previous children born by the woman: women with no previous (live and still born) children born to them, comprised 49 per cent. (5,669) of all terminations.
  Legal ground under which abortion was performed: statutory ground C alone comprised 84 per cent. (9.689) of all terminations. The definition of ground C is "that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, or injury to the physical or mental health of the woman".
  Reference: 1993 Abortion Statistics, England and Wales, Series AB no. 20.

  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by gestation of pregnancy of the number of abortions performed in the NHS South Thames region in the latest year for which figures are available. [39775]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Figures for 1994 which give a breakdown of the number of abortions performed to usually resident women in the South Thames health region by gestation of pregnancy can be found in the OPCS monitor series AB95/9, "Legal abortions in England and Wales 1994: residents of regional and district health areas".

  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the South Thames region in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of(a) the age of the woman, (b) the marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds under which the abortion is performed. [39772]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The statistically most likely candidate for an abortion for each of the variables listed is defined as the category with the highest recorded frequency of legal terminations. The percentages are based on all legal terminations performed in 1993, to women usually resident in the South East and South West Thames health regions.

  The categories with the highest frequencies found in each of the variables are as follows:
  Age of the woman: 20–24 age group comprised 29 per cent. (7,113) of all terminations.
  Marital status: single woman comprised 25 per cent. (6,140) of all terminations.
  Number of previous children born by the woman: women with no previous (live and still born) children born to them, comprised 37 per cent. (9,245) of all terminations.
  Legal ground under which the abortion was performed: statutory ground C alone comprised 85 per cent. (21,328) of all terminations. The definition of ground C is "that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, or injury to the physical or mental health of the women".
  Reference: 1993 Abortions Statistics, England and Wales, Series AB no. 20.
  545
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions have been performed in total within the NHS South Thames region under the provisions of the Abortions Act 1967; and how many and what percentage of those abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother. [39776]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The total number of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act, to women usually resident in the South Thames health region1 from 1970 to 19942 was 529,032. During this period 10 abortions, 0 per cent. of the total number of abortions performed were carried out in an emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary, to save the life of the woman3.
  1 Figures are based, where possible, on 1994 health authority boundaries. Other boundary changes have not been reflected in the figures.
  2 Figures for 1968–69 are not held on a comparable basis.
  3 Abortions performed under statutory grounds 5 (1970–31st March 1991) and F (1st April 1991—present) i.e. where in the case of emergency it was necessary to save the life of the woman.

  Capital Gains
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of capital gains outstanding for each of the last 10 years; and if he will list the longest period for which capital gains has been unpaid while negotiations with the Inland Revenue continue for(a) individuals, (b) companies and (c) trusts. [39685]

  Mr. Jack
  The amount of capital gains tax outstanding as at 31 October in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  year

  Amount (£ million)

  year

  Amount (£ million)

  1985

  128.1

  1990

  206.4

  1986

  132.1

  1991

  224.4

  1987

  139.5

  1992

  196.9

  1988

  145.6

  1993

  177.1

  1989

  165.5

  1994

  150.7

  The information requested in the second part of the question is not available.

  Departmental Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many forms his Department issues annually; and in how many categories. [37688]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The information on statistical inquiries to businesses by the Office for National Statistics is in its compliance plan for 1996 to 1998, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Employment Statistics
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men between the ages of 16 and 60 years were in(a) full-time employment and (b) part-time employment in each year between 1992 and 1996. [38954]
  546
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The available information from the labour force survey for Great Britain is given in the table:

  Men aged 16–59 working full-time and part-time Spring 1992 to Winter 1995–96 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Great Britain, thousands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Spring 1992

  12,337

  713

  Spring 1993

  12,089

  758

  Spring 1994

  12,127

  849

  Spring 1995

  12,297

  858

  Winter 1995–96

  12,308

  894

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of women between the ages of 16 and 60 years in(a) full-time employment and (b) part-time employment below 16 hours in each of the years 1992 to 1996. [38899]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The available information from the labour force survey for Great Britain is given in the following table:

  Women aged 16–59 working full-time and part-time Spring 1992 to Winter 1995–96 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Great Britain

  Thousands

  Full time

  Part time 16 hours and over

  Part time under 16 hours

  Spring 1992

  6,140

  2,690

  1,888

  Spring 1993

  6,087

  2,749

  1,868

  Spring 1994

  6,073

  2,813

  1,860

  Spring 1995

  6,160

  2,822

  1,842

  Winter 1995

  6,169

  2,922

  1,897

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the statistical forms issued to businesses by his Department, indicating the number of each sent out. [38678]

  Mr. Jack
  Treasury Departments require information about economic activity and the collection of taxes. Forms are a very necessary part of these processes. There are several hundreds of different types of forms, many of which are variations—for example, Welsh language versions—resulting in several millions of forms issued every year, to two categories; individuals and businesses. To give precise figures would involve disproportionate cost, but the main examples are: for the Inland Revenue, 7 million individual tax returns; for HM Customs and Excise, 6.8 million VAT returns; around ½ million VAT registration forms, although only 180,000 are returned by businesses; 1.5 million Intrastat survey forms; and 175,000 betting and gaming duty forms, all issued to business; for the Office for National Statistics, 1.5 million forms in 101 separate statistical inquiries of business. The information on statistical inquiries to businesses by the Office for National Statistics is in the compliance plan for 1996 to 1998, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.
  547
  The Treasury's Departments recognise the need to keep the number of forms they require to be completed to a minimum and that those which are necessary should be well designed. They have set targets for reducing the burden they impose on businesses.

  Employment (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) males and (b) females in (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employment in (1) North Yorkshire and (2) Yorkshire and Humberside earn less than £3.40 an hour. [38938]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: Information available from the new earnings survey is provided in the table.

  Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence

  Average gross hourly pay (excluding overtime)

  Percentage of employees earning less than £3.40 per hour

  North Yorkshire

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Males

  Full-time

  4.4

  3.7

  Part-time

  27.9

  27.1

  Females

  Full-time

  12.6

  9.4

  Part-time

  25.4

  22.4

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of people aged under 25 years are(a) in full-time employment, (b) in part-time employment, (c) in full-time education and (d) on Government-supported training schemes in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England in each year since 1991. [38937]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: Available information is for England and Yorkshire and Humberside. This is provided in the table.

  Persons aged under 25: at spring

  (Thousand)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Full-time employment1

  England

  3,170

  2,738

  2,471

  2,319

  2,257

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  346

  283

  269

  235

  233

  Part-time employment1

  England

  732

  769

  778

  842

  853

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  69

  86

  81

  89

  87

  Full-time education

  England

  1,427

  1,635

  1,617

  1,779

  1,843

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  145

  167

  162

  184

  194

  Government-supported training and employment programmes

  England

  231

  196

  188

  174

  144

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28

  27

  27

  23

  21

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Note:

  1 Excludes government-supported training and employment programmes.
  548

  Persons aged under 25: at spring

  (Per cent.)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Full-time employment1

  England

  20

  17

  16

  15

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21

  17

  16

  14

  14

  Part-time employment1

  England

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Full-time education

  England

  9

  10

  10

  11

  12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9

  10

  10

  11

  12

  Government-supported training and employment programmes

  England

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Note:

  1 Excludes government-supported training and employment programmes.

  Community Budget
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be publishing the statement on the 1996 Community budget. [39943]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have today laid before Parliament the statement on the 1996 Community budget, entitled "European Community Finances". This White Paper is the 16th in the series. As in the past it covers annual budgetary matters. It also describes the budget for 1996 as adopted by the European Parliament and the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the Community budget over the years 1993 to 1996.

  As last year, the annual statement also includes details of recent developments in European Community financial management and in countering fraud against the Community budget.

  I have placed copies of the White Paper in the Library of the House.

  Child Benefit
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings he estimates would be made annually if child benefit were taxed at(a) 40 per cent. (b) 24 per cent. and (c) 20 per cent. rates on (i) mothers' and (ii) fathers' earnings. [3949]

  Mr. Jack
  The yield from taxing it at specified rates would depend on whether all taxpayers were to face the same tax rate on child benefit or whether taxpayers with a lower marginal rate would pay tax at their own marginal rate.

  Long-term Care Insurance
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the regulation of selling and marketing of long-term care insurance. [39944]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government's consultation document, "A new partnership for care in old age", published on 7 May, invited comments on a proposed partnership scheme to provide extra protection from the
  549
  means test for residential care to people who took out a "partnership product" to meet some of the costs of their long-term care. Two kinds of partnership product for inclusion in the partnership scheme were mentioned-indemnity insurance and immediate needs annuities. Views were also invited on whether the selling and marketing of long-term care insurance should be regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986, as annuities are already.

  It is important, especially as these products will be sold primarily to the elderly, to ensure that arrangements for regulating the products are properly considered. Equally, it is important for any regulation to be cost-effective, and widely accepted as effective for the development of the market in long-term care insurance.

  The Treasury is examining the issues raised by responses to the consultation document concerned with regulation. These suggest there is a consensus in favour of regulation under the Financial Services Act 1986, covering the marketing and selling of all long-term care insurance products. Before a decision is taken to extend the scope of the Financial Services Act in this way, the Treasury will explore further the detailed question of how it should be achieved, and will issue a consultation document in the autumn seeking views of interested groups, including financial services participants and consumer interest groups.

  Tax Booklet
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information given in the July 1995 "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" booklet. [40017]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Treasury is today publishing a booklet containing estimates of the effects of various illustrative tax changes on tax receipts in 1997–98 and 1998–99 and preliminary estimates of the costs of the main tax reliefs in 1995–96 and 1996–97. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Life Assurance
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the reform of the tax rules for life assurance policy holders and the proposal to publish draft legislation. [39942]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government intend later this year to publish draft clauses and secondary legislation on the taxation of life assurance and similar policyholders. The draft legislation would form the basis of a comprehensive code for taxing profits from life assurance policies and other types of insurance which are used for investment. The aim of the new rules is to conserve what is good in the existing regime, which dates from 1968, but to modernise it to take account of nearly 30 years of developments in the insurance industry. If enacted, the legislation would give effect to the proposed reform of policyholder taxation I announced on 8 November last year,Official Report, column 912.

  At the time of that announcement it was hoped that the draft legislation would be available in the spring, but we have found that more time is needed for the preparation
  550
  of the new rules. In order to allow time for full consultation with all interested parties, the Government have decided that they will not, in any event, introduce legislation based on the draft clauses in the next Finance Bill.

  Earlier this year there was speculation that the Inland Revenue was intending to change the tax treatment of guaranteed income bonds, which are a life assurance-based product. An Inland Revenue press release of 15 March made it clear that it was Ministers' intention to ensure that the tax treatment of holders of existing bonds was consistent with the insurance industry's understanding of the position at that time. That remains true, and discussions with the insurance industry's representatives, including the Association of British Insurers, are continuing to determine how this might be achieved.

  Capital Allowances
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make to the rules on capital allowances for fixtures following the House of Lords case last year of Melluish v. BMI (No. 3) Ltd. and others. [39945]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government intend to introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill to correct defects in the rules for giving capital allowances on fixtures in buildings. These defects allow tax to be avoided by obtaining allowances on more than the cost of the fixture and through the acceleration of allowances. The legislation will also reverse that part of the decision of the House of Lords in Melluish v. BMI (No. 3) Ltd. which gave allowances to equipment lessors on fixtures leased to persons not liable to tax. The new rules will apply to expenditure incurred on or after today.

  These changes open the way to simplify and deregulate these rules. At present, valuations have to be made whenever allowances are claimed on fixtures included in a property sale. This has been criticised as complex, costly and incorrect. The Inland Revenue will publish proposals today for consultation. The proposals would, in many cases, allow figures agreed between the purchaser and the vendor to be accepted for tax purposes. The Inland Revenue will also consult with representatives of the property industry and their professional advisers on ways in which the rules could be improved further. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we intend to introduce these measures in the next Finance Bill.

  Building Societies Bill
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the responses to the consultation of the draft Building Societies Bill. [39947]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  We published the draft Building Societies Bill on 18 March allowing three months' public consultation. We received responses from the following:

  Abbey National

  Age Concern

  Allen and Overy

  Association of Unit Trust and Investment Funds

  Banking Insurance and Finance Union

  Banking Ombudsman

  551

  Beverley Building Society

  Birmingham Midshires Building Society

  Bishop and Robertson Chalmers Solicitors

  Bradford and Bingley Building Society

  Britannia Building Society

  British Bankers' Association

  Building Societies Association

  Building Societies Ombudsman

  Cameron Markby Hewitt

  F. F. H. Charlton Esq

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  Chelsea Building Society

  Cheshire Building Society

  Clay Cross Building Society

  Consumers Association

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Coventry Building Society

  A. B. Craven Esq

  Cumberland Building Society

  Darlington Building Society

  Derbyshire Building Society

  Dudley Building Society

  Dunfermline Building Society

  Earl Shilton Building Society

  V. Edmonds Esq

  Financial Law Panel

  F. J. Griffiths

  Halifax Building Society

  Hanley Economic Building Society

  J. Hanlon Esq

  M. Hardern Esq

  Hinckley and Rugby Building Society

  IBCA Ltd.

  Imperial Building Society

  Institute of Chartered Accountants

  Institute of Credit Management—Technical Advisory Committee

  Institute of Directors

  Kent Reliance Building Society

  Lambeth Building Society

  M. L. Lampitt Esq

  Law Society

  Leeds and Holbeck Building Society

  Professor D. T. Llewellyn

  Timothy Lloyd QC

  Manchester Building Society

  Mansfield Building Society

  Market Harborough Building Society

  Nationwide Building Society

  National Association of Estate Agents

  National Consumer Council

  National Consumer Credit Federation

  National Federation of Consumer Groups

  Natwest Capital Markets Ltd.

  Network Industrial Relations Services

  Newbury Building Society

  Newcastle Building Society

  Norwich and Peterborough Building Society

  Nottingham Building Society

  552

  Penrith Building Society

  Portman Building Society

  E. Rodd Esq

  Scarborough Building Society

  D. T. Shutt Esq

  W. Simpson Esq

  Skipton Building Society

  Small Business Bureau

  Staffordshire Building Society

  Stroud and Swindon Building Society

  Teachers Building Society

  Tipton and Coseley Building Society

  Universal Building Society

  C. D. Watson Esq

  Yorkshire Building Society

  Copies of responses from respondents, who have no objection to them being made public, are available from Miss Leigh Kalcher, HM Treasury, room 36a/ground, Parliament street, London SW1P 3AG (Tel 0171 270 4487).

  Private Estates (Public Funding)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations he takes into account when authorising the payment of grants of public money to owners of landed estates of more than 500 acres to improve private buildings on those estates; and if he will make a statement. [39170]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  In England, Government funding channelled through English Heritage is available for structural repairs to those buildings that English Heritage consider to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest. In deciding whether a grant should be made English Heritage takes account of factors such as the nature, cost and urgency of the proposed works, and also other resources available to the property owner. The general principle behind Government policy is that owners should be responsible for the repair of their own properties, and public funding should be provided only where it is clearly needed to preserve the fabric of our heritage. In accordance with this principle, procedures have been drawn up to assess the resources available to historic estates.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) male and (b) female claimants of (i) severe disablement allowance, (ii) incapacity benefit, (iii) unemployment benefit claimed for an adult dependant but were disqualified; and if he will break the figures down by category of disqualification. [34218]
  553
  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the(a) numbers of claimants gaining or losing and (b) amounts of costs and savings arising from the option of voluntary reporting of changes of circumstances between fixed-term reviews as detailed in his departmental research report No. 45. [37422]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those benefits where payments currently are lower in real terms than in 1979; and how many people(a) are now and (b) were in 1979 drawing each of those benefits. [35579]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Monday 22 July,Official Report, column 65.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid out in benefits(a) nationally, (b) in the north-west and (c) in Warrington in 1995–96. [37557]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure on social security benefits in Great Britain in 1995–96 is estimated to have been £88.8 billion.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate listed by benefit of(a) the numbers gaining from and (b) the costs of amending the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1978 to calculate earnings (i) net of income tax and (ii) to disregard half of any contribution made towards an occupational or private pension scheme. [39186]

  Mr. Heald
  Based on the data contained in the family resources survey, it is estimated that the number gaining, and the costs of amending, the Social Security (Computation of Earnings) Regulations to calculate earnings net of income tax and to disregard half of any contribution made towards an occupational or personal pension would be negligible.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of claimants of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) incapacity benefit and (c) severe disablement allowance received payments from earnings during 1995–96. [39005]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available relates to unemployment benefit and is set out in the table:

  Number and percentage of unemployment benefit recipients receiving payments from earnings—Great Britain

  November 1995

  February 1996

  Total number of unemployment benefit recipients receiving earnings (thousands)

  16

  16

  554

  Number and percentage of unemployment benefit recipients receiving payments from earnings—Great Britain

  November 1995

  February 1996

  Percentage of all unemployment benefit recipients receiving earnings

  4

  4

  Notes:

  1. A number of recipients who receive earnings do not have the information recorded on the computer system. These figures relate to computerised claims only and should therefore be taken as a broad indication only.

  2. Figures apply to claimants who were receiving unemployment benefit on the second Thursday of the months shown and who have earnings in the benefit week in which that date fell.

  Source:

  Five per cent. sample of unemployed claimants in Great Britain on the second Thursday of the months shown.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will receive answers to his questions about the child care disregard, adult dependency increases and benefits uprating tabled on 21 June. [39187]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on Wednesday 3 July,Official Report, column 469, and today and to the reply given to him by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), on Tuesday 23 July.

  Disability
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations led him to exclude from the definition of disability the personality disorders set out in section 4(1) of the Disability Discrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations 1996. [34861]

  Mr. Burt
  A consultation document, published in December 1995, stated that the Government intended to exclude from the definition of disability kleptomania, paedophilia and personality disorders including psychopathic disorders. The document went on to say that this was because, while such disorders might meet the definition of disability in the Act, the Government believe that it would be wrong to require employers and service providers to consider adjustments to cater for these conditions. Over 75 per cent. of those who expressed a view agreed with the proposal.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans there are to seek tenders for a replacement for me Child Support Agency computer. [36175]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  If it is decided to replace or upgrade the Child Support Agency computer system, a procurement exercise will be conducted in accordance with the EC directives which govern public sector procurement. This legislation ensures fair and open competition and results in the selection of the supplier whose bid offers best value for money. The Department cannot speculate as to the outcome of any procurement exercise.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken by his Department to reply to letters from hon. Members on
  555
  matters relating to the Child Support Agency; and how many complaints from hon. Members his Department has received in each of the months since the Child Support Agency started its operations in April 1993. [39740]

  Mr. Mitchell
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individual personal records the Child Support Agency computer system was designed to accommodate. [39689]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System.
  The database structure of the main Child Support Computer System would enable it to hold just over 11.5 million records of individual people
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what data are required for the purposes of monitoring his targets for the Child Support Agency; and for how long it is required to be held. [39690]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency data held for monitoring the targets he sets the Agency.
  The Child Support Agency's targets for 1996/97 are as follows:

  (1) Collection—A band of £380 million to £400 million of maintenance to be collected or arranged for direct payment from the absent parent to the parent with care in 1996/97.

  (2) Payments—95% of payments to the parent with care to be made within 10 working days of receipt from an absent parent.

  (3) Accuracy—To achieve a continuing improvement in accuracy so that in at least 85% of cases checked during March 1997 the cash value of the assessment will be correct.

  (4) Second Tier Reviews—Where a client is dissatisfied with a Child Support Officer's decision and requests a review, 55% to be cleared within 13 weeks; 80% to be cleared within 26 weeks; and no more than 15% to be older than 26 weeks as at 31 March 1997.

  (5) Maintenance Assessments—60% of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 26 weeks and as at 31 March 1997, no more than 10% of all maintenance applications received by the Agency to be over 52 weeks old.

  In order to measure Agency performance and effectiveness, statistical and financial data is obtained from a wide range of sources. Collection of this information can be both clerical and from scans of the Child Support Computer System. The information is used not only to measure performance against the targets but also to manage the business effectively. Statistical and financial data is retained as long as there is a business need to do so and the periods involved vary considerably from say 18 months to many years.
  I am sorry I cannot be more precise but this is a very wide ranging question; nevertheless I hope this information is helpful to you.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines are issued to staff in Benefits Agency offices regarding the structure of interviews and range of questions asked of unemployed people. [36168]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what guidelines are issued to staff in Benefits Agency (BA) offices regarding the structure of interviews and range of questions asked of unemployed people.
  The Code of Office Practice (COP) provides general advice on interviewing for BA staff. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant extracts for your information.
  There is no specific guidance on the structure of interviews or the range of questions to ask unemployed people. BA staff interview a wide range of customers including the unemployed. The nature of each interview depends on the customers individual circumstances.
  I hope this reply has been helpful.
  INTERVIEWING ADVICE
  Introduction

  The following paragraphs contain advice on interviewing callers at the LO, employers and people in their own homes. Not all paragraphs are relevant in all situations. Try to adopt the following suggestions whenever you interview someone. A good interview is not simply a matter of being nice to the public.
  Your manner
  Being courteous
  Show that you value every person as a person. Call someone by their name if you know it. Never address someone by their surname only. In some localities it is customary to use a first name only. Judge whether this will be acceptable to the interviewee. Stand up when introduced. Shake hands, if it is expected. You may be visiting an employer, or meeting an old person who is accustomed to shaking hands at an introduction.
  Being sensitive

  For most people, coming to the LO or receiving a home visit is an important event. They may be nervous, or noisy and talkative. Old people for instance are often flustered. Put them at ease. Be friendly but professional. Recognise that giving information about personal affairs can be an ordeal. Reassure them that information supplied to the Department is given in confidence and will be respected. Don't forget how uncertain you felt on your first day.
  Listening hard

  It is not enough just to seem attentive. Listening requires constant mental effort.
  Checking personal prejudices

  Do not let personal views colour your judgement and behaviour. In the course of your work you may find that you have been lied to or misled. This is a hazard you must learn to live with.
  Explaining and informing
  Give accurate information. If you sense the interviewee might not fully understand the issues, give explanations without waiting to

  557
  be asked. Be objective. See all sides of an issue. Explain the issue leaflets. You may be asked for advice on matters outside the Department's work. Be as helpful as possible but do not give advice on legal and technical matters outside the Department's scope. Keep a list of useful organisations in the area. If you can't answer the query, suggest someone who might be able to, for example the CAB.
  For all other social security benefits except SB/IVB and UB encourage enquirers to claim benefit immediately if it seems possible that they may be entitled. They would not be adversely affected if they claimed benefit and this was disallowed but they may lose benefit if they delay claiming.
  Take care when advising about SB/IVB and UB. An unsuccessful claim establishes a period of interruption of employment (PIE) and can affect entitlement adversely for subsequent linked claims if the claimant has a deficient contribution record in the original relevant income tax year (RITY). Explain to an enquirer the relationship between tax and benefit years, and the linking rules. Give them the relevant leaflet and encourage them to decide when to make a claim. Point out that a claim cannot be withdrawn after the adjudication officer has given their decision. If a claimant decides to defer their claim to gain the advantage of a later RITY for which they have a better contribution record, tell them how they can submit credits only' claims in the meantime.
  Never tell people that they will be better off claiming benefits paid by other departments or organisations. If you think this may be the case, give the person all the relevant facts at your disposal. Suggest that they consult the other organisation before making up his mind.
  Forecasting
  Most people try to provide for their retirement. You may be: asked about the pension a person can expect when they retire. Perhaps the question may be linked to a contributions enquiry. This type of question is often difficult to answer precisely, yet the person needs the best information you can give. Always send a written reply. Use one of the DN/NP 322 letters whenever possible. Make it clear at the beginning of the letter that:

  (1) the information you have given is based on:

  (a) what you have been told about the person's circumstances; and

  (b) the law as it is at present; and

  (2) as both of these may change, the advice or information you have given may be outdated.

  Apply these principles to all enquiries which involve forecasting.
  Interviewing points to remember
  When conducting an interview, remember the following "good practices":

  (1) Identify yourself, preferably by name. This will be especially reassuring to a blind person. Alternatively wear a lapel badge bearing your name or obtain a personal name plate.

  (2) Do not smoke in front of the person being interviewed.

  (3) Make certain that the interviewees cannot read anything about themselves from the official documents that are necessary for the interview. Do not leave CPs, GBUs or files with interviewees.

  (4) If you are asked to countersign a document certifying the identify of the person named on the form, sign only if you have sufficient knowledge. Otherwise, tell the caller to obtain the signature of a personal acquaintance.

  (5) Remember to look at the person you are talking to. If writing, look up occasionally. It shows your interest, that you're human and that the interview is more than just routine. It helps if you are asked for identity details at some future time and it also enables you to pick up signals about how the interviewee is feeling. They may be confused,
  558
  worried or angry. This will be missed if you do not look at them. This is the body language or 'non-verbal communication' and is an important aspect of interviewing skills.

  (6) Do not enter into political discussion or argument.

  The interview

  An interview is a directed, purposeful conversation. Follow the chart shown overleaf.
  If the person to be interviewed at the LO is accompanied, perhaps by a husband, wife, friend or relative, make the other person welcome. Be careful to address your questions to the claimant and to write down their answers. Do not ignore the other person. They may retaliate and impede the progress of the interview.
  If the claimant is accompanied by two or more people, see COP 1601–1750.
  If you call on someone in their home and they are not alone, check before you start the interview if they mind the third party being present. If they do, suggest moving to another room.

  War Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of claimants of war pensions in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36346]

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

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to reduce the waiting times for war pension claims and appeals to be processed. [38861]

  Mr. Heald
  This is a matter for Kevin Caldwell, chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. David Hanson, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the steps being taken to reduce the waiting times for war pension claims and appeals to be processed.
  You may recall that in my letter to you dated 13 June 1996, in response to a previous Parliamentary Question (Official Report vol 279, col 332–333), I explained the many changes within the War Pensions Agency (WPA) in 1995 and how these had affected our performance.
  The situation has improved since I wrote although our performance is still not as good as we would wish. We have taken the following steps to accelerate the improvement:

  (i) We have examined the way in which we currently process appeals against the assessment of disablement. We believe that this can be improved with a consequent reduction in the time taken to prepare these appeals for hearing by Pensions Appeal Tribunal. We are currently testing the revised process to ensure that all parties, principally appellants and PAT members, are satisfied with the standard of service provided. As assessment appeals are the majority of all appeals received, this revised process would significantly reduce the time taken in clearing appeals.

  (ii) We have created a taskforce within our operational group to address particular issues of process, organisation and resources and to identify and facilitate solutions.

  559

  (iii) We are in the process of recruiting a number of additional staff for a limited period to deal with the work currently awaiting action. As these staff need to receive training, it is anticipated that it will be September 1996 before this has a significant effect upon the current situation.

  (iv) In the short term, we are committing additional resources, in the form of overtime, specifically to clearing claims and appeals. The results of this will quickly be apparent.

  These steps are intended to reduce clearance times and the numbers of uncleared claims and appeals and ensure the Agency achieves the targets set by the Secretary of State for 1996–97.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applicants, to date, have successfully claimed war widows' pension under revisions introduced in the Pensions Act 1995; [38109]

  (2) what information was provided to claimants of war widows' pensions, following the change of legislation in 1995, on the impact of the backdating of benefits on means-tested benefits; and if he will make a statement. [38108]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the average processing times for applications for war widows' pension, since the changes in regulations following the Pensions Act 1995. [38110]

  Mr. Heald
  These are matters for Kevin Caldwell, chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about restoration of War Widows Pensions (WWP).
  I can confirm that to date a total of 14,586 widows have successfully applied to have their WWP reinstated under revisions introduced in the Pensions Act 1995.
  As far as overlapping benefits are concerned it might be helpful if I explain that WWP overlaps with National Insurance (NI) benefits such as a Retirement Pension payable on the basis of a late husband's NI contributions or Incapacity Benefit and with income related benefits such as Income Support and Housing Benefit. £10 per week of a WWP is statutorily disregarded for the purposes of claims to income related benefits and where the war widow is in receipt of a Supplementary Pension, and the majority are, that statutory disregard is increased to £61.71 per week.
  When making a claim for the restoration of a WWP, the widow is asked to complete a claim form which indicates that the award of a WWP might affect the amount of money received from other benefits. The claim form also explains that any arrears of WWP due may have to be reduced to take account of other benefits that have been paid.
  In addition, when we notify the widow that her claim has been successful, we again advise her that the restored pension may affect the amount of money she can get from certain other benefits, and that we will have to make enquiries about these benefits.
  The average processing time for applications for WWP, since the changes in regulations following the 1995 Pension Act, is 65 days (August 1995 to June 1996). The Secretary of State target for clearance of these cases is 80 per cent in 70 days. These figures do not include the war widows restoration exercise.
  560
  I do not have a ready means of calculating precisely the average clearance times for the restored WWP exercise. But I can tell you that the first formal claims began to be received in August 1995 and we were able to start notifying widows of the results from 22 September, by which time we had received 8,282 claims. To date we have received 14,814 claims and have made decisions on 14,719 of them.
  Since the announcement of the intention to provide in the Pensions Bill for restoration of WWP, the Agency has had to set up new procedures and supporting material, train staff and reprogram our computer system to handle the claims. It was originally envisaged the Pensions Bill would receive Royal Assent in October 1995. However, Royal Assent was received on 19 July 1995, some 3 months earlier. The Agency set itself a target to clear the vast majority of claims by the end of March 1996 and, by 4 April 1996 of 13,847 claims received we had made decisions on 13,051.
  The length of time taken to clear a claim very much depends on how much information the widow is able to supply at the time she claims, and whether we have to make additional enquiries. We have no arrears of work in this area, and currently we are notifying the results of claims made since the middle of June this year, ie less than 5 weeks ago.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Pensioners
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list as a proportion of all pensioners those(a) pensioners, (b) single male pensioners aged under 75 years, (c) single female pensioners aged under 75 years, (d) single pensioners aged under 75 years, (e) pensioner couples aged under 75 years, (f) single male pensioners aged 75 years and over, (g) single female pensioners aged 75 years and over, (h) single pensioners aged 75 years and over and (i) pensioner couples where at least one partner is aged 75 years and over receiving income from savings; and if he will provide figures for the mean and median amount received for the latest year for which figures are available. [36258]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion with investment income (per cent.)

  Mean amount for those in receipt (£ per week)

  Median amount for those in receipt (£ per week)

  All pensioner units

  73

  37.40

  8.70

  Single male pensioners under 75

  65

  51.00

  15.80

  Single female pensioners under 75

  70

  29.40

  5.90

  Single pensioners under 75

  69

  33.90

  7.40

  Pensioner couples with head under75

  83

  52.80

  15.90

  Single male pensioners 75 and over

  73

  38.10

  6.50

  Single female pensioners 75 and over

  65

  18.50

  3.60

  561

  Proportion with investment income(per cent.)

  Mean amount for those in receipt(£ per week)

  Medianamount forthose in receipt(£ per week)

  Single pensioners 75 and over

  67

  22.60

  4.40

  Pensioner couples with head over 75

  80

  42.70

  11.30

  Notes:

  1. These results are based on a relatively small sample size. Therefore they should be treated with a higher degree of caution than usual.

  2. All amounts are in July 1993 prices.

  3. Proportions are rounded to the nearest whole percentage, amounts are rounded to the nearest l0p.

  4. A pensioner unit is defined as a single pensioner over State Pension Age (SPA) and a couple where the husband, or head, is over SPA. To provide consistency the age of the head has been used to define the age of the couple.

  Source:

  Information is based on the Family Expenditure Survey 1993.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employers have qualified for exemption from national insurance contributions and how many qualifying employees were previously(a) unemployed, (b) on a training scheme, (c) carers and (d) lone parents. [36902]

  Mr. Heald
  From 6 April 1996 to 9 July 1996, the Contributions Agency issued 398 national insurance holiday deduction certificates to employers1. Of the 398 qualifying employees, 381 were unemployed2, three were carers and 14 were lone parents.

  Notes:
  1 The Contributions Agency has recorded 336 employers as having received one or more national insurance holiday deduction certificates. The numbers are less than the number of qualifying employees due to a combination of a short delay in recording employer details after the Contributions Agency has issued a certificate and because an employer may have taken on more than one qualifying employee.
  2 Includes people on a training scheme who are not identified separately for these purposes.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on national insurance fund revenues in a full year of levying(a) a 2 per cent. employee contribution rate and (b) a 3 per cent. employer contribution rate on the earnings of employees with total earnings currently below the NIC lower earnings limit. [37595]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated effects on national insurance fund revenue for 1997–98 are:+ £ 95 million and + £100 million respectively.
  Source:
  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the number of people paying voluntary class 3 national insurance contributions for the most recent available year, and the number of these 562
  who are employed earners with earnings below the national insurance lower earnings limit, breaking the figures down by gender; [37594]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 2 July, Official Report, column 418, if he will estimate the number of (a) men and (b) women with earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions who pay voluntary class 3 NICs. [37586]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Number of people paying voluntary class 3 contributions for 1993–94

  Number

  Men

  111,000

  Women

  70,000

  Total

  181,000

  Source:

  One per cent. sample of national insurance records at February 1995.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be total contribution income for national insurance for 1995–96, 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31, assuming(a) present contribution rates, (b) upper and lower earnings levels linked with earnings and (c) upper and lower earnings levels linked with earnings and the upper earnings level raised by 200 per cent. of average earnings, relative to current estimates of expenditure on benefits in those years. [38543]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the tables.

  Table A: National Insurance Fund: estimated contribution income[£ billion at 1994–95 prices] at present contribution rates for1994–95, 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31 as apercentage of estimated benefit expenditure [£ billion at 1994–95 prices] for those years

  Year

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Income

  36.4

  45.1

  55.1

  64.0

  69.6

  Expenditure

  39.9

  42.2

  50.8

  56.4

  63.8

  Income as a percentage of expenditure

  91

  107

  109

  113

  109

  Table B: National Insurance Fund: estimated contribution income [£ billion at 1994–95 prices], assuming upper and lower earnings limits for Class 1 contributions linked with earnings, for 1994–95, 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31 as a percentage of estimated benefit expenditure [£ billion at 1994–95 prices] for those years

  Year

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Income

  36.4

  45.2

  54.9

  64.6

  71.8

  Expenditure

  39.9

  42.2

  50.8

  56.4

  63.8

  Income as a percentage of expenditure

  91

  107

  108

  114

  113

  Table C: National Insurance Fund: estimated contribution income [£ billion at 1994–95 prices], assuming upper and lower earnings limits for Class 1 contributions linked with earnings and the upper earnings limit raised to 200 per cent. of average earnings, for 1994–95, 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31 as a percentage of estimated benefit expenditure [£ billion at 1994–95 prices] for those years

  Year

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Income

  38.1

  47.3

  57.6

  67.7

  75.2

  Expenditure

  39.9

  42.2

  50.8

  56.4

  63.8

  563

  Table C: National Insurance Fund: estimated contribution income [£ billion at 1994–95 prices], assuming upper and lower earnings limits for Class 1 contributions linked with earnings and the upper earnings limit raised to 200 per cent. of average earnings, for 1994–95. 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31 as a percentage of estimated benefit expenditure [£ billion at 1994–95 prices] for those years

  Year

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Income as a percentage of expenditure

  96

  112

  113

  120

  118

  Notes:

  1. The information given in the tables has been derived from the Government Actuary's Reports on the Third Quinquennial Review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975 (HC 160) and on the Financial Provisions of the Pensions Bill 1994 (CM 2714) by:

  adjusting the entries in table E3 and E4 of HC 160 so that the projected contribution income is based on a continuation of the 1994–95 combined Class 1 contribution rate (18.25%). Hence, the tables give information for 1994–95 rather than 1995–96;

  adjusting contribution income for the years 2020–21 and 2030–31 to allow for the increased number of contributors expected as a result of the Pensions Act 1995;

  adjusting the amounts of contracted-out rebate to allow for the difference between rebate rates assumed in HC 160 and those now expected.

  2. For table(c),. a further adjustment has been made to allow for the change in primary Class 1 contributions and rebates following from increasing the UEL to twice average earnings.

  3. The estimated benefit expenditure information given in all three tables is that consistent with increasing the UEL and LEL in line with prices, even where (in tables (b)and(c)) the contribution income figures are based on increasing those limits in line with earnings, and allows for the effects of the Pensions Act 1995.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Government Actuary's estimate of the excess of national insurance contribution income over outgoings for 1995–96 and for 1994–95, assuming actual rates of unemployment, excluding the Treasury grant and(a) excluding and (b) including the effects of contracted-out rebates, using the methodology set out in Cm 2445. [38542]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  £ billion

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Excluding contracted-out rebates

  Contributions income

  43.3

  45.7

  Benefit outgo

  39.3

  40.6

  Excess/(shortfaIl)

  4.0

  5.1

  (b) Including contracted-out rebates

  Contributions income

  38.3

  40.4

  Benefit outgo

  39.3

  40.6

  Personal pension rebates

  2.0

  2.0

  Excess/(shortfall)

  3.0

  2.2

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the impact on revenue of an increase in the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions by average earnings for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97. [39006]
  564
  Mr. Heald
  Raising the upper earnings limit for 1995–96 and 1996–97 in line with the movement in average earnings would increase national insurance contribution revenue for each of those years by an estimated £50 million1.

  Source:
  Government Actuary's Department
  Note:
  1 This figure has been calculated by comparing the effects on national insurance contribution revenue of:

  (i) a UEL for 1995/96 derived by applying the September 1993 to September 1994 4 per cent. increase in seasonally adjusted average earnings for all employees in GB [Table 5.1 of Labour Market Trends] to the UEL for 1994/95; and

  (ii) a UEL for 1996/97 derived by applying the September 1994 to September 1995 3.1 per cent. increase in seasonally adjusted average earnings for all employees in GB [Table 5.1 of Labour Market Trends] to the unrounded result of (i);

  and the actual UELs for those years.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [37316]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [37242]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department will consider the simultaneous electronic publication of all important documents on a case-by-case basis, in line with the Government's policy on open government. We will shortly be releasing corporate home pages on the Internet. These will be in addition to home pages for some of our executive agencies.

  Claims (Duration)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average duration of a benefit claim in respect of(a) incapacity benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance, (c) invalid care allowance, (d) unemployment benefit, (e) income support where the claimant is unemployed, (f) income support where the claimant is a lone parent and (g) income support where a disability premium is payable. [36904]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Table 1

  Benefit

  Average duration of claim

  Sickness benefit/invalidity benefit1

  1 year 5 months

  Severe disablement allowance

  7 years 11 months

  565

  Table 1

  Benefit

  Average duration of claim

  Invalid care allowance1

  2 years 6 months

  Unemployment benefit2

  20 weeks

  Notes:

  1 Data are not yet available for incapacity benefit. Sickness benefit,
  invalidity benefit and invalid care allowance claim durations are based on all claims that terminated during the 1994–95 year. Data are derived from a clerical sample of 500 invalid care allowance cases, and from a 1 per cent. sample of sickness benefit and invalidity benefit cases.

  2 Durations for unemployment benefit and income support are
  calculated from the number of live claims at a given point in time:for unemployment benefit this is 10 August 1995, for income support 25 August 1995. The unemployment benefit data are derived from a 5 per cent. sample of cases.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistics Enquiry August 1995.

  Table 2: Income support1 claim duration

  Percentage on benefit for:

  Number of cases (000)

  Under 1 year

  1–2 years

  2–3years

  3 years or over

  Unemployed

  1,710

  51.5

  16.2

  8.8

  23.5

  Disabled

  737

  12.8

  15.2

  12.4

  59.6

  Lone parents

  1,074

  23.2

  15.9

  12.9

  48.0

  Note:

  1 It is not possible to calculate the average duration of income support claims as no reliable information is available on durations of claims for those people who have been in receipt of income support for relatively long periods. A full explanation is given in the introduction to the 1993 annual statistical enquiry, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistics Enquiry August 1995.

  Income Support
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims have been made for income support where the claimant has liability for a mortgage since October 1995; and how many of these have been treated as existing claims where the claimant(a) is a carer, (b) has been refused payments under a mortgage protection policy because of a pre-existing condition or because he or she is HIV positive, (c) is a lone parent and (d) is a remand prisoner. [37423]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The changes that were introduced in October 1995 differentiated between loans taken out before 2 October 1995 (existing housing costs) and loans taken out after that date (new housing costs). Claimants in the above groups who have new housing costs have them treated as if they were existing housing costs.

  The number of claimants who claimed income support for mortgage interest since October 1995, and who were still in receipt in March 1996—the latest available figure—was 73,000, of whom 71,000 had existing housing costs. The remaining 2,000 claimants had new housing costs, some of whom were treated as existing
  566
  housing costs because they belonged to one of the specified groups.

  Changes of Circumstances
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of changes of circumstances over a period of(a) three months and (b) six months for claims in respect of each of (i) incapacity benefit, (ii) severe disablement allowance, (iii) invalid care allowance, (iv) unemployment benefit, (v) income support where the claimant is unemployed, (vi) income support where the claimant is a lone parent and (vii) income support where a disability premium is payable. [36905]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Average number of change of circumstances per customer:

  Benefit

  January-March 19961

  January-June 19962

  Income support

  1.25

  2.29

  Invalid care allowance

  0.93

  1.82

  1 Derived from income support live load figures for February 1996 and invalid care allowance live load for March 1996.

  2 Derived from income support live load figures for May 1996 and invalid care allowance live load for June 1996.

  1. All live load information is a snapshot of the number of cases at a point in time. The income support live load is counted quarterly, invalid care allowance live load monthly.

  Statutory Sick and Maternity Pay
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of employers he estimates will be able to recover payments of statutory sick pay under the percentage threshold scheme in 1995–96; and what percentage and amount of total spending on statutory sick pay he estimates will be borne by employers as a result. [37593]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that around 43 per cent. of firms paying statutory sick pay were able to recover some portion of their SSP payments under the percentage threshold scheme in 1995–96.

  The Government Actuary's Department estimated that in 1995–96 employers would meet around 97 per cent. of the overall cost of paying SSP to employees. This amounted to £845 million.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the percentage of employers who are able fully to recover payments of statutory maternity pay; and what proportion and amount of total SMP payments is borne by employers. [37592]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that around 38 per cent. of firms paying statutory maternity pay were able to recover payments of SMP in full in 1995–96.

  The Government Actuary's Department estimated that employers would meet around 7 per cent. of the cost of

  567
  paying SMP to their employees in 1995–96. This amounted to around £35 million.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the average annual amounts and duration of statutory sick pay for male and female workers and the average amount and earnings-related amount of statutory maternity pay paid to female workers using data for 1992–93 from the Lifetime labour market database. [37591]

  Mr. Heald
  The information relating to statutory sick pay is in the table:

  1992–93

  Average amount of SSP payment£

  Average duration (days)

  Men

  1175

  1,217

  Women

  1163

  1,216

  The estimated average amount of statutory maternity pay (SMP) paid to women in 1992–93 is £1,2001. The earnings related element is estimated to be £7001,3.

  1 All figures taken from a 1 per cent. sample of SSP and SMP payments made in the UK.

  2 Figures estimated on the assumption that the standard working week is five days, and that higher rate statutory sick pay is in payment.

  3 Estimated by taking 90 per cent. of total pay and converting to weekly figure. Assumes that every payment of SMP is for a six-week period. Pay used for this estimate may not be for the same period as that used originally to calculate SMP.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the percentage of female employees who received statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance in the most recent available year. [37589]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  It is estimated that around 1 per cent. of female employees at spring 1994 were in receipt of statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the percentage of employees who received statutory sick pay or sickness benefit in the most recent available year. [37588]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  It is estimated that around 2 per cent. of employees at spring 1994 were in receipt of statutory sick pay or sickness benefit.

  Out-of-hours Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much his Department will save annually on the new proposals to close the out-of-hours service in October; [37558]

  (2) what arrangements are being made for the public for out-of-hours contact with the Benefits Agency. [37559]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  568
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how much his Department will save annually on the new proposals to close the Out of Hours Service (OOHS) in October and what arrangements are being made for the public for out of hours contact with the Benefits Agency.
  I recently outlined the BA's plans for the future delivery of social security benefits based on the Benefit Agency vision of "right money to the right person at the right time, every time".
  The Agency will carry out a wide-ranging review of its activities as part of the Departmental Change Programme. Such a programme of change will cover all fundamental areas of the organisation's business and we are committed to achieve a 25% improvement in our productivity by 1998/99. In the first year it has been necessary to identify efficiencies and economies in excess of £200 million. All efficiencies and economies have been considered alongside the expenditure priorities the Agency has been set. It is against this background that the Agency decided to review the need for the OOHS which provides a service to customers at night and weekends. A decision on its viability is expected later this year and it is not possible to say at this time what savings, if any, might be made.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Freeline
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the abolition of the DSS freeline. [375801

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have received 81 representations from hon. Members and six representations from members of the public.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that staff in local offices have the necessary expertise to(a) provide an overview of services and benefits available, (b) offer advice about maximising benefit entitlement and (c) deal with the other types of inquiries previously dealt with by the freeline; and what plans he has to ensure that these services are quickly and readily available to telephone callers. [37581]

  Mr. Evans
  The provision of advice on benefits is an operational matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what action he is taking to ensure that staff in local offices have the necessary expertise to (a)provide an overview of services and benefits available, (b)offer advice about maximising benefit entitlement and (c)deal with the other types of inquiries previously dealt with by the Freeline; and what plans he has to ensure that these services are quickly and readily available to telephone callers.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) is working towards a vision to provide an efficient service which offers reliable advice and pays the right money to the right person, at the right time, every time. The BA Customer Service Requirement issued in April this year was developed to establish a minimum level of customer service throughout the Agency. These minimum standards are displayed in all public caller areas. The BA customer charter also sets out the standards of service that have to be provided by the BA.

  569
  Staff in local offices receive guidance on the full range of benefits as part of their initial and ongoing training and development. Staff have access to benefit computer systems and individual customer details, and are well placed to advise callers accurately on their entitlement to benefit.
  All staff have been made aware of the closure of Freeline. Any callers who may have contacted Freeline previously will be referred either to a section able to deal with general enquiries or to a relevant expert on a particular benefit. All BA offices have access to the Integrated Benefit Information System which staff can use to provide general benefit advice.
  The BA has made considerable investment in its telephone services and infrastructure over the last two and half years and by October 1996 all sites will have Direct Dial facilities. This will improve access for customers and reduce costs.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sources of help will be available for clients following the closure of the Benefits Agency freephone advice line; and if he will make a statement. [38329]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what sources of help will be available for clients following the closure of the Benefits Agency freephone advice line; and if he will make a statement.
  Following the closure of Freeline help and advice will be available for customers through the Agency's network of local benefit offices. The closure of Freeline will allow resources to be refocused so that the customer is in touch with the staff who administer their claims or who can directly link the benefits available with the specific personal details of the customer.
  Benefit literature is readily available in local offices, post offices and numerous other outlets.
  Customers with disabilities may still ring the Benefit Enquiry Line free of charge for help and advice.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many telephone inquiries the Benefits Agency freephone advice line has received in each month since January; and if he will provide a breakdown of the nature of the advice requested. [38328]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many telephone enquiries his Benefits Agency (BA) freephone advice line has received in each month since January; and if he will provide a breakdown of the nature of the advice requested.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The number of calls received has been taken to mean the number of calls answered by an adviser. Due to the confidentiality of the Freeline service records were not kept about the nature of the advice sought or provided. However, research for the BA's National Customer Survey 1995 indicated that 37% of customers telephoned Freeline to find out about eligibility, 25% for general information and 29% for issues relating to individual benefit enquiries.
  570
  The number of calls answered are shown in the table below:

  1996

  Number

  January

  215,546

  February

  238,494

  March

  290,787

  April

  231,067

  May

  293,542

  June

  223,692

  July (up to 12 July)

  59,957

  Figures are provisional and subject to change. I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to monitor the effects of the closure of the national Benefits Agency inquiry freeline on the take-up of income-related benefits. [39232]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what plans his Department has to monitor the effects of the closure of the national Benefits Agency Enquiry Freeline on the take-up of income related benefits.
  In my letter dated 3 July I explained it was not anticipated that the closure of Freeline would have any material impact on the take up of income related benefits.
  There was no monitoring of the take up of income related benefits when Freeline was open and there are currently no plans to monitor the take up now Freeline has closed.
  Thank you for allowing me to explain the position.

  State Earnings-related Pensions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the additional cost in cash terms to public funds in 1996–97 in respect of pensions if the 1979 SERPS rules still applied. [37582]

  Mr. Heald
  The only changes to the SERPS rules which have come into effect since 1979 relate to the calculation of the amount deducted from gross additional pension in respect of post-April 1988 periods of contracted-out employment. It is estimated that expenditure is £60 million higher in 1996–97 as a result. The remaining changes under the Social Security Act 1986 will be implemented from April 1999 onwards and those under the Pensions Act 1995 from April 1997 onwards.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the performance targets for each social security office and area in the county of Tyne and Wear for(a)1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; how many of those targets were achieved in 1995–96, in each case indicating how those targets and achievements relate to those set nationally. [37563]
  571
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables:

  Benefit Agency: Districts and offices within Tyne Tees Area Directorate

  District

  Offices

  Newcastle

  Newcastle St JamesNewcastle East

  North Durham

  Durham Chester le Street Peterlee Seaham Stanley

  Northumberland

  Ashington Berwick Blyth Hexham

  North Tees

  Stockton Hartlepool

  North Tyneside

  North Shields Wallsend

  South Durham

  Bishop Auckland Darlington

  South Tees

  Middlesbrough Eston Redcar

  South Tyneside

  Gateshead Jarrow South Shields

  Wearside

  Houghton le Spring Sunderland North Sunderland South

  Benefits Agency: Secretary of State targets—1995–96 achievement

  Percentage

  Target

  National

  Tyne Tees area

  Newcastle

  North Durham

  Northumberland

  North Tees

  North Tyne

  South Durham

  South Tees

  South Tyne

  Wearside

  Income support claims

  Primary

  67.1

  70.7

  74.4

  70.1

  72.4

  70.5

  71.5

  69.4

  65.7

  71.9

  70.7

  Secondary

  88.2

  90.9

  92.5

  90.7

  92.2

  91.4

  91.6

  90.0

  88.3

  90.4

  90.9

  Incapacity benefit claims

  Primary

  78.9

  80.1

  76.1

  79.8

  83.3

  83.5

  78.3

  80.2

  81.3

  78.9

  80.2

  Secondary

  96.0

  97.0

  96.4

  97.4

  97.7

  97.5

  95.9

  96.4

  96.8

  96.4

  97.7

  Social fund crisis loans

  97.4

  98.2

  98.4

  99.4

  98.6

  98.0

  98.8

  98.5

  96.5

  98.3

  98.1

  Income support accuracy

  78.1

  80.6

  83.3

  78.0

  84.5

  85.0

  66.7

  78.3

  81.0

  86.7

  81.7

  Short term benefit (STB) accuracy1

  90.7

  91.8

  —

  93.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  90.6

  —

  —

  1 Only North Durham and South Tees districts within Tyne Tees area visited by the STB accuracy checking team in 1995–96.

  Benefits Agency: Secretary of State financial targets—1995–96 and 1996–97 and achievements 1995–96

  Targets/ achievements

  National

  Tyne Tees area

  Newcastle

  North Durham

  Northumberland

  North Tees

  North Tyne

  South Durham

  South Tees

  South Tyne

  Wearside

  Social fund recovery

  1995–96 target

  £273m

  £16.46m

  £2.20m

  £1.90m

  £1.10m

  £1.70m

  £0.92m

  £1.54m

  £2.36m

  £2.37m

  £2.35m

  1995–96 achievement

  £263.5m

  £15.62m

  £1.97m

  £1.81m

  £1.04m

  £1.58m

  £0.98m

  £1.41m

  £2.28m

  £2.30m

  £2.23m

  1996–97 target

  £278m

  £16.26m

  £2.16m

  £1.85m

  £1.08m

  £1.68m

  £1.01m

  £1.47m

  £2.33m

  £2.38m

  £2.30m

  Social fund expenditure1

  1995–96 target

  £406m

  £24.01m

  £3.21m

  £2.74m

  £1.61m

  £2.5lm

  £1.54m

  £2.13m

  £3.48m

  £3.47m

  £3.31m

  1995–96 achievement

  £40lm

  £23.77m

  £3.2lm

  £2.67m

  £1.57m

  £2.47m

  £1.51m

  £2.12m

  £3.48m

  £3.45m

  £3.29m

  1996–97 target

  £419.5m

  £24.72m

  £3.38m

  £2.87m

  £1.70m

  £2.64m

  £1.55m

  £2.15m

  £3.50m

  £3.60m

  £3.33m

  Benefit savings (fraud)

  1995–96 target

  £680m

  £43.05m

  3—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96 achievement

  £715.6m

  £44.7lm

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97 target2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  572

  Benefits agency—Secretary of State targets

  Target area

  1995–96 target:National, area and district

  1996–97 target:National, area and district

  Income support claims

  Primary

  63 per cent. in 5 days

  63 per cent. in 5 days

  Secondary

  87 per cent. in 13 days

  87 per cent. in 13 days

  Incapacity benefit claims

  Primary

  65 per cent. in 10 days

  65 per cent. in 10 days

  Secondary

  85 per cent. in 30 days

  85 per cent. in 30 days

  Social fund crisis loans1

  On the day the need arises

  On the day the need arises

  Income support accuracy

  87 per cent.

  87 per cent.

  Short term benefit accuracy

  94 per cent.

  94 per cent.

  1 Target considered met if 95 per cent. of claims are cleared within one day.

  573

  Benefits Agency: Secretary of State financial targets—1995–96 and 1996–97 and achievements 1995–96

  Targets/ achievements

  National

  Tyne Tees area

  Newcastle

  North Durham

  Northumberland

  North Tees

  North Tyne

  South Durham

  South Tees

  South Tyne

  Wearside

  Overpayments

  1995–96 target

  £110m

  £4.03m

  4—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96 achievement

  £112m

  £4.58m

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97 target

  £91.5m

  £3.3lm

  £428k

  £429k

  £270k

  £338k

  £212k

  £305k

  £416k

  £490k

  £418k

  1 The social fund expenditure target is "to keep to the cash limit agreement with Treasury for the discretionary social fund budget approved by Parliament."

  2 From 1996–97 benefit savings (fraud) are included in the new security target.

  3 No 1995–96 or 1996–97 target or performance data available at district level.

  4 No overpayment recovery target or performance data available at district level in 1995–96.

  Contributions Agency—1995/96 Secretary of State targets and achievements

  SOS target

  National target

  National performance

  Divisional1 target

  Division/regional performance

  Class 1 survey

  93,200

  94,166

  3,320

  7,233

  Educational survey

  23,300

  29,113

  664

  2,325

  Class 1 arrears identified

  £133,000,000

  £151,761,233

  £3,312,576

  £10,153,268

  Collectable new class 2

  40,000

  39,791

  1,265

  3,685

  Customer enquiries

  95 per cent.

  98.6 per cent.

  95 per cent.

  98.17 per cent.

  All targets were achieved except for the collectable new class 2.

  1 Northumberland, Durham and Teeside Division includes all locations in the county of Tyne and Wear.

  Contributions Agency—1996–97 Secretary of State targets

  SOS target

  National target

  Northern regional1 target

  Collection of contribution arrears

  £65 million

  Not distributed to regions

  Identification of class 1 arrears

  £150 million

  £9.612 million

  New class 2 identified

  40,000

  3,436

  Customer enquiries

  95 per cent.

  95 per cent.

  1 Northern Region includes the current locations in Tyne and Wear.

  Child Support Agency—1995–96 and 1996–97 Secretary of State targets and 1995–96 achievement

  Maintenance assessment clearance times

  Secretary of State target

  National performance

  Falkirk CSAC1 performance

  1995–96

  60 per cent. of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 26 weeks and as at 31 March 1996 no more than 10 per cent. of all maintenance applications received by the Agency to be over 52 weeks old.As at 31 March 1996, 48 per cent. of maintenance applications had been cleared within 26 weeks and 15 per cent. of maintenance applications received were over 52 weeks old.

  As at 31 March 1996, 51 per cent. of maintenance applications had been cleared within 26 weeks and 19 per cent. of maintenance applications received were over 52 weeks old.

  1996–97

  60 per cent. of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 26 weeks and as at 31 March 1997, no more than 10 per cent. of all maintenance applications received by the Agency to be over 52 weeks old.

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Work initially processed in offices in the county of Tyne and Wear is sent to the Agency's centre in Falkirk for continued action.

  n/a = not available.

  574 575

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the additional cost to public funds in cash terms in 1996–97 of the basic retirement pension, if pensions had been indexed to wages for the last 25 years. [37578]

  Mr. Heald
  The additional cost to public funds if the basic pension had been uprated by average earnings over the last 25 years is estimated to be £5.2 billion per annum in 1996–97 (cash prices).

  Notes:
  1. The additional cost is net of the effect on income-related benefits.
  2. The cost is calculated on a basic state pension in 1996–97 being:

  Cat A: £76.10

  Cat BL: £47.70

  Source:
  Average earnings index (whole economy, all earnings, unadjusted). The Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions and Indices of Prices and Earnings. Uprating rounding convention has been followed in calculating benefit rates.
  The estimate is based on the expenditure figures shown in the departmental report, Cm 3213, for basic retirement pensions. It does not include the effect on those benefits normally paid at the same rate as basic retirement pension or other benefits paid to people over pension age.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Government Actuary's estimate of the average lump sum investment required in an annuity to provide a personal pension equivalent to the basic retirement pension at 65 years for people aged 25, 35, 45 and 55 years today, assuming that the pension is related(a) only to prices and (b) to earnings at 1.5 per cent. per annum. [38541]

  Table 1: Cash prices

  Male average earnings

  ½ male average earnings

  Year of retirement (i.e. year of reaching State pension age)

  Basic retirement pension (RP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Additional pension (AP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Basic retirement pension (RP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Additional pension (AP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  1996

  61.15

  16

  77.40

  20

  61.15

  32

  32.20

  17

  1997

  64.20

  16

  83.40

  21

  64.20

  32

  34.50

  17

  1998

  67.40

  16

  91.20

  21

  67.40

  32

  37.60

  18

  1999

  70.80

  16

  96.80

  21

  70.80

  31

  40.00

  18

  2000

  74.35

  15

  99.90

  21

  74.35

  31

  40.10

  17

  2001

  78.05

  15

  105.30

  21

  78.05

  30

  42.30

  16

  2002

  81.95

  15

  110.90

  20

  81.95

  30

  44.60

  16

  2003

  86.05

  15

  116.70

  20

  86.05

  30

  47.00

  16

  2004

  90.35

  15

  122.70

  20

  90.35

  29

  49.50

  16

  2005

  94.85

  14

  128.90

  19

  94.85

  29

  52.10

  16

  2006

  99.60

  14

  135.40

  19

  99.60

  28

  54.80

  16

  2007

  104.60

  14

  142.00

  19

  104.60

  28

  57.50

  15

  2008

  109.80

  14

  148.80

  19

  109.80

  27

  60.40

  15

  2009

  115.30

  14

  155.70

  18

  115.30

  27

  63.40

  15

  2010

  121.05

  13

  165.40

  18

  121.05

  27

  67.60

  15

  2011

  127.15

  13

  175.70

  18

  127.15

  26

  72.00

  15

  2012

  133.50

  13

  186.60

  18

  133.50

  26

  76.80

  15

  2013

  140.15

  13

  198.10

  18

  140.15

  25

  81.90

  15

  2014

  147.15

  13

  210.40

  18

  147.15

  25

  87.40

  15

  576
  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated lump sum investment required in an annuity to provide a personal pension equivalent to the basic retirement pension at 65 years

  £

  (a) Prices

  (b) Earnings at 1.5 per cent.

