Sitting of 1 March 1996

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

  Scott Report (Civil Servants)
  9.34 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise a matter that is germane to the debate about to be initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig)? Is it true that the Prime Minister's Press Office, run by Mr. Jonathan Haslam, has made a statement that Ministers have had their trial and been acquitted—presumably that is a reference to the decisive margin of 320 to 319—and civil servants have not?
  May we have a statement at 11 am on the Government's warning about disciplinary action against civil servants by Ministers who accept no blame themselves? On 7 February 1983, at column 834, I initiated a debate on the Prime Minister's relations with the media and the role of the Prime Minister's press secretaries. It seems from the reports that Mr. Jonathan Haslam is going further down a political road than Bernard Ingham ever did.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister who will reply to the debate today, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, is from one of the Departments in which some civil servants are under threat of disciplinary action—indeed, dismissal. He is in the best position to come to the Dispatch Box at 11 am and make a statement about that matter, because he will know that civil servants in that position have a right to make a statement in their own defence only if it has been cleared by the establishments officer and the legal officer, and only if it does not criticise Ministers or Government policy. The House deserves a statement about that matter.
  Madam Speaker: I am not aware of the statement referred to by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in the first part of his remarks, and I have not heard that the Government are seeking to make a statement on this matter at 11 o'clock today. As the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has said from the Opposition Dispatch Box, there are Ministers on the Treasury Bench today who will have heard these exchanges, and who may seek to make some comment on them during the course of the debate.

Orders of the Day

  Public Interest Disclosure Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.37 am
  Mr. Don Touhig: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  People who act in the public interest and make the public aware of a crime, fraud or serious malpractice in an organisation currently have no protection in law against reprisals. The Bill that I and my sponsors place before the House today seeks to change that. I hope that, with the support of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House, we can ensure that legal protection is afforded to those people.
  I hope, too, that the House will recognise that we need to change the culture in Britain that seems to ignore the message, while questioning the motives of the messenger. There are plenty of examples of that. The official inquiries into the Zeebrugge disaster, into the Barlow Clowes affair and into the activities of the child abuser Frank Beck all show that alarm bells were clearly sounded by responsible employees, but that those in authority failed to act.
  The cost of ignoring those messages has been devastating in terms of human lives, public money and private savings, and of a loss of confidence in business and in Government. That situation will not change unless we take action in two key respects. First, we must ensure that people are not deterred from raising concerns about serious malpractice or misconduct. Secondly, we must ensure that those in charge of an organisation recognise that they may have to account for their response to any warning that is given.
  The Bill is not a nitpicker's charter; it will not provide a field day for whingers. It will protect only those individuals who, having discovered some crime, fraud or wrongdoing within their organisations, raise their concerns internally. Only then will they be protected from any reprisals. The individual must be seen to have acted responsibly.
  If the serious malpractice continues in spite of the initial warning, individuals may feel that they must blow the whistle in order to safeguard the public interest. In that situation, the Bill ensures that they will be protected against reprisals. However, protection for whistleblowing is available only if the courts are satisfied that the disclosure to a regulator or to the press was in the public interest.
  In addition, the individual must have satisfied four key conditions: first, he must have raised the matter internally; secondly, he must have had good reason to believe that the information was accurate; thirdly, he must not have acted in bad faith; and, fourthly, he must not have sold the story for profit. The Bill allows responsible individuals to go to court and take out an injunction to prevent dismissal or other reprisals.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman said that individuals must not sell their story for profit. However, the Bill states that an individual must not make a disclosure
  "principally for the purpose of obtaining payment or personal gain."

  1109
  Therefore, could not someone blow the whistle and sell his story later on the grounds that he did not do so principally for personal gain?
  Mr. Touhig: We cannot wholly discount that possibility, but the Bill certainly does not encourage that sort of action. It states clearly that people will not be protected if they seek to sell their stories for profit.
  The Bill also allows for compensation claims. However, any award can be adjusted to take account of bad conduct on the part either of the individual or of the organisation concerned. Whether the individual raises the matter internally or outside the organisation, he will not be protected under the Bill if he acts in bad faith.
  That provision will deter people with grudges and those who are motivated by a wish to damage an organisation rather than by a desire to stop malpractice. It will also deny protection to those who blackmail their organisations by saying that they will keep silent if they are paid off or promoted. It will also bar people who are dishonest. Employees may bring claims before an industrial tribunal. In that case, the £11,300 ceiling on damages will not apply, and the rule barring employees who have not worked for two years will be waived.
  The Bill imposes no direct costs on organisations. It does not require organisations to appoint new staff or introduce special procedures for investigating concerns. By requiring individuals to raise concerns internally before taking any other steps, the Bill allows responsible organisations to remedy malpractice without the damaging consequences of an external disclosure. The only organisations which would incur significant costs under the Bill would be those which break the law or otherwise threaten the public interest, and which do not deal with a serious malpractice, but seek to victimise the person who draws it to their attention.
  There are many examples of that. Harry Templeton, a Scottish printer and a trustee of the Mirror Group pension fund, was such a victim. He was suspicious of Robert Maxwell, and questioned him repeatedly about the handling of the fund. For his pains, he was sacked, thrown from the pension fund board and effectively blacklisted from the printing industry. Maxwell was able to ride roughshod not only over Mr. Templeton but over pensioners, professional advisers and the public interest, because the law does not protect people who raise genuine concerns.
  The consequences of an organisation's ignoring warnings about serious breaches of safety procedures, for example, are almost too awful to recount. Joy Cawthorne, an instructor at an Outward Bound centre in Lyme Regis, was so shocked by the lax standards she observed that she resigned. Before doing so, she wrote to the managing director, warning him that, unless something was done, he would end up
  "having to explain why someone's son or daughter will not be coming home".
  Tragically, she was proved right. Her warning was ignored, and four children died in a canoeing accident.
  Many organisations today recognise the valuable role played by the whistleblower. Unless employees raise their concerns, those in charge may not realise that anything is
  1110
  wrong. In principle, Ministers are accountable to the House, company directors are accountable for the actions of their organisations, and trustees are accountable for what their charities do. Yet, if those who are accountable in law do not know what is happening, it is very difficult to correct or prevent something that is seriously wrong and is done in their name.
  Recognising that, the House and the law take a more lenient view when those in charge did not know about the misconduct. As the main thrust of my Bill is to ensure that serious concerns are raised internally, it strengthens the weakest link in the chain of accountability.
  I refer, for example, to the case of Beth Lawson. Beth worked at the delicatessen counter of a major supermarket selling dairy produce, cheese and pates—that sort of thing. She discovered that her boss was changing the dates on food that had passed its sell-by date. Beth's colleagues were reluctant to take up the matter with their employer in case it jeopardised their jobs: they believed that it was more than their jobs were worth.
  Beth knew that she would be leaving the company to start a new career, so she alerted her employers, who investigated and stopped the practice immediately. We can only imagine the possible consequences if Beth had walked away without blowing the whistle: people being taken ill from eating contaminated food, damaging headlines plastered across the newspapers, and a supermarket chain's reputation in tatters and jobs at risk. What was that action worth?
  Unlike many laws, the Bill would impose no costs on responsible organisations, and would affect only those who knowingly engage in serious malpractice. As such, it would impose no red tape, and it would underpin competition, as it avoids any risk of cross-subsidisation of bad businesses by good ones. My fellow sponsors and I have sought to assure all who have bothered to ask, including Ministers, that we are not seeking to place unacceptable regulatory burdens on business and industry.
  Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) introduced a ten-minute Bill which paved the way for today's measure. I am grateful for the work that he has done. He pointed out that many companies have become aware of whistleblowing, and that they now believe in protecting the rights of the whistleblower and opening routes within companies to discover fraud and corruption.
  British Telecom, Esso, Lucas and NatWest are only a handful of the major companies which have established a hotline to deal with employee concerns. That is clearly a sensible development for large organisations. Rather than imposing a regulatory burden, the Bill underpins effective self-regulation. It is essential. It recognises the role of a regulatory body only as an option of last resort.
  How can self-regulation work effectively if employees are deterred from raising serious concerns about malpractice? When he was director general of the CBI, Sir John Banham wrote of
  "management's responsibility to give support to employees who report wrongdoing which is damaging the company. These whistleblowers should be regarded as a safety net where other forms of regulation fail, and meritorious whistleblowers should be protected."
  The Government have welcomed the work of whistleblowers. During the passage of the Pensions Act 1995, the Government tabled a "blowing the whistle"

  1111
  clause to ensure that misconduct and malpractice were reported. It provides that auditors and actuaries who have reasonable cause to believe—the same test as in the Bill—that there is a material failure in a pension scheme or a breach of the rules or of the law must report it to the pensions authorities immediately.
  In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood in August, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—commenting on my hon. Friend's Whistleblowers Bill—said that, with regard civil to the service, he was
  "committed to ensuring that there were arrangements that both resolve genuine concerns and sustain the mutual confidence and confidentiality that should exist between all employers and employed."
  In 1993, the then Secretary of State for Health—the present Secretary of State for National Heritage—published whistleblowing guidance for the NHS to ensure that concerns about patient care were addressed and not swept under the carpet. Last August, in the wake of the misdiagnosis of bone tumours in Birmingham, the present Secretary of State for Health published proposals that doctors should be under a contractual requirement to report to their employer malpractice or misconduct by a doctor.
  The Prime Minister says that he is keen to improve the scrutiny of the public sector after the Scott report. The Bill will underpin the recent changes—in particular, the code of practice for open government and the new whistleblowing procedures in the civil service that the Government have introduced in Whitehall and pledged to extend across the public sector.
  The core of the Bill is set out in clauses 1, 2 and 3. Central to the measure is the definition of public interest disclosure. Clause 1 states that this is a disclosure that, in an action for a breach of confidence, a court is likely to find was justified in the public interest; a disclosure that an individual disclosing it has acquired subject to an obligation or claim of confidentiality; a disclosure that tends to show significant misconduct or malpractice of a kind including—but not limited to—those set out in the schedule.
  The Bill is not intended to blow a hole in the duty of confidentiality, and it rests on the assumption that that duty is important and must be respected. That is why the Bill requires serious concerns to be raised internally. Where the matter is not addressed internally, however, and where the law recognises that it is lawful and justified for an employee to take the matter outside, the Bill protects people who are acting in the public interest. The Bill does not weaken by one iota the importance of the duty of confidentiality.
  Clause 2 defines disclosures that are protected in the Bill. A "protected disclosure" is a public interest disclosure where the individual making it is not acting in bad faith; believes on reasonable grounds that the information is accurate; has not made it for the purpose of obtaining payment for personal gain; and has taken reasonable steps to raise the misconduct or malpractice internally first. Clause 3 provides that an individual may not be penalised or be guilty of an offence for making or proposing to make a protected disclosure.
  Finally, I return to the idea of changing the culture of Britain. A single Bill cannot change the culture of a country, but it can engender an atmosphere in which the
  1112
  culture can be changed gradually. The creation of that atmosphere is possibly the most important thing that the Bill could achieve. Our entire culture, from cradle to grave, is secretive and silent. Look how, in early years, children become aware of the culture of silence—in the playground, they learn not to snitch. If we tell teacher, we are for ever dubbed "teacher's pet", and are ostracised and victimised. We should "keep mum" and not be "tell-tales".
  Unfortunately, that frame of mind continues into adult life, where our language and culture are riddled with phrases and concepts of secretiveness—"keep it under your hat", "keep a lid on things." If we speak out, we have "let the cat out of the bag", or "spilled the beans". "Ignorance is bliss." "Silence is golden." But we all know that ignorance is not bliss, and that silence is not golden, when they lead to tragedies such as Zeebrugge, Piper Alpha and Clapham junction. We cannot continue to support the culture of silence where it affects the public interest.
  The shop and factory floor and the offices and computer screens of business are a world away from the school playground. These places require professionalism and commitment, but organisations have become so large that it is impossible for one person—or even one department—to keep track of everything. The Bill seeks to encourage companies and institutions to open up channels of communication.
  We do not seek to promote a grudge-bearers charter, or a charter for those acting with malicious intent. We are not trying to foster a world of Orwellian informants. We want to encourage people to speak out responsibly if it is in the public interest. It is easy to understand in the current climate of job insecurity and high unemployment why people are scared to speak out. Many feel that it is more than their job is worth to speak out. But we must encourage them to speak out responsibly. The price of their silence is too high. One should think about the lives lost in the Herald of Free Enterprise or Piper Alpha oil platform tragedies.
  Mr. Robathan: I have been listening to great interest to the hon. Gentleman, who has made some good points. But I do not quite understand what he has just said. Is he claiming that the Herald of Free Enterprise would not have gone down had his Bill been enacted before the accident?
  Mr. Touhig: Before the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy, there were five reports of ferries sailing with their bow doors open, and the inquiry made it clear that that information never got beyond a certain level of management—as in the case of Piper Alpha—because people were afraid to report the matters in case their jobs were affected. I cannot say, in all truth and honesty, that the enactment of the Bill would have prevented that tragedy, but people who discover that something is wrong and speak out should be protected in law—that is our duty.
  The damage done to business confidence by the Barings collapse, and by the BCCI and Maxwell scandals, is enormous, and too horrendous to contemplate. It only takes serious malpractice in one department to bring down an entire company, and we have had plenty of evidence of that in recent years. The loss of that company may in

  1113
  turn damage a whole community that depends upon it. For their own sake, Britain, British business and the British Government must foster a culture of communication instead of a culture of silence. The Bill seeks to protect those who wish to participate in such a culture of communication in the public interest, and I commend it to the House.
  9.58 am
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I rise as a sponsor of the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will understand from my speech that I am the last person who would rise to support a Bill that imposed greater regulation or any form of scrutiny that allowed people to obtain control over a company without reasonable intent.
  I thought long and hard about sponsoring this Bill before I decided to do so, and I had long discussions with the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who promoted it—on which I congratulate him. He accepted many of my criticisms in those discussions, particularly on the issue that I was most concerned about and which he has raised today: that the Bill should not be a charter for people in companies who are disgruntled, have an axe to grind or have some grudge against the management. It should not be a charter for them to take up whatever issue they wish, to run outside the company, to create tremendously bad publicity and to cause difficulties for their company.
  I was on a company's board, as a business man, before I was elected as a Member of Parliament. I have thought carefully about how we operated then. As in every company, there were always disgruntled employees—the barrack-room lawyers, as they are called in the army; the person who always has an axe to grind. Once most of those people's comments were discounted, I found that much of the time in board meetings was taken up by discussions on what was being said around the company: the rumours, the concerns, and who was saying what about what might be happening.
  It was quite often in the course of what seemed to be general discussions that an issue arose and someone would then be tasked with resolving it. If the issue did not reach the board through the normal channels, it somehow still reached the board. That company had a system that allowed people to talk and to have problems and concerns brought to the board's attention.
  In many ways, this Bill is about enshrining the best practice that already exists in good companies. The Bill will not change that best practice, but simply says that, if those companies are doing it, so should others, and they should be encouraged to do so. This legislation does not say that they will follow best practice, but that, if they do not, they obviously stand to lose considerably in the long run should problems arise.
  I decided to sponsor the Bill after having read it and changed a number of things—particularly in clause 2—because I felt that it would enshrine best practice and not essentially damage good management-worker relations. The key to the Bill lies in the fact that the matters raised by individuals in companies will be in the public interest and not as a matter of public interest: there is a clear divide between the two.
  People who are opposed to the Bill might say, "It provides an excuse for someone to say that the disclosure is about public interest, and that it should be in the public
  1114
  domain." That will be no excuse in the courts. If it is clearly proved that the individual raised the matter simply as a matter of public interest, he will have no protection in law against subsequent prosecution by the company.
  Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the great danger in relation to this aspect of the Bill is that the decision whether the employee has acted in the public interest will be made only when the matter reaches court? The damage to the company, the organisation or the civil service may already have been done—because the person concerned was mistaken.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I accept that point, and it was one of my major concerns when discussing the possibility of sponsoring the Bill. I asked myself, "What does the Bill change in the relationship?" It does not change anything. The individual will still have seriously to go through the company's internal procedure. He or she will have to accept in their own mind that they have demonstrated good faith, and they will not suddenly be able to depart from that practice.
  If it is obvious, or even marginally clear, that the individual has, from the beginning, sought to raise the matter for other reasons, that will become known. The point is that it will be made clear, in public, that they have no protection. Protection does not exist now, and it will not exist after the Bill's passage.
  People are currently doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) described, because there is a genuine sense that there is no protection. There will be no protection after the Bill, either. People will be in the same position, and they will not be able to use the Bill to draw any excuses for the type of actions he described.
  There is nothing to stop the press proceeding like that now, and the Bill will not change that. It simply tells individuals who have concerns—there are two issues that I shall raise shortly—that, ultimately, if they genuinely believe they are right, they will receive the protection they deserve, but not otherwise. People who act because they are disgruntled will not be protected at all.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I know that this is a slightly paternalistic argument, but if the Bill creates a significant change in culture, as the hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned, some people—who may be totally misguided—may feel that they are entitled, in the public interest, to breach confidentiality with their employers, for example. Because they are so misguided and cannot differentiate, they may find that they not only unnecessarily damage their company but that they unnecessarily damage themselves.
  When they come to court and discover the rigorous conditions that the Bill lays down, they may find that they are not protected by it. Therefore, there may be a dual effect: a greater breach of confidentiality, which will damage companies, and possible damage to relatively innocent but nevertheless misguided people.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I understand that. I can only say that what should, and will, be made clear when the Bill is passed is that it does not give people those protections. In other words, people will not be able to believe that, somehow, in the course of this process, they will receive

  1115
  protection simply on the basis of their having raised an issue and breached confidentiality. The Bill clearly states not only that the disclosure will have to be in good faith, but that an employee has a link with the company and its management on the basis of confidentiality in relation to activities that are not in the public interest.
  I said earlier that the stress is not only the disclosure being a matter of public interest: it must be in the public interest. Most of the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) described will not fall into that category. I am simply saying that the company's internal processes will not change. Its employees have a duty of confidentiality, and that has not been breached. I do not think that someone who currently wishes to pursue matters that he thinks are in the public interest, for example, will not have covered that matter. I am simply saying that the Bill makes that clear.
  I do not claim, as does the hon. Member for Islwyn, that the Bill will dramatically change this country's culture. Ultimately, it will simply allow clear protection for people who genuinely seek to resolve a matter that they have been unable to resolve internally. I have two examples that are worth listening to, because they deal with that very issue.
  As we examine the Bill, the real question is whether there is a need for it—if there is not, of course it is unnecessary. As the hon. Member for Islwyn said, there are plenty of examples in which, had a company or organisation's internally available information been properly used internally, some disasters or problems would not have occurred.
  I recognise, having come out of a business culture, that no good company wants to destroy its management-employee relationship. It certainly does not want to destroy that relationship or its reputation because a matter was raised somewhere else by someone who was not in management. The problem often lies at the middle management levels—often not much higher—with people who are defensive because they did not deal with the issue first, which may make them look rather foolish or reflect badly on their judgment. The problem is getting rid of those blockages at the middle levels of an organisation or company, which are all too common.
  I should like to mention two cases as examples of why I believe that legislation is needed. Many hon. Members will have heard of the case of Jenny Watson, the deputy head of Sidney Smith school, in Hull. The school is not in my constituency, but the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) asked me to mention this case, because he has been pursuing it on her behalf. Jenny Watson fits exactly into the category of person that we are talking about. The case centred around her investigations, as a deputy head, into the abuse of claims for overtime and extra money from caretakers in the school and in the area. She was ultimately proved to be correct about a string of Spanish practices that were costing the school vast amounts of money and had been going on for years. The special overtime payments that Mrs. Watson studied in the timesheets stretched back over a long period, but the practices were considered acceptable, because no one wanted to challenge the caretakers or their union.
  At first, the governors and the headmaster were supportive, but after much pressure brought by the council and the union, they started to back off—particularly the
  1116
  headmaster—although the original chairman of governors remained supportive. An important aspect of the case was that, when the chairman of governors returned to the school one day, he saw a caretaker, who was claiming overtime for that period, sunbathing outside his house. That was the sort of practice that was occurring.
  The deputy head was given the responsibility of looking after the budget and sorting out problems, but she found herself unable to raise the problem; she was told that people did not want to hear about it, because there were bigger issues at stake, and she was simply impinging on people's ability to sort them out. Many times, the head said to her, "You have no idea how extreme the pressure is from inside and outside the school to have you removed from anything to do with the caretakers or their budgets".
  That set of claims was not addressed—instead, the deputy head was ultimately suspended. An inquiry was held by a tribunal, which immediately recommended that she should be sacked. When my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) inquired into the composition of the tribunal, he discovered that it consisted of three people, two of whom had close associations with the caretakers. When he complained, another two people were added to the tribunal, but one, if not two, of them were linked with the trade union involved. Such issues are at the heart of the Bill.
  Even after the district auditor supported the lady's case and said that great abuse had been occurring, she was not reinstated. Those involved tried to deal with her rather than with the complaint. Eventually, the lady was offered the opportunity to return to the school as deputy head, but her terms of reference were completely changed—all mention of budgets or caretakers was cut out.
  When she refused to accept those terms, she was offered other terms of reference that also cut away some of her original responsibilities. She refused those terms of reference, and it was simply announced that she had, in effect, dismissed herself. The woman has to go through the courts to challenge that action. Why? Because the local council decided that it would deal with the person raising the issue rather than the issue itself, because that would have caused too many problems.
  I am not raising the case as a party matter simply because it refers to unions or a Labour-controlled council. I raise the case because it involves an organisation deciding that it will deal with the person who has raised the problem, so that it can continue with its cosy relationships and comfortable life without that problem. As a result, an individual was penalised—she is the sort of individual who would be protected by the Bill. If the authority had recognised that the individual was likely to win her case, it might well have tried to deal with the issue—which would not have taken as long—rather than the individual.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend has used a good example, but I am not clear how the Bill would improve the situation. My hon. Friend is talking of a clear case of maladministration, of the system not working, of officials, elected officials and people in the education department, being in cahoots and refusing to take action. The case had to be resolved in court action—or an industrial tribunal. I am not sure how the Bill would make the situation any better for the person involved.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: That is the point. My hon. Friend said that the case had to be resolved through court

  1117
  action—why? I am talking of an individual who raises an issue internally. What would any good organisation want to do about that responsible individual? It would want to answer the charge; it would have a structure to deal with the issue. I have just highlighted a case in which the organisation refused to deal with the issue because that would have created bigger problems.
  My point does not involve resolving the matter in court—the lady should not have to go to court. She has already spent £21,000 trying to defend her name, and will now, I suspect, have to spend even more money—under clause 3 of the Bill, that could not happen. The lady is being penalised simply as a result of raising the issue—that is an important point.
  If the clause was enacted, the organisation would not have been able to take the action it did, because the lady would have been able to claim that it was contravening the new legislation. I am not talking about massive Government expenditure or a new set of regulators, but simply a clause that allows the person involved to say, "Stop: I am an individual with rights and you are abusing them." I do not see how any hon. Member could reject that responsible and reasonable measure in any circumstances.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman has moved from companies to the public sector very quickly. Is not the core of the Bill the fact that the public sector is where whistleblowing is most necessary? Is that why the Government are to oppose the Bill tooth and nail a little later this morning?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I always enjoy interventions from the hon. Gentleman. I have moved into the public sector with this case; I do not know what my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will do—that is clearly for them to decide. I hope that they will allow the Bill to progress into Committee, because I believe that, as long the core argument is retained, much of the Bill can, if necessary, be changed. The Bill is designed to stop great abuses in the public sector and to resolve problems where individuals who could improve organisations have their claims rejected because various people have particular reasons for doing so.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is extremely generous—this is an important point. We would all support the woman involved in the case that he has mentioned. It is an incontrovertible fact that she has been hard done by—I suspect, illegally—and I am sure that an industrial tribunal will give her due compensation. I think that we all condemn those who, according to my hon. Friend, have behaved unjustly. Clause 3 may give legal backing to the woman. However, were the Bill enacted, she would still have to go to court to obtain recompense, just as she does now. It seems that another regulation is to be piled on top of laws that already exist.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: With all respect to my hon. Friend, the Bill is not about piling another regulation on top of existing laws. My hon. Friend says that the woman would have to go to court anyway; I am saying that, at present, there is a process of expenditure whereby, in order to prove his or her case, the person involved has to go to court, which means that lawyers obtain money and nobody else succeeds in obtaining anything.
  1118
  Clause 3 would mean that the person involved did not have to go to court, as the organisation would not have been able to dismiss her. The issue at stake in the Bill is that it will not be possible to proceed against an individual who blows the whistle. The Bill is not about regulation; it does not impose greater regulations on any company. The Bill simply ensures that it is in an organisation's interests to deal with the matter internally—a point illustrated by the case that I mentioned.
  My second case involves one of my constituents, Mr. Bill Sutherland, who used to be a policeman. In July 1988, he had cause to complain about his then chief superintendent, Archie Newlands, who is now deceased. Due to a variety of issues that boiled up at the time, Mr. Sutherland was concerned about his chief superintendent's close association with a wealthy local business man, Mr. Morris, and their close links with the local authority. It is a complex case, and I shall not go into the details.
  Having raised the issue, far from being applauded for having taken what he thought was a matter of concern to the appropriate authority, he found that everyone turned on him, and he was gradually forced to back away from his original job. He was transferred away, shunned, and treated as a pariah. He was given menial tasks, such as checking subscriptions to the orphans fund. It was almost as though people felt that he was a specimen with whom they did not want to deal too often, because he had raised a concern about a senior officer, and that simply was not done.
  At the end of the day, the case was examined and the individuals concerned were exonerated, but we never found out what happened during the investigation, why they were exonerated and why none of the concerns seemed to have been dealt with.
  After a series of problems, the individual who had raised the matter was invalided out of the police force, and in many respects his life is in tatters. He asked only for a proper review of the evidence that he had placed before the investigation, and an open examination in which he could have some faith without necessarily having to suffer. To this day, he continues to attempt to get the police to investigate his original charges reasonably and properly, and believes that the evidence that they turned up in the course of their inquiry showed that he was quite right, but that the real problem was not investigated, and he was punished for raising it.
  I support the Bill, although I recognise that it will need some work in Committee.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: No. I have given way several times, and I wish to conclude, as other Members wish to speak.
  If my hon. Friends on the Front Bench take a positive view of the Bill, they will realise that it is not about regulation, and that, in effect, by giving people some protection, we shall be deregulating. The Bill will encourage people to look at their own companies, exercise best practice, follow the best procedures, and not cut corners. That will reduce the necessity for the overbearing regulators we always hear about, and could even do away

  1119
  with many of them. I speak in a constructive spirit, in the hope that my hon. Friends will accept the Bill and allow it to reach Committee.
  10.21 am
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I am grateful for the opportunity to support the Bill. It is an excellent measure, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on picking up a Bill of such importance so early in his parliamentary career and presenting it with enormous clarity and conviction. I hope that Ministers were as impressed as the rest of the House by the responsible and measured way in which my hon. Friend introduced it.
  As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the House is also in the debt of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who set the framework for the Bill, and, as we are on the subject of congratulations, of one or two people outside the House. The measure would not be possible but for the work of Mr. Maurice Frankel and the Campaign for Freedom of Information, who has campaigned tirelessly for the past 10 or 15 years, and, more recently, the work of Lord Borrie and Public Concern at Work.
  There is a tide of opinion in the House and outside that we have to open up society, not only for reasons of principle but for good pragmatic reasons. It is inefficient, and often worse, to continue to be a secretive society, as too many institutions and companies are, in the public and private sectors. Secrecy and non-disclosure are in the bones of our society, and it is about time we got rid of them once and for all.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn acknowledged, the reasons are not simple, and not all of them can be addressed by legislation. He was very clear about the tradition of non-disclosure that runs through our culture. Institutionally, there is a tradition of deference in organisations, where the employer, the boss or the person who is better qualified or more in control of information is assumed to know best and inquiries or fears are often set aside because people are told, "It is more complicated than you understand—don't worry, we shall sort it out".
  There is a patronising, paternal element in too many of our public and private institutions, which suppresses the tendency for people to be worried and to speak up. That institutional culture is difficult to address.
  As my hon. Friend also acknowledged, there is a long-running personal culture in Britain. People often have too much loyalty to the team; they want to be liked, and do not want to be difficult. People are inhibited if they know that they may put the jobs, reputations or salaries of colleagues at risk by speaking out.
  Those cultural and personal reasons tend to reinforce the desire not to speak up. Legislation cannot address those factors, but it can—as the Bill does very well—provide a framework, so that, when people are driven to raise an issue as matter of last resort because they recognise its seriousness and its implications, they can at least feel that they have some protection in law.
  The seriousness and the scale of those problems has been illustrated by my hon. Friend, and I suspect that other hon. Members will do so throughout the debate. Financial fraud, such as that in Barings bank and Mr. Leeson's 88888 account, and the laundering of
  1120
  money, particularly in drug trafficking, are enormous problems that are difficult to bring to light. Unless people feel that they have some protection, we shall never find out what happens. Members on both sides of House are concerned about the laundering of money in drug trafficking. There is no way in which it can be addressed without such protection.
  No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) will speak movingly about the Lyme Regis problem, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will deal with the problems in the health service. As the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) is interested in European matters, we should also consider the European perspective.
  Hon. Members on both sides recognise that the scale of fraud in the European Union is enormous. It has been estimated at 1 billion ecu, which is more than 1 per cent. of the total European Union budget. It occurs particularly in agricultural subsidies, where it is extremely difficult to bring to light and wastes huge sums of money throughout the European Community.
  Unless people have some protection in calling its perpetrators to account, we shall never get to the bottom of the scale of European fraud. Of course, as Mr. Leeson's work showed, new technologies will create the potential for fraud and malpractice that we have never before encountered, so it is important to provide a protective legal framework.
  My hon. Friend has responsibly and sensibly drawn the Bill very tightly. There must be an absolute requirement to raise matters internally, and it is crucial that the public interest element is brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory authority.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is making some sensible points. I am not trying to undermine them, but he has raised as an example of how useful the Bill will be the case of Nick Leeson's hidden account 88888 and Barings' downfall. In what way would the Bill have protected Barings? His second example, in which I am particularly interested, was European fraud. Would the Bill have protected Mr. Connolly, who was sacked for the European Commission for speaking out in a way that he believed was honest and true?
  Mr. Fisher: It is impossible to say with any certainty that the Bill would have resolved those cases, but in those two cases and countless others, people who knew what was happening thought, "I ought to say something about this, but I am frightened to do so, because I might not keep my job and could put other people at risk."
  Uncertainty, fear and the lack of legal protection is inhibiting. Whether it is Barclays or the abuse of European Union agricultural subsidies, there are people who know what is going on. Some of them will never blow the whistle on malpractices, but there must be good people out there who would like to blow the whistle but are frightened to do so. My hon. Friend's Bill will address and attack that element of fear.
  My hon. Friend has drawn his Bill well, and he is almost certainly right about the question of profit. Similar legislation and practice in other countries, and some practices in this country—particularly in respect of crime—allow for reward. The question whether people should be allowed to benefit is difficult to answer.

  1121
  In the United States, substantial rewards are offered for whistleblowing in customs and excise matters. The USA authorities feel that they would be unable to tackle the scale of customs and excise fraud without being able to offer fiscal incentives. My hon. Friend has correctly erred on the side of caution and has taken a simple, no-profit approach. He understands also that whistleblowing is a last resort, which is most proper.
  The European Union and other countries are moving in the direction of my hon. Friend's proposed measure. Spain and Portugal recently introduced similar legislation, and in the Republic of Ireland the Dail is considering doing the same. The Netherlands and Denmark are considering similar legislation. Recent important court decisions in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands recognised for the first time that it is in the public interest to protect whistleblowers. Two relevant European Union directives issued recently, on drug trafficking and health and safety, place a duty on people to report malpractice. There is recognition throughout the western world that the issue must be addressed now.
  My hon. Friend's Bill is not a panacea. It cannot solve the cultural problems, but it will provide a framework. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) will support the Bill when he speaks from the Front Bench and will give an undertaking that the freedom of information Act that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has time and again said a Labour Government will introduce—which I hope and expect will be based on the right-to-know Bill that I introduced some years ago—will incorporate the Bill's important provisions, because they are an essential element of a comprehensive freedom of information Act.
  Open government laws are not enough in themselves—what matters is how they are implemented. Those of us who have studied the operation of freedom of information legislation in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere know that the framework in law that my hon. Friend seeks to introduce is only a starter for 10. Of great importance is the way in which the Government promote that law and encourage the public, courts and institutions to use it. The spirit in which such a law is operated, rather than the legal framework, is of central importance.
  Progress is bound to be slow, but the tide is running with my hon. Friend. His Bill is the first important step to greater openness and sense. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and wish him well.
  10.34 am
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Anyone hearing the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) move the Second Reading of his Bill would have found it difficult to disagree with anything he said. The Bill as presented by the hon. Gentleman would rectify serious problems. He highlighted the capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise off Zeebrugge, and the Piper Alpha disaster. One thinks also of the Clapham rail crash, the Ashworth hospital scandle, and cancer misdiagnosis. In those and other cases, it can be argued that it would have been possible for whistleblowers to have prevented those incidents.
  The word "whistleblowing" sounds like a healthy, hearty, outdoor thing to do, but whistleblowing offers scope for abuse so great that it gives me cause to worry
  1122
  about the Bill. The Library's indispensable research paper, which is well up to the Library's normal standard, refers to the "autocratic environment" in BCCI
  "in which no one dared to speak up."
  Many companies, and many Governments, are like that. BCCI happened because of the failure of international banking supervisors to co-ordinate, rather than of an individual.
  It is generally accepted that, where a cost is to fall on the Government, no one really cares; where it is to fall on a big company, no one cares outside the company; and where it is to fall on a smaller company, that will be of intense concern to the proprietors of the company or organisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) gave the example of a school as one type of organisation that could be helped by the Bill. I am the chairman of a sixth form college in my constituency that is quite a sizeable organisation, as these things go. It has a budget of £4.5 million a year. 250 staff and 1,182 full-time pupils. Well over 75 per cent. of all the college's costs are accounted for by the salaries of teachers and other employees. A comparatively small amount of money is left for administration.
  It would be devastating if a member of the staff or someone associated with the college sought to take action under the Bill, by reporting an incident of maladministration that the individual believed had taken place. The legal expense and the cost in staff time would be devastating, even though that organisation is of reasonable size.
  As to the kind of person who might be a whistleblower, to take one view—or a sneak, to take another—I am worried about members of the awkward squad. 1 refer to the person who does not get on well with his fellow employees or with the boss, and who wants to expose something that he thinks is important. Having done so internally, then he might claim that he is being discriminated against if he seeks to pursue the matter further. I am concerned most about the smaller company.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I intervene with great diffidence, because my hon. Friend and I had a relationship with Lloyd's of London. In fact, my hon. Friend served on the council of Lloyd's. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if some of the malpractices in that organisation had been revealed earlier by employees in the Lloyd's market, the cost to investors, the reputation of Lloyd's and the possible survival of Lloyd's might have been assisted? There is sometimes a positive gain. The burden of cost, on the simple side of the account, is not the final determinant. There are wider considerations of public interest.
  Mr. Viggers: I declare an interest as an ex-member of the council of Lloyd's, and I retain a connection with that organisation as chairman of its pension fund trustees. I am also a member of the Lloyd's investigations committee—the committee that is tasked with investigating matters that are reported through the regulatory board. There is what is informally called at Lloyd's a sneak's charter, whereby people are encouraged to report matters—if necessary, anonymously—so that they may be pursued.

  1123
  The problem is that less is reported than should be. Lloyd's has much broader provisions than those in the Bill, but they do not work, because those at Lloyd's do not participate fully and do not make reports that would expose the problems.
  Mr. Shepherd: People may be fearful for their jobs.
  Mr. Viggers: It is possible at Lloyd's for someone to report a matter anonymously, so that need not affect his job at all. The provisions at Lloyd's are broader than those in the Bill.
  Mr. MacShane: I am concerned by the number of anonymous letters that I, as a Member of Parliament, get about malpractice. I had one recently about a public agency in Rotherham, containing serious allegations, but signed simply "The Mole". What do I do? It is extremely difficult to pursue the matter. Were the Bill to be law, and were the mole really to believe he had some cause of complaint in the public interest, he would feel protected as a citizen.
  It would still be a big decision for him, but the Bill would at least move us away from the world of sneaks, anonymity and people who were fearful of revealing problems because they were frightened of losing their jobs or some other pressure. The Bill would enhance the individual freedom of the citizen.
  Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I shall deal in a moment with those who genuinely believe that they have exposed a genuine wrong. The hon. Gentleman puts one point of view, and I will explain the opposite point of view.
  I am concerned about the effect on morale in larger organisations. I am especially concerned about those who have become obsessed with an issue. We all know such people, and they are well known to clergymen, doctors, solicitors and Members of Parliament. Such people turn up in constituency surgeries, absolutely convinced that they have had access to some facts that they think need to be in the public domain.
  Their obsession can leave them near to the norm in personality or it can take them well away from the personality norm. Someone who has become obsessed with an issue and who may genuinely believe in it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford said, would be able to pursue that obsession more easily.
  Such people may have obsessions about major organisations such as the armed forces, the police, airlines and the railways, in which any exposure of potential risk would hit the headlines in a big way. The risk of exposure for such large organisations would be enhanced if individuals knew that they would be protected if they made a complaint.
  All that an individual employee, who perhaps does not get on with his immediate superior or his workmates and may even have had a warning about his standard of work, would have to do is say that he proposed to make a protected disclosure. Immediately, he would trigger a mechanism that would prevent him from being dismissed or disciplined.
  Mr. Touhig indicated dissent.
  Mr. Viggers: The hon. Member shakes his head. I submit that the Bill would enable an individual who felt
  1124
  threatened to claim that he would make a protected disclosure, and he would immediately become bullet-proof. Clark Kent would become Superman.
  Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point. An individual would not be able to go to his organisation and say that he intended to make a protected disclosure. The individual would have to raise a concern about some serious wrongdoing or malpractice with the organisation first, and give the organisation a chance to respond or correct it. Only then would the protection follow, if he or she made the concern public. The Bill contains no provision for someone to threaten to make a protected disclosure.
  I ran a small company before I came to this place, and I know the difficulties that people who run companies face from employees who have all sorts of complaints, grumbles and grouses. We must ensure that procedures are in place so that people who run organisations can discover what is happening. With respect, the hon. Gentleman has quite misunderstood the main thrust of that part of the Bill.
  Mr. Viggers: I accept that I have foreshortened the procedure that the Bill envisages, but, if a disgruntled individual felt threatened in some way, he could explain to his employer the point that concerned him. When the employer, perhaps justifiably, told him that he would have no cause to expose the matter because there had been no malpractice or abuse of authority and none of the points in the schedule applied, at that point the individual would say that he proposed to make a protected disclosure.
  That individual would then be protected, and he would be able to say, like a child playing in the playground, "Fainites, you can't touch me." Like the television advertisement, he would have the ring of confidence. He would be invulnerable, because he would have protected himself under the procedures in the Bill.
  Mr. Touhig: The individual would have to show that he or she was not acting in bad faith; that is clear in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's example is clearly a question of bad faith, and, with respect, he has misunderstood the point.
  Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman claims that individuals would have to prove that they were acting in good faith, but so much of the Bill is based on subjective judgments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has pointed out, claims would remain open until they were settled by the court. An individual who felt he had been victimised could claim the protection of the Bill, and a court would have to decide whether he was justified.
  Mr. Stern: I underline my hon. Friend's point. He is right in his analysis of the Bill. If an individual, at the earliest stage, indicated that he foresaw a protected disclosure resulting from his attempt to raise the matter internally, effectively he would totally change the nature of the discussions with the company or organisation that employed him. The company would know that, if it did not accept his view of events, a protected disclosure would inevitably follow.
  Mr. Viggers: Following my hon. Friend's point, an individual could complain—I select at random from the

  1125
  schedule—about an abuse of authority. What is an abuse of authority? Who is to decide what is an abuse of authority? No one would know until the question reached the court. An individual could claim the protection of the Bill, and a final decision would have to be made by the court.
  Individuals could complain about maladministration. What is maladministration? I might administer brilliantly, someone else maladministers—that is a subjective judgment, and the answer would have to be decided by the courts.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I wish to turn my hon. Friend's point round, because it already happens. If somebody wishes to raise an issue about malpractice, ultimately the courts decide the point. If that individual has been dismissed or internal proceedings have been taken against him, the courts will decide whether that was right. The Bill would warn companies to ensure that they sorted such matters out internally. If a company was certain that it had no case to answer, once the employee made the matter public, the company could be confident that there was no problem. The Bill would remind companies to be certain internally, which does not happen at the moment.
  Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend has business experience. I have never discussed with him what type of business experience he has, but it may have been in larger companies. I am seriously concerned about the burden of the Bill on smaller companies and organisations. Companies or organisation would need to take legal advice on all the issues in the Bill, and that would be a heavy burden. I do not accept my hon. Friend's proposition that such matters are effectively covered by existing legislation. Were that the case, the Bill would not be required.
  Dr. Tony Wright: A number of us are trying to assist the hon. Member to understand the Bill a little better. He fundamentally misunderstands it when he says that an individual would announce that he was making a protected disclosure. Nobody would be able to announce that he was making a protected disclosure. All that person would know was that, at some point, a court—after applying the stiffest tests—would decide whether somebody had behaved properly or improperly. That is the task of the court. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Bill.
  Mr. Viggers: The Bill would change the rules that would apply on proof. It would prepare the ground for an individual to make a claim. The individual would be making exactly the claim that I submitted he would make. He would be submitting to the company that he would be making a protected disclosure.
  I am worried about the range of people who would be able to take advantage of the Bill's provisions. Most industrial tribunals protect individuals only if they have been employed by a company for two years. I give the House a frivolous example of how briefly employment can sometimes last.
  Many years ago, I spent some time with dustmen in my constituency. I was told one morning that it was not unusual, because of the vigorous nature of the work of
  1126
  emptying dustbins, for an individual to turn up for work for the first time at 6 am on a Monday morning and to have vanished by 7 am. An individual may have had only a very short period of employment. Perhaps a difficult or awkward individual has joined a company with a view to causing difficulty within it. He will be protected even though he has not worked for the company for two years.
  I am worried also that interim relief would be available to individuals who have put themselves in the protected position that I have described. They would be able to obtain compensation through an industrial tribunal. They would be able also to claim protection against victimisation and adverse treatment.
  Finally, I am especially concerned that the burden of proof would be reversed for public bodies, which would have to show that it would not be in the public interest to disclose information. It would be easy for an employee—even a new entrant—to put a necklock on a public body, thereby causing immense inconvenience, work and cost.
  The Bill would impose enormous burdens on private business and even heavier burdens on the conduct of public affairs. Perhaps the burden would be proportionately heaviest on small business. I believe the Bill to be motivated by the heart rather than the head. My preference would be for it to be rejected at this stage. Failing that, it would need substantial amendment in Committee.
  10.51 am
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised certain issues relating to compliance, which I shall take up later. First, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on introducing an important Bill. The way in which my hon. Friend introduced it impressed all hon. Members on both sides of the House. I congratulate him also on one further achievement—that of securing sponsors from both sides of the House. That shows the extent to which the Bill is regarded as an important measure.
  I speak as a sponsor, and as someone who has been thinking about the issues raised by my hon. Friend essentially through an individual case. I shall not talk at great length about that case, because I have raised it before in the House. It would be an abuse of the House to talk about the matter again in detail.
  Individual cases are important, because they stimulate Members to think about general principles. My constituency case forced me to think along those lines. I shall mention only briefly some of the facts about Dr. Chris Chapman, who is a scientist at the Leeds general infirmary.
  Before doing so, I wish to emphasise that whistleblowing is hard on the whistleblower. It is an extremely difficult psychological task. It is difficult when one's colleagues are under pressure and members of the management want to impose pressure, doubt the whistleblower's integrity and, in Dr. Chapman's case, doubt his scientific knowledge. A person in those circumstances needs to have tremendous principle and courage in raising issues.
  There has been talk of a whingers' charter. As the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, there is a cost to the whistleblower. In the end, Dr. Chapman did

  1127
  not face a financial cost because the management of the hospital trust was persuaded to pay for his re-engagement in the national health service. Something more dear to Dr. Chapman was the loss of his scientific reputation. That was dear to him because it went to his career and to something that he considered to be part of himself—his ability to express himself as a scientist with a contribution to make to the NHS. That was lost to him, and that was a real and significant price.
  Why did Dr. Chapman have to pay that price? He acted as a whistleblower. As has been said, that is no outdoor sport. It is a psychological test of strength and integrity. Dr. Chapman exposed a scientific fraud in an important scientific project. It is not easy to expose immediate colleagues and to say to others, "I know that my colleagues are fiddling under the name of science." That was happening, and there were real difficulties in the process in which Dr. Chapman involved himself.
  The individual constituency case taught me, that when an individual starts to expose difficulties, he often runs into difficulty with the management structure. That is not because individual managers are evil people, but because they often find the truth embarrassing. They sometimes find it much better to pretend that the bearer of the truth is responsible for the problem rather than to deal with the problem and the truth. The issue is often swept under the carpet, and the messenger is made into the troublemaker. That is what happened at the Leeds general infirmary. The management was not capable of dealing with the issue by going through the management structure.
  The long-term solution to Dr. Chapman's problem has been to set up an inquiry. I thank my colleague, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who has been involved in setting up the inquiry. I thank him for the work he is doing in Dr. Chapman's case. I am grateful also for the work that was undertaken by the previous chairman of the United Leeds teaching hospital trust, the late Tony Clegg. Perhaps this takes up the managerial points made by the hon. Member for Gosport.
  Tony Clegg and I disagreed on many issues. He was the largest private contributor to the Conservative party. We had substantial political differences. When he saw a real and important issue, however, he had the courage to say that his management was wrong, and that it was necessary to find a procedure to deal with what was at fault. I wish to thank him for what he did. A whistleblowing Bill would have been one way of dealing with the problem that he recognised as a manager.
  The general points that emerged from the Chapman affair and from other individual cases are covered by the Bill. I tried to introduce a Bill three or four years ago that was built on the Chapman experience. It had the same underpinning principles that provide the foundation for this Bill. They are the four principles to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn referred. First, the whistleblower, the person at the eye of the storm, must go through internal managerial procedures. That must be right. That requirement deals with all the points that have been made about a whinger's charter.
  Secondly, the whistleblower must act in good faith. That overcomes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) in an intervention. People may feel that they have a grievance—all of us may have that feeling—but they can act in good or bad faith. The issues that the Bill would address must be raised in good faith.
  1128
  Thirdly, there must be accuracy. We all receive letters about, for example, the social security office, the housing manager and other Members. We know that, very often, the letters are wildly inaccurate. We are saying that accuracy must accompany whistleblowing. There must be accuracy in what is said. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn has dealt with that requirement in his Bill.
  My hon. Friend has provided a fourth condition, and rightly so—that the individual involved should not be selling his or her story for profit. That is a right and sensible condition to apply.
  It has been suggested that whistleblowing will become a habit and a general malaise in society. I would not necessarily see it as a malaise, but general it certainly will not be. There will be only a few cases. There are appropriate circumstances in which whistleblowing can and should take place in the public interest. It is to the betterment of society as a whole that those whistleblowing cases occurred, although it would be much better for society as a whole had they not had to take place, and we had a culture in which people could express their concerns in a much more open way.
  In an ideal world, all management will listen to issues that are raised by their subordinates. In practice, that simply does not happen in businesses throughout the country. There are examples of good firms, but there are many examples of senior management, for whatever reason, who will not listen. We need a mechanism whereby individuals who raise issues with conditions attached are protected. The issue is protecting the individual.
  I shall finish on two points—first, the compliance cost. Conservative Members tried to make an argument that this is a recipe for—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under the rules of the House, points of order must be raised at 11 o'clock. Following the request from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and myself, have you had any request from the Government to make a statement on what purports to have come from the office of the Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr. Jonathan Haslam, that, whereas Ministers have been acquitted, civil servants have not, and disciplinary consequences are likely to follow?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that points of order must be raised at 11 o'clock. I think that he is referring to Government statements, which would be made at 11 o'clock on a Friday morning, so I would have preferred him to allow his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central to complete his speech. However, let me deal with the point that he has raised.
  I was present in the Chamber when Madam Speaker made her ruling on this. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have not had any subsequent indication, and no indication has been given to Madam Speaker, that the Government wish to make a statement; but, of course, the Minister who is present will have heard the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds,