  Age

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  25

  13,000

  15,500

  27,000

  32,500

  35

  17,500

  20,500

  31,000

  37,500

  45

  23,500

  27,500

  35,500

  43,000

  55

  31,000

  37,000

  41,000

  49,500

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Notes:

  1. The table indicates the estimated lump sum payments if:

  Column (a): the current basic retirement pension for a single person of £61.15 per week were to be increased in future in line with the retail prices index; or

  Column (b): the current basic retirement pension for a single person of £61.15 per week were to be increased in future in line with the index of national average earnings, which has been assumed to increase by 1.5 per cent. per annum over the increase in the retail prices index.

  2. The assumptions underlying these estimates are consistent with those adopted for the purpose of the Government Actuary's March 1996 review of the National Insurance rebates for persons contracted-out of the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme through Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes for the five year period commencing on 6 April 1997 (Cm 3221).

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the weekly state basic and earnings-related pensions payable to men and women on average earnings and half average earnings reaching pension age in each year from 1996 to 2040, in cash terms and as a percentage of their pre-retirement earnings. [37884]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The information is set out in the tables.
  577

  Table 1: Cash prices

  Male average earnings

  ½ male average earnings

  Year of retirement (i.e. year of reaching State pension age)

  Basic retirement pension (RP)(£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Additional pension (AP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Basic retirement pension (RP)(£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Additional pension (AP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  2015

  154.50

  12

  223.30

  18

  154.50

  25

  93.20

  15

  2016

  162.25

  12

  237.00

  18

  162.25

  24

  99.40

  15

  2017

  170.35

  12

  251.50

  18

  170.35

  24

  106.00

  15

  2018

  178.90

  12

  266.80

  18

  178.90

  24

  113.10

  15

  2019

  187.80

  12

  283.10

  18

  187.80

  23

  120.70

  15

  2020

  197.20

  11

  300.30

  17

  197.20

  23

  128.80

  15

  2021

  207.10

  11

  318.60

  17

  207.10

  23

  137.40

  15

  2022

  217.45

  11

  337.90

  17

  217.45

  22

  146.60

  15

  2023

  228.30

  11

  358.40

  17

  228.30

  22

  156.40

  15

  2024

  239.70

  11

  380.10

  17

  239.70

  22

  166.90

  15

  2025

  251.70

  11

  403.10

  17

  251.70

  21

  178.10

  15

  2026

  264.30

  10

  427.80

  17

  264.30

  21

  190.10

  15

  2027

  277.50

  10

  453.30

  17

  277.50

  21

  202.90

  15

  2028

  291.40

  10

  478.00

  17

  291.40

  20

  216.10

  15

  2029

  305.95

  10

  503.10

  16

  305.95

  20

  229.80

  15

  2030

  321.25

  10

  529.20

  16

  321.25

  20

  244.40

  15

  2031

  337.30

  10

  557.80

  16

  337.30

  19

  260.50

  15

  2032

  354.15

  10

  587.90

  16

  354.15

  19

  277.80

  15

  2033

  371.90

  9

  619.70

  16

  371.90

  19

  296.40

  15

  2034

  390.45

  9

  653.10

  16

  390.45

  19

  316.30

  15

  2035

  410.00

  9

  687.80

  15

  410.00

  18

  337.30

  15

  2036

  430.50

  9

  724.20

  15

  430.50

  18

  359.80

  15

  2037

  452.00

  9

  761.50

  15

  452.00

  18

  383.40

  15

  2038

  474.60

  9

  804.80

  15

  474.60

  18

  410.20

  15

  2039

  498.35

  9

  850.30

  15

  498.35

  17

  438.90

  15

  2040

  523.25

  9

  897.60

  15

  523.25

  17

  469.30

  15

  Table 2: Cash prices

  Female average earnings

  ½ female average earnings

  Year of retirement (i.e. year of reaching State pension age)

  Basic retirement pension (RP)(£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Additional pension (AP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Basic retirement pension (RP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Additional pension (AP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  1996

  61.15

  22

  47.70

  17

  61.15

  44

  17.30

  13

  1997

  64.20

  22

  51.50

  18

  64.20

  45

  18.50

  13

  1998

  67.40

  22

  56.50

  18

  67.40

  44

  20.20

  13

  1999

  70.80

  22

  60.30

  18

  70.80

  43

  21.80

  13

  2000

  74.35

  21

  61.60

  18

  74.35

  43

  20.90

  12

  2001

  78.05

  21

  65.20

  18

  78.05

  42

  22.20

  12

  2002

  81.95

  21

  68.80

  17

  81.95

  42

  23.60

  12

  2003

  86.05

  20

  72.60

  17

  86.05

  41

  25.00

  12

  2004

  90.35

  20

  76.60

  17

  90.35

  40

  26.40

  12

  2005

  94.85

  20

  80.60

  17

  94.85

  40

  27.90

  12

  2006

  99.60

  20

  84.90

  17

  99.60

  39

  29.50

  12

  2007

  104.60

  19

  89.20

  16

  104.60

  39

  31.10

  11

  2008

  109.80

  19

  93.70

  16

  109.80

  38

  32.80

  11

  2009

  115.30

  19

  98.40

  16

  115.30

  37

  34.50

  11

  2010

  121.05

  18

  105.00

  16

  121.05

  37

  37.00

  11

  2011

  127.15

  18

  112.00

  16

  127.15

  36

  39.60

  11

  2012

  133.50

  18

  119.50

  16

  133.50

  36

  42.40

  11

  2013

  140.15

  18

  127.50

  16

  140.15

  35

  45.40

  11

  2014

  147.15

  17

  136.00

  16

  147.15

  35

  48.60

  11

  2015

  154.50

  17

  145.10

  16

  154.50

  34

  52.10

  11

  2016

  162.25

  17

  154.80

  16

  162.25

  34

  55.80

  12

  2017

  170.35

  17

  165.20

  16

  170.35

  33

  59.70

  12

  2018

  178.90

  16

  176.30

  16

  178.90

  33

  63.90

  12

  2019

  187.80

  16

  188.10

  16

  187.80

  32

  68.40

  12

  2020

  197.20

  16

  200.70

  16

  197.20

  32

  73.20

  12

  2021

  207.10

  16

  214.20

  16

  207.10

  31

  78.40

  12

  2022

  217.45

  15

  228.50

  16

  217.45

  31

  83.90

  12

  2023

  228.30

  15

  243.80

  16

  228.30

  30

  89.80

  12

  2024

  239.70

  15

  260.20

  16

  239.70

  30

  96.10

  12

  2025

  251.70

  15

  277.60

  16

  251.70

  30

  102.90

  12

  2026

  264.30

  15

  296.30

  16

  264.30

  29

  110.10

  12

  578 579

  Table 2: Cash prices

  Female average earnings

  ½ female average earnings

  Year of retirement (i.e. year of reaching State pension age)

  Basic retirement pension (RP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Additional pension (AP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Basic retirement pension (RP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  Additional pension (AP) (£ per week)

  As a percentage of pre-retirement earnings

  2027

  277.50

  14

  316.10

  16

  277.50

  29

  117.80

  12

  2028

  291.40

  14

  337.40

  16

  291.40

  28

  126.70

  12

  2029

  305.95

  14

  359.60

  16

  305.95

  28

  136.00

  12

  2030

  321.25

  14

  382.90

  16

  321.25

  27

  145.70

  12

  2031

  337.30

  14

  408.20

  16

  337.30

  27

  156.60

  13

  2032

  354.15

  13

  435.20

  16

  354.15

  27

  168.30

  13

  2033

  371.90

  13

  463.80

  16

  371.90

  26

  180.80

  13

  2034

  390.45

  13

  494.20

  16

  390.45

  26

  194.40

  13

  2035

  410.00

  13

  526.10

  16

  410.00

  25

  208.70

  13

  2036

  430.50

  13

  560.00

  16

  430.50

  25

  224.10

  13

  2037

  452.00

  12

  595.20

  16

  452.00

  25

  240.20

  13

  2038

  474.60

  12

  634.90

  16

  474.60

  24

  258.20

  13

  2039

  498.35

  12

  676.80

  16

  498.35

  24

  277.30

  13

  2040

  523.25

  12

  720.70

  16

  523.25

  24

  297.60

  13

  1. All amounts are in cash prices. Amounts of AP are rounded to the nearest l0p, amounts of RP are rounded to the nearest 5p and percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. Average earnings figures are taken from New Earnings Survey 1995.

  3. The above estimates are prepared by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) using the following assumptions:Treasury forecast was used for the current year. Thereafter GAD have used an illustrative assumption of 5 per cent. per annum.Earnings rise by 1.5 per cent. higher than prices.Individuals are contracted in to the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme throughout.Pre-retirement earnings are taken as estimated earnings in the year prior to retirement.Changes introduced in the Pensions Act 1995 have been taken into account.

  Allowances
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people who have suffered a reduction in the reduced earnings allowance with the introduction of the retirement allowance in(a) the benefit offices covering Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, (b) Wales and (c) the United Kingdom. [37873]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  As at 1 April 1995 there were approximately 985 people receiving retirement allowance in Wales and 10,700 in Great Britain. In order to assess those who will be transferred to retirement allowance under the amended legislation which came into force on 24 March, the Benefits Agency has identified all remaining reduced earnings allowance recipients who are over pensionable age. About 350 such recipients were identified within the area administered by the Eastern Valleys district, about 1,900 in Wales and about 20,000 in Great Britain.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all decisions relating to(a) the special hardship allowance and (b) the reduced earnings allowance by the hearings of (a) the commission, (b) the tribunal and (c) the divisional court. [37874]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Total number of IB appeals against the All Work Test disallowance for the Coventry Benefits Agency (BA) District

  Quarter ending

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  March 1995

  Number of appeals lodged

  0

  35

  79

  113

  Number where BA decision upheld

  0

  0

  5

  22

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been lodged against a disallowance of incapacity benefit in the Coventry benefits district in each quarter since April 1995; how many of these have been from(a) new incapacity benefit claimants and (b) former claimants of invalidity benefit; in each case, how many appeals have been (i) disallowed, (ii) superseded and (iii) found in the claimant's favour; and how many are outstanding. [37853]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliament Question asking how many appeals have been lodged against a disallowance of Incapacity Benefit (IB) in the Coventry benefits district in each quarter since April 1995; how many of these have been from(a) new IB claimants and(b) former claimants of Invalidity Benefit (IVB); in each case, how many appeals have been (i) disallowed, (ii) superseded and (iii) found in the claimant's favour; and how many are outstanding.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are kept for disallowances relating to the all Work Test only. A breakdown of customers formerly in receipt of IVB and customers claiming IB on or after 13 April 1995 is not available as such statistics are not kept.
  Such information as is available is shown in the attached table.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  581

  Total number of IB appeals against the All Work Test disallowance for the Coventry Benefits Agency (BA) District

  Quarter ending

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  March 1995

  Number of cases superseded

  0

  3

  3

  4

  Number where decision in favour of appellant

  0

  0

  17

  38

  Number of cases outstanding at end of each quarter

  0

  32

  86

  135

  Notes:

  Number of cases include both customer's formerly in receipt of IVB and customer's claiming IB on or after 13 April 1995, a breakdown of the two is not available.

  Number of cases outstanding is a cumulative figure at the end of each quarter Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving incapacity benefit in the Coventry benefits district; and how many of these were formerly in receipt of invalidity benefit. [37850]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people are currently receiving Incapacity Benefit (IB) in the Coventry Benefits District; and how many of these were formerly in receipt of Invalidity Benefit (IVB).
  The number of people in receipt of IB in the Coventry District, on 29 February 1996, was 10,800, of which 7,500 were formerly in receipt of IVB. This figure excludes a small number of clerically processed cases and it is provisional and subject to amendment.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new claims for incapacity benefit have been made in the Coventry benefits district since April 1995; how many of these were refused to the Benefits Agency medical service; and how many of these were subsequently(a) allowed and (b) disallowed by reason of (i) failing the all-work test, (ii) failing to attend the medical examination and (iii) failing to return the IB50 questionnaire; [37851]

  Total number of claims received for the Benefits Agency (BA) Coventry District

  Quarter ending

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  March 1996

  1,342

  1,467

  1,282

  1,281

  Total number of cases following the All Work Test process for the BA Coventry District

  Quarter ending

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  March 1996

  Cases referred to BAMS

  1,358

  1,744

  1,350

  1,710

  Cases allowed following BAMS referral

  188

  538

  777

  1,350

  Cases disallowed IB as:

  (a) failed the all work test

  0

  68

  126

  164

  (b) failed to attend the medical examination

  0

  0

  3

  6

  (c) failed to return the IB50 questionnaire

  8

  6

  3

  15

  Credits only cases disallowed

  0

  6

  32

  77

  Notes:

  Number of cases include both customer's formerly in receipt of IVB and customer's claiming IB on or after 13 April 1995, a breakdown of the two is not available.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases held on the IB system and does exclude a small number of clerically processed cases.

  The number of credits only cases disallowed is not available broken down into the three categories of disallowance only a total figure is available.

  Data are provisional and subject to amendment.
  582
  (2) how many claimants formerly in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Coventry benefits district were referred to the Benefits Agency medical service in each quarter since April 1995; and how many of these were subsequently (a) transferred to incapacity benefit and (b) disallowed by reason of (i) failing the all-work test, (ii) failing to attend the medical examination and (iii) failing to return the IB50 questionnaire. [37852]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many new claims for Incapacity Benefit (IB) have been made in the Coventry Benefits District since April 1995; how many of these were referred to the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS); and how many of these were subsequently(a) allowed and(b) disallowed by reason of (i) failing the all work test, (ii) failing to attend the medical examination and (iii) failing to return the IB50 questionnaire; and how many claimants formerly in receipt of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) in the Coventry Benefits District were referred to the BAMS in each quarter since April 1995; and how many of these were subsequently (a)transferred to incapacity benefit and (b) disallowed by reason of (i) failing the all work test, (ii) failing to attend the medical examination and (iii) failing to return the IB50 questionnaire.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The statistics kept do not differentiate between customers formerly in receipt of IVB and customers claiming IB on or after 13 April 1995.
  The attached table gives details of the information available.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  583
  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many appeals have been lodged against a disallowance of incapacity benefits in Coventry benefits district in each quarter since April 1995, how many of these have been from(a) new incapacity benefits claimants and (b) former claimants of invalidity benefits; in each case, how many appeals have been (i) disallowed, (ii) superseded and (iii) found in the claimants' favour; and how many are outstanding; [39707]

  (2) how many claims for incapacity benefits have been made in the Coventry benefits district since April 1995; how many of these were referred to the Benefits Agency medical service; and how many of these were subsequently (a) allowed and (b) disallowed by reason of (i) failing the all-work test, (ii) failing to attend the medical examination and (iii) failing to return the IB50 questionnaire; [39709]

  (3) how many people are currently receiving incapacity benefits in Coventry benefits district; and how many of these were formerly in receipt of invalidity benefit; [39708]

  (4) how many people who have been disallowed incapacity benefits in the Coventry benefits district in each quarter since April 1995 are (a) currently signing on as unemployed, (b) claiming unemployment benefits and (c) have started work. [39706]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison, on 23 July 1996.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a breakdown by age, sex and region of those claiming benefit due to medical incapacity on 1 April 1989 and on subsequent 1 Aprils

  Family Credit Recipients for Dorset BA District

  Families in receipt of Family Credit at that date

  Date of Scan

  Bournemouth

  Poole

  Weymouth

  Total

  20 August 1993

  1,257

  1,352

  1,370

  3,979

  15 April 1994

  1,424

  1,463

  1,471

  4,358

  10 November 1994

  1,629

  1,537

  1,604

  4,770

  13 April 1995

  1,853

  1,592

  1,767

  5,212

  10 November 1995

  2,243

  1,641

  1,829

  5,713

  16 February 1996

  2,471

  1,554

  1,877

  5,902

  7 June 1996

  2,788

  1,470

  2,037

  6,295

  Data are provisional and subject to change.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to monitor the impact that the Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 will have on the staying-on rate for post-16 education for children whose parents are receiving family credit; and what consultations his Department held with the Department for Education and Employment before the implementation of these regulations. [39235]

  Mr. Evans
  We do not anticipate any impact on the staying-on rate. We estimate that the change will affect only about 15,000 families, all of whom will have already made a decision on school leaving. Family credit will remain in payment to families where the dependant has elected to remain in full-time non-advanced education.
  584
  distinguishing between those only receiving national insurance credits and those claiming direct payments of incapacity benefit. [38155]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) the south-west region, (b) the county of Dorset and (c) each district in Dorset were in receipt of family credit in each of the last five financial years. [38165]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Diana Maddock, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in the South West Region, the County of Dorset and in each district of Dorset were in receipt of Family Credit (FC) in each of the last five financial years.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The FC computer system holds records of the total number of claims received, awarded and disallowed on a national basis.
  Statistics are not kept which are specific to the South West Region or individual towns or areas. However, statistics are available which indicate the number of families in receipt of Family Credit within a BA office area at a particular date. The available information shown in the attached tables relates to the BA's Dorset District which includes the offices at Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth.
  Information is only available from 1993 as details relating to FC claims are normally destroyed after 18 months.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of(a) the numbers gaining from and (b) the costs of introducing into the calculation for family credit (i) the disabled child's premium, (ii) the disability premium and (iii) the carer premium; [39185]

  (2) how many claimants of family credit have a disabled child. [39184]

  Mr. Evans
  Information is not currently available on which to base reliable estimates.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of replacing the child care disregard with a cash allowance of the same value payable for(a) each child under five years and

  585
  (b) each child under 11 years in each of (i) family credit, (ii) disability working allowance, (iii) housing benefit and (iv) control tax benefit. [39002]

  Mr. Evans
  The cost of including an additional cash allowance of £60 a week per child in basic entitlement for family credit, disability allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit is given in the table.

  Cost (£ billion)

  Cash allowance for each child under five years

  Around 1.8

  Cash allowance for each child under 11 years

  Around 4.7

  Notes:

  Estimates do not include behavioural effects.

  Source:

  Figures are based on the 1991–92–93 Family Expenditure Surveys, uprated to 1996–97 levels. Estimates are net of the savings from abolishing the childcare disregard.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the impact of the child care disregard on the hours worked by claimants of (i) family credit and (ii) disability working allowance. [39003]

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

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims in total have been made for the child care disregard in respect of (i) family credit and (ii) disability working allowance; and how many have been disallowed for(a) being in receipt of the maximum benefit, (b) child care not being provided by a registered provider, (c) the child being aged over 11 years and (d) being one of a couple where the partner was not incapacitated. [39048]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: Since October 1994, there have been 77,000 family credit claims and 156 disability working allowance claims where an award of benefit has been made and where there has also been a claim for help with child care charges. Information is not available on claims which have not led to an award of FC or DWA.

  Provisional figures for the period up to 30 April 1996 for the number of families who did not receive extra help with child care charges is provided in the table.

  Non-receipt of extra benefit from the child care disregard in family credit and disability working allowance

  Reason for the non-receipt of extra benefit from the childcare disregard

  Family credit

  Disability working allowance

  Receiving maximum FC/DWA

  18,000

  17

  No registered childcare provider

  12,000

  5

  Child aged 11 years or over

  3,000

  4

  Only one partner working at least 16 hours a week (couple cases)

  6,000

  8

  Partner not incapacitated (couple cases)

  n/a

  n/a

  Sources:

  1. Five per cent. sample of family credit awards.

  2. One hundred per cent. of disability working allowance awards.

  Note:

  n/a = not available.

  Tribunal Venues
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many tribunal venues run by the independent tribunal service have been closed in the last 12 months; and where they were; [38492]

  (2) what plans there are to close tribunal venues currently run by the independent tribunal service in the next 12 months. [38494]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administrative arrangements for social security appeals tribunals are the responsibility of the independent tribunal service, which has been asked to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many tribunal venues there are in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for the hearing of(a) social security appeal tribunals, (b) disability appeal tribunals, (c) child support appeal tribunals and (d) medical appeal tribunals. [38491]

  Mr. Evans
  The administrative arrangements for social security, disability, medical and child support appeals tribunals are the responsibility of the independent tribunal service and the independent tribunal service, Northern Ireland, which have been asked to write to the hon. Member.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39144]

  Mr. Heald
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens; and where appropriate provide direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  The reductions we have made to the lower rates of employers' national insurance contributions have helped to keep down the non-wage costs of UK businesses, including small business, and they are now among the lowest in Europe. The introduction of the employers' national insurance contribution "holiday" from April 1996 offers small businesses a further opportunity to reduce their non-wage costs. With the Inland Revenue, we have an on-going joint working programme to reduce the burdens on businesses of operating pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions. Successes of the programme so far include the piloting of a new employers telephone helpline and annual pack, and the provision of a joint application form to pay self-employed national insurance and tax for newly self-employed people.

  We have also contributed to the Government's core deregulation initiatives by substantially reducing the number of forms sent to business and by revoking or amending regulations to reduce the burdens on business in areas such as statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay.
  587
  We have targets for the current year of reducing forms sent to businesses by 20 per cent. and surveys, which businesses and local authorities are asked to take part in, by 2 per cent.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for the future of the Benefits Agency medical services currently based at Grove house, Swansea. [38997]

  Mr. Burt
  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.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Williams, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to our recent Parliamentary Question asking what proposals he has for the future of the Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) currently based at Grove House, Swansea.
  At present there are no plans to close down the existing operations at Grove House, Swansea in advance of the contractorisation. BAMS regularly review the use of resources to ensure maximum efficiency and cost effectiveness. Any changes to the use of Grove House in the light of changing work volumes or staffing levels will be made in full consultation with staff and their representatives.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what safeguards will be put in place under the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical services to ensure that personal medical information obtained about benefit claimants will remain confidential to those who hold the patients' fully informed consent to receive it and will be used exclusively for purposes related to the claim for state benefit. [39188]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department places strong emphasis on customer confidentiality and would demand the same standards from the successful or contractors. The contractor will have a mandatory contractual requirement to confirm to the security policy of the Department which is based on Government security policy.

  The successful bidder or bidders will be required to ensure that any data or information passed to them by the Department or a third party, or revealed during the course of the contract, is used only for the purpose directly relating to the Department's business and only by the appropriate staff.

  Rigorous monitoring systems will be put in place to ensure on-going compliance with the requirements.

  Information Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people used the Benefits Agency's information services in North Yorkshire in each year since 1992–93. [38933]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 23 July 1996:
  588
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people used in Benefits Agency's (BA's) information services in North Yorkshire in each year since 1992–93.
  The information is not available in the format requested. I have assumed that the reference to Benefits Agency Information Services is about the Mobile Information Unit (MIU) covering the BA District of North Yorkshire. This District has offices in York, Harrogate, Northallerton, Richmond, Selby, Malton and Ripon. Figures for the number of people who used the service were kept from 1994/95 only and are shown below:
  1994–95: 2,304
  1995–96: 2,642
  Figures are provisional and subject to change.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39454]

  (2) how many staff were assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39472]

  (3) what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97; [39989]

  (4) what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94; [39431]

  (5) how many staff were employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39428]

  Mr. Burt
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39345]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department and its agencies do not use consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media work.

  Child Benefit
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current level of expenditure on child benefit for 16 to 19 years, broken down by(a) age and (b) level of family income (i) before and (ii) after housing costs. [39234]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Expenditure in 1995–96 on child benefit for 16-year-olds was estimated to be £320 million, for 17-year-olds £225 million and for 18-year-olds £100 million, a total of £645 million. Distribution of child benefit expenditure for 16 to 18-year-olds in 1992–93, the latest date for which information is available, is in the table:
  589

  Distribution of child benefit expenditure for children aged 16 to 18 by equivalised income band, UK 1992–93

  Percentages

  Equivalised weekly household income (January 1993 prices)

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  £100 or less

  10

  19

  ã£100 to £150

  18

  16

  ã£150 to £200

  19

  22

  ã£200 to £250

  16

  14

  ã£250 to £300

  13

  11

  ã£300 to £350

  8

  7

  Over £350

  17

  12

  1. Information in the table is derived from the 1992/93 Households Below Average Income dataset. 1992/93 figures are for two calendar years data combined.

  2. Income bands are based on the standard Households Below Average Income definition of income—weekly household disposable income adjusted for household size and composition (equivalised).

  3. Estimates are shown by £50 income bands except where figures would be unreliable due to small sample sizes. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the gross and net savings from removing child benefit from those aged 16 to 19 years. [39233]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Removing child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds would save approximately £650 million gross and approximately £520 million net assuming that child allowances continue to be payable in other benefits.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many visits (i) he and (ii) his Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39874]

  Mr. Lilley
  Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Minister

  Visits toNewbury

  Visits to other constituencies

  Secretary of State

  1

  15

  Minister of State (Lord Mackay)

  0

  19

  Minister of State (Mr. Burt)

  0

  27

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mr. Evans)

  0

  18

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mr. Mitchell)

  0

  15

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mr. Heald)

  0

  29

  Figures in the table do not include visits made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Minister for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), in their capacity as sponsor Ministers for Manchester and the north-west and for Bristol respectively.

  Asthma
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many working days were lost as a result of asthma in the last year for which figures are available. [39557]

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

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish a code of practice on access to goods, facilities, services and 590
  premises under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and guidance on the definition of disability contained in the Act. [39941]

  Mr. Burt
  We will be publishing tomorrow a code of practice covering rights to access to goods, facilities, services and premises under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. The code gives practical advice through a wide range of examples to illustrate how service providers and those involved in the selling, letting and managing of premises can comply with the provisions, although the action required in any given situation will depend on the particular circumstances. By publishing the code now, we are giving service providers and others affected time to take account of its guidance before the new rights come into force on 2 December this year.

  We will also be publishing guidance on the definition of disability contained in the Act, which helps to clarify who is protected by the Disability Discrimination Act's provisions.

  The code and guidance will form part of a co-ordinated framework of advice and guidance to ensure that the business community and disabled people are aware of their new duties and rights under the Act.

  As well as the printed version, the code and guidance will also be available in braille and on audio cassette tape. All formats will be available through Her Majesty's Stationery Office outlets.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate in each case of(a) numbers gaining and (b) the cost of introducing a taper of (i) 50 per cent. and (ii) 70 per cent. above the earnings limit to people in receipt of invalid care allowance. [39182]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is set out in the table:

  1996–97

  50 per cent.taper

  70 per cent. Taper

  Net expenditure

  £15 million

  £15 million

  Average gainers in year

  25,000

  20,000

  1. Estimates are based on data from a small sample and should be treated with caution.

  2. The calculations are based on deducting either 50p or 70p (depending on whether it is the 50 per cent. or 70 per cent. taper) from the average rate of Invalid Care Allowance for each pound earned about the earnings limit of £50.00.

  3. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 5,000 (caseload) and £5 million (expenditure).

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the numbers gaining from and (b) the cost of raising the earnings limit for invalid care allowance to (i) £55.10 and (ii) £61. [39183]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is set out in the table:

  1996–97

  Raising limit to £55.10

  Raising limit to £61.00

  Net expenditure

  £5 million

  £10 million

  Average gainers in year

  5,000

  5,000

  1. Estimates are based on data from a small sample and should be treated with caution.

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 5,000 (caseload) and £5 million (expenditure).

  Adult Dependency Claims
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of claims for adult dependency increases made during 1995–96 of claims for adult dependency increases made during 1995–96 by claimants of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) incapacity benefit, (c) severe disablement allowance and (d) invalid care allowance were disallowed because an overlapping benefit was payable. [39004]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Benefits which are subject to the overlapping benefit rules are reduced rather than disallowed. In cases where the benefit is reduced to nil, entitlement remains. This allows payment to commence, without the need for a further claim, should payment of the overlapping benefit cease for any reason. However, information on the number of adult dependency increases of unemployment benefit, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance that are reduced or extinguished under the overlapping benefit rules is not available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  EU Expenditure
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is social security expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product and per capita in each European Union country in the current financial year. [39050]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. The latest available data are for 1993 and are restricted to member states at that time. This information conforms to the Eurostat definition of social protection which includes more than the usual UK definition of social security—for example, spending on health and local authority social services are included.

  Current expenditure on social protection as percentage of GDP

  Country

  Per cent

  Belgium

  27.6

  Denmark

  33.2

  Germany

  31.0

  Greece

  16.3

  Spain

  24.0

  France

  30.9

  Ireland

  21.4

  Italy

  25.8

  Luxembourg

  24.9

  Netherlands

  33.6

  Portugal

  18.3

  United Kingdom

  27.8

  Current expenditure on social protection per head in the purchasing power standard1

  Country

  £

  Belgium

  4,903.7

  Denmark

  5,598.4

  Germany

  5,365.7

  Greece

  1,598.5

  Spain

  2,935.7

  France

  5,317.6

  Ireland

  2,680.9

  Italy

  4,291.4

  Luxembourg

  6,630.1

  Netherlands

  5,576.3

  592

  Current expenditure on social protection per head in the purchasing power standard1

  Country

  £

  Portugal

  1,948.3

  United Kingdom

  4,323.4

  1 The purchasing power standard specific to private consumption is used to equivalise the per capita expenditure between the EU countries in terms of national mice levels.

  1. The information is reproduced from the Eurostat publication "Social protection expenditure and receipts 1980–1993".

  2. The data are provisional for all countries except Denmark.

  3. UK data are for the British financial year, all other data are for the calendar year.

  Supported Housing Costs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the terms of reference of his interdepartmental review of funding of supported housing costs; when he intends this review to be concluded; and if the review will involve consultations with other Departments. [38154]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The timing and exact terms of the review, which will involve consultation with all interested Government Departments, will be completed shortly.

  I shall write to the hon. Member when they are agreed.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39301]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available. Fines and other penalties are the responsibility of each driver.

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39521]

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Public Record Office Files
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the file with the classmark PIN 59/19 recorded at the Public Record Office is currently closed for 75 years by his Department; and if he will consider opening(a) all or (b) part of it. [37611]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: Under the Public Records Act, all records are required to be closed for the minimum period consistent with protection of the sensitive information identified in them. The normal closure period is 30 years, but the Lord Chancellor may prescribe an extension to this where any of a number of criteria are satisfied, including, for example, where it is necessary to protect an individual from disclosure of sensitive information during his or her lifetime.
  593
  The fact that a record has been closed for a stated period does not, however, preclude its release before that period has elapsed, if its sensitivity has passed, an application may be made for a reduction of the stated period.

  We are already actively reviewing classes of information held in the Public Record Office with a view to accelerated opening, and will examine the file to which the question refers at the earliest opportunity.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been paid out (i) in unemployment benefit and (ii) on other benefits to unemployed people in(a) York and (b) North Yorkshire in each year since 1979–80. [38934]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Estimated annual expenditure (£ millions) on unemployed claimants (Yorkshire and Humberside)

  Year

  Unemployment benefit

  Income support

  1983–84

  134.4

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  156.8

  —

  1986–87

  169.7

  —

  1987–88

  137.5

  —

  1988–89

  113.9

  —

  1989–90

  70.8

  —

  1990–91

  71.8

  —

  1991–92

  139.4

  700.9

  1992–93

  141.1

  850.0

  1993–94

  142.9

  987.6

  1994–95

  124.5

  1,045.6

  1995–96

  104.8

  1,058.3

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual and Quarterly Enquiries 5 percent. sample of unemployed claimants.

  Notes:

  1. Estimated expenditure is based on weekly caseload and average benefit payment.

  2. For unemployment benefit, this is based on sample taken on the second Thursday of May and November for years prior to 1993–94. Thereafter it is based on samples taken on the second Thursday in February, May, August and November. For income support the sample was taken in May each year.

  3. Data for 1984–85 for unemployment benefit are not available at this level and for Income Support prior to 1991.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Learmont Report
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Learmont report. [40082]

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Prison Service 594
  submission on the Learmont report was first submitted to his Department for consideration. [35862]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend asked the Prison Service to examine the operational impact and effectiveness of the Learmont recommendations. The Prison Service has made a number of submissions on various aspects of the Learmont report since it was published on 16 October 1995. Some Learmont recommendations called for fundamental reviews of policy. My right hon. and learned Friend has yet to receive the findings of all these major reviews.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there will be a period of consultation following the Government's statement on the implementation of the Learmont report. [35867]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our response to the Learmont report and any associated arrangements are still under consideration.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his latest estimate of the date of publication for his response to the Learmont report; and if he will make a statement; [36486]

  (2) what measures are being taken to assess the cost of full implementation of the Learmont report; and if he will make a statement. [36679]

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to devolve greater responsibility to area managers in the Prison Service in respect of (i) corporate planning, (ii) service delivery, (iii) resource management and (iv) budgets and to develop links from area managers to board level through operational directors; [37773]

  (2) what plans he has, and at what cost, to ensure that annual training for all staff in the Prison Service is increased to 14 days over the next five years; [37772]

  (3) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to establish core competencies, for training purposes for all grades in the Prison Service; [37770]

  (4) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to ensure that work managers operate from an office on their wing; [37778]

  (5) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to ensure that those remand category A prisoners who cannot be held in dispersal prisons are held in other prisons with accommodation to category A standard; [37766]

  (6) what plans he has to introduce overlocking and permanent movement systems to the dispersal prison estate; [37774]

  (7) what plans he has to increase the amount of (a) training and (b) enhanced training staff in dispersal prisons undergo; [37731]

  (8) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to ensure that prisoner programmes are adopted nationally, and that each sentenced prisoner serving more than 12 months has a sentence plan and is allocated a personal officer; [37768]
  595
  (9) what progress has been made in respect of the security of prisoners' property on transfer; [37776]

  (10) what progress has been made with the Prison Service headquarters security survey on electronic security defences; what (i) technical problems and (ii) remedial work have been identified; and what plans he has over what time scale and at what cost to address these matters; [37764]

  (11) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to provide leadership and management training to line managers in the Prison Service; [37771]

  (12) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to ensure that the Prison Service is able to provide suitable accommodation for high-risk women prisoners and young offenders; [37767]

  (13) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, in respect of the role of wing managers in prisons; [37775]

  (14) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, (i) to improve security standards in the prison estate and (ii) to provide closed circuit television and other appropriate facilities at the entrance of dispersal prisons; [37763]

  (15) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to ensure that an accreditation, system on the basis of performance measurement against national standards is introduced into the Prison Service; [37769]

  (16) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to improve selection procedures for staff for dispersal prisons; [37777]

  (17) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to provide a supporting secretariat to (i) the head of operations and security and (ii) the governing governor in the Prison Service; [37761]

  (18) what plans he has, over what time scale and at what cost, to ensure that the option of imposing closed visits is available in all secure establishments; [37765]

  (19) when he expects to make a statement on the implementation of the Learmont report; [35868]

  (20) pursuant to his answer of 10 July, Official Report, column 170, what estimates have been received for the minimum security standards which are under consideration; if he will set out each of the phases of the programme to develop minimum security standards; and when the work to reach a decision on the appropriate minimum security standards will be complete. [37760]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of steps taken by the Prison Service to improve its performance are contained in the interim progress report on the "Review of Prison Service Security in England and Wales and the escape from Parkhurst Prison on Tuesday 3 January 1995—The Learmont Inquiry" given in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The progress report excludes those recommendations identical or very similar to those of the Woodcock report which my right hon. and learned Friend accepted on 19 December 1994. The table gives details of the recommendations already implemented. Six reviews are still in progress in respect of 596
  recommendations: 1, 88, 97, 98, 101, 107. The remaining recommendations are still under consideration.

  I shall report to the House on outstanding issues in due course.

  The Prison Service has initiated a wide-ranging programme of action to build on the improvement in its performance in security, including measures taken in response to the recommendations of the Woodcock and Learmont reports.

  The Prison Service has pressed ahead with upgrading the high security dispersal estate to standards recommended in the Woodcock report—a programme which Sir John Learmont included in his recommendations. In his review of Prison Service progress towards implementing the Woodcock report, Sir John Learmont reported in December 1995 that
  "in a period of less than a year, the Prison Service has made infinitely more headway in implementing the Woodcock recommendations than it seems reasonable to expect".

  The Prison Service has achieved a sharp reduction in the number of escapes. Escapes in 1995–96 were 59 per cent. down on those in 1994–95 and 79 per cent. down compared to 1992–93.

  The security manual has been redrafted emphasising the distinction between what is mandatory and what is discretionary.

  The Prison Service has made excellent progress to ensure that security measures are consistently observed.

  The Prison Service has strengthened independent security audit which it had in hand before the Whitemoor escape in recognition of the major contribution it has to make to improving security standards.

  The Prison Service has pressed ahead with a number of organisational changes designed to ensure that operational management of prisons can be carried out more effectively.

  In addition to those reviews still in progress and referred to above, the Prison Service has completed 10 reviews, the conclusions of which are under consideration.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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, Pannell Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes, and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37325]

  Mr. Howard
  For the period specified, information on the number and nature of contracts let to each listed company and the total sum paid to each company by my Department is given in the table. Individual contract values are not given on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.
  597

  Consultant

  Nature

  Total value

  1 April to date

  Coopers and Lybrand and Subsidiaries and Associates

  Strategy development Underpinning and modelling accountancy work

  1£15,143

  KPMG and Subsidiaries and Associates

  Audit of procurement procedures Consultancy database Consultancy support quantum Job evaluation consultancy

  £443,625

  Price Waterhouse and Subsidiaries and Associates

  Seminar

  1—

  Ernst and Young and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  Deloitte and Touche and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  Arthur Andersen and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  Grant Thornton and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  BDO Stoy Hayward and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  Pannell Kerr Forster and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  Robson Rhodes and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  1995–1996

  Coopers and Lybrand and Subsidiaries and Associates

  Private Finance Initiative Consultancy Support Advice and project support Assessment pay services business strategy Strategy development Project management Customer survey Consultancy Underpinning and modelling accountancy work

  1525,630

  KPMG and Subsidiaries and Associates

  Review of Emergency Planning College Identification of competencies of probation officers Accountancy support

  169,818

  Price Waterhouse and Subsidiaries and Associates

  Consultancy Pilot study in number of area probation services

  1222,364

  Ernst and Young and Subsidiaries and Associates

  Review of management structure for National Strategy for Police Information Systems Project (NSPIS) Consultancy

  147,500

  Deloite and Touche and Subsidiaries and Associates

  Review of United Kingdom Passport Agency offices Consultancy Research

  1125,165

  Arthur Andersen and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  Grant Thornton and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  BDO Stoy Hayward and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  Pannell Kerr Forster and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  Robson Rhodes and Subsidiaries and Associates

  —

  —

  1 Individual contract values are not given on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Dispersal Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many hours of enhanced training staff in each dispersal prison have undergone in each year since 1990; and how many hours are planned in the next four financial years; [37732]

  (2) how many hours of training staff in each dispersal prison have undergone in each year since 1990; and how many hours are planned in the next four financial years. [37730]

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

  Letter from David Scott to Mr. George Howarth, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the number of hours training undertaken by staff in dispersals.
  Training figures for the years in question are not held centrally. I will write to you as soon as they are available.

  Deportation
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons were recommended for deportation with no custodial sentence 598
  during (a) 1995 and (b) 1996 to the latest convenient date; and in how many such cases the courts directed release (i) subject to conditions and (ii) without conditions; [38081]

  (2) how many decisions to make a deportation order, by nationality of the potential deportee, where there is a right of appeal as provided under (a) section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 or (b) section 8(3) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 have been made in each quarter since 1 July 1994; and on what basis these decisions have been made; [38059]

  (3) how many people were received into (i) prison department establishments, (ii) immigration detention centres or (iii) police cells under Immigration Act powers during (a) 1995 and (b) 1996 to the latest convenient date; how many of these were (1) asylum seekers and (2) applying to remain on non-asylum grounds, by individual prison establishment or detention centre; what was the average daily population of persons so detained in each of those years; what was the average length of time spent in detention by persons so detained in each of those years; and if he will give a breakdown by nationality of persons so detained for each of those years; [38082]

  (4) how many persons were detained under Immigration Act powers for a period of more than two months on completion of a custodial sentence during 1995 and 1996 to the latest convenient date. [38080]
  599
  Mr. Kirkhope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) decisions to deport have been made, (b) deportation orders have been signed and (c) deportation orders have been enforced against (i) British overseas citizens and (ii) other British nationals who are not British citizens, in each year since 1994; to which countries it has been proposed to send these people; and how many such people whom decisions to deport were made left the country voluntarily. [38076]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information available is given in the table. Statistics are not available on the countries to which British nationals have been removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process. The British nationals removed in 1994–96 were British dependent territories citizens or British nationals (overseas) from Hong Kong, except for one British dependent territories citizen from St. Helena in 1994 and 1 BDTC—territory not recorded—in 1995.

  British nationals subject to deportation action

  1994

  1995

  1996 January to March1

  British overseas citizens

  Notices of intention to deport issued and court recommendations for deportation made

  4

  3

  2

  Deportation orders made

  1

  1

  —

  Passenger admissions1 and persons refused leave to enter and removed, for selected nationalities in 1995 and first quarter 1996

  Nationality

  1st quarter 1995

  2nd quarter 1995

  3rd quarter 1995

  4th quarter 1995

  Year 1995

  1st quarter 1996

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Jamaica

  4,500

  80

  6,640

  104

  8,940

  101

  5,450

  278

  25,500

  563

  5,000

  188

  Turkey

  19,600

  27

  21,700

  42

  31,300

  67

  24,800

  107

  97,400

  243

  24.000

  65

  Morocco

  4,090

  14

  4,540

  24

  6,750

  38

  3,900

  64

  19,300

  140

  3,640

  37

  USA

  587,000

  236

  940,000

  230

  1,030,000

  227

  674,000

  316

  3,230,000

  1,009

  641,000

  256

  Australia

  87,000

  81

  158,000

  113

  179,000

  104

  119,000

  147

  543,000

  445

  95,000

  93

  Malaysia

  21,900

  78

  37,000

  105

  51,200

  128

  38,418

  86

  149,000

  397

  29,300

  155

  Hong Kong2

  20,200

  12

  23,000

  12

  43,700

  7

  16,400

  16

  103,000

  47

  19,200

  4

  Guyana

  1,010

  11

  1,400

  18

  1,830

  8

  1,170

  26

  5,420

  63

  1,040

  47

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2,780

  16

  4,150

  16

  5,830

  15

  3,200

  32

  16,000

  79

  2,990

  31

  Colombia

  5,090

  63

  8,640

  110

  10,300

  69

  6,850

  244

  30,900

  486

  5,830

  120

  Algeria

  3,460

  55

  4,070

  73

  6,170

  60

  3,940

  113

  17,600

  301

  3,920

  71

  1 Rounded figures, numbers of journeys.

  2 Including Hong Kong stateless persons.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women convicted by the courts of drug offences in England and Wales during 1995. [39225]

  Mr. Maclean
  Data for 1995 will not be available until the autumn. In 1994, there were 25,264 convictions in England and Wales for males and 2,532 for females, where the principal offence was for a drug offence.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many calls have been received relating to tobacco smuggling on the freephone crime
  600

  British nationals subject to deportation action

  1994

  1995

  1996 January toMarch1

  Deportation orders enforced

  —

  1

  1

  Supervised departures

  —

  —

  1

  Voluntary departures

  1

  —

  1

  Other British nationals2

  Notices of intention to deport issued and court recommendations for deportation made

  77

  61

  13

  Deportation orders made

  22

  23

  3

  Deportation orders enforced

  11

  8

  1

  Supervised departures

  16

  19

  4

  Voluntary departures

  9

  5

  1

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 British Dependent Territories Citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British Subjects and British Protected Persons.

  Immigration
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Jamaica, (b) Turkey, (c) Morocco, (d) the USA, (e) Australia, (f) Malaysia, (g) Hong Kong, (h) Guyana, (i) Trinidad, (j) Colombia and (k) Algeria were (i) granted and (ii) refused permission to enter the United Kingdom at ports of entry in each quarter since January 1995 and in total, to the nearest available data. [38065]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is given in the table.

  stoppers number; and how many prosecutions have been effected as a result of that hotline. [38778]

  Mr. Maclean
  There were two calls received in 1993, 21 in 1994 and 26 in 1995. Up to 16 July this year, 48 calls have been received, Information on prosecutions is not available centrally.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 446, about prisoners at Buckley Hall prison serving sentences for rape, murder, armed robbery, manslaughter and arson, which of the fires that have occurred at the prison since 14 December 1994 have been caused by prisoners with a sentence for arson. [39231]
  601
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Scott to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about fires that have occurred at Buckley Hall prison since 14 December 1994 and which may have been caused by prisoners with a sentence for arson.
  There have been no fires at Buckley Hall which have been caused by any prisoner serving a sentence for arson.

  Illegal Entrants
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the(a) passengers in total and (b) persons treated as illegal entrants who were granted temporary admission or release in 1995 and 1996 to the latest convenient date subsequently absconded; how many of these were (1) asylum seekers and (2) applying for leave on some other basis; and how many (i) later reported voluntarily to the immigration authorities and (ii) were redetained. [38079]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information relates to the numbers of person who absconded, either from detention or by failing to respond to the terms of temporary admission or release, and is given in the table. The other information requested is not available.

  Absconders

  Category of person

  1995

  1996 First quarter

  Passengers1

  2,049

  605

  Illegal entrants:

  Asylum seekers

  186

  45

  Others

  101

  18

  Total

  287

  63

  1 A breakdown between asylum seekers and other passengers is not available.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of staff employed full lime or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94. [39410]

  Mr. Howard
  The cost of staff employed full time or part time by my Department to provide (i) information and publicity; and (ii) press office services, all media, in each of the years listed was as follows:

  1995–96

  (i) £558,238

  (ii) £675,761

  1994–95

  (i) £511,307

  (ii) £661,692

  1993–94

  (i) £524,251

  (ii) £699.002

  602
  These figures include information and administrative staff. They do not include press and publicity staff employed by the prisons agency.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39348]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department's communication directorate budget for 1996–97 includes no provision for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. The directorate buys the great majority of its production services from a range of suppliers, but does not use consultants. Communication directorate specialists from the Government information service provides Ministers and officials with advice with advice on all aspects of information, publicity and press and media.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39420]

  Mr. Howard
  Staff numbers employed by my Department, full time or part time, to provide(a) information and publicity and (b) press office services, all media, in each of the years listed were as follows:

  1995–96

  (a) 19

  (b) 23

  1994–95

  (a) 17

  (b) 22

  1993–94

  (a) 18

  (b) 24

  These figures include information and administrative grades. They do not include staff employed by the prisons agency.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39445]

  Mr. Howard
  The cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time by my Department to provide information and publicity in 1996–97 is £1,303,340. The total includes press office staff, £717,340, and publicity and campaigns staff, £586,000. It covers information and administrative grades but does not include prisons agency staff.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time,(a) to work on the press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39368]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department's communication directorate budget for 1996–97 provides for employment of 24 press office, all media, staff and 19 information and publicity staff. These figures include information and administrative grades. There are two part-time
  603
  information staff and two part-time administrative staff. The total does not include prisons agency staff.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost, assumed in the budget, of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39985]

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

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average value of items stolen from cars in each of the last five years in South Yorkshire; [39238]

  (2) what was the average value of items stolen in recorded domestic break-ins in each of the last five years in South Yorkshire. [39239]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in South Yorkshire— average value of property stolen1

  Average value (£)

  Year

  Theft from a vehicle

  Burglary in a dwelling

  1991

  232

  908

  1992

  254

  1,429

  1993

  244

  1,020

  1994

  242

  1,138

  1995

  254

  1,023

  1 Excluding offences where the value was recorded as nil.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many recorded car break-ins there were in South Yorkshire in each year since 1979; [39242]

  (2) how many recorded domestic burglaries there were in South Yorkshire in each year since 1979. [39241]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested in contained in the table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in South Yorkshire

  Number of offences

  Year

  Theft from a vehicle

  Burglary in a dwelling

  1979

  5,478

  4,439

  1980

  6,328

  5,777

  1981

  8,305

  6,557

  1982

  9,548

  7,744

  1983

  9,933

  9,015

  1984

  11,611

  10,476

  1985

  10,407

  9,057

  1986

  12,230

  11,125

  1987

  13,821

  11,712

  1988

  14,033

  10,213

  1989

  16,055

  10,132

  1990

  19,315

  12,126

  1991

  21,848

  15,085

  1992

  22,572

  18,372

  1993

  25,016

  25,230

  1994

  23,304

  25,563

  1995

  24,217

  22,235

  604
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the clear-up rates of recorded(a) car break-ins and (b) burglaries in South Yorkshire in each year since 1979. [39243]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Clear-up rates in South Yorkshire

  Percentages

  Year

  Theft from a vehicle

  Burglary

  1979

  30

  40

  1980

  24

  36

  1981

  33

  44

  1982

  37

  39

  1983

  40

  40

  1984

  29

  31

  1985

  37

  41

  1986

  30

  36

  1987

  31

  35

  1988

  35

  44

  1989

  33

  36

  1990

  37

  36

  1991

  29

  27

  1992

  16

  17

  1993

  8

  13

  1994

  13

  20

  1995

  12

  22

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average age of people convicted of(a) car theft and (b) burglary in South Yorkshire in each of the last five years. [39240]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1990 to 1994 on the number of offenders convicted at all courts in the South Yorkshire police force area by age is given in the tables. Data for 1995 will not be available until the autumn.

  Table A: Number of persons convicted at all courts of (a) car theft and (b) burglary offences in the South Yorkshire Police Force Area by age, 1990

  Age

  Car theft1

  Domestic burglary

  Burglary Non domestic burglary

  Total burglary

  10

  1

  2

  —

  2

  11

  2

  6

  5

  11

  12

  4

  8

  4

  12

  13

  10

  14

  21

  35

  14

  17

  22

  25

  47

  15

  68

  35

  47

  82

  16

  85

  50

  44

  94

  17

  197

  91

  75

  166

  18

  172

  53

  105

  158

  19

  139

  70

  88

  158

  20

  90

  34

  66

  100

  21 and under 25

  196

  120

  188

  308

  25 and under 30

  264

  48

  101

  149

  30 and under 40

  24

  32

  45

  77

  40 and under 50

  7

  9

  20

  29

  50 and under 60

  2

  3

  6

  9

  60 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All ages

  1,078

  597

  840

  1,437

  1 Car theft includes the indictable offences of theft from vehicles; theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle car and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance.

  2 Includes persons, convicted of summary offences, given the default age of 25 where the exact age was not known.

  605

  Table B: Number of persons convicted at all courts of (a) car theft and (b) burglary offences in the South Yorkshire Police Force Area by age, 1991

  Age

  Car theft1

  Domestic burglary

  Burglary Non domestic burglary

  Total burglary

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1

  1

  2

  3

  12

  10

  8

  9

  17

  13

  14

  18

  7

  25

  14

  36

  25

  16

  41

  15

  100

  43

  45

  88

  16

  102

  43

  56

  99

  17

  123

  58

  61

  119

  18

  156

  79

  89

  168

  19

  114

  71

  77

  148

  20

  108

  55

  77

  132

  21 and under 25

  206

  108

  202

  310

  25 and under 30

  272

  68

  117

  185

  30 and under 40

  47

  44

  72

  116

  40 and under 50

  9

  9

  20

  29

  50 and under 60

  3

  2

  5

  7

  60 and over

  —

  —

  1

  1

  All ages

  1,101

  632

  856

  1,488

  1 Car theft includes the indictable offences of theft from vehicles; theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle car and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance.

  2 Includes persons, convicted of summary offences, given the default age of 25 where the exact age was not known.

  Table C: Number of persons convicted at all courts of (a) car theft and (b) burglary offences in the South Yorkshire Police Force Area by age, 1992

  Age

  Car theft1

  Domestic burglary

  Burglary Non domestic burglary

  Total burglary

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  2

  1

  3

  12

  1

  2

  3

  5

  13

  10

  15

  9

  24

  14

  13

  17

  17

  34

  15

  49

  25

  35

  60

  16

  66

  47

  51

  98

  17

  103

  80

  69

  149

  18

  98

  70

  64

  134

  19

  113

  56

  65

  121

  20

  96

  42

  70

  112

  21 and under 25

  173

  130

  159

  289

  25 and under 30

  283

  55

  102

  157

  30 and under 40

  37

  31

  89

  120

  40 and under 50

  5

  9

  22

  31

  50 and under 60

  1

  1

  2

  3

  60 and over

  1

  —

  1

  1

  All ages

  849

  582

  759

  1,341

  1 Car theft includes the indictable offences of aggravated vehicle taking—injury to person, damage to property of care (as from 1 April 1992); theft from vehicles; theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle car and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance and aggravated vehicle taking where criminal damage of £2,000 or under (as from 1 April 1992).

  2 Includes persons, convicted of summary offences, given the default age of 25 where the exact age was not known.

  606

  Table D: Number of persons convicted at all courts of (a) car theft and (b) burglary offences in the South Yorkshire Police Force Area by age, 1993

  Age

  Car theft1

  Domestic-burglary

  Burglary Non domestic burglary

  Total burglary

  10

  —

  1

  —

  1

  11

  1

  —

  —

  —

  12

  1

  2

  2

  4

  13

  10

  10

  8

  18

  14

  33

  23

  14

  37

  15

  29

  22

  27

  49

  16

  54

  37

  27

  64

  17

  72

  62

  45

  107

  18

  95

  41

  69

  110

  19

  79

  41

  46

  87

  20

  70

  46

  51

  97

  21 and under 25

  130

  103

  132

  235

  25 and under 30

  247

  52

  95

  147

  30 and under 40

  27

  31

  61

  92

  40 and under 50

  6

  4

  10

  14

  50 and under 60

  1

  2

  —

  2

  60 and over

  —

  —

  1

  1

  All ages

  655

  477

  588

  1,065

  1 Car theft includes the indictable offences of aggravated vehicle taking—injury to person, damage to property of car; theft from vehicles; theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle car and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance and aggravated vehicle taking where criminal damage of £2,000 or under.

  2 Includes persons, convicted of summary offences, given the default age of 25 where the exact age was not known.

  Table E: Number of persons convicted at all courts of (a) car theft and (b) burglary offences in the South Yorkshire Police Force Area by age, 1994

  Age

  Car theft1

  Domestic burglary

  Burglary Non domestic burglary

  Total burglary

  10

  1

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1

  —

  3

  3

  12

  4

  1

  3

  4

  13

  8

  10

  4

  14

  14

  22

  29

  14

  43

  15

  47

  45

  22

  67

  16

  60

  48

  36

  84

  17

  81

  52

  36

  88

  18

  92

  72

  41

  113

  19

  54

  43

  41

  84

  20

  57

  42

  27

  69

  21 and under 25

  124

  136

  137

  273

  25 and under 30

  254

  67

  81

  148

  30 and under 40

  26

  39

  65

  104

  40 and under 50

  6

  9

  15

  24

  50 and under 60

  —

  —

  3

  3

  60 and over

  2

  —

  1

  1

  All ages

  639

  593

  529

  1,122

  1 Car theft includes the indictable offences of aggravated vehicle taking—injury to person, damage to property of car theft from vehicles; theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle car and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance and aggravated vehicle taking where criminal damage of £2,000 or under.

  2 Includes persons, convicted of summary offences, given the default age of 25 where the exact age was not known.

  Road Traffic Regulations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include the enforcement of road traffic regulations in the list of key policing objectives of 1996–97 and 1997–98. [38131]

  Mr. Maclean
  The key objectives for 1996–97 were announced on 15 December 1995. They do not include an objective on the enforcement of road traffic regulations. Consultation on the objectives for 1997–98 has not yet been completed.

  Police Driver Training Scheme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the requirements of the police driver training scheme. [38133]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for individual chief constables to determine the extent to which their officers are trained to drive particular vehicles. The recommended criteria for police driver training are set out in the 1989 Association of Chief Officers of Police police driving report and the 1995 pursuits and pursuit training report.

  Involuntary Manslaughter
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to implement the recommendations contained in the Law Commission's report into involuntary manslaughter. [38130]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Law Commission's report on involuntary manslaughter raises some important but complex issues, which the Government are still considering.

  Speed Cameras (Fines)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to reinvest the revenue raised from fines resulting from enforcement

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Force

  Numbers requested

  Numbers granted

  Numbers requested

  Numbers1 granted

  Numbers requested

  Numbers1 granted

  Dyfed Powys

  50

  25

  75

  Nil

  75

  Nil

  Gwent

  10

  1

  37

  Nil

  65

  Nil

  North Wales

  30

  17

  58

  Nil

  58

  Nil

  South Wales

  44

  Nil

  44

  Nil

  61

  Nil

  1 In view of the constraints on public expenditure, no increases in establishments were approved for any force in England and Wales in 1993–94 or 1994–95.

  No applications were submitted for 1995–96. The centralised system of determining police numbers by setting an establishment of officers for each police force was abolished from 1 April 1995.

  Crime Statistics (Wales)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of reported(a) violent crimes, (b) burglaries and (c) assaults in each Welsh police authority in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, and at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [39095]
  608
  work carried out by speed cameras in traffic police enforcement. [38132]

  Mr. Maclean
  Fine income from the enforcement of speeding offences by cameras, like all fine income, goes to the consolidated fund at the Treasury. It is not the Government's general policy to earmark that income to a particular area of expenditure. We believe that the best way to decide among the competing claims on taxpayers' money is to consider each on its merits and set priorities among them.

  Police Officers (Wales)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of police officers employed by each Welsh police authority in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [39194]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on police strength in individual force areas from 1979 to 1995 can be found in the appendix to the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, copies of which are in the Library. Details of police strength for each Welsh force at 31 March are set out in the table:

  Police force

  Strength at 31 March 1996

  Dyfed-Powys

  991

  Gwent

  1,044

  North Wales

  1,378

  South Wales

  3,027

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new police officers each Welsh local police authority requested in the yearly settlement in each year since 1992; how many police officers they were awarded; and if he will make a statement. [39094]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to recorded offences and is given in the table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in Wales

  Number of offences

  Violent crime

  Burglary

  Wounding

  Dyfed Powys

  1979

  773

  1,714

  499

  1985

  967

  2,743

  742

  1990

  2,176

  3,419

  1,763

  1995

  2,234

  3,515

  1,835

  Gwent

  1979

  1,330

  3,319

  1,028

  609

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in Wales

  Number of offences

  Violent crime

  Burglary

  Wounding

  1985

  1,792

  4,887

  1,493

  1990

  2,641

  5,235

  2,165

  1995

  2,991

  6,517

  2,423

  North Wales

  1979

  1,516

  4,656

  1,117

  1985

  1,908

  9,084

  1,557

  1990

  2,731

  8,342

  2,311

  1995

  2,699

  9,352

  2,167

  South Wales

  1979

  3,064

  17,900

  2,391

  1985

  3,146

  25,530

  2,698

  1990

  5,371

  28,121

  4,456

  1995

  7,584

  36,941

  6,094

  Parliamentary Questions (Meetings)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative hon. Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39516]

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Departmental Vehicles (Traffic Violations)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39313]

  Mr. Howard
  Figures for before February 1988 are not available, but the information requested since that date is as follows:

  February 1988-July 1992

  77 fixed penalty notices

  7 excess charge notices

  4 notice of intended prosecutions

  1 overloading

  Total fines £2,140

  July 1992-July 1993

  34 fixed penalty notices

  9 excess charge notices

  8 notice of intended prosecutions

  Total fines £1,516

  August 1993-mid-August 1994

  22 fixed penalty notices

  24 excess charge notices

  23 notice of intended prosecutions

  1 penalty charge notice

  1 standard charge notice

  Total fines £1,807

  Mid-August 1994-April 1995

  13 fixed penalty notices

  3 excess charge notices

  610

  29 notice of intended prosecutions

  18 penalty charge notices

  5 standard charge notices

  Total fines £1,875

  May 1995-December 1995

  24 fixed penalty notices

  17 notice of intended prosecutions

  6 penalty charge notices

  Total fines £1,770

  January 1996-Present

  3 fixed penalty notices

  2 excess charge notices

  12 notice of intended prosecutions

  15 penalty charge notices

  1 standard charge notice

  Total fines £836

  Details of the fines incurred by drivers who are prosecuted are not available.

  Immigration Carriers Liability Act 1987
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount of revenue raised from fines imposed under the Immigration Carriers Liability Act 1987 in each year since its introduction. [39292]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1987

  1.403

  1988

  2.274

  1989

  1.721

  1990

  3.433

  1991

  7.581

  1992

  4.789

  1993

  11.500

  1994

  8.652

  1995

  11.212

  1996 (to 30 June)

  4.335

  Drunk Driving
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b)convictions there have been for drunk driving in each year since 1979. [39320]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information, which relates to the number of prosecutions and convictions for the offence of "driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs", is contained in the table:

  Prosecutions and convictions at all courts for the offence of driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs, England and Wales

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  Number of convictions

  1979

  74,550

  66,701

  1980

  87,967

  78,093

  1981

  82,051

  71,352

  1982

  85,558

  75,005

  611

  Prosecutions and convictions at all courts for the offence of driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs, England and Wales

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  Number of convictions

  1983

  111,450

  98,016

  1984

  116,244

  101,469

  1985

  121,239

  106,766

  1986

  121,233

  107,059

  1987

  130,533

  115,097

  1988

  135,825

  119,033

  1989

  129,122

  114,347

  1990

  127,638

  113,166

  1991

  118,584

  103,821

  1992

  110,208

  95,207

  1993

  105,158

  91,198

  1994

  104,690

  89,700

  Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Opportunist Crimes (Traffic Lights)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department has issued to (i) police forces and (ii) the public on countering opportunist crimes at traffic lights. [39561]

  Mr. Maclean
  Advice on preventing this kind of crime is contained in a number of Home Office publications.

  The Home Office crime prevention agency handbook, "Your Practical Guide to Crime Prevention", contains advice on personal safety, which includes advice on safety while driving, much of which is relevant to this kind of opportunistic crime. More specific guidance is also included in "Steer Clear of Car Crime", which the Home Office produced in 1995. Copies of these publications are distributed to forces in England and Wales, and are passed on through crime prevention officers to the general public.

  As with all crime prevention advice produced by the Home Office, great care is taken to ensure that it is not fear inducing.

  Advice on safety while driving is also included in the crime prevention manual produced by the Home Office crime prevention college. Crime prevention officers retain the manual on completion of their training.

  Young Runaways
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Centrepoint-National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children report, "Nowhere to Hide: Giving Young Runaways a Voice", a copy of which has been sent to him; and what progress has been made since the inter-departmental and inter-agency meetings in 1992. [39650]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have not received a copy of the report but will be glad to look at it should a copy be sent to us.

  The Home Office has funded the Police National Missing Persons Bureau, which was set up in 1994 as a national resource for information on vulnerable persons, including juveniles, who have been reported as missing for over 28 days, and those who have been missing for less than 28 days but whose disappearance gives ground for concern.

  Metropolitan Police
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the civilianisation of posts within the Metropolitan police service. [39572]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner that, during the last 10 financial years, 2,592 non-operational police posts have been civilianised within the Metropolitan police.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the future role of the Metropolitan police service in undertaking the coroner's assistant duty; [39570]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the annual (i) cost to the Metropolitan police service for undertaking the coroner's assistant role and (ii) the number of hours that the Metropolitan police spend on coroner's assistant duties. [39574]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no plans for the Metropolitan police to withdraw from undertaking the coroner's assistant duty. A programme of civilianisation of the role of coroner's officer, releasing police officers for other operational duties, will be completed in September this year. I understand from the Commissioner that the annual cost of the coroner's assistant role is £1.6 million, representing 180,000 hours.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police vehicles were on operational duty with the Metropolitan police service in each of the last five years; and how many are currently on operational duty. [39571]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information in the table has been supplied by the Commissioner of Police of the Metroplitan. The figures exclude boats, trailers, instructional vehicles, industrial and agricultural equipment, air support units and other miscellaneous vehicles.

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Operational fleet

  1991

  3,934

  1992

  4,028

  1993

  4,037

  1994

  3,948

  1995

  4,029

  1996

  4,192

  Current

  4,289

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by the Metropolitan police in each of their divisions in the financial year 1995–96; how much is budgeted to be spent in each division in 1996–97; and how many full-time police officers are currently employed in each division. [39692]

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

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recruits from training school are being taken on by police stations in the Metropolitan police service in the current year; and how many were in each of the last five years. [39573]
  613
  Mr. Maclean
  The information has been obtained from the Metropolitan police Commissioner and is given in the table.

  Calendar year

  Number of recruits

  1991

  1,128

  1992

  877

  1993

  1,358

  1994

  1,248

  1995

  1,012

  1996 (to date)

  442

  Mr. Brian Parsons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he estimates that solicitors acting for Mr. Brian Parsons will be granted full disclosure of material arising from recent investigations by the Devon and Cornwall police, in accordance with the Hickey ruling. [39608]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Officials are arranging for the appropriate material to be disclosed to Mr. Parsons' solicitors within the terms of the divisional court judgment in ex-parte Hickey et al. We would expect to make this disclosure in the next fortnight.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he indicated to the solicitor for Mr. Brian Parsons that the scenes of crime video relating to his case would be disclosed; and when he expects it will be disclosed. [39607]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Disclosure of the scenes of crime video is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall police. I understand, however, that a copy is to be made available to Mr. Parsons' solicitor this week.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) of those fine defaulters who have received a custodial sentence in the last year for which figures are available, what is the average sentence(a) imposed and (b) served; [39703]

  (2) what percentage of the average prison population in the last year for which figures are available has consisted of fine defaulters. [39701]

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

  Letter from David Scott to Mr. Walter Sweeney, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about fine defaulters.
  I will write to you with a full reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce community service orders and combination orders as alternatives to custody for fine defaulters. [39702]
  614
  Mr. Maclean
  Together with the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend and I are reviewing the powers and procedures available to the courts to ensure that they can enforce payment of fines without restoring to imprisonment save in the most exceptional of circumstances. Alternative options for fine enforcement under consideration include the possibility of a community-based penalty instead of imprisonment for fine default.

  Prisoners (Correspondence from Members)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of the Prison Service in respect of opening letters from hon. Members to serving prisoners. [39656]

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

  Letter from David Scott to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service policy on the opening of letters to prisoners from honourable Members.
  I will write to you with a full reply as soon as possible.

  Prisoners (Taxis)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 171, if he will list the (a) destinations and (b) cost of each prisoner and accompanying officers transported by taxi at Doncaster prison. [39805]

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

  Letter from David Scott to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about (a) destinations and (b) the cost of each prisoner and accompanying officers transported by taxi at Doncaster prison.
  I will write to you with a full reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, columns 269–70, if he will list the (a) destinations and (b) cost of each prisoner and accompanying officers transported by taxi at The Wolds prison. [39806]

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

  Letter from David Scott to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the (a) destinations and (b) cost of each prisoner and accompanying officers transported by taxi at Wolds prison.
  I will write to you with a full reply as soon as possible.

  Liquor Licensing Legislation (Proposed Charges)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations to which the document "Proposed Changes to the Liquor Licensing Legislation to Extend Permitted Hours on Friday and Saturday Nights", has been distributed; and if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken to consult the public on this issue. [39071]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The organisations to which I sent the consultation paper were detailed in the reply I gave on 19 June to a question from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) at columns 466–67. I also sent copies to each hon. Member and issued a press release. Publication was widely reported in national and local newspapers and in the trade press. I have made it clear that I welcome comments from any individual or organisation.

  Crimes (Firearms)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) homicides, (b) attempted murder and other acts of endangering life, (c) other offences of violence against the person, (d) robberies, (e) burglaries, (f) offences of criminal damage and (g) other offences were recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in England and Wales in 1995; [39774]

  (2) how many notifiable offences were recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in England and Wales in 1995. [39773]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information on offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used was published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1994", Cm 3010, chapter 3 and table 3.1. A copy of this publication is in the Library. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Prison Farms
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison farms have won prizes for their livestock at agricultural shows; and if he will list them. [39683]

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

  Letter from David Scott to Mr. Barry Field, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General form the office, to reply to your recent Question about prison farms that have won prizes for their livestock at agricultural shows.
  I will write to you with a full reply as soon as possible.

  Animal Experiments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet representatives of Naturewatch to discuss its proposal for a royal commission on animal experiments; and if he will make a statement. [39567]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have received a letter from Naturewatch requesting a meeting. I am replying that 616
  I can see no purpose in such a meeting and am not persuaded of the need for a royal commission.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of the organisations in Birmingham which his Department has licensed to carry out experiments using animals. [39783]

  Mr. Sackville
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the publication of such information.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits (i) he and (ii) his Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39875]

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

  Convicted Prisoners (Earnings)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of allowing convicted prisoners to build up a reserve of income earned while in prison which can be paid to them on release; and if he will make a statement. [39881]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Patrick Nicholls, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about an assessment of the advantages of allowing convicted prisoners to build up a reserve of income which can be paid to them on release.
  I will write to you as soon as possible with a full reply.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people who had applied for asylum were detained in Birmingham prison during May and June; and what were the nationalities of those detained; [39980]

  (2) how many people who had applied for asylum were deported from Birmingham prison during May and June; and what were the nationalities of those deported; [40003]

  (3) how many people were detained in Birmingham prison, under Immigration Act powers, in May and June; and what were the nationalities of those detained; [40000]

  (4) how many of those people detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers were deported during May and June; and what were the nationalities of those deported; [40001]

  (5) how many people were deported under Immigration Act powers from the United Kingdom for April, May and June; and what were the nationalities of those deported; [40004]

  (6) how many people (a) applied and (b) were granted asylum in January, February, March and April;

  617
  and if he will indicate the nationalities of those granted asylum; [40035]

  (7) how many people were deported under Immigration Act powers from Winson Green prison in 1995; [40037]

  (8) how many women were detained in prison, under Immigration Act powers, in January, February, March, April, May and June; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [40038]

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

  Prisoners (Gender Dysphoria)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people imprisoned for longer than two years are receiving treatment for gender dysphoria; [40024]

  (2) how many people diagnosed as suffering from gender dysphoria have been imprisoned in each of the last five years. [40025]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about prisoners who are diagnosed as suffering form gender diaspora.
  I will write to you as soon as possible with a full reply.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the report of the working group on the special constabulary has been completed; when it will be available; and if he will make a statement. [40083]

  Mr. Maclean
  The working group has completed its work and I hope to make an announcement about the Government response to the working group's recommendations shortly. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Hypnotism Act 1952
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the review of the Hypnotism Act 1952 will be completed; and if revised guidance will be issued. [40084]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Consultation with interested parties has now been completed. Guidance to local authorities incorporating revised model conditions to be applied to stage hypnotism performances, will be issued at the beginning of August. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Horseracing Betting Levy
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish the report on the impact of the national lottery on the horserace betting levy. [40085]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  An assessment of the impact of the national lottery on the horserace betting levy has been 618
  published today. This fulfils an undertaking made during the passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill.

  The paper has been prepared by the economics unit of the Home Office. It examines trends in off-course betting expenditure, on which the levy closely depends. The main conclusions are as follows: off-course betting expenditure during 1995 was 6 per cent. lower in real terms than in 1994; a statistical analysis of trends in off-course betting expenditure suggests that it might have been expected to rise by about 5 per cent. in real terms during this period; the study indicates that the national lottery has reduced spending on off-course betting although other special factors, such as the fixture list, may also be involved; and some uncertainty remains about the importance of other special factors and estimates of the size of the national lottery's effect remain imprecise.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report, columns 141–42, about funding for closed circuit television, (1) how many cameras it is estimated this funding will lead to; [40097]

  (2) how much money has been allocated so far to schemes to install closed circuit television. [40098]

  Mr. Maclean
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reply to the letter from Ken Peace of the United Reformed Church Tees district council about immigration matters dated 16 May. [39027]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: A reply was sent to Mr. Peace on 22 July.

  Departmental Legal Costs
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 July,Official Report, column 550, which sections in his Department made the payments for external legal costs in the cases in which his Departments has been judged to have acted unlawfully; which section or office holder is responsible for ensuring that these external costs are not excessive and how this is achieved; where the records are kept of each case in the last five years in which his Department's actions have been judged to be unlawful; if the personal injury claims arose from the unlawful action; what was the method of recording the total external legal costs of each of these actions; and if Ministers are informed of costs (a) as cases progress and (b) at the end of a case. [38887]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: My previous reply of 17 July, Official Report, column 550, explained that my Department does not keep central records of all the legal cases against it over the past 200 years. In the circumstances it is impossible to provide the details requested without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Prisons (Purposeful Activity)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (i) the latest
  619
  available figures, (ii) the figures for 1992, (iii) those for 1988 and (iv) those for 1987 for the average amount of time prisoners spend in purposeful activity in each category C prison. [38748]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average amount of time prisoners spend in purposeful activity in each category C prison.
  The most recent information is given in the attached table.
  The figures for 1987, 1988 and 1992 are currently unavailable. I will write to you when they become available.

  Average number of hours per week spent in purposeful activity— Category C prisons

  Establishment

  1995–96

  June 1996

  Acklington

  25.8

  27.9

  Aldington

  n/a

  n/a

  Ashwell

  33.9

  33.3

  Blantyre House

  33.4

  n/a

  Brockhill

  34.7

  35.6

  Camp Hill

  28.5

  26.7

  Channings Wood

  28.2

  27.4

  Coldingley

  28.2

  n/a

  Downview

  28.8

  32

  Erlestoke

  31.2

  25.3

  Everthorpe

  29.8

  23.2

  Featherstone

  27.6

  24.8

  Haverigg

  35.2

  36.4

  Highpoint

  22.4

  18

  Kirklevington

  44.9

  45.2

  Lancaster

  25.8

  n/a

  Latchmere House

  61.9

  n/a

  Lindholme

  27.9

  26.5

  Littlehey

  32.2

  n/a

  Mount

  27.0

  20

  Ranby

  32.5

  30.4

  Risley

  28.9

  19.5

  Send

  32.7

  35.8

  Shepton Mallet

  26.2

  24.7

  Stafford

  27.2

  28.4

  Stocken

  33.2

  29.3

  Usk

  35.9

  36.7

  Verne

  30.9

  33.2

  Wayland

  26.2

  27.1

  Wealstun closed

  n/a

  n/a

  Wellingborough

  28.6

  n/a

  Whatton

  32.3

  32.8

  Wymott

  37.4

  n/a

  Prisons (Rehabilitative Courses)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (i) the latest available figures, (ii) the figures for 1992, (iii) those for 1988, and (iv) those for 1987 for the average number of hours prisoners spend on rehabilitative courses aimed at addressing(a) offending behaviour and (b) drug use for each category C prison. [38751]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  620
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of hours prisoners spend on rehabilitative courses aimed at addressing offending behaviour and drug use for each category C prison.
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of hours which prisoners spend on rehabilitative courses addressing drug use, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  Information on courses designed to address offending behaviour is not available before 1992–93. The latest available figures for the number of completed courses and the hours involved in 1992–93 and 1995–96 for those category C prisons running such courses are given in the attached table.
  Sex offender treatment programme
  1992–93: total hours 17,040 (no details are available of the breakdown between different establishments, although it is estimated that category C prisons account for 50 per cent. of the total).
  1995–96: total hours 32,220.

  Hours

  Whatton

  8,100

  Rochester

  1,440

  Wayland

  4,140

  Channings Wood

  3,060

  Usk

  4,140

  Littlehey

  720

  Acklington

  2,700

  Wymott

  5,400

  Risley

  2.520

  Total completions

  179

  Relapse prevention—Pilot programme in 1995–96

  1995–96: 336 hours.

  Reasoning and rehabilitation

  Not run in any category C prisons at present.

  Thinking skills

  Figures not available for 1992–93 as this course was piloted in 1993–94.

  1995–96: total hours 4,844.

  Hours

  Channings Wood

  196

  Wayland

  252

  Rochester

  644

  Whatton

  532

  Elmley

  420

  Wymott

  1,980

  Stocken

  840

  Total completions

  Prisons (Cell Sharing)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (i) the latest available figures, (ii) the figures for 1992, (iii) those for 1988 and (iv) those for 1987 for the number of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one for each category C prison. [38747]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  621
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one, for each category C prison in 1987, 1988, 1992 and currently.
  The latest available information is for June 1996. There were 842 prisoners in category C prisons sharing cells certified to hold one.
  The attached table shows the figures for each prison.

  Prison

  June 1987

  June 1988

  June 1992

  June 1996

  Stafford

  688

  394

  108

  378

  Lancaster

  106

  116

  128

  106

  Camp Hill

  152

  150

  40

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  26

  20

  114

  76

  Latchmere House

  118

  124

  0

  0

  Brockhill

  0

  0

  34

  0

  Usk

  0

  0

  0

  80

  Channings Wood

  0

  0

  0

  1186

  Buckley Hall

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Total

  1,090

  804

  424

  842

  1 Following the decanting of a wing for refurbishment.

  Prisons (Unlocked Time)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the latest available figures, (ii) the figures for 1992, (in) those for 1988 and (iv) those for 1987 for the average amount of time prisoners spend unlocked on weekdays for each category C prison. [38749]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average amount of time prisoners spend unlocked on weekdays for each category C prison.
  The latest available figures are given in the attached table.
  Figures for 1987, 1988 and 1992 are currently unavailable and I will write to you when they are available.

  Establishment

  1995–96

  June 1996

  Acklington

  12.1

  12.1

  Aldington

  11.8

  11.2

  Ashwell

  15.5

  15.5

  Blantyre House

  15.3

  15.3

  Brockhill

  12.0

  12.3

  Camp Hill

  12.1

  12.1

  Channings Wood

  11.3

  11.3

  Coldingley

  13.0

  13.5

  Downview

  11.5

  11.5

  Erlestoke

  12.8

  11.1

  Everthorpe

  9.7

  8.4

  Featherstone

  10.3

  10.3

  Haverigg

  12.8

  12.8

  Highpoint

  13.0

  13.0

  Kirklevington

  n/a

  n/a

  Lancaster

  11.5

  11.5

  Latchmere House

  n/a

  n/a

  Lindholme

  15.2

  15.2

  Littlehey

  10.5

  10.5

  Mount

  12.2

  12.2

  622

  Establishment

  1995–96

  June 1996

  Ranby

  13.3

  13.0

  Risley

  10.9

  11.0

  Send

  12.8

  12.8

  Shepton Mallet

  12.0

  12.0

  Stafford

  9.5

  n/a

  Stocken

  12.5

  12.5

  Usk

  12.0

  12.0

  Verne

  14.5

  14.5

  Wayland

  12.0

  12.0

  Wealstun closed

  12.5

  11.4

  Wellingborough

  12.0

  12.0

  Whatton

  12.8

  12.8

  Wymott

  13.3

  12.3

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the past 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39149]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens; and, where appropriate, provide direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  Over the past year, my Department has shown its continued commitment to helping small businesses by taking further forward its wide-ranging programme of deregulation. Measures which have come into effect in this period include; the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Act 1995, which abolished the compulsory Sunday afternoon break for on-licensed premises and registered clubs and, subject to the restrictions on shop opening hours in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, permits off-licensees to sell alcohol from 10 am until 10.30 pm on Sundays; an order to relax certain controls on greyhound racing; an order introducing provisional special hours certificates for licensed premises and reinstating the hour lost to nightclubs at the start of summer time; an order to repeal the "long pull" offence of serving over-measures of alcohol; and an order to amend the law on gaming machines and betting office facilities to provide for, among other things, £10 all cash amusement-with-prizes machines and more jackpot machines in permitted premises.

  In addition, draft deregulation orders have been laid which will allow 16 and 17-year-olds on approved training schemes to work in the bars of licensed premises and extend betting office licences and bookmakers' permits to three years.

  In May we announced the Government's decisions on the fire safety scrutiny and issued a consultation document containing draft regulations to implement the outstanding fire safety aspects of the European Community framework and workplace directives. The aims of our work on fire safety have been to maintain necessary fire standards and

  623
  to meet our EC obligations in a way which minimises burdens on business.

  Many of the deregulatory measures which were given effect this year by the Home Office were started in the previous 12 months; the achievements of that period were given in my reply of 19 July 1995 to my hon. Friend.

  Since the beginning of the deregulation programme, 13 of the 38 Home Office regulations which impact on business have so far been repealed or amended.

  Further candidates for deregulation are under active consideration.

  Small businesses also continue to benefit from Home Office action on crime prevention. Our programme of introducing closed circuit television across the country is progressing well. On 21 June, I announced the results of the second CCTV challenge competition: 259 winning bidders are sharing the prize fund of over £17 million, in amounts ranging from £3,000 to £250,000. On the same day, I announced a further challenge competition, with £15 million available, for 1997–98. Many small businesses have benefited from reductions in crime following the introduction of CCTV cameras in their areas. Crime prevention guides for small retailers have been widely distributed to all business link shops and a large number of retail organisations.

  The Home Office and its agencies have signed the CBI's prompt payment code outlining good practice in handling payments. We are committed to improving our performance, and particularly recognise the impact of late payment on small suppliers. We have recently appointed a small business adviser and issued a new guidance booklet for suppliers which contains information on prompt payment, including a direct contact point for late payment complaints. It also includes information on business links and opportunities for small firms.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 67, how many interim awards have been made in each of the last three years to applicants by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and how long each applicant had been waiting when they received their interim awards. [39016]

  Mr. Maclean
  The board advises me that 6,492 interim awards were made in 1993–94, 4,885 in 1994–95 and 6,391 in 1995–96, the latter being a provisional figure.

  Interim awards are made in appropriate cases either at the instigation of the board, or on the applicant's request which may be received some time after the original application. Data on the period which had elapsed from the original application to an interim payment in each case are not readily available, but the board's records indicate that in the above cases the shortest period was five months and the longest 26 months.

  Landmark Education
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many employees of(a) the Prison Service and (b) his Department have been sent on courses run by Landmark Education; and if he will list the numbers in each grade in each case; [37998]
  624
  (2) what is the cost to public funds of sending employees of the Prison Service on courses run by Landmark Education to date; and what cost is projected for 1996–97 and 1997–98; [37999]

  (3) what inquiries have been made as to the links between Landmark Education and Erhard Seminar Training in the United States. [38000]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The information requested is not readily available from individual Prison Service establishments and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. There is no record of any member of Home Office staff outside Prison Service establishments attending any course run by Landmark Education over the past three years. No inquiries have been made about this organisation.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) contracts entered into with and (b) funds provided to (i) the Forum, (ii) the Breakthrough Foundation and (iii) Youth at Risk by (1) the Prison Service and (2) his Department; and what representations have been made by (i), (ii) and (iii) to (1) and (2). [38001]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The Home Office and its agencies have not had any contracts with, nor provided funds to, the Forum, the Breakthrough Foundation or Youth at Risk. In an organisation as large and diverse as the Home Office it is not possible to record every single approach by such organisations, but we are aware that the Prison Service has sent a representative to a Youth at Risk presentation and information from both Forum and Youth at Risk has been received by it in the form of mail-shots.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statistical forms issued to businesses by his Department indicating the number of each sent out. [38679]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: My Department does not issue any forms to businesses on a regular basis although ad hoc surveys of businesses are carried out from time to time. The last one to be carried out involving the issue of questionnaires was carried out on a voluntary basis in 1994. Some 850 questionnaires were issued to inform policy on the extent and circumstances of heavy goods vehicle theft.

  Fire Safety Cover
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will meet the Fire Brigades Union, hon. Members and other interested parties to discuss the problems of fire safety cover. [38942]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend would like to consider this request, but the hon. Member has not been specific enough about which hon. Members and the subject matter to be discussed or whether it is a general request or concerns a particular fire authority. However, on the position in respect of the hon. Member's own fire

  625
  authority my right hon. and noble Friend wrote to the hon. Member on 19 July.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed to the farm woodland premium scheme. [40043]

  Mr. Baldry
  The farm woodland premium scheme has been the subject of evaluations and a policy review. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have today laid before the House a report setting out the changes proposed; subject to approval by Parliament and the European Commission, most changes will take effect from next April. A consultation document will be issued shortly.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to allocate the 34 mecu of aid for United Kingdom beef farmers agreed by the Agriculture Council at its meeting on 24 to 26 June; and if he will make a statement. [40045]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Agriculture Ministers have agreed to distribute this money to beef producers in respect of the number of adult clean cattle marketed in the period 20 March to 30 June for slaughter for human

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  Number of visits

  Number of unsatisfactory visits

  Percentage unsatisfactory

  Number of visits

  Number of unsatisfactory visits

  Percentage unsatisfactory

  Number of visits

  Number of unsatisfactory visits

  Percentage unsatisfactory

  Slaughterhouses

  281

  4

  1.4

  313

  0

  0

  268

  2

  0.7

  Hunt kennels and knackeries

  265

  9

  3.4

  248

  13

  5.2

  213

  4

  1.9

  Rendering plants1

  13

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  11

  1

  9.1

  Incinerators1

  27

  1

  3.7

  32

  1

  3.1

  24

  4

  16.7

  1 Rendering plants and incinerators have to be specifically approved to handle SBOs; only a small number of such plants are so approved.

  These results demonstrate an overall continuing trend of improvement in the handling of SBMs since the intensive surveillance programme began in September 1995.

  It is disappointing that deficiencies continue to be found in small numbers of premises, and pressure is being maintained to improve the situation. However, the majority of the failings in SBM handling found were relatively mild, for example, problems with staining or with record keeping, which would not present a direct risk to public or animal health. There have been no instances of the most serious failing, of leaving spinal cord attached to carcases, since March 1996.

  The Meat Hygiene Service is responsible for enforcing the SBM controls in slaughterhouses in Great Britain. The agency has developed detailed new protocols for the application of SBM controls. It has also established arrangements for specific refresher training on SBM controls for all inspection staff, and introduced a programme of SBM audit to ensure that SBM controls are
  626
  consumption. We plan to issue forms to producers in the week beginning 5 August and begin payments in late September. Payments will be at a flat rate per animal, to be set once the number of valid claims has been determined. Firm evidence that the animals concerned were on their holding before 20 March and were marketed for slaughter no later than 30 June will be required. In addition to the £29 million—34 mecu—available to farmers under this one-off measure, supplementary payments worth up to £81 million will be made to farmers who received suckler cow and beef special premium for the 1995 scheme years. I welcome the further assistance that will thus be given to hard-pressed beef producers.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the state veterinary service's surveillance of the handling of specified offals in April, May and June; and if he will make a statement. [40079]

  Mrs. Browning
  The controls on specified bovine material, previously termed specified bovine offals, are central to the protection of public health from any risk from BSE. Full compliance with them is of paramount importance in combating the disease. They require the removal of all those tissues known potentially to harbour BSE infectivity from all cattle at slaughter.

  The state veterinary service carries out regular unannounced visits to all plants handling SBMs to monitor their compliance with the controls. Results of its surveillance visits in April, May and June are as follows:

  being fully complied with and properly enforced. This is in addition to the surveillance visits carried out by the SVS. To implement the enhanced supervision of SBM, over 300 meat inspection staff have been recruited by the MHS. This intense effort by the MHS to perfect the application of the existing SBM controls is reflected in these SVS surveillance results.

  Slaughterhouses face prosecution for significant breaches of the SBM controls, when sufficient evidence is available. At present, two plants have been successfully prosecuted and several more are under investigation with a view to prosecution.

  The SVS will continue regular unannounced visits to all plants handling SBMs. The MHS will continue to enforce rules most vigorously, and press for prosecutions where there is sufficient evidence to support a case.

  In future information on this subject will be available in the BSE enforcement bulletin which is to be published at the end of each month. Copies of the bulletin will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  627
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's estimate of the number of cattle with pre-clinical symptoms of BSE that have been slaughtered and entered the food chain. [32172]

  Mrs. Browning
  For the purpose of these calculations we have assumed that the risk of exposure of cattle to contaminated feed has not reduced beyond the level experienced in 1990. This is because the number of cases in cattle born in later years is still too small to make more accurate calculations. On the basis of recent modelling studies over 600,000 infected cattle which had not developed clinical symptoms may have been slaughtered for human consumption. The vast majority of these animals would have been born in 1988. It is precisely because we recognised that some pre-clinical cases would enter the human food chain that the SBO, now SBM, controls were introduced in 1989.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the European Commission was notified of Her Majesty's Government's decision to designate the thymus and intestine of calves under six months old as specified bovine offal; and what form that notification took. [35749]

  Mrs. Browning
  The amendment to the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations, which extended the specified bovine offal ban to include thymus and intestines from calves under six months of age, was notified to the Commission on 26 July 1994. The notification was made under the emergency provisions of EC directive 83/189, as amended, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action was taken to inform(a) other EU member states and (b) the European Commission of the United Kingdom's decisions and regulations put in place relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, with particular reference to public and animal health during (a) 1994, and (b) 1995. [35748]

  Mrs. Browning
  All Great Britain legislation relating to BSE which was put in place during 1994 and 1995 was notified to the Commission in accordance with EC directive 83/189, as amended, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the highest numbers of BSE cases at an individual farm in Lancashire and North Yorkshire since the epidemic began; and what percentage this represents of the cattle on the farm over that period. [37391]

  Mrs. Browning
  As at 18 July the highest number of cases on an individual farm, excluding dealers, is 44 for Lancashire and 93 for North Yorkshire. All the 44 cases were homebred; of the 93 cases, only 11 were homebred. Since the epidemic began, this represents 15.7 per cent. of the herd on the Lancashire farm and 22.1 per cent. of the herd on the North Yorkshire farm.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines his Department has produced governing the method of removal of the brains 628
  of cattle to prevent the spread of BSE into the human food chain; on what date these guidelines were published; what was the interval between publication and the inclusion of brain material as banned specified offal; and if he will make a statement. [37427]

  Mrs. Browning
  On 13 November 1989 the Bovine Offal Prohibition Regulations came into force which banned the brain and certain other offals for human consumption. Guidance was issued to local authorities on 14 June 1990 which advised MAFF considered that bovine head meat must be recovered from the intact skull before the brain was removed. The Agricultural Select Committee considered the issue of head splitting further and recommended that the harvesting of head meat before the removal of brain should be set down in legislation. The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 came into force on 12 March 1992 which prohibited the removal of the brain from the head of a bovine animal in a head boning plant except in an area which was free at all times from food intended for human consumption.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each occasion in the last two months in which his Department has consulted farmers directly about policy development concerning BSE and the beef crisis; and if he will make a statement. [37365]

  Mrs. Browning
  During May and June 1996 farming organisations were consulted on the following issues:

  issues

  3 May 1996

  Proposal for a mature beef assurance scheme

  6 June 1996

  Proposal for introduction of cattle passports

  7 June 1996

  Specified bovine materials (SBM) controls in abattoirs

  10 June 1996

  Feed recall scheme

  12 June 1996

  The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) Regulations 1996

  26 June 1996

  SBM Controls—treatment of particulate matter derived from SBM

  In addition, the Government have written to farmers on a number of occasions to update them on current measures and the Government/industry working group on animal traceability has met regularly during May and June.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of cattle that contracted BSE as a result of the failure of Tenderers to comply in the production, distribution and supply of rendered material with BSE-related control regulations since 1989. [31252]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: No such estimates are available. However, up to 1 July 1996 there have been 27,963 confirmed cases of BSE in animals born after the ruminant protein feed ban, which was introduced in July 1988.

  Epidemiological investigations carried out following the occurrence of BSE in animals born after the feed ban suggested that exposure was likely to be from a feed-borne source due to cross-contamination of feeding stuffs containing meat and bone meal at the feed mill, in transit or on farm.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures have been introduced to destroy bovine spongiform encephalopathy infectivity during gelatine purification, what are the arrangements for
  629
  ensuring these are implemented; and if he will make a statement. [33893]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: No new procedures have been introduced in the gelatine manufacturing process as the specified bovine materials controls in abattoirs ensure that none of the raw material from which gelatine is produced contains tissues; with detectable levels of BSE infectivity. Beyond this it is known that the standard manufacturing methods of gelatine will reduce the infectivity of artificially spiked samples which have BSE material added to them in experiments.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when and in what document, notification was given to(a) the European Commission and (b) standards institutions as listed in list 2 of EU directive 83/1895, EEC, following the United Kingdom Government's decision of 2 November 1994 to prohibit the consumption of the thymus and intestines of calves under six months old. [35470]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: The European Commission was notified on 26 July 1994. The notification was made under the emergency provisions of EC directive 83/189, as amended, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations. There was no requirement to send details of this notification to the standards institutions because it was not a standardisation measure.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 11 July Official Report, column 307, how many prosecutions or formal warnings have been issued to persons other than farmers in respect of breaches of specified bovine offal or animal feed regulations. [38197]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: Since 1 April 1995 when the national Meat Hygiene Service took over responsibility for enforcement of controls on specified bovine materials—SBM—in slaughterhouses, we are aware of two successful prosecutions for breaches of these rules. A number of further cases are being investigated with a view to prosecution if sufficient evidence is available. In addition, slaughterhouse operators are informed of any minor breaches of the SBM regulations by MHS officials or state veterinary service officials on an informal and on-going basis to allow them to review and improve their practice. No information on prosecutions for breaches of the specified bovine offal controls prior to 1 April 1995 are available centrally as the enforcement of these regulations then fell to local authorities.

  Several instances where mammalian protein has been detected in ruminant feed in feed mills are under investigation with a view to prosecution if sufficient evidence is available.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the annual report and accounts 1995–96 for the Intervention Board executive agency. [40075]
  630
  Mr. Baldry
  I am pleased to advise that the annual report and accounts 1995–96 has been published and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Biotechnology Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library copies of(a) the United Kingdom submissions to and (b) the final declarations of the international conference on biotechnology safety, held in Denmark from 22 July. [39736]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Beef (Cold Storage)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the amount of beef which is currently being kept in cold storage. [24943]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our estimate of the amount of raw beef in cold storage on 17 July in the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Tonnes

  In interventions stores

  22,000

  In Beef Stocks Transfer Scheme

  130,000

  From over 30 Month Cattle Scheme

  3,800

  Private unsaleable stock

  2500

  Total

  56,300

  1 Based on quantity claimed for and therefore includes stocks which may on investigation be ineligible and beef destroyed overseas or not yet returned to the UK.

  2 Based on expressions of interest in Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce Disposal Scheme.

  In addition, we estimate that about 65,000 tonnes of beef will be produced this month for UK consumption.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries that have banned imports of British beef in each year since 1980. [32190]

  Mrs. Browning
  Commission decision 96/239/EEC of 27 March 1996 provided that the UK shall not export from its territory, meat and meat products obtained from bovine animals in the UK. The list of countries given shows those with a ban on the import of British beef on the day before the introduction of the Commission decision. The month and year when the bans commenced are shown where available.

  Importing country

  Date of ban

  Algeria

  June 1990

  Argentina

  August 1991

  Bahrain

  —

  Belgium

  March 1996

  Bulgaria

  September 1994

  Canada

  March 1996

  China

  October 1990

  France

  March 1996

  Finland

  March 1996

  Germany

  March 1996

  Iran

  June 1990

  631

  Importing country

  Date of ban

  Iraq

  October 1994

  Italy

  March 1996

  Jamaica

  September 1991

  Japan

  July 1990

  Jordan

  September 1990

  Kazakhstan (CIS)

  August 1993

  Libya

  November 1990

  Lithuania

  April 1995

  Malaysia

  —

  Netherlands

  March 1996

  Philippines

  October 1994

  Portugal

  March 1996

  Russian Federation

  September 1993

  Saudi Arabia

  September 1990

  Spain

  March 1996

  Sweden

  March 1996

  Switzerland

  June 1990

  Syria

  August 1990

  Taiwan

  February 1990

  United Arab Emirates

  August 1990

  Uzbekistan

  —

  The following countries have also introduced, but subsequently lifted, a ban during the period in question:

  Chile

  Cyprus

  Egypt

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  State of Sarawak (Malaysia)

  Mauritius

  Morocco

  Oman

  Poland

  Qatar

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries currently exercising a ban on the importation of British beef. [28288]

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those countries which currently have in place restrictions on the import of beef meat or other beef products from the United Kingdom. [29619]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 9 and 16 May 1996]: I very much regret that the hon. Members have had to wait so long for a reply.

  Commission decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 provided that the UK shall not export to any country from its territory meat and meat products obtained from bovine animals slaughtered in the UK. The list of countries records those which placed a ban on imports of British beef before that date.

  Abu Dhabi

  Argentina

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Belgium

  632

  Benin

  Brazil

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  Chile

  Cyprus

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Finland

  France

  French Polynesia

  Gabon

  Germany

  Ghana

  Indonesia

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Japan

  Kazakhstan

  Kuwait

  Liberia

  Libya

  Malaysia

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Mayotte

  Morocco

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Peru

  Philippines

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Russia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Singapore

  Saudi Arabia

  South Africa

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Taiwan

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Vietnam

  Yemen

  Zaire

  In addition, Hong Kong introduced a ban on 28 March 1996.

  Forestry Commission Land (Dorset)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the plots of Forestry Commission land in Dorset which are(a) currently for sale and (b) being considered for sale; and in each case (i) what is the size of the plot, (ii) what consultation will be made in advance of the sale and (iii) how many representations he has received to date for and against the proposed sale; [38169]

  (2) if he will list the plots of land which have been sold by the Forestry Commission in Dorset in each of the last five years; and in each case (a) what was the size of the plot, (b) what consultation was made in advance of the sale and (c) how many representations he received for and against the sale. [38168]

  Mr. Boswell
  The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mrs. Diana Maddock, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Questions about the plots of Forestry Commission land, in Dorset, that are being considered for sale, as well as those that have been sold in the last five years. [38168 & 38169]
  There are no plots of Forestry Commission land on the market for sale in Dorset at present. However there are four cases which are being considered for sale and the details are as follows:

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Alders Coppice

  7.0

  Black Dog Plantation

  3.0

  Heathy Field Coppice

  4.7

  Bryanston Estate

  9.5

  which consists of the following group:

  Folly Clump

  1.5

  Four Acre Coppice

  2.5

  Lower and Higher Prensham

  3.0

  Beechy Clump

  2.5

  There have only been two sales completed within the last five years, and their details are as follows:

  Year sold

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  1992

  Blackwater Copse

  13.0

  1996

  Stapehill Wood

  3.0

  All properties, prior to sale, are notified in the Estates Gazette. The proposed sales of Alders coppice and Black Dog plantation were also notified to the local authority under the continued public access arrangements so that they could consider whether they wished to enter into an agreement for a continued public access after sale. In both cases, the local authorities declined the offers to enter into agreements.

  There have been no representations on any of the above cases.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his
  634
  Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39138]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aims to help them by providing sound economic conditions, keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative administrative and taxation burdens; and where appropriate provide direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  MAFF plays an active part in this process. We have appointed a small business Minister who regularly meets small business Ministers from other Departments. This helps to ensure that departmental policies take full account of the needs of small businesses. The rural White Paper published in October 1995 incorporated a number of proposals that will be of interest to small businesses. A progress report, which will be published in the autumn, is currently being prepared. Details of MAFF policy aims and objectives, many of which will be relevant to small businesses interests, are published in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board departmental report. A copy of the most recent version, which covers 1995, is available in the Library of the House.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the proprietor of a food business was given the right to require the officer of an enforcement authority who is minded to serve an improvement notice under section 10 of the Food Safety Act 1990 to furnish a written notice beforehand giving reasons. [38319]

  Mrs. Browning
  This is in line with the Government's policy to apply the enforcement procedures contained in section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 in all areas of regulatory activity where this is practicable.

  These procedures provide for problems to be ironed out a the earliest stage by giving the right to be warned before enforcement action is taken and a chance to make representations to challenge proposed enforcement action. They also require enforcers to give reasons for taking action and to explain how an appeal can be made.

  Enforcement officers may still take immediate action where they consider this to be necessary.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many improvement notices have been served under section 10 of the Food Safety Act 1990 in each year since that date. [38318]

  Mrs. Browning
  Under section 41 of the Food Safety Act 1990, local authorities, which are responsible for the enforcement of food safety law in the UK, are required to submit statistics to central Government detailing the work, including the number of improvement notices issued, which has been carried out. Data for those years for which complete data are available are as follows.

  Year

  Number of improvement notices issued in the UK

  1992

  41,641

  1993

  26,338

  635

  Year

  Number of improvement notices issued in the UK

  1994

  9,307

  1995

  5,679

  Scrapie
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received requesting assistance from the armed forces to hill farmers in(a) culling and (b) rounding up flocks of sheep infected with scrapie; and if he will make a statement. [32754]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have received no such requests in respect of scrapie.

  Sheep and Goats Order
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his Department ensured that his veterinary officials were instructed to take account of the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996. [39197]

  Mrs. Browning
  All state veterinary service staff and technical staff were informed of the forthcoming Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996 in early September 1995. At that time they were issued with draft guidance notes and instructions to provide copies of the final version, when available, in response to requests for information about the new order. Copies of the order and the final version of the guidance notes were issued to them in February 1996.

  Sheep
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason his Department's officials at Dover prevented consignments of sheep from being loaded on to the MV Cap Afrique on 3 July. [39196]

  Mrs. Browning
  The proposed sailing of the Cap Afrique on 3 July was postponed by the operator when he established that not all sheep in booked consignments were identified in the manner required by the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in sheep. [40046]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer to the statement I made to the House this afternoon.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which EU-approved abattoirs sheep exported to Spain for further fattening will be slaughtered; and if his Department is informed in advance of which EU-approved future consignments of sheep exported for further fattening are destined. [38410]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: There are no routine mechanisms in place for establishing or notifying in which abattoirs sheep may be slaughtered
  636
  after they have been transported to Spain for further fattening.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if ovines destined for further fattening unloaded from separate vehicles at Dover Port and re-loaded on to the MV Caroline, on 8 July all originated from the same holding and are being sent to the same consignee. [38415]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Four consignments of sheep for further fattening were loaded on to the MV Caroline on 8 July, originating from three holdings and consigned to three different destinations. The sheep were grouped according to their final destinations.

  Agriculture Council
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 22 to 23 July; and if he will make a statement. [40044]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I represented the United Kingdom at this Council. Unanimous agreement was reached on measures to reform the EU fruit and vegetable regime, and on agricultural prices and related measures for 1996–97. The Council also discussed recent developments on BSE.

  Agreement on the reform of the fruit and vegetable regime after 18 months of negotiation represented a significant further step in the reform of the EU common agricultural policy. The outcome is consistent with the objectives of the United Kingdom in as much as the reformed regime will reduce significantly the role of withdrawal and destruction of produce as instruments of market support. United Kingdom fruit and vegetable producers will stand to benefit from the reform measures in so far as they provide funds to promote the better marketing and processing of horticultural produce, and protect the future of specialised producer groups which are characteristic of the United Kingdom market.

  The 1996–97 agricultural price proposals were also agreed on a basis satisfactory to the United Kingdom. In the arable sector, the Council agreed to fix the 1997–98 rate of set-aside at 5 per cent., and to lift the possibility of penalty set-aside during that year. Set-aside arrangements are to be simplified through a merger of rotational and non-rotational set-aside at a uniform rate of 17.5 per cent. Separately, I obtained assurances from the Agriculture Commissioner that steps will be taken to permit the non-lucrative use of set-aside land by non-profit-making organisations such as charities. I welcome this as a sensible rationalisation of the set-aside rules which responds to public concerns.

  The Council also agreed that monthly increments for cereals going into intervention should be cut, as well as sugar storage refunds. Aid rates in the flax sector are to be cut by 7.5 per cent. for 1996–97 and a detailed examination carried out of future support arrangements for this sector on a non-discriminatory basis. An extension of the deadline for carryover of C sugar was agreed for the United Kingdom, a change which had been actively sought by the British sugar industry in order to reflect the longer processing campaign in the UK.
  637
  In the livestock sector, the Council placed particular emphasis on the need for urgent measures to help support the EU beef market this autumn because of continued difficulties in the wake of the BSE crisis; there will also be wider-ranging measures later in the year to reduce excess beef production and help producers adapt to changed market circumstances. The Council also committed itself to a reform of the milk regime with a review of the full range of options taking place in 1997. Mindful of the particular problems facing United Kingdom diary producers faced with the accelerated cattle slaughter scheme as part of the BSE eradication programme, the Commission gave welcome assurances on the flexible operation of milk quota leasing up to the end of the milk quota year at 31 March 1997.

  The Agriculture Commissioner confirmed that the costs of the prices package could be met within the agricultural guideline for 1996–97.

  Linked to the agreement on prices, the Council agreed upon revised income aid rates for hops, a limited extension of transport subsidies for Greece, and an increase in Portugal's sugar quota. The Council also adopted by qualified majority—Spain abstaining— arrangements for implementing agreements under GATT article XXIII and XXIV.6 in the rice sector. I was able to support these proposals. In addition, I obtained assurances from the Commission that early proposals would be made in respect of charges for pesticide evaluation and of uniform principles for authorising plant protection products.

  The Council also discussed the latest information regarding BSE. I have reported separately to the House on measures which I am taking in relation to sheep in the light of advice received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. I reported my intention in this regard to the Agriculture Council. The French Minister similarly informed the Council of certain health protection measures taken in France as a result of advice received from their equivalent scientific committee. The Council unanimously endorsed the Commission's view that the right way forward was to put all available scientific information before the appropriate specialist committee with a view to establishing common EU rules for the removal of certain tissues of ruminant animals from the human and animal food chain. I welcomed this approach.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each publicly supported committee, sub-committee or other body whose responsibilities include spongiform encephalopathies (i) the remit, (ii) the members, with details of their expertise and the date of their appointment and (iii) for each body each research project that has been recommended by such a body for Government funding, together with the amount of money allocated. [20889]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: There are a number of publicly supported committees on spongiform encephalopathies. I am placing in the Library of the House details of the committees which are listed by the organisation or Department responsible.

  Beef Consumption
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of beef consumption in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Belgium and if) Holland in each of the last six weeks. [25921]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: According to a consumer survey conducted on behalf of the Meat and Livestock Commission, overall beef consumption in the UK in the four weeks to 7 April was down 20 per cent. on the same period last year; down 26 per cent. in the four weeks to 5 May; down 27 per cent. in the four weeks to 2 June; and down 24 per cent. in the four weeks to 30 June, the latest available figure.

  For other member states, precise information on beef consumption is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that beef consumption in France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Holland, and across the EU, is well below normal levels.

  Quarantine Kennels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 528, what progress he has made in respect of a standard of animal care in quarantine kennels; and if he will make a statement. [32809]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: I held a meeting on 13 May with representatives of the Quarantine Kennels Owners Association and the Quarantine Kennels Professional Association. A follow-up meeting between the associations and my officials was held on 13 June. We agreed that I would write to authorised quarantine kennels inviting those running them to undertake to abide by the Agriculture Departments of Great Britain's voluntary code of practice on the welfare of dogs and cats in quarantine premises. State veterinary service staff would check compliance with the code during their regular visits. Premises in respect of which an undertaking is given to comply with the code, and where we are satisfied that they are doing so will be identified as such in the Government's literature for potential importers.

  Computerised Cattle Database
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with National Milk Records about the development of a national computerised cattle database as part of the bovine sponiform encephalopathy eradication programme. [32935]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: My officials are in regular contact with representatives of National Milk Records concerning animal identification and traceability. National Milk Records is also represented on the joint industry/Government working group on animal identification and this group is being involved in plans for the introduction of a national cattle movement database.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has made of computerised cattle databases in other European Union member states. [32940]
  639
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: In developing plans for the introduction of a national cattle movement database in Great Britain, we are looking at the databases in Northern Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands.

  Cattle Disposal
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the distortion of the market caused by the discrepancy between liveweight and deadweight arrangements under the cattle disposal scheme. [28870]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: We have received a number of representations about the effect on marketing patterns of the coefficient for converting payments from liveweight to a deadweight basis under this scheme. Any change to the rate is a matter for the European Commission.

  Contaminated Feed
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department last received representation from the French authority about continued export of contaminated feed to that country. [35669]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: The UK told the Commission and other member states of the steps it was taking to prohibit the use of ruminant MBM in ruminant feed in 1988, but it was for other member states to introduce similar domestic restrictions on the use of a material in free circulation and for the Commission to regulate intra-Community trade in this material. At that time MBM could legitimately be exported to other member states as under single market rules it was in free circulation for use in pig and poultry feed.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into links between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the use of organophosphates in cattle; and what conclusions have been reached. [35776]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 23 July 1996,Official Report, column 262.

  Rabies
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is able to certify the United Kingdom as a rabies-free country. [36877]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: Yes. The recent isolated case of European bat lyssavirus 2 does not affect our international status as a rabies-free country. The international zoosanitary code of the office international des epizooties—OIE—defines a rabies free country as one in which
  "no case of indigenously acquired rabies has been confirmed in man or any other species during the past two years; however this status would not be affected by the isolation of European Bat Lyssavirus (EBL1 or EBL2)."

  Although following the bat rabies case it was not possible to sign official veterinary certification for exports
  640
  for dogs and cats and some other rabies susceptible animals to some countries, this was because the official certification they required contained health assurances on rabies which, because of their specific wording, could no longer be met. All these countries have now been contacted and trade has resumed with those countries to which we export significant numbers of such animals. We are continuing to press those countries which have so far failed to respond.

  Environmental Management
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what programmes his Department has introduced to promote good environmental management by farmers; and how many similar programmes were in existence in 1979. [37634]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The Department has numerous programmes in place to promote good environmental management.

  These include: free one-to-one advice and publications on pollution and conservation; voluntary incentive schemes to promote environmentally friendly farming and public enjoyment of the countryside; measures to supplement statutory controls on pesticides, including an advisory pesticides forum on responsible pesticide use and a pesticides minimisation initiative; and capital grants for certain works to benefit the environment.

  The Department also has an extensive research and development programme to underpin these programmes.

  Further details are given in chapters 2, 3 and 7 of MAFF's 1996 departmental report, which is available in the Library of the House.

  The Department has greatly expanded its environmental programmes since 1979, in particular through the introduction of voluntary incentive schemes which date from the mid-1980. Voluntary schemes to ensure the safety and efficacy of pesticides were replaced by statutory arrangements in the mid-1980s.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what United Kingdom authority has responsibility for statutory regulations governing live cargo while at sea; and at what point that responsibility ceases when animals are transported across the North sea. [38413]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: A considerable number of provisions, including EU regulations cover controls on the transport of animals, their welfare, and the responsibility for enforcement. Some requirements are placed on the member state of departure, which may be extended if the vessel or aircraft concerned is owned by nationals of that member state, and some on the receiving member state. Within each member state it may be a matter for national government, in one form or another, or a local authority to enforce. All these factors would have to be considered, as would the nature of any breach, when deciding respective responsibilities on journey across the North sea.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list all export health certificates used for trade between the United Kingdom,
  641
  Northern Ireland and EU member states between 1991 and 1996 until the implementation of the beef export ban for cattle exported (a) for further fattening and (b) for slaughter; [38417]

  (2) what certification is required in respect of cattle exported from (a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland for immediate slaughter. [38418]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The certificates used for exports between 1991 and 1996 specifically for (a) production cattle (further fattening) and (b) slaughter cattle from Great Britain to another member state were certificates EC 56 and EC 57 respectively. These and the equivalent certificates for exports from Northern Ireland were based on the model certificates laid down in directive 64/432. As a result of the export ban no cattle are currently exported from the United Kingdom.

  Cattle (Export Health Certificates)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he took to ensure that animals exported with further fattening export health certificates would be slaughtered in EU-approved abattoirs. [38409]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Responsibility for ensuring that animals exported for further fattening are slaughtered in EC slaughterhouses rests with the member state of destination.

  Chinchillas
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to review the welfare of chinchillas which are bred for fur; and if he will make a statement; [38791]

  (2) which legislation regulates the commercial breeding of chinchillas for fur. [38790]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: As far as I am aware, there are no enterprises breeding chinchillas for fur in this country. If there were, the welfare of the animals concerned would be protected by the general provisions of part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which make it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress, and relevant subordinate legislation. The Council of
  642
  Europe recommendation on the welfare of fur animals, which contains specific provisions relating to the welfare of chinchillas, is to be reviewed shortly. My officials will be participating in this process but I expect those delegations from countries with first-hand experience of breeding chinchillas for fur to have the major input into that particular part of the review.

  Food Infectivity
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent research his Department has evaluated into changes in infectivity of food over time. [36936]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The Department supports research which will lead to an increased understanding of the contamination, growth and survival of food poisoning organisms in foods. In addition, the Department funds surveillance studies to provide a greater understanding of the incidence and types of food poisoning organisms found in foods.

  Food Chain Regulations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made on the extent to which his Department's regulations relating to the food chain are currently enforced; and what assessment he has made of related risk factors over a five-year period. [36935]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: Local authorities have the main responsibility for enforcing regulations on food and are required to make regular returns to central Government giving details of their food law enforcement activity. MAFF, through its agencies, the Meat Hygiene Service and ADAS, has direct enforcement responsibilities for enforcement of hygiene requirements in licensed fresh meat plants and on-farm milk production. Enforcement action under these arrangements is carefully monitored and where queries arise appropriate follow-up action is taken.

  Risk assessment is the responsibility of the relevant enforcement officers. Guidance on this is given in Food Safety Act codes of practice and other guidance issued by the Government. The relevant enforcement officers conduct these risk assessments and use the results in drawing up their inspection programmes of food premises. In addition, the Government are funding a major study into the causes of infectious intestinal disease. This includes the identification of a wide range of factors associated with foodborne infection.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of Manchester
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received notification from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informing him that the Duke of Manchester has been convicted at the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud and three counts of wire fraud and was sentenced, on 6th June 1996, to 33 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by three years supervised release.

BBC World Service: Restructuring
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the BBC's World Service is in jeopardy as a result of the BBC Director General's current restructuring proposals.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, no. Sir Christopher Bland, Chairman of the BBC, repeated the assurances on quality and financial arrangements given to us earlier when he met my right honourable friend Malcolm Rifkind this morning. It has been agreed that a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office/World Service working group, with access to independent advice, will be set up to address the concerns expressed in many quarters. The group will report its conclusions to the Foreign Secretary and the Chairman of the BBC, who will meet again in October.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that information, but is she prepared to delay any action that may affect the extent and integrity of the news service provided by the BBC World Service from Bush House until the governors and management have had sufficient time to reconsider the implications? Perhaps both Houses of Parliament can debate what emerges when they reassemble in October. Can my noble friend find the time for perhaps a one-and-a-half hour debate in each House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is aware that I am extremely sympathetic to what he has said. However, it is not for me to decide what debates are held in this House. The decision taken this morning by my right honourable friend to set up a working group comprising experts from the field of
1372
journalism and public life, which will report to the Foreign Secretary and Chairman of the BBC, who in turn will meet in October, is an indication that there will be no sudden changes and that the governors and the management will have a chance to consider what the working group has put to the Foreign Secretary and the Chairman of the BBC.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the Minister ask the working group to reconsider the fact that, whereas now the head of the World Service is a member of the board of management, which is the supreme body of management in the BBC under the Director General, under the present plans he will no longer be a member of the board of management? That causes concern to some noble Lords who have knowledge of the bureaucratic workings of the BBC.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand very well what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said. As a former member of the BBC General Advisory Council, he will not be surprised to know that I have a good deal of sympathy with the view he has just expressed. If I may, I shall refer the matter to the Foreign Secretary, because the discussion that is to take place, and the fact that we are going to involve independent experts from journalism and public life, should ensure that the real value of the World Service—which I am privileged to experience as well as anyone—will be understood a good deal better by October than it seems to have been up to now.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in view of the popularity of the BBC World Service not only among foreigners but expatriates and British nationals who travel abroad, it would be sheer folly to interrupt the service? It has a worldwide reputation and consequently any alteration of the service, whether by bureaucracy or whatever, would be detrimental.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I well understand my noble friend's great affection for the BBC World Service. It is the service that I tune into most mornings, like many of your Lordships. But it is right that an organisation like the BBC should look at its management, and that includes the World Service. I am not against having management reviews. I could not be against it having carried out some myself. But I should like my noble friend and all noble Lords to understand that the BBC World Service now broadcasts in 43 foreign languages—many more than 17 years ago, and more than any other major international broadcaster. There is a constant process of commencing new language services. Sometimes it means that alterations are made as priorities change. Since 1990 there have been six new services. The Macedonian Service was launched in January of this year. Our language services are re-broadcast by over 900 local stations around the world. This is not in any sense the end of the World Service, but we must use all of the resources that we have to provide the best possible service that we can across the world, and even for those who may listen to it here.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as a former accounting officer of the Diplomatic Service, does the Minister share my hope that the outcome of the working party's deliberations will ensure that the quality, viability, audibility and spread of the BBC World Service are maintained and improved, and that the working relationship between the Foreign Office and the World Service—which I always found extremely satisfactory—is in no way impaired by these management changes?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. It is of interest that the World Service has benefited from investment, even when the noble Lord was our Permanent Secretary. There has been an investment of £166 million which has greatly improved the audibility and efficiency of the World Service. We did not stop at that investment programme. A new £29 million relay station is nearing completion in Thailand, and there is to be another station in Oman funded through PFI which is worth about £30 million. The annual support to the BBC World Service runs at about £169 million. These are big sums of money. We must get value for money, but we must have a good World Service.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble friend give an assurance that no irrevocable change in the organisation of the World Service will be carried out before the working group has reported?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that has been the intention of my right honourable friend in calling for the setting up of the working group with independent advice. I am quite certain that that is the intended outcome.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has said about the need for management reviews from time to time. Indeed, I was once involved in a management review of the BBC World Service. It was a review which recommended an increase in spending to improve audibility. Does the Minister agree that management reviews require proper consultation after they have taken place? While I welcome the decision to set up a working group, will that working group examine the question of how the Government will ensure that, under the proposals made by the Director General and Chairman of the BBC, grant-in-aid funding will be spent efficiently and transparently on the World Service without subsidising domestic news and current affairs? I believe that that is a very important question.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed, it is an important question. Although I was not present at the meeting this morning, I am certain that it is one that my right honourable friend asked of the Chairman of the BBC. We have received assurances about quality because of the very special nature of the World Service, and that it will be unaffected by the new arrangements. There is to be a clear separation between grant-in-aid funded and other activities, and that will be maintained.
1374
We want to be totally satisfied that in practice that is what happens and will continue to happen. I think I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does my noble friend share the regret that I and some of my colleagues feel that that task should have been done by the Governors of the BBC and that the Secretary of State should not have had to appoint a special committee to replace a body whose responsibility it is to deal with these matters?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are many lessons to be learned from all of this with the benefit of hindsight, which sadly none of us has. We have now to ensure that the World Service will get on with doing its marvellous job, and that it is enabled to do so by the right sort of management on the part of those who are employed and those who act as governors.