  1129
  Central for intervening on his excellent speech, but I see that the Minister is present, and my hon. Friend's point of order referred to the fact that he might make a statement. I think that the House would agree that, if no Minister took responsibility, it would be shameful for the Government to try to offload all the responsibility for the Scott report on civil servants. The House deserves a statement, either now or later.
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I intend no discourtesy to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the House, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow or to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. You are right, of course, to say that there has been no ministerial request to make a statement this morning—least of all, if I may say so, by me. I shall certainly report the exchanges this morning to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I give the House my word on that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That deals with the matter. We may now return to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central.
  Mr. Fatchett: We have almost reached the second half of the game, but in no sense do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, need to protect me from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I do not bear a grievance against him, because I know that his intervention would have fallen totally within the remit of the Bill. My hon. Friend's intervention was accurate and in good faith, so I was delighted to have it. It also enabled me to have a few minutes to think before I came to my final comments, so it had another benefit.
  I now deal with the compliance cost and the nature of management and secrecy in our society. The hon. Member for Gosport made much about the potential compliance cost to business. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said, correctly, that his Bill will not add to those costs. He also talked about his own experience of running a small business. It will not set up a new regulator, as the hon. Member for Chingford made clear, and I suspect that we would have had great difficulty in persuading him to be a supporter of the Bill if any regulation had been involved.
  The Bill directly will not impinge on the overwhelming majority of employment situations—one could almost go as far as to say 99.999 per cent. of them. We are talking about a handful of cases, and for those companies, yes, there will be a small compliance cost if they do not listen to the truth and the whistleblower. The fact is that, if those companies were sensible, there would be not a compliance cost but a compliance gain, because the new practices would enable them to find out what is going on in their organisation much more effectively.
  My final point is about what my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn called the culture of secrecy in our society, in which there is power for those who hold information, and a lack of power for those who do not. We need to change that. Those who have read the Scott report should forget the activities of individual Ministers and civil servants. What comes out of the report is a structure, a web of secrecy, a web of confidentiality, not because, in the vast majority of cases, people have been malicious or difficult to others, but simply because that is
  1130
  the way in which we expect to administer business in our society. We need to change that culture, and good business organisations are already changing that approach. My hon. Friend mentioned some of the companies that have changed their style.
  One of the most interesting things about the past few years has been the way in which good private sector organisations have flattened their hierarchies, opened up their communication systems and made it much more possible for the individual to be a team player and to express ideas and provide information.
  One thing that desperately worries me is that, while the private sector has adopted good industrial practices in terms of management, the public sector has gone in the other direction. I worry about NHS trusts, for example, which have a new, macho style of management, in which there is an expectation of compliance on the part of the individual. There are real dangers in that. We need to change to a much flatter structure, one that is much more open, and do so in a way that will allow individuals in our society to be creative. My hon. Friend's Bill will open up the valve for those creative abilities, will allow more people to play a real part, and will change the culture of management.
  I hope that the Bill gets a Second Reading and becomes law, because it is important for a few individuals, but also because it is important for secrecy, information and management in our society.
  11.7 am
  Mr. Michael Stern: I join colleagues on both sides of the House in congratulating the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on raising what is undoubtedly an important subject for debate.
  The diversity of the debate so far has shown the extent to which the arguments need to be refined, and perhaps narrowed, before we draft a Bill to deal with the abuses that the hon. Gentleman has rightly dealt with, while at the same time not catching a great deal that does not need to be dealt with or that could be positively damaged by the Bill as drafted.
  I mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman when I say that I am unhappy about some aspects of the Bill. The public might gain if the Bill went into Committee, but I do not believe that the arguments have been defined with sufficient clarity to enable the Bill to become law in the next few years. I shall express my doubts about some parts of the Bill, and my absolute abhorrence of one part.
  I deal first with commercial confidentiality. It is easy to dismiss the effects that the Bill may have on companies and on the climate within those companies, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) just did, by saying that there will be few cases, that they will improve the climate within the company and that they are likely to have little effect. I accept that there are cases in which the hon. Gentleman's description of the climate that would be created by the Bill is correct. However, I hope that he accepts that there are an equal number of cases where the climate created would not be as he described.
  One of the largest employers in my constituency is British Aerospace. British Aerospace, especially in major aviation construction on which it concentrates in Filton, faces extremely difficult, cut-throat competition from aerospace industries throughout the world. What typifies

  1131
  that competition is the desire of the company's competitors to achieve a competitive advantage, by whatever means, and to obtain or influence a contract that will provide employment for many thousands of people for many years. The fear that would be generated by the Bill in circumstances of such extreme competition is that it would be open to an employee, by making a disclosure under the Bill, to destroy the competitive position of the company that had been built up over many years.
  At the moment, there are disadvantages for an employee who may be acting in good faith—or who may not be. Only the courts can decide. Those disadvantages would be lessened under the Bill and the danger to commercial confidentiality would therefore be increased. I have made the next point before and I make it again. No one can tell whether the complaint is justified until it has been accepted or has reached the courts. There is no magic process that sifts a complaint and says, "This is in good faith, this is without bribery and this is a genuine complaint." There is no magic process that separates out, before it can do damage, a complaint that is not made in good faith, that is not made on reasonable grounds or that does not have financial backing.
  My first worry about the Bill is that, in attempting to deal honestly with a number of cases where there is a need for an employee to have additional protection against unfair dismissal, it mixes in cases that will open up to an employee, for whatever reason, the opportunity to do damage out of all proportion to the original complaint.
  Dr. Wright: I had not intended to intervene, but I do not want the House to be led to misunderstand what is going on. What the hon. Gentleman describes bears no relation to the Bill. He is describing how the law of confidence has operated for the past 100 years. There is nothing different now, because there is a test of public interest in each case. All that the Bill does is to say that, when the public interest has been established, people will be protected from victimisation. All it does is to square that circle.
  Mr. Stern: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shows in this intervention, as in his previous intervention, that he completely fails to understand my point. He refers to the complaint being in the public interest. I am saying to him and to the promoter of the Bill that there is no way of establishing whether it is in the public interest until, under the Bill, the matter is tested in the courts. The public interest—I will come on to this in more detail later—is not written in the ten commandments and it has not been established for all time and in all circumstances. It can be tested only in the courts or, under our present system, on a question of fact.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I approach the matter from a slightly different angle. The Bill changes nothing in that process. Currently, without the Bill having been enacted, it is the courts that ultimately decide. If people wish to raise a matter in public, they will do so and the courts will decide. The Bill simply takes the matter from the point at which the courts decide and says, "If it is proven, there are clear protections for individuals if they have been penalised by the company in the process of raising an objection." The Bill does not change the final process. It says, "Here is a legitimate protection once the complaint
  1132
  has been proven." It also says to the company, "If you are certain that the matter is not in the public interest, stand on your certainty. That means that you have internal structures to prove it. If you do not have, be warned."
  Mr. Stern: I hesitate to argue with my hon. Friend, who I believe has a background as a distinguished lawyer as well as a business man. I learned early in my business career that people who argue with lawyers lose money. Nevertheless, I challenge my hon. Friend on one point. The Bill will bring into the legal test a definition of what is in the public interest. Currently, in disputes about whistleblowing, the courts do not have a duty to do that. I suggest that, if the Bill became law in its present form or anything like it, providing an additional test for the courts of what is or what is not in the public interest would, among other things, provide a great deal of meaty work for lawyers over the next 50 years. That is not necessarily in the public interest.
  Clause 2 is the core of the Bill. It defines the disclosures that are protected under the Bill and three cumulative cases are given to explain how a protected disclosure is to be defined as being in the public interest. I fear that I have doubts about all three. They all give rise to argument and not only protect the whistleblower, but give rise to additional grounds for the hard case, as defined by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), to take advantage of the additional rights granted by the Bill for his or her own purpose.
  Clause 2(1)(a) says that a "protected disclosure" is in the public interest where, among other reasons, the individual
  "is not acting in bad faith".
  That provision goes to the heart of the objection that I have described. How on earth is anyone to define with pin-point legal accuracy whether a person is acting in good faith or bad faith?
  Mr. Touhig: The test appears in the Banking Act 1987, as a precedent, and also in the Arbitration Bill, which is currently before the other place.
  Mr. Stern: I fully accept that. The Bill extends what must be a doubtful test over a far wider area. The fact that, for example, capital punishment was found necessary as a penalty for arson in Her Majesty's dockyards does not mean that the House should necessarily extend that penalty or the process of decision that led to it. To ask a court to decide what is in good or bad faith must be a weak process that cannot arrive at a certain conclusion. The House must be reluctant to extend that process, except where necessary.
  The second test in clause 2 asks whether
  "a 'protected disclosure' is a public interest disclosure where the individual making it …
  (b) believes on reasonable grounds that the information is accurate".
  How on earth can the courts be expected, in extended cases, to rule on an individual's belief when a disclosure was made? Beliefs often change daily. With the best of intentions, the hon. Member for Islwyn is extending the law-making process too far.
  The third test in clause 2 is where the individual making a protected disclosure

  1133
  "(c) has not made it for the purpose of obtaining payment or personal gain".
  I agree that that is a worthy aim, but a National Audit Office report published this morning on auditing the means test for civil legal aid procedures states that it is virtually impossible for such an effective audit to be undertaken and that the means test will inevitably allow a number of people to escape the net. Similarly, to ask the courts to inquire into whether a person has made a disclosure that is affected by the possibility of personal gain inevitably builds in a process where a significant number of people will escape the net by doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman is trying to prevent.
  It has been assumed in the debate that public interest will usually be easy to define. I am a proud member of the Public Accounts Committee, which frequently considers difficult cases involving public spending where the public interest has been a factor to take into account. Part of the Committee's rationale is that it considers the extent to which the public are receiving reasonable value for money for public expenditure. It therefore considers the public interest in that respect.
  From memory, I shall refer to two cases involving health authorities where the public interest was involved in the Committee's conclusions. The first involved the Committee's investigation, conducted with the help of the National Audit Office, into goings-on—I can think of no better word—at Wessex health authority. A senior health authority employee had been dismissed because, to use the words of the authority's chairman, she was too good at her job. As part of her dismissal, she was subjected to a gagging clause under which she was not allowed either to speak about her work for the health authority or—the clause went further—to seek employment elsewhere in the national health service for a significant period.
  The hon. Member for Islwyn might think from that description that the public interest was against the health authority and in favour of the individual, but it was argued strongly before the Committee that it was in the NHS's interests that the lady be gagged and debarred from further employment in the health service. Despite the overall circumstances of the health authority, which has been almost universally condemned, there is still considerable disagreement about where the public interest lies. For an essential part of the Bill to rely on such a diffuse concept as the public interest is merely to create a recipe for litigation.
  The second example shows an even clearer divide and involves the Committee's investigation into the affairs of West Midlands regional health authority. We found that South Birmingham health authority had been badly mismanaged over a period. As a result, it had spent considerable sums on providing services for other health authorities without the administrative ability to rebill. That was the explanation of why services had to be seriously cut in south Birmingham.
  The Committee asked why the money had not been recovered from the other health authorities. It was explained that South Birmingham had not billed the other health authorities, which, in their wisdom, had chosen not
  1134
  to remind it of that fact. Does the public interest lie in correcting the management problem at South Birmingham and accepting that the money that had not been billed to the other health authorities had been lost, or does it lie, as many Committee members argued, in the other health authorities' duty to volunteer to accept a liability to pay South Birmingham and so get it out of its difficulties?
  The public interest is a huge concept and the last thing we should do is place an even greater burden on the courts to define it. The courts are the last place to which we should take the public interest concept. In this morning's press, it was defined by one court as being in the public interest to release a thief and gaol the thief-taker. Our legal system is sufficiently fragile that I would be reluctant to place such further nebulous burdens on it.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I keep saying to the people who oppose the Bill that it does not change any of that, because the courts must already consider public interest. If it is raised as an objection, they must define it. I agree that it is a difficult concept to define, but they are already doing it. The Bill simply hangs on a term that already exists and is before the courts. The Bill tells companies and organisations that they must secure in their minds through internal structures that, when someone goes beyond the internal investigative procedure, they are not acting in the public interest. If they are certain they are not, they rest on sound ground.
  Mr. Stern: I can repeat to my hon. Friend only that the fact that the courts are already charged with that duty in certain matters is not an excuse for extending it. The Bill would extend to large new areas an attempt to define the public interest. I have tried to describe to him areas, particularly in the public sector, where it becomes almost impossible to define where that interest lies. The fact that we are charging the courts with that does not make it any more satisfactory.
  Clause 8 is the most obnoxious clause in the Bill. I use the word "obnoxious" advisedly. I apologise to the hon. Member for Islwyn, because, owing to a constituency engagement, I shall be unable to remain until the end of the debate, but if he will undertake to remove clause 8 in Committee I shall change all my constituency arrangements and stay to vote to give his Bill a Second Reading. I notice that he does not rise to reply.
  Clause 8 is not only obnoxious but is one of the significant reasons why the Bill, as drafted, must not be passed. It seeks to go beyond creating additional rights for whistleblowers by creating additional rights for journalists, but the two do not have the same moral authority. Those of us who have been in the House for some years have seen the extent to which the balance of power in our society has changed against Parliament and in favour of greater powers by the media to influence the direction of society.
  The clause would effectively give additional protection not just to the honest but to the dishonest journalist in cases where, as is not unknown, there are financial inducements for a journalist to produce a particular story irrespective of whether it is true. That totally changes the character of the Bill and the hon. Member for Islwyn was most unwise to include in a measure, some of which many of us support, a concept that makes it unsupportable by those who wish to preserve the rights and obligations of the House.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), I pay tribute to that tireless campaigner, Maurice Frankel, with whom I have worked on and off for 15 years. We would not be debating this subject today were it not for his work.
  I shall concentrate on one aspect of the matter—the position of those who try to prevent the deception of the House of Commons. It is not only a question of trying to prevent Ministers from being economical with the truth. In cases of deep deception, the function of the whistle-blower is perhaps to prompt questions that ought to be asked, which no politician would know how to ask if there were not some inside information. I defy any of my colleagues to ask the right questions without a basis of information.
  The Bill is not a panacea but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said, it would create an atmosphere in which it would be clear that corners should not be cut. I say to the Whips that it would be discreditable to politicians in general if the Bill were snuffed out and not allowed to go to Committee. That would bring us all into disrepute.
  My parliamentary colleagues will forgive me if I speak with passion and emotion, but succinctly, about public disclosure. In late January and early February 1985, I spent 11 uncomfortable days in the Old Bailey dreading that what I had done, which I believed to be right and still believe to be right, would land in gaol for some years a civil servant who had placed his higher duty to the British Parliament above his obligation to Ministers.
  Let us be clear about the circumstances of the case of Clive Ponting. It was not a question whether he held views on the merits or demerits of sinking the Argentine cruiser Belgrano. Actually, he did not dissent—his views were not all that different from those of Ministers—but he knew that questions that had been put legitimately by me in the elected Parliament of our democracy were being given answers that were truncated to the point of distortion or, in some key areas, being untruthfully answered to avoid political embarrassment. It was the deception of Parliament, not disagreement with military action, that motivated Ponting.
  The Bill has the potential to make it more possible for a civil servant to ensure that Parliament is not misled by Ministers. Furthermore, the mere existence of the legislation could be a deterrent that might make Ministers think twice before cutting comers in their answers to parliamentary questions.
  In the autumn of 1984, I received an anonymous letter in my constituency post. Most anonymous letters go into the waste paper basket, but this one was different. It was concise and precise and from my, at that time, encyclopaedic knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano, I realised that it could have been formulated only by someone who was at the very heart of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Cabinet Office or the Ministry of Defence. It was no ordinary letter.
  I shall deal, first, with what I was told as the receptacle for Ponting's then anonymous information and what I ought to have done as a Member of Parliament; and, secondly, with what Ponting was told in the High Court
  1136
  he ought to have done—because the unrealistic nature of that advice makes the case for allowing the Bill to go to Committee.
  First, I was told that I should have handed the letter to the Ministry of Defence, but who would ever again trust an MP who took such action, dropped his sources into the cart, and allowed the fingerprinting of documents and their subjection to modern techniques that can easily lead to identification?
  I behaved "responsibly". I did not go to Chris Moncrieff or to any newspaper. I had the nous to keep the information as a proceeding in Parliament, but I naively supposed that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which the Ponting information revealed had been deceived above all others in the course of an investigation, might be interested in making use of the information to expose the deception of his Select Committee.
  Not one bit of it. Without consulting the members of his Committee or even its senior members such as the late Ian Mikardo, or my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), or his Conservative colleagues, the Chairman handed my letter to his ministerial chums—I use that word on purpose—in the Ministry of Defence. It transpired that the Chairman was far more concerned to find the source of the leak than to bother himself about whether the Select Committee which he had the honour to chair had been lied to.
  As soon as the Ministry of Defence got its hands on the letter, Ponting was identified and confessed. I remember shaving on the Saturday morning and hearing on the 7 o'clock news the headline that a civil servant by the name of Ponting had been suspended and charged. That was the first time that I heard the name of Clive Ponting.
  The moral of all that is that it is wishful thinking to suppose that Select Committees will perform the task of serious inquiry that is necessary and which may be made more possible by the suggestions in the Bill.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has been pursuing this issue for some years. He says that Select Committees are not able properly to carry out their tasks. Does he believe the corollary, that the press is the right body to pursue justice in the public interest? That is surely what he suggests.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am suggesting support for the serious mechanisms that are set out in the Bill. I emphasise that I did not run to Chris Moncrieff. I dwell on that case because, as a cause celebre, it is important in the continuing argument.
  To say that Members of Parliament have scope for righting wrongs done to Parliament by the Executive was not real then and is not real now. On crunch issues, Select Committee Chairmen and members inevitably put party before public interest. That is the response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
  If the Chairman of the Select Committee had been primarily concerned with the public interest, he would have used Ponting's information to formulate the right questions to ask on the basis of the insider information with which he had been provided. That he did nothing of the kind tends to make the case for the Bill.

  1137
  So much for what a Member of Parliament should have done. What was Ponting to have done? He should have complained through the normal civil service channels. He did complain to his immediate superiors—my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said that the Bill would cover that—but to go on and on that route and nag at them would simply have damaged his career, was he would have become known as a troublemaker, making waves of difficulty.
  It was suggested to the Old Bailey that he should have gone to the head of the civil service. That makes the imagination boggle. Just imagine a grade 5 civil servant going along, without telling anyone what it is about, and knocking on the door of the then Sir Robert Armstrong, now Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. [Interruption.] I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) laughing. He has ministerial experience. He can easily imagine the scene.
  What was a man in Ponting's position to say? "Please Sir, Ministers are telling porkies to Tam Dalyell MP to protect the position of the Prime Minister, at Mrs. Thatcher's very personal insistence"? What would have happened to a civil servant who had done that? His feet would not have touched the proverbial ground until he was out of the civil service. It is unreal to suggest that anyone below the rank of a grade 1 civil servant can sail into the office of the Cabinet Secretary and the head of the civil service and complain that the Prime Minister is lying to the House of Commons on politically delicate matters. There must be machinery along the lines that my hon. Friend for Islwyn suggests.
  It is all very well for the hon. Member for Blaby to ask what happens to a Member of Parliament who pursues such matters. Surely, he implies, the House of Commons should do something. An hon. Member who pursues such matters is thrown out of the House of Commons when he becomes very blunt, as he has to, and, having been thrown out five times, I know what it is about. It is not a pleasant experience. I should like some machinery, such as that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn, which would have prevented my being thrown out of the House five times for making an argument that has subsequently turned out, in the case of the Falkland islands and of Westland, to be accurate.
  That, my colleagues may say to me, is history; but the Scott inquiry is not history. I tabled two questions:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he took to satisfy himself that the die-forging plant to be built by Matrix-Churchill would not be used in producing parts for ballistic missiles or the supergun project Babylon before he issued an export licence."
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration was given to the site at which, and the purposes for which, the lathes produced by 600 Services of Colchester for al-Hillal were to be used before he issued an export licence."'—[Official Report, 8 May 1990: Vol. 172, c. 64–66.]
  I shall not take up the time of the House with the answers to those questions other than to say what Lord Justice Scott said. In paragraph D4.42 of his report, he said:
  "The answers to parliamentary questions, in both Houses of Parliament, failed to inform Parliament of the current state of Government policy on non-lethal sales to Iraq. This failure was deliberate and was an inevitable result of the agreement".
  1138
  I repeat, he said that that failure was deliberate. In paragraph D4.40, he said:
  "In April 1990 Mr Tam Dalyell MP put down two questions for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry."
  The report outlines the precise significance of those questions.
  I knew at the time that they were highly significant questions—otherwise, I would not have tabled them. I also knew that the answer was totally unsatisfactory. Why did not I pursue the matter further? Bluntly, I was stretching the patience of the previous right hon. Member for Islwyn, Mr. Kinnock, who had a quiet word with me and said, "If you are thrown out of the House a sixth or seventh time, you will simply bring the Labour party into disrepute." Such peer pressure from colleagues is very strong.
  A real problem exists. What is to happen when both those who draft the answers and, in my case, the recipient of the answers, know that, bluntly—I do not want to get into difficulty on parliamentary expressions—they have not been told the truth; I ought to say, have been lied to? The Bill, as I see it, is a mechanism that will reduce the increasing habit of ministerial parliamentary lying.
  It is very important that there should be protection for deep throats. It would be very unfortunate if the Bill were not allowed to be pursued further. It is not only a matter of Scott. There are other matters, such as the information concerning Mr. Thurman of the FBI and Dr. Whitehurst about Lockerbie that is coming out. I shall not go into that, but I should be genuinely extremely upset, as a long-standing Member of the House, if the House were denied the opportunity of a Committee stage to consider the significant issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn has mentioned.
  11.47 am
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has been doggedly pursuing the sinking of the Belgrano for about 14 years. It was a tragic action, which was taken in the public interest of people in this country and the people of Argentina, who, as a direct result of the victory of the British forces in the Falklands, now have democratic government. Many of us would consider that the example that the hon. Gentleman chose of Mr. Ponting might add to the unease we feel about the Bill.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on his speech. He took an extremely measured and sensible approach, and I found it difficult to disagree with the thrust of what he said. I also congratulate him, as a Welshman, on moving the Second reading of the Bill on St. David's day. He may not be aware that many of my ancestors on my grandfather's side came from Risca in his constituency, and if the cold weather had not kept back my daffodils, I should have ripped one out of the garden and worn it this morning.
  I rarely attend on Fridays, but this has been an extremely sensible and useful debate—much more interesting than many that one hears in the House, and more useful than many we hold.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Islwyn should have declared a special interest in the debate. I hasten to add that he has no pecuniary interest, but I understand that he has a background in journalism and newspaper