Atmospheric Emissions: Tall Chimneys
2.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether recent advances in technology make it unnecessary to build high chimneys for discharging emissions from factories and plants in respect of particular processes in certain industries.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, chimneys are needed in order to disperse any atmospheric emissions which cannot reasonably be controlled in other ways. The height of any particular factory chimney will depend on calculations which take into account a number of factors, including improvements in technology and quality of the air in the area.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend for his reply. if pollution of the air can now be controlled in certain processes—for example, modern incineration and recycling of refuse—without the need for tall chimneys, can that be turned to the public's advantage by adapting regulations relating to industrial buildings so that there will be fewer excrescences scarring our landscape and so that new factories can more easily harmonise with their surroundings?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that where it is possible, it is obviously better to have smaller chimneys. Where there are technological improvements those factors will be taken into account when deciding the height of the chimney which is necessary. Even after many of the cleaning processes have been undertaken, it is necessary to ensure that any pollutants, such as there are, are dispersed in the air and away from human beings. A great deal depends on the lie of the surrounding land, and the emissions from the chimney.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am as baffled by the portent of the Question as he showed he was by his answer? The Question seems to be very Delphic. Will the Minister comment, because I am sure that he has been given notice by his noble friend of what this is all about, upon which particular factories and plants are referred to in the Question, what processes are referred to, and which are the "certain industries" referred to? We greatly look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know what has come over the noble Lord, Lord Williams, this afternoon. He says that he cannot understand the Question. Well, I am very sorry for him. I understood it perfectly. Perhaps I can explain in terms of one syllable. My noble friend is worried, because he thinks that large chimneys affect the visual amenity. He asks whether it would not be nice if we could have smaller chimneys. My reply was that if the technological improvements in dealing with emissions are such that we can have smaller chimneys, then we will have them.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, given the fact that none of the reasons for high chimneys applies to Battersea Power Station, can those chimneys be taken down now?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not too familiar with the details of individual places. I shall find out about what my noble friend refers to, but my guess is that it is a listed building.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that most modern factories do not have any chimneys? Is not that an end to be very much applauded?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness must go to some pretty funny factories if they do not have any chimneys. Most of the factories I see have some form of process, whether it is heating or manufacturing, and most of them require to get rid of the emissions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in order to assist the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the modern plant built in south-east London for the incineration and efficient recycling of municipal waste, to which a number of us and Members of another place were invited about four weeks ago, where we were told that in future, due to the great technological advances, tall chimneys, like the one there, will not be necessary?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, understands that question. I am glad that my noble friends went to the place to which I, too, have been. It is a remarkable building. There are enormous technological improvements which enable there to be fewer emissions from chimneys. The chimney has to be high enough to enable the emissions to be dispersed in the atmosphere so as not to harm human beings.

Teachers: Special Needs Training
2.47 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans are being made to rectify the shortfall of trained teachers of children with severe learning difficulties.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, local education authorities are responsible for ensuring that teachers are equipped to meet the needs of children in their area. The DfEE and the Teacher Training Agency are considering how we might improve training for all teachers of children with special educational needs in the light of a report by the Special Educational Needs Training Consortium. Priority has been given to training in severe learning difficulties in allocating money under the grants for education support and training programme. Next year, money will be protected for this area and a small number of other areas of high priority.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful Answer. Does he agree that the lack of a dynamic career structure for teachers of children with severe learning difficulties acts as a disincentive to them to take the special courses which are required and to seek employment in that area of work? Can he suggest how the Government might be able to persuade such teachers to undertake the training, for their careers to become, as it were, more productive, in what is perhaps the most important area of special needs education which at the moment appears woefully to be underfunded.
Lord Henley: My Lords, before necessarily accepting what the noble Lord says about the career structure for those involved in special needs education, I should want further evidence. There is no reason why career prospects for teachers with experience in SEN should be less good than those for other teachers. Teachers who teach children with special educational needs qualify for an extra pay point. Many qualify for a second extra pay point if they have further training or extra qualifications. A much higher proportion of teachers in special schools—that is, those dealing with severe learning difficulties, in the main—is on the higher points of the pay spine than other teachers. In the light of a recent report to the Secretary of State I am aware of concerns that there are a number of LEAs which will not spend money to train teachers to move into SEN training, which is the important point at which to look. We have consulted widely on that report, and we hope to be able to announce measures to address some of those concerns in the near future.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the teaching of children with severe learning difficulties is becoming more demanding and complex? Does he further agree that there is a widening gap between the possible help and the available help to such children and that there is no local solution to this

1377
national problem? What is required is a national response by the Government to ensure that such children are helped by fully trained teachers.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is one of the reasons why we funded the review by the Special Educational Needs Training Consortium into the systems in place for the training of teachers of children with SEN. As I made clear in my Answer, we are considering the recommendations in detail with the teacher training organisation and we will be responding to them in the near future.
I must remind the noble Lord that in the end it is for the LEAs and not the Government to ensure that their staff have the appropriate skills, knowledge and understanding to deal with the needs of all the pupils in their care.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if there is indeed a shortage of teachers who are adequately trained to teach mentally handicapped children, will the Government consider reversing their present policy of encouraging local services to frustrate parents who wish to place their mentally handicapped children in special schools and, instead, actively encourage such schools with all their well known advantages of scale and effect?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may assure my noble friend that we have no such policy. Obviously, we wish to see as many children as possible integrated into mainstream schools. However, we have always made it clear that parental choice in the matter should be observed. If parents wish their child to attend a special school that policy should be pursued as far as possible. It would be wrong to say that we had a policy of actively encouraging or forcing LEAs to push all children into mainstream schools.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has always been a shortage of specialist teachers of children with special learning difficulties and that no one has done anything about that? Is it not the case that the Minister has given the usual response by putting the responsibility onto the local education authorities? I recently wrote to the Minister about the matter and I agree that the Government do a great deal as regards the shortage of maths teachers, science teachers, modern languages teachers and so forth. Therefore, why cannot they do something about these specialist teachers? Will the Minister say what is being done in particular about the training of teachers for deaf-blind children?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's final point, I should prefer to write to him. However, as regards his more general point that the Government have done nothing, I wish to make it clear that we have done a great deal. As I have made clear, under the GEST programme we have allocated money specifically for the training of teachers of children with SEN. In recent years, £10 million a year has been supported and priority has been given to those with severe learning difficulties in allocating money under GEST for 1996–97. That money will be protected for SLD and other priorities in the following years.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Government's policy is that there should be parental choice? Is he aware that some areas which have good schools for children with special educational needs are determined that children must go to those schools even though the parents may wish them to go to a normal school?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously every LEA has a slightly different priority in terms of how much integration it wants. However, I can confirm that the Government believe that parental choice should receive a high priority in considering the needs of the child. That requirement was included in the 1993 Act and it is clear that parental choice should always be observed.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it true that in 1997–98 the DfEE is proposing to cease the GEST funding grant for the training of SEN specialists and replace it, together with two other grants, with a combined SEN grant? If so, we are informed at paragraph B.39 of a DfEE circular that the combined grant is likely to be less than the SEN-related grants for 1996–97. Why should the total be less than the sum of the parts?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, next year money for severe learning difficulties and other priorities will be protected.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will it be cut and will it be lower than the current year?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, it will be protected.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend have the estimate of the number of such teachers who are needed in England and Wales and can he say how many are available?
Lord Henley: My Lords, according to our surveys, about half the number of teachers of children with severe learning difficulties have a specific severe learning difficulties qualification. Many of the other teachers will have other relevant and specific training and other skills which they can bring to the classroom. However, I do not believe that it is necessarily right that all teachers of children with severe learning difficulties should go on lengthy specialist courses. As I made clear, we believe that other teachers can bring different qualities which complement those of the teachers with specialist training.

Overseas Aid: Discussions with NGOs
2.55 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with United Kingdom-based overseas aid development charities and voluntary organisations on the future of the Government's overseas aid and development programme.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of the non-governmental organisations to discuss development issues. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met a wide-ranging group of such NGOs on 23rd January. I had a follow-up meeting with them on 16th May. Further such meetings are planned for later this year. Individual meetings on specific issues are held whenever necessary, such as the meeting last week on Sudan and the Great Lakes Regions.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept our warm and genuine congratulations on her seventh anniversary today as Minister for Overseas Development?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Judd: My Lords, will she also accept our sadness at the fact that her obvious and consistent humanitarian concern has repeatedly been undermined by her senior colleagues in an aid budget which is down by almost 50 per cent. as a percentage of gross national product since they came to office in 1979?
Has the Minister studied the recent UNDP human development report, which demonstrates that the sustained and successful economic and social development of countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and China has been based on a strong partnership between government and the private sector, with government giving priority to land reform, education, health and other social infrastructure and to the redistribution of wealth to reduce the gap between poor and rich? What lessons do the Government draw from that? Will they now discuss with NGOs and others how those lessons can be applied elsewhere?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his kind congratulations. Seven years may seem a long time, but they have passed in a flash and I am game for at least seven more.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sad about the actual amounts of money because during those seven years I have seen that what counts is what one does with money. It is simply no good throwing money at many of the problems of the developing world. What is important is how one applies the money. Indeed, the amount has increased in real terms and certainly the NGOs, which in 1994–95 received £185 million as compared with £65 million in 1989–90, know full well that we will back worthwhile projects wherever they arise.
As regards the UNDP human development report, as I have already told the noble Lord, Lord Judd, we support its main thrust. The importance of human development as an end in itself and as one of the means to increasing incomes is fundamental to our work. That is why the ODA is committed to promoting human
1380
development in order to improve the quality of life of people in poorer countries. That, indeed, is one of the four central aims of the ODA' s work.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the record of Her Majesty's Government is excellent and that we are one of the leaders in the EU as regards overseas aid? Does she further agree that it is a mistake merely to look at government intervention and that we must also look at private enterprise intervention, which has been extremely high because we have a sound economy in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is once again right.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: She means it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord that I do mean it. This country has more than 1 per cent. of GNP going on private investment. It is the private investment which can take on from the fundamental work of government investment through the development programme. If there were only government development programmes, those countries would never make changes and alleviate the poverty about which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I are so deeply concerned. That is why there must be a contribution from the private sector as well as from governments across the world which will make it a safer and less unhappy world in which to live.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the main issues about which the NGOs are campaigning at present is the issue of landmines? Does she not agree that Britain could show a lead to the world and show its disgust of those weapons by taking a unilateral step and banning the production of landmines in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, nobody who has walked through wards of limbless children in Angola, as I have, can be in any doubt that landmines should be done away with as soon as that is possible. But it would be both short-sighted and naÏve to take unilateral action. We must get landmines out of the system of weaponry but we should also like to see many other weapons out of that system. But let us be realistic and carry on with the excellent demining work which is done by so many, both in the voluntary sector and with the help of the services in this country. That is making a great difference to people in lands which have been mined.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Lindsay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE).

Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of yesterday be now considered; and that the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon tomorrow; That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session; That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages; That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill
3.3 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
When I moved the Motion suspending Standing Orders last Thursday, I indicated that I hoped that agreement through the usual channels might be reached to proceed with the remaining stages of the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill before the Summer Recess.
At that time, I undertook that, in the event that such agreement could not be reached, we would not invite the House to proceed further with the Bill without providing a further opportunity for your Lordships to decide how this House would wish to proceed.
It is with the greatest regret that I must report to your Lordships that there is no usual channels agreement. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will agree that in keeping with the assurance which I gave last week, I am inviting your Lordships to decide whether or not this House is content to proceed today with the Third Reading of the Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Howe explained on Second Reading and again yesterday, there are pressing and substantive reasons why the Bill should be enacted before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess. As your Lordships know, the Bill seeks to rectify a defect
1382
in the arrangements for the printing of statutory instruments which could give rise to possible technical defences in proceedings for breaches of such legislation. If the Bill is not passed, the Government are advised that there is a very real risk of the courts being obstructed by needless and contrived argument as to the validity and evidential status of printed copies of instruments. That legal advice shows clearly that there could even be a possibility of defendants being acquitted on that technicality alone.
At the very least, if challenged, statutory instruments would need to be proved specifically in court. That would represent a serious obstacle to the efficient administration of justice throughout the Summer Recess and until the Bill was enacted. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it really would not be very responsible of this House to allow that risk to persist longer than is strictly necessary unless there were compelling reasons to do so.
I fear that noble Lords opposite have not, either in the earlier proceedings on the Bill or in discussions through the usual channels, put forward any cogent argument relating to the provisions of the Bill as to why the House should not proceed in this way. They appear to wish to delay the Bill on one ground alone: simply because it seems to them that if they manage to do so they will hold up implementation of a government policy on which this Bill has absolutely no bearing whatever.
I have endeavoured—and there is clearly a severe deficiency in my capacities in that regard—to explain to noble Lords opposite that that is so. Indeed, they persist in the erroneous belief that without this legislation being passed the privatisation of HMSO cannot be completed. That is actually not true. As I have said, the Bill has no bearing on that privatisation. It merely addresses a legislative defect which, now it has come to light, I submit to your Lordships it would be wholly irresponsible not to rectify because of the potentially damaging consequences for the administration of justice. Therefore, failure to pass the Bill would result in quite significant additional costs in the printing of statutory instruments which might in due course result in a higher cover price. I know that that is something which noble Lords on all sides of the House would regret.
I understand that noble Lords opposite feel a sense of outrage about this development or the way in which events have developed. I should like to say with the greatest sincerity at my command that I regret deeply that that is so. I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept that I have entirely fulfilled the obligations which I felt I was under and, indeed, have done my best to give advance warning to the leaders of the two main opposition parties about my intentions.
I hope that they will recognise that in another place the entire proceedings on the Bill took less than two hours. In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House, only two noble Lords spoke other than my noble friend. In Committee yesterday only two amendments were tabled and one of those was not moved. I am not surprised about that because I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that it is not the habit of

1383
this House or, indeed, the parties opposite to encourage the Government to continue to break the law. Therefore, as Leader of your Lordships' House, and in spite of being fully aware of the absolute need to preserve cordial co-operation between the usual channels, without which it is difficult for this House to proceed in the way that it traditionally has, I must ask your Lordships with the greatest regret to consider conducting and proceeding with business on which there is no agreement through the usual channels.
I hope that the House will feel that the considerations which I have outlined with as much clarity as I am able will lead the House to judge that it is right to proceed with the Third Reading of this Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me and agree that the Bill should be read today a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise to oppose the suggestion that the House should now proceed with Third Reading of this Bill; not only that, but I propose to divide the House on the issue. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is absolutely right, there is a deep sense of outrage on this side of the House in relation to the way in which the Government have behaved in the matter.
The noble Viscount has enunciated this afternoon a novel constitutional doctrine; namely, that the usual channels work. They should work and, indeed, he is in favour of them working, except of course when he comes to the conclusion that the Opposition's argument in relation to a Bill, and the way in which they are approaching it, is not one which the Government think appropriate.
If we are in a rush in relation to the Bill, it is because the Government did not introduce it early enough. Indeed, I might have a word to say in that respect. I see several nods of heads on the other side. We were told last night that this point arose as long ago as the middle of last April. If we are running against the time limit now in view of the House being in Recess as from tomorrow, it is not the responsibility of the Opposition; it is the responsibility of the Government. There is no obligation whatever on the part of an opposition to assist the Government to get their business through.
I have to point out to the House that not only has there been no agreement through the usual channels to truncate the timetable specified in the Companion to the Standing Orders, in particular as regards the time needed between the Report stage and Third Reading, but also it is now being done not just without the agreement of the Opposition but specifically against our wishes. I hope that the House will accept that I am not one who usually indulges in great procedural wrangles simply for the sake of so doing. However, I have to tell the House that not only are the Opposition outraged about this, but I personally do not think that this is the way in which governments ought to behave in this House.
Perhaps I may remind the House of a little of the background involved. On Thursday last the Lord Privy Seal moved a Motion. The Motion was that Standing
1384
Order 38 and Standing Order 44 should be suspended until the House rose for the Summer Recess. Let us just consider what was said in that Motion. The noble Viscount said:
"I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion is to make it easier to arrange a number of items of business which have usual channels' agreement. At this stage in the Session, I am advised that it has not been unusual for the House to agree to such a Motion which allows for greater flexibility in the arrangement of the Order Paper and the consideration of leg islation".—[Official Report, 18/7/96; col. 1001.]
That is true. If it is agreed between the usual channels, it is indeed a most sensible Motion to move. However, at that point, I rose to my feet and said:
"I do not wish to detain the House long on this Motion; nor do I wish to move a formal amendment to it. But the Leader of the House will know that going through the House at the moment is a Bill called the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill. He will also know that … the Opposition … are not prepared to see the proper time limits on that Bill truncated in the way set out in the Motion.
Therefore, … while I do not wish to amend the Motion formally, I wish to have the expressed consent and acceptance of the Leader of the House to the fact that discussions on the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill are continuing within the usual channels. If they are successful, no more will be heard from me. But if they are not successful, it will be necessary for the Leader of the House to come back to the House in relation to that particular Bill and ask for a Motion in like terms to the one which he is moving now".
Well, we are still waiting for a Motion to truncate the time limits on this Bill. However, the noble Viscount has not put down a Motion to that effect this afternoon; what he has done, presumably, is to use the Motion that he passed last week in order to sweep it up in that all-purpose piece of legislation.
Following that exchange of last week, we agreed to take the Committee stage of the Bill yesterday; and, indeed, we did so. We also accepted that the Report stage should be taken formally thereafter in accordance with the terms of the Companion to the Standing Orders. We could have objected to that course of action but we did not do so. At 6.30 yesterday evening it emerged via the noble Earl, Lord Howe (who is the Minister in the House in charge of the Bill), that the Leader of the House intended to move that the Bill be now read a third time immediately after Question Time today. Understandably, there was a strong reaction on the Floor of the House last night as a result of that information.
In view of the history of the matter I have to tell the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—and I pick my words carefully—that, regrettably, we shall have to read the fine print of what he tells us with somewhat greater care than we thought necessary in the past.
However, quite apart from that, the affair raises some serious issues. The Government say that the Bill is nothing to do with privatisation. I do not happen to believe that. There is no point in the Leader of the House saying that he does not believe that our arguments have any validity. We are perfectly entitled to press those arguments. Indeed, I justified that during the Second Reading of the Bill only the other day. If it has nothing to do with privatisation, what is the rush? The Government say—and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said it last night—that they can manage perfectly well without the Bill, although that may cause some

1385
inconvenience. Again, I ask, why the rush? We know that this legal problem became known in April of this year. If it was so urgent, why was the Bill not introduced at that time?
More importantly—and this is the substance of what I have to say to the House—why are the Government now prepared to tear up the good relations that enable this House to function properly? I can recall no previous example of the Government behaving in such a way; nor can any of my more senior colleagues whose memories go back further than mine; nor, indeed, can any of the Clerks who conducted some research into the point. This is an unprecedented display of government high-handedness and it is totally unacceptable to the Opposition. It is perfectly in line with the Government's attitude towards the Recruitment and Assessment Services, which we shall be debating tomorrow. I must stress that they will have to pay the price for this in due course.
Last night the Government Chief Whip said:
"It has been clear since last week that the Bill did not form part of the usual channels arrangements".—[Official Report, 23/7/96; col. 1363.]
That is a novel doctrine. As I understand it, Bills are now, apparently, to be part of the usual channels' agreement unless and until the Government find that they cannot get their way within those channels and, thereafter, they will get their way in any event. What is this new doctrine of Bills being outside the usual channels about? Are we to have a sort of special starred section on the Order Paper of normal Bills which fall within the usual channels, and then a special section for Bills which do not fall within the usual channels so that the Government can then decide on their timetabling? Indeed, are we to tear up the Companion to the Standing Orders to that extent? I sincerely hope not.
I propose, therefore, to ask the Opinion of the House on the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time. I accept that this is a rare event, but it is one which has been forced upon us by the Government's action and the unprecedented behaviour of the Lord Privy Seal. No doubt the Government will get their majority; indeed, I am sure that the Whips have been active in that respect. Interestingly enough, last night at 7.30 p.m., on a dead day in the House, it just so happened that there were 101 Conservative Peers littered around the building who all turned up to vote.
Similarly, I have no doubt that the Government will ram the Motion through and that the troops will loyally go into the Lobby and force through the Third Reading of the Bill today. It is yet one more example of this House being used as a political football by a Conservative Administration. Now they have even got to the stage when they are bending the rules to secure the passage of a Bill that they say they do not really need in defiance of the timetable set out in the Standing Orders in a way for which there is no precedent; and, indeed, in total disregard of the normal procedures and the usual channels. It is quite disgraceful and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, feels great anger at the way in which the Government are riding rough-shod over the Opposition and over the normal conventions of this House. I in no way dissent from the noble Lord in that respect; indeed, I endorse what he said. However, I feel one emotion which is perhaps even stronger than anger—namely, that of surprise. I feel almost astonishment at the "unwisdom", if their own arguments are accepted, for such extraordinarily small stakes which is being displayed by the Government.
As is well known, there is at present a shadow of uncertainty over the future of your Lordships' House as at present constituted. The desire of the present Government—and no doubt many of their supporters—is to resist change. In those circumstances, I should have thought that tactical prudence alone would have suggested a period of restraint, of keeping the hereditary cavalry as far away as possible from the field of battle and of showing that your Lordships' House is a very special place where we work by mutual accommodation and consideration, where arguments count as least as much as Whips and where time is given for reflection. Yet we have seen, and are seeing, in the splurge of this final fortnight, the reverse of that.
I cannot really understand what dementia has come over this tottering government. I cannot decide whether the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal, whose leadership has at times shown a sure touch, is an enthusiastic agent or a reluctant messenger of this foolishness. In any event, it is a sad end. This hot July will, I believe, be looked back on as the weeks of unwisdom for which a heavy price may be paid.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I do not know what the fuss is about. I am all for the usual channels easing the business of the House through its normal stages. It is a useful practice when it can be agreed. But what does the practice mean when one examines it? It means that a problem of the House is handed over to Members of the three Front Benches. That is what "the usual channels" boils down to. If the Members of the three Front Benches cannot agree, for good or bad reasons, then the usual channels procedure will not work. What is wrong with the whole House making the decision that has to be made?
My noble friend gave reasons for wanting to follow this procedure. I was not impressed with the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Richard, did not wish to agree on this occasion. But he is entitled to do so. I see no special merit in coming to this House and always handing over decisions to Members of the three Front Benches who sometimes hold views diametrically opposed to what I think are the best interests of the country.
There is no need for this fuss. If the House has to make the decision, let it do so. There is nothing wrong with that; and that is what we should do.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put this point to him. He is from time to time a fair minded man. He states that if the usual channels cannot agree then the usual channels cannot agree. I accept that. But if they cannot agree

1387
should we not abide by what the Companion to the Standing Orders says? Is that not what should happen in those circumstances? The timetable in the Companion should be stuck to in the absence of agreement.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that shows how stodgy the noble Lord is. If one can guarantee that all circumstances through every age will be identical, then one can have a book which lays down what one should do. But things change.
I am saying that if a decision is the responsibility of the House, let the House take up its responsibility. It is a pity that Members of the three Front Benches are so awkward within themselves that they cannot sometimes ease something through.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this morning I was reading some British constitutional history. I began with Dicey, who remarked that constitutional conventions are the constitutional morality of the United Kingdom. The Companion of this House is not to be torn up and thrown away quite so easily if this is indeed an unimportant matter.
I then turned to Ivor Jennings—I had not noted this before—who remarks that there is no basis in the British constitution for resisting a Conservative Government when they wish to act in an authoritarian fashion and can command a majority in both Houses.
I noted last night the admission by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that he was advised that the defect in the statute was discovered around mid-April—some three months ago. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House tells us that we cannot wait another three months before the matter is rectified. I checked this morning. The background notes which the Office of Public Service kindly provided for the Bill states:
"The potential problem was first discovered as part of a search into HMSO's statutory functions",
while options for its future were being evaluated,
"prior to last year's announcement that it was to be privatised".
That is some time before September 1995. In other words, this has been known to the Government for at least nine months and probably more.
We are told that the Government now wish to rush the matter through, having had an entire Session during which they could have brought it to the House. If that is the case, the arguments for disregarding the Companion and our constitutional conventions simply do not exist.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have a vested interest in this matter as a member of your Lordships' representation on the Joint Committee for Statutory Instruments. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, rather made my blood boil when he described my noble friend the Leader of the House as acting in a high handed manner for small stakes. As a member of that committee, I do not find these stakes small. It is quite clear to me that the Opposition are labouring under a misapprehension. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, confirmed as much last night. He described the Bill as one,
"which we are told has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO".
1388
He continued:
"I have never believed that. I believe it even less tonight".— [Official Report, col. 1364; 23/7/96.]
The noble Lord also referred to that today. There can be no doubt that the illegality of statutory instruments whose printing has been contracted out would never have been discovered had not the decision to privatise HMSO been made; and, therefore, there was a need to find out exactly what HMSO does and how it operates.
I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will tell us exactly what the timetable for that was, but I have no doubt in reconciling what we have just heard: that the investigation was started in September and the result as regards this illegality was not discovered until April.
However, to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, he has a point. But now I must part company with him. This Bill does not privatise the Stationery Office. It stands or falls on its own. Now that the illegality has been discovered, it must be dealt with, and quickly. For the future that is easy. All we have to do is to legislate to allow HMSO to contract out statutory instruments putting their vires beyond doubt. The Bill does just that.
But how do we deal with the very doubtful vires of those thousands of SIs which have been contracted out for printing over the past 30 years? This Bill validates them all retrospectively. I should have thought that it was a rather neat solution.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is a neat solution. What is the alternative? During the course of the two debates, last night and now, we have heard no alternative. Are we to reprint the whole wretched lot, stacks of them a mile high? Are they to be the property of the small piece of HMSO which remains in the public sector? No alternative has been offered.
Do we really want those statutory instruments to be open to challenge in the courts? They could be challenged at any time. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is a lawyer. He surely cannot want that. There is urgency. The challenge could come next week, next month, next year or in 10 years' time. The Government are absolutely right in seeking to remove the danger as soon as humanly possible. If this matter comes to a vote, they will have mine.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have listened with a great deal of care and interest to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal. I think he understands that for many centuries, practically since the beginning of printing, a document bearing statutory force has been recognised by the mark of the King's printer. If this Government have been so careless of the majesty of the state that they have allowed purportedly statutory instruments to appear in print without that mark, I do not see why they should ask the Opposition to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. It is a little like the behaviour of the young lady who once took her boyfriend to Johannesburg Zoo, threw her glove into the lions' den and said to him, "Go

1389
and fetch it". I am glad to say that the gentleman went to fetch it, came out unscathed, handed it to her and bowed deeply, and never spoke to her again.
I can understand the Government's problem. However, there are many different kinds of statutory instruments creating many different types of reaction around the House. I do not understand why we should be asked immediately, by retrospective legislation, which is not to be used lightly, wantonly or unadvisedly, to validate the lot. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked whether we are expected to reprint the whole lot. The principle on which I brought up my children is that you clear up your own mess. I commend that principle to the Government.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise on a small point since I had not expected to intervene in the discussion. I thought that I had listened to the debate and I understood that the fault commenced 30 years ago. My arithmetic takes that back to 1966, when presumably the Opposition were responsible for initiating the procedures which we are now trying to rectify.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the points made one by one. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith made clear, there appears to have been an oversight by more than one government. The 1946 Act is the operative instrument, as I understand it, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, confirms that. I shall come to the timing later.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that previous governments of both main political complexions—although not the noble Earl's, for obvious reasons—seem to have failed to discover the illegality until a bit late in the day. However, at least we discovered it, and we intend to do something about it and to clear up our own mess. In order to do so, once we have drawn attention to the matter and it is in the public domain, it is wise for us not to leave an opportunity for others vexatiously to take advantage of the fact that the Government have been breaking the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he did not agree with us that the problem had nothing to do with privatisation. By implication, therefore, he disagrees with the legal advice that the Government have received. With the greatest respect to him, as always in addressing him either in private or across the Floor of the House, I must say that he has not given the House one single reason why he disagrees with that assertion. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale put it very well and I do not think that I can add anything.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, drew attention to the timing. The briefing note to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and yesterday the noble Lord, Lord McNally, drew attention was billed as a quotation from an OPS briefing note. I have a photocopy of that note. When I investigated what was recorded in the Official Report as having been said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, my clear advice was that
1390
the briefing note concerned was not issued by the OPS, although the piece of paper says so. It is a note put together by the Commons Library, based on conversations with the OPS and probably others over the past months. I welcome the opportunity to try to put the record straight on the matter of timing.
Lord McNally: What on earth does that mean, my Lords? It does not make the matter clearer. Is the noble Viscount saying that our timing of September discovery or earlier was wrong? It is the nit-picking and avoiding of the main issues that fuel suspicion on this side as to what is happening.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall come to the matter of timing, if the noble Lord will allow me. I am sure I shall fail to satisfy him, as I have failed too often in the past, but I shall do my best. The noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Wallace and Lord Richard, are quite right that on 15th April this year the Government finally received advice which revealed the nature and extent of the problem. Immediately Ministers sought further advice and consulted as to the best way of dealing with the problem. A number of noble Lords have had extremely lengthy and distinguished ministerial careers. Therefore, I do not need to explain to this audience that even emergency legislation takes time to agree and prepare, though in this instance the Bill is hardly lengthy. If noble Lords opposite dredge their memories, it will not surprise them that nevertheless it was not until 19th June that further advice and consultation led to a decision that primary legislation was the only fully satisfactory means of addressing the matter. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on that date in another place, immediately the decision was taken, that a Bill would be introduced forthwith. The statement was repeated in your Lordships' House in a Written Answer (at col. WA. 32 of the Official Report for 19th June).
I now come to what I found the most distressing part of what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. I do not wish to take up his accusations in too great detail. In no way do they undermine the regard that I have for him, certainly not from my point of view. I am sorry that he diagnosed the events of the past week in the way that he did. I hope he will take that remark in the spirit in which it is proffered.
When, last Thursday, I moved the Motion to suspend Standing Orders, I indicated that I hoped that the agreement of the usual channels might be forthcoming. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, remembered that. I hoped that there would be agreement to proceed with the remaining stages of the Bill before the Summer Recess. I undertook that in the event that such agreement could not be reached, we would not invite the House to proceed with the Bill without providing a further opportunity for the House to consider how it wished to proceed. I stand by that assurance. It is why I myself came forward to move the Third Reading of the Bill today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rightly pointed out, it is within the practice of the House for the Report on a Bill which has not been amended in

1391
Committee to be received forthwith: in other words, immediately after the Committee stage, as provided in the Companion to the Standing Orders on page 128. As the noble Lord accepted,
"If the bill is reported without amendment, the Lord in charge of the bill may move forthwith:
'That this Report be now received'.
If this is agreed to, the next stage is the Third Reading".
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, accepts that that procedure does not require suspension of Standing Orders and it is therefore not outside the terms of the assurance which I gave the House.
The noble Lord implied that I had broken the terms of the undertaking I gave to the House. As your Lordships would expect me to do, I took careful advice as to the proper form for me to come back to the House in order to redeem the promise that I gave to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The advice that I received was unequivocally clear. There is no Business Motion that can be moved, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, spotted, predictably and at once. There was no intent to mislead about that, which is why I gave the undertaking I did in the subsequent exchange. The Motion to suspend Standing Orders which I moved at that time theoretically included the suspension of Standing Orders as it affected the Bill. I have been advised that nothing is proposed that would require the suspension of any Standing Orders, no Motion is available to us.
In order to try to meet the assurance that I gave to the House, within the rules of the House, I come to the House to give your Lordships an opportunity to decide whether noble Lords wish to proceed further with the Bill. That is why I am extremely happy for the House to decide. If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, wishes to push the matter to a Division, I shall regret it, but it is entirely within his right.
If there is a breakdown between the usual channels, that is something I regret. But as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls made clear, the normal channels are a matter of convenience which we try our best to make work. Indeed, this House could not function unless they were in good working order as a matter of practical possibility. On what I am glad to say are the very rare occasions when we are unable to come to an agreement, surely it is only right, as my noble friend pointed out, that the House itself as a whole should decide. That is what the House will do this afternoon. I know that all sides will abide by the decision of the House.
I should be superhuman if I did not try to respond to the implied challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I merely observe that it is significant that when, over the asylum Bill amendment or any other matter, members of the Opposition feel that the Government have ridden roughshod over their most deeply held convictions, they feel that this House should overturn the wishes of the elected Chamber; and when the Government accede to the wishes of the elected Chamber, they feel, clearly, that the only solution is to reform this House. I merely leave in your Lordships' minds the suggestion that there is perhaps a marginal inconsistency in that point of view. I commend the Bill to the House.
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a third time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 152;

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ackner, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

Ailesbury, M.

Halsbury, E.

Ailsa, M.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Aldington, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hayter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Headfort, M.

Ashbourne, L.

Henley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hothfield, L.

Beloff, L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Boardman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bowness, L.

Ironside, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Bridges, L.

Kintore, E.

Brightman, L.

Knollys, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Leigh, L.

Burnham, L.

Lindsay, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Caldecote, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Macclesfield, E.

Chalfont, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Clark of Kempston, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Merrivale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mersey, V.

Crickhoweil, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cromer, E.

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cuckney, L.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashboume, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Newall,L.

De L'Isle, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Eme, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Exmouth, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pym, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gisborough, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Roskill, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

St. Davids, V.

Greenway, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

1393

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sudeley, L.

Savile, L.

Terrington, L.

Seccombe, B.

Teynham,L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Torphichen, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vivian, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Stockton, E.

Westbury, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Wilcox, B.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L

Avebury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

McNally, L.

Blackstone, B.

Marsh, L.

Blease, L.

Mayhew, L.

Blyth, L.

Meston, L.

Borrie, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rea, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Richard, L.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Desai, L.

Russell, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Donoughue, L.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sewel, L.

Eatwell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Falkland, V.

Simon, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stallard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fitt, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Glenamara, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Grantchester, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grenfell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Haskel, L.

Wharton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wigoder, L.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ilchester, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
3.51 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
3.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in sheep. The subject was discussed at the Agriculture Council last Monday. Commissioner Fischler there said that he intended to put forward proposals for controls on sheep to apply across the Community.
"Scrapie, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) of sheep and goats, has been known for over 200 years. There is no evidence that it is linked to Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease (CJD) in humans. CJD occurs at approximately the same level in countries with and without scrapie.
"I have recently received advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) that BSE could, theoretically, become established in the sheep flock. It notes that in experiments (the results of which have been published) one out of six sheep experimentally challenged orally with BSE brain material succumbed to an encephalopathy; and that when their brain material was tested in mice the same strain type as BSE was found. It notes also the possibility that some sheep could have been exposed to feed contaminated with the BSE agent before the ruminant feed ban was introduced in 1988.
"The committee points out that there is no evidence of BSE occurring naturally in the sheep flock. However, the SEAC concern is, while there is no evidence to this effect, scrapie might be masking BSE in the sheep flock. On the basis of present knowledge SEAC has made three recommendations.
"First, that the Government should consider this issue further with EU partners. We have started that process. We are keeping in close contact with the French Government, whose scientific committee equivalent to SEAC has made certain recommendations on the basis of the laboratory evidence about BSE in sheep, and of concerns about scrapie. At the Agriculture Council on 22nd July Commissioner Fischler announced that the Commission intends to formulate proposals for the removal of certain offals of sheep and goats from the human and animal food chain. These proposals are to be considered initially by the Standing Veterinary Committee in early August, and then by other EU expert committees.
"SEAC's second recommendation was that the Government should give early consideration to removing the brains of sheep, whatever their source, over six months, from the food chain. The agriculture departments are today issuing for consultation a

1395
proposal for the heads of all sheep and goats to be removed and destroyed in the same way as specified bovine material. This measure would go rather further than SEAC suggested, taking into account the practical difficulty of distinguishing the age of sheep at slaughter. It should not have a major economic impact as the vast majority of sheep's heads are already destroyed. It is worth noting that sheepmeat for human consumption comes predominantly from young lambs under 12 months.
"We intend to reach a final decision in the light of responses to this consultation and in the light of progress of EU discussion. Action on this issue at EU level would be preferable, but it is desirable that these measures are put in place promptly. There is no direct threat to human health; the action now being proposed is precautionary, to respond to what appears no more than a theoretical risk.
"SEAC's third recommendation is that further research should be done to establish the levels of scrapie occurring naturally in sheep and to investigate further the risks of BSE transmission to the UK sheep flock. We accept this. Some relevant research has already begun.
"I emphasise that these steps are being taken out of an abundance of caution. There is no direct threat to human health. With the exception of the consumption of brains, there is absolutely no reason for anybody to change their eating habits. I repeat: there is no evidence at all that in field conditions BSE has got into the national flock: but as that possibility cannot be wholly excluded we are proposing to take these precautionary measures.
"I am putting a copy of SEAC's advice and of my Ministry's consultation letter in the Library of the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As always, I should declare an interest as a director and shareholder in a farming company with dairy cattle.
Before we turn to the Statement, it would be helpful to the House if the Minister could bring us up to date with what is happening with the slaughter scheme and the necessary orders both as regards the cull-cow slaughter and the selective slaughter scheme. In the very helpful Ministry BSE newsletter on the 4th July it says:
"We aim to introduce the necessary legislation before the House of Commons rises for the summer recess. In order to meet this, the consultation period has had to be restricted and will finish on 9th July."
I understand that orders will not now be laid until we return, presumably in the overspill. Does the timetable still hold that the Prime Minister gave when he made his Statement after the Florence summit, in which he very clearly stated the October, November and various other dates for the slaughter schemes? This is a chance for the Minister, before we rise for the Recess, to bring
1396
us up to date on that, although now is not the time to go into detail on the slaughter scheme. I am receiving a lot of information from farmers, from slaughterers and from renderers that it is not working well in practice, but there will be plenty of time to go into that when we deal with the orders on our return.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Statement. The phrase which puzzles me is:
"I have recently received advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) that BSE could, theoretically, become established in the sheep flock".
The progress report from the ministry, which is an extremely helpful document that was produced in May this year and referred back to all the research which has been going on for some time, says:
"BSE has been experimentally transmitted … to cattle, pigs, sheep, goats"—
and to other species—
"Cattle, sheep, goats … also succumbed to oral challenge in separate experiments"—
that is mentioned in the Statement. It continues:
"The susceptibility of sheep to challenge with BSE was demonstrated in 1989 … the finding of infectivity in the spleen of sheep is consistent with the known distribution of the scrapie agent in the species".
What has happened? This information has been available. It was published in the Veterinary Record, I believe, on the 1st June, and it was published by the ministry in May, and then all of a sudden we have a crisis again which is affecting the sheep market substantially.
Could the Minister tell the House why there is this sudden need to produce this information now in the way in which it has been done? It was obvious that it was known in March when the first Statement was made about the BSE in cattle. Why is it now being produced in the way that it is?
Perhaps we can turn to the handling of the announcement itself. It seems that the Commission and the Government have learnt nothing. We understand that on Monday evening this week Commissioner Fischler made a statement in the Agriculture Council in which he called on the Standing Veterinary Committee to recommend that the spleen and the central nervous tissue, brains and spinal chord, be removed from sheep and goats. I emphasise that it was the commissioner who called on the Standing Veterinary Committee to recommend that. The commissioner did not specify any age limits in this regard. These issues will be considered by the Standing Veterinary Committee at the beginning of August and its discussions will include the practical implementation of sheep offal controls as well as the possibility of distinguishing between lambs and older sheep.
So there is that and there is the television news, with the Minister, Mr. Hogg, announcing—I think correctly—that there is no risk in eating sheep meat. The news reader immediately went on to say that it would be a month before the ban would be introduced at the very earliest. So what is happening to sheep that are being killed today? Are the specified offals being removed? We all know the effect on the sheep market

1397
as we heard it on the radio this morning. It is now 25 per cent. down. Those are the prime lambs—the sheep farmer has just one harvest a year—and they are just coming to market. Once again, there are announcements which cause great concern; information which has been available for a very long time; the European commissioner instructing the Standing Veterinary Committee on what to do; and the Minister attempting to catch up on behalf of the British sheep farmer. Cynics might just wonder about the timing of our European partners, just when our sheep are coming to market. We need now from the Government a clear statement which traces the whole of the scientific background and explains just why it has been felt necessary to bring out this news now.
How much notice did the Commission give the Government of its intention to make the announcement? Was it any longer than the 30 minutes that the Government gave the Commission in March? Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to ask the Minister to bring the House up to date on what is happening with tallow, gelatine and semen? What is the news on the ban? Is there any more news? Are we any further in ensuring that the ban should be lifted?
My last point on the Statement is that the Government, correctly, have overruled the scientific advice in which SEAC spoke of removing the brains of sheep, whatever their source, over six months from the human food chain. I believe that we all think that the distinction at six months is quite absurd. How on earth does one know whether a sheep is five months and two weeks old or six months and two weeks old or whatever?
The Government said that they will be issuing for consultation a proposal that the heads of all sheep and goats be removed and destroyed in the same way as the specified bovine material. The assumption is not entirely correct. I believe it is true that the brains of calves under six months old can still enter the human food chain. I ask the Minister whether it is correct for them to go in their present direction and overrule the SEAC advice in the case of sheep's brains. Why does the same point not occur with calves' brains?
Finally, the Government and the Commission are at last working on the precautionary principle. I feel that that is absolutely correct. That is what we have learned from the whole of the BSE debacle—which is what it has been. Only recently the Minister in a public speech said that since the late 1980s the Government had the working assumption that there was no connection between BSE and CJD, and that has now been called into question. They are therefore changing their policy. The possibility of such a link was made known in the 1980s and the Government were working on the wrong working assumption in effect. If they had followed the precautionary principle then, we should not be in the mess that we are in now with cattle. At last, I believe that they are following the correct principle—the precautionary principle—in dealing with this recent matter.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Statement says that:
"one out of six sheep [were] experimentally challenged orally".
1398
It seems to me that your Lordships have been experimentally challenged orally this afternoon, in both the previous business and this.
How many years do we have to go without BSE affecting an agricultural sheep in the field before this ban—which has been described by the British Veterinary Association as ludicrous and by the President of the Federation of Vets in Europe as a remedy for a non-existent disease—is reviewed? The Government suggest that this is only a temporary measure while more investigations are made. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that it is wise to adopt a precautionary principle. But there has been no known case of this disease in sheep. How long do we have to continue with these absurd ways of dealing with the food scares that turn up from time to time?
Lastly, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl, when he is wearing another hat, on behalf of your Lordships and all his Scottish colleagues and certainly my wife and myself, whether or not we are allowed now to eat haggis.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we should take the most important points first. I can assure the noble Lord that haggis remains absolutely safe. It has sustained the Scottish nation over many thousands of years and I suspect that it will continue to do so.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Carter, made some very constructive points, which I welcome. Perhaps I should point out to the House as background that the concern with scrapie and the possible pathway of BSE into sheep is a European problem rather than a problem specific to any one member state. As such, we have been and will continue to be involved with consultation and discussion with our European colleagues, both at member state level—I single out France particularly in that instance—and with the Commission itself.
The precautionary principle was mentioned by those noble Lords and I agree that it is a vital principle and one that we always seek to follow. The recommendations that have come forward from SEAC have always been acted upon by the Government and promptly acted upon. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, touched very pertinently on the fact that an element of common sense is also needed. Otherwise, there is a danger that the precautionary principle will stop us getting out of bed in the morning. So moderation is needed at the same time.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why suddenly today we have a Statement on the subject when much of the information that is coming forward today has been in the public domain for some time. That latter statement is correct. I should point out that the recommendations from SEAC have just been delivered to us, after it met as a committee on the 19th June. Also, the Dormont Committee in France, which is France's equivalent to SEAC, delivered its recommendations to Fischler at approximately the same time. That led Fischler, also on Monday at the Council of Ministers, to make a statement on the subject and to outline the kind of proposals that he would be bringing forward. So there was sufficient profile for this subject for the House of Commons in particular to

1399
demand some kind of Statement from my right honourable friend. I believe that it was his intention to deal with the subject in the Adjournment Debate, which has just started in the other place, but other parties there felt that something more formal was needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, casts some doubt on whether the commissioner himself should tell the Standing Veterinary Committee what he wanted to hear it conclude. I stress again the extent to which we are all involved in negotiating and discussing the subject. I certainly hope on behalf of the Government that the undoubted pre-eminence of SEAC in this entire field will be an influence on the European discussions.
As regards the handling of sheep today, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords that almost all sheep's heads are already kept well away from the food chain when sheep go to slaughter. So in a sense we are going out to consultation to implement the SEAC recommendation that sheep's heads should be treated in the same way as specified bovine material. We are merely formalising the existing practice—the status quo.
The noble Lord also mentioned calves. My general observation on that point is that with cattle there is very often better documentation as to the exact date of birth. That is not the case at the moment with the sheep flock.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether there are any public expenditure implications in what he has said today and, if so, what are they?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, that point will become much clearer at the end of the consultation period that starts today. We shall be consulting all relevant parties. They will inform us of any expenditure implications in terms of the private sector. We shall also have to establish to what extent additional enforcement and monitoring might be involved. The pertinent fact is that, as nearly all sheep's heads are already kept out of the food chain, we are simply formalising an existing practice rather than demanding a new one.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, on this question of sheep's heads, can the noble Earl inform the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the brains of sheep and goats which appear to die from some form of encephalopathy are monitored and analysed? Do we not need to know whether these animals die from BSE or from scrapie?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a good question. A considerable and increasing amount of research is being done both on the consequences of the laboratory experiment that proved that BSE could be artificially transmitted to sheep and indeed on the scrapie disease itself. I can reassure the noble Lord that analysis of the results indicates there is no evidence that BSE is present in any of our national sheep flock. The testing of material from sheep with scrapie, a similar disease to BSE, has failed to identify anything other than scrapie itself.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in view of the circumstantial evidence—or the lack of it—on the transmissibility of BSE to humans, causing CJD, which has resulted in the beef ban, does my noble friend agree that, on the basis of what is new and significant evidence on the transmission of BSE to sheep (even those genetically resistant to scrapie) and to mice, it is a realistic precaution to treat mutton in a similar way to beef? Does he also agree that the primary method of stopping BSE in both cattle and sheep populations in this country is the strict enforcement of the ban on the feeding of meat and bonemeal? Will he ensure that this is done effectively and that the appropriate manpower is provided for it to be so done?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby, especially because of the background from which he asks questions on such complex subjects. He referred to the evidence which has come forward as being new and significant. I do not want to disagree wholeheartedly with him but at the same time I stress that there is no evidence of our national sheep flock becoming infected with BSE under its natural circumstances and natural feeding habits. What there is evidence of is experimentally transmitted BSE, so I believe that those riders which I add to my noble friend's remarks are perhaps more significant.
The advice of SEAC has always guided us through the encephalopathy policy areas. Given its undoubted expertise in this whole area, the number of scientists and the amount of research that the committee draws together, and given that it includes vets and veterinary scientists who come from countries other than our own, we are and will always continue to be guided by it on the best recommendations we can bring forward.
My noble friend made a good point about the proper enforcement of MBM. Although there has clearly been some leakage since the 1988 ban on including ruminant protein in ruminant feed, the fact that we largely stopped that practice in 1988 and then closed off all remaining avenues earlier this year will help us to prevent any possible problems within our sheep flock. I would point out that it was only at the end of last year that France, for instance, decided that MBM should not be included in ruminant feed.
Lord Desai: My Lords, one of the things we should have learnt is that the way scientists perceive risks is different to the way people perceive risks. Although scientists may think there is a risk, it is the way we convey that information to the people that determines how people think. It is no good saying there is a one-in-a-million risk of getting CJD because for people who eat beef every day a one-in-a-million chance becomes magnified.
One of the great problems with this particular announcement is that even saying—as the noble Lord said—that we are only formalising the status quo alarms people because they have not been made aware of that. For example, if at the minimum level this had been described as something to do with mutton rather than sheep generically, the lamb market would not have

1401
suffered the price shock it did. If somebody had invented the mad mutton crisis that would very likely have got lamb off the hook.
However, I am making a serious point. We are not making sufficient distinctions of this kind. More alarm is spread than is strictly necessary. The next time we have a crisis like this, will the Government please take note of the fact that there is a lot of research available on risk perception in human beings, which is different to the way scientists calculate risk? If the noble Lord wishes I can give him many references on the subject because there is an important point to be made there.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has focused on risk perception. Undoubtedly the longer term consequences of the supposition made by SEAC, both in March and again today—the first was made on no direct evidence whatsoever but merely on a likelihood, and that of today was made on the basis of experimentally transmissible evidence—have all arisen from the perception and understanding of the wider public of the risk that scientists seek to explain. I am sure the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, with regard to this area, is relevant.
The fact that I said that we were formalising the status quo is of great relevance because the danger otherwise is that the public may think that sheeps' heads have regularly and widely gone into the human food chain and that is not the case. SEAC has not concentrated on mutton any more than it has concentrated on lamb. It has concentrated merely on the brains of sheep; not even on the tongues of sheep. Sheep's tongues will still be available. Therefore, the thought of a mad mutton crisis, or that that might become a label that the press use, for instance, would be very misleading indeed because the simple scientific focus by the SEAC experts is on the sheep's brain itself.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we have had scares about eggs, about beef and about sheep. Could the noble Earl the Minister say to what extent there is now control so that these scares will not be followed by a scare about chickens, ducks and fish?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, there are so many scientists in the world who need to feed the mouths of their children, as it were, and at the same time such great thirst among the media to suggest that things which we all find familiar are not as comfortable as we might have thought, that we are likely to have continued doubts cast on many of those things which we would otherwise trust.
I would refer my noble friend back to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about risk perception. If the Government are advised by experts that there is a potential threat to human health, they must act on the theoretical or potential risk if there is action that they can sensibly take. What happens thereafter is what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, articulated; namely, that the perception changes as it is interpreted by others.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that sheep are very rarely fed on concentrates? In fact, lowland sheep are normally only so fed at lambing time. If no sheep has been fed with meat and bonemeal since 1989 and a sheep's life is perhaps nine or 10 years at the most, there should be no sheep in the national flock, in the food chain, that have been affected by BSE. Could the noble Earl confirm that please?
I should also like to know how it is proposed to keep a check on the possible spread of BSE in flocks. With BSE in cattle it is intermittent. You get two or three in a herd. I understand it is the same with scrapie in sheep. Many farmers, when their sheep die—and this is particularly so with hill sheep—leave them out on the hill for the foxes. Lowland sheep are very often sent to hunt kennels. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer my final question immediately. Is there any indication of hounds in kennels suffering from encephalopathy as a result of eating sheep's brains? I imagine that the hounds in kennels eat the whole of the sheep.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am not aware of any evidence of hounds suffering from encephalopathy. The best I can tell the noble Countess is that all scrapie controls are now under review, both in the UK and in a European context. We do not feel that there is a need to be unduly concerned about current practices because of the tight focus that SEAC have currently employed on the sheep's brain and its head rather than on other parts of the sheep's body.
In relation to the banning of meat and bonemeal in ruminant food, as the noble Countess pointed out, that was enacted in this country in 1988 and therefore, if that is a possible pathway of BSE in sheep as has been shown by experiment in the laboratory, then this country should show a much lower profile in terms of the threat that it poses than those countries which have not or only recently banned the use of ruminant protein in ruminant feed rations.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether saddle of lamb, rack of lamb and lamb cutlets are going to be unobtainable?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I certainly hope not. The consultation paper published today will focus on the recommendation that only the sheep's head is kept out of the food chain, as is the case with sheep's heads at the moment. The noble Lady's rack of lamb remains safe for the moment.

Deregulation (Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980) Order 1996
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny ommittee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Britain has a long history of using legislation to provide safeguards for public health and animal welfare. However, there are some requirements which, although introduced for good reasons many years ago, are now outdated or have been superseded by the introduction of subsequent legislation.
The draft order before the House would repeal provisions of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980 which no longer provide adequate protection or which are now outdated and provided for in other ways. In doing so the order will also remove burdens on slaughterhouse operators—a sector which is already well regulated—without compromising any of the necessary safeguards for public health and animal welfare.
I turn now to the detail of the order. There is at present a dual licensing system for slaughterhouses. Since 1993 slaughterhouses have been licensed by the appropriate Minister, under procedures introduced to meet Community obligations. However, under the 1974 Act there remains a continuing requirement for slaughterhouses to be licensed annually by their local authority. In Scotland there is a continued requirement for slaughterhouses to be registered by the local authority. The order would remove the burden of dual licensing by repealing the local authority licensing or registration requirements.
The order would also repeal the powers for local authorities to make by-laws in respect of the sanitary operation and management of slaughterhouses. Adequate safeguards already exist as those aspects are now covered by the new arrangements for licensing, hygiene and inspection to internationally agreed standards, and uniform enforcement arrangements now apply in all slaughterhouses.
Local authorities are currently required to take certain animal welfare requirements into account when issuing animal licences to slaughterhouses. To ensure that those important matters continue to be taken into consideration the order would amend the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 to make compliance with the relevant requirements of the welfare at slaughter legislation a condition of the issue of a licence by the appropriate Minister.
The order would also provide for non-compliance with those animal welfare requirements to be a reason to revoke a slaughterhouse licence. Compliance with welfare requirements is monitored on a regular basis by the Meat Hygiene Service, and audited by the State Veterinary Service.
The order would remove two outdated burdens on slaughterhouse owners in England and Wales, restrictions which were never imposed in Scotland. First, it is proposed to remove the restriction on the use of part of a slaughterhouse as a dwelling. That prohibition was introduced to protect anyone from having to live in a slaughterhouse. No objections have been received to the proposal to lift that prohibition. In fact it has been welcomed as an opportunity to improve the security of slaughter premises. Should anyone want to live "above the shop", all appropriate planning, building and hygiene controls would continue to apply.
Secondly, licensed slaughterhouses and knacker's yards in England and Wales are obliged to display a legible sign in a conspicuous position stating that the premises are licensed. That requirement dates from food and drugs legislation of the 1930s and has its origin in public health controls of the previous century.
It has been suggested that that provision should be retained as people have a right to know where slaughtering is carried out. When the requirement was introduced there were many thousands of individual slaughterers. It is possible now to request lists of all licensed slaughterhouses or knacker's yards—which are many fewer in number—from the appropriate agriculture department. The right to that information therefore continues to be publicly available.
The order also provides an opportunity to correct an error in the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980. A revised definition of "slaughterhouse" was inserted into the 1980 Act by the Food Safety Act 1990, but that definition contained a drafting error which had the effect of imposing the same standards of construction on all premises where animals are slaughtered for human consumption.
That means that in Scotland any farm buildings where the occasional beast may be slaughtered for the owner's own consumption must meet the same structural standards as a commercial slaughterhouse. No such imposition has been made on the farming community in England or Wales. This order will lift that unnecessary burden.
Since it was first laid before Parliament in October 1995, this order has been the subject of careful study by the House of Commons Deregulation Committee and this House's Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Subject to some minor points which have now been incorporated into the order, both committees recommended acceptance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the order. Following the last debate, he will be aware that the public need reassurance on the whole question of the slaughtering of animals. We had the problem in relation to beef, and now sheep's food, and the order does not seem to be well timed in that regard. The Minister suggested that the media have a thirst for "going over the top". Because of the timing of the order, they may have a field day tomorrow. However, the Minister's explanation by and large was very full.
I am concerned about a number of points. When the local authorities lose control, how will the order affect the frequency of inspections? Will not there be a loss of local knowledge in regard to the people who work in the abattoirs and slaughterhouses? Will they now be a little removed from the inspectors? As I said, the public need reassurance and I hope that the Minister will make the point that the frequency of inspections will he just as rigid as it is now.

1405
Is the order introduced not only to tidy up the legislation in relation to slaughterhouses, but also to save money? That seems to be another of its objects. Finally, on the question of slaughtering cattle, I know that the right for owners to slaughter cattle is an ancient right, but that was perhaps more acceptable when farms were more remote and transport was very bad. The situation is different now when one can slaughter an animal in Campbeltown or in the wilds of Kintyre and have it in the city markets extremely quickly. Can the Minister say what control there will be over that? I speak as someone who does not have anything like the knowledge held by the farming community or the Minister, but these are the kinds of worries that the public have. Otherwise, I have every faith that the Minister is doing his best with the knowledge and information that he has. However, I would like some explanation if he can help me on that.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, gives to this order. I agree with him that every opportunity is needed to reassure the public as to the safety of food and their own health. In moving the order, I hope that I stressed the fact that at no stage in any part of this order are public health or animal health being compromised. We are merely removing duplication where later requirements and measures, with which the industry has to comply, supersede existing and earlier measures.
As regards the frequency of inspection, the Meat Hygiene Service and the State Veterinary Service carry out ever more frequent inspections on the entire industry. Since 20th March there has been a large increase in resources available to the Meat Hygiene Service. It was established in April 1995 as a single agency to enforce hygiene in slaughter in all licensed slaughterhouses. One of its main objectives was to do so consistently across the United Kingdom. It was felt that there was some lack of consistency when each local authority was in sole charge of the operation. The official veterinary service and the meat inspectors are present in all slaughterhouses. That can certainly reassure the noble Lord as regards the principal concern that he had in this area.
The noble Lord was also worried about the loss of local knowledge if some of the local authority controls were removed. The repeal of that power does not affect any other by-laws and neither does it affect planning controls. The local authorities will continue to have the opportunity to be involved to the extent that they feel necessary in the operation of local slaughterhouses. The order is not designed purely to save money; it is designed to save unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication. Where the same job is being done twice we seek to save on bureaucracy and resources and put them to better use.
The noble Lord also asked about owners' private kills. I can reassure him that owners and farmers and others making use of private kills, have to comply with all normal hygiene and animal welfare requirements. It is also worth mentioning that we as the Government
1406
recently sought views from interested organisations on the continued availability of the private kill provision. We have received a range of responses on that and we shall be considering them very carefully.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations 1996
4.35 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by offering my sincere apologies, and those of my department, to your Lordships, for drawing on the patience of the House again to consider these regulations. They were originally laid before the House on 27th June and they were debated by your Lordships on 9th July and by another place on 16th July.
It was during the proceedings in another place on 16th July that it was pointed out by the honourable Member for Makerfield, Mr. McCartney, that the figures in Regulation 2(c) were incorrect. That caused some concern. It was found that a mistake had been made, but it was not possible at that point to tell another place what the correct figure should be.
That being the case, it was decided to withdraw the original draft statutory instrument and to lay a corrected draft. The corrected regulations were therefore laid before the House on 16th July. This will enable the regulations to come into force on the date originally intended of 1st August.
The regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 2.1 per cent. the amounts of compensation which are paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st August 1996.
Regulation 2(c) of the draft statutory instrument had originally stated:
"in regulation 6(1) (payment where pneumoconiosis is accompanied by tuberculosis), for the amount of £3,575 there shall be substituted the amount of £3,650".
The figure of £3,575 was incorrect. The figure should have been £3,654.
Your Lordships may say that the mistake was rather like the housemaid's baby—it was only a small one. Nevertheless, it should not have been made and I apologise for the fact that it was. With an increase of 2.1 per cent. the figure of £3,650 now becomes £3,731. The regulations before the House today have been amended accordingly. I apologise again to your Lordships for the fact that I ask your Lordships to consider this matter again but, nevertheless, I hope that noble Lords will approve the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for advising me as soon as he could that this procedure would take place this afternoon. He has acted entirely properly and put right what was clearly an oversight, for which he has apologised. With the error being on the right side, we have no objection to the order coming forward again. As the noble Earl said as regards the baby being only a small one, all these things are conceivable.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches recognise that it is an error which has been put right as quickly as possible for the benefit of those who have great problems. We are grateful to the Minister.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) Regulations 1996
4.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lindsay I beg to move this order. I am sure that it is for the convenience of the House that we also deal with the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit On Borrowing) Regulations 1996 laid before the House on 18th June and the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, which were laid before the House on 26th June. These regulations are an integral part of the package of measures set out in the Pensions Act 1995.
Pensions are one of the most important ways in which people hold a stake in this country. Almost £600 billion is invested in private pension funds—more than the rest of the European Union put together. We are committed to building on that success.
It is essential that we continue to provide an environment in which private pension provision can flourish. The Pensions Act will play a major part in this. It will give people the security they need to invest for their retirement. It will also introduce greater flexibility for contracted-out schemes so that they can provide benefits in the way that best suits them and their members.
Perhaps I can explain each of the orders in turn. I begin with the Pensions Compensation Board limit on borrowing regulations. Next April the measures in the Pensions Act will introduce a strengthened legal and
1408
regulatory framework for occupational pension schemes. As I have said, this will improve the security of members' pensions. However, no regulatory system can provide an absolute guarantee against a determined criminal. The new pensions compensation scheme will act as a longstop. Where, as a result of dishonesty, the value of a scheme's assets is reduced and there is no employer to stand behind the scheme compensation can be paid. The compensation scheme will be operated by the Pensions Compensation Board. The board will have responsibility for determining whether compensation is payable, and how much can be paid. The board will come into being on 1st August 1996. It will be chaired by Dr. Julian Farrand, who is also the Pensions Ombudsman.
The board will need to be able to meet urgent calls for assistance and act quickly to limit any financial hardships to scheme members. But it would be undesirable for the board to build up large reserves as a contingency against valid claims. Therefore it needs to be able to borrow from recognised financial institutions. Its borrowing powers will be activated from 1st August, and this will enable the board to raise funds to meet its start-up costs.
The regulations before the House today propose setting the statutory maximum amount that the board may have outstanding in respect of any money borrowed at £15 million. It is not expected that the board will generally need to borrow large amounts. It has levy-raising powers. However, we recognise that the limit needs to be sufficiently high to ensure that urgent and significant calls for help can be met should they arise. The borrowing limit is one control to ensure that the compensation scheme remains affordable. We can also set the maximum amount of the annual levy. As the board is a public body its finances will be subject to government accounting rules and there will be a financial memorandum with the board. In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will audit the board's accounts. The proposed statutory borrowing limit is set at a realistic and affordable level and effective controls will be in place to ensure that the board maintains the highest standards of propriety, regularity and value for money.
I now move to the regulations on contracted-out mixed benefit schemes known as "COMBS". These regulations will enable a single occupational pension scheme to contract out of SERPS on both a salary-related and money purchase basis. Present legislation requires employers who run contracted-out schemes to provide either salary-related benefits or money purchase benefits. They cannot have both types of contracted-out rights in one scheme. A scheme can change the basis on which it contracts out only if the scheme trustees first discharge their liability to pay accrued contracted-out benefits. These new regulations will enable schemes to hold two kinds of contracting-out rights in one scheme. From 6th April 1997 new schemes can elect to contract out as COMBS from the outset. Existing schemes already contracted out on a purely salary-related basis will be able to elect to become

1409
COMBS from the same date. The option will be extended to cover existing contracted-out money purchase schemes one year later, from April 1998.
Our aim is to maintain the attractiveness of contracting out for employers by allowing them greater flexibility to respond to changes in the financial environment, the labour market and the pattern of pension provisions. Scheme members will also benefit. This will be particularly true where they are free to choose which part of the scheme to join, and whether to move from one part to the other. These new flexibilities will also broaden the options which employers have when designing and setting up a contracted-out scheme.
We have tried to keep the provisions as simple and as easy to understand as we can by sticking, where possible, to the existing rules for contracted-out schemes. Therefore, broadly speaking, members of the salary-related side of the scheme will be subject to the salary-related provisions of the main contracting-out regulations, and members of the money purchase side will be subject to the relevant contracted-out money purchase provisions. The employer will also be spared the need to get to grips with a completely different set of procedures when deciding to go down the COMBS route.
Where an internal transfer takes place, the regulations set out the basic requirements with which schemes must comply. We have specified the minimum necessary in order fully to safeguard the rights of members. These contracted-out mixed benefit schemes are a new concept. We shall monitor them closely to see that they are working as intended. But the industry has asked us for them and we expect them to be welcomed as a more flexible contracting-out option.
I turn to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations. They deal with requirements on trustees to obtain audited accounts and a statement from the auditor as to whether contributions have been paid correctly and on time. For ease, perhaps I may simply call them "audited accounts".
Auditing provides an independent view on whether accounts show a true and fair picture. Audited accounts are, therefore, one of the most important controls to ensure pension scheme security. The requirement on pension schemes to have audited accounts was first introduced in 1986. The 1996 regulations update this existing requirement. We have made two significant changes to reflect the importance that we attach to audited accounts. First, trustees will have to obtain them within seven months of the end of the scheme year. This compares with 12 months allowed under existing regulations. It means that they will be available to scheme members much sooner. Secondly, they introduce a criminal sanction on trustees who fail to obtain audited accounts. This brings the requirements on pension scheme accounts more into line with those on company accounts. On summary conviction, trustees will be subject to a fine not exceeding £5,000.
These regulations strengthen the financial control of pension schemes. They will increase the security of occupational pension funds without imposing unreasonable burdens on employers.
In conclusion, we need to ensure that funded pension provision can continue to flourish into the next century and beyond. As part of a wider package of pension reforms, the regulations which I bring before your Lordships today will make an important contribution to this process. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of these regulations. All of them have been accepted in the other place. It is not our custom to oppose regulations in such circumstances; nor do we want to do so in respect of these regulations. There are, however, some points relating to the regulations laid under the Pensions Act which I believe should be made.
First, the Minister will not be surprised to hear from me that some noble Lords are concerned about the general weight of regulations under the new Act. Comments to this effect have already been made by organisations which are active in the pensions industry. I am glad that I am not a professional engaged in the administration of an occupational pension scheme.
At the outset, I accept that this issue is not an easy one. It is desirable that scheme members should have as much protection as possible because their investment in a pension scheme is probably the most important one that they will make and is second only to their investment in house purchase. It is in the interests of everyone that that investment should be properly protected. It is a question of getting the balance right and having sufficient regulation to protect scheme members and their expectations while at the same time not having a regime which is so complex that employers deem it not worth their while to have an occupational scheme at all, thus driving more and more people into personal pensions where their future may not be as assured as it might be under a good occupational scheme—or perhaps they may have no provision at all.
I know that it is the policy of the Government to persuade people to take out private personal pensions, but many have little notion of how much they need to contribute to produce a pension of reasonable size when they reach pension age. Good occupational provision is still the best way to provide for large numbers of people. Very complex legislative requirements may have the effect of inhibiting the growth of such provision. The number of new final salary schemes has already fallen dramatically. It is my understanding that virtually all of the new occupational schemes are money purchase schemes. I am sure that the Government have been advised by the National Association of Pension Funds of its concerns about the complexities inherent in the procedures relating to mixed benefit schemes.

1411
The Minister has been good enough to explain in detail what on the surface appears to be a somewhat complex situation. I am grateful to him for his explanation this afternoon. I understand that the provisions will require members who want to transfer from money purchase to final salary or whatever to give their consent in such circumstances. Of course there is no objection to that, but the regulations are complex. I am glad that the Minister has said that it is the intention of the Government to make them as simple as possible in the circumstances.
With regard to audited accounts, of course there can be no objection whatever to that requirement. It is perfectly right and proper. However, I raise one point about lay trustees. It is right that there should be member-nominated trustees. We had a good deal of discussion about that matter when we debated the Pensions Bill in this House.
The responsibilities of trustees under the new Pensions Act are considerable. The regulations contain references to such responsibilities, including a provision for fines if they are not complied with. The Minister has referred to that this afternoon. That is all right, I suppose, and I am not complaining about it, but it seems to me that trustees should have some training for the tasks that they will need to perform. I believe that such training should be mandatory in the interests not just of the trustees but of scheme members so that their interests can be protected adequately.
I know that the regulations are not about trustees or their training, but they present another opportunity to put this point to the Minister yet again. I shall be grateful for any response he feels he can make. However, having said that, we offer no opposition to the regulations. They are, in the main, to the benefit of scheme members, and to the whole matter of the safety of members' investments in occupational schemes. We wish them well.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister may be glad to hear that on this occasion I believe that he has succeeded in doing something which is not controversial, which may save us a little time. However, I hope he will forgive me for mentioning, extremely briefly, one business matter about which he may wish to talk further in the future. I have given him notice of this point.
I have today just put down a Motion in "no day named" to move to resolve that the proposed sale of DSS benefit offices shall not proceed until the House is satisfied that adequate arrangements are in place to preserve ministerial accountability for the delivery of benefits.
I hate introducing business late in July, but if the Secretary of State bowls at my middle stump I have to play a stroke, even if it is the last ball of the day. So I hope that the Minister can assure me that no decision on this matter will be taken until the usual channels have had a chance to consider it. I know that he cannot anticipate the decision of the usual channels, but if he can tell me that no decision will be taken until the autumn when the usual channels are flowing again, that would be all I could legitimately ask him.
1412
On these regulations, I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said about their complexity. I believe that there is unanimity in the House about the need for and propriety of insisting upon proper audited accounts. But if noble Lords look at the schedule of the regulations, they will see that they are pretty complicated. There are specific headings according to which the accounts must be divided. If I know anything about accounting material, which is not much, it is that it never divides quite according to the headings under which it is meant to divide.
I agree with what the noble Baroness said about training. I hope that the Minister can also assure us that this method of dividing the material has been a matter of the fullest consultation with the industry, and will continue to be so.
I accept entirely the Minister's explanation of the borrowing limit of the Pensions Compensation Board. I should be glad to know if he can tell me how the figure of £15 million was arrived at. Why not £12 million? Why not £18 million? No doubt there was a reason, but I should like to hear it.
On the contracted-out regulation, I must declare an interest, since, if I do not encounter the proverbial bus, I hope to benefit from them in due course. Having said that, I have nothing further to say about them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the welcome that they have given to the regulations. They are as familiar as I am with the debate we had on the Pensions Bill. We have all been over these matters on a number of occasions.
I say, first, to the noble Earl, that there has been considerable consultation with the industry not just on these three regulations but on all the other regulations that we are bringing forward. Indeed, there are usually two sets of consultations. There is an initial one, and then we pretty well always put out another consultation when we have come to a decision in the light of the previous one, just to ensure that we have the position right, because these are important issues. This is an important industry, and we want to take it along with us.
I know, as the noble Baroness pointed out, that there are a number of suggestions going around that we are over-regulating in this field. Although she did not use the figure, I have been accused of producing 1,000 pages of regulations. I sent my officials off to have a count, and I am told that we have managed to achieve 400, which is an increase on roughly 300. However, in my defence let me say that many of those pages will not be in the least relevant for many schemes because it will depend upon which kind of scheme is being operated. Many pages in the regulations deal with matters such as the winding up of schemes, which fortunately does not happen often, and therefore the great majority of schemes will not have to get to grips with them. It is not quite as bad as has been suggested.
Having said that, I am well aware of the desire in the industry to keep the burden of regulation as low as we can. That is what I have attempted to achieve with my

1413
officials throughout the work since the Pensions Bill completed its stages. We have attempted to balance the need for security for members of the scheme with the need to ensure that we do nothing to inhibit employers from running the schemes.
I am as keen as the noble Baroness to see employers continue to run schemes, and to start new schemes. It is not an either/or situation. Both employer led schemes and personal pensions have important parts to play because not everyone can get into an employer's pension scheme, because not all employers run them. I want to underline the point that we are keen to see employers' pension schemes continue. The last thing we want to do is to give employers the feeling that they are being so over-regulated that they would rather not bother to continue to run their schemes. We are at one on that.
The noble Baroness—not to my surprise, I may say—brought up the subject of training for trustees. We had a considerable debate on that subject. We differed on whether there should be mandatory training. As I recall it, my view on the matter prevailed, and we do not have mandatory training. However, we have provision for people to have adequate time off their work for training. There are a number of training schemes available. We have gone a long way towards ensuring that people can have training by having paid time off their work in order to do their training. We believe that that is important.
Just a fortnight ago I addressed a northern pensions conference at Newcastle. The bulk of the audience was drawn from the trades unions and people who are involved in being trustees. So a great deal of work is being done on the subject, and I am sure we all welcome that.
I was asked whether £15 million for compensation was the right level. I suppose my answer is, how long is a piece of string? It was the illustrative estimate made for the Pensions Act compliance cost assessment. We arrived at it by looking at the number and size of the compensatable events that might occur on average in each year over a 20-year period. We made adjustments for any recovery of assets that we might hope to achieve.
We hope that the actual cost will be much lower, particularly in the first year or two of the scheme, as the reduction in assets must have taken place after April 1997. Of course we cannot rule out that the board might at some stage have to meet a significant claim, and to do so quickly, if pensions in payment are to continue. So that is how we arrived at the figure.
As to the other point the noble Earl made, I have to say that as it is well outside the context of these regulations, I have noted what he said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, it would be for the convenience of the House, since it is due to rise so soon, if he could give me a rather more precise answer than merely noting what
1414
I said. I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily just before it rises, but if he could save us all that trouble I should be very grateful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I always like to be helpful but I am in some difficulty because I shall be straying not only a mile or two but many miles from the regulations. Perhaps I may recommend that the noble Earl discovers what I said today on "The World at One" about the timetable of the project. He will then understand that not a great deal will have happened by the time the House returns.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Occupational Pension Scheme (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

"An EMU of 'Ins' and 'Outs"': ECC Report
5.1 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on "An EMU of 'Ins' and 'Outs'" [11th Report, HL Paper 86].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have never been so delighted to move a Motion either in this House or in the other place. I wish to begin by thanking the members of my sub-committee for their help and support in the preparation of the report. I am grateful to them and to members of the Select Committee too. Perhaps I may welcome in advance the maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere. We all look forward to hearing his speech today.
I will not bore your Lordships by reading out the terms of reference for debate. They are clearly set out in paragraph 3 of the introduction. The terms of reference do not ask whether there should be an economic and monetary union but what would be the consequences for us whether we are in or out. We believe that that is probably the most important subject which needs to be discussed at the moment.
I am sorry that we did not go into the main issue of whether or not we should join because personally—and I emphasise "personally"—I should have liked to have said a number of things. For example, I should have liked to have said that this week's ministerial resignation was irrelevant to the serious questions that we raised in our report. Even having read the Minister's document, I still believe that his resignation is irrelevant to the points that we raised.
I should also have liked to have said—I could not because it was outside the terms of reference, but I shall say it nevertheless—how much I regret the damage done to our influence by the so-called "beef war". Perhaps I may say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I regret my Front Bench's support for that so-called war. I found it humiliating to see a British Foreign Secretary treated by all 14 other member states as a kind of petulant child. It embarrassed me and it should have embarrassed many others. I do not believe that it helped to achieve the good will that we shall need in our negotiations with the Community.
I emphasise that that is my own view and has nothing to do with the terms of reference. However, in my view we will have no influence outside an economic and monetary union if seven or eight member states decide to join. It would be in our own interest to join as soon as we have a sustainable convergence within the Maastricht Treaty. I say that despite misgivings about the way in which the European Central Bank might work.
Perhaps I may re-emphasise that those are not the views of the committee but they are my views. Having briefly upset members of my committee and perhaps others by being slightly controversial, I shall turn to the terms of reference. Volume II, which contains the evidence, was mixed—and I put it no higher than that. That may be understandable because, for example, we had evidence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Tebbit. Your Lordships will not be too surprised that the evidence that we received was mixed. Perhaps I may say in passing that the evidence was excellent on all sides, whether one agreed with it or not. In the interests of time I propose to deal only with our conclusions, which are set out in Part 5.
Perhaps, in fairness to two members of my committee, I may say that although it may appear that there was unanimity, there were a large number of amendments but none was pressed to a vote. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that many of them came from my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. I am happy to say that, after debate, they decided not to press their amendments to a vote. I and all members of my
1416
committee regret that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington will not be a member after the end of this Session for what one might call technical reasons. I am most sorry about that. He is usually knowledgeable on the subject of the Community and he was most helpful to us, even though occasionally I disagreed with much of what he said.
We received a memo from the Chancellor dated 15th July in which he referred to a memorandum dated 5th December. In fact, that was the date on which he gave evidence to us. Apparently, there was a small error on the part of the Treasury because the memorandum to which it referred was dated 13th November. Whatever the dates, I was extremely disappointed in the Chancellor's memorandum. To say "disappointed" is putting it mildly. I can assume only that it was perhaps written by some "kids" in the Treasury! I do not know, but it is a most disappointing memorandum and during the course of my remarks I propose to raise some of the omissions. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to that at the end of the debate.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, should be entitled to overtime. Working for the Department of Social Security and the Treasury must be a burden for him. If as a result of pressure from me he does not receive overtime I hope that someone else will consider the proposal.
The first question we raised at paragraph 112 was whether EMU will go ahead at all and, if so, when. We believe that there is a political momentum for it to go ahead on 1st January 1999. I should be interested to know whether the Government agree because that was not in the memorandum.
The crucial next question, which appears in paragraph 113, is which countries are likely to join? The committee believed that there would not be a start unless France and Germany joined. Indeed, a number of others might not meet the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty. A great deal will depend on whether there is a looser or stricter interpretation of the convergence criteria. We do not yet know what will be the case but perhaps the Government do. I hate to pile questions on the Minister. I do not ask him as a Minister in the Department of Social Security but I ask him as a temporary Minister in the Treasury whether he will give us the Treasury's view on these matters.
We then asked in paragraphs 114 to 116 whether EMU will work well. There are three main issues for the "ins". The first issue is whether and how quickly the European Central Bank will establish credibility comparable to that of the Bundesbank. Secondly, how well will EMU cope with the high or differing levels of unemployment and with asymmetric shocks? Thirdly, to what extent will EMU lead to further constraints on national taxation and public expenditure? Incidentally, as regards those two issues—that is to say, the tax and the spending argument—I should emphasise that they will remain matters for national governments, whether for the "ins" or the "outs". Of course, the "ins" will need to keep within the convergence criteria.
The effect of EMU on the "outs" depends on whether it works well or badly for the "ins". There will clearly be a spillover effect from the "ins" and it will depend

1417
partly on whether the pursuit of the convergence criteria by the "outs" will lead to more sustainable prosperity or whether they will fall behind the advancing "ins". That will be a matter for the "outs" who will retain autonomy to be responsible for the outcome as it affects them. Again, I should be interested to know the Minister's view—if there is a government view—on that matter.
Next is the question of unemployment to which we refer at paragraph 117. We believe that EMU is neither deflationary nor likely to reduce unemployment. It will depend on whether the European Central Bank can achieve price stability and whether national governments can achieve a high level of employment. Both objectives are enshrined in the treaty. Again, I should be interested to know whether the Government agree with that conclusion which we reached.
Next, and perhaps the most important issue for an "out" is the implications for the single market, for that is the most important benefit to the UK. That is referred to at paragraphs 119 to 123. If we are out, how should we be affected? Discrimination itself would be illegal and the Commission has indicated that it would act to prevent such discrimination. On the other hand, as we point out, simple delaying tactics would be more difficult to prevent; that is, covert discrimination, to which we refer at paragraph 120. Again, I should like to know what the Government have in mind to do in those circumstances if they agree with our conclusions.
The risks to the single market seem to the committee to be greatest in two circumstances. The first is where there is real exchange rate instability between the "ins" and the "outs"; and for the "outs", the best defence would be to achieve sustainable convergence. Indeed, the Minister who is to reply to the debate said that in answer to a question which I raised last week. He said that the Government would seek to achieve sustainable convergence. But of course, if we have that sustainable convergence, by remaining out, we should relinquish the greater influence which would be available to us if we were within EMU.
The second area where the single market would find itself in difficulties is where member states meet the criteria but are unwilling to join. That may apply to the UK. I say "may" because whereas at one time it looked as though we were certain to meet the Maastricht convergence criteria, given the levels of our PSBR as set out in the recent summer economic report, it is now no longer quite so certain. Again, I should be interested to have the Minister's comments on that.
Trade with the rest of the world is a very important matter for us. If the UK stays out of EMU, would we be affected by the extent to which EMU influences general competitiveness? It is very important that we should know what is likely to happen in those circumstances. In paragraphs 124 to 127, we refer to possible shifts in market preference, particularly at paragraph 127. We are happy to see that there has been some very useful and excellent inward investment recently. But in the event, that would be influenced by perceived stability of the economic environment compared with the Euro area.
Clearly one factor would be an assessment by investors of the likelihood of barriers and obstacles against the UK if we are outside. We cannot be confident that there will be no such obstacles. Indeed, recently lain Vallance, the chairman of BT, said that retaliation is definitely on the cards and there are enough people talking about it already. Again, I should be interested to know what is the Minister's view on that matter.
As regards the City, the committee believes that it will remain an international financial centre whether we are in or out. But either way, it will very much depend on the City being well prepared for all eventualities.
I turn now to the implications for the exchange rate, which are set out at paragraphs 128 to 131 of the report. If the UK is out, much depends on whether we join a new exchange rate mechanism, if there is one. In discussion, it has been called ERM2. It is not easy to see what will happen if there is an ERM2. If there are narrow bands, that would clearly invite a challenge from the market. If there are wide bands, it would have little practical effect. Therefore, we clearly do not know whether or not there will be a second ERM. In his memorandum to which I have referred, the Chancellor said that there would be an ERM but membership would be voluntary. We have already been told that the Prime Minister was not inclined to join an ERM again after the trouble he had before. But whatever happens, it is vital that the markets believe in exchange rate stability between ourselves, if we are out, and the rest of the European market. There would have to be a recognition that we did not have it in mind to devalue on a regular basis. We were told by a senior Treasury official that of course devaluation is not a free lunch. We were of course aware of that but he confirmed it for us. It seemed to the committee that the best way to avoid having a fear of devaluation on our part, if we were out, would be by achieving the sustainable convergence to which I referred earlier.
The next item to which we referred in our report is at paragraphs 132 to 134; that is, the implications for the European Union budget. After EMU, the pressure to increase fiscal transfers between the "ins", or from the "ins" to the "outs", would be considerable, but there would be little chance of that happening in our view because it would be resisted both by the Commission and member states who are net contributors to the European Union budget. There would also be other constraints because of the very small size of the European Union budget in relation to national budgets, and bearing in mind that that European Union budget can be increased only by a unanimous vote of the Council. Again, I should welcome the Minister's views on that.
I turn next to the implications for institutional arrangements set out at paragraphs 135 to 138 of the report. I doubt, and the committee doubted, whether the Waigel proposals for automatic sanctions would be acceptable to anyone. Certainly they would not apply to the "outs" in any event. I should be glad to hear the Minister confirm that that is the Government's view.
As regards the informal and political implications which are referred to at paragraph 139, if we decide to opt out, future relations between the UK and the rest of the European Union will depend on whether there is a climate which is friendly and not bitter—something to which I referred earlier. We believe that it is in the UK's interests that a decision to "wait and see" should be seen as a genuine postponement and not as a disguised final rejection of economic and monetary union. That is a most important matter and, again, I should welcome the Minister's view on that.
I tuna now to enlargement as set out in paragraph 140 of the report where the committee states that EMU and enlargement are not alternatives; one is not conditional on the other. Each should be "treated on its merits". Again, I would welcome the Minister's response. Then there is the question of qualification for later entry which the committee set out in paragraphs 142 and 143. Of course, it is possible that the "ins" might have it in mind to risk setting in front of us greater hurdles, thus making membership of ERM2 a condition of adherence to any fiscal stability pact that they decide upon. Again, I would welcome the Minister's view as to whether such hurdles are likely to be set for us.
Finally, policy preparations, if we do not join, are set out in paragraphs 144 and 145. They relate to how credible our monetary policy would be. Unless credibility is achieved in that respect, it was made quite clear to us in evidence that interest rates would be higher. We thought that at least the Bank of England could be responsible for price stability, and that the case for independence needed to be examined as soon as possible. Again, I would welcome the views of the Minister.
In paragraphs 146 and 147 of our report we refer to the technical preparations, whether or not we join at the outset. I am pleased to see from paragraph (3) of the Government's memorandum that they are committed to being fully involved. Yet, while they want to remain fully involved, they are not prepared to do much about it. The City needs to prepare now for the introduction of EMU, and a widespread perception needs to be established of the need for co-ordination through a national body. The Government are unwilling to set up such a body, but it is good to see that the Bank of England is at least aiming to provide a necessary degree of co-ordination. It is important to the City that that progress should be kept under review. I have given what I believe to be a brief summary of our conclusions. Indeed, I hope and believe that it is a balanced report which will be acceptable to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on "An EMU of 'Ins' and 'Outs'". [11th Report, HL Paper 86].—(Lord Barnett.)
5.21 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for his chairmanship of the committee and his lucid presentation of the report. I should also like to thank the
1420
noble Lord's colleagues for the report which, as they say, touches matters that are of such importance that they affect our future for a generation or more. I am also grateful for the opportunity of today's debate, not least because it gives the House the opportunity to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, to which we very much look forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, went a little way, but not too far, towards disavowing the unanimity of the report. It is important that such a broad spread of opinion was able to reach at least two very important conclusions. The first is that for certain key economies within the Union EMU is now moving from a dream to a probability with far-reaching implications for this country whether we are in or out. There should be small wonder at that when one reflects that almost two-thirds of our trade is now conducted with fellow Union members.
The second important conclusion of the report is that it is overwhelmingly in this country's interests actively to prepare for that eventuality coming to pass. We need first to influence the shape of the system which is likely to emerge. We must ensure that our voice is heard, and the committee clearly endorsed that view. In fact, during the past year alone, we have been able—thanks to the Government's commitment to that effect—to make vital contributions to the debate. The "ins" and "outs" issue with which the committee was concerned is on the agenda. We have ensured by government participation that ERM 2, if it happens, will remain voluntary. We have secured a commitment that EMU does not justify the more active Community budget. So participation has already had an effect.
Moreover, the committee says quite plainly that we need to prepare for the impact of the Euro on our own economic and industrial future and, above all, on the future of our financial service industry. The committee is also quite right to say in paragraph 127 of the report that,
"the City's future as a financial centre for the Euro market depends on preparing for EMU thoroughly and in good time, whether the United Kingdom eventually decides to join or not".
That is a most important conclusion coming from a committee with such authority.
Before I say anything more about the future, perhaps I may reflect for a few moments on the other observation made by the committee; namely, that the debate has been characterised for far too long more by,
"partisan feeling than by thoughtful analysis".
I have always believed that citizens and businesses are entitled to look to government to maintain the value of our currency and, so far as possible, to achieve exchange rate stability outside our country.
At one time the gold standard achieved that aim. For more than a quarter of a century Bretton Woods went a long way towards achieving it. It is no surprise that, within five years of the collapse of Bretton Woods, Arthur Burns—not a very Keynesian character—was calling for a return towards a rule of law for international monetary relationships; and that, in less than 10 years, President Giscard d'Estaing, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and the then president of the

1421
Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, were putting in place the exchange rate mechanism to achieve just that within the European Community.
People sometimes forget that the manifesto on which Conservative candidates fought the European elections in 1979—a manifesto agreed at the time with the then Prime Minister and myself—contained the following passage:
"We regret the Labour Government's decision … not to become a full member of the new EMS. We support the objectives of the new system, which are currency stability in Europe and closer co-ordination of national economic policies, and we shall look for ways in which Britain can take her rightful place within it".
For me it is almost the greatest sadness of my life that our failure to fulfil that commitment in what I think were the right circumstances in 1985 and the decision five years later to do so in wholly inappropriate circumstances were perhaps the most far-reaching errors—indeed, apart from the poll tax, perhaps almost the only errors—of the Administration in which I served under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. Had we been effective participants in the system as we had promised we would be, at least three more far-reaching hazards might have been averted.
First, I believe that we would have avoided the hugely damaging humiliation for this country—and, indeed, for Her Majesty's Government—of Black Wednesday. Secondly, we would have avoided the wider damage done that day to the effectiveness and credibility of the European monetary system. Thirdly, had we been long-term participants in the system, we might well have prevented the premature rigidity of the Delors plan for a move to a single currency which has to some extent overshadowed the debate ever since.
Even so, the fact which the committee now brings firmly to our attention is that—despite those setbacks, which have done so much to undermine our national self-confidence—the probability is that our partners will go ahead with the establishment of EMU and that the Euro is more likely than not to come into existence. As the committee points out, in those circumstances we will not be able to escape the proximity of the Euro zone within the European Union market. Yet, it seems quite possible, that we shall not be a part of it.
The truth is that here, too, in a phrase beloved by my noble friend Lady Thatcher, if that happens, we shall not be able to "buck the market". Everyone will proclaim, as the noble Lord has rightly done—and, indeed, as Eurosceptics do as loudly as any—that if, in those circumstances, confidence in our economy is to be maintained, we shall need to do at least as well as our neighbours in avoiding inflation and devaluation (still more the charge of competitive devaluation, with all the risks of retaliation that that might imply). The committee spells out those consequences very clearly in paragraphs 122 and 138. I quote especially from the latter paragraph which states that,
"if the United Kingdom decides to remain outside EMU, in order to sustain confidence of the international markets in sterling, monetary and fiscal policies at least as disciplined as those practised by Member States within EMU will have to be followed. The paradox is that the United Kingdom's freedom to pursue whatever monetary
1422
and fiscal policies it chooses will be constrained whether it is inside or outside EMU. These constraints apply in particular to the fiscal balance".
It is clear that one "cannot buck the market" indeed. The probability is that in that position our interest rates, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, pointed out, would need to be higher, although our influence over the structure surrounding us would be much less. It is perhaps more prudent to conclude that if one cannot lick them, then it would be wiser to be ready to join them.
For myself I have little doubt that if EMU survives, it would soon be seen to be to the national disadvantage not to belong; and that if we are seen to have excluded ourselves from it virtually for good, it would be gravely damaging to our national interests—economic and political alike. I leave the economic arguments for another day. But, politically, if the G7 (as it now is; the G5 as it used to be) becomes in effect the G3, what strength would our voice have in those hugely important global economic debates for the future? The Chancellor was right to point out to the committee that, in all sorts of decisions in the European Union we will no longer have the same weight as we now have. If we are not effectively "in", the effect on inward investment would be damaging in the end. I subscribe entirely to the Prime Minister's commitment to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe. However, "enterprise centre of Europe" is a phrase divisible into two halves: "enterprise" certainly—the Government have been achieving a great deal of that; and the other half is "centre of Europe". One cannot have one without the other. One cannot be the enterprise centre of Europe and yet not part of Europe. I suspect that Lucky Goldstar's £2 billion investment in South Wales might well have not come to Wales had Britain not been an effective player in the European Union.
Even so, it is all too likely that we shall postpone a decision on this as on so many other issues. In those circumstances, if our country is to have any chance of avoiding the grave risk of discrimination, to which the noble Lord referred, then the tone of voice, the manner and the duration of our self-exclusion are critically important. I think that the most important practical recommendation of the committee is at paragraph 139 which states:
"We think that United Kingdom influence may decline in the EU, if it decides to opt out of EMU". There is then this passage: "Future relations between the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU may also depend on whether any decision to opt out is taken in a climate of benevolence or bitterness … it is essential to British interests for any decision to 'wait and see' to be perceived as a genuine postponement of a decision and not as a disguised final rejection of eventual membership".
One conclusion is surely manifest from this: that a decision to announce now that Britain had excluded for the duration of the next Parliament, still less for any longer time, the very possibility of joining EMU would be calculated to inflict grave damage on Britain's standing within the European Union for all purposes—by no means confined to the economic.
My important conclusion is this. Far from moving in that self-destructive direction, it is vital for the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Government to

1423
remain politically and actively engaged in the entire process towards economic and monetary union and, in particular, as leaders of the necessary work within the United Kingdom itself. On this concluding point as well the committee offers wise and compelling advice. Paragraph 147 states that,
"the United Kingdom's preparations for EMU need to be co-ordinated through a national body, even if the United Kingdom stays out, and also to keep open the option of going in".
It would be catastrophic if we were to handle a decision of that kind as decisively as we have managed, for example, decimalisation; as decisively as we have managed, for example, accession to the central European time zone. It is for me a matter of shame that we have muffed and miffed and mishandled those conclusions, leaving our people driving up highways with a sign saying, "Birmingham 39 miles, roadworks 500 metres". We cannot handle this issue in that fashion. The national body that is apt for the purpose of making these preparations for EMU, in or out, is Her Majesty's Government. I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench for a clear assurance that the task which should be undertaken by the Government will be undertaken.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the powerfully argued and impressive speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I believe that this is a good report, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and his colleagues on having produced it. I am glad that we are debating the issue before we disperse tomorrow for three months.
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, it does not give a sharp "in or out" answer. That would have been difficult even with a unanimous report. However, it advances the argument in a number of important ways. First, it moves forward from that typical and facile British assumption of a few years ago that a single currency was all Cloud-cuckoo-land and would never happen. As we have made the same mistake with every European initiative for 46 years now, one might have thought that we would have begun to learn that things actually happen. But until recently there was precious little indication that that was so, and least of all from the Prime Minister, who quite a short time ago used some extreme language about the fantasy of a European currency.
The assumption now is that there will be an EMU on time, at the beginning of 1999, with the five core countries of Germany, France and the three Benelux countries participating—I do not believe that it can occur without them—with probably three or four others as well. I refer to Austria, Finland, perhaps Sweden, and very likely Ireland. Italy will be mortified at not being for the first time a founder member and will make it at the earliest possible moment. So will Spain and Portugal.
Therefore, all of those who are not in from day one will be in the category now being called in Brussels the "pre-ins". That disposes of the second British fallacy in this field: that there is a role waiting for us as captain of the refuseniks. The divide will not be between those in and those out, but between those on the one hand who
1424
are in together with those who wish to be in, and will be as soon as they can, and those on the other who do not want to be in even if they qualify by the criteria. In that position we may be alone; we may be with Denmark. After the BSE row I am not sure that anyone will be queuing up to be together with us, and no one else, in a column. That will be the frontier. It will certainly be a position of loneliness. A question which to some extent was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, is whether it will be one of bitterness for us as well.
The bitterness will not in itself arise merely from our not joining. The other countries are used to that. They may even, I am afraid, welcome it, in particular given how quickly we messed up the ERM, which had worked perfectly well for 11½ years before we joined it. It certainly did so. I apologise. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, merely coughs. I had thought that he was dissenting. I misunderstood the sounds which came from him.
There are three possible dangers of exacerbation. One is the thought that we are not merely standing sceptically on the sidelines, of which we have made a habit, but are actively encouraging the failure of the single currency. To be frank, we have been close to that position during past years and it could be dangerous if we continue with it in the future.
Secondly, it will be dangerous if we try to prevent other countries making arrangements in which we have no intention of participating but which we nonetheless try to obstruct in regard to those other countries.
Thirdly, it will be dangerous if we pursue a maverick exchange rate policy from outside and try constantly to gain unfair advantage by competitive devaluation. I do not see that as likely. In future circumstances, I doubt whether we will have the energy to pursue a maverick or wrecking exchange rate policy. I see our position then as being much more like people in a small boat in the wash of a big liner, trying hard not to be seasick. Without question, we will find much speculation diverted to us in those circumstances.
We should also realise that the single market cannot be complete or even secure with separate and fluctuating currencies. As the single currency becomes a battlefield, a religious war within the Conservative Party, so we tend to forget the practical issues and advantages involved in a single currency. Being generally inclined to talk in macro or even theoretical terms, perhaps I may give two specific concrete examples.
A few months ago I received a private cheque to settle a small private debt. It was drawn on a Paris bank and made out not in French francs but in sterling for £151·50. I paid it into my bank in the normal way and received a credit for £134. In other words, a turn of £17·50 or 12 per cent. was taken on that simple transaction between two of the major countries. Noble Lords may suggest that I should change the bank, but I suspect the result would be the same. When I wrote to the bank protesting, I said that while I thought the charge was scandalous I would nevertheless pay it with a certain amount of satisfaction because I would make good use of it in the argument about a single currency.

1425
The bank immediately wrote back saying that it would waive the charge altogether. I fear that my position may not have been wholly typical.
The other example is in a different field. I have been involved in setting up an Anglo-French scholarship scheme in which the retiring British ambassador in Paris has taken a leading role; I am chairman of the trustees. As we were setting up the initial orders, a question arose as to payments for the British scholarship holders going to study in France. It was first proposed that payment should be made in French francs on a yearly basis. It was then proposed that that should be changed to sterling on a termly basis, and the number of terms in a year does not matter. We suddenly realised that it could make an enormous difference. The recipient would have no idea what he would receive in French francs; there could be a swing—such as we have had in the past few years—of 20 per cent. on the money available. That is typical of the uncertainty which is involved and will persist if we are outside the single currency.
There are other practical consequences. In my view, an interesting picture emerges from the report and the evidence to the Select Committee. It is the detail of how, if we stay out, we could minimise the practical dangers which I found fascinating. First, could the City of London continue to function effectively as an international financial centre? Probably yes, provided it reconciled itself to doing a substantial and growing proportion of its business in Euros rather than sterling. That is not a splendid vindication of the proud independence of sterling.
Secondly, could we keep interest rates within striking distance of those within the single currency area? At the time when evidence was taken on that, the difference between London and Frankfurt or Paris was about 1·6 per cent. in favour of Frankfurt or Paris and against London. The answer given was: yes, we possibly could, provided we shadowed the money and exchange rate policy of the European Central Bank as closely as was humanly possible. Again, that is hardly a striking advertisement for unfettered sovereignty outside. In other words, if one is in, one follows the policy with a share in determining it; out, one follows the same policy without any say in forming it.
I end on a wider consideration. Europe, I fear, has largely written off the present Government. It expects nothing from them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is personally rightly respected in ECOFIN, but that is about it. I agree with Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, whose method of resigning does not exactly command confidence, that the present relationship is not working. It causes the maximum of irritation with the minimum of results. However, the fact that the Government have been written off does not necessarily mean that Britain has been written off. It means that the first six months in the life of a new government will be a crucial and dangerous time for Britain's relations with Europe.
I echo some of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. Hopes of a constructive British role have been disappointed too often. They were there after the referendum of 1975, but three years later we were the only country to stay out of the ERM. The
1426
hopes were there after the 1979 change of government. I vividly remember how hard the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, tried to create a new atmosphere. To some extent he succeeded, until it was swept away by the swing of the handbag of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. She dug deeper and deeper into the budgetary dispute which eventually concerned small amounts of money but a great deal of influence and good will. There was yet another disappointment when Mr. Major's famous words about Britain being at the heart of Europe quickly turned to ashes.
Should there be yet a fourth wave of disappointment under a new government, then I fear that, whether we like it or not, we will come to an effective parting of the ways. I do not believe that we will be asked to leave, although during the BSE dispute such thoughts were undoubtedly beginning to surface. I believe that what will then happen in the fourth wave of disappointment is that a new clubhouse will begin to be erected alongside the old. The most important activities will be conducted in the new clubhouse, which we shall not be asked to join. Our danger in Europe has always been not an excess of realism, as we like to believe, but a lack of it, based on a consistent over-estimate of how essential we are. Not the least value of the report is that it dispels some of that miasma of illusion.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I must begin with an apology to the House. A long-standing commitment this evening may make it impossible for me to be here for the whole of this debate.
This House, not for the first time, has the opportunity of debating a difficult and controversial subject reasonably and objectively, whereas elsewhere it tends to generate much more heat than light. We must be deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for initiating the debate, for the manner in which he introduced it and, above all, for the report prepared under his chairmanship which is our subject tonight. I had the privilege of participating in the preparation of the report and I pay tribute to the masterly manner in which the noble Lord conducted our inquiry. He showed unfailing good sense and unfailing good temper. Firmness combined with gentleness were the characteristics with which he guided us through the thickets of issues that confronted us.
The noble Lord in introducing the subject emphasised the terms of reference of the report and of the debate. He drew a distinction between concluding whether a European monetary union is desirable—whether if it came about one should join it—and if one were created between a number of members of the European Union, what would be the consequences for the insiders and the outsiders.
It is perfectly true that those are two distinct subjects. However, as the noble Lord himself demonstrated, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, it is extremely difficult to treat these two subjects separately even though they are distinct. The preconceptions—dare I say the prejudices?—one has

1427
formed about the desirability of a European monetary union, and more particularly the desirability or otherwise of British membership of it, will inevitably colour one's view on the balance of advantage and disadvantage to insiders and outsiders.
Reference was made to the witnesses. We examined a very large number: men of great authority and in positions of great responsibility, and many men of great experience of economic and financial matters. Noble Lords will form their own view about the balance of the evidence that is now available. I believe that the balance clearly points in the direction that the outsiders will fare badly compared to the insiders. However, others may take a different view. Indeed, I would go further. This is not a subject, alas, in which expert opinion can give us absolutely sure guidance. These issues cannot be weighed in an apothecary's scale. Many cannot even be quantified at all. They are inevitably matters of probability and, without detracting in any way from the eminence of our witnesses, we must each form our view on probabilities.
The first and most important probability to assess is: will there be, on 1st January 1999 or thereabouts, an attempt by some members of the European Union to start the process of creating an economic and monetary union between them which within a relatively short time will lead to a common currency between them? The committee's answer is quite unequivocal: for planning purposes the only safe assumption to make is, yes, there will be one. It is not quite possible at the moment, although the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, attempted to do so, to say exactly who will be members of the first wave of that incipient economic and monetary union. There will be five. There will be France, Germany, and the Benelux countries, despite certain current difficulties in Belgium. There will be Austria; probably Finland; there may well be Ireland; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned, there will be Sweden and possibly Norway. Denmark will almost certainly wish to be an early member. However, it is committed to a referendum which in all probability it cannot hold until about the third stage of economic and monetary union.
Italy is an interesting case. In some quarters in this country Italy has been, as it were, selected as the most likely ally for the United Kingdom in adopting a more reluctant attitude. Indeed, I believe attempts have been made to woo Italy to adopt exactly that position. It so happened that I was in Rome last week and had the opportunity to discuss this matter with a number of leading figures in that country. I assure your Lordships that that is a total misjudgment of the Italian situation. Italy, under its present government led by Romano Prodi, is determined to adopt its traditional role of being in the forefront of European integration. It will certainly wish to become a member of a monetary and economic union as quickly as it can. It talks about doing so within 12 months of the start of the economic and monetary union by some countries. I believe it is even prepared to contemplate the revival in some form of an exchange rate mechanism as a preparation for monetary union, even though it is now uncertain how much that will be required as a precondition for participation. At any rate,
1428
I think we can expect Italy, within a year or so of the start of monetary union, also to be a member. So we have the prospect of a minimum of five, perhaps a maximum of up to 10 members or even more, within a year or so of the start of the whole process.
Alas, it does not look as though the United Kingdom will be in the first wave, and perhaps it will not be a candidate in the relatively near future. Therefore, the immediate question arises: what is the consequence of that position for the United Kingdom should a monetary union, as the committee believes, come into being? The witnesses are divided on that question. To use the Shakespearian phrase, some have been "laying their flattering unction" on this matter to themselves and arguing about the strength of the City and so on.
My own feeling is, as the committee has insisted, that much will depend on the political and psychological climate in which the separation of the "ins" and "outs" takes place. I believe that despite the huffing and puffing in some quarters, it is very unlikely that this separation will take place in a climate of bitterness, let alone hostility. It is much more likely—although alas one cannot be certain—to be some kind of a diplomatic fudge, a matter of "wait and see", I hope more positive than negative as the committee has pointed out, and that therefore there will not be that absolute parting of the ways which many fear and which I certainly believe would be very disadvantageous to the United Kingdom economically and politically, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, pointed out.
Even if that is the case, we have to consider very carefully what are the real consequences in economic terms. Much has already been said about that, and I shall be very brief. The committee spent a great deal of time debating the question of discrimination between the "ins" and "outs". I believe that that is not a very serious issue. Overt discrimination is clearly out of the question, because it would be illegal. I do not believe that covert discrimination is likely to be a very serious problem. What will, however, be a serious problem is market preferences. After all, the flows of trade and industry internationally, particularly nowadays, are not especially dependent on what is permitted and what is not permitted. We were told by many members of our committee, as well as by witnesses who were all highly experienced in international trade and industry—and we know the old proverb, "Kissing goes by favour"—that they believe that there will gradually emerge a certain preference on the part of those within the monetary union for each other, particularly with the globalisation of markets that is now taking place. So I believe that even the great achievement of the single market, although it will not be overtly impaired in any way by the creation of a partial monetary union between some members of the European Union, will nevertheless not be working out entirely to our favour.
Then there is the question of the Euro and the financial transactions following from it. I do not know whether it is realised everywhere, but already today the volume of transactions in currency and money markets, particularly in the more modern products of swaps and derivatives of all kinds, in deutschmarks and French francs is already extremely high. There is every

1429
likelihood that the Euro will become an extremely important currency for those transactions in money markets, in exchange markets—particularly vis-à-vis the great currencies outside, the yen and the dollar—as well as in bond markets.
As regards the City, I have now worked there for 30 years after two other careers, and I am the last person in the world not to recognise its strength. Obviously, its history over the last 100 or 200 years has shown some blemishes, but its position today, its efficiency, its strength, its integrity, and its status in the world is extremely high. There is no doubt that the attempts by other markets such as Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Milan and Paris to displace the City have so far not been successful. Today the City is still far and away the outstanding European financial centre.
But even that situation is not absolutely secure. The advantages which the City enjoys at the moment can be duplicated, especially under modern forms of telecommunications, in many other centres. Once a Euro area is created, and the Euro has every chance of becoming a strong currency which will play an extremely important part in world markets, one cannot be absolutely sure that the City's position will remain totally unimpaired.
I believe that the balance of advantage for the outsider, particularly for the United Kingdom, when a monetary union starts, is likely to be, on the whole, unfavourable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the other two speakers who have already spoken have gone somewhat beyond the strict terms of reference for this debate, may I also, if your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, go a little further and conclude in a slightly more personal vein?
I have had the opportunity for over half a century now of watching very closely the development of our relations with our European neighbours, particularly in the economic field, but inevitably also in the political field. Looking back on the situation, it is a sad and sorry tale. There have been a number of particular and specific errors, which I readily admit are much easier to identify now than they were at the time that they were committed, starting with the strains even in the Marshall Plan, when we were leaning very heavily on our wartime alliance with the United States, when that country was already urging us, begging us, to take the lead in the integration movement in Europe.
Then we went on with the refusal to join in the coal and steel community. I happen to know something about that because I was one of two observers deputed to watch the progress of that. Then came the attempt to find some alternative to the common market, the withdrawal of our observer from the Messina negotiations, and the frantic search for alternatives, which have left the landscape littered with international institutional debris, some of which is not even remembered nowadays, such as EFTA. Who talks about EFTA nowadays?
1430
Finally, came the great act of courage under Harold Macmillan when we attempted to join what was then still the common market. That was frustrated. I feel that our continuing ambivalence, quite apart from the attitude of General de Gaulle, had something to do with the fact that we did not succeed and had to wait another 10 years under Ted Heath to join the common market. Since then the history has been a pretty chequered one. We did not join the European monetary system completely, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, has mentioned. We refused to join the exchange rate mechanism, and when we belatedly did so, we did so apparently without adequate consultation, perhaps without any consultation with our partners, and at an absurdly and unrealistically high exchange rate. When we finally had to leave the exchange rate mechanism, I am afraid that in some quarters we tended to blame the system rather than the fact that we had entered it at an extremely high exchange rate.
What is particularly puzzling in this situation is that in monetary matters, in matters of financial and monetary arrangements, we should show this reluctance to accept leadership, which has been within our grasp right through the whole of the post-war period. Why we should do that in monetary matters is totally incomprehensible. After all, I believe that our own financial and monetary arrangements and our banking system have the oldest history in the western world. Possibly Italy could compete with us in some respects. Certainly we have a history stretching over 300 years in this matter. We have a literature of analysis in monetary matters which is incomparably the greatest in the world. We had, to our credit, a leading part in the setting up of the post-war monetary and financial arrangements under Bretton Woods, and yet this is precisely an area in which we have shown the greatest reluctance to accept the leadership in Europe which, as I said, we could have had all along.
The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he wishes this country to be at the heart of Europe. I have no doubt that this is his genuine wish, but I fear that with the policies which we have been pursuing we are likely to end up at a very different part of the anatomy.
Lord Torphichen: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that Norway would be one of the first entrants into the system?
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead mention Oslo. Perhaps I misheard him.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the decision on EMU will be the most important decision affecting British industry to be taken by a British government during the next year. It is a matter about which everybody working in industry needs to be well informed. I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Barnett and his committee on preparing such a balanced and readable report.

1431
Sadly, at present there is only a limited appreciation of what monetary union would actually mean for United Kingdom industry. That is because the debate about Britain's future in Europe has become distorted by the divisions in the Conservative Party and the xenophobia and petty nationalism generated by the beef crisis.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the sad climate in our relations with the European Union. I am sure that many noble Lords are fed up with apologising to business people in the European Union—people with whom we are bound in the single market, and with whom we are attempting to build up a business relationship—for the unnecessarily hostile tone sometimes adopted by the Government. As far as concerns business, that attitude is totally counter-productive. I hope that when he comes to reply, the Minister will not produce the tired, old response that Labour is also divided. The difference is that Labour's Front Bench is united and the Government are split down the middle, and this damages the national interest.
However, business must deal with things as they are and not as they would like them to be. In his memorandum dated 15th July the Chancellor said that the Government are committed to being involved in the preparations for monetary union. So business must assume that monetary union will go ahead sooner or later. Therefore, it is important to consider what are the advantages and disadvantages to business of being an "in" or an "out" and what are the costs and savings.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has spoken about money transaction costs. Those savings are minor compared with ending the uncertainties of exchange rate variability. Exchange rate speculation is both destabilising and costly, and its removal would make a significant contribution to our competitiveness. Monetary union would allow easy comparability of prices within the area, and thereby clearly demonstrate where we excel.
A further advantage of being an "in" would be that monetary union should reduce the extreme swings we have in this country in the economic cycle, and save us from the added instability that that produces. Industry would welcome the greater price stability that being an "in" might bring. If industry expects price stability, growth and investment will follow. Hopefully, EMU would force governments to follow sensible fiscal policies in the long term so that the volatility of the past would be diminished. The experience of Black Wednesday is etched on everybody's mind and nobody wants to go through that again.
Of what is industry afraid? First and foremost must be the effect on our relationship with the single market. EMU should never for one moment undermine the single market. An enormous amount of money, time and energy has been expended in building up relationships with customers, suppliers and partners in the single market. Nothing must be done to jeopardise that investment. Indeed, monetary union is a logical continuation of that work.
A further point is that hovering half in and half out will be interpreted as a lack of commitment to the single market and a desire to retain the use of competitive
1432
devaluation as a possible compensation for failure in other areas of business. This is an improper and ill-advised short-term trading position. It must be avoided if we are not to damage our position in the single market. I have no doubt that firms, investors and wage earners will behave differently outside the EMU than inside the EMU, if they believe that devaluation is an option. As the report points out, markets would assume that the UK had a bias toward devaluation and as a consequence the markets would punish us with higher interest rates.
Secondly, I believe that industry is concerned about the exchange rate of the Euro and the US dollar. Britain does more trade with the USA than any other European Union country. So that is a legitimate concern for us. That is why it is particularly important, whether we are in or out, for the Government to encourage work now on the method of calculating exchange rates so that business can begin to get an indication of the likely level of exchange between the Euro and the dollar, so as not to delay plans related to business in America.
Next, there is the matter of the timing and practicalities of monetary convergence. Industry is concerned that deflationary measures are not forced upon us to achieve convergence by a set date. Our performance must be judged over the whole economic cycle and a sensible EMU of ins and outs, as described in the report, will certainly facilitate that.
Then there are the practical economics of monetary convergence. I should like to emphasise that convergence is not only a matter of monetary policy. It is also a matter of employment and the real economy. What is important from industry's point of view is that hand in hand with monetary convergence must go the investment, training and technical progress and management of our companies essential to hold down unit costs. That is to ensure that monetary convergence does not take priority over the real economy, thereby holding back our competitiveness and adding to unemployment. I call for a rounded judgment, not merely getting the monetary numbers right.
Industry is also concerned about losing influence in the single market if we are out. As the single market inside EMU becomes more integrated, there will inevitably be the need for closer co-ordination on matters such as market regulation, social security and tax policy. We must be involved with that.
A further concern is that under the Maastricht Treaty, non-participants in the single currency will be excluded from voting on decisions regarding the administration of the single currency. As the Select Committee's report wisely points out, instead of arguing among ourselves, there are things that we need to be doing. It is of no use to industry for the Government to excuse inaction by saying that monetary union is too distant a prospect for them to have a policy and it may never happen anyway. All that that does is create a policy vacuum which will be filled by consultants second-guessing the Government.
How much better it would be to have a clear and consistent policy which would give industry some stability on which to base its plans for the future,

1433
knowing that the United Kingdom will play its part in the preparation for monetary union. The European Monetary Institute has prepared a timetable for transition for the banking sector. Industry too needs to be working on a timetable of transition and the DTI should already be laying down guidelines for that as it laid down guidelines for industry's entry into the single market. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that point.
Because of those arguments, British industry must assume that monetary union will go ahead, whether Britain is an "in" or an "out". Isolation is not an option. Britain can no longer afford to stand and offer advice from the sidelines. We must be at the heart of developments. The strength of the Select Committee's report is that it demonstrates that that is entirely feasible, even if we wait and see.
Of course there are difficulties still to be resolved. But I hope that the Minister will tell us that the arguments about principle are settled. I agree with other noble Lords that the Euro will come, and in preparing for its arrival I recommend the Select Committee's report as essential reading for everybody in industry.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, at this moment it is very little consolation to me that privately many noble Lords have told me just how nervous they were when they stood up to make their maiden speech in this great and impressive place. Before you, my Lords, you do not have a sturdy shepherd—and maybe in view of today's announcement this is an unfortunate statement—but a sheep ready to run.
I speak against a background of international trade, in which I have been involved for the whole of my life, in the motor industry and more recently in food and drink. Right from the beginning, which goes back a long time to my days when I began with Ford of Dagenham, I learnt a lesson which has stayed with me right up until today (and I hope beyond). It is that if you are going to succeed in business you must spend your time looking outwards and not inwards. To that end, it has been a great pleasure and joy to me as a businessman over recent years to see the removal of protections across the world and the introduction of free trade.
Access to the large domestic market in which we now trade—namely, Europe—has made a tremendous difference. It has given us economies not only of production but also of research and marketing. In strategic discussions, people often ask about the area that one is going for in business. They ask, "Are you going for Europe, for America or for the rapidly growing markets of Asia?" My answer is always the same: yes. In fact, one does not have to choose. Our markets, our customers and our competitors are all increasingly international. They are not restricted by country; in fact, they are not restricted by continent. They are worldwide.
So the first point that I should like to make today is that any discussion that we have on monetary union must take place—as it has so far in this debate—against
1434
that background. We must assess the impact of economic and monetary union by looking at what it will do to the competitiveness of UK industry (looking narrowly at it) and of all European industry. Can Europe compete in the world and does the single currency help it? That is the fundamental question that will decide the living standards of Europeans for at least the next 100 years and probably for the next millennium.
Some months ago I saw a cartoon in The Times which depicted an emu with the caption "EMU—a bird that cannot fly". I shall not attempt to give an answer or even a view on that at this point. As a businessman one has to keep all one's options open. But in some cases one has concerns which are even more fundamental. Certainly as a businessman I know that if the monetary union debate in Europe means that Europe will be looking inward and arguing, as it has been doing recently and maybe as it will do for some time, the Asians will get so far ahead of us that the debate will be irrelevant.
I speak narrowly as a businessman. I should prefer to see the debate in Europe about how Europe can win worldwide; how European union can expand free trade across the whole of Europe and not just part of it; and how we can forge constructive links with other trading blocs across the world. Let us start building that bridge, which has already been started to some extent, between NAFTA for example, and the European Union. If we are to reduce what I think we would all agree is the unacceptably high level of unemployment across Europe, we must get out and win jobs; we must create jobs. Nobody is going to give them to us. We are only going to do that by being competitive and entrepreneurial and eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy.
The second point I would like to make is one that we sometimes seem to miss—that British business is doing quite well in Europe. We sometimes speak as if we are a failing operation. But we are doing quite well. Of course we can and must do much better. But let us at least approach this issue (which the report of course did) from the basis that we have much to gain and learn from Europe. Our competitors and colleagues in Europe—our fellow Europeans—also have a lot to learn from us, so it is not a one-way mission. It is not Europe imposing on Britain and how Britain responds; we are right in it. I am not certain about being at the centre; I prefer to see us at the front.
I would like to give examples of what I mean. Our successes on inward investment have already been referred to. A lot of countries would love to send regular delegations to Britain to find out how we are achieving that. The major success that British industry has achieved throughout the world as an investor, a trader and an adviser is envied by many European companies.
My role as chairman of London First has involved me in work with inward investment to London on issues such as transport. It has also involved my going around the city in which I was born because people have asked me about places I had not been to for decades. I have been to St. Paul's a bit more recently, but I have not actually looked round it. It was on one of my London

1435
First visits that I went to St. Paul's, and suddenly I stopped and saw something which is relevant to our debate today. Of course one knows the phrase, "For whom the bell tolls", but I had forgotten that it came from a poem by the great Dean of St. Paul's, John Donne. That poem, as your Lordships know, begins,
"No man is an Island, entire of it self".
I firmly believe that the UK is not an island "entire of it self'. Unless Britain seizes the opportunity and takes its place in leading Europe towards enterprise and towards world free trade, we shall end up chanting another part of that poem: Ask not:
"for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
I very much welcome the Select Committee's report. It is, as others have said, a report which makes a major contribution, a balanced contribution—it gets past the slogans—to the debate on how Britain should play a vital part in building a better and more prosperous Europe.
Monetary union, as we know well, is a complex subject. There is not a simple yes or no answer. The timing of Britain's decision is critical, as we heard. We must not drag our feet. On the other hand, do not let us make the mistake which has bankrupted many businesses. We should not rush to answer a question which has not yet been properly defined.
I thank your Lordships for listening to my remarks and for the support I have had since I have been a Member of this great place. I look forward very much to this not being my last participation.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, on his maiden speech to which I listened with very great interest indeed. In fact, in sharp contrast to many of the participants in the debate so far, the noble Lord has been cheerful which, in discussing a serious subject like this, is a very good attribute.
The noble Lord comes to this House almost super-qualified in practically every respect. Not only has he intruded into my own field of accountancy, being on the management side; he has also made a good fist in qualifying from the taxation side. He is, I observe, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries. In fact there is hardly a field professionally in which he has not played an active part. He had a distinguished career at the London School of Economics. Not only was he a student there; now he is a governor and on the advisory board concerned with raising funds for it. He has had a distinguished career in practically every kind of enterprise in the United Kingdom.
I for one congratulate him on his speech. I could go on listing his qualifications. I could for example mention his interest in the Prince's Trust and a whole series of other ventures connected with youth, and still I would not have exhausted his qualifications. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say quite truthfully that we should be listening to the noble Lord not only on this subject, into which I believe he has a shrewd insight, but also on many others about which he would be able so pleasantly to inform your Lordships.
1436
I interrupt my tribute to the noble Lord's speech by saying, "Let us be cheerful", for never in the field of economics, indeed in foreign affairs and in all matters connected with the intercourse between nations, their nationals, their language, have I heard so much gloom. Could it be that this shows a certain lack of confidence? I listened to my noble friend Lord Haskel who gave us a very good and faithful account of his views. However, from this standpoint he tended to say that all controversy was somehow wrong, that there is no room for dissent. There is, of course, the graveyard, where there is complete unanimity, but in this House I rejoice that there is argument concerning these very important matters on which we have touched this afternoon.
As my noble friend Lord Barnett has already indicated, I have provided an occasional note of dissent in the activities of Sub-Committee A. It is of course not right that I should in any way reveal the tenor of our deliberations, which are not public, as distinct from the evidence, that is. However, I do not think I should be reproached for saying that I had some 69 amendments to the first draft report and received support for what amounted to some typographical errors, but nothing much more than that. However, in the interests of having the report out before next Christmas I decided not to pursue in any depth the amendments which I argued before the committee.
We have had a very interesting discussion this afternoon. One thing that rather struck me was the support given to those who believed that the mere fact that we were in, compelled us to agree with everybody else. What did not emerge was that, of all the countries in the European Community, we are probably the most law abiding of the lot. I do not think that is in any doubt. I am not prepared to grovel or apologise for my country choosing to adopt a practice which has been endemic in Europe, at any rate since 1963; that is to say, when things get too awkward or we cannot establish a point of view of our own, we take extra constitutional action; we decide on non-co-operation. Anybody would think, from what has been said by some of the speakers this afternoon, that in being unco-operative in order to achieve a specific objective, we have somehow offended against all high Heaven. Examination of the record reveals that most other countries—notably France—whenever it suits have not co-operated. I am certainly not going to grovel in apology by withdrawing my support—shared by my noble friend the Leader of my party in another place—in vindicating the right and the duty of the Government, in certain circumstances, to withhold co-operation.
It has been proved that this country has obeyed the law. It has sought to make certain changes. Why not? Or it has sought to argue certain matters out with other members of the Community. The way that some noble Lords have spoken this afternoon it is almost as though it is a sin to disagree with one's colleagues in Europe. Not a bit of it. Surely for the vitality of the Community and, indeed, for our own vitality, it is necessary that we argue matters out from time to time. I shall not apologise for my country having the temerity, under certain circumstances, to disagree with something that the rest have said. Surely we have not sunk to that level.