  1139
  publishing. I do not impugn his motives in any way, but he views the issue from the perspective of a journalist and a newspaper publisher, and I believe that that is germane to the debate.
  The Bill before the House is superficially extremely attractive. One can envisage the crusader for justice—the whistleblower—acting in the public interest against the secretive, malicious, bullying and dishonest public servants and companies. The hon. Gentleman referred to a culture that he believes is unduly secretive and protects the incompetent fat cats or bureaucrats. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that illegal or dishonest acts should be brought to the attention of the company concerned, and, if necessary, placed in the public domain.
  However, I must strike a contrary note. Although the Bill may have good intentions, it may become a charter for the malicious, those with grudges and the greedy who are looking for rewards from the tabloids. The gentlemen of the press—to whom Private Eye correctly refer occasionally as "the reptiles of the press"—care not what they destroy, and will plead public interest and the public's right to know. The public have a right to know many things, but do they need to know about matters that may undermine legitimate commercial behaviour and confidentiality surrounding many decisions and workings of the state?
  The Bill's schedule refers to illegal matters and to the misuse of funds—no one would disagree with that. However, I believe that its case for the abuse of authority is fairly subjective. The Bill refers to miscarriage of justice which, except in the courts, is quite subjective also, as is maladministration. It refers also to danger to the health or safety of any individual or the environment. I can plead in good faith that I believe that many things are damaging to the environment, while others do not consider them to be a problem. Those categories are open to interpretation, and I suggest that the courts would have a field day with them.
  I turn to the case of the malicious employee who has been sacked and who then takes his story to the press. As a Member of Parliament—I am sure that most hon. Members have had similar experiences—I have been threatened with exposure in the press, and that has occurred. In 1993, before the hon. Member for Islwyn came to the House, that well-known and respected organ of freedom and champion of public good, The Sun, established "The Sun MPs' Line"—I think that that is what it was called. It invited people to report their Members of Parliament for the mistakes they had made.
  The helpline was run by a rather tired and past-it former Army officer. The newspaper was interested in a very sad constituency case involving a woman who had told me that Nigel Lawson and my constituency agent were part of the conspiracy against her. I was named in The Sun as not carrying out my duties as a Member of Parliament. When I was contacted by the gentleman concerned, I told him that he should drop the matter, as it would cause hardship to that woman. My point is that many people will go to the press for all sorts of reasons.
  Mr. Peter Luff: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that my experience of the
  1140
  parliamentary commissioner from The Sun was rather different. I was entirely vindicated of a constituent's complaint. He is not all bad.
  Mr. Robathan: The former military officer who was responsible for the helpline dropped the matter when I explained the case to him. My point is that many people go to the press for all sorts of reasons, while claiming that their actions are in the public interest.
  Not a day goes by without some unknown person trying to make money out of a story in the press. The Bill states that a case will not be heard if disclosure is made principally for private profit. However, if the whistleblower gains any profit at all, that must be an inducement to others to take a case to the press while claiming that it is in the public interest. That is a very worrying aspect of the Bill. One may ask who is worse in that circumstance. It is probably the reptiles of the press who would publish the story, rather than those who go to them with tittle-tattle, rumour, slurs and innuendo, while perhaps bearing a grudge.
  Most disclosures of that kind will be printed, because the press always take the line "publish and be damned". That was probably first said in the public interest, but much of what I read in the newspapers today is certainly not in that category. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the press always adopt a responsible attitude to such matters? I think not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) described clause 8 as "obnoxious". I believe that the courts should have the right to know who has betrayed a confidence, and the right to force a journalist to reveal his sources. It may be in the public interest to know who has betrayed a confidence, even in good faith. The courts have a right to make that decision. While I do not always agree with the judgments of our courts, I must pay them some credit.
  We all agree that illegality should be exposed, and I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's approach to this and to many other aspects. Let us turn to the Official Secrets Act 1989 as an example. I hope that even some Labour Members will accept that not all decisions should be taken in the public domain in a glare of publicity. The hon. Gentleman may not know it, but I am still covered by the Official Secrets Act. Some 10 years ago, I was working in Chelsea—it was a very pleasant occupation—as a staff officer dealing with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation matters during the cold war, when the Soviet Union posed a real threat to NATO and to the west.
  It is well known that certain documents were given the charming classification "Cosmic Top Secret"—I always smiled about the connotations with "Star Wars" or "Star Trek". Another category was "Top Secret: UK Eyes Only". Luckily, I can never remember which documents were classified under those categories, so I cannot betray any secrets.
  Many issues involved planning to break the law in the lead-up to a war. No material in those categories was malicious, and my conscience was not pricked, but some of it involved illegal deception in order to assist United Kingdom and European security in the face of a real threat. It would have involved some form of fraud.
  It could be claimed that that should have been revealed in the public interest—and I could have done so. However, my abiding memory is of the decency, integrity

  1141
  and honesty behind those plans, and the overriding motivation was the protection of the public interest of all United Kingdom citizens. It was not a matter of a judge saying in court that something was in the public interest. Some of the material would certainly have made a very good feature story in a Sunday supplement. For the record, I must state that there was no actual illegality as far as I can recall.
  The Bill could assist people who are covered by the Official Secrets Act and who wish to break their word and the trust that they enjoy, and, for reasons known only to themselves, betray secrets to the press in the public interest. They might tell their superiors that they were unhappy with the situation, and that might be enough to establish that they had acted in good faith.
  Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman is missing the essential point. Anyone who feels that he or she ought to raise a matter that is in the public interest must first follow a proper procedure and take the matter to the organisation concerned, which must be given a chance to rebut the allegation. The Bill is not a licence to run to journalists or newspapers.
  Mr. Robathan: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's intentions. In the armed forces, one takes one's unhappiness to one's superior. What happens, however, if the superior dismisses those worries? Does one then run to the press? That is not answered in the Bill.
  Mr. Touhig: The Bill deals with serious wrongdoing, malpractice, fraud and criminal activity—not with someone running to a commanding officer to complain about the colour of the linen in the officers' mess.
  Mr. Robathan: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's good intentions—my point is what effect will the Bill have. Illegality can presently be revealed to the press if necessary, and can and should be taken to the proper authorities. The intention of the Bill is one thing—the reality might be something else entirely.
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. There is no mechanism in the Bill to reconcile a conflict between an employee and an employer when the employee is unhappy with an answer that may be the correct one. The employer and the employee must have some ability to reconcile that, other than by the public disclosure of information.
  Mr. Robathan: The intention behind the Bill is excellent. If something untoward is happening in a company or a public body, the matter should be taken up the chain. If it is not dealt with, I would defend the right of an individual to take the matter to the press.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to an individual who could not take information to Sir Robert Armstrong, and went to the hon. Gentleman with his complaint. These things currently happen, and we all get letters saying that this or that is wrong.
  Mr. Touhig: We all receive odd letters. I constantly receive letters from a gentleman who tells me that he is
  1142
  the king of the world and is having trouble contacting his relative the Tsar of Russia. The hon. Gentleman is clearly missing the point. A proper mechanism is set out in the Bill for raising concerns and grievances within an organisation, and gives the organisation a chance to respond. The Bill is not providing an opportunity for someone to run straight to the media to complain.
  Mr. Robathan: I repeat that I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I see no proper mechanism in the Bill to deal with my worries. I see good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. I hope, incidentally, that his constituent finds his relative, the Tsar of Russia, soon.
  Dr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman's argument is that all good organisations—public and private—should have good internal mechanisms to deal with these matters, and that the law should not intervene. Does he think it more or less likely that public and private organisations will develop good internal mechanisms if the Bill is enacted?
  Mr. Robathan: I am not opposed to all the measures in the Bill becoming law—I am picking up the weaknesses in the Bill. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) proposed the Whistleblower Protection Bill in the previous Session. I understand that the Bill was supported by major public companies. If that is the case, surely it would be better to encourage good practice. The Bill might easily encourage those with a grievance who do not receive satisfaction from the mechanism of a company or a public body to take the matter to the press, and that concerns me.
  Dr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, to which there is an interesting answer. He is absolutely right to say that we consulted extensively throughout the public and private sectors in dealing with the Whistleblower Protection Bill. Seeboard—a major electricity company—said on the subject:
  "If enacted, this measure would certainly have the effect, in responsible organisations, of promoting internal reporting systems and discouraging managers from taking inappropriate action against whistleblowers."
  That company thinks the measure is a good thing—I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not.
  Mr. Robathan: I do not disagree with everything in the Bill. There are many aspects with which I am unhappy, and I am not alone in that. Far from encouraging good practice, it may encourage those with a grievance or a grudge to take that grudge to the press if they do not receive satisfaction through the proper mechanism.
  Another thing that concerns me is that the Bill could be a dream for lawyers, and I can see public interest being used as a defence in many circumstances. Although I do not believe that it is the intention of the Bill, it might easily encourage further litigation, and we are already litigious enough in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that one should not have to go to court, but I would suggest that the enactment of the Bill might encourage people to go to court with cases which were not justified. That is particularly the case if they claim to be acting in good faith and in the public interest—both of which are subjective.

  1143
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford raised the case of a school in Hull, but I do not believe that the Bill, if enacted, would help that deputy head teacher. In that case, the LEA, the school, the governors and the head teacher were behaving improperly, and I cannot see how the Bill could change that.
  Mr. Touhig: The sponsors of the Bill and I have no wish to give any work to lawyers or to the legal profession. If an organisation does not respond when a matter is raised internally by an individual, he has the option to make the matter public. But the hon. Gentleman ought to bear it in mind that an individual might go to court or to an industrial tribunal only if, as a result of raising the matter, he could demonstrate that reprisals were taken against him.
  Mr. Robathan: I take that point, and I accept again the good intentions behind the Bill. Supposing, however, that, having raised the matter, an individual was not promoted? The individual might have raised the matter in good faith, and the company or body might not disagree. But if the individual was then not promoted, he might say that he was being penalised for raising the matter.
  The hon. Member for Islwyn also said that he wishes to change the culture of Britain, but I fear that it might be a change for the worse. I do not get many letters complaining about our culture, or about secrecy in general. I do not believe that everything is perfect in this country, but I am not labouring under the impression that everything is imperfect. Would he trust the press with our culture? They are the last people that I would trust. He stated that we must encourage people to speak out. I would say it is their duty to speak out where there is illegality and malpractice.
  Companies must be made to address illegality, and several examples of that have been raised. The hon. Member for Islwyn referred to the case of Beth Lawson, who reported a supermarket manager for changing sell-by dates. That was her duty, and action was taken by the supermarket chain. That seems to be a good example of a case in which whistleblowing has worked perfectly well, without a change in the law being required.
  The Maxwell case was also mentioned. The gentleman involved was sacked, and I am sure that he then went to the press. What more could he do, apart from going to court, which, again, is litigious? He could have gone to an industrial tribunal—I am not sure whether he did.
  Those involved in the Zeebrugge and Piper Alpha disasters had a duty to report defects, and should have done so. Safety measures and regulations already exist.
  Mr. Touhig: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the report on the Piper Alpha disaster recorded that people who were working on the oil platform were aware of safety deficiencies, but, because they were afraid that they might lose their jobs, they did not raise the issue? The Bill seeks to remove the culture of fear in which many people believe that, if they go to their boss or employer, they will get into trouble.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I also wish to see the culture of fear removed, but whether the Bill will remove it is another matter.
  Mr. David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Zeebrugge case. Paragraph 57 of the Sheen report states:
  "Fictitious entries were made in her official log book."
  1144
  Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should have a Bill to protect the employee who blew the whistle on that fact?
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that the person involved was covered by other aspects of law.
  Mr. Luff: My understanding is that section 28 and schedule 5 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 already provide considerable protection to individuals in such circumstances.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) intends to speak in the debate, and he might raise the point in his speech. The Bill adds to the law, and we have a duty not to make bad law.
  As a result of the Lyme bay disaster, we now have the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995. As I understand it, the instructor who complained in the Lyme bay case resigned because she was so unhappy about the situation. What would the Bill have done for her? She had already resigned. The courts worked in the Lyme bay case: the person who ran the centre was sent to prison for two or three years. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned the Barings case. It was a sad, disgraceful case, for which Mr. Leeson is now spending six or seven years in gaol in Singapore. The Bill would have changed nothing in that case.
  The Bill could assist in many cases, and there is much good in it, but it could help to create an atmosphere of mistrust—the aspect that I find most worrying. If I believed that the Bill would lead to greater internal responsibility and investigation within companies, I would support it, but I fear that it could undermine the trust between people working together in the same enterprise, whether it be public or private. I fear that it may be a charter for those with a grudge; it is certainly a charter for further press abuse.
  The Bill would undermine loyalty—a word used by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. People could be disloyal on the grounds that public interest was involved. I would wish them to be disloyal if public interest were involved, but the Bill would give them an excuse, which they might use. If that is what the hon. Member for Islwyn means by changing the culture of Britain, I do not want trust, loyalty and confidentiality in this country to be undermined in that way.
  The actions of the House can have a cumulative effect on our culture. I fear that the Bill is unlikely to have a positive impact on our culture. The House has a responsibility to pass good laws, which have been well thought out, and the consequences of which have been carefully considered. I have yet to be convinced by the Bill.
  12.13 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I was delighted to know that my safety had been in his hands for some years before I entered this place. I found it difficult to understand how he could say that people had a duty—his word—to speak out, while not providing them with the protection they need to enable them to fulfil that duty. That is all the Bill seeks to do.

  1145
  Members of Parliament are never happier than when they are congratulating each other. I was delighted to be congratulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on being the parent or grandparent of the measure in its original form. I, in turn, congratulate him on his courage in picking up the measure when he secured a place in the ballot.
  It would surely be churlish of the House—I put it no higher—to deny a Welsh Member, on St. David's day, the chance to have a fair run with such a Bill. If we are allowed today to flaunt our spurious Welsh credentials, I should say that I married into Welsh-speaking Wales 25 years ago and my children have gone to school today sporting daffodils and leeks—perhaps there is a root from leeks to whistleblowers.
  There is always a public interest in secrecy and confidentiality, and there is also a public interest in information. The question for all of us is how to reconcile those two public interests in specific cases and how to decide where the public interest lies when there is a conflict between the two. To those hon. Members who say that they have difficulty in knowing what the public interest is, I say, "So they should—it is a difficult concept." But if hon. Members say that it is too difficult a concept to establish, what on earth are those hon. Members doing here? Is not that precisely our job as Members of Parliament? It is also a job in which we ask the judiciary to assist us in a range of cases—and it has been doing so in relation to the law of confidence for the past century and a half.
  If people think that the phrase "a culture of secrecy" is simply a glib slogan in this country, I invite them to fortify themselves and read Sir Richard Scott's report, which contains everything. I also invite them to reflect on the fact that it has now emerged that there was a certain letter from someone whom we might now describe as a whistleblower, who was working at Matrix Churchill in 1988. The person wanted to tell someone in authority about the products being produced and for whom. I think that Lord Howe managed never to respond to that letter.
  If that information had been acted on, and if the whistleblower had blown the whistle publicly, we might have been able to dispense with Sir Richard Scott. We might have saved three years and several millions of pounds; we might even have saved the Government some huge embarrassment, and we might have saved civil servants the prospect of the most monstrous disciplinary action.
  Mr. Robathan: May I link the hon. Gentleman's point about Sir Richard Scott with what he said about determining the public interest? If the Scott report does nothing else, it reveals the subjective way in which judges inevitably examine a case. For example, half a dozen judges said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had behaved properly, yet Sir Richard Scott said that he had not. That is the difficulty of deciding what is in the public interest. The House should determine such matters, but it would be dangerous to give them to the judiciary, as the Bill proposes.
  Dr. Wright: My antennae tell me that this is not the moment to rerun the Scott debate. Sir Richard Scott
  1146
  simply presented the evidence and asked the House of Commons to determine the balance of public interest. The House failed in that task, which damaged the Government and will damage the reputation of the House for a long time to come.
  Mr. Llew Smith: As my hon. Friend is discussing Sir Richard Scott, and having read the report, does he agree that we are all secretive? The day before the report's publication, I received a reply from the President of the Board of Trade, whom I had asked to provide me with information on its printing costs. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give that because it was a state secret, or a matter of commercial confidentiality. One gets the feeling that the Government sometimes go over the top in regard to secrecy.
  Dr. Wright: Sir Richard Scott stumbled into a world that was so in the grip of secrecy that it took him three years to unravel it, and he was so shocked by what he discovered that he asked the House to consider what should be done.
  In some respects, the Bill is in the spirit of what the Government have already attempted to do. About two years ago, they introduced an open government code in an attempt to insert a public interest test into the balance between the need for proper confidentiality and the need for disclosure. The Government are already ahead of the Bill in that respect, as they have determined what test should apply.
  I regret, however, that the promises in the open government White Paper of July 1993 have been honoured only in the breach. We were promised two new information statutes, one on access to personal records and one on health and safety information. We now discover that there has been no progress whatsoever on that proposed legislation. This is not the moment to explore the reason for that, but, particularly in the wake of Scott, it seems odd that there has been no progress on those pledges.
  In the White Paper, the Government promised to review some 250 existing statutes that prevented the disclosure of information and, wherever possible, to insert a harm test to establish the correct balance between confidentiality and disclosure. Although they invented a new deregulatory mechanism to get measures through the House speedily, it was not used to insert a single harm test into that vast volume of legislation.
  The fact that there has been no publicity whatsoever for the Government's own open government code would make Sir Humphrey smile. The fact that the Government established an open government code and then did their best to tell people that it did not exist is a consummate exercise of the culture of secrecy. Of course, there will be bigger and bolder measures, but the story is the same. The Bill aims to strike the correct balance between the proper duty of confidentiality and the public interest in disclosure.
  We have learnt a great deal from inquiries into major disasters by the Audit Commission and the Nolan Committee. I ask the House to consider some of the stronger passages in the Nolan report on how some of the major malpractices in public bodies came to light through whistleblowing. All the cases in which Public Concern at Work has been involved, the fraud PCW unearthed in the

  1147
  defence procurement industry and elsewhere and other evidence show that the most effective way of uncovering fraud and malpractice is from within organisations. I might even suggest—then quickly erase it from the record—that, if there were to be malpractices in the House by Members of Parliament, hon. Members themselves would know more about them than anybody else.
  There is public interest in confidentiality and public interest in disclosure. The Bill addresses the problem that the former is safeguarded whereas the latter is not. Lord Griffiths memorably said in the "Spycatcher" case that wrongdoing may lurk beneath the cloak of confidence. The law of confidence should and must not be used—as it is now—to conceal wrongdoing, or to punish and victimise people who, in the public interest, try to tell us about things that should not be happening. The law of confidence is used by many employers in that way. Gagging clauses are found in public and private organisations alike. Disciplinary procedures are used when people try to tell it like it is.
  Last year, a consultant surgeon in Surrey wrote a short letter to The Times, not about his own hospital or trust but to express his concern about the lack of intensive care facilities in south-east England. He was hauled up before the trust for which he worked for committing a disciplinary offence and given a formal warning. When hon. Members read about such cases, I hope that they feel deep outrage, because when they occur, public interest is the loser. The public, including Members of Parliament, lose the ability to learn things that we ought to know to enable us to make good policy. The reputations and careers of people who exercise their duty are also damaged.
  Many people live in a culture of fear. Many jobs today are insecure, part-time or short-term. Growing insecurity and fear in the labour market makes it much less likely that people will feel able to exercise their duty. The Bill is all about our interest in protecting that duty.
  When I introduced a ten-minute rule version of my hon. Friend's Bill some months ago, I was inundated with letters, not from cranks, troublemakers or malcontents but from people who felt that they had done their duty, or had tried to do so, and had suffered the consequences. From that, I knew that the House had to legislate.
  I refer to a letter from a man in Staffordshire, who reported that the chief executive of the major organisation for which he worked was engaged in malpractice. The chief executive resigned and took a golden handshake. He says:
  "I was suspended from work for five months, during which time a concerted effort was made to discredit me. I finally had my contract terminated … I have been unable to find work since that date and believe that I have been blacklisted … I do not write to you out of bitterness or malice, but solely to offer my support to your cause. The decision I took to report this man's conduct was something that took a great deal of soul searching and many months of deliberation. I only wish your Bill had been passed several years ago."
  I could give the House instance upon instance of people, working in the voluntary sector or in private organisations, describing in their own words how they came to feel that they had a duty to perform. They tried to perform that duty, and the result was the trail of misery, victimisation and persecution that shines out from the letters I have received. We need to square the circle and to get the balance right. When we consulted on the original Bill, we found vast support from the public and private sectors and professional bodies.
  1148
  In congratulatory mode, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), who made an excellent contribution earlier. One of the reasons why the Bill should be passed is that it does not impose a regulatory burden. No new apparatus would be established by the Bill, and hugely stiff tests would be applied to anyone who claimed that they had made a protected disclosure.
  Some people think that the Bill is not muscular enough, and I could wave at the House some of the similar legislation that has been introduced elsewhere. I recently returned from Australia and New Zealand clutching copies of huge measures that run to hundreds of pages and set up a vast machinery to protect whistleblowers. We have a modest little Bill that would build on the existing law of confidence. It may prove not to be effective or powerful enough, but it would be a start. The House and the country would want to know that a start has been made.
  The Bill would not even require organisations to set up internal machinery. I wish that it would, but it would not. It would not even impose that tiny, useful regulatory burden. So I am not sure why the Government should have difficulties with the Bill.
  We are told that the Deputy Prime Minister would not even meet my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn to talk about the Bill. I find that extraordinary, and I wonder which of his many hats the right hon. Gentleman was wearing when he felt so disinclined. He cannot have been wearing his competitiveness hat, because we know that ethical business is good business these days. He cannot have been wearing his deregulatory hat, because the Bill would be deregulatory. He certainly cannot have been wearing his presentation hat, because I can assure the Government that to be seen to oppose the Bill would do nothing for their reputation and credibility.
  The Bill is absolutely not—as has been said—a charter for troublemakers and malcontents. It would simply give a modest measure of protection to the most responsible and diligent whistleblower.
  Good companies and organisations are already introducing such measures. I shall give the example of a good company—British Airways. Its code of conduct tells employees to
  "Ask whether you would feel comfortable explaining your decision or behaviour to your boss, your family or the media.
  Be prepared to challenge if you believe others are acting in an unethical way. Create the climate and opportunities for people to voice genuinely held concerns about behaviour or decisions that they perceive to be unprofessional or inappropriate.
  Do not tolerate any form of retribution against those who do speak up.
  Protect individuals' careers and anonymity if necessary. Encourage an environment of learning from mistakes and mutual trust in each other's motives and judgments."
  That is excellent.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Wright: I shall succumb to temptation and not give way.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: This is the longest peroration in history.
  Dr. Wright: It is a culminating peroration; we are getting in sight of the end.

  1149
  The end is this: there is a movement afoot towards more ethical business; there is also a movement afoot towards more information. These two movements together are capable of changing the corporate world. They are capable also of changing the public world. In this instance, culture and law, as in so many other instances, go hand in hand. If we had a law-abiding culture, we would not require laws. We require laws and cultures to move together.
  If we want companies to develop the good internal machinery of the sort that British Airways has adopted, the Bill, if implemented, will produce it. If the Bill is enacted, we can be sure that such systems will come into place. They will grow like daffodils on St. David's day.
  12.36 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: On St. David's day, I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on introducing a valuable measure that should be considered in Committee. I congratulate him also on doing so with a quality that is not common to many Welshmen—succinctness. I say that as someone who is eligible to play for Wales. My grandfather was born in Bryn-mawr and my great-grandfather in Ebbw Vale. Recently, I found myself supporting the Welsh rather than the English at Twickenhan. The hon. Gentleman's presentation was excellent.
  The longer I have listened to the debate, the more I have been convinced, especially by some of my hon. Friends—many of whom have come to the Chamber, rather like Mark Antony, to bury the Bill and not to praise it—that the Bill has merit. It strikes a balance in the need to protect against victimisation those who reveal substantial malpractice, so long as the malpractice can be proved to be against the public interest.
  Although I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I think that he put his finger on the key issue—as did the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright)—when he emphasised the great personal sacrifices that many people make when bringing to the public's attention examples of malpractice that are against the public interest. Those sacrifices can easily be overlooked. The term "whistleblower" has pejorative connotations, which often obscure the value of disclosure.
  The Bill would protect confidentiality in both private and public organisations, and that is proper. As the hon. Member for Islwyn said, the Bill is not a nitpicker's charter. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), for whom I have great respect—there goes his parliamentary career—say that he sees the Bill as a deregulatory measure. Unlike the legal frameworks that have been set up in other countries, especially in Australia and even the United States, the Bill is a spare measure in legislative terms. It would build on the existing law of confidentiality in a way that I would find helpful. That does not mean that I think that it should not be amended in Committee, but I am saying that it should be allowed to get to Committee to be amended.
  It is rather a pity that such a measure is necessary, because, as many hon. Members have said, any good organisation, whether in the private or the public sector, listens to its staff, particularly to the people who are closest to the line of fire—to the coal face. Therefore, as
  1150
  has been emphasised in the briefing on the Bill, it is not surprising that a significant number of private sector companies, such as Forte, Cadbury, BT and TSB, support it.
  Although I had not heard it before, the story of Beth Lawson, mentioned by the hon. Member for Islwyn, was instructive. By doing what she did, she benefited the company in the longer term and saved it from penalties that would have been grossly against its interests.
  Mr. Robathan: This is my biggest concern. All these marvellous examples are given, but I do not see how the Bill would benefit such people one way or the other, because, in the case that my hon. Friend just mentioned, the young lady concerned—Beth Lawson—reported the issue and the company took action.
  Mr. Coombs: That is the obvious riposte to such an argument. The point is that the Bill represents certainty. It gives reassurance to those people and therefore makes it more likely that they will act in a way that will, in the longer term, be in the interests of the company for which they work.
  It is a pity that such a measure is necessary. I agree—although I do not do so very often—with Christine Hancock of the Royal College of Nursing, who said in a Health Service Journal article in 1994 that, if such a measure were followed in practice, in the longer term, all whistleblowing would be made relatively unnecessary. Indeed, the parents of Carol Starkie—the doctor who misdiagnosed some 42 cancer cases at the Birmingham royal orthopaedic hospital before 1993, which no consultant detected and reported through official channels—live in my constituency. I believe and support the Department of Health—there should be a contractual obligation on consultants and doctors in the health service to report on their colleagues' performance, and not just a sign of good practice vis-a-vis the General Medical Council.
  In broad terms, I am strongly in favour of the Bill, but I have one or two reservations about it. I do not say that like Mark Antony, because I support the principle of the Bill and would like to see it go to Committee. My first worry relates to clause 2.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was right when he intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Islwyn. Clause 2(1)(c) defines a protected disclosure as being one where somebody
  "has not made it principally for the purpose of obtaining payment or personal gain".
  I cannot see why the word "principally" should be necessary. If somebody is acting in the way that we have described, I do not believe that they should be going for any personal gain whatever.
  Mr. Luff: I think that my hon. Friend might be misguided. The word seems to be a useful safeguard, because the individual may obtain fees of some kind from a subsequent television interview, which was not the intention when he or she blew the whistle. That word safeguards against false allegations that might be made subsequently.
  Mr. Coombs: I disagree with my hon. Friend. If the subsection read, "has not made it for the purpose of obtaining payment or personal gain", it would cover the situation adequately.

  1151
  My next point relates to clause 3. Several hon. Members have said that adverse treatment should be monitored, and they have discussed the extent to which, for example, failure to provide promotion could be identified as a reason for using the remedies in the Bill. My worry is that the provision may have a long tail. It could be many years after an event that people decide that they have not got promotion and that, therefore, they have been adversely treated. I suggest that there should be a time limit within which people can take action about adverse treatment and within which they are be protected by the Bill.
  Under clause 7, if an agreement is made, confidentiality cannot be a condition of it. I can imagine the following situation. Somebody makes a disclosure on an internal basis and the company agrees to change its procedures to right the wrong. Under the Bill, that change of procedures would not be allowed to remain confidential. In other words, the person making the complaint could make it open, subsequent to the event. I do not see why that should be the case. If someone makes a complaint and has it resolved via the internal procedures, he or she should be required to ensure that the matter remains confidential. If not, the constructive climate about which we have been talking may not be possible.
  I strongly agree with clause 6. It deals with the burden of proof for civil servants and changes the law so that the burden of proof is on the Government to show that it is necessary to make evidence confidential. I was extremely concerned when my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, I anticipate—
  Mr. Robathan: It is only a matter of time.
  Mr. Coombs: I anticipate. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby talked about his activities in the Army and said that what people did there was all right because they were only planning illegal actions and not actually carrying them out. Bully for them, frankly. The more my hon. Friend talked about that instance, the more he made the case for the protection that clause 6 offers.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend should understand that the plans we were making related to a time when we might have been moving towards general war. I am sure that he supports me in saying that it is better that some minor infringements of the law might have taken place than that we might have been disadvantaged in a general war, as we might once have had with the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Coombs: That is a very large question. I believe that overlooking illegalities would be more inclined to undermine parliamentary democracy, even in extremis—
  Mr. Robathan: Planning.
  Mr. Coombs: Planning illegalities, even in an emergency, is more likely to undermine parliamentary democracy than keeping close to the letter of the law.
  It would be helpful if it could be confirmed that public interest, not significant malpractice and misconduct, would allow whistleblowers to get away with semi-political opinions about which many of my hon. Friends have spoken. The schedule tries to define
  "Misconduct or malpractice constituting public interest disclosure".
  1152
  I am slightly concerned about paragraphs (iii) and (v), which deal with "abuse of authority" and "maladministration" respectively. Those terms are subject to a wide interpretation.
  That does not mean that I disagree with the Bill, because I understand that the courts already have to take such decisions. However, we all know misguided, but well-meaning, individuals who may have a slightly eccentric turn of mind who come to us and genuinely feel that there has been an example of maladministration or an abuse of authority. They may cause untold damage to organisations—while wrongly relying on the Bill—unless some guidance is given on how far the provisions stretch. It is for that reason that a code of practice with specific examples should be drawn up to supplement the schedule and to give guidance, not only to the courts, but to people who may wish to rely on the Bill if it becomes law.
  As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, unless there is a code of practice, many companies—possibly the public sector—will be damaged by people making disclosures that they think will be protected by the Bill, but are not. Those people will be hurt by their misguided apprehension of what the Bill means, and we will need an enormous amount of case law before the penny finally drops as to the grounds for revealing previously confidential information that the Bill seeks to cover. A code of practice would therefore be extremely useful. That might be discussed if, as I hope, the Bill reaches Committee.
  I have similar reservations about clause 8, which I hope will be dropped in Committee. If he has the opportunity to make a winding-up speech, perhaps the hon. Member for Islwyn will give assurances on that matter, which is not integral to the problem that he is trying to solve.
  The Government would be unwise to try to block the Bill before it reaches Committee, because it is generally recognised that there is in both the public and private sectors a climate of secrecy that needs puncturing and cannot be justified on the grounds of public interest, the national interest, national security or competitive self-interest in the private sector.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford that passing the Bill will not change the climate of opinion so much that everyone will become a potential damaging whistleblower. As he said, suitably amended, the Bill would give specific protection and reassurance to individuals who, under great stress, reveal substantial malpractice that is against the public interest. The individual would be protected from large enterprises or, in particular, from the state. That is a sound Conservative principle. As such, the Government should adhere to it by accepting the Bill and supporting its passage to Committee.
  12.52 pm
  Mr. Chris Davies: I warmly welcome the Bill. I am sure that that sentiment is shared by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the House and outside. I welcome and endorse the sentiments of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). They were a pleasant contrast with the speeches of some Conservatives Members, who gave the impression that they seek only to nitpick and damn the Bill with faint praise. I hope that they will allow the Bill to receive its Second Reading, so that some of their more detailed and specific criticisms can be considered in Committee.

  1153
  It could be argued that the Bill represents a small step towards sweeping aside some aspects of secrecy that are deeply embedded in this country, but that would, perhaps, be to go far beyond the reality. As its title aptly suggests, the Bill proposes that the public interest matters more than malpractice, more than covering up the fraudulent behaviour of a colleague and more than a company's embarrassment if it is revealed that it is cutting corners with its safety practices. Those principles should be self-evident to Members of Parliament. Surely we are all here because we want to protect and enhance the public interest. That does not seem to me an especially difficult concept to grasp.
  Definitions of what represents the public interest will be a matter of subjective judgment, but, as we have heard, the concept of public interest is already included in statute and addressed as a matter of course by the courts.
  It is important for hon. Members to recognise that, for reasons which I shall shortly cover, the Bill would not lead to extensive litigation. Rather, the Bill would help to change the attitudes and culture of organisations. It would encourage them to ask, "Are our actions in the public interest? Would we be embarrassed if our actions were exposed to public gaze?" If the answer to the second question is yes, the knowledge that a law of this kind exists will encourage a change in performance and approach.
  For too long, the law has given tacit approval to the corporate or bureaucratic culture which smiles and encourages employees to see no evil, to hear no evil and, above all, to speak no evil, even when they know it exists. The Bill would help to break that approach but, as framed, it is also practical and responsible. Employees would not be able to run off to the authorities or to the press for the fun of it or out of malicious intent. As a first step, they must report their concerns to the employer and only if no action is taken and the malpractice continues may they take the matter a step further.
  That seems rational and sensible in theory, but how very different the process would be for a person who tried to put it into practice. People who blow the whistle in circumstances that are covered by the Bill are bound to be rare, and what they reveal may be all the more significant, important and crucial to the public interest because of that.
  Imagine the emotional turmoil that must affect an employee of a company or a large organisation who plucks up the courage to tell his employer about his concerns. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave a clear illustration of what that might involve and of how difficult it might be for an employee to face a hard taskmaster in so doing.
  Once an employee has plucked up the courage and addressed his employer, he will at least feel that he has done his duty and his conscience can rest easy. But what if he realises that the malpractice is continuing and that nothing is being done to curb it? The next step, which is to go to another authority, would inevitably imply criticism of the employer or line manager, and that is serious. That step would be a great leap in the dark for the person concerned. It would mean risking career prospects, facing abuse and being put under a range of discreet pressures which no legislation, however well framed, could ever properly prevent.
  1154
  The term "whistleblower", pejorative and dramatic as it may sometimes sound, will not be welcomed by conscience-racked individuals who find themselves in such situations. They will take the next step perhaps only after months of angst, of doubt, of worry and of sleepless nights spent tossing with concern as they try to determine the next appropriate best step. In very few cases will a person take the next step with a glad heart.
  Public interest must take precedence over any misplaced sense of loyalty to an employer who deserves no credit for his actions, but none of us wants to create a nation of sneaks. I am pleased to say that the Bill will not do that. It encourages responsible behaviour. Loyalty to an employer is good, loyalty to truth and the wider public interest is better—and general recognition of that principle will improve the attitudes and performance of every organisation in the country.
  I strongly endorse the Bill. I hope that it receives a Second Reading in the next hour or so.
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is often said—perhaps rather unkindly—of my hon. Friends in the Whips Office that they are anxious for colleagues not to listen to arguments that are made during debate for fear that doing so might change their view.
  I have a confession to make. When I came here, I was sceptical about the Bill, but I have become a supporter during the debate, although I continue to have reservations, and I believe that it will need careful scrutiny in Committee to ensure that those reservations are fully addressed. My heart has claimed victory over my head, and I pay tribute to all those whose persuasive speeches brought about that change of heart.
  It is a curious counterbalance to have on Friday a debate about secrecy, when, arguably, Monday's debate on the Scott report was about another aspect of secrecy.
  I became rather worried as I heard the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), introducing the debate, criticising and mocking tell-tales. I was thinking at the time that loyalty was worth while, and that he was mocking loyalty. That judgment was harsh and wrong, and I apologise even for reaching it privately at that stage.
  I was brought up to believe that one of the greatest compliments one might pay someone is to ask them, "Can you keep a secret?" Coming to this place gave me a wonderful way of keeping a secret—making a speech about it in the House of Commons. That is about the best way I know of keeping a secret in Britain, partly due to the deplorable level of reporting of our debates in the national press these days. It will probably be a secret, when we read tomorrow's newspapers, that a thoughtful and civilised debate has taken place in the House today on such an important issue.
  There is a real irony about debating secrecy in a House where to make a speech about it is to keep a secret so effectively, but where secrets may be easily spread by one selective leak to a journalist in the Members' Lobby. The amount of whistleblowing that goes on there must warm the heart of the hon. Member for Islwyn. It is a proof of the definition "a secret is something you tell one person at a time," and that is what happens there regularly.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Not always.
  Mr. Luff: Indeed.

  1155
  It is regularly alleged that the country suffers from a culture of secrecy. Many hon. Members feel that sincerely. Some would argue that the Bill is but a tiny part of a wholesale package of reform that is necessary to tackle that culture of secrecy. I know that many hon. Members support the idea of a freedom of information Act.
  It is the duty of the House to protect as best it can the rights of every British citizen; that is what we are here to do. That is why, originally, I welcomed the opportunity to debate the Bill, and now I think I must welcome it.
  A Bill that sets out to protect the rights of all our nation's workers, wherever they work, would enhance the safety of all the nation's people and directly strengthen business life and confidence in public life. I believe that I have convinced myself of that argument; I need time to be sure.
  The Bill is about not only secrecy but trust. Can one do anything to build trust in an organisation simply by offering legal protection to employees? An organisation in which an individual feels that he must blow the whistle is an organisation in which trust is sadly lacking, and cannot work effectively. Our objective must be to build organisations that work on a basis of trust.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Does he agree that a marked strength of the Bill is the requirement that an internal route should be available before an external route is used? Is it not in the interests of senior management to ensure that such a route exists, because they carry the can if middle management do not carry out the safety instructions that are supposed to be in place, which are sometimes flouted?
  Mr. Luff: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I was slightly amused to hear the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) praising British Airways in that regard. It has a robust record in encouraging its employees to discuss their concerns internally—and rightly so, as safety is crucial to an airline. I would love to know what code it had in place before it was privatised—but perhaps that is a cheap, partisan point. I suspect that the private sector motive is driving British Airways: it knows that it must be seen to be completely safe, and that is a powerful incentive for being accountable and for creating the code of conduct which the hon. Gentleman has praised.
  Having listened to the debate, I accept that workers may hesitate before blowing the whistle, for fear of reprisal. However, we must remember that statutory protection exists for individuals in some circumstances, and it is correct to draw attention to it. There is protection for employees in the areas of health and safety, the assertion of statutory employment rights, and discrimination on grounds of race or sex. The Library note helpfully reminds us that section 28 and schedule 5 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 provide a great deal of protection to whistleblowers in the specific spheres of health and safety—which is probably the area that most concerns hon. Members.
  The Act gives all employees—regardless of length of service, hours of work or age—the right not to be dismissed, selected for redundancy or subject to any other detriment for a number of reasons, two of which are relevant to today's debate. The first is:
  "bringing to their employer's attention, by reasonable means and in the absence of a representative or committee who could do so on their behalf, a reasonable health or safety concern'".
  1156
  The second refers to:
  "circumstances of danger which they reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, taking or proposing to take appropriate steps to protect themselves or other persons from the danger".
  The latter provision is very useful, although it is probably flawed by the use of the phrase "and imminent". Security would not have been offered to the individuals involved in a number of cases referred to this morning, because the danger could not reasonably be said to be "imminent".
  I emphasise that the Act refers to people's taking action to protect themselves or other persons from danger. There is protection on the statute book, and employees who suffer detriment as a result of taking such action have the right to appeal to an industrial tribunal. If the complaint is upheld, the tribunal must award such compensation as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances, having regard to the infringement complained of and to any loss suffered by the employee. There is no limit to the amount of compensation that is payable under that provision. It is important to remind people that there is protection on the statute book for employees in that area.
  The Bill seeks to take that protection one step further: if the whistleblower acts in good faith, believes that what he is saying is accurate, and is not acting for personal gain, he will get extra protection. I have come to the conclusion that that is right: clearly, anything that discourages honesty could put public safety at risk. However, some of the Bill's supporters may be exaggerating their claims. I wonder whether the dreadful disasters to which they referred would have been prevented by the legislation. I suspect that the lesser issues will be addressed really effectively.
  I do not believe that the Clapham rail disaster, the Piper Alpha explosion, or the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise would not have occurred if the legislation had been on the statute book. That is taking the claim too far. I believe that the Bill will be useful in cases such as the earlier example of the woman who noticed that food sell-by dates were being changed in a supermarket. That is a serious issue with potentially serious health and safety consequences, and the legislation would assist in those circumstances.
  Although businesses recognise the need to be accountable and to institute the best possible procedures, it is correct to say that the Bill would increase their accountability. They would have to be more careful when examining internal disclosure procedures, thus preventing problems—and perhaps disasters—from occurring. I have a reservation about the conflict that exists in this place, and in any organisation, regarding confidentiality and commercially sensitive information. The sponsors believe that the existing law on confidentiality will not be affected by the Bill, but that is not clear, and we must look at it in Committee.
  Some would argue that the important thing is that the Bill would strengthen the reputation of private companies and of government. Employees who fear punishment or sense a lack of concern when raising controversial matters internally are often forced, tragically, to sacrifice their reputations—and possibly the existence of the company—by blowing the whistle externally. The introduction of a discipline on companies to improve their internal procedures is valuable, and is possibly the most attractive aspect of the Bill. The Bill will provide a system of legal and ethical checks and balances to protect the worker and the reputation of the company or public body concerned.

  1157
  Who knows—perhaps this is a bad day for the lawyers of the United Kingdom, who will see a rapid diminution in lawsuits as the Bill's provisions for pre-emptive action result in the matters not going to court in the first place. I understand the argument that trust, loyalty and commitment will all be enhanced in the employer and the employee at no cost, and possibly with some saving in cost. The Bill may be a wonderful reflection of our commitment to the rights and safety of our people and to strengthening trust in business—something that matters to Members on both sides of the House and should not be overlooked.
  I have three specific reservations that justify the need to take the Bill to Committee, and I shall briefly run through them. First, is there a danger that the Bill might increase the probability of employees making allegations in public that, by virtue of their selectivity, could damage the reputation of a company? Secondly, could the Bill make for worse decision-making in Government? Thirdly, I am worried about the malpractice schedule in the Bill.
  On the selective reporting of alleged malpractice, we know that there are rotten apples and troublemakers in companies. It would be unfair to name them, but I have worked in companies that had such individuals. There are also companies with sincere but misguided employees who simply do not understand the issues with which a company is wrestling, either because they choose not to or because they are incapable of understanding. I am slightly worried about the test for bad faith. Perpetual troublemakers and the misguided always argue that they have acted in good faith. Is the test sufficiently robust?
  The Bill offers four tests for protected disclosure: bad faith; reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure is accurate; not acting for personal gain; and taking reasonable steps to raise the matters internally. These are sensible provisions, which I support, but we need to be clearer on what the bad faith test would mean in practice, and we can discuss that in Committee.
  What happens if an individual who raises a matter internally is not satisfied with the explanation he receives? What if he misunderstands the explanation offered? What if—having fulfilled all of the tests in the Bill—he goes public with an accusation, but deliberately misses out the defence that the organisation offered him?
  I was quick to praise The Sun in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), but the press is not always free from blame. It tends to jump to conclusions—-particularly pessimistic and negative conclusions. An unkinder person might describe it as mad journalism disease. Damage can quickly be done to an organisation's reputation, and corrective action can be difficult to take.
  I can give a practical example, relating to rail safety in my constituency. The turbo trains operated by Thames Trains serving Worcester are having problems with their braking systems. No one has been injured, and the company is taking more than adequate corrective action to deal with the problem. A conductor—as we must call guards nowadays—mentioned the matter to a local journalist who was travelling on one of the trains.
  Fortunately, the journalist was a responsible individual who sought an explanation from the company. He was told that the problem is that the trains offer a better ride
  1158
  than the old-fashioned ones, which means that the rails and wheels are less worn. As a result, braking is more of a problem. The improvement in quality has created the braking difficulty. The company explained the circumstances in full, and described the action that it was taking to correct the problem, including driver training and the provision of sanding units to improve the adhesion between rail and wheel. I believe that I have got that technically correct, and the journalist was satisfied with the explanation.
  Let us say that the problem had been a bit more complex and serious and that the conductor had not chatted to a reliable journalist on the train about it, but had raised it internally under the terms of the Bill, and met those tests. Let us say that the conductor did not accept or understand the explanation given, acted in good faith and publicly revealed only part of the information to a journalist who was up against press deadlines, which made it very difficult to check the facts, and the journalist wanted to get the story into the public domain quickly, because it was a good story. In that situation, there is a huge potential for damage and a loss of good will. I do not want that to happen, unless there are very good reasons for it.
  The Bill must have built into it some protection against whistleblowing that is well meaning and in good faith, but misguided. The individual might consult internally or even say that he is partially satisfied with a company's explanation, but then change his mind and go public, so that the organisation is not prepared for his going public. That person would have met all the Bill's tests, but, in my judgment, he would have behaved irresponsibly, possibly by misunderstanding something that he was told.
  We could deal with that problem. The solution I recommend to the hon. Member for Islwyn is to impose on the individual who intends to blow the whistle a duty to inform the organisation of his intention. That requirement is currently not included in the Bill. It should perhaps even go to the extent of requiring him to say when he intends to make the statement, which would enable the company to prepare its case for the defence and to respond rapidly to the allegations. If the allegations are a result of a misunderstanding, the damage would then at least be limited. Perhaps that requirement could be considered in Committee.
  I am also slightly nervous about situations in which an organisation is falsely accused by an individual, not out of bad faith but through misunderstanding. The individual would quite likely be able to gain legal aid for a court action, whereas a medium or small-sized company would probably have very heavy legal costs imposed on it.
  I am worried about that, and I cannot see a remedy. It may be easier for the individual to pursue his grievance than for the company to defend itself. I notice that many supporters of this measure are large companies, for which it would not be a great problem, but it may be a burden for smaller and medium-sized companies. I sincerely hope that there is a way to solve that problem.
  I am aware that I am taking up a good deal of the House's time, so I shall move rapidly on to my second concern: good government. Good government always involves examining all the options, even those that are unthinkable, If we lose the ability to think the unthinkable, we diminish the quality of government, because reductio ad absurdum techniques in debate often illuminate the wisdom of a particular course of action.

  1159
  I fear that leaks from Government, whether as a result of whistleblowing or for more clandestine reasons, can make the process of government extremely difficult. I have been critical in the House about the way in which one Opposition Member incited civil servants to leak to him on the subject of rail privatisation—it was shameful and wrong—because I do not believe that civil servants should be incited to leak.
  It is a slightly partisan point, but I was alarmed by the comment by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on that occasion, in October last year:
  "the road to socialism is strewn with photocopies and brown envelopes."—[Official Report, 18 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 360.]
  That has a certain—
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Resonance.
  Mr. Luff: As my hon. Friend says, it has a certain resonance.
  I fear—I want to be proved wrong—that this Bill could turn that anonymous leaking into a torrent of information. This is not a party point. I think that secrecy has a crucial role to play in the process of decision making, and that people in Government, whether Ministers or civil servants, will be more reluctant to express a point of view orally—never mind in writing—if they believe that that point of view will be reported too widely. It may even be a point of view; it may be a point of argument that could be publicly misrepresented as a point of view. So I think secrecy is essential to good government.
  We know that there has recently been a great deal of debate about this issue in the civil service, not only as a result of the so-called arms-to-Iraq affair but also as a result of the Nolan committee's work in this sphere. I think that the new civil service code of conduct is right when it says:
  "Civil servants should conduct themselves in such a way as to deserve and retain the confidence of Ministers and to be able to establish the same relationship with those whom they may be required to serve in some future Administration. They should comply with restrictions on their political activities. The conduct of civil servants should be such that Ministers and potential future Ministers can be sure that confidence can be freely given, and that the Civil Service will conscientiously fulfil its duties and obligations to, and impartially assist, advise and carry out the policies of the duly constituted Government."
  Those are wise words of advice. I should like an assurance from those who support the Bill that nothing contained in it will undermine that important constitutional principle.
  Collective responsibility matters in any organisation, not just in government. If doubts about proposals or ideas are revealed before decisions have been reached, the decision-making process can be damaged. Perhaps the Bill should make some distinction between exposing potential problems during a decision-making process—which is difficult—and decisions themselves which, when implemented, become policy. Perhaps a distinction can be drawn—I am not sure, but I hope so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby talked about the schedule, and I am concerned about its omnibus nature. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the schedule contains some grey areas; it mentions abuse of authority, miscarriage of justice and maladministration, which are all matters of subjective judgment for individuals. I accept that the other three issues mentioned in the schedule are not.
  1160
  I am worried not merely about the subjectivity of the schedule, but about clause 1. It states that a public interest disclosure can be justified using the schedule, but it also states that it is
  "not limited to that described in the Schedule to this Act".
  Misconduct or malpractice beyond the already nebulous list would be justifiable when claiming public interest disclosure. I think that we should be a little more sure about the implications of the provision.
  Secrecy is never good of itself, but it is sometimes a necessary means to an end. Mature democracies such as ours should be better able to deal with openness. I prefer a non-legislative approach. It is for the good of democracy and business to be as open as possible—in that way, both will win the confidence of the individual.
  I shall conclude by quoting the remarks of one of my constituents. The then Sir Gordon Borrie, now Lord Borrie of Abbots Morton—writing in a document for Public Concern at Work which was published earlier this year and is entitled "Four Windows on Whistleblowing"—said:
  "A cynic might take the view that the phrase 'business ethics' is an oxymoron, i.e. the conjunction of two words of conflicting meaning, like 'deafening silence' or 'jumbo shrimps'. I believe that, at any rate, in a competitive market place, a company's own enlightened self-interest dictates that it should behave in an ethical manner.
  If a commercial organisations wants to create a good long-term reputation with customers, employees and other"—
  I apologise to my hon. Friends for the next word—
  "'stakeholders', it should, as a matter of its own choice, do more than comply with the bare requirements of the law. One of the key ways of competing for market share may well be to demonstrate high ethical standards … The adoption of ethical conduct by a business, including the development of transparent and usable mechanisms through which employees can disclose malpractice without fear, may be seen as synonymous with enlightened self-interest. In genuinely competitive markets I am confident that one needs no more than enlightened self-interest to promote and deliver ethical conduct and it cannot be doubted that it is in the interest of the business itself (as well as in the public interest) that its leaders are made aware of any malpractice in its midst."
  Whatever happens to the Bill today or during its further progress through the House—whether it succeeds or fails—both the Government and business would do well to heed the wise words of Lord Borrie.
  1.23 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: It is reasonable to assume that the disclosure of malpractice is a public benefit. The Bill does not devalue the duty of confidence, but it recognises that there is an overriding benefit in disclosing danger to the public, fraud or other sorts of illegal and improper conduct, and that protection under the law is needed for the public-spirited individual who discloses such matters.
  As hon. Members have observed, it is not easy to blow the whistle. The individual who contemplates doing so experiences conflicts of loyalty, and it may not be easy to muster the confidence to act in the public interest. The Bill encourages only the individual who is genuinely and seriously concerned for the public interest. It is not a charter for the mischievous, the sneak, the opportunist or the opinionated individual who thinks that he or she knows better than the policy of the organisation. It is a thoroughly responsible measure that has been carefully