1437
Are we so lacking in conviction that we have lost the right or indeed the inclination to be able to disagree? Fie on it! For my part, I have always adopted the standpoint that if one believes in something, one should articulate it—unless one is ashamed of it, in which case one should shut up. But if one believes in something, one should articulate it and, if necessary, stand one's ground and argue about it. That does not apply only to one's personal life; it applies also to the lives of countries. I hope therefore that that notion can be laid to rest.
It was argued at one point that if we did not go into the European Monetary Union, somehow people would gang up against us. At one time it was thought that even officially we may be out of order. However, on detailed investigation it was found that the actions so far taken by the British Government could not possibly attract any legal retaliation. We have acted quite properly from the beginning and there is nothing wrong in that.
But then the argument began to develop as to whether, though they could not get at Britain legally, somehow the other member states would get round it and make life uncomfortable for us. I am a bit old-fashioned in the sense that I work on the balance of advantages. Bearing in mind that Europe has a trade surplus, both visible and invisible, with this country, it occurred to me that it probably would not want to cut off its nose to spite its face. That seemed a reasonable supposition. Moreover, since the taxpayer directly contributes money into the Community on an average of around £2.5 billion a year and rising, it might have some regard to that as well.
I must admit that I was mistaken. Eventually, mainly due to the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Barnett I became convinced that what he said was undoubtedly true: that there was going to be a lot of unofficial action taken against the United Kingdom because we declined to do something that the other members wanted us to do. I said to myself, "Well, these are rum partners with whom to be in the Community if the first time that we disagree with them on some vital subject or other, they start black-balling us or whispering about us".
On balance, after a while, my noble friend Lord Barnett was so persuasive and some of his colleagues likewise that I came to the conclusion that they were probably right. Then I asked the question: "How comes it that we have partners who would try illegally to do something that they could not legally do against us?" It is a little curious. They do not sound like very good partners to me. It is rather like joining a club and somebody says when one arrives, "I black-balled you. Now we have admitted you, but you had better watch your step because we have got it in for you in one way or another". That cannot be a good club to which to belong. I must assume therefore that it pays us to continue to belong to it, in spite of the fact that most of our trade—visible and invisible—is in countries other than in Europe, and those figures can be proved statistically.
Why should we suddenly bow the knee to everybody? Why should we feel it incumbent on us to explain ourselves to everybody? Why should we be compelled
1438
on to the defensive in anything that we do, as long as we do what we do in good faith and in what we believe to be the interests of our country? At any rate, that is what my country means to me.
Let us turn to the future. Is it wise, in circumstances when our partners are so devious or assumed to be so devious in these matters, that we continue to rely on any kind of assurances that they give us in regard to our joining the single currency? After all, they may disagree with our attitude in that regard. Why is it, in those circumstances, that we are apparently prepared as a country to part with some of the vital factors of control necessary to exercise any decisive influence on the development of our own economy?
Apparently we are going to agree to our deficit being limited to 3 per cent. GDP and to our total indebtedness being 60 per cent. We are going to agree, within certain limits, as to how much GDP we can have and how low or how high it can get. We are going to give powers to the new European central bank that we ourselves now hold, together with the control of this country's currency reserves. We are going to give control in regard to what types of transaction we will undertake. We are going to give over control of our entire monetary policy. All that remains to us as a country, under those circumstances, is the right to raise taxation up to certain levels and the right to spend within those limits; we shall retain a fiscal freedom.
That does not seem to me to make sense. I am very happy to say that my own party has entered a caveat already, although it is not sufficiently watertight. It has said that, as regards the power of the European central bank, it wants a degree of democratic control. That is stated in the party's policy, but unfortunately the treaty does not permit it. It says that the European central bank should not be interfered with in any way by anybody; it should maintain its absolute independence and no government or body of persons should have any right to tell it what to do. It does not say so only in Article 107; the treaty repeats it in Protocols 5 and 6 for emphasis. I hope that soon my own party will be able to publish its proposed amendments for the IGC in order that this matter may be dealt with properly.
Is it really the case that we in this country, notably our economists, cannot find any way to begin to put forward economic policies to deal with the current development of the mixed economy in the United Kingdom? Is it asking too much for them to be able to do so? There are advantages, of course, because if things go wrong the government in office can then say, "It is nothing to do with us. The European central bank made all the mistakes and we are innocent. We had nothing to do with it". I call that an abdication of responsibility.
The function of the United Kingdom government is to govern and to conduct the country's affairs in a way that makes for the well-being of the majority, if not all, of its citizens. That is their task. They cannot abdicate that responsibility and, least of all, to a country called "Europe" which in some respects

1439
comprises partners who are quite willing, if the opportunity is there, to do you down if they do not get their way.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, on his maiden speech. I never had any doubt when he joined this House that we should enjoy his contributions and find them not only substantial but amusing.
I speak as another member of the sub-committee of the European Communities Committee which produced the report. Our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, introduced the debate and ably chaired the committee. I add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord by the noble Lord, Lord Roll. I was not a member of the committee for the whole period of its existence, but I did hear the majority of the evidence given to it and I participated in the production of the report.
It was an extremely interesting process. I am happy to have been part of it and to have signed the report. I am also happy to say that, since its publication, a number of people whom I have met and who are very knowledgeable of the subject and who are professionally interested in what happens over EMU, have said that they thought it a good report.
The sub-committee's terms of reference were precise and tightly worded. They explicitly excluded the question of whether or not the United Kingdom should join EMU, assuming that it is set up on the timetable now envisaged. Inevitably, the views on membership of EMU of those who gave evidence—and the views of the members of the committee—were, as noble Lords are beginning to hear, diverse and often strongly held. I was extremely interested to note that the opinions were often subjective and proceeded from exactly the same premises to precisely opposite conclusions. Indeed, my own discussions in the business world reveal wide differences of opinion to a surprising extent.
However, later I should like to touch on the possibility of discriminatory acts which might be levied against us, as it were, particularly if we choose not to join EMU at this stage. In doing so, like others, I shall stray a little from the content of the report and say where I stand on the issue of membership.
While there is no time limit to this debate, I would like to proceed in a backwards order by setting out my conclusions and then describing briefly how I arrived at one or two of them. My conclusions are as follows: first, the single market is the most precious achievement of the EU and damage to it would be a severe blow. Damage to our membership of it would be a severe blow indeed to the interests of this country. Secondly, a common currency is not essential for the single market. There are examples of markets elsewhere in the world which demonstrate that. Thirdly, a common currency would nevertheless bring some advantages, mainly in transaction costs, but they are nothing like as large and important as those flowing from the single market. Fourthly, a partial EMU can perfectly well go ahead
1440
without us participating. Fifthly, our wholehearted participation in the processes leading up to the establishment of EMU and the European central bank, is useful to our partners and essential to our own interests. Sixthly, Germany and France have a political agenda that we do not wholly share. It looks to me as though they are prepared to embark on a large act of faith in pursuit of this agenda. Seventhly, in no circumstances should the UK rule out joining EMU at some stage. Eighthly, we can and should delay any final decision for as long as the present timetable allows while participating to the full in the preparatory process. Ninthly, it should not be difficult for us to join EMU at a later date provided that we have helped to design it.
As to the future of ERM, I understand—and I hope I am right in this—that agreement has largely been achieved on a broad band ERM giving bands of plus or minus 15 per cent. If that is so, I can see no great problems to our being members of it, nor indeed any great advantages in its existence. We have a hard decision to make and there are many strongly held differences of opinion within all sectors of society including business. I believe that the electorate at large is woefully unprepared for that decision.
I reach these conclusions because I want this country to be fully involved in Europe. "At the heart of" still seems to be a good phrase. I do not believe that for us there is any other game in town. I have never heard a convincing or coherent description of what, or where, another such game might be. There are plenty of irritations in being members of the EU and there are worse than irritations which get up our noses. But in the end it is up to us to help Europe from the inside to get things right. Surely, none of us ever felt that full membership of the European Community was not going to involve some acceptance of changes.
I believe that our membership of the world, as it now is, and the fact that we are part of the global interdependent economic system, enormously curtails our freedom of action in economic and other spheres. Sovereignty does not lie entirely with us; it cannot do so. It is not simply membership of the European Union which curtails sovereignty. It is no good our expecting to be able to cherry-pick the most convenient and comfortable aspects of the system for ourselves. It is more than arguable that in the past we would have done well to choose some of the better parts of other nations' systems.
The Franco-German relationship has always been at the heart of the European Community. At its beginning the concept was a political one and it had political ends. It proposed economic means to achieve those ends. It was about the binding together of Germany and France and their neighbours so that conflict would henceforth be impossible. We must always remember that if we are to understand some of the motivations. I have come to the conclusion that the political steam that drives Germany and France to embark on this process—which as far as I am aware has never been attempted before—must be accepted as an extension of the process of Franco-German assimilation.

1441
I know that what is proposed is fraught with risks. At times there will be terrible political difficulties when governments in any participating country come under pressure from strong local interests to bring about changes in the policy which do not suit participants in EMU as a whole. It will be remarkably difficult to maintain the degree of economic convergence that will be necessary to preserve EMU. I know that the enlargement of the European Union will complicate matters enormously. Germany and France will not make a final decision for a while yet, but I understand what drives them, even if I regard the process on which they are embarking to be one of high risk. I must accept that against all odds they will probably go ahead.
Where does this leave us? In all the circumstances, it will be more likely than not that we will stand aside at this stage. If we do so I hope that we shall wish those who go ahead well, recognising that if their great enterprise succeeds as they hope we may well want to join later. To this end, we must regard the preservation of the single market as our paramount interest. There is no question but that discrimination against those who do not participate in EMU is illegal. The sub-committee had ample confirmatory evidence of that. But there will be temptations aplenty for the "ins" to be swayed by commercial arguments to take action put forward by their own citizens. We all recognise that in the real world discrimination is not easy to police. For example, delays can be just as damaging as refusals and are much more difficult to prove.
We shall have to run our economic affairs in a way that does not provoke retaliation in any way. It seems to me that as a member of all the European institutions other than EMU it would be only sensible, and in our best interests, to do so. We must avoid at all costs the kind of bitterness and misunderstanding that some of our actions have provoked in the past. We must remain at the heart of Europe and keep our options open in respect of EMU. This does not mean that I dissent from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as regards willingness to speak up where our interests are crucially threatened. We do not have to be mealy-mouthed about it; we can be grown-up.
As so often happens in life, the decision that one faces is not simply between the right decision and the wrong decision but between the wrong decision and one that is less wrong. I shall not make up my mind finally until nearer the time. But, as of today, for all of the reasons that have been given, I believe that to stay out is right, while I accept willingly and publicly that in due course joining will probably be the right choice for this country. If someone can think of a new name for the Euro, that would be a bonus.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, who responded so eloquently to the wide-ranging and interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in introducing the report of the sub-committee, has asked me to apologise to the House for his inability to stay for the remainder of the
1442
debate, particularly for the closing speeches, because of a long-standing engagement. Perhaps typically, I was rash enough to ask him what the engagement was. I can assure noble Lords that it was an absolutely genuine reason why he could not stay.
As I suspected—and indeed feared—the report of the Select Committee has become a peg on which to hang a wide-ranging debate on every aspect of the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union, even to raise matters relating to the policy of the Labour Party. (I had hoped that on this occasion as on others we might have been spared that.) I have some reservations about the report, not because I disagree with it—I believe that what it says is absolutely splendid—but because I do not believe that it has tackled the job that essentially it was asked to do.
I believe that from the outset the sub-committee got off on the wrong foot. In paragraph 30 the sub-committee reports:
"The Committee's terms of reference involve making three working assumptions: about whether EMU will go ahead, when, and which Member States will join".
With respect to the sub-committee, its terms of reference did not ask it to investigate those matters at all or to come to any conclusions upon them. On the contrary, its terms of reference told it specifically what assumptions it had to make. It was told to conduct its inquiry on the basis that EMU would go ahead, and it was to assume that a significant number of member states would not be able or willing to join at the outset. This is not mere logic-chopping. Neither this Select Committee nor any other can forecast the future. That is a matter for prophets and soothsayers—or, at a pinch, the editor of Old Moore's Almanack. All that the Select Committee could do was to make assumptions, and its terms of reference clearly told it what assumptions it had to make.
It may well be asked why I should object to the Select Committee wandering down these pleasant leafy lanes, particularly as at the end of the day it came to very much the same conclusions as I myself would have done. My answer to this question—although it is a very unfortunate answer it is nevertheless an important one—is that the report runs to 45 pages and, for the most part, the first 37 and a half pages deal with matters which the Select Committee was not specifically asked to address and on which it had to make certain assumptions. It is only when one looks at the last half dozen or so pages, beginning with the heading "Implications of a partial EMU", that the Select Committee seriously gets down to the job it was asked to do. As a result, while what the Select Committee says is fine—for the most part, I agree with it—inevitably it is sketchy, incomplete, insufficiently argued and sometimes open to question.
I was fascinated by the fact that in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked the Minister to reply to about 20 specific points. I should have thought that it was the job of the Select Committee to have considered those points and suggested answers to them. But no doubt, as the Select Committee has not guided us on

1443
those matters—I shall deal with this in some detail in a moment—we shall fall back on the good offices of the Minister, who I am sure will not let us down.
Lord Barnett: That is optimistic!
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord thinks that I am unduly optimistic, but then, after all, hope springs eternal, even in this field.
Let me start with a preliminary point which has been touched on and which I believe is important. The committee has recognised that most of the "outs" will in fact be what are commonly called "pre-ins"; that is, chaps who want to come in and are doing everything they can to meet the requirements of membership. In the early stages, where that is so the attitude of the "ins" is likely to be benevolent. Under the doctrine of solidarity, they will go to considerable lengths to smooth the path of the "outs"; but if finally the "outs" are reduced to a small core, and if that core consists primarily of those who refused to join on political grounds—the limiting case of course would be that of the UK standing out on its own—the attitude is likely to change. That poses a real threat to this country. But, so far as I can see, nowhere is it dealt with in the report.
The committee is entirely right in considering that what happens to the single market is of paramount importance. That point has been made by a number of noble Lords this evening. The committee says, quite correctly, that discrimination between the "ins" and the "outs" would be illegal, but it recognises the risk of covert discrimination.
But there is another and, I suspect, even more important risk here. It is well illustrated by the case of TARGET, to which the committee refers in the penultimate paragraph of the report. TARGET, of course, is an EMU issue, not a single market issue, but it illustrates the point that I want to make. TARGET is the inter-banks payment system which will be set up to deal with Euro payments. The dispute centres essentially upon overnight risk, and what facilities the Bank of England may be permitted to make available. If at the end of the day the EMI, or its successor the ECB, refuses to allow the Bank of England to provide the facilities it wants to provide, and in the way that it wants to do it, we shall no doubt allege discrimination.
The ECB would no doubt claim that it was doing no more than protecting the integrity of its monetary policy as it was required to do under the terms of the treaty. Interestingly enough, the Financial Times on Monday 22nd July seemed also to take that view. I have little doubt that the Court of Justice would support the ECB on that issue. The matter may yet be settled by negotiation. I hope that it would be, but I cite the case to illustrate the kind of problem which will arise in the single market as well as elsewhere.
In much the same way, there will be substantial problems affecting the CAP. Here again the committee does not appear to touch on the matter, let alone suggest answers. There will be problems also in relation to the regional funds—a matter of real significance to the UK as this country is a major beneficiary. There will be
1444
problems in relation to state aid; in relation to competition policy; in relation to cross-border trade in taxable goods; and in the field of the taxation of enterprises—a matter which is now just beginning to come on the agenda.
It is impossible in a speech of this kind to spell out those points in detail. The move to set up a new exchange rate mechanism is, in part, an attempt to address those problems, but, with the wide bands proposed, its effectiveness so far as that is concerned will be limited. The UK proposes to stand out from any new ERM anyway.
Many of the problems that I have mentioned exist at present, but they will be greatly exacerbated by the division of the Union into "ins" and "outs". The longer that division lasts, the worse the problem will become. The fewer the "outs" compared with the "ins", the less likely is it that solutions acceptable to the "outs" will be found.
I should like to touch briefly upon the question of competitive devaluation, about which concerns have been expressed. The committee seemed to dismiss those concerns as ill-founded. It is true that taking a long-term view devaluation is self-defeating—that, indeed, I have argued in your Lordships' House on many an occasion—but that has not stopped countries resorting to it. This country is a prime offender. I know that we claim we are now reformed characters, but whenever I find a sinner of long standing saying that he is a reformed character it always reminds me of the alcoholic's lament in the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám:
"Indeed, indeed, repentance oft I swore, but was I sober when I swore?"
Leaving that on one side, the country pressing the point is France. Its criticism has been directed at Italy, not at this country. With open frontiers you can gain a large, if temporary, advantage, particularly in relation to agricultural produce, if you undervalue your currency. It is that that the French were trying to stop the Italians doing.
Finally, one of the significant advantages of the single currency is that it greatly simplifies the operation of the Union itself. It reduces the opportunities for manipulation and fraud. While I would anticipate a honeymoon period during which the "ins" will do everything possible to help the "outs", that will not last, and the more the "outs" are reduced to a small core, consisting of those who cannot or will not join, the more the costs arising from the continued existence of fluctuating currencies outside the single currency will be passed on to the people with those floating currencies.
I fear that this is a somewhat critical speech, but my reason quite simply is that if the worst comes to the worst and we opt out of the single currency, we must at least have thought through the problems in depth, and be ready and prepared to deal with them.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, may I add my own words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, on his authoritative maiden speech. He may have felt himself to be a sheep as he stood up, but in

1445
the course of delivering his speech he shed his sheep's clothing to reveal the lion that we know is underneath. We look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Barnett for so excellently introducing the debate on this report, and I congratulate him and the committee on what I consider to be the outstanding quality of the report. It is balanced and highly readable. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said, it is full of wise and compelling advice. There is a pressing need for such a report at this time. I hope that it will be made widely available, in some appropriate format, outside your Lordships' House. It is critical that EMU be explained objectively to the British public if there is to be a meaningful national debate on the pros and cons of being in or out, or, if out, whether we are "pre-in" or out for good.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me if briefly I introduce a small new element into the debate. Regrettably, if not irresponsibly, the Government appear to have privatised by default the presentation of EMU to the general public, a dereliction of duty that has left it largely to a few powerful tabloids to flood the public mind with a distorted, prejudiced, fear-mongering interpretation of what EMU is all about, a travesty of a right to know, aided and abetted by a motley band of Little Englanders.
If the Government believe that possession of an opt-out clause excuses them from informing the public what it is they may want to opt out of, I must beg to differ very strongly. There is a responsibility to inform, whether the clause is eventually evoked or not, and we are less than two years away from the spring of 1998 when the first EMU entrants will be identified. Even the introduction of decimalisation into this country some 25 years ago was preceded by a four-year explanatory campaign.
If a new government decide to opt in, they will have a perilously short period to run a massive popular campaign on so complex an issue. Without prejudice to the eventual decision, the public need the basic facts and they need them now. It is encouraging that bodies such as the TIC, the CB and the Bank of England, to mention but three, are taking on the responsibility of informing those who most immediately need to know what the implications of "in" and "out" are going to be and what they need to do now to prepare for either eventuality. But meanwhile, despite the grassroots efforts of organisations such at the European Movement, the mass of the broad public remains deprived of the most basic, objective facts. And yet it is they who will eventually be called upon to make one of the most momentous decisions for this country in this century.
I shall dwell no longer on that point because I wish to turn to the substance of the report. I add only that ignorance and the exercise of democratic rights make poor partners. The committee's opinion, as expressed in the report, strikes me as mostly very convincing, and there is neither time nor need for me to enumerate my point-by-point agreement with its various conclusions. I prefer instead to address three points in the report
1446
about which I have some reservations, and I hope to put them in the same constructive spirit that permeates this very even-handed document.
First, I am convinced that the political momentum in continental Europe to proceed with EMU on 1st January 1999, as indeed the committee sensed in its informal contacts with French and German officials, is growing and a decision to delay is looking less and less tempting. A growing interest on the part of our European partners in the flexibility written into the treaty in Article 109J and its protocols on the matter of convergence criteria suggests that, under the circumstances, this may be a legitimate and politically more sensible alternative to delay. I share the view of those for whom the dangers to EMU's future inherent in delay loom larger now than the risk of a possibly slower build-up of confidence in the Euro if the criteria are applied with a little less than absolute strictness.
The report even-handedly records some of the arguments for delay, or at least the acceptability of delay. Reasons for not delaying which have been offered by witnesses have also been fairly recorded in the report. I would add one other. I believe that delay will be dangerous, because history has too many times proved electorates ultimately right when governments have said that they need a little more time to get something right before a launch and the electorate has seen in this the first signs that the launch will never take place. Whether such doubts would be justified in the case of EMU is rather beside the point. Where there are doubts there will be lack of support, and that can prove fatal to the project.
It can be argued, as the report justly notes, that a loosening of the convergence criteria would confirm the fears of the many German citizens who already believe that they would be giving up the deutschmark for a weaker Euro. I do not disagree that their fears could be thus exacerbated—and to some extent already have been—but I still believe that the greater danger to the project lies in the doubts, not least in the markets, created by delay. If one looks at where the financial markets expect short-term interest rates to go in France and Germany, the two key EMU states, and also at what the markets are telling us about long-term interests rates in these countries, one can only come to the conclusion that the markets have already decided that EMU is going ahead and on schedule.
The difficulties that Chancellor Kohl's austerity package has been facing in Germany's SPD-controlled Upper House might tempt Euro-sceptics to conclude in the spirit of schadenfreude that Germany is now bound to miss the fiscal deficit convergence targets and that EMU is therefore a non-starter in 1999.
I believe that that is a dangerous assumption to make and we should hesitate before drawing such a conclusion. If the German Government fail to push through the entire 50 billion deutschmark package of public expenditure cuts, which are deemed essential by any test and not just as a means of bringing the fiscal deficit down to 3 per cent. of GDP, would not a flexible application of the convergence criteria look even more appealing to a government for whom the

1447
1st January 1999 starting date appears to be as sacrosanct in Bonn as it is in Paris? In short, I would not count on Germany's fiscal deficit problem scuppering the EMU timetable.
That should certainly be applied to France too. We should take good note of the fact that the French Government—like all French governments, a champion of the nation state—are nonetheless deeply committed to monetary union. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, said, that may be an act of faith, but this is not some aberrant rejection of Cartesian logic, still less a case of schizophrenia on the part of the French. It results from what has been a profound analysis of the monetary union project in the light of what is best for France domestically and for its position in Europe.
For my second point I come to the question of how EMU will affect unemployment. In paragraph 117 the report states:
"On balance, we think that EMU, of itself, is neither deflationary nor likely to reduce unemployment: its effect will depend on whether the ECB achieves price stability and whether national governments achieve a high level of employment as, in our view, is required by the Treaty".
I feel that this wording sells the employment-creating potential of the single currency rather short, or at least undervalues the directness of the linkage, particularly in the case of the United Kingdom. Its potential for reducing unemployment is, or at least should be, one of its biggest selling points and without it the "outs" will be deprived of an important potential benefit.
There seems to be a strengthening consensus that convergence criteria are not in themselves deflationary and that the cuts in government borrowing required of EMU members will reduce real interest rates. In addition to what is noted in the report, the Public Policy Research Institute in a study published at the end of May sees the possibility of a 1 per cent. cut in government borrowing bringing real interest rates down by 0·3 per cent., leading to the creation of a million jobs in the UK within a decade of EMU membership. Christopher Johnson, the United Kingdom adviser to the Association of Monetary Union in Europe, sees the possibility of even deeper falls in interest rates raising growth in our economy to 2·5 per cent., 2·75 per cent. or even 3 per cent., with the actual rate going higher as spare capacity is brought into use. Under these conditions, he says, it should be possible to reduce the unemployment level to around 6 per cent. On that basis, it would seem that the link between a single currency, with its attendant disciplines, and levels of employment is rather more direct than the report allows.
My third and final point relates to trade. I have a slight difficulty with paragraph 123 of the report which states with reference to the UK as an "out" that:
"We can see no compelling reason why its extra-EU trade should be affected, positively or negatively, except in so far as the United Kingdom's general competitiveness will be affected by the economic and political fortunes of the 'ins'".
It is the "in so far as" which is the real point. The wording seems to suggest that the jury is still out on whether Britain can maintain, let alone improve, its competitiveness as an "out". Perhaps the jury is still out for some. But I feel that the risk of a fall-off in inward
1448
investment if we stay out of EMU is very real indeed. And fall-off in a country where inward investment has, according to the CBI, provided 700,000 jobs since 1979 would translate into a noticeably negative impact on our global competitiveness as we struggle with the social costs of a return to rising unemployment. Therefore, on that point I find the report rather too serene.
As at the outset of my remarks, perhaps I may urge once more that all the facts about EMU should be put on the nation's table now and not at the last moment, so that the debate is truly an informed one. It will not be easy because these are complex issues. But I am certain that those who, like myself, would wish to see Britain as a full member of a well-run European monetary union must press the case vigorously, as does the report, for the maximum British influence to be brought to bear on the design of stage three, as many noble Lords have already said, and for our own technical preparations for EMU to go ahead whether we are to go in or stay out.
The Chancellor's memorandum to your Lordships' Select Committee once again reminds us that the Government cannot make the decision on EMU as a number of factors are still unclear. So be it, although similar factors have not deterred many of our European partners from reaching a decision, at least in principle.
Above all, let no British Government abdicate responsibility by saying that they cannot make up their mind and will therefore act on the basis of what the people think. The Government must lead.
Finally, I am certain that if we are to convince sceptical British public opinion that British participation in a well-run EMU is very much in their interests, we must convince them of the great benefits to be gained from the single market and the benefits which have been gained already from our participation in the single market. If convinced of that, I am sure that people will come to understand that if one of the core purposes of the single currency is to ensure the success and sustainability of that market, it is in their interests and that of Britain to embrace it.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I had been disturbed by the lack of debate in any depth on this very important subject. But recently the issue has come to life and we now have a growing interest in the key decision as to whether or not we should join a single market. I hope that the report of the Select Committee will provide a good basis from which many judgments can be formed from the debate.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on his chairmanship of the committee. We produced an unanimous report on a fairly divisive subject with some fairly divisive characters on the committee. It is a great credit to him that he brought us all together with that result. I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that had we expressed any judgment on the implications of various matters, the divisions might have been more prominent.
First, I wish to indicate how little is known generally about what is likely to happen. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, with some confidence, which

1449
countries will take part in this. However, I wonder whether we are right to make that assumption and whether this will take place at all. There are wise voices who are expressing considerable doubts about that. The Germans and the French say that it must happen on a certain date or not at all. But I do not think that we should jump to those assumptions or to the assumption that we shall be in it. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to Belgium joining the EMU. Belgium certainly does not observe the criteria. It is important to know whether, when the terms of entry are decided, they will be fixed on the criteria or whether there will be a glorious fudge. That will have a massive effect upon the credibility of the scheme if it goes forward.
Secondly, we have an option to decide. That has not been mentioned today. Even if the Government were of the view today—as, indeed, I may be—that it is most unlikely that we shall want to join, at any rate initially, I ask why we should want to close that option which was negotiated brilliantly by the Prime Minister. For goodness sake, we should keep open that option until all the material facts are known. Whoever closes an option which is free and gives one the choice to wait and hear what is developing before making a decision?
The option gives to us, while we still have it, the right to be in, participate in and be involved in the preparations for EMU. That is very important, whether we are in or out. I believe that it would be absolute madness to throw away that option.
The media have been having a delightful field day on this subject for a long time now. They have been playing the supporters against the sceptics. They have been taking leading names and misquoting or quoting them. They have had great fun. But I urge a responsible media to think again about their approach. I believe that they should be analysing all the material which is available. They should be devoting their best brains to writing about this matter and educating the public on the issues which arise. They should not merely be playing A versus B. There is so much that they can and should be doing and, in their historic role, would have been doing.
Perhaps I should try to point the media in the right direction. There are two major issues upon which they should be concentrating. The first issue is the cost of staying out; and the second issue is the price of going in. Those are the issues which should be studied rather than what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or John Redwood, or even Tony Blair said. I cannot in fact remember Tony Blair saying anything. The media should not be taking sound bites from those people but should be looking at the real issues.
The first of those issues is the cost of staying out. We have heard a lot about that in this debate. We have heard about the risk of discrimination. Although that will be illegal, there is no doubt that there will be covert discrimination. It will be difficult to prove and the available remedies will be slow. The European Court is not always entirely sympathetic to those who wish to stand out against the Community. Any exclusion from
1450
the single currency or limitation on our entry in any way would be very costly for this country and we must not allow this to happen.
Our position as regards world trade should not be affected provided that we remain as competitive, lively and entrepreneurial in trading with America and the Far East and so on as we are at present. How much I welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said on that in his excellent maiden speech. I believe that we can and will retain our status in world trade whether we are in or out.
The next subject at which to look is internal investment. Shall we lose the investment coming into this country, investment which has been coming in on a massive scale for years past? Shall we lose that if we are an "out"? The indications are that we shall not lose it. Korean investment and so on has been coming in and continues to come in at a time when it must be known that we are a very doubtful starter for EMU. Therefore, although we should be alert on those matters, I do not believe that the situation will necessarily be as serious as some predict.
There have been doubting voices about how the City will be affected. Most experienced voices—the Governor of the Bank of England and many other leaders of the City—believe that the City can and will prosper, although we should be mindful of the point which my noble friend Lord Cockfield made about TARGET. That is a very important point indeed and I am sure that the City is well aware of it.
I suggest that it would be irresponsible for any of us to underrate the very real risks that industry and commerce may suffer in this country if we stay out. They will be there. I believe that they will be there for us to overcome, if we stay out.
I turn now to the other side of the coin which has hardly been mentioned in today's debate; namely, the price of going in. Indeed, there has hardly been any reference to that. Perhaps I may lead in that respect by adopting some words used by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in his evidence to the committee. I should add that I have told the noble Lord that I shall be quoting his words. In answer to Question 297 he said:
"I would not for a moment try to pretend that it does not move us down the road towards a more united Europe, towards if you like, political union, and obviously this is one of the attractions of it for quite a lot of people".
That is a very fair comment. If we decide to go in, we must be aware that such experienced voices as that of the noble Lord believe that it will lead us to political union.
Next, I should like to repeat what the President of the Bundesbank said, as reported on page 340 of the evidence. He stated that,
"for EMU to be credible, it must be followed by fiscal union".
Moreover, my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby confirms in answer to Question 445 that he says in his book that,
"the inspiration of the EMU is not economic but political".

1451
Indeed, on page 126 of the evidence, Professor Congdon said that,
"you cannot have monetary union without political union".
I should point out to the House that I picked such quotes at random last night; indeed, there were many more that I could have chosen.
Sir Peter Middleton, who was formerly the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and who is now chairman of one of the leading banks in the City, said in answer to Question 600:
"I think the two [fiscal and monetary policy] go hand in hand in any individual country's economic policy".
In answer to Question 204, my noble friend Lord Tebbit said that,
"there cannot be more than one finance minister for any one currency".
So it went on. As I said, I could have picked many more examples and, indeed, noble Lords reading the evidence will find that to be true. Therefore, according to those quotations, the cost of going in will lead us into an inevitable political and fiscal union with those who we are joining in the EMU.
Sir Leon Brittan, who is of course a Commissioner, also gave evidence. When that proposition was put to him his very partially contrary view was not very convincing. Indeed, noble Lords who read his answer to Question 685 will see what I mean. So the issue remains: is it in our long-term national interest to bear the cost of staying out? Noble Lords have referred to that cost, and there is no doubt that there would be costs involved if we stay out. Is it in our long-term interests to bear those costs or, alternatively, to pay the price of going into a market where our long-term fiscal and political integrity may well be subjugated to the control of others? In that respect, I draw on some of the quotations to which I referred earlier.
I have a view today—but I believe that it would be very foolish to close any option without waiting to see what develops. We have another year or two before the whole matter is firmly closed, and there could be many developments in the meantime. However, neither of the choices will give us a free run. There is the possibility of substantial economic cost if we stay out; but there would be a very substantial political cost if we go in. Those are the areas which I believe must be fully debated, not just in this House and the other place but also widely throughout the country. I believe that the Select Committee has provided so much high-class and experienced evidence that that should indeed help us.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like other speakers, I had the pleasure and the benefit of serving on Sub-Committee A which prepared the report now before the House. Again, like other speakers, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, on his outstanding maiden speech. I believe that the committee would have benefited from his presence, and especially from the views that he expressed tonight.
1452
Serving on the committee meant for all of us that we enjoyed the experience and came to love our chairman the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. However, one must not make a mistake in that respect. Behind the noble Lord's gentle smile there lies a hard taskmaster who took us to this unanimous conclusion. He was so much of a hard taskmaster that 10 of the 12 members of the committee felt that they had to use the freedom of your Lordships' Chamber in order to escape from the constraints of such a well-chaired committee. Indeed, I am no exception.
I have mentioned other members of the committee. In doing so, I am conscious that I have to part company with some in your Lordships' House whose judgment I respect and in some cases whose friendship I value. However, I do so cheerfully and in the spirit of being prepared to be persuaded that I am wrong in my views.
It is widely recognised that a monetary union in Europe is as much a political as an economic objective. The main protagonists of EMU have always argued in terms of the "ever-closer union", and both proponents and opponents have pointed to the political consequences of a European central bank, a common monetary policy, the sharing of reserves and the actions needed to defend the stability of the Euro. Permit me therefore to comment on the political significance of an EMU of "ins" and "outs" for Europe, and, indeed, on ever-closer co-operation of the countries of Europe, which I strongly support. It is precisely because I support such co-operation that I am profoundly concerned not about EMU as such but about the prospect of the divisions which it will create.
EMU as presently conceived means that Europe will be divided in the name of unity. It will either set the process of rallying around common interests back for a long time or it will create an inner core which arrogates to itself the name of Europe and leaves the rest in a state of dependence or exclusion.
Four sets of "outs" deserve consideration. The first consists of those who by choice are not part of the European Union, though they would naturally belong, above all, Norway and Switzerland. The Swiss franc is one of Europe's strong currencies. It is also the first victim of EMU. Already many Germans have transferred their savings to Swiss banks, despite low (and soon probably negative) interest rates, in order to escape the risks of monetary union. That has pushed the Swiss franc up to a level which threatens to damage indigenous industry and Swiss business generally. Incidentally, the same could happen to others who are out, even to sterling, especially during the precarious transition period in which the Euro is half there and half not.
The second set of "outs" consists of those countries which are members of the EU and want to move forward to ever-closer union but may be deemed ineligible by the self-chosen few. Greece is likely to be among them, although the former Finance Minister (and EU Commissioner) Palleocrassas has told your Lordships' committee that Greece wants to meet the criteria. Portugal will probably be out, and so will Spain, despite the efforts of the new Spanish Government and those of their predecessor.

1453
Then there is Italy, one of the original members of the EEC and a consistent supporter of European integration, with a strong economy and a serious policy of bringing public expenditure, as well as inflation, under control. The noble Lord, Lord Roll, with whom I share a great love of Italy and respect for the country, has already spoken of this. When the Italian commissioner, Mario Monti, hinted recently that Italy may not be in at the creation, he caused consternation in Rome, although he merely reflected what everyone says in Brussels. Rumour has it that Belgium will be forgiven its sins of public debt because it would be awkward to keep the seat of Europe's institutions out, but Italy's participation would make it difficult for some governments to persuade their electorates that the Euro will actually be as stable as the German mark. If such rumours turn into facts, this would be an odd way to promote European co-operation.
It is said, of course, that those who do not join EMU on day one can do so soon after or at any time later. That is fine so far as it goes, but it may not go very far for at least three reasons. The first is that, unlike a customs union which others can join in stages, monetary union marks a qualitative jump which requires all-or-nothing decisions from latecomers. Secondly, there is the fact that the "ins" will try to impose strict disciplines on the "outs", and those who see themselves as "pre-ins" may find it hard to resist such disciplines. France, in particular—it has already been mentioned—still smarting from Italy's last devaluation, insists on a tough ERM 2, at any rate for the "pre-ins". This, however, will rob the "pre-ins" of the most important adjustment mechanism which they have in order to comply with the criteria for membership. In the absence of massive transfers, what are they to do but allow their currencies to float downward? An ERM 2 makes future membership less rather than more likely.
The third reason for scepticism with regard to the openness of the early EMU is that the project is bound to be precarious for quite a long time. The Euro has no track record; nor does that unique construction, the central bank, which, contrary to other "independent" central banks, is removed from any democratic context. Moreover, the first members of EMU will have suppressed contingent liabilities which are bound to affect deficits and thus stability within the next decade. Just think of German pensions, my Lords. Thus the probability must be high that "pre-ins" will have a long and painful wait.
So will a third set of "outs" which we have already shamefully neglected: the new democracies of east central Europe. The report before your Lordships' House makes only a passing reference to enlargement. It rightly endorses the Chancellor's view that,
"EMU and enlargement should each be treated on its merits";
and it also emphasises the warning by one of the Chancellor's distinguished predecessors, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that failure to proceed with EMU may block progress with enlargement. But what if a partial EMU does take place? Surely it is clear that, with the possible exception of the Czech Republic,
1454
none of the east central European countries could become a part of EMU for some considerable time. They would remain in the outer circle, having been in the waiting-room for a long time already. The European Union may have failed in Yugoslavia, though there must be doubt whether it was ever equipped to intervene effectively as a union; but the Union has most definitely failed in the task of using its treaty-based instruments for offering the post-communist democracies of Europe a lifeline of support for freedom and prosperity. EMU will turn this failure into a deliberate policy. Can anyone be surprised that a growing number of Polish, Hungarian and Czech politicians look to other horizons, notably to NATO, for support?
Then, fourthly and finally, there may well be some voluntary "outs". So far as concerns 1999, I agree with others that Denmark, still referendum-scarred, is probably one, and the United Kingdom another. I have heard it said that one or two others may not be too unhappy about not meeting the convergence criteria in time. The UK is likely to follow policies which would keep it as close to the Euro as it is today to the stable currencies of continental Europe without necessarily being dogmatic about the highly arbitrary "Maastricht criteria". In that sense, the door to membership of EMU—if indeed it happens and if it survives the first three years—would remain open, although a reminder is necessary that joining it would not be a unilateral decision but a process of negotiation and agreement.
However, my final point is a different one. EMU will split Europe because it will be a partial EMU, an EMU of "ins" and "outs". Those of us who are concerned about this split will have to make every effort to hold together a Europe which deserves the name. The single market is a part of this Europe; and it certainly needs defending. The "habit of co-operation", as Andrew Shonfield called it in his 1972 Reith Lectures with the appropriate title, "Europe—Journey to an Unknown Destination", is another achievement worth preserving. Settling disputes is easier between those who have established and proven relationships, with much give and take over time. Enlargement remains high on the agenda of the creation of the real Europe. There are other goals. I for one find more merit in the attempt to integrate the European Convention on Human Rights into Community law than in merging the EU and the Western European Union.
EMU is troubling to supporters of European union precisely because it is an EMU of "ins" and "outs". If some core countries cannot be prevented from embarking on this divisive course, others will have to champion the cause of Europe in areas of common interest. This might well be a purpose which takes the United Kingdom out of its present largely defensive policy towards Europe and into the lead for a new Europe of active co-operation.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, first, I should declare an interest, although it is not a financial interest, as chairman of the Campaign for an Independent Britain. I suppose that that makes me one of the Little Englanders to which my noble friend Lord Grenfell—he is just

1455
leaving the Chamber—referred. However, sitting as I do on this side of the House, I am not too concerned about that since I understand that the term "little Englander" was used as a term of abuse against those, usually on the Left, who were opposed to British imperialism. The noble Lord also asked for a debate on the issue. Perhaps I may say that the Campaign for an Independent Britain has just published a new pamphlet entitled, There is an alternative: Britain's relationships with the European Union, and I commend it to all noble Lords.
I wish to congratulate the Select Committee on its report. The chairman and its members have put in a good deal of hard work; and I sincerely hope that the report will be of some help in the debate on EMU and a single currency. I am sure it will, we have had a good debate so far today.
Before I proceed, perhaps I may correct a remark made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. He is not in his place, for the reason he explained. During his speech he referred to 66 per cent. of our trade being done with the EU. He used the figure in support of his arguments. I refer him to the table on page 333 of evidence from Economic Trends 1995. It shows that total trade, including visibles and invisibles, was 46.6 per cent. not 66 per cent. Even if visibles alone were taken—and that would be absurd since services, invisibles, are increasing—they constitute only 55 per cent. So the figure of 66 per cent. does not hold water.
It is perhaps a useful coincidence that we should have this debate the day after the resignation of Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, the former Paymaster General. There is a man who has been at the heart of Europe both as a Minister for Europe in the Foreign Office and as a Treasury Minister. Having been there, he does not like what he sees. In his resignation letter he refers to the relentless drive to political union. He is also convinced that joining a single currency would be disastrous, both politically and economically. That comes from a man who has been at the heart of Europe. Of course he is right. The drive towards a country called Europe is relentless and the demand for the completion of EMU and a single currency becomes more strident every day, particularly from France, Germany and the institutions of the European Union itself.
Demand is not based on any reasoned economic case but on blind political opportunism and ambition. Two witnesses—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, and Mr. Gavyn Davies—said that they were unaware of anything like economic and monetary union ever having been achieved previously in monetary history. So what is being proposed is a leap in the dark. There is no precedent for it. So EMU and a single currency is a leap in the dark. Let us not forget it.
But despite that proposed leap into the dark and the unknown—which is most likely to lead at best nowhere and at worst to chaos and confusion—the siren voices of the pro-Europeans, the Europhiliacs if you like, urge us onward and onward, although the end product is either obscured or deliberately concealed, as so much of the argument has been deliberately concealed since about 1962. Noble Lords do not need to believe me, they should merely ask the BBC to allow them to watch the excellent programme called "The Poisoned Chalice".
1456
The Europeanists, aided by the querulous whimperings of those who are afraid of retaliation if we do not bend to the will of the people who believe in economic and monetary union, lack confidence in Britain's ability to make it in the so-called global economy. They ignore the fact that smaller countries, including Switzerland and Norway in Europe, do extremely well and that our ability to take full advantage of the burgeoning global market is constrained by our membership of the EU, not assisted by it.
At least the Governor of the Bank of England, in his evidence, had some confidence in Britain. He at least is prepared to concede that this country can survive and prosper in the harsh competitive world, provided we have confidence in ourselves and apply sound economic and monetary policies.
What is being proposed—economic and monetary union and a single currency—is not some kind of souped-up ERM. That was an unmitigated disaster. Everybody agrees with that now, even those who urged us into it. It caused the worst recession since the 1930s and lost at least 600,000 jobs. Britain left the ERM in ignominy and defeat and the baleful effects are still being experienced by our economy.
But of course the single currency is quite another thing. It is the abolition of the pound and of our own currency. It is irrevocable. It says so in the treaty. It is not a pilot scheme. Once you are in, there is no way out. Make no mistake about it, the treaty says that it is irrevocable. The treaty is right. Our reserves to begin with will be handed over to other control than the Bank of England. Any major country leaving a single currency or attempting to leave would cause chaos, not only in Europe but worldwide. So once we have lost the pound, we cannot get it back.
We are told that the single market will collapse without a single currency. I do not believe that to be true as a matter of fact, but I say that any benefits from the single market will not be worth giving up our currency and our reserves, our power over monetary policy and eventually, I fear, over fiscal policy as well.
On the economic front, the gains from a single currency would have to be absolutely overwhelming for us to give up our currency. Even to contemplate giving up our currency, they would have to be overwhelming, and with that, we would have to give up control over our own economy. But the report shows no evidence at all of overwhelming gain to the United Kingdom's economy. Indeed, the report is very critical about any possible gains, as those who have read it will agree. So on economic grounds alone, it would be criminally foolhardy to take such a leap in the dark. The Government and the Opposition should say now that they will not take such a leap.
But even on the most optimistic basis, with complete convergence, could it work? Again let me quote from the report and the evidence of Sir Peter Middleton on page 25 that there are,
"only three ways of allowing regions to adjust: 'You can adjust by government transfers, by letting your exchange rate move, or by moving businesses and people'".

1457
Let us look at those three. First, government transfers of any great note are ruled out. We are told—and the report refers to it—that there is no possibility of those huge transfers being made. Germany wants to cut its net contribution. It is demanding a cut in its net contribution. So apparently the differences cannot be evened out by fiscal transfers.
What about letting the exchange rate take the strain? That is ruled out as well, because individual regions will not be able to set their own exchange rate; it will be set centrally. So there is no means of correcting economic differences in that way.
Then there is the question of moving businesses and people. People are reluctant to move from Manchester to Birmingham, let alone from anywhere in Spain, for instance, to London. Those policies are not possible. There are not enough banks to transfer the people who would need to be transferred if we are to correct economic differences that way.
If none of those adjustments is to be made to secure regional balances, what happens as poor regions become poorer and greater numbers join the dole queue? Will there be joint action? Will there be marches? Indeed, will there be revolution? Certainly in parts of the Union there are sometimes volatile situations which could lead to great difficulty. This is a political matter. It is not an economic matter at all. In the words of Herr Kohl, Herr Lammars and Herr Brok, it is a proposition to create a country called Europe. It is a dream that they have which I believe will inevitably turn to a nightmare. Every new policy is a further ratchet to that country called Europe.
As I say, some people believe in the concept of a country called Europe. I doubt whether there is anybody in this Chamber who believes in that concept. That is where economic and monetary union and a single currency are leading. I sincerely hope, as I said, that not only the Government, but the Opposition and all people who believe that this country should have self-government by its own elected representatives and its own elected government will resist any further moves towards a single currency, EMU and further European integration.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am most grateful to our chairman for handling such an emotive issue through many meetings with aplomb. I know that everyone else has said that, but the fact that we have a unanimous report is a tribute to his painstaking approach. He remained calm at every turn, and kept us all in order. "Masterly" was the word that I had written down, but it was used by the noble Lord, Lord Roll. I must also add that the experience of serving on the committee was tremendously enjoyable. It has been a great privilege to be a member. It was a singularly interesting assignment to consider the likely effect on the UK of the terms of reference of this investigation.
As has been said many times, the general level of knowledge in relation to EMU is abysmal. This report will help repair that deficiency. It should be required
1458
reading for anybody involved in the economic and political life of this country. Indeed, I support the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that the report should have a very wide circulation outside this House. More heat than light has been generated on this subject, particularly during the past 36 hours or so. The report casts much light on the subject and should lead to an informed debate, not only in this Chamber.
The EMU issue is an ever-changing scene. What was current in May this year when we finished our investigation is not necessarily current now. I venture to suggest that if some of the witnesses who were before us in the months leading up to May gave more evidence now, they would present many new angles. The situation is truly dynamic. To that end it is quite right that we should infer from the recommendation that this is such an important issue that it should be understood and kept "front of mind" but not necessarily at the top of ill-informed speculation.
I wholeheartedly endorse the words in paragraph 111 to the effect that,
"this report can be no more than a contribution to a fast-moving debate on issues on which the EU's detailed plans and the public's view of them are continuing to evolve".
That underlines the validity of the position taken by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in refusing to move from holding the opt-out until the situation is a lot clearer. Any other stance would he foolhardy.
This report is remarkable in the balance it achieved between the choice of witnesses. That is a characteristic of House of Lords Select Committees. As a member of the committee I found my knowledge base expanding by the day (not directly in proportion to the mound of paper that was generated!). Close examination of the evidence will almost certainly aid one to arrive at conclusions, whatever one's prejudices.
My close attention to the words, both verbal and written, of the witnesses helped me to hone my views of the relationship between the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union and led to firmer views as to what I feel the United Kingdom should do. I stress that these views are largely from a business stance and are encapsulated in seven points.
First, membership of the European Union has been beneficial to UK business. One has only to examine the inward investment record which has resulted in so many jobs being created. In the past 12 months, for example, 48,000 new jobs have arisen from some 477 projects. We very often forget that the United Kingdom accounts for some 38 per cent. of all inward investment in the European Union.
Secondly, the single market has been particularly successful in what it has achieved so far. From the point of view of UK business it has effected a sea-change in the focus of our exporters. I cannot envisage any contemporary tabloid newspaper carrying a banner headline: "Fog in Channel, Continent cut off".
Thirdly, the convergence criteria are just the sort of targets that any responsible government should set (or, at least four out of the five are; namely, inflation rates, long-term interest rates, budget deficits and public debt ratios. I am not so sure about membership of the ERM

1459
for two years in advance of membership of EMU). These criteria are similar to those that any successful business would want to follow. The question must be asked: Would these criteria be achievable and sustainable if the United Kingdom continued to exercise the opt-out?
Fourthly, in the oft-repeated words (but none the worse for that), the United Kingdom must be seen to play its part at the centre of Europe. As an aside, I do believe that the influence of the UK in the corridors of Brussels is much greater than is either realised or acknowledged. Perhaps we should be more "up front" in praising the achievements of the EU and less ready to reach for the megaphone when things go somewhat haywire.
Fifthly, in all our relationships with the EU, let us continue to work on the areas of consensus and sort out the differences. Surely we must work to make Europe work for all. I was very heartened by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who introduced into the debate the subject of enlargement. The report makes only passing reference to it; but we had many a long discussion about it. All members of the committee were unanimous in believing that it is extremely important. It caused us great concern that we might perhaps not be able to manage both membership of the economic and monetary union and enlargement of the European Union.
Sixthly, the whole EMU issue is so very complex that I find it difficult to accept that a referendum question could be formulated that would give rise to any meaningful response from the public. The public does not have, nor do I think it really wants, the facts of the pros and cons—the argument about the "ins" and "outs", for example. Playing my personal game of limited market research on the subject among people who would consider themselves to be well-informed, I find huge ignorance of what EMU is all about. Even the initials are more often than not misinterpreted as European monetary union rather than economic and monetary union, and one must not fall into the trap of asking such people to describe the difference between monetary and fiscal policy. As an economist by training I fear I have to admit that we economists have done precious little to explain such issues in understandable terms. That further underlines the need for more information about the issues, which is what this report does.
The Government will need all the skills of Merlin the magician in forming the question to be asked in a referendum. Having lived for the lesser part of my life in a country where referenda were quite common, I came to accept, probably cynically, that referenda were undertaken in the same manner as business employs management consultants: you know what to do but you would like someone else to take the stick for suggesting it. If, politically, a referendum is seen to be necessary, then so be it, but let us not fool ourselves that we shall get a proper steer from the electorate from the use of such a device. On a purely personal note, the use of a referendum smacks of a lack of decisiveness.
Seventhly, we cannot possibly withdraw from the EU now. Frankly, our younger generation would not stand for it. I have been looking at the young people up there
1460
in the Gallery today, and I am constantly struck by the ease with which today's young people relate to the peoples and situations in other member states. There has been enormous benefit to the wider education of very many of our youth through Erasmus projects, courses taken abroad as part of a normal degree course at our universities, and work experience gained in other member states. All of this would have been quite extraordinary when I was at university; all of it is accepted as normal by contemporary youth; all of it builds up links and understanding which are invaluable to the businesses in which these young people will work; all of it is as a direct result of membership of the EU and is just one more, but seldom mentioned, reason why we cannot possibly withdraw now.
Business does, however, have concerns. There are two fundamental concerns, both of which need addressing. The first of these centres on the uncertainty surrounding the chant, "Will we, won't we join the EMU?". The lack of certainty leads to difficulty in forward planning and I know that investment decisions are being scaled down or delayed during this period of uncertainty. There is a strong body of UK business which does not believe that EMU will ever happen. The attention of that group should be drawn to the statement in paragraph 111 of the report, namely, and I quote:
"EMU is not a whim or a fashion that will pass."
An equally strong body of business opinion does believe that EMU will come about, but that body of business opinion is probably too busy keeping its eye on the ball in the highly competitive world of international trade to spend much time taking positive action to meet the future challenges.
That observation leads me on neatly to the second major concern of business, namely, cost. The cost involved in the preparation of computer and other systems has not been mentioned before. Very little so far has been written or said about the serious cost implications of reaching the millennium, and I am not talking about the celebrations in the year 2000 or 2001, whichever is regarded as appropriate.
Computers are the mainstay of practically all social and economic activity now. When computers were first programmed in this century, and ever since, it was considered correct to allow just two digits for the entry of a year. For example, 1963 appears as 63; 1996 as 96, etc. So far so good. If today some computer wishes to make a calculation of when a pension should be paid the date of birth will be subtracted from 96, so a person born in 1931 will appear in the workings of the computer as 96 minus 31, i.e. 65. Come 2003 a person born in 1938 will appear in the workings of the computer as 03—the year only ever having two digits—minus 38, and the answer will be minus 65. This must all seem cuckoo to your Lordships, but it is very serious.
Only this morning we heard why the recent Ariane 5 rocket exploded. The computers, which had been adequate for Ariane 4, were fed more digits than could cope with the demands of Ariane 5, and this led to the spectacular explosion.
The cost of changing all the computers in the business of food retailing alone to cope with the millennium is estimated to be in the region of £300 million, and if that

1461
is translated into total UK business the figure could be approaching £8 billion. Such a level of "dead cost"—cost incurred without any additional benefit—will almost certainly lead to company failures.
The real point is that if the changeover to a single currency is added to this confusion at the same time the costs could be astronomical, and utter chaos would almost certainly result.
I do not want to indulge in scaremongering, but in taking note of this report we must also decide to take heed of the likely cost implications of the introduction of the single currency and perhaps consider the possibility of getting a consensus to postpone the European-wide introduction of the single currency until the effects of the millennium changes are absorbed.
I should like to make a suggestion arising from what I have just described. My noble friend Lord Haslam as a member of the committee, continually pressed for more witnesses from industry and business. We were greatly assisted by those we did examine but perhaps in future Select Committee deliberations greater emphasis should be placed on making sure that the voice of industry and commerce is more strongly represented. Our knowledge of the likely implications of EMU membership on the banking sector is good because we had a lot of witnesses, but we should not forget that it is the makers of things and the providers of services who create the wealth for our economic well-being.
I return to the reference in paragraph 111 concerning the evolving nature of the fast-moving debate on the issues of EMU. There is a danger that when one looks at something under the microscope, as we did in the course of this investigation, one can become myopic. It takes time to adjust to the surrounding world and realise that it is not only in the EU amphitheatre that things are changing. The Asian tiger, as my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere mentioned in his excellent maiden speech, is not exactly standing still. There is a constant pattern of change in the economic, monetary, fiscal and business fields, all developing apace, yet all having an interlocking effect on each other.
We should also remember that the economic giants of today are not necessarily likely to be the economic giants of, say, thirty or forty years hence, and the whole issue of EMU must be considered in the context of long term planning and not just in planning the next 18 months.
Since we completed our investigations I have been concerned to read of a study undertaken by the economic adviser to Lloyds Bank on the pensions position in developed countries in the next few decades. It appears that due to a combination of ageing populations and "pay as you go" pension schemes the majority of developed countries will suffer major public finance crises during the next fifty years. The study shows that in Germany and France indebtedness as a percentage of GDP is likely to be over 100 per cent. above the Maastricht limit of 60 per cent. Many smaller countries would be hit in a similar way. Incidentally, the UK can take comfort from the fact that it is an exception
1462
to this doom-laden prophecy, partly because of the relatively low future elderly dependency ratios and also due to the relative generosity and wide coverage of other countries' public pension systems. This underlines the fact that although some countries appear to be in the economic ascendancy just now that can change, and we must mark that.
Nothing stands still forever. This report emphasises that point. We must keep aware of, and participate in, the future of the European Union if we are not to be left behind. I endorse this report completely.
8.18 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I had intended to talk today about the cost implications of EMU, but after listening to the eloquent presentation of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, with all her personal commercial experience, particularly her experience as a non-executive director of Tesco, I decided to scrap all that.
At the outset I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, on a fine maiden speech, an authoritative maiden speech, and a maiden speech which gave us all the wisdom of his vast experience in commerce. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, when he said that it is a pity that we could not have had the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, with us on the sub-committee.
I was enormously privileged to have been able to be part of the committee, and I should like to express my appreciation and my admiration for the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, chaired the sub-committee. I have no hesitation in saying that on such a complicated, highly divisive and far-reaching subject the noble Lord steered a masterly tack to achieve completion of the report.
I used the word "divisive". I was somewhat amused when the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that the Labour Party was united in its views on Europe. I looked at the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart. I thought that it was a debatable comment and I noticed a few shakes of the head when it was made.
As arguably the most junior member of the sub-committee with little experience or expertise on European Union affairs and with City experience as a consultant in one of the largest investment banks, I approached this inquiry with an open mind. I did, however, have a number of strong reservations. With such an impressive array of witnesses giving evidence to the committee, all with compelling and in many cases differing arguments for and against joining EMU, I found myself swinging like a pendulum from side to side, wondering whether the opportunities of joining European Monetary Union were, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, "a dream" for the ultimate completion of the single market or a potential "nightmare" if it did not succeed.
I have certain reservations about EMU but I am totally in favour of the single market, more specifically in favour of dropping trade barriers and achieving free trade. I believe that we, in the United Kingdom have

1463
made considerable advances in our economic and competitive attractiveness through deregulation and privatisation and that we have, in fact, done much more than many of our partners in Europe. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard.
There is a compelling argument that the rationale for achieving economic and monetary union is more politically motivated than based on sound economic logic. The drive to EMU is in sharp contrast to Asia, which is achieving economic integration without, as one economist in the City recently put it, "needing to put a huge political roof on its economic house". It must be remembered that the concept of EMU was devised at a time when economic conditions in Europe were very different from those which prevail today. That was before German reunification and when the European economies were growing healthily; there was no serious problem with budget deficits and the ERM was functioning smoothly.
Sir Leon Brittan, addressing the Federal Trust Conference in November last year on the subject "How to make EMU work" commented:
"Europe now needs a single currency, if it is to reach its full economic potential."
We need to ask ourselves four very simple questions. Are we currently able to operate efficiently in the single market as it is at the moment? Can a single market be completed without a single currency? Finally, on the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman: what is the cost of staying out and what is the price of staying in?
My simple argument is that there needs to be adequate and more extensive public debate on this extremely important, irreversible and far-reaching issue. I do not believe that it would be prudent to rush into trying to join in the set timetable by 1st January 1999.
I totally support the objective of achieving exchange rate stability in Europe. To that end, I support a strict interpretation of the convergence criteria. As the report concludes (in paragraph 128):
"the achievement of sustainable convergence is the critical condition for exchange rate stability".
Any fudge would show that the move to proceed with EMU by the timetable set, is more of a political move than one based on sound economic policy. After the debacles in 1992 preceding our departure from the exchange rate mechanisms, it is no wonder that in evidence the Treasury was somewhat sanguine about the idea of joining ERM 2. However, the report continues (in paragraph 130):
"If the United Kingdom decides to stay out of ERM2, and to remain out of the Social Chapter, it is likely to be viewed by other Member States as having chosen deliberately to limit its involvement in the future development of the EU".
Clearly there are many political and informal risks, if we opt not to join the group of "ins".
Many noble Lords have spoken today about the possibility of discrimination, but this is specifically not allowed under the Treaty of Rome. If there is discrimination, it will more than likely be in an informal manner. As Sir Michael Butler explained:
1464
"We could find ourselves in a position where our power to influence decisions, not only on EMU but on other issues, would be much diminished".
Several of those who gave evidence, and several noble Lords today, have mentioned that the "inner club" would strive to deal with many other important issues wider than pure monetary policy. Certainly, I found it alarming that many of the witnesses believed that the United Kingdom had already lost influence in the European Union.
But whatever choice the United Kingdom takes, the market—and here I refer to direct inward investment into the United Kingdom—investors will need to be convinced that, in the words of the report, we are:
"set on a path of exchange rate stability and not currency depreciation".
One of the main criticisms against EMU by leading economists in the City is obviously the concern that by joining the so-called "inner club", the UK will be giving up its control over monetary policy and with it, the flexibility to handle its own domestic monetary affairs, as well as giving up its currency reserves. There is the natural concern that the European central bank will take some time to build monetary policy credibility. Until such time as that credibility is established, in all likelihood there will be a substantial risk premium attached to the Euro and Euro-denominated debt.
My other concern is that it is questionable that the ERM has made the single market operate more effectively. I have not heard any evidence to suggest that non-ERM members have failed to make the most of the single market by virtue of not being members of the ERM. There is a commonly held view that, if we were to opt into EMU, we should have lower interest rates in the United Kingdom. I fear that that is a pipe dream. Certainly it cannot be guaranteed.
Another concern, which many may argue is unjustified, is that by opting into EMU we may be swamped with excessive legislation. As a lawyer by training, I have always been committed to more deregulation. It is a view shared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I fully support the recommendation in paragraph 145 that:
"opportunity should also be taken to examine the case for making the Bank of England operationally independent, within a statutory framework, if the United Kingdom decides to stay out of EMU".
As for the City—even though my noble friend Lord Roll of Ipsden may not agree with me—as long as we continue to pursue sound fiscal and monetary policies consistent with low inflation, I do not believe it will be affected in any major way, whether or not we are part of EMU. Clearly, however, the City will need to make the technical preparations for EMU whether or not the United Kingdom eventually signs to join.
Finally, of course, there is the concern as to how EMU will affect unemployment. As it appears that Germany and France will be the major players in the "inner-club" it is worth noting that they both have unreformed labour markets, with German unemployment as high as it was when the Berlin Wall fell. However, over the past few years most European countries have managed to reduce their unemployment by between 5 and 10 per cent. I refer to a typical

1465
example in the motor industry where the hourly labour cost of a qualified motor mechanic in Germany is 45 deutschmarks. The same qualified motor mechanic in the United Kingdom would earn approximately 21 deutschmarks. To give an example from the Far East, in Indonesia the rate would be a mere 5 deutschmarks. I believe that no amount of growth and no social pacts will stop increased unemployment in EMU core countries.
I am afraid I have been far too general in my comments in this extensive debate. It is worrying that several of the leading economists believe that there is a 60 per cent. chance that EMU will not occur on time, and an even higher chance that it will blow up if it does. In the words of the report at paragraph 131:
"If EMU goes badly wrong, and breaks up, there will be exchange rate instability and a serious risk to the continuance of the Single Market".
However, if, as many predict, it does work well for the "ins", there will obviously be much more incentive for the "outs" to apply to join. I hope, and I am sure, that no hasty decisions will be taken by Her Majesty's Government without full reflection of the pros and cons of this important, far-reaching and possibly irreversible move.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has done us a great service by chairing your Lordship's sub-committee which has produced this report. I certainly consider it a great privilege to have served on the committee and to have come to appreciate that these are indeed complex and uncertain matters. It might be said that never has a subject given rise to such a considerable range of perceptions. It is about perceptions that I wish to speak principally this evening.
First, it astounded me that this report on this delicate and important matter received such minimal attention from the national press. Yet every pronouncement by dissident or Eurosceptic Back-Benchers is treated as an important news item. It is indeed extraordinary that there seem to be two debates going on in this country: one hyper-politicised, trivialised, based on preconceptions, expressed in sound bites and slogans, and another, more measured, more thoughtful, such as we have heard this evening, and no doubt with a wider divergence of views but in some senses more realistic.
I have to say that I think there is somewhere a failure of leadership in our national system in that I fear that the true debate is going on in the tabloid press and the debate weighing up the issues, as we have been doing this evening, is largely ignored. This country risks misjudging a series of crucially important decisions through slipshod political manoeuvring, through pandering to populist xenophobia, and through the misleading use of worn-out clichés with which we are all familiar—remarks about national sovereignty—usually without troubling to define such terms.
It is clear that EMU is likely to go ahead, probably in 1999, and, as a number of noble Lords have said, France and Germany will either meet the Maastricht
1466
convergence criteria or otherwise achieve agreement at the Council of Ministers that they have come close enough. Reference has been made several times to the paradoxical case of Belgium which is not going to meet the criteria but will be deemed to meet the criteria. They will take with them Austria and the Benelux countries, as we have heard. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was right in pointing out that the strict criteria may not be met but will be deemed to be met. My noble friend Lord Boardman used the word "fudge" and I think he may be right.
There is nothing much that we can do about that and, I was going to say that there was little point in debating it, until I heard the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. In a way I wish we had asked him to give evidence to the committee on which he sat and asked him for those observations which I found interesting. At the same time, if EMU is likely to go ahead (which I believe to be the case), his analysis, although perceptive, does not necessarily advance us in the question as to what our own response should be.
It is clear that this country too will come within striking distance of meeting the convergence criteria. If Belgium can get in on an interpretation of the convergence criteria, there is not much doubt that the UK too could get in if it wanted to and if it was supported at the Council of Ministers. The decision, probably in 1997, could be our decision and the Prime Minister at Maastricht achieved a brilliant success in leaving that decision to us. We are in the unique position—perhaps along with Denmark—of being able ourselves to decide the matter. Clearly there is absolutely no benefit to anyone in throwing out that freedom of decision.
Remember, my Lords, if I may invite you to do so, that if Britain were to decide to remain out in 1999, surely we would wish to retain flexibility of action for the future. Otherwise, this issue could all too easily become a re-run of Britain's disastrous failure to enter the Common Market when we wished to do so. If we were to rule out now any option for entering in the next Parliament, how do we then retain an option for a future date? I believe that the Eurosceptics are leading Britain up a blind alley, pretty much the same blind alley as gave General de Gaulle the opportunity to veto Britain's entry into the Common Market.
My right honourable friend who, until two days ago, was Paymaster General, published only yesterday a pamphlet entitled Why the United Kingdom Must Say No. I must say I am constantly impressed at the publicity skills of the right wing of the party of which I am a member. I have to say that for the Bruges Group to commission this pamphlet from my right honourable friend, then to give him time to write it, and for the Bruges Group to publish this pamphlet, all in 24 hours was a remarkable feat indeed. In that pamphlet he conjures up the spectre of "a huge federal European budget" which would be required. Our committee, in the evidence which was taken and published, makes clear that there are very few who would hold that view and there are indeed safeguards against it.