  1161
  drafted to limit the conditions in which whistleblowing is encouraged. It would ensure that the public interest is the test and would encourage no more than the minimum public disclosure consistent with the public interest.
  The law as it stands is a mess. The DTI inspector's report on Barlow Clowes usefully reviews the state of the law and its inadequacies. Recent statutes have provided piecemeal exemptions from the law of confidence. Some measures have required disclosure in certain circumstances. They include the Companies Act 1985, the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Other legislation has authorised but not required disclosure. It includes the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
  Case law provides justification for those who break confidence in the public interest, but, none the less, there is great risk for an employee who relies on it. The inspector's report on Barlow Clowes states:
  "It is clear that a number of employees of Barlow Clowes could have disclosed their suspicions without acting in breach of their terms of employment… It has to be recognised, however, that they were under no legal duty to do so and the position of the whistle blower is frequently extremely uncomfortable. The most likely result of such whistle blowing would be an immediate if wrongful termination of employment and the prospect of a protracted dispute.".
  Increasingly, businesses recognise that they stand to benefit from satisfactory internal procedures for the exposure of malpractice. Freedom for business must be accompanied by responsibility among all staff. That is one aspect of stakeholding, and Conservative Members are unwise to mock the principle of socially responsible business practice.
  Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No. The hon. Gentleman has taken up a great deal of time already.
  In their own terms, the Government do not want to impose regulation on businesses, and, as has been argued, the Bill would strengthen self-regulation.
  Let us consider the Government themselves and whistleblowing. The damage to democracy through the failure of accountability and the poor quality of decision taking arising from the culture of secrecy has been glaringly exposed in the Scott report.
  The report's exposure of one particular episode demonstrates the potential value of whistleblowing. On 22 June 1988, a whistleblower within Matrix Churchill wrote to the Foreign Secretary to warn him that the company was supplying weapons making equipment to Saddam Hussein. The letter is quoted by Scott at paragraph D2.318, which states that the writer of the letter
  "wrote to Sir Geoffrey Howe and said the company was 'working on a thirty million pound order for CNC lathes to be used for munitions production in Iraq,' and that 'these machines are going to be used to machine shell cases'".
  Scott tells us that neither the Foreign Secretary nor any other Minister was shown the letter or informed of it, nor was any action taken on it then. Three years later, as the trial approached in 1991, a DTI official minuted internally in terms of the utmost cynicism, and that document is quoted by Scott at paragraph G10.29:
  "The difficulty of course is not simply that the letter exists, but that the writer of the letter no doubt still exists and even if he has not so far been involved in the proceedings by either the prosecution
  1162
  or defence he may well make the existence of his letter public. The chances of his doing so will no doubt be all the greater if he is one of those who has already been made redundant or will be made redundant next month. It is tempting to suggest that we might claim PII"—
  public interest immunity—
  "for document 4"—
  disclosing the receipt of the employee's letter—
  "but I fear that doing so in the face of the possibility that the information in it may well appear across the front of the tabloid press during the course of court proceedings, makes me somewhat diffident about suggesting it."
  It was the Matrix Churchill whistleblower's letter that caused alarm bells to ring with the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was told about it. He sidelined five times a sentence advising him:
  "Assuming the writer retains his public spirited interest it may well be that as the details of the case get into the public domain he may feel moved to write again, but possibly to the press."
  The right hon. Gentleman shrewdly realised the risks of being seen to be party to a cover-up.
  That episode demonstrates powerfully the case for systems in the civil service and all organisations to ensure that alerts to malpractice are effectively acted on and that there is protection for whistleblowers. How different and how much happier for the Government the story would have been if that letter had been acted on in 1988. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) said, the costs of ignoring such messages in human lives, public money, public shame and the reputation of government or business are immense.
  While Ministers defiantly snarl that they have been acquitted by Scott, civil servants are deeply worried. Elizabeth Symons, general secretary of the First Division Association of Civil Servants, wrote in The Guardian on 8 February:
  "It has always been unclear as to the course of action open to a Civil Servant who knows that a Minister has sought to evade ministerial responsibility by, for example, misleading either deliberately or unknowingly the House of Commons. That was the issue raised by the Westland affair, and is one of the major issues of debate in relation to Matrix Churchill."
  It does not appear that the Scott report offers help to civil servants in that difficulty.
  Paragraph 11 of the new civil service code states that a civil servant who is required to act improperly should report the matter in accordance with procedures laid down in departmental guidance or codes of conduct. A civil servant should also report to the appropriate authorities evidence of criminal or unlawful activity or other breaches of the code. Those provisions are not sufficient. They do not clearly cover activities that, although not criminal or illegal, are unethical or unconstitutional.
  The code does not make it clear what duties or rights a civil servant has when a Minister misleads Parliament—one of the crucial issues in the arms to Iraq affair. What is a civil servant entitled to do when he or she is required to draft letters, parliamentary answers or statements to Select Committees that tell half a truth or less than the truth and effectively mislead Members of Parliament? What can a civil servant do when he or she knows or reasonably supposes that official statistics are being abused?
  These are growing difficulties for civil servants in fulfilling their duty, as described in paragraph 1 of the code of conduct, to assist the Government with

  1163
  "integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity."
  With contracting out, civil servants do not have the same access to information in areas for which their Ministers remain responsible. The "commercial: in confidence" formula is extensively used—far more in this country than in the United States—to prevent officials and politicians from knowing what is going on.
  In a context of increased competitiveness—market testing, contracting out and time-limited personal contracts—pressures increasingly drive officials in the direction of expediency and self-serving survival. In an increasingly marketised public service, the ethic of public service for which the British civil service has been justly famed, and which has been the envy of Governments and peoples in many other countries, is harder to retain and to transmit to new generations of public officials.
  Mr. Gladstone famously said in 1879 that the British Constitution
  "presumes more boldly than any other the good sense and good faith of those who work it."
  Even after Scott, the Government appear to be unrepentant. Grimly, the new code of practice's final paragraph states:
  "Where a matter cannot be resolved by the procedures set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, on a basis which the Civil Servant concerned is able to accept, he or she should either carry out his or her instructions or resign from the Civil Service."
  It adds:
  "Civil Servants should continue to observe their duties of confidentiality after they have left Crown employment."
  We need to support the good sense and good faith on which Mr. Gladstone wanted to rely. That means providing legal protection for whistleblowers, so that, if they cannot achieve their purpose in the public interest through internal channels, they may make public their criticisms—always provided that they are properly founded and are made in good faith.
  Alongside protection for whistleblowers, we should have freedom of information legislation to limit the scope for unnecessary secrecy and the abuses that it allows, and to limit the occasions on which whistleblowing may be necessary.
  The position of the whistleblower would seem, in some ways, less unfavourable in local government than in Whitehall. The Audit Commission has done much to encourage responsible whistleblowing. The 1995 update of the Audit Commission's publication, "Protecting the Public Purse: Ensuring Probity in Local Government", stresses the principle that
  "employees should be encouraged to come forward if dishonest acts are identified or suspected."
  The document reproduces and endorses 16 recommendations to local authorities put forward by Public Concern at Work.
  Yet the experience of Mr. Bernard Crofton provides a disturbing cautionary tale. Mr. Crofton has been reinstated as director of housing in Hackney, but when he set out, energetically and courageously, to deal with fraud within the authority, he was sacked on the grounds of racial harassment and gross misconduct. In the immensely valuable evidence that he recently submitted to the Social Security Select Committee, he threw much light on the circumstances in which fraud thrives unchallenged in organisations and the reasons why people keep their heads down.
  1164
  In the national health service, the situation is also confused and creates enormous difficulties for conscientious staff who have become aware of malpractice. I applaud the Secretary of State for Health for encouraging doctors to blow the whistle, but I am not clear that he has similarly encouraged, let alone protected, other staff. Ms Sue Machin, a social worker, exposed maltreatment at Ashworth special hospital in 1993 and was sacked. In 1995, after two years of injustice, an industrial tribunal ruled that she had been unfairly dismissed.
  The journal Adviser, in 1994, commented on the Royal College of Nursing's whistleblower scheme. It stated:
  "Many nurses are using the scheme in order to vent their frustrations at their inability to speak out, and the scheme has revealed just to what extent nurses are frightened and unhappy about the conditions in which they have to work."
  There is a tension between contracts of employment that insist on strict confidentiality and the nurses' code of professional conduct. The code calls on
  "Each registered nurse, midwife and health visitor … above all to safeguard the interests of individual patients and clients".
  If nurses do not speak out, their patients may suffer. If they do, they themselves are liable to suffer.
  Some trusts, such as the King's Healthcare trust are admirably enlightened about whistleblowing. But Christine Hancock, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, writing in the Health Service Journal last September, felt obliged to say:
  "In recent years, nurses have found it increasingly difficult to discuss standards of care openly because of a prevailing culture of secrecy compounded by confidentiality clauses in employment contracts."
  She continued, pertinently:
  "If the Government's proposals are to work without inspiring a climate of fear, health services must encourage openness about professional concerns. Over the long term, this would make almost all whistle blowing unnecessary."
  Who is to decide where the public interest lies? That is a question that the Government posed on page 31 of the White Paper on open government and conspicuously failed to answer. It is a question that Ministers and high officials, even if they are not complacent, find it painful to consider. It needs humility to accept that the low-ranking member of staff or the mere public-spirited citizen may point out the defects of their judgments and systems. The emperor resents the little boy who observes that he has no clothes.
  Ministers and their advisers find it equally unendurable that the courts should be set over them. Governments are jealous of power and they resent the judges who now so frequently find themselves obliged to strike down Government decisions.
  The Matrix Churchill affair is only the latest and most notorious in a series of instances that have shown that the responsibility for determining the public interest cannot safely be left in the hands of the Government alone. We shall find a greater safety through a wider diffusion of information and a plurality of responsibility. The legal protection for responsible whistleblowers that the Bill would provide would be a valuable additional protection to our liberties and to public safety.
  1.39 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on securing a high place in the ballot and

  1165
  on the way in which he presented the Bill. My hon. Friend has provided us with an example of the careful and measured approach that can be taken in introducing a private Member's Bill. I hope that on that basis it will command the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I am aware of the difficulties in presenting a Bill, because I was successful in having a private Member's Bill enacted last year. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn that, once he has been through the entire process, he may participate in the ballot next year while silently praying that he does not secure a high place in it.
  I wish only to clarify one or two matters that are related to the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy in 1987 and to raise one other case.
  The Bill seeks to lift the burden on employees and other people in similar circumstances when there is a conflict between the narrow interests of an employer and the wider public interest. I am pleased that the Bill would rule out any malicious claims. Any claims would have to be made in good faith. The Bill would assist greatly people such as Joy Cawthorne, who had to search her conscience as she encountered a huge moral dilemma. In the face of wrongdoing, was she to break the loyalty that she felt to her employer? Was she to be silent and put other people at risk by turning a blind eye to what was clear wrongdoing?
  I learned during the passage of the Bill which I introduced last year that the whistleblower needs the ability to draw attention to the wrongdoing—I am talking of an allegation made in good faith—without fear of reprisal and, secondly, needs someone who can take action following the claim. If there is no one in the organisation who can take action and the necessary systems are not in place, there is a need for the whistleblower to have protection when making a statement outside the area of employment.
  There was the appalling tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise on 6 March at Zeebrugge harbour. We know that 188 lives were lost—150 passengers and 38 crew. It was well known following Mr. Justice Sheen's inquiry that the ship capsized because it put out with the bow doors open. The then Secretary of State stated clearly that it was the failure of the company to take note of safety measures that caused the ship to go down. But on 24 July, he said:
  "The report draws attention to the failures on behalf of the management of the company to give attention to warnings from the masters of the vessels in their fleet or suggestions of ways of improving safety."—[Official Report, 24 July 1987; Vol. 120, c. 678.]
  Effectively, the company ignored warnings from the masters and from the joint committees that existed on each ship, which had a remit to consider safety matters. Crew members were predicting that a disaster would take place because of shortcomings in safety measures.
  Last Wednesday week, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who represented Dover when the Sheen report was made public, sadly tried to rewrite the history of the Zeebrugge disaster. I gave the hon. Gentleman notice that I would raise the matter. Regrettably, on
  1166
  21 February, he said that there was one simple, basic reason why the ship went down. He referred to alcoholism among certain members of the crew. He said:
  "In reality, the officers were not in control—extreme left-wing trade unionists were in control of the ship."—[Official Report, 21 February 1996; Vol. 272. c.291.]
  His allegations, unlike many of those made by whistleblowers, were made under the privilege of the House.
  It is sad that his statements were entirely untrue and without foundation. Nowhere in the Sheen report and nowhere in the Secretary of State's statement was there any reference to alcohol or unions having caused the ship to go down. The hon. Gentleman's comments were cruel, bearing in mind that some of his constituents were crew members. They were the people who warned that the disaster could happen. The hon. Gentleman has accused them of being alcoholics. He was talking about people who either fought bravely and lost their lives or who suffered long-term psychological damage by being involved in an appalling tragedy.
  In response to my early-day motion 522, which condemned the hon. Gentleman's unwarranted and distressing comments, an amendment was tabled admitting that only one crew member admitted having a drink. That is a long way from rampant alcoholism having caused the ship to go down.
  With the ninth anniversary of the disaster approaching next Wednesday, I hope that, on mature reflection, the hon. Member for Dover will reconsider his comments and withdraw them and apologise, particularly to the crew who tried to blow the whistle to save the lives of the people who were killed in that tragedy. Parliamentary democracy is not served by bogus attempts to reveal wrongdoing under privilege of the House.
  The other case to which I shall refer came to light during the passage of my Bill, which is now the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995. It was the most distressing and harrowing case of a whistleblower who made every attempt to do what she thought was right. She predicted, with chilling precision, what would happen if safety measures were not put in place at the St. Albans venture centre in Dorset, back in 1992. In a letter to the managing director, she said:
  "There is most definitely not one person here on this site technically qualified to instruct … As for sending out people on oversized classes on the water, I really do feel you are cutting it fine".
  She goes on to say:
  "At present we are walking a fine line between 'getting away with it' and having a very serious incident."
  She litters her letter with similar comments. Near the end, addressing the managing director, she says:
  "We feel that you at head office could sort out some of these for us … we think you should have a careful look at your standards of safety. Otherwise you might find yourselves trying to explain why someone's son or daughter will not be coming home.
  Nobody wishes or wants that to happen, but it will sooner or later."
  Within six months, four of my young constituents died in the Lyme bay tragedy.
  In his reply to Joy Cawthorne, the managing director said:
  "You can be assured that we are concerned that any problems that are identified are resolved as quickly as possible."

  1167
  He served 14 months of a three-year sentence for manslaughter. His was the first company found guilty of corporate manslaughter.
  That case is vital in the context of this debate, because had Joy Cawthorne still been employed by that company, she would have been very afraid that her actions would have resulted, perhaps, in her sacking, or other things being brought down on her head.
  The whistleblower needs protection, like Joy Cawthorne. She needed someone to whom she could go. For those reasons I support the Bill. By supporting the Bill, we shall protect and support those who have to search deep into their conscience to do what is in the best interests not of themselves but, ultimately, of others.
  1.48 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): This has been one of the most interesting debates that I have had the privilege of listening to in the House.
  I come to the Dispatch Box aware of the necessary courtesies involved in the Government responding to an important private Member's Bill. I am also aware of the fact that I am bound to fail, because if I tried to address every single argument that has been deployed in the debate, I would assuredly threaten eternity, and I do not believe that those who have good will towards the Bill want me to do that. I can tell the House that I shall not threaten eternity, but part of the price for that is that some hon. Members may feel that I have not addressed everything that was said. I accept that risk.
  Our debate began with a lucid presentation by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who was ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). He in turn took some interesting interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). There was further support from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), but my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) shared a number of anxieties with the House. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) supported the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West developed his reservations.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) revived some of our favourite memories of him, not lightly, I grant, but in the most serious vein. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby had serious misgivings. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) returned to some themes that he has been working on and maturing over time. He has form, as they say in the criminal world, in these areas of activity. He has been here before—[Interruption.] I did not hear those interventions, but I think that they were probably quite amusing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) gave the impression that he had come as a sceptic and had become a convert. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) made a serious and important contribution to our debate, although it was not the longest. He rightly has the credit for the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995 which followed the tragedy that was visited on four of his young constituents; he will always have the credit for that.
  1168
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—I would still like to call him my hon. Friend so I refer to him now as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon—was as lucid today as he always is. If he had been in his place, I would have assured him on the following point. Hon. Members will appreciate that he spoke about humility and touched on the analogy with Hans Christian Andersen's story about the emperor and the little boy. I wanted to tell him that, when I stand at the Dispatch Box, I am the veritable embodiment of humility. In that spirit, I acknowledge, once again, that I could not answer all the points in this interesting debate without taking far longer than any of the friends of the Bill would want me to take.
  I have considerable sympathy with the objectives of the Bill; who could not have? The hon. Member for Islwyn has told the House of the support he has received from interested parties and the debate has shown that that support is reflected by hon. Members. However, although the Government broadly agree with the principles of the Bill, they see considerable difficulties in going down the road of legislation.
  Legislation should always be approached with great caution and should not be entered into hastily. It should be a final step to meet an inescapable need. People should be encouraged to put their own houses in order without the constraint of statute, and that is especially true when it comes to employers running businesses. Only in particular and extreme circumstances where that approach does not work should legislation be considered.
  There has been much discussion about whether the Bill is or is not deregulatory. It may be worth repeating the Government's position on regulation, the objectives behind the deregulation initiative and the tools that we are using to achieve those objectives. We are not opposed to regulation; well-thought-out and sensibly enforced regulations, limited in scope to what is truly necessary, are consistent with an open, innovative and growing business community. Bad regulation has the opposite effect, as it stands in the way of innovation, investment and jobs. Our deregulation objective is to reduce the burden of existing legislation and paperwork, and to minimise the burden of new legislation.
  The Government's approach to good legislation is based on the three principles of the deregulation task force. The first is proportionality, which means that the benefits of any measure must outweigh the costs it imposes. The second is "think small first": regulations that cover small firms must ensure that they are able to comply with them. The third is goal-based regulation: the aim is to specify the provision's objective and to leave as much flexibility as possible, so that businesses have the freedom to comply in the way that best meets their individual circumstances.
  The new system is more rigorous. It requires the Government's compliance cost assessment requirements to be undertaken. They ensure that all proposed regulations that affect businesses are thoroughly costed. Ministers will consider the compliance cost assessments personally and certify that the balance between cost and benefit has been appropriately struck. Special consideration must be given to the Bill's effects on small firms that do not have the resources or time to deal with elaborate measures.

  1169
  In accordance with those principles, employment protection legislation sets out a minimum necessary framework of protection, on which employers can build as suits their circumstances. That framework already provides protection for individuals that the Bill aims to cover. The protections that exist in law include the civil service and health service codes, the rules relating to pension trustees and activity centres, which I have already mentioned, the body of health and safety legislation and civil law, not least in its applications to unfair and wrongful dismissals.
  The two-year service requirement for most unfair dismissal complaints is necessary to ensure that unfair dismissal provisions do not weigh too heavily on business. We recognise, however, that some circumstances are so crucial that the two-year period should not apply. Some of those do not concern our debate. Two exceptions, however, relate directly to whistleblowing. They show that we are always ready to consider sympathetically the case for specific protection where that is justified.
  The first exception is health and safety. Hon. Members have mentioned the Piper Alpha tragedy. It led to the provision of strong protection for employees working on oil rigs through the Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Act 1992. That protection was enhanced and extended to people working onshore from August 1993. The provisions make it automatically unfair to dismiss, to select for redundancy or to subject to any other detriment any employees, regardless of their length of service, hours of work or age, in particular circumstances.
  Similar protection will apply from next year to employee pension trustees to ensure that they feel free to undertake their duties without fear of reprisals. Hon. Members have mentioned the Maxwell case. Those existing measures show the Government's preferred approach to whistleblowing. Those protections deal properly with the worst cases that may be relevant to the Bill. They build on the Government's belief that internal procedures are the best way of dealing with such problems and that employees should always follow those procedures before considering whether to breach their duty of confidence by talking to the press.
  Paragraph 114 of the first Nolan report states:
  "On the other hand, we would not wish to encourage vexatious or irresponsible complaints which undermine public confidence in institutions without due cause. We believe"—
  this is the important quotation—
  "the best way to achieve this balance is to develop sound internal procedures backed by an external review."
  Statutory measures are not employees' only recourse. Those who are victimised for raising ethical concerns may have civil remedies. They could sue for breach of contract or wrongful dismissal, or claim damages if their employer provides an inaccurate reference maliciously or without exercising a duty of care. There are other possibilities.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: While I support the Bill's principles, may I ask the Minister to address the scope under common law for widening the clauses in employment contracts to cover the concerns that have been expressed?
  Mr. Taylor: In general terms, the Government's philosophy is that a contract of employment is a discreet
  1170
  matter between the employer and the employee and that it should be worked out by them to their mutual satisfaction in the circumstances of the industry or area of employment in which they are engaged. I should not want the Government to intrude by gratuitously specifying terms that should be in such contracts. I would prefer the parties to the contract to work it out for themselves.
  The law is not a panacea for all the ills that surround the issue. We need to create and encourage openness and dialogue within businesses, so that employees are encouraged to express their reasonable concerns in a climate in which constructive comments are welcomed. Some may ask what the Government are doing in their role as employers. Successive debates on the Nolan and Scott reports have focused attention on the civil service and its relationship with Ministers. We heard a good deal about that today.
  Until recently, it might have been argued that procedures for civil servants to voice concern within Government did not command universal confidence, but the Government have recently responded to that issue. The civil service code, which was introduced on 1 January 1996, contains broad-ranging provisions whereby a civil servant can report—first within his or her Department and ultimately to the independent civil service commissioners—a breach of the code or a requirement to act in a way which, for that person, raises a fundamental issue of conscience.
  In preparing the code, the Government's objective was to maintain and build on the consensus that greeted the original draft code that was produced by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The Government accepted the substance of all the recommendations of the Nolan committee on the code. Those were: that the code should cover wrongdoing of which a civil servant is aware although in which he is not personally involved; wider reporting of appeals by the civil service commissioners; and a confidential appeal channel that is independent of a civil servant's line management. We also accepted that the recommendations should be introduced as soon as possible.
  The Government produced a revised draft in July 1995 to allow comment on the text by the civil service unions and others. This further consultation resulted in only a few minor amendments and meant that, by the end of last year, a text had been arrived at which in all substantive respects commanded near-universal approval. Given that consensus, the code is a precious asset.
  The important measures in the code are followed in key areas of the public service. In themselves they provide a response to the sort of issues that were raised by Public Concern at Work, which is one of the Bill's main backers. In this respect it is worth noting what the Nolan committee said in its first report. The committee made it clear that it would not want to encourage vexatious or irresponsible complaints which undermined public confidence in institutions without due cause. It said that the best way to proceed was through development of sound internal procedures that were backed by external review.
  In its submission to the Nolan committee, Public Concern at Work noted:
  "Rather than advocate that the whistle should be blown outside—our pre-eminent aim is that the concern should be raised internally with those accountable for the organisation … but as this