1467
Sitting on your Lordships sub-committee, I was impressed by the highly contradictory nature of the opinions offered in evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, has also pointed out. My noble friend Lord Boardman's doubts on EMU, for instance, were supported by a number of witnesses from the City who emphasised Britain's role as a global financial centre as opposed to a European financial centre. I was considerably impressed that there was a clear sentiment in the City—not a unanimous sentiment but a legitimate view—that the City could manage well enough without, thank you. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Haslam was consistently keen that we should hear the views of industrialists. When we did so we found them in general concerned about the disadvantages for Britain of being "out" and above all of being a voluntary "out". I think this is related to the point which my noble friend Lord Sheppard made in his admirable maiden speech this afternoon.
On any reading of the evidence it is clear that this is not just a monetary question and indeed not primarily a monetary question. There are, of course, purely economic arguments in favour of joining, but the decision Britain will have to make in due course is whether we still want to be an effective part of Europe and of a Europe of nation states. I think we should remind ourselves of that phrase "L'Europe des patries" which was a favourite phrase of General de Gaulle. I do not think that the suggestion that the French are now seeking a unified Europe of a completely different kind is warranted.
We must ask whether, by being an "in" we shall be able to ensure that the Europe which emerges corresponds to the vision which we have and which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has a number of times set out. He said yesterday that it is still important that Britain's voice be heard in the negotiations until they are concluded. While I agree with that, I detect a slightly defensive note in the term, "until they are concluded". Moreover, I am concerned at the extraordinary circumstance that when Britain's policy in this matter is enunciated by the Prime Minister, by the Deputy Prime Minister, by the Foreign Secretary and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is still portrayed in the press as a minority view and those not insignificant figures in our public life are regarded as a beleaguered minority. I find that extraordinary. We must make no mistake; it is clear from what we have heard that if we are "out" and voluntarily "out", and if we choose to stay "out", there will be no favours towards Britain.
Much consideration was given in our report as to the likely sentiments on the part of the "ins" towards Britain if we are a voluntary "out". It is of course the "ins" who will be the inner group shaping the future of Europe. The relevant paragraph of the report is 139 and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe made the same point much more effectively in his extremely interesting speech. There is perhaps hope that goodwill might prevail towards us—a voluntary "out"—on the part of the "ins", but not a few witnesses took the view that an underlying competitiveness or even hostility might prevail.
1468
Those views were enunciated and the report took its shape in the month of May and was published on 11th June. Since then we have had that upsurge of xenophobia which accompanied Euro '96. It is not irrelevant to quote the tabloid press at that time because the view of the nation is sometimes reflected and sometimes shaped by the tabloid press. The same prejudices apply, though it may be that the nation in general understands football better than it understands the intricacies of monetary union.
Since that time also we have had the policy of non-co-operation—mercifully short-lived—during the early BSE confusion. Like others who have spoken I was embarrassed by the policy of non-co-operation and I am sure it has left a significant legacy. Who today could count on the goodwill which is anticipated in the report published on 11th June? As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, was saying, times move on; we are in a dynamic environment. Well, times have moved on and we cannot count on such goodwill.
The message of the report is that these are complex issues. If the EMU happens on time, it is not entirely clear that Britain would be wise to stay "out". But what is clear is that we should be concerned today at the limited impact of our report. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was saying that it should be widely circulated. We have done our best, but I do not think that it has had much impact.
First, we should probably be concerned at the limited impact that this debate will have. I found it a most profitable debate, but I am not sure how widely the profit will be experienced. Secondly, we should be deeply concerned at the level of discussion on this topic in the national press. The wrong issues are being addressed. We shall be told once again, "the pound in your pocket will be a Euro" and that will be sufficient to garner negative votes towards the enterprise. Thirdly, and most significantly, we should be concerned at the level at which these topics are being treated in our two main political parties. I know that there is apparently more unanimity among the Liberal Democrats, but that may only be because I am not so aware of their deliberations.
We should be deeply concerned at the trivialising level at which this subject has been treated by our political parties. It is pretty certain that, if and when we come to make the decision, we will probably not make it for the right reasons and it is possible that we shall not make the right decision. The lesson from the report—it is a good one—is that the decision will not be guided on the principles enunciated in the report and your Lordships should be extremely concerned.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am the tenth member of the sub-committee to speak this afternoon. When the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, speaks, all but two of the members of the committee will have spoken. Let me therefore repeat in a different way what other members have said. Our chairman was excellent. He was good and firm at keeping in control what was not a very orderly mob. All I can say is that I recommend to the

1469
Minister that if his right honourable friend needs someone to chair the Cabinet and keep its members under control, I offer the services of my noble friend.
The problem we have is that there is a fine balance between the arguments for and against. The economic case has never been strong one way or the other. There are all sorts of probabilities which can be attached to it and many of them have been mentioned this evening. We can mention factors like illegal discrimination. We can exaggerate its probability and its impact or we can downplay it: inward investment; the City's position; how important the markets are. As people go for or against, they put probabilities on the arguments. It may seem as though all hell will break loose or tremendous benefits will be achieved by either going in or not going in.
It is difficult for me as a professional economist—I shall turn to my personal views in a moment—to believe that there is a substantial balance of advantage either way. The industrialists, as we have heard, would very much like to be in. The City is divided: some people think it can manage without and others believe it to be important. On the other hand, among economists there is a substantial difference of opinion. I can recall when the debate was taking place in 1972 and someone took a survey of professional economists in the UK. They were almost exactly divided down the middle as to the advantages and disadvantages of going in.
I do not believe that, no matter how much more information we collect, on technical economic grounds there will be an overwhelming case for one side as against the other. As many people have said, there are many important political issues to consider. Again, to those political issues we must attach probabilities to various outcomes. Because the whole programme of a single currency is a political programme, we have to judge the issue in a political way.
Is it to our advantage to be into this programme, judging the probabilities of its success and so forth; or is it perfectly feasible to stay out of the monetary union but accept the European Union; or to go out altogether, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart said? He had a strong argument for going out of the European Union altogether, but we are discussing a narrower issue.
My personal position was for a long time strongly that of a Europhile, if not a Eurofanatic. I believed that a single currency should happen. Indeed, I would not only have waited for convergence but I would have had a "big bang" solution and taken the convergence costs later. But I always thought that a single currency was feasible only in a federal context. We need a powerful fiscal instrument centrally administered if we are to have a single currency. Bankers are paid to be deflationists; that is their job. Bankers will always tell you that if you do anything there will be inflation.
It would have made a great deal of sense if the centralising dynamic of the European Union had continued, as appeared likely, when Jacques Delors drew up his plans. Since then two things have happened. As noble Lords have pointed out, when the plans were drawn up the European economies were doing much
1470
better. All the fiscal numbers were good and the growth rate was fine. There was also a push towards centralisation. In the past five years the European economies have had many fiscal problems, including the recession. Whereas in 1992, nine out of 15 countries qualified for all the criteria of Maastricht, today about three qualify.
The European economic situation has deteriorated and at the same time the federalising programme has lost steam. I believe that happened at Edinburgh, which more or less stopped the federalising programme in its tracks. The Delors plan of running a Euro-Keynsian employment scheme by borrowing from the European Investment Bank and having trans-European networks and so forth was stopped. I believe that if you have a weak centre with a very limited budget and a single currency, there are problems. Unlike many other noble Lords, I do not fear that a federal budget will rise. I wish it would. If it does not, we shall not have the transfer capabilities which are required to correct for the loss of one instrument that a country has, which is fiscal policy sovereignty.
One of the important political judgments to make is whether the federalising dynamic will resume itself. If it is not going to do so, one has to hold back and ask, "What will be the set of instruments that people may have for correcting the problem of distortion?". Many of my fellow economists talk about "an optimum currency area" and ask, "Do you believe that the European Union is an optimum currency area?". I do not believe that there are any such areas at all. The United Kingdom is not a optimum currency area. We have a great deal of regional unemployment. Italy is not an optimum currency area.
Countries compensate partially for distortion through regional aid or various other policies. Therefore, unemployment remains unequal across regions. There is also unequal income across regions, but that is mitigated slightly by people being part of the same political entity and maybe there will be compensation.
Currently, the European budget is 1.2 per cent. of the European GDP. If it were to reach about 3 or 4 per cent., that might just about do it. But I do not know that that is likely. I do not know whether it is likely that the European Commission, ECOFIN or the Council will be able to undertake investment projects which will tackle the very serious problem of unemployment.
My position, even before I come to the question of the UK, is whether it is even a good idea for the European Union itself to go down this path just because it was written down 10 years ago. I was deeply impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. His European credentials are entirely beyond doubt. He said that the partial EMU project is likely to be destructive of the European programme rather than constructive. One should consider the list of "ins" and "not-ins". Apart from the UK and Denmark, the "pre-ins", including Ireland, are the poorer countries. They are the countries which are relying on a lot of transfers. The "eager-ins", if I may call them that, are the richer countries.

1471
There has already been an official proposition made by the head of the European Monetary Institute that the "ins" should act en bloc in ECOFIN and thereby set the conditions for the "pre -ins" or the potential entrants. There is the suggestion of the stability pact, which is not part of the Maastricht Treaty. That can be imposed by the "ins" on the "pre-ins", which would be a rich nations club making further obstacles for those who are likely to be hurt.
I began to have my doubts when the convergence conditions were put out. It has been pointed out for a long time that the Maastricht conditions do not take care of the cyclical fluctuations against a 3 per cent. deficit. The convergence conditions are proving extremely costly for the countries which want to join and which are likely to do so. For the likely "ins", such as Germany, France and Italy, the biggest problem is that to fulfil the convergence conditions there has been a great deal of unemployment. The remarkable thing is that, given all the talk of solidarity and co-operation, it should have been possible for these countries to come together and arrange a convergence package which would have minimised the unemployment cost for each other, but that has not happened. So the European co-operation that one relies on has gone away and the costs of convergence are very large.
That is where my reservations start. However, those people who believe that staying out and having monetary sovereignty is a great prize have to remember that we have not used it very well. Indeed, monetary policy in this country has been a disaster. If devaluation had done anybody any good, we would have been very prosperous by now because we have done nothing but devalue since 1973, except for the brief episode in 1980 when we had the overvaluation of sterling. We have continually devalued. Every time we have had a problem we have devalued. That has not raised the long-term growth rate of the country by even one-quarter of 1 per cent. Devaluation has definitely brought the sterling value down from 11 Deutschmarks to 2.36 or whatever it is today. Although people think of the ERM episode as a great horror, when this country was in the fixed exchange rate system of Bretton Woods we had our best growth record.
There are other reasons for that. There is a great tendency, when faced with the problem of competitiveness and structural change, not to take the path of structural change but that of monetary ease. Although the past three years since our exit from the ERM has been almost a miraculously good episode, as is the fact that the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England find some sort of agreement on monetary policy, the people are not convinced that the United Kingdom will not once again resort to perpetual devaluation.
The proof is that currently we are paying one to one-and-a-half percentage points extra in interest rates on the long-dated gilt. That means that there is a cost both to the Budget, because it takes more to finance a deficit, and also to businessmen. Therefore, the one argument for going into the scheme would be that, if the Euro were to prove to be a stable currency, the United Kingdom policy-makers would turn their
1472
attention to real structural changes which are required to make the economy competitive and not go for the soft option of devaluing early and often, as we have been doing. If one looks at the history of the devaluation that has been undertaken since the breakdown of Bretton Woods, this country has had an abysmal economic performance.
I conclude where I started. At the moment there is probably a political balance between postponing the decision and saying that we are interested in participating and will not give up our option of joining but will wait and see what happens to the Euro. It may not be as good a currency as the deutschmark. At the same time, we should make quite sure that the modicum of monetary discipline that we have acquired is not lost. Whether or not the ERM or the Euro dictates it, it is in our interests to forgo laxity in monetary discipline, certainly in a globalising world. Therefore, while I do not favour entering the Euro immediately as I would have done five years ago, I would not back any of the wild devaluation schemes that are often put forward.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I very much welcome the report of the Select Committee. I am one of those noble Lords who frequently ask questions in this House about the single currency only to be told that the question is hypothetical. Of course, the reason for saying that it was hypothetical was that it was thought to be superfluous because of the opt-out. But an option always represents indecision. I cannot see how you can ever make up your mind about anything without hypothesising. I have enjoyed the hypothesising in which we have indulged this evening.
The terms of reference given to the Select Committee were economic. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the matter is very evenly balanced and that there are strong opinions on both sides. However, I agree far more with my noble friend Lord Boardman, who says that what we ought to consider is the political price of being in. This is a political question which will not go away.
I strongly believe that we are discussing one of the most important decisions that this country has had to make in its modern peacetime history. The same can be said of all nations which decide to join the single currency. We are being hurried into this decision by the Germans for political reasons. I liked the comments of Sir David Scholey in his evidence to the Select Committee. He said that this process was like building an arch from the keystone down.
In addition, Professor Issing of the Bundesbank has delivered a number of warnings about trying to force monetary union before the states have reached a situation in which they are prepared to join together in a single government. It has never worked before, and I do not believe that in the end it will work this time. I cannot see how those who adopt the single currency can be doing anything other than entering an association with each other which involves the acceptance of unlimited liability for one another's liabilities and debts. It is impossible for any country which uses the single

1473
currency to have its currency collapse unilaterally regardless of the irresponsibility of its government. In his evidence to the Select Committee my noble friend Lord Lawson issued a warning to the effect that this was more inclined to lead to irresponsibility because of the safeguard that nothing could happen to one's currency. In this regard, it is prudent when considering unlimited liability to look at the possible downside as well as the upside.
Therefore, the work that is being done on the stability pact is of prime importance. No member of the single currency could be allowed to imperil the hard-earned reserves of other states. We have the views of Herr Waigel on how it should work. The penalty for budgetary waywardness should be higher interest rates and perhaps fines for those countries that offend. The Select Committee has agreed that this solution is unacceptable to it, but I doubt whether the Germans will settle for very much less. Short of assuming total budgetary control, which is the more likely outcome, it does not seem possible that such a system can be avoided.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised that the level and composition of taxation and expenditure should remain matters to be decided by member states. This view was also expressed in the evidence of Sir Leon Brittan. What would be the result if a high-spending, high-taxing country found itself in a vicious downward spiral of falling taxation due to recession, or to what is referred to as an asymmetrical shock? The central bank would be bound to move to defend the assets of the other nations. One would then have the situation where a country in trouble would find itself forced by the pressures placed upon it to take measures which it did not wish to take.
I can hear the proponents of this theory saying that all of this is very wholesome economic stuff. But what about the electorate? This is the essence of the political problem of monetary union. A number of countries, notably France, agreed the Treaty of Maastricht by the narrowest of margins. Substantial numbers of people throughout Europe have never agreed to this process, and the same may well apply to us if the idea is ever dealt with here in a referendum.
I should like to illustrate the point with the following analogy. The narrow channel of economic rectitude has on either side of it a minefield of political mines waiting to explode under the government of any ship in the convoy which strays from the course. The actions of the central bank will have the effect of destabilising governments at exactly the moment when the going is toughest for them. It means that on occasions governments will be in office but will not have power over the prime responsibility of managing their economies to the satisfaction of their electorates. If this country decided to be in, the intrusions of the central bank could make it impossible for the government to deliver their electoral manifesto. As a result, Members of Parliament might have to acclimatise themselves to shorter periods in office than those to which they have become accustomed. For that reason, far from
1474
introducing stability in Europe and reducing the chance of war—a point that has often been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—monetary union would tend to destabilise the relative political calm that the countries of Europe have enjoyed since the war. If we joined it would threaten the stability provided by our well-tried and tested democracy over the centuries.
Therefore, in examining the evidence given to the committee, we should not confine ourselves to considering only what the best choice might be for the country's or City's financial balance sheet. The evidence given to the committee is, in any case, ambivalent on that subject. We should be asking ourselves whether we should ever respond to a request to put a financial price on our ancient democracy which has bent with the political wind for centuries and kept us free from revolution. Is there a price which your Lordships would care to put on that, or is it beyond price? I believe that it is.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has just said, and in particular the last part of his speech. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will not think me discourteous if I touch only tangentially upon the excellent report over which he presided and which of course I read when it came out, because there are other aspects of monetary union which have not yet been referred to.
First, I shall refer briefly to the condemnation by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, of Her Majesty's Government in connection with their non-cooperation over the BSE crisis. He may have forgotten that in their time France, Italy and Spain have all indulged in non-cooperation policies. Indeed, the Spanish went so far as to veto the entry of new states into the EU until they—that is, the Spanish—were given more money. Few people resent or condemn those countries now and, curiously enough, few condemned them at the time. I do not see why Her Majesty's Government should have been singled out for particular opprobrium.
I do not need to remind your Lordships that the UK is the only oil-producing country in the EU and that we export twice as much to the USA as does any other EU country. Those two facts alone should prompt us to regard with the gravest suspicion any suggestion that we should irrevocably lock ourselves into a monetary union dominated by countries with different resources, orientations and priorities from our own.
EMU would not only be disadvantageous to the UK but also, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, to most other EU countries. Contrary to what Euro-enthusiasts may imagine, most of us in the sceptic camp wish our Continental cousins well, for emotional and sentimental reasons every bit as much as hard-headed, pragmatic ones.
I shall try, first, to dispose of the transaction costs argument arising from the deplorable attempt to rip off the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, about which he told us and which I am glad had a happy ending. If he were here, I should tell him that there are many ways

1475
of limiting one's transaction costs to less than 1 per cent. of the amount transferred, but there is not time to go into that now.
To opt for EMU merely on the grounds of lower transaction costs is like voting for Mussolini because he promised to make the trains run on time. Both low transaction costs and punctual trains are highly desirable things in themselves, but both are essentially trivial compared to the main issues at stake.
I turn now to one of the main issues: 18 months ago the Evening Standard ran an extensive article entitled "New Europeans", featuring a number of youngish Britons who are living on the Continent and doing very well out of the single market. One of them, a Mr. Paul Hooper, attributed the success of his pan-European architectural practice to the fact that slumps hit different European countries at different times so that there is always work available somewhere; in other words, if business is poor in Denmark, one can always find something to do in Holland; if Spain is going through a difficult patch, Italy may turn up trumps; and so forth.
However, once EMU is in place those escape routes will dry up. There will be no more nipping to the country next-door to avoid a recession. A single European currency will mean a single European business cycle, and Mr. Hooper, and tens of thousands like him, will be out of luck.
There is another potential consequence which has not so far been mentioned. It is not unduly cynical to point out that all democratic governments the world over try to massage their economies so as to be able to loosen the purse strings in the year or nine months before the next general election so as to create the famous "feel good factor". Once the general election is safely out of the way—assuming that there is a working majority—the brakes are slammed on and then is the time for the inevitable retrenchment and the painful measures which all countries need to take every so often. Those are taken soon after the election in the hope and expectation that by the time the next election comes round the electorate will have forgotten all about the hard times.
Once EMU is in place the chances of any one country being able to stimulate a feel-good factor at the right moment from its point of view is almost nil, except by a lucky coincidence. Imagine for a moment that we have moved on six-and-a-half years to the beginning of the year 2003. General elections are due in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Sweden some time in 2005 or early in 2006. However, by an unlikely, but theoretically possible, coincidence general elections in the other 9 countries are all due earlier during 2004. In theory, of course, the European Central Bank will be Olympian, impartial, detached and immune to all blandishments—the Maastricht Treaty says as much. In practice we know differently, remembering well how the supposedly Olympian, impartial, detached Bundesbank had its arm twisted by Chancellor Kohl at the time of German reunification. Against its better judgment, the Bundesbank was forced to accept an artificial and unreal exchange rate for the Öst mark, vis-à-vis the Deutschmark.
1476
It is hard to see in practice France, Germany, Spain and so forth not doing the same behind the scenes and persuading the Bank to trim interest rates towards the end of that year (2003), thereby inducing a feel-good factor across the Community which would be enough to secure the re-election of the incumbent governments in France, Germany, Spain, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Austria and Finland. However, the inevitable monetary brakes will have to be slammed on shortly afterwards at the end of the year, thereby ensuring that the governments of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Sweden and so forth are toppled at those counties' elections which are due in 2005 or 2006. They will not have been able to trim interest rates nor increase their budget deficits over 3 per cent. of GDP—if the Bundesbank has its way it will be reduced to 1 per cent. of GDP—which would have allowed a certain fiscal relaxation which cannot now take place.
Member states will then rapidly get the message that everything possible must be done to harmonise general election dates right across the Community in so far as their respective constitutions can allow. Assuming that the latter can be stretched so as to permit a common fixed term, ultimately you are likely to end up with all general elections being held in the same week of the same month of the same year. The British will probably maintain their eccentric preference for a Thursday polling day while the Continentals will stick to Sundays. But that will not make much difference.
What then? Will not people soon think, "What is the point of 17 separate elections simultaneously for 17 separate legislatures, none of which retain many residual powers"? Why not be realistic and have one election for one massive legislature from which can be chosen one administration presiding over an entity which might well be "christened", if that word has not fallen foul of the political correctness lobby, the USE?
Some of your Lordships, though not the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and others, may consider that a somewhat fanciful scenario. However, we should not forget that not long ago an experienced Conservative MEP was gleefully—he is a great Euro-enthusiast—predicting a single European Army and Air Force by 2020. Of course, being a frequent visitor to Brussels and Strasbourg, he knew much more about what was going on in the heads of the zealots in those cities than do most of us here.
It may be conceded, on reflection, that the picture which I have conjured up is one possible logical medium or long-term consequence of EMU, against which everyone throughout Europe, not only in this country, who values the Gaullist concept of a Europe of nation states should be on their guard.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, it is not only the Conservative Party which is divided and confused by EMU—the whole country is. The division cuts across parties, generations, the sexes and, dare one say it, class. Within the two main political parties that division has been seen today in this Chamber. The Labour Party is just as divided as the Conservative Party, but that is not

1477
so apparent to the electorate as the Labour Party is in opposition. It appears that the Liberal Democrats are wholly in favour of EMU.
Across the generations, the young tend to be more in favour of EMU than their elders. On the whole, women are virulently against it, as they are anything to do with the European Union. Middle England, which is a horrible term—I never know quite what it means but it certainly does not mean anyone living in the Midlands, although some media commentators appear to imply that it might—is said to be absolutely against it.
Therefore, I was delighted that Sub-Committee A of the European Communities Committee of this House inquired into the matter of an EMU of "ins" and "outs". The evidence and report have clarified many of the questions which have been clouded by emotion, patriotism and even xenophobia and the syndrome of not upsetting our partners in the European Union.
As other noble Lords have done, I wish to commend the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and his committee on an excellent report. There is no one better qualified in this House than the noble Lord to be chairman of the committee. He asked questions of high powered witnesses which tried to get behind the rhetoric, evasions and prejudices so that it was possible to see the reality of the issues upon which Parliament and the public will have to decide in a referendum in the next few years if the government of the time recommend that we should join.
I turn now to the party political angle of EMU, in particular within my own party. I do not believe, as many of my Conservative friends do, that by ruling out our entry into a single currency in the next Parliament we shall win the next general election. The public are not complete idiots, as some politicians seem to assume. The electorate will know that such an announcement by the Prime Minister would be a cosmetic exercise in deception. Even if the Cabinet and a majority of Conservative MPs could be persuaded that it was an election winner, which I am certain they would not be at this stage of the European negotiations, it would be seen to be, as indeed it would be, a completely cosmetic exercise in deception.
It is extraordinary to believe that if we all say the same thing, even though many of us do not agree, the majority of the electorate will put their cross against the name of their Conservative candidate. At the risk of making enemies, I should say that it beggars belief that some politicians and Conservative journalists can be so naive. We Conservatives will win the next election on our record in government and on the excellent economic conditions which have been created by my noble friend Lady Thatcher and my right honourable friend John Major and not by using that sort of gimmick. I am sorry if I have gone away slightly from our excellent discussions on EMU and its implications.
It would be disastrous for this country and, indeed, for the European Union if our participation in EMU, of whatever sort, should be ruled out during the next Parliament by either of the main political parties. None of our European partners would listen to us at all in the
1478
negotiations and discussions to set up how EMU would work. The very valuable work which the Governor of the Bank of England and Mr. John Townend have been and are still doing in Frankfurt in working parties of all kinds would go by the board.
Mr. George made it very clear in his evidence to the committee (on page 27) how valuable is their advice and how the other central bankers are listening and willing to take that advice. I am not in favour of joining EMU, in any event at the start. Having read the report of the committee and a great deal of the evidence, I do not think that it is necessary at all for the single market, as other noble Lords have said before. The transaction cost savings which are cited by some as the most important reason for joining would be comparatively small. Again, that has been said by other noble Lords. There is very little, if any, danger of barriers to trade being erected against us if we do not join. Such barriers would be completely illegal under the single market treaty, let alone GATT and World Trade Organisation agreements. The only tangible advantage, it seems to me, would be the transparency of prices within the EMU-participating countries. Those can also be exaggerated: only consumers travelling for short periods between this country and other participating countries on the Continent would benefit. Manufacturers which export must be very well aware now—and, indeed, will be in the future—of the figures dependent on the exchange rates at the time, so I suggest that that factor would be comparatively small.
The only major disadvantage in our not joining would be political. As my noble friend Lord Lawson put it very clearly in his evidence, the whole motivation for EMU is political. We will have to persuade our European partners who participate that it is not in our interests to devalue the pound against the Euro. We will also have to persuade the financial markets. That can only be done by continuing the Government's policy of keeping inflation very low. That is within the power of the Government.
The disadvantages of our joining EMU are plain to see, at least to begin with. We would be joining an untried system. As has been said by other noble Lords, a single currency set up between independent nation states has never been tried before. The analogy with the United States of America is completely false. There you have a central Federal Government, with democratic institutions which work and are respected by all Americans; you have a people 99 per cent. of whom speak the same language and share the same culture; you have a tradition of labour mobility, which, apart from a few building workers and others, is non-existent between Britain and the Continent.
There would be a real danger in our belonging to EMU, as, indeed, there would be for any country which joined; that is what economists call, "asymmetric shocks"; for example, the collapse in the demand for an important product or products in one country. That could happen over a period of time, as was the case with shipbuilding in this country and with other industries in which demand was fading. They are best handled by interest rates and exchange rates moving. That would not be possible within EMU, where the European

1479
Central Bank will be in sole charge of interest rates. That may cause a great increase in unemployment and in business failures in one country or another.
I am doubtful whether EMU—even a small one or one restricted to include France, Germany and the Benelux countries—will occur in 1999. I simply do not believe it. I believe that the Bundesbank will insist on the strict criteria of the Maastricht Treaty. If the Bundesbank finds that the criteria have not been met, I do not believe that the German Parliament will be able to agree. Whatever Herr Kohl and his government say, I simply do not believe that it will happen in any event in 1999. I may be proved wrong but I would almost put a bet on it.
In conclusion, I am not in favour of our joining EMU, at least when it starts, even if the start is delayed. I am, however, against ruling ourselves out of joining. My noble friend Lord Boardman put that point very well. Most importantly, we must ensure that we can influence how EMU is to be set up. That will affect our position whether we are in or out, and, indeed affect the whole cohesion of the European Union. We may in future years see it in our best interests to join EMU if it is working well.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Leigh: My Lords, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence in that I was not present in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. However, I have very strong feelings about the common market which, I am sure, will not be popular with the Conservative Party. Nevertheless, I believe in those feelings as, indeed, do many of my fellow countrymen. Probably I should not be sitting on this side of the House, as I am right of the Conservative Party; but where should I sit? I am not a Cross-Bencher because I am too right for them.
Noble Lords' parents and ancestors, together with mine, fought two world wars this century to free Europe from the oppression of Germany. I know that my ancestors, and quite probably some of your Lordships' ancestors, would be shocked at the path that the present day Conservative Party is taking. Many of our fellow countrymen gave their lives in the two world wars so that we would be free and not live under the thumb of Germany. Germany, having failed twice, is now trying to gain what it failed to achieve in two world wars by the back door entry through the common market: supremacy over the rest of Europe. I can assure noble Lords that partnership does not come into it. Germany wants supremacy. Why should we surrender all that our ancestors achieved in preventing Germany over-running us just to appease a few politicians?
I am not a political creature; nor am I an economist. I do not know the monetary "ins" and "outs" or benefits. But why cannot we drop Germany, which only wants to rule us, and the Benelux countries (as I believe they are called), which have to agree with Germany or else? I leave the "or else" to your Lordships' imagination.
Surely we would be better trading with China which, as a nation, is an emerging giant. We could also trade profitably, or more profitably if we tried harder, with
1480
the other eastern nations. I am sure that we could influence the stability of the Middle East if we increased our trade in that region.
I was brought up under Winston Churchill, and Anthony Eden was our local Member of Parliament in our constituency of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth. Like those two eminent politicians, I shall not succumb without a fight.
I leave your Lordships with this thought, borrowed from our late head forester's widow, who greeted her husband on his return from a night out drinking with the words, "Are you a man or a mouse?".
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first let me admit immediately to being a mouse—but a mouse that can roar, I believe is the right description. I was about to say that this has been an excellent debate and reflected the fact that in your Lordships' House we usually deal with rational argument. I shall stick to that statement on the basis of the majority of those who have spoken.
I wish also to pay tribute—with, I believe, every other member of that committee who is in the Chamber at the end of the debate—to my noble friend Lord Barnett. I probably know him better than most. I know that he is the highest quality of iron in the deepest level of velvet glove because I knew him as Chief Secretary. Therefore, I know a strong man when I meet one and I am not a bit surprised that he was able to steer this ship to the harbour that he had probably thought of at the very beginning. I congratulate him on the excellent way in which he chaired the committee.
I wish, too, to join in the many tributes paid to our maiden speaker Lord Sheppard. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, reflected an extremely important factor in the debate: that whether or not we like it, we now live in a globalised economy. We live in a world where almost all the barriers to trade have been swept away, at least so far as concerns the developed world. We live in a world where we have to get used to the idea that the concept of national sovereignty has changed a good deal. We cannot determine how the tides will flow—whether they are the tides of money or of geographical ebbs and flows. The truth of the matter is that since the larger number of constraints on capital movements were raised in the 1980s, every single developed country is in the same position. It has to persuade the market of the orthodoxy and common sense of the financial policies that it follows. That is a very tough discipline indeed.
I congratulate those who have made this point. I believe that it could be made more widely in the debate in this country because, alas, it is not fully understood, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, pointed out. I somewhat disagree with the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, of the fact that the committee considered who might or might not be members of the future European Monetary Union. It seems to me highly relevant to the committee's discussions and conclusions that we thought deeply

1481
about who might or might not join. The reason for that was that the number and weight of potential members would to some extent influence the effect they could have on this country. If the membership were to be small and insignificant and if the weight of numbers were on the other side, the impact on this country of a decision would be less than if a substantial number of members—especially the economically stronger members—of the European Union decided to embark on European Monetary Union. Despite the usual excellence of his speech, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was being hard on the members of the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
I believe that in 1999 European Monetary Union will go ahead. I agree with those like the noble Lords, Lord Ashburton and Lord Renfrew, who said that the reasons for it will not be purely economic. They will not. In substantial part they will be political. I do not find that shocking; unlike the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I find it extremely encouraging that Germany is now anxious to work with its European partners and does not seek military domination of Europe. Germany has consistently attempted to follow its ambitions and goals within the framework of Europe—not, as Thomas Mann famously said, a German Europe but a European Germany.
Those like myself and others in the House who have been part of an attempt to create a new kind of Germany with strongly democratic roots since the Second World War ended recognise that Germany is a much changed country today. It is important that we in this country pay tribute to that fact. It is no good pretending that Germany is still a country of storm-troopers and so on. To do so is to return Germany to the most dangerous aspects of its history and not recognise the serious, sincere and, I believe, successful attempt that Germany has made to be a model democracy. I emphasise that last phrase.
Germany will enter the European Monetary Union to a great extent not because of its wishes but because of those of France. As noble Lords know, the Bundesbank is not enthusiastic about European Monetary Union; it never has been. But voices in favour of European Monetary Union which go back to the Werner report of 1970, the Padoa-Schioppa report of 1987 and the Delors committee report of 1989 are not new voices. It has been part of the aims of the European Community almost from the beginning. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead said, it is not something that suddenly came down the track at Maastricht. It was a part of the concept of the European Community long before it became the European Union. The reason is simple. I am not saying whether France is right or not, but it is important to put the fact on the record that, unlike us, France has always believed that it would exercise more influence as part of a European structure than it would as the weaker member of an intergovernmental structure. It read into that the lesson of what happened when the French franc was almost broken at the time of the ERM breakdown in 1990.
1482
I wish to make two more points. Some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf are ones which we should take on board in a House like ours which can discuss them seriously and rationally. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, some of the implications of the convergence criteria could be deflationary, even seriously deflationary. I agree that there is a case for saying that there should be some budgetary counterweights in order to offset the effects on an individual country if they are serious. That point needs to be considered, especially in the case of new members. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that the new members from eastern Europe are important. I believe that one of the most important roles Britain could fulfil if it decided to enter the European Monetary Union in 1999, as I still hope that it will, would be precisely to pave the way for the new member states of central and eastern Europe to join also within a reasonably short period. That would mean throwing our weight as a country behind a monetary policy that was able to encompass their needs as well as the needs of the original member states.
I conclude with a comment on the debate in this country. I find that debate profoundly frightening. The level at which we have conducted the debate on this next great step in European integration, whichever side we may be on, is no credit whatsoever to this country. In the Eurobarometer Report of 31st May this year (only just over a month ago) 82 per cent. of the British people said that they wanted a referendum; 12 per cent. said they did not; 61 per cent. of the British people said they either knew nothing or very little about the European Union. So the very people who wanted a referendum freely admitted that they knew nothing about it. It is not the case, with great respect, as one noble Lord said, that there is a strong majority of the British people against the European Union. The figures are approximately 36 per cent. for, 26 per cent. against and then the key figure, the 27 per cent. who say to the Eurobarometer that they do not know—the implication being that they do not know because they do not know enough.
Our tabloid newspapers have a very great deal to answer for. When one of them declares war on Germany across the whole front of its paper, with pictures of helmets and old pictures drawn from the Second World War, and when another declares that it is going to pay out money to those who are most effective at knocking the Dutch out of the sea, one begins to wonder at what level we expect to conduct one of the most important debates of our existence.
The politicians, including all of us, have not adequately given a lead towards rationality. I wish that one or two noble Lords who have used strongly emotional arguments had been here to take part in this debate. We need to make it clear that in the next few months we must get this debate back on a more serious, balanced and sensible basis. We owe that to our own people. We owe it to our partners in Europe. We owe it not least to the future of this country.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, it has been made abundantly clear in the course of this debate that we are

1483
all enormously indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and to his committee for their valuable report. Among other things, it has given us the opportunity to hear the interesting maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere.
What distinguishes the report is its practicality. It does not argue the labyrinthine rights and wrongs of monetary union—a subject which has tempted some noble Lords this evening. Instead, it confronts the issues facing this country should a single currency be formed among some of the European Union countries whether or not this country is part of that monetary union. It is exactly that kind of careful, practical consideration that has been notable by its absence in the approach taken by Her Majesty's Government to the question of monetary union. There was nothing of any practical consequence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's thin little memorandum which he presented to the committee. There was no response to the issue so carefully and judiciously spelt out in the report of the lack of preparation for monetary union whether in finance or industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his evidence to the committee, simply declared that he "did not know", and apparently did not care, to what extent preparations were being co-ordinated in finance and industry.
Why are the Government not taking steps to ensure that British companies are prepared to deal with the single currency whether Britain is in or out? Have the Government taken any heed of the recent warnings by IBM that there will be major deficiencies in data processing which cannot be made up in the time available and that those deficiencies will jeopardise the integrity of the banking system? That point was elaborated by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
What is the Minister's reaction to the report in the Financial Times of the 18th July that British banks are the least well prepared of any of the banks in the Union, and that only a little over a half of British banks say that their information technology systems can deal with the EMU timetable?
The committee's report, and the published volume of evidence, contain increasingly desperate pleas from all sides of industry and finance for the Government to take a lead in co-ordinating the preparations for EMU, and yet the report tells us:
"the Government has indicated that it is not willing to take the lead".
I suppose that is hardly a surprise. The Government are not prepared to show leadership on anything. I can only assume that the Government's paralysis on such essentially practical, non-controversial issues is a function of its internal strife over all relations concerning the European Union.
Yet these matters are entirely independent of whether Britain is in or out of EMU, and entirely independent of whether the noble Lords opposite are supporters of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or supporters of the Secretary of State for Defence or supporters of the Home Secretary, or any of the other faction leaders in the Cabinet.
1484
The debate and the report are about the factors that will affect this country's well-being, whatever one's individual views on monetary union might be. In these circumstances, I believe that that policy should be guided by two practical propositions, which I believe would be accepted on all sides of the argument.
First, whether Britain adopts the single currency or not, it is of the utmost importance to this country's economic well being that EMU should be a success. In the past 18 months we have seen just how damaging is the impact on the British economy of a recession in France and Germany. Stagnation in the European economy, our biggest market place, has produced stagnation in British exports, a large slow-down in UK growth and, as the inevitable counterpart, a sharp deterioration of the public finances.
That has been but a passing breeze compared to the storm which would be unleashed upon the British economy, whether inside or outside the single currency, should a monetary union be formed and then collapse. That is why it is vital that those who have this country's interests at heart should do everything they can to ensure that, should there be a monetary union, it is a success.
My second proposition is that whether Britain adopts the single currency or not, it is imperative that all necessary preparations are made now to ensure that this country is ready to take full advantage of all the benefits that may flow from EMU, and equally is well equipped to avoid or, if necessary, to deal with the disadvantages and any disruption which may occur.
Should Britain not join, these preparations must include the establishment of a firm groundwork for cooperation between the "ins" and the "outs", which will prevent, or at least discourage any discrimination against the "outs". That ground work must include the total avoidance of all rhetoric that suggests that the "outs" are intent on securing a competitive advantage over members of the monetary union. For example, whatever the rights and wrongs of the social chapter, the Government's persistent boast that its policy on the social chapter is designed to steal a competitive advantage over European partners, is doing nothing but harm. It causes maximum offence and provides ammunition for those who would discriminate against Britain, overtly or covertly.
The report makes clear that there exists a common means of achieving both the goal of a successful monetary union and the goal of a successful relationship between the "ins" and the "outs". It is that there should be a degree of what we might call camaraderie between the "ins" and the "outs". All members of the Union should be involved in a common mutually supportive enterprise.
A point which has not been made this evening is that Britain will hold the presidency of the European Union in the first half of 1988, when many of the vital operational decisions must be made. So the British Government will be peculiarly well placed to sustain Britain's national interests by establishing that atmosphere of mutual support, by helping to ensure the success of EMU, and by ensuring that Britain's interests

1485
are protected, whether in or out. That will not be an easy task. What will be needed will be strong and clear political leadership.
It is political leadership that is needed because the problems which the European Union is facing, and will face if the single currency is created, are, I believe, essentially political. The problems do not stem from predominantly narrow technical economic issues. One of the most significant dangers that we face is pretending that they do. Indeed, one of the greatest vices of the European Union has been to pretend that political issues are purely technical and accordingly to abrogate those decisions to technicians, whether those technicians be officials in Brussels or the governors of central banks.
Political issues are issues which require judgment. They are issues which are not fixed in aspic, but develop and change as history rolls along, with its usual tendency to throw up surprises. Rules which may be perfectly appropriate for one time and place can, in other circumstances, become codified folly. Let me take a relevant example: the gold standard served this country well in the 19th century; the Conservative Party's decision to return to gold in 1926 was an unmitigated disaster, plunging Britain into recession.
Rules can be very important but they must be appropriate rules and what is appropriate requires judgment. There is no such thing as invariant sound economic policy relevant at all times and in all circumstances. The greatest failing in the entire history of monetary union in Europe is the way in which rules have been substituted for political judgment.
First, there are the so-called convergence rules built into the Maastricht Treaty. Of greatest significance are the debt and deficit requirements. Those are totally arbitrary goals. The debt goal was fixed at just what happened to be the average debt ratio among the major Community members at the time. That is how it was determined. The deficit goal is derived mathematically from that debt goal. There is no other rationale. Yet in the name of those requirements, most of the European Union seems today to be locked into a frenzy of competitive deflation, each round of which makes the deficits worse, not better. Yet with a little common sense and political judgment, it would be recognised that it is the recession which is causing the deficits to rise and that debt and deficit rules which are appropriate in a boom are damaging in a slump. But no lessons seem to have been learned from this episode. Indeed, Herr Waigel wants to tighten the fiscal rules within the monetary union.
All the nonsense about debt rules is made possible because of that other fashionable obsession, the total independence of the European central bank, charged with the pursuit of price stability by monetary means alone. Ideally, monetary and fiscal policy need to be managed jointly. So, even if monetary policy alone could deliver price stability, which is a very dubious proposition, making monetary policy the exclusive responsibility of an independent central bank would be highly inefficient.
Attempts to justify that by reference to the much vaunted independence of the Bundesbank are unconvincing. Not only does the Bundesbank's charter
1486
demand that it supports the economic policies of the elected authorities, but also it faces the political legitimacy of an elected federal government. There is no such political authority in the design of monetary union. The proposed European central bank would operate in a political vacuum. It would face no political authority and there would be no identifiable policy-making body for it to support.
That political vacuum is being filled by rules: the Maastricht rules, the Waigel rules—rules which are the negation of a creative, flexible economic policy. That is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and it has also been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby. They both argued that a successful monetary union requires a political authority—I think they are right—and that this must involve a political union, in which respect I think they are wrong. A less radical political solution is possible which is compatible with the development of a Europe of nation states.
The Labour Party has persistently argued that the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) should be developed into a permanently sitting established body, the political counterpart of the central European bank, charged both with surveillance and co-ordination of fiscal policies throughout the Union and with monitoring the inter-relationship between monetary and fiscal policy. The members of ECOFIN are not officials but elected politicians, responsible to national parliaments and accordingly will be sensitive to the impact of monetary and fiscal policy on national well-being.
The virtue of this approach is that not only does it reintroduce judgment into economic policy exactly where judgment is needed; it also provides a common forum in which the "ins" and "outs" can reconcile their economic policies and devise common reactions to changing circumstances. Something of this sort seems to have been proposed in the report in the form of a Fiscal Stability Council, mentioned in paragraph 135. But there is no need to create a new body. ECOFIN exists already and is already charged by treaty with the management of the European exchange rate.
My noble friend Lord Bruce seems to have failed to notice that there is indeed democratic control over external monetary policy written into the Treaty. Given the fact that the "outs" have a role in the general council of the central bank, the development of ECOFIN would in the manner proposed complete a seamless structure of policy making between the "ins" and the "outs", providing the "outs" with the potential of the priceless bonus of enhanced policy credibility. This would be particularly true in the circumstances in which a country, say for example Britain, meets roughly all the various criteria for monetary union but decides not to join. In those circumstances the markets will inevitably believe that the "outside" country is intent on devaluation. Arguments for an independent monetary policy are meaningless other than in the presence of exchange rate uncertainty. But then monetary independence is bought at a price—the price of higher interest rates. Although it would be unlikely to eliminate the interest premium entirely, positive, even enthusiastic, participation in the co-ordination of fiscal

1487
and monetary policy through ECOFIN and through the general council of the bank would increase credibility and bring British influence to bear on policy formation throughout the Union.
Of course there are a number of aspects of discrimination which cannot be avoided. A successful monetary union will inevitably be a magnet for investment and for the location of financial activities. It is highly improbable, as was mentioned by Lord Cockfield, that British institutions could be members of TARGET as is hoped by members of Lord Barnett's committee. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Financial Times leader argued this point on Monday. It is also inevitable that a successful monetary union will tend predominantly to pursue its own interests in the economic and monetary fora of the world, however closely other Union members attempt to align themselves with it. The Euro, even if it is only the currency of six or seven member states, will be one of the world's great currencies. Indeed, on current calculations more world trade will be invoiced in Euros than will be invoiced in dollars. Those who manage the Euro will foster the interests of that currency, whether or not those interests are in accord with the needs of the "outs".
The report makes abundantly clear that the Government should be taking steps now to mitigate any and all of the harmful effects which might arise should Britain decide not to join a single currency. The Government should be taking steps now to ensure that British finance and industry are well prepared for a single currency, whether we are in or whether we are out.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Exactly how do the Government propose to fulfil the responsibilities of the spring 1998 presidency which must manage the creation of a European single currency? Of course the Minister may feel that he is under no obligation to make any proposals, knowing, as he must do, that the party opposite will not be in office in the spring of 1998.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we certainly have had an interesting debate. I felt a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Cockfield's suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in introducing it had asked me a lot of questions which in fact his committee ought to have made some attempt at answering. It certainly has been a privilege to listen to this debate; it has been hugely interesting. I am not going to be tempted to follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I shall try to answer as far as I can the various points that have been made in the debate and not indulge in any political knockabout. I have had my ration of that this week, and some of your Lordships will perhaps agree with me on that.
It has been a privilege to listen to this debate, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Sheppard in his maiden speech. He did not seem to me to be very much of a sheep. That is especially true when one realises the extent of his career. He seems to have done a great deal
1488
of leading. Indeed, I felt that he made some interesting points, and I underlined two of his questions. He said that it was not so much a question of whether Britain could compete in Europe but whether Europe could compete in the world. He asked whether the EMU would help our competitive and unemployment position.
My noble friend also made a point to encourage us. He said that British business was doing quite well in Europe. I suspect that he used that expression as an understatement and that we are actually doing pretty well in Europe. He said that we are out in front in many entrepreneurial ways. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in his tribute to my noble friend, said quite rightly that it was nice to hear somebody being positive and cheerful and seeing things that we could applaud in what we were doing. I am sure that we all look forward to my noble friend's contributions in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, always takes part in these debates. I envy the certainty of some noble Lords. I envy the certainty of the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Bruce; I envy the certainty of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and I envy the certainty of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. However, all that happens when I listen to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart, is that the pro-European in me comes out. When I listen to the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Jenkins, the anti-European in me comes out. But at least when I listen to them I can do so in balance and not just from one side rather than another.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, sometimes paints a most dismal picture of our country, quite in contrast to the speech of my noble friend Lord Sheppard. He paints us somehow as poor supplicants in this great European experiment—Johnny-come-latelies. If we are poor supplicants, I wonder why we are the second biggest contributor to the European budget. That does not make us poor supplicants. I would hope that if it comes to a referendum on this issue—and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, wants the "pros" to win—he will moderate some of his expressions in order to persuade some of our fellow countrymen that they should vote "yes".
Two really interesting speeches were those of the noble Lords, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Desai. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf is dedicatedly pro-European. He clearly told us how profoundly worried he was about what the EMU could do, if it was not handled sensitively and carefully, with four different categories of "outs"—not just the "outs" that may include ourselves if we wish to stay out with Denmark; not just the "outs" of Spain, Italy and Portugal, who may not meet the convergence criteria; but the other "outs" of Europe, those of east and central Europe, and the "outs" of Switzerland and Norway.
Now I come to the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It has been an interesting debate in that I am the fourth speaker of a group of working Life Peers who came to the House in May and June of 1991—my noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lady O'Cathain, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and myself. Far be it from me to say, but I shall, that it was quite a reasonable vintage for working Life Peers.

1489
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, laid out the fact that there were considerable differences of views. He mentioned that business was not uniform in its view; neither was commerce, the City or professional economists like himself. Indeed, he is correct about that. The Treasury's six wise men are divided on these lines: two for, two against and two sitting on the fence.
The third economist to speak was the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I was interested to hear his dissertation on the demerits of an independent central bank. I found that extremely interesting, as I did his use of ECOFIN as a kind of elected counterweight to that central bank. I thought for a moment that he was going to say that the policy we have developed in this country whereby my right honourable friend the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England meet once a month to decide these weighty matters and their minutes are published a few weeks later, was a good idea; but clearly he could not go quite that far.
In the debate this evening we have had an excellent opportunity to listen to the various aspects of what is a hugely important subject not only for our country but also for Europe. Economic and monetary union will affect us whether we go in or not. It does not matter whether we are in EMU or not. That is why the report of the Select Committee is such a valuable contribution to this debate.
I believe that we are in an enviable position in the single currency in that, thanks to the opt-out that my noble friend Lord Boardman mentioned, and which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister negotiated at Maastricht, we have the opportunity to decide for ourselves whether or not to take part. That decision will be taken, as I have said on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box, on one basis only and that is in the national interests of the United Kingdom and the balance of advantage for our long-term success. My noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn underlined the fact that that seemed to him to be the right way to decide this issue. Indeed, I go further. Despite the pessimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it is right that an issue as important as this is settled in a referendum, for a number of reasons. Above all, as I have mentioned before, it is mainly that if we do not take the peoples of Europe with us, and not only the people of Britain, into this enterprise it will fail. I believe that one of the problems throughout the Community is that we are not taking the people with us even as far as we have gone. It is all very well for people to say that—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may make it absolutely plain. I strongly favour a referendum. My concern is simply that a great many people who will take part in it have so far received very little information about what is going on.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that will be up to those of us who join in the debate, from whatever side, and the way in which we put the case across. However, I have more faith in the electorate than that. It can make decisions on matters of considerable
1490
importance. After all, it is allowed to make a decision every four or five years on who should govern the country. That seems to me to be a pretty important decision. We rely on the electorate to make it and, by and large, over the past 17 years it has come to the right decision.
I return to the decision that we have to take some time in the next two or three years. There are a number of facts which are unclear. As my noble friend Lord Sheppard said, we cannot decide until we know more of the facts. It is an important decision and we need to get it right. If we were to jump one way or the other now—the "pros" would have us jump in now or the "antis" say that right now we shall not join—that would be a mistake.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor said in is evidence to the Select Committee,
"It is too soon to say whether EMU will start on 1 January … I am quite sure that Member States will continue to prepare on [that] basis".
That leads me to the other important point, which I want to make about the lead-in period. Just because we are not making a decision now does not mean that we should not, and do not, play a full part in all the discussions which are going on. I do not know which countries are likely to join in 1999. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned that in 1992 nine out of the 15 qualified under the convergence criteria. I would not argue with the noble Lord, but today he thought that about three countries qualified.
It is difficult to know who will meet the convergence criteria. It is an important part of our decision-making. Until we see that clearly, I do not believe that it would be right for us to make a commitment now to join if we met the criteria. Now we continue to play a full part with our European partners in the preparations that are necessary for the single currency. It is essential that our voice is heard. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, underlined that. He said how important it was because EMU will affect us hugely whether we are in or out. Involvement in those preparatory discussions has no bearing whatsoever on the UK opt-out. My noble friend Lord Harding of Petherton underlined that. The Prime Minister himself said on 18th December:
"It is very important that this country's voice … is heard in the negotiations right up to the time when a decision is taken as to who should join and who should not. Whether we exercise the right to opt in or to opt out, this country … will, in one form or another, be affected by the decision to proceed to a single currency, even if only a minority of countries proceed".—[Official Report, Commons; 18/12/95; col. 1228.]
I completely agree with the points that have been made in the report and by a number of your Lordships about the importance of the United Kingdom being in the discussions and building the fundamental foundations of any EMU that may emerge.
The Select Committee chose to focus in its report on the relationship between the "ins" and the "outs". These are vitally important issues. It is clear that not all countries will join EMU in 1999. Not a single noble Lord who spoke even suggested that that might be so. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, took us beyond the existing 15 members and what they might do to other players in the European scene and what they might do.