  1171
  submission seeks to show, we consider that in many areas of public life there are presently no, or no adequate, alternatives for such concerns to be raised."
  Those alternatives have now been provided. Therefore, a Bill that sanctions public whistleblowing is unnecessary in areas of the public service, as effective procedures have already been established for the undoubtedly preferable option of internal whistleblowing.
  I shall now consider the Bill's provisions in more detail. I appreciate the great care with which the Bill was drafted, but I have several anxieties about the detail, which are more than quibbles. I cannot envisage how the Bill might be amended to meet those concerns.
  First, despite what the hon. Member for Islwyn said, the Bill would impose a considerable burden on business. I heard the hon. Gentleman's argument that the Bill was intended to be deregulatory, but his explanation was not convincing.
  Any statutory imposition on employers is a burden on all those who have to find out about the legislation and on those who would wish to tackle the issue in their own way. Legislation such as licensing and other statutory controls would be the appropriate response in only a tiny proportion of cases in which an individual has been hesitant about drawing attention to a worry. The majority of cases can and should be sorted out by the employer.
  The Bill is all the more burdensome—to my mind, unacceptably so—because of the enormous uncertainty about its effect. In any specific case, individuals will not know whether they will be protected because they are unlikely to be experts in what the courts might consider to be the public interest. One may say that that is their concern; the Bill aims to take only a small first step and it is up to the responsible individual to be sure that he or she is acting in the public interest.
  However, employers will be equally uncertain. The misconduct that the Bill might cover is very loosely drawn—in fact limitless, because the matters listed in the schedule are only examples. In what circumstances can maladministration in a private firm be a matter of public interest? If a public company's shareholders are interested, does that constitute a public interest? When does its injustice to an individual become such a matter?
  A solicitor specialising in the field may know the answer, but employers, individuals and many of their advisers will not. The circumstances are crucial, and in many cases neither the employer nor the individual would know whether the protection applied until it was too late, the disclosure had been made and a court had been asked to decide.
  The Bill as drafted is likely to cut across many professional rules. Its effect is to impose blanket provisions regarding, for example, the steps that a whistleblower must take to draw attention to a matter internally, but certain professions have their own rules on that matter. Auditors are an example.
  There is anxiety that the Bill may permit professional advisers to disclose confidential information, not only to a proper authority, but more widely. Any regulation should have regard to the position of the different advisers in question. It is undesirable simply to cut across professional rules applying to the disclosure of confidential information, which had been worked out to suit a specific profession, by imposing different universal standards, which may well be inappropriate.
  1172
  The individual's motives may be finely balanced and difficult for the courts—never mind the employer—to decide. As I read the Bill, the onus of proof on bad faith is on the employer. Other queries surround the proposed remedies.
  Although the hon. Member for Islwyn optimistically hopes that the Bill, if passed, would be invoked rarely, I cannot be so sanguine. The uncertainty in its effect would be likely to lead to a considerable volume of difficult cases, and meanwhile neither employers nor individuals could be confident about where they stood. Inevitably, a proportion of cases—perhaps a large proportion, in such an uncertain area—would be found to be without foundation, putting employers to unnecessary trouble and expense.
  The hon. Member for Islwyn told us of the support that the Bill has received from business. I wish to make a couple of points about that. First, we welcome employers who are prepared to meet the cost of introducing their own systems and would encourage them to do so, but we do not consider it right to impose blanket legislation on all employers, requiring those who cannot afford the burdens to bear them as well as those who can. Secondly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to examine carefully the terms in which employers have offered support. In general, I believe that he will find that they support the principle that individuals who raise matters of public interest through appropriate channels should not be penalised as a result.
  As I have said, who could fail to support such a principle? That is probably why my Department has received no letters objecting to the Bill. However, when employers examine the proposed legislation in a little detail, the hon. Gentlemen may find that they will express considerable doubts and fears about the practicality of such a measure, for the reason that I have just given. The Government certainly have those doubts and it may be why, of the letters supporting the Bill sent to my Department, only one is from an employer or employers' organisation.
  The Government encourage open communications and employee involvement in the workplace. That must be the key to the problems that I have identified today. We do not merely encourage open communications and employee involvement, but rather see that as an essential element in achieving and maintaining competitiveness. Involving employees makes good sense for all sorts of reasons—not simply those that we are discussing today. Companies that involve their employees and have open communications are much less likely to have problems in the areas that we are discussing.
  Employers and professional bodies are increasingly recognising the benefits of having their own systems. Concerned individuals can make their worries known though a large number of existing avenues. Increasingly, the complicated and unclear provisions proposed in the Bill will be rendered redundant by more appropriate voluntary schemes.
  When I began my remarks, I knew that I would be unable to reconcile the time available to me with my obligation to try to answer all of the questions. I shall keep faith with my endeavour not to trespass on eternity, as I believe that that is the priority—I think that the House will agree with that.

  1173
  In conclusion, I applaud the motives of the hon. Member for Islwyn in bringing forward the Bill. I welcome the highlighting of an important issue which will draw employers' attention to the need to establish ready, suitable procedures through which their employees can pursue such matters should that prove necessary. However, I do not believe that the Bill is a practical or desirable way forward—even though I know that it is well intentioned.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I thank my hon. Friends for cutting their congratulations short, but the Minister has left me only four minutes in which to respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on their presentation of the Bill. This is the first time in eight and a half years of debate in the House that the argument in favour of proposed legislation has been won so comprehensively.
  Even those who oppose the Bill—such as the Minister, who does not want it to receive further consideration in Committee—have been forced on to the back foot. They have had to accept both the concept and the principle behind the Bill. There is therefore no reason why Ministers should prevent the Bill from receiving further consideration in Committee and returning to the House. If the Minister is serious about taking a cross-party approach to the issue of ethics in the public and private sectors, he should support consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  In truth, the Bill is about good governance, whether in the public, the private or the voluntary sector. It would assist in establishing better management techniques; it would be an aid, not a drag, on management. Over time, it would assist companies to change their culture and to ensure good practice and good management internally. As fraud was rooted out, companies would prosper: they would not be weakened or lose out as a result of fraudulent activities.
  The Bill would ensure the provision of good quality public services. The managers of those services would be accountable for the way in which they managed and for the contractual arrangements that were agreed between them and the service providers. The Bill would also ensure good codes of practice in the voluntary sector when managing public resources.
  As Members of Parliament, we have absolute privilege and, in the past eight and a half years, I have seen hon. Members on both sides of the House use that privilege to great effect. They have examined statutory requirements and breaches of legal obligations—such as the improper use of public and private funds, the abuse of authority, miscarriages of justice and maladministration. As hon. Members, we have a privilege—we are protected in law. That is not the case for the ordinary citizen or employee, who can be the victim of internal gagging or disciplinary procedures; who can be accused of breach of contract; who can lose their employment; who can be stripped of their self-esteem; and who can have their professional confidence undermined and their public duty ridiculed. That is not acceptable in any circumstances.
  1174
  Four days after the debate on Scott, it is this House's duty—the public would demand it of us—to give the Bill a fair wind and allow it to go into Committee. We must be serious about European and corporate fraud, public safety, quality in the caring professions and ensuring that support services exist. We must ensure that policing arrangements are fair and above board and that police officers can look into maladministration without suffering attacks on their personal integrity. Civil servants must be able to raise successfully with Ministers issues that they believe go against the code of conduct, and do so in a way that will not destroy their reputation or career.
  For all those reasons, I ask the Minister to support the Bill in a meaningful sense—allow it to go to Committee and then back to the Floor of the House for further consideration.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes Nil.

  Division No. 65]

  [2.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Barnes, Harry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Barron, Kevin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Jowell, Tessa

  Benton, Joe

  Keen, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Khabra, Piara S

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Burden, Richard

  McCartney, Ian

  Byers, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  McMaster, Gordon

  Carrington, Matthew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Madden, Max

  Cohen, Harry

  Maddock, Diana

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Marek, Dr John

  Corston, Jean

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Meacher, Michael

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Michael, Alun

  Dafis, Cynog

  Miller, Andrew

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Denham, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Dowd, Jim

  Murphy, Paul

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  O'Hara, Edward

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Pearson, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter L

  Flynn, Paul

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Gapes, Mike

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Gerrard, Neil

  Purchase, Ken

  Gill, Christopher

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Rathbone, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hain, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hall, Mike

  Sheerman, Barry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Heppell, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Simpson, Alan

  Hodge, Margaret

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  1175

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Watson, Mike

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Wilkinson, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wise, Audrey

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Derek Fatchett and Mr. David Jamieson.

  Walley, Joan

  NOES

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Michael Bates.

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

  Interest on Debts Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.27 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  "It is not a question of never getting their money, but the time it takes to receive it".
  That is the definition, coined by a leading firm of accountants, of one of the largest problems that United Kingdom companies face. The problem is, of course, late payment, which my Bill attempts to address.
  I want to get it straight from the start that the Bill is not about bad debts—payments that, for one reason or another, will never be made—but about poor credit management or, more often, cynical and wilful delaying tactics in settling accounts to obtain free credit facilities from weaker suppliers.
  I claim to be proposing not a panacea for British businesses, but a measure that would have made a tangible difference to the 5,000 firms that went under last year due to late payment.
  If the House wants an example of the problem, it need look no further than the Deputy Prime Minister who, earlier this month, was only too happy to boast about his skill at "stringing along creditors" with such sharp practices as omitting second signatures from cheques, ensuring that the words and figures on cheques did not match or simply waiting until the writ arrived. His defence—that everyone got paid in the end—may satisfy his conscience, but his inability to gasp the seriousness of his actions goes to the heart of the issue.
  I repeat my opening line:
  "It is not a question of never getting their money, but the time it takes to receive it".
  The result of the cynical manipulation of trade credit can be devastating for some firms. In extreme cases, they can be put out of business. More usually, the effect is to restrict business expansion, so destroying potential jobs, destabilising the marketplace and holding back national economic growth.
  An excellent example of the measurable effect of late payment was given in a recent article by Paul Linford in Cardiff's local newspaper, the South Wales Echo. He cites the case of a do-it-yourself supply firm that was owed £90,000 in late payments, £50,000 of which was overdue two months. The firm had to invest about 30 hours a week solely to chase those late payments—nearly one person's entire working week. That was a waste of time and the money could have been devoted instead to the company's growth and development.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Friday next.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

  WATER (CONSERVATION AND CONSUMER CHOICE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The Question is, That the Bill be read a Second time. Those of that opinion say aye.
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, no.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? Friday next.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill was clearly objected to after the House had determined that the Bill should receive a Second Reading. I ask you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Bill received a Second Reading without, as required by "Erskine May", the appropriate objection and that we should proceed with further stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had not quite completed putting the Question.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

  PERIODICALS (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 22 March.

  WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFORM) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

  BRITISH TIME (EXTRA DAYLIGHT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26 January].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 11th March—

  (1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Welsh Business not later than Ten o'clock; and

  (2) Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply with the insertion in line 41, after the words 'At Ten o'clock', of the words 'or immediately after the previous business has been disposed of, whichever is the later'.—[Mr: MacKay.]

  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

  Telecommunication Masts
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of planning controls over telecommunication masts. My interest has been stimulated by the concern surrounding proposals in my constituency, but my inquiries lead me to believe that the problem is widespread.
  Telecommunication masts can be erected up to a height of 15 m, or 50 ft, without any need for planning permission to be obtained. Given the growth of the telecommunications industry, which I broadly welcome and which the Department for Trade and Industry is actively encouraging, there is a danger that masts will proliferate in a visually intrusive and environmentally damaging manner.
  I understand that it is the Government's policy to facilitate the growth of telecommunication systems because of the benefits they can bring. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State will confirm that. However, there are plenty of other industries besides telecommunications that confer benefits, but which are not allowed to put up buildings at will without going through the normal planning process. Indeed, I find it extraordinary that an industry which is clearly expanding rapidly on the basis of growing demand and also achieving attractive financial returns, should now be singled out for privileged treatment.
  I am all in favour of keeping the planning process as simple as possible and trying to help planning authorities, applicants for planning permission and objectors by enabling decisions to be taken swiftly, and uncertainty to be resolved as quickly as possible. However, the importance of keeping regulation to a minimum does not have to mean that one form of development—and a potentially unattractive one at that—should be given a fast track through the normal system of controls.
  The present arrangements allow unacceptable outcomes to slip through too often and too easily. There are plenty of other industries, many of which create jobs, attract investment to rural areas and improve service to their customers, which would dearly love to have a similar privileged position. Furthermore, individual householders, who have struggled for years to obtain approval for apparently inoffensive and modest alterations to their own properties, are understandably outraged that historic and cherished landscapes can suddenly be destroyed virtually without warning.
  I recognise that a determined local authority, even under present regulations, has the power to block an especially offensive telecommunications mast, if it is minded to do so, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State would be able to tell me how many times that power has been used. I suspect that the answer is that the power has been used very infrequently.
  The present regulations, which classify masts of less than 15 m in height as permitted development, are deficient in two respects. First, there is no obligation on either the telecommunications operators or the local planning authority to publicise any proposals to erect such masts. In practice, therefore, the first that some people—
  1180
  who may be directly affected by the construction of such masts—know about the development is when they see the completed masts.
  Given that the sites chosen for the masts are often, for operational reasons, visually prominent, the number of people affected can be great and may not be confined to those living in immediately adjacent property. I consider it entirely unsatisfactory that members of the public may find themselves confronted by a fait accompli, as a result of development about which they knew nothing until it was too late, and on which they had no opportunity to comment.
  My second concern about the present procedure is the grossly inadequate timetable allowed to local planning authorities. During a space of only 28 days, the authorities must undertake consultation with the public, hold negotiations when appropriate with the operator, and reach a final decision on the merits of individual proposals. That 28-day period commences on the date on which the application from the telecommunications operator was received by the authority.
  Those of us who have struggled to assist constituents over the years to overcome the seemingly endless bureaucracy and inordinate delays involved in the planning process are astonished that, apparently for the convenience of one already highly successful industry, an impossibly short deadline is imposed on local planning authorities.
  I am quite unable to understand why the normal protection offered to the environment for the benefit of residents in urban and, more especially, in rural areas is not available in those cases. There is no reason whatever why such development should not be subject to normal planning controls when smaller and intrinsically less offensive development is still subject to them.
  I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to the widespread and growing concern which is felt, not just by me, but by many other hon. Members, by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and by the Countryside Movement, whose chairman—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—has written to me to express his support.
  The ideal response would be to bring all such developments within the ambit of normal planning controls. That would have immediate and considerable benefits and would be widely supported. Failing that, and perhaps as interim measures, my hon. Friend could take two other steps.
  The first would be to introduce a requirement for telecommunications operators and local planning authorities to publicise proposals for telecommunications masts, in the same way that other planning proposals are publicised. Although even that measure could not guarantee that all those affected would be made aware of the proposed developments in advance, it would still represent a huge step forward from the present completely unsatisfactory position. Many more people would be alerted to the possibility of a mast in their neighbourhood, and would have the opportunity to express their views about it.
  Secondly, the very limited 28-day period now available to local planning authorities to consult, negotiate and decide should be extended to at least eight weeks. I do not believe that that extension would significantly disadvantage the industry. It would make it much more

  1181
  likely, however, that local opinion would be properly consulted and that sensible negotiations were carried out to minimise the environmental impact of telecommunications masts that were deemed acceptable. In extreme cases, local authorities would have sufficient time to give a considered refusal to proposals which were simply unacceptable, and where negotiations had failed to produce an agreement.
  I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make the changes that I have suggested applicable to all new proposals for telecommunications masts, regardless of how low or how acceptable their positions may be.
  A further concern affects my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), as a result of applications for telecommunications masts to be sited in Dedham Vale, an area of outstanding natural beauty. Having lived on the edge of the vale for the past 13 years, I am especially sensitive to the historic, unspoiled and beautiful nature of the landscape. It is inconceivable that a Government who have demonstrated so thoroughly their concern for a wide range of environmental issues should be willing to countenance the threatened destruction of some of the most famous and attractive views in the whole of East Anglia.
  Fortunately, the three most recent proposals for masts have had to go through the normal planning process, because they are too high to be approved under the permitted development regulations to which I have referred.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North and I have been contacted by many people who are extremely worried about the proposals to place communications masts. They hope that action can be taken before permanent damage is done.
  I understand that one of the applications has already been turned down by Colchester borough council, but there is much concern over the remaining applications, not least because the decisions are likely to be influenced by the terms of planning policy guidance note 8. That guidance instructs local planning authorities to
  "respond positively to telecommunications development proposals"
  and
  "to be alive to the special needs and technical problems of telecommunications development."
  Its general tone is sympathetic to the industry. Some people fear that, as a result, considerations of environmental protection may not be given sufficient weight.
  Anything that my hon. Friend can say about the possibility of amending the guidance so as to require planning authorities to attach greater weight to environmental protection, especially in areas of outstanding natural beauty, will be welcome. His words on that subject, and on the masts for which planning permission is not at present needed, will be closely scrutinised by everyone who is interested in the rural environment.
  2.44 pm
  The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for South Suffolk
  1182
  (Mr. Yeo) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who have been concerned about this issue for some time, and have raised it in the House in their different ways—and, I suspect, from opposite sides of any possible telecommunications mast. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk on securing this opportunity to flesh out those concerns.
  My hon. Friend has urged me to tighten the controls over telecommunications masts. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed. Indeed, I share that concern, and am watching the position carefully. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the present legislation in this area and the guidance issued by my Department.
  Following the privatisation of British Telecom, one of our policy objectives has been to open up the public telecommunications market to wider competition. That has been a tremendous success. Britain has become a world leader in this area of new technology, and consumers have benefited from lower prices and continuously improving products and services in a highly competitive market.
  Success, however, brings with it new problems. We are very aware that this rapidly developing industry needs to be subject to controls, some of which are embodied in the system of licensing introduced by the Telecommunications Act 1984. That regime is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and covers a much wider range of telecommunications operations than we are concerned with in this debate. Our interest today is in the licences under which the four mobile telephone networks are introducing their services—or, in the technical jargon, they are being rolled out.
  The two original cellular operators, Cellnet and Vodafone, have already rolled out networks covering more than 98 per cent. of the UK population. The Government have also awarded licences under the Telecommunications Act for what are called personal communication networks. These offer a service similar to that offered by the cellular operators, and provide direct competition. The two PCN operators are Mercury One-2-One and Orange. PCN uses digital rather than analogue technology, and Vodafone and Cellnet are also now rolling out digital stations.
  The four mobile telecommunications operators are required by their licences to meet target dates for providing services to a specified percentage of the UK population. Cellnet and Vodafone were required to meet a target of 90 per cent. by 1989, and have achieved that. One-2-One and Orange are required to meet a target of 90 per cent. by December 1999. The Government's policy is not to allow the mobile operators to pick and choose where they provide coverage, but to ensure that they provide a widespread service to the bulk of the population. That is to ensure both competition and consumer choice.
  The mobile telephone is already a feature of everyday life for millions of people, and will become so for millions more over the next decade. However irritating they may sometimes seem, mobile telephones are helping to improve the efficiency of British industry by enabling staff to maintain contact both with their offices and with their customers. Not surprisingly, therefore, users want to be able to use their telephones as widely as possible, and

  1183
  we believe that it is right that they should be able to do so. It is important, however, that provision is made in a sensitive way.
  Licences issued under the 1984 Act give telecommunications companies special rights to install equipment on private land with the agreement of the owner. With these rights come various obligations, imposed through conditions in the licence. One purpose of these is to protect the amenity of the area in which an installation is proposed.
  For example, the operators have to notify the local planning authority before installing any apparatus. They must give 28 days' notice to allow the planning authority time to raise any objections. In protected areas, such as conservation areas, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, 40 days' notice is required. That is complementary to and separate from the planning controls, which I shall deal with in a minute.
  Before I do so, it is important that we understand the technical constraints under which the operators have to work. The frequency ranges available to operators are limited, and can be used for calls only by a certain number of subscribers at any one time. Networks depend on the re-use of frequencies in separate areas, known as cells, and each cell needs a base station. It will include an antenna for receiving or transmitting signals.
  Transmission of those signals is basically on a line-of-sight basis, as they have a very limited ability to pass through solid objects. That means that antennae have to be in an elevated position, usually mounted on a building or a mast.
  Operators also have to be careful to avoid interference between one cell and another. Customers do not want other callers using the same frequency in another cell to pick up their calls. Mobile phone networks are therefore rather akin to a jigsaw puzzle. Each cell has to fit in with all the others to create a national network.
  Against that background, I turn now to the planning controls over telecom masts. They apply equally, as do the licensing requirements, to fixed-link, wireless local loop operators, such as Ionica and Liberty. As has already been said, the main legislation in the area is the general permitted development order. The order sets out various categories of minor development that can go ahead without the need for a planning application to be submitted. Its purpose is to save both applicants and local planning authorities from undertaking a great deal of work on a range of minor developments.
  The order gives mobile phone and other telecom operators a general right to erect masts up to 15 m high. That is, however, subject to two important caveats. First, we have recognised the need for much more detailed planning consideration to be given to proposals to erect masts in areas of particular landscape quality. The permitted development rights do not apply, therefore, to masts in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas. Masts in those areas require full planning permission from the local planning authority, as do all masts, wherever they are located, that exceed 15 m in height.
  Secondly, even where operators wish to exercise their permitted development rights, they must go through what is called the prior approval procedure. That means that they must give the local planning authority the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve the details of the siting and appearance of the installation.
  1184
  The authority then has 28 days in which to give—or in some cases refuse—its approval. The period of 28 days is designed to give planning authorities sufficient time to consider prior approval applications, while not obstructing operators unnecessarily in the complex business of laying out their networks. In an interlocking network, operators need to know fairly quickly if they cannot rely on one of the components, as that will have consequences for other parts of the system.
  There are those who say that a mast 15 m in height is too tall, and makes too big an impact on the skyline. I assure the House that the threshold was chosen most carefully. There is an important balance to be struck between the height and the number of masts needed to deliver efficient communications. The House should know that if, for example, the limit was reduced to 10 m, there could be an increase of more than a third in the number of masts.
  We are concerned that the planning procedures should operate as smoothly as possible, that operators and local planning authorities should build up good working relationships, and that the prior approval procedure should work to best effect. We already issue policy guidance on telecommunications in our planning policy guidance note 8, and on the permitted development order in circular 9/95.
  PPG8 draws attention to our policies for protecting the countryside, and encourages the inclusion in development plans of telecom policies which take account of the need to protect the best and most sensitive environments. It also advises that local planning authorities should reasonably expect applicants for large masts to show evidence that they have explored the possibility of erecting antennae on an existing building, mast or other structure.
  To supplement that advice, we set up a working party last year to draw up a code of practice on the handling of prior approval applications. The working party was made up of representatives of the local authority associations, operators and other interested Government Departments. They have worked together in a very positive and constructive way, and I can now announce to the House that the result is an agreed code, which we intend to publish at the beginning of April.
  The code will specify the information that operators should provide to local planning authorities before they roll out their networks, and when making individual applications. It will give model application forms for local authorities to use in making decisions, and guidance on how to deal with applications speedily. There will be guidance for operators on the sensitive areas they should avoid if possible when erecting masts. Finally, there will be a technical annexe on the technology of mobile and other systems.
  My task in the Department of the Environment is to provide the planning framework that can accommodate the continuing growth in telecommunications, while minimising any adverse effects on amenity and the environment. Our present framework of control has been devised to achieve those twin objectives. I am grateful to the operators and local authority associations for their work in drawing up the new code of practice. I hope that it will help to iron out the kind of problems we have heard about in today's debate.
  However, I fully recognise the concerns that have been expressed, and I shall watch the situation very carefully. I have therefore asked the members of the working group

  1185
  to monitor the operation of the code over its first six his constituents and many colleagues in the House. I shall months, and then to reconvene to discuss any problems therefore continue to keep a careful watch on the position. that have arisen. I believe that the best way forward is for the parties to maintain a constructive dialogue, and I hope that the efforts of the working party have laid a firm basis that
  1186
  My hon Friend has raised some interesting points on which I shall reflect. His concern is shared by many of his constituents and many colleagues in the Hose. I shall therefore continue to keep a careful watch on the position.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Three o 'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Secondary Liquid Fuels
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his Department's policy to permit the permanent use of secondary liquid fuels. [17912]

  Mr. Clappison
  Each application for the burning of secondary liquid fuels will be determined on its own merit and in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If the operator of the plant has demonstrated, by trials, that there is no net adverse effect on the environment, authorisation with strict conditions under the Act is likely to be granted.

  Flags
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning permission provisions apply to the flying of flags of non-sovereign nations, with special reference to the City of Westminster; what is his policy on this matter; what payment has to be made with a planning application to fly such a flag; and if he will make a statement. [18082]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Provisions in schedule 2 (class I) to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 effectively enable the national flag of any country to be displayed in England and Wales, provided the flag is on a single, vertical flagstaff and there is no advertisement or subject matter additional to the flag's design. If these conditions are fulfilled, no application for planning permission or advertisement consent is required to fly a national flag. No special provisions apply in the City of Westminster.

  My right hon. Friend has no proposals to amend these provisions.