1491
It is important that we work hard on the question of the relationship between the "ins" and "outs". That relationship will be important to Europe on whichever side of that divide we fall, whether we are in or out. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned the divisiveness of the "ins" and "outs". In the Chancellor's letter to the then President of ECOFIN in January 1996 he said that these questions were important for all countries whether in or out. EMU would affect everyone and we must plan for difficulties that might arise so that Europe's achievements were not undermined. He said to your Lordships' Select Committee that it could not be in the interests of anyone inside the European Union to allow friction between the "ins" and "outs" to start to develop. I hope that that is a sufficient response to those who feel that there may be bitterness with regard to the "ins" and "outs". My right honourable friend the Chancellor made that absolutely clear. This is an important point. The work that goes on is of vital importance.
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain referred to the interesting question of the millennium problems in relation to IT. I am responsible for making sure that the computers in the Department of Social Security do not have a problem in the year 2000. To date, I am reasonably satisfied that somebody a few years ago foresaw that the year 2000 would arrive and took precautions so that the machinery would work when the changeover occurred. My noble friend is quite right. There are many other points to be addressed and worked upon by us in this country, and in partnership with our friends, if the transition to a single currency by some or all members of the European Union is to work successfully.
It is a matter of priority that any move to a single currency does not jeopardise the single market. The single market has been a great success story, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, has said. It is important that the gains which are generated are protected. It is imperative that they are not compromised by a single currency. It would be unfortunate if a single currency introduced to reinforce the single market was the force which led to its demise by creating tensions between the single market trading partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, appeared to believe that the convergence criteria should be flexible and we could rub them away in order to allow people to join. My noble friend Lord Boardman called that a glorious fudge.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I said that flexibility was written into the treaty. It is not a question of the Government, Commission or anyone else deciding that they would like to expand it beyond what had been agreed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am interested that the noble Lord desires to reinforce that point. I did not take notes of his speech along those lines. I took it he was suggesting that a bit of fudging
1492
could take place and the rules could be bent. They will jolly well have to be bent to make sure that the Belgians get in given their 150 per cent. debt on GDP. If Belgium is not there I do not believe that the process can start for the reason that it must include more than just France and Germany. I shall be interested to see how that can be wished away.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that it is important that the criteria are adhered to faithfully otherwise people will not have confidence in the system. The very pressures that most people believe the convergence criteria are necessary to prevent will then emerge. It will be as my right honourable friend the Chancellor said—if it went ahead on an ill-conceived basis he would probably be one of those who would argue that we should not join but should stay outside and seek maximum stability through our own efforts. Because if the criteria are not met, that could easily introduce into the system the kind of instability that none of us wants to see.
The best way to avoid those stresses and strains is for member states to continue to pursue sound economic policies. All countries need to bear down on inflation. All countries need to control their fiscal debts. That ensures stable economic conditions where business and individuals can plan on a long-term basis.
Some people have suggested that joining an ERM would help us to achieve that stability, and that ran through some of the debate. As noble Lords know, ERM 2, as it is called, is on the drawing board, or wherever it is, but membership of it is voluntary. I think I can say that our experience last time tells us that we should not return to any kind of rigid, old style ERM. Our experience shows that that does not work. It does not guarantee stability. The best way to guarantee stability, and lasting exchange rate stability, is to get the fundamentals of an economy right. I have already mentioned some of them: low inflation, sound public finances, and the like.
That allows me to move on to another point which came up on a number of occasions. It is the question of devaluation. My noble friend Lord Cockfield suggested that the French worry about devaluation was that the Italians would do it for reasons connected with the CAP. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned what is called competitive devaluation. My right honourable friend the Chancellor gave considerable evidence to the committee about that. On page 278 he made it clear that:
"I do not believe the so-called competitive devaluation has any lasting advantage to a country that devalues".
I shall not read the rest of the paragraph, but it continues in that vein. It shows clearly that we do not believe that the concept of competitive devaluation is a sensible one. It is fundamentally flawed. We do not accept that there are any long-term benefits. They are at best short-lived and are soon eaten away by higher inflation. I commend those noble Lords who are interested in this to read the reference I made to the evidence given by my right honourable friend.
It is also important, as I said, that all member states continue to pursue sound financial policies, whether in or out of the EMU. The German Government have

1493
already put forward proposals for a stability pact. The committee mentioned some of the points relating to it. I thought the best description was in paragraph 135:
"The effects of automatic financial sanctions would he perverse".
The words of my noble friend Lord Kingsdown were quoted. He said that they:
"would he like imposing a heavy fine on a debtor in court".
One has to think carefully about what kind of fiscal controls one puts in place for people who are in the system, because one could put in controls which would work in a perverse way and make it more difficult rather than easier for a country to do the right thing.
The implications for the EU budget were raised. In his usual refreshing way, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that the only way that that would work would be if there were a federal budget of 4 per cent. I am not an economist, as I have told your Lordships before, but I understood the picture he was painting. It was in contradiction to the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who warned us against a united states of Europe a little like the United States of America. I do not believe that the countries of Europe were ever going to go that far. If an attempt were made to go that far the worst predictions of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, would rapidly come true. I want your Lordships to be clear that we see no reason for the EMU requiring increased amounts of money in the European budget. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor said to the inquiry:
"The start of EMU should not in itself be any reason for any new transfer payments whatsoever. A lot of Finance Ministers, not just me but a good block of Finance Ministers, have no enthusiasm whatever for raising the cost of the European Union any higher at all".
On that point, perhaps because of my interest in social security and pensions, I must say to my noble friend Lady O' Cathain, who mentioned the issue of unfunded pension liabilities, that the treaty is clear that member states are not liable for others' commitments. There is no bale-out clause set out in Article 104B. Certainly that is a point which we, given the position that we are in with a private pension provision of £600 billion—as I told your Lordships some hours ago—must watch that matter most carefully indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked whether governments would be able to maintain their own tax and spend policies. Paragraph 138 of the report states:
"We think that any attempt further to reduce fiscal autonomy should he resisted on the grounds that the power to tax is essential to the nation state and that national fiscal flexibility is essential to deal with cyclical pressures and economic shocks".
That is absolutely right and echoes the words which my right honourable friend the Chancellor used in his evidence to the committee.
Perhaps I may turn to the impact of a single currency on industry and the City. I welcome the comments in the report about the strengths and flexibility of the City. They show the excellent position that the City is in to prosper further, whether or not we participate in EMU. It is of course important that the City is ready and able to participate in the new Euro market, whether or not we are in or out. A number of noble Lords mentioned that matter. The Bank of England has established a regular briefing
1494
mechanism to ensure that firms, in particular in the financial sector, are kept abreast of developments. The bank seeks to ensure that practical issues arising from the single currency, whether the UK is in or out, are properly addressed and co-ordinated. The Treasury stands ready to offer advice and to answer questions on practical issues.
It is up to the private sector to take its own view on the work that needs to be done. Businesses will need different work to be done, depending on where their markets and interests lie. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Government to co-ordinate preparatory work until a decision has been taken on whether the UK will participate. I know that a number of noble Lords have had to leave, partly because we have gone on a little long—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Some of us have to stay!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I apologise for my contribution. It was partly due to the fact that we took a long time to start the debate. I believe that London as a centre of international financial excellence will survive in or out. However, we must ensure that whatever the arrangements they are sensible and they work.
As regards raising trade barriers against those who are out, I simply quote what was said by the Chancellor:
"It would be illegal to erect fresh trade barriers against those outside the Euro-bloc. The single market has a Treaty basis, raising fresh barriers would be contrary to the Treaty".
In March 1966 an EC single market commissioner, M. Monti, said:
"The Commission has already rejected, and will continue to reject, demands for compensatory measures that would amount to new trade barriers. In fact, the only appropriate response to such pressures within the single market is budgetary discipline and convergence of economies".
I have tried to give a flavour of the Government's response to this important issue. I appreciate that at least one or two of your Lordships wish to get on to the next piece of business. This is an important report. I wish that more people would read the reports of your Lordships' House. One or two people thought earlier in the week that there were arguments for your Lordships' abolition. Today's debate, which is in marked contrast to anything which would happen in the other place or in the media, will perhaps reassure your Lordships that this House and noble Lords who take an interest in these matters at least have a major role to play.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, said in his speech that the driving force is the desire of the French and Germans, along with their immediate neighbours, to make sure that conflict will never again happen in Europe. I believe that that is a more important driving force than that mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
I was at a barbecue in Italy, where my daughter lives. There were a number of Europeans, from various countries, and we were discussing these weighty matters. It occurred to me that that was indeed one of the driving forces which I could clearly understand. Obviously, there were more people there of my daughter's generation than of my generation. I asked some people there whether they could guess when was

1495
the last battle which was fought on the soil of my country. They looked at me rather blankly and I told them that it was in 1746 and that that was a civil war. I should say for clarity's sake, speaking as one of the Mackay clan, that the right side won. I told them that before that there were many battles and civil wars but it is nearly a millennium ago since people invaded our country. Therefore, we take a slightly different view.
I understand their view but I just wish sometimes that they would understand that we have a different view. If we could achieve more of that understanding, then whatever happens in relation to EMU, whether we are in or out, whether or not we meet the convergence criteria, at least we could go on to build on the very successful single market and the working together that has been accomplished in the years during which we have been together in this great enterprise.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I have a feeling that the most popular speech that I have ever delivered in either House will be a very brief one, as now. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. In particular, I thank noble Lords for the kind personal tributes which have been paid to myself and to the committee.
As has been said, we have had an excellent debate and I am most grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, told me that I should not bother to ask the questions because the committee should have answered them. I paid tribute to the Minister earlier in the debate when I said that he should receive overtime for being both a social security Minister and a Treasury spokesman. I believe that I would now change that slightly. He would do much better as a Treasury Minister in view of the way he avoided answering any of my questions.
I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere. It was an excellent speech, as many noble Lords said. We shall all look forward to hearing from him again on many occasion. He would have been a very useful member of our committee and, who knows, that may yet be a problem which he will have to face. But we are very grateful to him.
I was surprised by one or two of the remarks made in the debate. For example, I did not know that I had such influence over my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He said that I had persuaded him and influenced him so that he did not wish to press any of the votes. I am most grateful to him.
My noble friend said also that he thinks that it is quite wrong that we should bow the knee to Europe. We do not have to bow the knee to anyone, whether we are in or out of EMU. That is totally unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said that he agreed generally with the committee and its report but that there were various omissions; for example, we had not looked in depth at the CAP. If we had looked at all those matters, we should not he having this debate today, because the committee would be working on those matters until 1999. Therefore, I hope that he will understand why we did not consider all those issues.
I also thought that my noble friend Lord Eatwell made a very good point when he said that the
1496
convergence rules in Maastricht on indebtedness were created in the strangest possible way in the sense that that was the debt situation at that time. I am sure that he is right. However, I am bound to say that I think that that will be one of the reasons why the rules will be stretched a little to allow some countries to become members of EMU which would not otherwise be able to join. That might even include France, and certainly Belgium, because they will be coming down from 150 per cent. to 149 per cent.
I am delighted to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in one respect—and I shall get the pronunciation of his name right one of these days. There is no need to decide now because the rest of the members of the European Union have not done so. The likelihood is that they will decide before 1st January 1999; indeed, about the time when Britain will have the meeting here in this country. Therefore, we will have to come to some kind of conclusion; we cannot leave it in the air for ever. I believe that that point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I nearly said "my noble friend", as indeed she did. We have been together, as one might say, for so long in Cabinet and so on. I have no regrets in saying so. I believe that I know the noble Baroness very well, as, indeed, she said she knew me. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury I almost certainly would have had to stop her spending some money.
We have had an excellent debate. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that the press seems to have gone to bed, or somewhere. That is a pity because I have a feeling that we shall not get the reporting of this debate that we would have liked. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, some of the reporting in the tabloid press is particularly awful. However, in the major press, as we call it in this country, we equally have not had the serious coverage that the subject deserves. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—and, indeed, all of us—will be similarly disappointed about the reporting of today's debate. I hope that I am wrong in that respect. The debate deserves to be more widely reported.
We have heard some excellent speeches today; for example, that from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—I always like to pronounce that name because I can get it out so well—and those from many others. My thanks go out to all speakers who participated in today's debate. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not take too long now in simply saying that I trust that the House will take note of my Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
10.34 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Burnham): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation Act 1996,

Armed Forces Act 1996,

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996,

1497

Damages Act 1996,

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996,

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996,

Social Security (Overpayments) Act 1996,

Housing Act 1996,

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996,

Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Act 1996,

Broadcasting Act 1996,

Education Act 1996,

School Inspections Act 1996,

Deer (Scotland) Act 1996,

Allied Irish Banks Act 1996,

City of Westminster Act 1996.

Public Order (Amendment) Bill
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. It was piloted through another place by my honourable friend Estelle Morris and, in view of its importance, I am pleased to be able to ask your Lordships to give it the unanimous support that it had in another place.
The Bill arises from what must surely be a flaw in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. As it is written, Section 5 requires that the police officer who gives the warning in a case of disorderly and intimidating behaviour must be the same police officer who made the arrest. It will be agreed that usually scenes of disorder involve many people and are attended by many police officers. It is surely clear that the police officer who gives a verbal warning cannot always be the same officer who makes the arrest.
In my county of Durham, in October 1993 police were called to a doctor's surgery where two men were behaving in a threatening, abusive and insulting manner. They were arrested under the Public Order Act 1986 but were later acquitted of all charges because the officer who gave the warning was not the officer who subsequently made the arrest. The case went to appeal and was rejected by Lord Justice Kennedy. However, he said at the time that he was unable to discern any parliamentary purpose in the working of the Act as it presently stood. He went on to say that the matter would merit further parliamentary consideration at an early date.
Similar cases have occurred in other parts of the country. I do not believe that I need give the details now. Despite other warnings, no action has been taken by government; and the result is that the police do not have the power to deal with a serious and growing problem. In 1980 one in five crimes resulted in a conviction or a caution by the police. By 1994 the figure had slumped to one in ten. Unless the law is amended the situation will deteriorate further.
I understand that the Home Office supports this measure; and it has all-party support in another place. It is now 10 years since Parliament passed this flawed
1498
piece of legislation. It is nine years since warnings were given, and two years since a High Court judge effectively suspended the use of that section and called on Parliament to reconsider it. All that is required is for one word to be changed in Section 5(4). That one change is the substance of this Bill, and the time has now surely arrived to make the change. It is simply that Section 5(4)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986 should be amended by leaving out the word "the" and inserting the word "a". I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Dormand of Easington.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from the Labour Front Bench perhaps I may warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Dormand on his good fortune in being able to persuade the business managers in a very tight schedule to find the five minutes (the time that he was allocated) for this Motion. As he says, it is a quirk of the draftsman. In practice an improvement has proved necessary.
My noble friend is right to draw attention to the fact that this measure has the support not only of all parties but of the Government too. My honourable friend in another place, Estelle Morris, is grateful for the manner in which the Bill's progress has been facilitated. Even though the Summer Recess will intervene, there is every prospect that the Bill will reach the statute book before the end of the parliamentary Session. We congratulate my noble friend on having the good fortune to move the Bill this evening. It has our full support. I look forward to hearing an endorsement of it by the Minister.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, on the way he introduced the measure. I also congratulate his honourable friend in another place, Estelle Morris.
The Government support the amendment to the Public Order Act 1986. The noble Lord described the measure very well. The proposal would overcome an apparent anomaly in the existing public order legislation whereby a police officer has the power of arrest only if he personally has warned a person about engaging in offensive conduct but that person continues to do it.
There is no change to the police warning which has to be given; that is right and proper. But the proposal would mean that any police officer could arrest the person if they chose to ignore the police warning about their conduct. The Government support the measure.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Manchester Bombing: Restoration of City Centre
10.40 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made so far towards the architectural and economic restoration of Manchester city centre following the recent bombing,

1499
and whether they will pay compensation for acts of terrorism in Great Britain on the same basis as in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while the recent outrage in the city of Manchester features in the Question, it is not only about Manchester. For people who are bombed out of their businesses and houses in Manchester I wish to obtain recompense based on the format used in Northern Ireland. The latter is far more generous.
If it had not been for the success of the security forces a few weeks ago in managing to raid a bomb manufacturing cell in the London suburbs, where I understand about 18 bombs were primed ready to be planted, we might have been talking of a multiplicity of bombs like the one in Manchester.
Before I go further, I must apologise as the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Fitt, will not be speaking in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is busy and has had a hard day and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is not well. However, he indicated to me that he fully supports the concept of my Question and what my noble friends Lady Dean and Lord Monkswell are trying to do.
I must make it clear that I speak as an individual, looking at the situation as I evaluate it. I have been to the site of the explosion and was shown round by Mr. Challenger from the department of the City Architect, Mr. King. I am grateful to Mr. Challenger who showed me in detail the tremendous amount of damage. In my youth I was on fire-watching duty in Deansgate, Manchester, but I never saw surface damage like that inflicted by the bomb. Bombs from aircraft penetrate, explode and leave a crater, but this was almost total surface damage, scything everything in front of it. The prompt action of the police and fire brigade was magnificent, shifting 80,000 people in a short time out of an area 800 metres or half a mile in diameter. My daughter was working 50 yards the other side of the wall from the site of the bomb.
I also wish to express my appreciation to Mr. Alistair Burt, the Minister, who today sent me a brief on what is happening in Manchester. We are not so much concerned at present with the long term and the rebuilding of Manchester, which is of great interest; we are more concerned about the 600 small traders who Mr. Burt says are at risk. He states:
"The immediate priority has been to ensure that these small traders have easy access to the support they need".
I do not believe that is the case. It is probably on record—and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will deal with this matter—that Manchester City Council is saying that it wants immediate funds to deal with the situation.
I know of at least two individual cases. The first relates to a small jeweller who employs five people. He is not allowed back into his business. A safety element may enter into it; but he does not even know what has happened to his stock. That case can be multiplied in relation to certain properties that are affected: the Arndale Centre, the Corn Exchange and the Royal Exchange. The second two were badly hit. I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the points that we
1500
make, and that he will not read from a pre-prepared brief which sets out what is perceived to be the situation in Manchester at present. We might have a slightly different perception, even though our goal is the same.
Why have I decided to take this course in relation to Manchester and—God forbid—other cities that may suffer these bombings? On 17th July I tabled a Written Question in the following terms. I asked Her Majesty's Government,
"How much financial compensation has so far been paid in respect of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain respectively".—[Official Report, 17/7/96; col. WA 62.]
I received the following information:
"Responsibility for compensation in Northern Ireland has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive. Mr. Dennis Stanley. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given … There is no comparable scheme for Great Britain".
I eventually received an answer from the Compensation Agency. It stated that during the years 1978–79 to 1995–96, £500 million was paid in Northern Ireland by the Government in compensation for bomb damage. I was told that no figures were available for the years 1971–78, which were much more violent than the years quoted. I therefore believe it is safe to say that we are talking about £1 billion or thereabouts.
It is not good enough to tell Mancunians that they have to put their hands in their pockets when Northern Ireland receives that sort of compensation. I make no attempt to diminish what is happening in Northern Ireland, but as I believe we are part of the same country, it is a bit thick to treat Manchester and possibly—as I said, God forbid—other cities in this country in that way while more generous amounts are being paid in Northern Ireland.
I received some other information which is widely known, but which ought to be more widely known; namely, that, in addition, other sums of money are being paid in Northern Ireland in connection with terrorist damage. That means that payments to Northern Ireland represent a debt of £3 billion a year to the rest of the UK. That might sound all right—and perhaps no one would want to interfere with it—but it is not widely known in this country. People will start to wake up and ask why we should pay when we cannot get money to put right an act of violence perpetrated in this country that was spawned in Northern Ireland.
The leader of my party came to Manchester a week last Thursday and gave certain undertakings that would bear on Manchester. He said that the case would be looked at sympathetically. But, first, we have to win the election in order to implement that; secondly, as I understand it, we are talking in terms of £500 or £600 million to repair the physical damage caused. I do not know where that is going to be conjured up from because the local authorities in Manchester have been told that there is no extra money for anything. That is unfair on a city like Manchester which throughout its history has been a generous and stable city and has accepted immigrants from all over the world of any creed and any colour. They have been welcomed in Manchester and have settled into the community, and have, in fact, played an important part in developing that city into the fine city that it is.
As regards the Government taking the view that Manchester City Council should provide a lot of money, I remind the House that Manchester is now a city of only 400,000 people. It had well over half a million when I was the leader. It also has an ageing population. So how the hell can Manchester suddenly conjure up huge sums of money to rebuild the city centre that has been destroyed, quite deliberately, through no fault of its own?
I have said most of what I want to say, and I do not want to go into other statistics tonight because they are pretty long on time. One of the main reasons I decided to table this Question tonight is that it will be the last chance to speak on this matter before Parliament rises for three months. I am grateful to my colleagues on these Benches, and to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who have decided to stay at this hour to give some support to what I believe is indisputably a genuine case. I have some information, regarding the compensation office of the Northern Ireland Office. The information makes quite clear that in Northern Ireland compensation is payable by the state—not by insurance, but by the state—under the Criminal Damage (Compensation)(Northern Ireland) Order 1977, in respect of loss arising from any one of four categories of damage to property. That means bombing, personal injury and so on.
I do not see why our submission on behalf of Manchester—following the outrage it has suffered—should not be considered. Only a few weeks before the outrage Irish games were held in Manchester with enormous success. However, this is how the terrorists repay that. I believe Manchester's case is indisputable. I hope the Minister will convey our views to the Secretary of State or, if necessary, to the Prime Minister, and that Manchester will receive justice and be dealt with in a fair way.
10.53 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for putting his Question down this evening. I know that we have all the talk about the oxygen to terrorists, but there is another side of the coin—that of a major city facing an atrocity being, quite frankly, forgotten when the issue is not debated here in Parliament. The IRA bomb was a cynical, evil act. It was a miracle beyond comprehension that in that city, on that Saturday, with 80,000 people in the vicinity, not one was killed. I gather it was the largest bomb ever on the United Kingdom mainland, and in the words of the Manchester Evening News, the area is like a Beirut war zone. How right it is. This IRA activity was an act of war against the citizens of Manchester and against the British Government and the British people: 1,200 buildings over a quarter of a mile radius were either completely wrecked or severely damaged.
With that destruction of the city of Manchester, it would be grossly unfair to the people to allow their plight to become a political point-scoring exercise between the parties. It has not become that and this
1502
debate is not intended to be that either. I should like to say that very loudly and clearly. The people of Manchester deserve better than that.
However, there are questions that need to be asked and, I hope, answered by the Minister this evening. There are two issues: the immediate issue and the medium and longer-term issue. I am a Mancunian and proud of it. Mancunians are proud people, independent and determined. In some ways that is manifested by the fact that none of us taking part in the debate this evening has been approached by people in Manchester to raise the issue in Parliament. We are doing it as individuals in our own right because of what we feel.
Over their history the people of Manchester have faced great adversity with much courage, not least during the Blitz on Manchester in the Second World War. This IRA atrocity has seen the emergence of that kind of courage again. The city council, its workforce, the emergency services, the fire services, the police, the employees of small businesses affected, the Chamber of Commerce, large and small businesses and the voluntary organisations—even the Prince's Trust, in which I declare an interest as a trustee—have all come together; and Manchester's own newspaper, the Manchester Evening News, has come behind them to support the people of Manchester.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that the Manchester Evening News has led a very prominent campaign so far? We hope that it will continue; otherwise, the pressure may die down.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I come from the newspaper industry. I have an in-bred feeling for campaigning newspapers and there are not enough of them today. In this situation we have seen the Manchester Evening News becoming a campaigning newspaper. I smile at the sight of the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker this evening. We have shared some experiences of the newspaper industry in the past, not all of them positive.
Manchester needs help to help itself in this situation. This is a national issue, not a city issue or concerned with one small geographical area. I suggest in perhaps the gentlest way that the help that Manchester needs has not been recognised by the Government. That is one of the reasons for the debate this evening. That help is needed especially by small traders. Of course, visits by the Deputy Prime Minister are very welcome indeed. I applaud those visits. But the gloss soon disappears and the people of Manchester realise that the wonderful announcement of £20 million in support that has been found for them is, in fact, merely relocated money. I gather that it is not new money but comes from the European Fund allocation for the area of Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Lancashire over the 1996–97 period.
That £20 million is just 4 per cent. of the assessed £500 million needed to rebuild Manchester in the medium and longer term. My concern is that it is not new money and because it is not new money, the

1503
schemes calling for that money, money which they were allocated, are now losing out. Will Manchester be rebuilt at the expense of money that was to be spent in Hulme, an area which desperately needs regeneration? I gather that the £20 million comes from the fund for meeting and maintaining the long-term regeneration tasks ahead in that area.
So when the Minister responds to this debate, could he tell us what schemes have had the money relocated from them? Also, what assistance will be given from new money? Of course, we welcome the city centre task force that has been established, which is very broadly based. But that first key issue in rebuilding Manchester is crucial and I ask the Minister to give an assurance this evening, if he is able, and if not to come back to us afterwards.
If that relocated £20 million has added to it the private funds which no doubt will be available—or maybe PFI initiatives—and the insurance money that will be available through the normal insurance measures, particularly from the large companies, and we find that there is still a shortfall, will the Minister give an assurance this evening that money will be found to help the people of Manchester in the rebuilding process?
Another problem that concerns the city is that it made an application for a scheme that I have only learnt about this week, I confess, the Bellwin Scheme. Apparently the Bellwin Scheme provides emergency financial assistance for local authorities. The problem is that, even if Manchester gets the maximum, the maximum is only 85 per cent. and it will still have to find £1.5 million. Could the Minister tell me whether that shortfall will be made up by the Government?
My noble friend referred to small businesses. He is so right. It is the small businesses that are the most vulnerable in all this. The large businesses such as Marks & Spencer and Mothercare have been absolutely marvellous to the city of Manchester and its people and have responded very well. But it is the small businesses which are really feeling it.
Many do have insurance; and we are told that the Northern Ireland scheme is not appropriate because in Northern Ireland you cannot get insurance. But in Manchester and elsewhere on the mainland the situation for a number of small businesses is impossible. They are too small. They are crammed together. They cannot get at their stock to replenish and start up as new businesses. We are heading for what would have been a very busy period for them in the lead-up to Christmas. What are they going to do? They are out in the cold. They face genuine hardship. They face relocation costs. They are facing pressure from the banks. I exclude from that the Co-operative Bank which I gather has been very good with loans to these small businesses. But creditors need paying. They do not go away. And then there are suppliers and customers. What do these businesses have to help them in Manchester? They have the Lord Mayor's Emergency Fund.
1504
I would like to read out a letter that was in the Manchester Evening News last night:
"The Manchester bomb exploded yards from my flower kiosk - I was the closest retailer to the explosive device. Mine is a lock-up kiosk in the middle of Manchester's city centre, and insurance of any kind has always been refused for my premises.
I insured myself to some degree by reserving monies to pay for repairs against fire and vandalism, which is presumably why I was refused cover in the first place.
So when I need help the most, why do all concerned - the government etc. - try to pretend the problem does not exist, although there is a significant number of business people involved? There remain approximately 100 who could not get insurance or were limited to what was available.
Statistics show that over 660 businesses were affected to different degrees. The government's contribution to the Lord Mayor's fund to help small businesses was £50,000. If this payment is split evenly between us all, it's less than £76 each. I generated more VAT each week than this paltry sum".
That is quite a telling story. I know the flower kiosk. When I lived in Manchester I used to buy flowers from it every week. It is right in the heart of the city where this bomb exploded. That lady, Mrs. Hayes, represents many small companies.
Of course it is not just the small retailers which are so badly affected. The Royal Exchange Theatre, housed in one of Manchester's landmark buildings, the Royal Exchange, would this year have ended up in a healthy financial position. It is now estimated to be in deficit to £600,000. It could close. Where is it to get the money from? Not only that, but 50 people have been laid off. There are no jobs. The Government gave £50,000, which is exactly the same as the Co-operative Society in Manchester gave. The airport gave £25,000. Marks & Spencer and other businesses gave considerable moneys. One million pounds is pledged to that fund at the moment. Can the noble Lord the Minister give me an assurance that more money will be given by the Government to that emergency fund? It is short-term, pump-priming money which is desperately needed by these small businesses.
I ask the Minister to do all he can to help Manchester. If the Government give a little help, the people of the city will sort themselves out. They do not ask for everything; just a little help—what we used to call a leg-up to get on with things and look after themselves. I hope that during the imminent visit to Manchester of the Prime Minister he is able to announce new money and new support for the city.
When my right honourable friend the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition visited the city last Friday he said that Manchester would remain high on his agenda. That will be a medium to long-term issue, but I have confidence that he means what he says. When he is in a position to deal with government funds—as we all hope he will be—I am sure that he will keep that commitment to Manchester.
I conclude by quoting from Michael Unger, the editor of the Manchester Evening News. I believe he spoke for all Mancunians when he wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister in the Evening News on 21st June:
"Simply because no one died we fear that we will become another Westminster statistic and in a few weeks' time be forgotten by the Whitehall civil servants and London politicians, who will inevitably

1505
get bogged down in bureaucratic red tape—arguing over small print, fighting over who pays for what, squabbling over whether or not Europe should help out".
I suggest that Manchester deserves better than that. The Government have a responsibility and now the opportunity to ensure that Manchester receives that help. I await with interest the Minister's response to this short but well deserved debate.
11.6 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for introducing this debate. So far we have heard two eloquent speakers. I cannot hope to emulate that eloquence, but as an adopted Mancunian of 25 years and as someone who was born and bred in London, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks. I should like to make three points: first, I wish to pay tribute to the people of Manchester; secondly, I wish to pay tribute to the city council of Manchester; and, thirdly, I wish to request that we all accept our responsibilities.
In paying tribute to the people of Manchester we need to recognise that they have displayed fortitude and understanding of their situation; they have gone through a terrible ordeal. It is worth pointing out that, following the tragedy a few weeks ago, there was virtually no antagonism towards their fellow citizens who were of Irish extraction. That is an important fact that we need to recognise and it is a tribute to the people of Manchester that they have taken that viewpoint.
We must also recognise and pay tribute to the city council of Manchester, not only for the immediate action that it has taken to help alleviate the difficulties associated with this incident, but also for the policies that it has espoused for many years in terms of anti-discrimination and recognising the multi-cultural nature of our society, particularly in the city of Manchester. Through all its departments and in numerous different ways, the city council recognises the different cultural groups that play their part in the development of the society of Manchester; for example, the Chinese community, the Afro-Caribbean community and, as my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick pointed out, the Irish community with its celebration of the Irish events only a few weeks before this incident. That emphasis on the multicultural realities of our society has played a very great part in the ability of all Mancunians to pull together in the face of this tragedy.
Speaking for the nation, we in Parliament need to recognise that we have a national responsibility for what has happened. We need to accept that and realise that we must play our part as a nation by ensuring the support that my noble friend Lady Dean identified and recognising the iniquities of the Bellwin formula whereby the national exchequer pays only 85 per cent. of expenditure incurred by a local authority, and that is only expenditure above a fairly high threshold. We need to recognise that.
Although our debate centres on Manchester, it is not just about Manchester; it is about all the citizens of London and any other of our communities which may suffer in this particular way. I listened earlier to the
1506
debate on the "ins" and "outs" of EMU. I was very interested in a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He pointed out that the nation state needed to have the fiscal freedom to accommodate economic shocks. This is exactly the sort of occasion when the nation state needs to respond to the economic shocks.
I refer not just to the shock to the economic heart of Manchester, because it is also a very personal and individual matter. My noble friend Lady Dean has already referred to small businesses, the flower seller and the newsagent, who are particularly affected by their inability either to obtain insurance or to afford it. We need to recognise that some of the small traders who operated in the Corn Exchange were operating at the margin of economic survival. It is probable that a number of them could not afford insurance even if they could get it and yet they provided a very important element within the economic heart of the City of Manchester.
We also need to recognise that individuals are affected. My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick referred to individual's homes being affected. It may not be apparent to many of your Lordships that within the Arndale shopping complex, which was affected by the bomb, there is a major residential tower block. Anyone who goes near the centre of the City of Manchester now can see the blank windows where there is no glass. The people who lived in that tower block are unable to go back. They were allowed back to obtain a few essential items of a personal nature, but they cannot live there. Effectively, those people have lost their homes.
If we think in terms of the businesses which have been dislocated and unable to trade, it is a fact that they will suffer, but what about the employees of those businesses? They are effectively out of a job. I am sorry for the fact that across virtually every industry and aspect of our national life there is insecurity. It faces all of us. In the early 1980s it was manufacturing industry and as the 1990s continue, it is the financial services sector which is affected. Every element of our lives in this country is faced with insecurity. It is rather curious that the only secure operation is the so-called "intelligence community" where, even after the demise of the cold war and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, with the expectation of a peace dividend and the emergence of some element of peace in Northern Ireland, the one group of people which has retained job security is the the so-called "intelligence community". That says a good deal about our responsibility in this matter.
I return to the fact that we are responsible. We must recognise that over the past two years as the peace process has developed in Northern Ireland a bi-partisan, not party political, view has been taken of the situation. On that basis, as a nation we have a responsibility for the unfortunate breakdown of the peace process. Surely, it is wrong to ask individual parts of the community, whether it be Manchester, London—or, heaven forfend, any other small part of the nation—to pay the price for our failure as a nation, bi-partisan in Parliament, to deal with the problems that beset us as a result of the difficulties in Northern Ireland.

1507
We have a responsibility—dare I say it?—not just to the Republican element but to the Unionist element in Northern Ireland to show that we are prepared to listen to and respect their point of view. We must recognise that responsibility.
I hope that the Government, in speaking for the nation and all of us in Parliament, will recognise the particular difficulties now being experienced in Manchester both by individuals and by small and large businesses and will respond to that need. Further, I hope that the Government will develop a facility to respond not just to the people of Manchester, whose needs are greatest at the moment, but, if it arises, to the needs of other communities in our society that may require support and assistance. I make that plea and beg the Government to listen to it.
11.17 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, a few months ago I had cause to visit Manchester Town Hall. I spoke to an official of many years standing who asked after the health of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I told him that it was robust. He said that Joe Dean was the best leader that the City Council had ever had. I shall leave it to history to judge whether or not that assessment is accurate. But the debate this evening demonstrates that the noble Lord still has a keen interest in and concern for the City of Manchester. This debate is very timely. It is the last chance that Parliament has for three months to consider this issue.
It is extraordinary that after 25 years of terrorist threat to mainland Britain almost every act of terrorism is treated on an ad hoc basis. There was a curious hiatus of several days before the Government's responses emerged. For example, six days after the event the Manchester Evening News carried an open letter with the heading "Please help". This would be true of any other city that suffered such an attack. It is extraordinary that over 25 years we have not established a national task force funded and ready to go into action so that local authorities, business and individuals can receive immediate counsel and assistance following terrorist attacks. I believe that is important to the individual. But in a certain way it would also diminish the terrorist threat. An element of the terrorist threat is that when an attack occurs one is on one's own. If there was a national response to terrorist attack and an immediate sharing of burdens terrorists would not have the ability to pick off targets city by city and community by community. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, has raised a fundamental issue which has not been raised during the past 25 years.
Let me say where I stand in this matter. I am a native of the North West. In the other place I had the honour to represent Stockport, Manchester's neighbour. I speak this evening from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Liberal Democrats are the official opposition on Manchester City Council. I shall quote the unanimous statement put out by the city council after the bomb. It states:
"Speaking on behalf of every member of this council, every one of the 84 Labour councillors and each of the 15 Liberal Democrat councillors, the actions of these terrorists can only be described as despicable and cowardly".
1508
It continued:
"We speak with one voice when, as a City Council, we utterly condemn the actions of these insane fanatics. We speak with one voice when we say that Manchester will fight back".
I have said before in this House that those of us with experience of Manchester politics in its most robust form, where there can be keen debate not just between parties but within parties, know that to have that unity of response is some kind of perverted triumph for the IRA. The IRA has not furthered its cause one inch; it has united Manchester in its contempt for it and its methods.
There has been an all-party response. It has already been said how welcome was the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister with all his flamboyance and "can do" approach to matters. As has been said, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of my party visited Manchester as a demonstration of solidarity. We welcome the establishment of the major international urban design competition.
That is the right approach, because in the face of a terrorist attack the correct response must be to show a triumph of democracy and a free society. The editor of the Manchester Evening News, Mike Unger, has been quoted once already tonight. I shall quote him again. He said:
"The IRA bomb has given us a unique opportunity to look at our city afresh. We can have a fabulous environment for our future within the parameters of time, cost and economic reality. Do we really have the desire?"
Manchester does have that desire, but problems are already emerging and that is why it is important that we in Parliament keep the matter under scrutiny. The vision and the long-term commitment to rebuilding Manchester come up against real, short-term problems. The insurance companies' loss adjusters want quick settlements. They want to know how much they are going to pay and to get the matter off their books. Businesses, both small and large, want to get back into business as quickly as possible. A conflict arises between the vision of rebuilding the centre of Manchester and the pressure to get back to work and make do and mend.
Bridging the gap between the long, cool, hard look, encouraging the visionary response of building a 21st century city and the pressure to return to work needs money. If the Government intend to stand by the objective they set when they said:
"The Government and the city council, working with other public agencies and the private sector, including land owners most affected by the incident, are determined to ensure that from the devastation a vibrant city centre for the 21st century to rival anywhere in Europe will emerge over the next three years",
they must also provide the means.
We support the task force in its aim of getting the right answers, not just a quick fix. Manchester is worthy of support. It has been one of the most successful examples of private sector/public sector partnership, which all parties in the House see as the key to economic regeneration. The International Concert Hall, the Nynex Arena and the National Cycling Centre are examples of Manchester doing the job for itself. But the

1509
terrorist attack puts a whole new burden on that community and on that city which must be shared nationally.
Perhaps the Government could make early decisions in other areas; for example, the sports stadium for East Manchester or the second runway for Manchester International Airport. Early decisions which are within the Government's gift could boost local confidence and promote inward investment. But, most of all, if we are going to create in Manchester a true regional capital to rival the great regional cities of Europe—and that is the prize within our grasp—it is not only sweet words which will be required from the Government but a real commitment and real cash.
Perhaps I may leave the last word to Manchester City Council, which I quoted earlier:
"This city of Manchester will not be crushed. We have suffered a dent in our confidence, but we are emerging stronger than ever before and with a determination that shows the world that we are a proud and strong city".
Those of us who know that strong city would expect no less a response from Manchester and Mancunians. Our opportunity, and the reason this House will continue to monitor and keep an interest in what happens in Manchester, is to build from the disaster a strong Manchester and a city of which we can all be proud.
11.27 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I came into the House this morning at 8.30 and some 15 hours later I am as anxious as anyone else to see my bed. But even if the debate were many hours later I should have wished to remain and make a small contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, is Manchester through and through. He is a former leader of the council, a position which I held with another large authority. He knows full well exactly what is required. We congratulate him on providing us with the opportunity to debate the matter. He has also provided the Government with an opportunity to respond, perhaps with slight unease, which I have seen in various documents, but with fulsomeness and wholeheartedness to a national disaster. I am sure that the Minister, with his experience of his department and of life, needs no telling from me or anyone else that if he had lived, worked or had a business in the city he would take a view slightly different from the one I might take, although we both know Manchester.
I am not anticipating a bleak response from the Minister because that would be very harsh. The people of Manchester want to know that the Government understand the nature of the problem and will do everything possible to assist them to overcome the disaster. After all, that is the purpose of the debate in this House tonight.
When I carried out my research for the debate, I came across statistics which my fellow Peers and Mancunians all know. However, it is worth putting on the record the extent of the catastrophe which befell the people of Manchester in that very short period on 15th June. I believe that 49,000 square metres of retail shops,
1510
57,000 square metres of offices, two multi-storey car parks and the largest bus terminus were destroyed. Beside that destruction there was a great deal of dislocation.
One of my credentials for speaking in the debate, besides being a Jack of all trades and master of none, is that I have strong connections—I say this very proudly—with the Co-operative Movement, to such an extent that I am prepared to wear this tie this evening! It is the tie of the Lincoln Co-operative Society. It sometimes causes mirth. However, it is a talisman. When I read the brief in relation to the Urban Design Competition, I was interested to see that in trying to encapsulate the city of Manchester it referred to it as:
"The city that pioneered free trade, economic liberalism and the Co-operative Movement".
The Co-op is Manchester and Manchester is the Co-op. Rochdale is the place where the Rochdale pioneers started 150 years ago. Rochdale is now part of what I would call, perhaps clumsily, the Greater Manchester conurbation. The heart of the empire of the Co-operative Movement is in Manchester.
When I think of Manchester, I think of Balloon Street, Miller Street and Danzig Street. I think of places which are on the perimeter of the area where the damage has been caused. But, nevertheless, that is the heart of the economic empire of the Co-operative Movement—the CWS, the CIS, the Co-operative Bank, the Co-operative Retail Services. They are all to be found in that part of Manchester. Everybody in Manchester has no doubt but that it is a "co-operative" city.
One area has been singled out as the study area in which one hopes that the regeneration will take place. The CWS and the CIS are specifically earmarked within that area. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Dean draw attention to the immediate response of the Co-op Bank, and I know that the CWS and others have responded in exactly the same way.
I am also proud to have had a past association with the National Federation of Market Traders. I know that its members are among the group of people who are in a worse situation than those who are working for large businesses. They are desperate for assistance and relief. They will survive. I know that some people who were not properly insured may go to the wall and others may find it difficult to survive. There will be those who suffer. I was in Manchester during the war, which is now some 54 years ago. I was in the area when the bombing took place. I visited the hospitals there at that time. Therefore, I know the spirit of the people of Manchester. They will survive and so will the city.
The city council has a great plan. There is much to be done. I believe that my noble friend said that £500 million may be required to repair the damage and she said that the Lord Mayor's Fund stands at £1 million. People will naturally turn to the council for help. But the council is strapped for cash. It could not have expected this to have happened. No major city in England, Scotland or Wales would have expected to have visited upon it that which is so much part of the scene in Northern Ireland.

1511
My noble friend Lord Dean, a proud Mancunian, is anxious to take this opportunity to invite the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to say what is to happen. The Minister may not know that when the bombing took place my noble friend was scandalised by the fact that neither this House nor the other place had an immediate opportunity to comment on the situation. My noble friend understood as well as I do that there are certain situations which are best not discussed in public at the time; indeed, he has been very patient in that he has not pursued the matter until now. However, he has found his opportunity and he is absolutely right in what he says. The people of Manchester are hoping that the Government will recognise that they need special assistance.
The Question asks for the assistance which is available to those who suffer these terrible terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland to be made available to Manchester. I am not competent in the matter; indeed, the Minister is far more competent in it because he has been well briefed. I should like him, first, to reassure the House that those who suffer in Manchester will be treated in exactly the same way as others who suffer a comparable hurt in another part of the United Kingdom. If that is the case, we are already half-way there.
However, what I have gathered from my research is uncertainty and a lack of clarity and preciseness, together with, not a lack of willingness, but the red tape and bureaucracy which inevitably arise over public expenditure. I understand that. I know that it is not possible for a Minister to wave a wand, put his hand in his pocket or indeed write out a cheque. Ministers have to be careful in that respect. But it would be churlish of them and sad if the Government did not recognise that there are little people who need help. The big people can in the main take care of themselves; indeed, not only will they have insurance and their own plans but they can take advantage of various new opportunities.
The kind of people I know as market traders and in many other spheres are looking to the Government to say that they are willing to be specific in the help they offer. There are 180 businesses out of action, and then there is the Corn Exchange and 70 tenants out in the cold. There is also the Royal Exchange. The Minister will know those places. I certainly recognise them from the time I was in Manchester and its conurbation more than 50 years ago. I have in mind the feeling that has been mentioned more than once that what people want is equity and fair play; and, indeed, a recognition that this could happen anywhere in the country.
I hope that the Minister will assure my friends with a special interest in the matter because they are Manchester people that the city will not get different treatment to that given anywhere else. However, if they come to the conclusion that what they are getting is bad treatment, the Minister will also be telling people in every other major city that if terrorists decide to strike in those cities against the British Government, locally and municipally they are on their own.
As most speakers in the debate tonight have tried to indicate, this is not a partisan issue and it is certainly not a party political issue. What we want from the
1512
Minister is not only sympathy—although we want the tea as well—but something to demonstrate that, even with all the problems facing the Government, there are exceptions that can be made. God forbid that this is one of a series of devastations the like of which we do not want. However, the people of Manchester are hoping to get a response from the Minister tonight which will assure them that it is recognised that they have suffered a hurt that the people of Birmingham, of Bristol and of Newcastle have not suffered. They want the Government to say that Manchester will not only be rebuilt but that it will be recognised as a major regional centre—11 million people live within 80 kilometres of it. We want to see a rebuilding, but, more importantly, some urgency in the matter. I very much hope that the Minister can satisfy my noble friend Lord Dean, who has, as always, done an excellent job for the people of Manchester.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me to call on my life experience. I am afraid I have little enough of that which is relevant. I cannot even claim to be wearing the right tie. I do not think that skating polar bears have anything to do with this evening's subject.
However, I, of course, remember the two City bombs. For much of my life I have worked in the City of London and I can remember both clearly. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would wish the financial arrangements which followed those bombs to be extended to Manchester. I do not believe that the Government were required to put up any money on either of those occasions. I believe that the City found everything itself. Clearly the community of Manchester, and the situation in Manchester, are quite different. Today I wish to concentrate on praising Manchester and all who have reacted so positively and constructively to the bomb and its aftermath: the police who moved thousands from the city centre with very little notice so that there was no panic and no fatalities; the businessmen and women who may have had years of work destroyed but who are starting to re-establish their businesses; the people of Manchester who are determined, as has been said frequently this evening, to carry on their daily lives and not to be intimidated; and the local authority which has co-ordinated so much of the response to the bomb, and has done so extremely well.
We find it hard to imagine what the task force referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could have done which the city council has not done rather more effectively because of its local knowledge and local abilities. With the Government's help, the council is determined to rebuild the shattered city centre and to improve on what was there before.
Let us review what has been done to date. Perhaps I may first pay tribute to the extraordinary speed with which the city responded. The immediate aftermath of the bomb highlighted the skills of the emergency services and council workers. But in the hours and days that followed work was put swiftly in hand to minimise loss and damage and get the city working again. The Government Office for the North West and the city

1513
council brought together those who would play a vital part in helping small businesses; and the speed of that response was excellent.
The bomb damaged areas have been secured and engineers are gradually opening up more of the centre. Some of the buildings, such as the Corn Exchange, have been badly damaged and reinstatement will not be easy. The immediate priority has been to ensure that small traders have easy access to the support which they need, and can start to trade again as soon as possible. Everyone who spoke this evening has mentioned that point. The Manchester bomb hit small businesses particularly hard. Three of the buildings most badly affected, the Corn Exchange, the Royal Exchange, and the Arndale Centre, between them housed some 600 small traders.
A crucial task has been the relocation of many of those businesses. I pay tribute to all who have worked tirelessly and successfully on this. Just a couple of days ago tenants of the Corn Exchange building were offered accommodation in the Coliseum building on Church Street and were told that their new landlords would underwrite the cost of replacing stock. That is typical of the spirit that the city has shown.
Manchester City Council and its local partners, the TEC, the Chamber of Commerce and Manchester Business Link have set up a centre to give support to business. They will disburse grants from the Lord Mayor's Appeal Fund in cases of hardship. The fund has now raised over £900,000 and more is pledged. One hundred and twenty applications have been received and awards totalling £250,000 have been made. There is still a considerable amount of money in that fund to meet cases of individual hardship such as those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned the householders in the Arndale Centre. We agree that there has been hardship, but none is now homeless. Short term accommodation was found in university halls of residence; subsequently alternative flats were found in the city's stock of council houses and in housing association houses. All the people of Manchester are pulling together to make sure that those who have been affected by this bomb are not hurt more than can possibly be helped.
That will take Manchester through the next few weeks. Over the long term, however, Manchester has set its sights high. No one would pretend that the Arndale Centre was a work of art. The cathedral was surrounded by buildings of inferior quality. Now there is an opportunity to take a fresh look and to build again. Manchester, with the encouragement and support of my right honourable friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, is holding an international design competition for the rebuilding of its centre. We hope that the best architects throughout the world will put forward their ideas.
The work done by the newly formed task force will complement the new developments which are re-invigorating Manchester. Buildings such as the arena
1514
and the new concert hall are being developed within the framework of the public/private partnership of City Pride.
The result will be a city centre for the new millennium. Many are determined to be involved in the realisation of this ambition. On 5th July, there was a debate sponsored by the Manchester Evening News—and I am glad to add the Government's congratulations and praise to that great newspaper on all it has done since the bomb, and all that it continues to do—and by the Manchester Civic Society. A whole raft of ideas were put forward by people determined to keep the independent traders who have made the city so vibrant in the past. But they were equally open to new ideas, particularly as regards transport.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the conflict of getting back to work and achieving quality in rebuilding. Yes, we agree, but the major retailers are committed to getting the right answer for the long term. The task force will consult widely to involve all sectors of the community. The best urban designers will, we feel, be attracted by the competition.
Mancunians then are rebuilding Manchester. That must be right. It is their city, their future, their delight and their responsibility. They have great personal and financial resources, public and private, with which to effect the rebuilding. But we are not standing idly by. We have made contributions to the Lord Mayor's Fund, provided funds to get the urban design competition under way and provided £21 million of European funding for essential works.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked whether that was new money. It is new for Manchester; it is not re-allocated from the north-west, it is re-allocated from the rest of the UK. The resources will come from the whole country, not from the region. Given the extent and breadth of resource from which the money has been drawn, I cannot identify specific schemes which will be cut as a result.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked from where the £500 or £600 million that he estimates the repairs will cost will come. We are not yet clear what the total costs will be. Manchester City Council will doubtless tell us in due course. Many buildings have not yet been surveyed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, we welcome the Minister's resume of what has happened in Manchester. Those of us who know the city knew that that was how it would respond. However, will the Minister cover the main point of the Question? Will the Government urgently consider applying the Northern Ireland criteria for compensation for damage from terrorist bombing activities across the board? Will they now extend those criteria to Manchester in order that people may get on with the job with the same confidence as people in Northern Ireland in those circumstances in the knowledge that what is blown up will be replaced by government money and not their own money? That is all we ask for, equal treatment with Northern Ireland. It is the same country, the same people. Why is there a difference?

1515
If the Government do not answer that Question, when the people whose property was blown up in Manchester start to pay their taxes, they will be paying compensation to people in Northern Ireland. How can that be right in the one nation that the Prime Minister talks about?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall come to that point shortly. Perhaps I may continue with answering the questions in the pile raised by the noble Lord. It is not yet clear what the clear-up will cost. There is much yet to be surveyed and most costs will be met by insurance companies. The Government have already provided an extra £21 million and will consider bids when costs are known. At the moment we do not know enough to tell what is required and what is missing.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, is concerned about the Northern Ireland scheme. In the UK, insurance is generally available to cover for terrorist risks, and it is not that expensive. That is not the case in Northern Ireland. That is why separate arrangements are required in Northern Ireland which are not required on the mainland of Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, raises the question of the amount which we in the rest of the United Kingdom pay towards Northern Ireland. Indeed, we do pay a lot of money to Northern Ireland—as we do to Wales, Scotland and doubtless other parts of the United Kingdom. That is what being part of the United Kingdom is about. There are large transfers between one part of the kingdom and another. We should not in any way begrudge them. It is part of being one nation. It does not help to become envious of help that is given to other parts of the United Kingdom. Given the state Northern Ireland is in, it needs considerably more than the rest of the country.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not want to open a debate on Northern Ireland; I merely quoted figures. Is the Minister aware that last year Northern Ireland was in receipt of £5 billion from central government and its net contribution to central government was £2 billion? Is he further aware that that is totally different from the position in relation to England, Scotland and Wales? It does not bear comparison. If it were one nation, the amount would be a lot less. I do not want that. All we are asking for is equal treatment in this particular situation in Manchester, based on the Northern Ireland criteria. It is not a lot to ask. It is a matter of justice. I am not a lawyer, but I question whether the case would stand examination in the European Court.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that it would. Manchester, thank goodness, is not yet in the state that Northern Ireland is in, and I pray God that it never will be. Northern Ireland needs and deserves the help that we give it. One can start playing these games as to which parts of the United Kingdom pay money net and which parts of the United Kingdom receive money net. It is not helpful. We are one United Kingdom, and we look after our own.
1516
We will examine other requests for funding as Manchester puts them to us. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, quite clearly understands that money is tight. We will be as sympathetic to Manchester's case as we can be. In the meantime, the sums of money I mentioned show that we are supporting Manchester in its efforts.
I am aware that Mr. Tony Blair has also visited Manchester. He said, as I understand it, that he would do what we are doing. I do not understand what he has said to promise anything more than we have done and said we will do. And that does not surprise me. We share a determination in this country to make sure that Manchester can flourish as it should.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Can I take it from his remarks that the Government would consider the needs of Manchester as they develop and as investigations go on? Are we to take it that they would not be bound by the so-called Bellwin formula in providing for the needs of Manchester, and that some other, presumably more sensible, criterion would be adopted by central government to meet the needs of Manchester?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Bellwin formula only covers the first week or so of activity. That is a small and separate discussion with which I do not want to weary the House this evening. We are talking about much larger sums that Manchester will need to rebuild and revitalise itself. As I said, we remain committed to listening to Manchester City Council, which has done a wonderful job so far, when it tells us what it needs, and what for, and to being as constructive as we can.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me just one intervention. I am very heartened by his remarks about the Government's intention to work with Manchester to help rebuild its city. That is the "macro" aspect of the situation. We are all concerned. I am sure that the people of Manchester and those who spoke for them will accept that is about as far as we can go: to wait for the true cost, and wait to see what can be offset against it by insurance, etc.
However, we are also concerned about little people, some of whom are, sadly, not insured. The Minister might say that is a great pity but others are insured and their insurance companies have paid out; they have paid the premiums and they are entitled to compensation. But let us look at the reality. These are little people. We might be prudent; we might have taken out insurance, but the sad fact is that these people have been dealt a body blow. They have to get their stock replaced; they have to find premises; and they have to get ready now for the Christmas trade.
When the Minister says that he will listen very carefully to what Manchester tells him it needs, would he also say that that includes a request from Manchester City Council for the Government to deal

1517
sympathetically, and I say compassionately, with individuals and individual businesses that have suffered detriment as a result of this bomb?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we clearly cannot have a policy of compensating people who are not insured, otherwise the whole insurance market would collapse and no one would pay premiums. It is important that a fund like the Lord Mayor's fund exists so that local people can take local decisions to look after individuals and small businesses that have been caught up in the destruction. Those have to be local decisions. As I said earlier, this is a part of the operation which appears at the moment to be going well, and the response appears to be adequate and, in general, proportionate. Of course, I will admit to not knowing nearly as much of the detail as noble Lords who have spoken this evening.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: The Minister must be tired continually standing up and sitting down, so I thank him for giving way.
I raised the issue of the Lord Mayor's emergency fund, which covers the people we are talking about now, to which £1 million has been pledged. I gather from people in Manchester who are members of that wide-ranging committee that they estimate that they will need twice that amount. They need just £1 million, which is not a lot of money, in order to ease the burden of these small businesses, many of which were not insured, not because they did not try, but because they could not obtain insurance. I refer to the lady in the flower kiosk.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that case will come to us, perhaps through the city council. That is not information which I have before me. Doubtless, it will reach us in due course.
In looking constructively at the case which Manchester puts to us for further funding, we are continuing the close links between Government and the City of Manchester which have been established over the last decade. We may have our differences politically with the council, but as the redevelopment of Hulme and Castlefields, and our support for Manchester's City Pride initiative show, we want Manchester to succeed as much as local people do.
1518
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked questions on the stadium and the second runway at the airport. Concerning the stadium, we understand that Manchester is well placed in the current consideration of options for the stadium, but that is a matter for the Sports Council, and I cannot offer him any commitment on that. So far as the runway is concerned, there was clearly a major planning inquiry and the report has not yet been received from the inspector. That, as the noble Lord will understand, is something on which we have to pass judgement, and again, therefore, there is nothing further that I can say on that this evening.
We would say the same to any other of our great cities as we are saying to Manchester, for if they are not successful the country as a whole will not be successful. Manchester is a proud city. We have seen much of its resilience and fighting spirit in recent weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, called it courage, which is a pretty good summing up. That is plain for all to see as Manchester and the Mancunians recover from the devastation and forge a city for the next century.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, was worried lest we forget Manchester. I consider that to be inconceivable for this Government, and inconceivable for me personally as every time I enter my son's bedroom I see Manchester all over the walls. With such sons and daughters, adopted or otherwise, of which we have spoken this evening, forgetting Manchester is totally out of the question.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Deer (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before midnight.

  Commonhold: Draft Bill
  Commonhold: Draft Bill
  Hypnotism: Revised Guidance
  Hypnotism: Revised Guidance
  National Lottery: Effects on Horserace Betting Levy
  National Lottery: Effects on Horserace Betting Levy
  Special Constabulary: Working Group Report
  Special Constabulary: Working Group Report
  Prison Service: Learmont Recommendations
  Prison Service: Learmont Recommendations
  Turkey: Treatment of Prisoners
  Turkey: Treatment of Prisoners
  Clifton Wright: Role of Commonwealth in Individual Human Rights Cases
  Clifton Wright: Role of Commonwealth in Individual Human Rights Cases
  South Africa: ODA and NGOs
  South Africa: ODA and NGOs
  NGOs: Joint Funding Scheme
  NGOs: Joint Funding Scheme
  Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions: Ratification
  Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions: Ratification
  Consular Fees
  Consular Fees
  GCHQ: Recruitment Policy
  GCHQ: Recruitment Policy
  DTI: MINIS Returns
  DTI: MINIS Returns
  PFI Projects: Court of Appeal Decision
  PFI Projects: Court of Appeal Decision
  Advertising Hoardings in Rural Areas
  Advertising Hoardings in Rural Areas
  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: Government Response to Reports
  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: Government Response to Reports
  Mizens Farm Planning Inquiry
  Mizens Farm Planning Inquiry
  Local Government Contracts: Performance Bonds and Guarantees
  Local Government Contracts: Performance Bonds and Guarantees
  Housing Allocation and Homelessness Provisions: Commencement
  Housing Allocation and Homelessness Provisions: Commencement
  Health and Safety Laboratory
  Health and Safety Laboratory
  National Health and National Insurance Numbers
  National Health and National Insurance Numbers
  Motability: NAO Report
  Motability: NAO Report
  Disability Discrimination Act: Employment Code of Practice
  Disability Discrimination Act: Employment Code of Practice
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act: Review
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act: Review
  Central Railways plc
  Central Railways plc
  Franchising Director: Annual Report
  Franchising Director: Annual Report
  Franchising Director: Further Instructions
  Franchising Director: Further Instructions
  RAF Northolt: Business Aviation
  RAF Northolt: Business Aviation
  Rowett Research Institute: Review
  Rowett Research Institute: Review