  Groundwater (London)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with London local authorities, Thames Water and London Underground about rising levels of groundwater underneath London; and if he will make a statement. [18299]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on Tuesday 27 February,Official Report, column 479–80.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company
  728
  concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18136]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Four serving civil servants in my Department currently hold non-executive company directorships. No fees are payable under the Cabinet Office rules:

  Name

  Company

  Dr. Alan Apling

  H. R. Wallingford Group

  (ex officio)

  Mr. Roger Courtney

  Woods of Colchester

  Mr. William Rickett

  Redland Tile Business

  Mr. John Stoker

  Mersey Partnership Hanson Brick

  (ex officio)

  Hare Krishna Temple, Hertsmere
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in relation to the appeal over the Hare Krishna temple in Hertsmere, Hertfordshire; and when he expects to make a decision on it. [18505]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A number of representations for and against the proposals were heard at least year's public inquiry into the planning appeal. We received the inspector's report in December, and we are considering his conclusions and recommendations very carefully. It is too early to say when the Secretary of State's decision will be issued.

  Power Lines
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the chief medical officer to discuss the potential danger to health from power pylons and lines; and if he will make a statement. [17972]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The National Radiological Protection Board advises industry, local authorities and other regulators on these matters.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from(a) housing organisations, (b) mortgage lenders, and (c) health organisations about the potential danger to health from power pylons and lines. [17971]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: As far as is known, my right hon. Friend has received no direct representations from these bodies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18141]
  729
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No central register is kept in this Dapartment of company directorships held by serving civil servants. However, members of staff are required to declare to senior management any commercial interest they may have. This requirement is set out in the Department's personnel management manual. Senior officials are not aware of any such declarations having been made by current members of staff. More detailed research would involve the examination of individual personal files and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he had with the secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16641]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cultural Traditions Group
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors led the cultural traditions group to decline to utilise Ulster Scots in its logo; and what is its policy for ensuring a funding balance between Ulster's main cultural traditions and an appropriate input at policy level from each. [16748]

  Mr. Ancram
  The cultural traditions group continues to seek an appropriate expression of the Ulster Scots tradition for inclusion in its logo. The CTG's funding policy is to encourage respect for diversity by spreading knowledge of Northern Ireland's separate and shared traditions. It welcomes funding applications for projects reflecting any aspect of Northern Ireland's cultural heritage and considers each on its merits. Membership of the group and its sub-committees is representative of Northern Ireland's main cultural traditions and it welcomes policy submissions from any interested cultural organisation.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS Ltd., indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17452]

  Sir John Wheeler
  One contract is currently held with EDS, the date of inception for which was 1 September 1995. This contract is due to last 19 months. I am unable to disclose the value of this contract as it is covered by commercial confidentiality.

  Miss Rita O'Hare
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the arrest of Miss Rita O'Hare is still sought; and what attempts have been made to extradite her from the Irish Republic. [17099]
  730
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The arrest warrant for Ms O'Hare is still outstanding and has not been withdrawn.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary made a request to have Ms O'Hare extradited from the Republic of Ireland. However, she successfully relied on the political offence defence and won her case against extradition in the High Court in Dublin in March 1978.

  Confiscation Unit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review with the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland the resources allocated to the confiscation unit. [17149]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland has in this financial year been allocated £7,089,000. The distribution and any reviews of this to specific parts of his office are matters for the director to decide.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18143]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Central records indicate that we have no staff in Northern Ireland civil service departments serving as directors of companies.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17313]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Transmissible Disease)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure the confidentiality of medical checks on prisoners, including when a case of a transmissible disease is identified. [16703]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  731
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 1 March 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 confidentiality of medical checks on prisoners.

  All medical information on prisoners is held on the Inmate Medical Record (IMR) which is restricted to the medical team providing care to prisoners. The IMR accompanies transfer in a sealed package. Other communications regarding an inmate's medical status are made doctor to doctor.

  It is Prison Service policy that medical confidentiality on inmates' medical information, including transmissible diseases is maintained.

  All training of health care staff including Medical Officers, nurses, health care officers and counsellors, emphasises the importance of maintaining medical confidentiality.

  Medical officers and nurses working in the Prison Service adhere to their professional codes of conduct concerning confidentiality of medical information. Other members of health care teams work under the supervision of the Medical Officer and adhere to that profession's code of conduct.

  Ministerial Meetings (Immigration)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings were held by Ministers in his Department to discuss immigration cases with hon. Members in each year since 1979. [17061]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 1995, over 60 such meetings with hon. Members were held at the Home Office.

  Criminal Cases Review Authority
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 720, if he will list the other sources from which candidates were drawn; and how many of the shortlisted candidates were applicants arising from (a) the advertisement and (b) other sources. [18156]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The other sources from which candidates for the post of chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission were drawn were executive search, and lists of volunteers and nominees for public appointments drawn up in government. Of the six short-listed candidates, two responded to advertisements and four were found by executive search.

  Gambling Controls
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Gaming Board has endorsed the changes to the controls over gambling announced on 27 February. [18454]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The proposals are those of the Government. Nonetheless the Gaming Board has told me that it welcomes the Government's initiative in considering to what extent the controls on casinos and bingo clubs in the Gaming Act 1968 continue to meet present day requirements and in making proposals where the Government believe that controls can be updated or relaxed. The board also welcomes the fact that the Government are putting out their proposals for wide public consultation.
  732
  There is much in the consultation paper published on 27 February with which the board agrees and it will be able to support many of the proposals. There are several significant matters which the board has been asked to discuss with the industries concerned before proposals are finalised; and there are issues on which the board will wish to consider carefully the stance it should adopt.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Gaming Board over the relaxation of regulations on casinos and other locations for gambling. [18455]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have had regular contact with the Gaming Board during the drafting of the proposals in the consultation paper published on 27 February. In particular, the board provided professional advice and comment on the factual analysis underpinning the document and on the practicability of various options for change. Its comments were taken into account in preparing the final version.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18139]

  Mr. Howard
  Civil servants do not need permission to undertake and be paid for work outside normal working hours, provided there is no conflict of interest. There is no specific requirement for staff in the Home Office to report directorships held privately and no central record is kept. Any fees paid for such work would in any case be a matter of individual privacy. Only one official of the Home Office and its agencies, Dr. J. Thompson, has been given permission to become a non-executive director of KPMG, for developmental purposes; the appointment has yet to taken up. Under Cabinet Office guidance on developmental directorships, the individuals concerned do not receive payment from the companies concerned.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he first consulted other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom. [16515]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: It is not the practice to give details of ministerial meetings.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers." [17311]
  733
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

TRANSPORT

  Roads
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the number of kilometres of motorway renewed, (b) the number of kilometres of trunk road renewed, (c) the number of bridges assessed for structural capacity and (d) the number of bridges strengthened by his Department in each financial year since 1989–90, including plans for the current year. [18166]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 1 March 1996:

  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list (a) the number of kilometres of motorway renewed, (b) the number of kilometres of trunk road renewed, (c) the number of bridges assessed for structural capacity and (d) the number of bridges strengthened by his Department in each of the financial years since 1989–90 including plans for the current year.

  The information requested for financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93 can be found in "Transport Report 1994—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1994–95 to 1996–97", Cm 2506, presented to Parliament in March 1994. For subsequent years the figures are as follows.

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 plans1

  Motorway renewal (nlks2)

  234

  277

  110

  Other trunk road renewal (nlks2)

  293

  563

  220

  Bridges assessed

  1,793

  1,254

  820

  Bridges strengthened

  46

  164

  77

  1 Revised plans announced to Parliament on 10 January 1996.

  2 Nearside lane kilometres.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of road deaths in the last year was caused by inappropriate speeds, in respect of(a) urban and (b) rural roads. [18180]

  Mr. Norris
  Figures are not available for percentage of road deaths caused by inappropriate speed in the last year. Various sources show that inappropriate speed is a factor in a third of all road accidents.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to include a section on walking in the next transport policies and programme circular. [18178]

  Mr. Norris
  I am currently considering the content of the next TPP circular. We will be consulting the local authority associations on this, and will take their views into account.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to encourage journeys on foot within the context of transport policy. [18179]
  734
  Mr. Norris
  I have had meetings with a number of interested organisations to investigate the scope for taking forward new initiatives to encourage journeys on foot. In the meantime, my Department encourages local authorities in the TPP guidance and related guidance notes to promote modal shift to walking, along with other alternatives to the car, and to take the needs of pedestrians into account in the devising of transport strategies and the design of schemes. It also issues technical advice on the design of facilities for pedestrians.

  Walking and Traffic Calming
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the local transport settlement in December 1995 was spent on(a) measures to improve walking and (b) traffic calming measures. [18177]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available. Pedestrian and traffic calming schemes generally cost less than £2 million each. Local authorities have discretion to allocate resources to schemes costing less than £2 million according to their own priorities. It is therefore up to them to decide, in drawing up their plans for 1996–97, what proportions of the resources allocated to them in the December 1995 settlement should be allocated to pedestrian and traffic calming schemes.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many calls to the cones hotline(a) did and (b) did not result in remedial action; and what is the average cost per call, including his Department's internal costs. [18504]

  Mr. Watts
  In respect of the cones hotline, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 6 November 1995,Official Report, at column 759, and to my reply to the hon. Member's earlier question on 10 July 1995, Official Report, at column 403.

  Since September 1995, the cones hotline has been replaced by the Highways Agency information line.

  Tri-star Ambulance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library reports commissioned by the Department of Transport on the safety aspects and specifications of the General Motors Corporation Tri-star ambulance; and if he will make a statement on its road safety record. [18556]

  Mr. Norris
  We have not commissioned any reports on the safety of the GMC Tri-star ambulance. Two accidents involving the vehicle were, however, examined by the Department's vehicle inspectorate as part of its routine accident investigation activities. The conclusion in both cases was that the accidents were due primarily to lack of driver familiarisation with the vehicle.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what elements of public expenditure will not be eligible for reimbursement from insurers of the Sea Empress or the international oil pollution compensation fund. [18359]
  735
  Mr. Norris
  The international oil pollution compensation fund will not reimburse those elements of public expenditure which fall outside the definition of pollution damage under the relevant international conventions and the criteria for admissibility which have been agreed by its executive committee. The criteria for admissibility are described in the IOPC's claims manual, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the total amounts available within the international oil pollution compensation fund; and if he will list the contributors to the fund and the amount each has contributed. [18355]

  Mr. Norris
  The total amount of compensation available from the vessel's insurers and the international oil pollution compensation fund is 60 million special drawing rights, which is approximately equivalent to £57 million. The contributions to the fund are levied against major oil companies in each of the 67 member states of the fund. Information on individual contributors is not held by the Government.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18150]

  Mr. Norris
  There are two civil servants in the Department who are non-executive directors of companies. John Denning is a non-executive director of Lloyds Register Quality Assurance Ltd. and David McMillan is a non-executive director of the P & O European Transport Services. No payment is made to the civil servants.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish his consultation document on the distribution of search and rescue helicopters around the United Kingdom coast. [18459]

  Mr. Norris
  We hope to consult on the recommendations of the report of the interdepartmental helicopter review group shortly.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government will make on the suppression of human rights in China at the forthcoming UN human rights conference in Geneva. [17959]

  Mr. David Davis
  We continue to be deeply concerned about the human rights situation in China. We and our European Union partners are at present discussing the possibility of co-sponsoring a resolution on human rights in China at the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Wei Jingsheng
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what inquiries about the health of the Chinese pro-democracy activist Wei Jingsheng have been made recently by Her Majesty's embassy in Beijing. [17963]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed the Government's deep concern about this case during his talks with the Chinese Premier and Foreign Minister in Peking on 9 and 10 January. The case was also discussed during the second series of meetings under the EU/China human rights dialogue in Peking on 22 and 23 January.

  We have urged the Chinese authorities to show clemency in this case, and to allow Mr. Wei's early release.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what severance pay will be paid to the present governor of Hong Kong on his retirement; and what proportion of that sum will be tax free. [18084]

  Mr. David Davis
  The term of employment applying to the present governor, and to others employed in the Hong Kong Government on contract terms including the governor's predecessors, provide for him to receive, upon the completion of the period of his appointment in Hong Kong, a gratuity of 25 per cent. of his total basic salary in lieu of pension. The governor's gratuity would be paid by the Hong Kong Government and would not be subject to tax.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17483]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The lists for the years 1992 to 1995 have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Recovery of data for the years 1990–92 would incur disproportionate costs. A list of standard delegations accompanying my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary or one of his Ministers is also placed in the Libraries of the House. The need for officials to accompany Ministers is reviewed periodically on a case-by-case basis. To provide further details of the composition of each delegation, its function and its cost would also incur a disproportionate expense of public funds.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 26 and 27 February. [18508]
  737
  Mr. David Davis
  The A points listed in document 5157/96, which will be deposited in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is available, were approved except item 15.

  The Council took note of the European Parliament resolutions in documents 4306/96 and 4709/96, PE-RE 6 and PE-RE 9. Copies of these documents will be deposited in the Libraries of the House as soon as they are available.

  The Council discussed former Yugoslavia and agreed conclusions on a regional approach, refugees and reconstruction. The Council invited the Commission to prepare, at the right time, negotiating directives for agreements with all the countries of the region which meet the necessary conditions and accept the regional approach.

  The Council discussed preparations for the European Council in Turin and the practical organisation of the intergovernmental conference.

  The Council discussed the proposed mandate for an EU/South Africa trade agreement but failed to reach a decision. The matter was referred to COREPER for further work. Her Majesty's Government continue to believe that it is essential that the EU fulfils its commitments to agree a mandate for a free trade agreement with South Africa as soon as possible.

  The Council discussed a draft mandate for a new EU/Mexico agreement. The presidency gave a brief situation report on the preparations for the forthcoming Asia/Europe meeting on 1 and 2 March in Bangkok. The Council approved the appointment of a special envoy, Aldo Ajello, to the great lakes region for six months. The Council discussed Greece-Turkey relations.

  The Council discussed EU policy towards the Baltic sea region. The Council agreed a one-off 5 m ecu contribution from the EU budget to the Korean Energy Development Organisation.

  The Council discussed the own resources decision and noted that formal ratification by the Netherlands Parliament could follow shortly after approval by the First Chamber on 16 April. This would complete the national ratifications

  In the margins of the Council, the EU/Morocco Euro-Mediterranean Association agreement and the EC/Morocco fisheries agreement were signed. Mr. Davis signed the association agreement on behalf of the UK. On 27 February there were association councils with Slovakia and Romania; and a joint meeting with the Foreign Ministers of the associated central European countries.

  No votes were taken at this Council.

  Departmental Meetings (Claude de Kemoularia)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions representatives of his Department or employees of other Departments of Her Majesty's Government met Claude de Kemoularia of Banque Paribas during 1995 and 1996; and if he will make a statement. [18509]
  738
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Members of the Paris embassy have had occasional contact with Mr. de Kemoularia during the period in question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is not aware of any contacts he may have had with other Government Departments.

  British Tourists
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines are given to British tour operators on the removal of British tourists from areas abroad where there is a reported threat to health or safety. [18309]

  Mr. David Davis
  Tour operators have access to FCO travel advice on threats to personal safety arising from political unrest, lawlessness, violence, natural disasters and epidemics. When the safety of British tourists overseas is threatened, British consular staff liaise closely with tour operators to ensure that effective action is taken.

  If the local security situation is serious enough for evacuation of British nationals to be considered, consuls advise tour operators to withdraw their tourists as soon as possible. The Department of Health takes the lead on threats to the health of British travellers abroad, liaising as necessary with the Federation of Tour Operators, the Association of British Travel Agents and British consular staff.

HEALTH

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17444]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has no contracts with EDS.

  Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what extra resources he is making available to social services departments towards the implementation of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; [17546]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the cost in 1996–97 of (a) carers' assessments and (b) consequential extra support services under the provisions of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995. [17548]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Act should not involve significant extra costs. It enshrines in statute many of the principles of good practice which we had recommended local authorities follow.

  NHS Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the employing authorities whose payments represent the additional receipts to the NHS superannuation scheme accounts in respect of early retirements. [17804]
  739
  Mr. Malone
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 1 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.

  The employing authorities whose payments represent the additional receipts to the NHS Superannuation Scheme accounts in respect of early retirements are as follows:

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  Airedale Health Authority

  Airedale NHS Trust

  Anglia Harbours NHS Trust

  Avon and Gloucestershire College of Health

  Aylesbury Vale Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Barnet Health Authority

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  Bedfordshire and Shires Health and Care NHS Trust

  Birmingham and Solihull College of Nursing and Midwifery

  Bradford Health Authority

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  Bromley Health Authority

  Cambridge Health Authority

  Cambridgeshire Family Health Services Authority

  Canterbury and Thanet Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Cleveland Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Croydon Health Authority

  Dental Practices Board

  Devon and Exeter Health Authority

  Devon Family Health Services Authority

  Dorset Healthcare NHS Trust

  Dudley Priority Health NHS Trust

  East Berkshire Trust for People with Learning Disabilities

  East Kent Health Authority

  East Norfolk Health Authority

  Eastbourne Health Authority

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  Greenwich Health Authority

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  Haringey Healthcare NHS Trust

  Hartlepool and Peterlee Hospitals NHS Trust

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Huddersfield NHS Trust

  Humberside Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Kent and Sussex Weald NHS Trust

  Kingston and Richmond Health Authority

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Family Health Services Authority

  Lancaster Priority Services NHS Trust

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS Trust

  Leeds Health Authority

  Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  Maidstone Health Authority

  740

  Medway NHS Trust

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority

  Milton Keynes Community Health Services NHS Trust

  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  Newcastle City Health NHS Trust

  NHS Supplies Authority

  Norfolk Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Lincolnshire Health

  North Manchester Health NHS Trust

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Thames Regional Healthcare Authority

  North West London Mental Health NHS Trust

  North West Regional Health Authority

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Northgate and Purdoe NHS Trust

  Pathfinder Mental Health Services

  Pilgrim Health NHS Trust

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority

  Premier Health NHS Trust (Staffs)

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Salisbury Health Care NHS Trust

  Sandwell Healthcare NHS Trust

  Selca

  Shropshire Health Authority

  Shropshire Community Health Service NHS Trust

  Somerset Family Health Services Authority

  Somerset Health Authority

  South and West Regional Health Authority

  South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  South Downs Health NHS Trust

  South Tees Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  South Thames Regional Health Authority

  South Warwickshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  South West Surrey District Headquarters.

  Southampton Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. Georges Healthcare NHS Trust

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  The Avalon, Somerset NHS Trust

  The Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool NHS Trust

  The Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust

  Tor and South West College of Health

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  United Bristol Health Care NHS Trust

  Wakefield District Health Authority

  West Cheshire NHS Trust

  West Midlands Blood Transfusion

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire Health Authority

  West Suffolk Hospital NHS Trust

  West Yorkshire Health Authority

  Weston Area Health NHS Trust

  Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  York Health Services NHS Trust.

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior managers in the NHS have either resigned after being requested to do so or had their contracts terminated and were appointed to another post within the NHS within(a) five years, (b) three years, (c) two years and (d) 12 months. [17544]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Bristol Oncology Centre
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that patients turned away from the Bristol oncology centre due to its financial circumstances are promptly readmitted and receive the necessary care. [17943]

  Mr. Horam
  Patients are not being refused treatment. All emergency and urgent treatments are continuing as normal, and curative treatment is not affected. Patients requiring palliative care for non-curable conditions will be treated in the community by general practitioners, district nurses and St. Peters hospice. Help and advice will be provided from the palliative care team at the oncology centre.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priorities govern the treatment of patients form(a) Avon, (b) Somerset, (c) Dorset and (d) Gloucester at the Bristol oncology centre. [17889]

  Mr. Horam
  Decisions regarding what priorities govern the treatment of patients at the Bristol oncology centre are the responsibility of the clinicians managing their care.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current work of the Bristol oncology centre in respect of treating cancer patients with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. [18062]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a mater for Avon Health Commission and the United Bristol Health Care national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the respective chairmen, Mrs. Martha Perriam and Mr. Robert McKinlay for more information.

  Kirby-Harris Libel Case
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 25, if the non-executive members of Cornwall Health Care trust sought legal advice from (a) the regional health authority and (b) the Department of Health before releasing the statements which resulted in the Kirby-Harris libel case. [18081]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not the function of the regional health authority or the Department of Health to provide legal advice to national health service trusts or their directors. Mrs. Kirby-Harris has accepted that the publication of the statement was not authorised by the non-executives.

  Bogus Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance to NHS employers on how to prevent the employment of bogus doctors. [17953]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance was issued in June 1987, PM(87)7, and updated in November 1992, EL(92)84. We are committed to reviewing the guidance in June 1996.

  Public Bodies (Women Appointees)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he gives to health authorities and health trusts on the number of women appointees as non-executive directors. [18304]

  Mr. Malone
  An equal opportunities policy is adopted in the selection process for appointments. Under the Opportunity 2000 women in the national health service initiative we have set a goal to increase the number of women appointed to health authorities and NHS trusts to 43 per cent. by 30 September 1998. Currently the national percentages of women non-executive appointments is 41.62 per cent. for NHS trusts, 51.45 per cent. for district health authorities and 36.6 per cent. for family health services authorities.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of the non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17491]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), then Minister for Health, gave the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 3 November 1993 at columns 222–24 for information covering the period April 1992 to mid-October 1993.

  Information on the dates, destinations and purpose of visits made by my right hon. Friend and ministerial colleagues since mid-October 1993 is shown in the tables. The total cost of overseas travel by Ministers and private secretaries in each financial year is also shown.

  Information on visits between 1990 and 9 April 1992 and full information on officials accompanying Ministers could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial year April 1993 to March 1994

  Destination

  Purpose

  Minister of State for Health-Dr. Mawhinney

  7–15 November 1993

  USA

  Fact finding visit in connection with Ministerial responsibilities

  13 December 1993

  Brussels

  EC Health Council

  Total spend for 7 November to March 1994

  £4,643

  743

  Financial year April 1994 to March 1995

  Destination

  Purpose

  Secretary of State for Health—Mrs. Bottomley

  17–18 November 1994

  Brussels

  To address OECD High Level Conference of National Experts on Health Reform

  1 December 1994

  Paris

  Worlds Aids Summit

  21–22 December 1994

  Brussels

  EC Health Council

  13–17 March 1995

  Japan

  Trade Mission to promote inward investment (Prescribe UK)

  Minister of State for Health—Dr Mawhinney

  4 March 1994

  Dublin

  Meeting with Irish Health Minister

  30 March 1994

  Brussels

  EC Health Council—bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) meeting

  19 June 1994

  Helsinki

  European Conference on environmental health

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—Mr. Bowis OBE

  3 February 1994

  Strasburg

  European Council Meeting on Drugs

  13 May 1994

  Rhodes (Greece)

  EC Health Council Informal

  2 June 1994

  Luxembourg

  EC Health Council

  30 June 1994

  Amsterdam

  European Social Services Conference

  15 September 1994

  Berlin

  Informal Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Family Affairs

  18–24 September 1994

  Netherlands, Germany and Hungary

  Fact finding visit on child care, drug abuse and AIDS. Signing Health Cooperation Agreement in Hungary

  3–8 January 1995

  Lebanon

  Bilateral visit to Health Ministers and Lebanese Government and All Party Parliamentary Group visit arranged by the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—Baroness Cumberlege CBE

  3–4 May 1994

  Geneva

  World Health Assembly

  17–18 June 1994

  Paris

  AIDS Summit

  Total annual spend

  £30,507

  Financial year April 1995 to date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Secretary of State for Health—Mrs. Bottomley

  2–3 May 1995

  Geneva

  World Health Assembly

  29 May—2 June 1995

  USA

  Fact finding visit in connection with Ministerial responsibilities

  Minister of State for Health—Mr. Malone

  11–14 September 1995

  Singapore

  Accompanied a Trade Delegation to promote International Trade and other health related issues.

  14–16 September 1995

  Thailand

  Accompanied a Trade Delegation to promote International Trade and other health related issues.

  18–20 September 1995

  Malaysia

  Accompanied a Trade Delegation to promote International Trade and other health related issues.

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—Mr. Sackville

  25–28 April 1995

  Hamburg

  Trade Mission to promote health exports.

  13–16 November 1995

  Hanover and Dresden Colombia

  To promote British Health exports and expertise.

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—Mr. Bowis OBE

  1–2 June 1995

  Luxembourg

  EC Health Council

  22 June 1995

  Copenhagen

  European Social Services Conference

  744

  Financial year April 1995 to date

  Destination

  Purpose

  30–31 November 1995

  Brussels

  EC Health Council

  14 December 1995

  Paris

  WHO Conference on alcohol

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State—Baroness Cumberlege CBE

  2–5 December 1995

  South Africa

  Commonwealth Health Ministers Conference

  Total spend to end January 1996

  £37,950

  Deaths (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 34, in how many cases of deaths in which Ecstasy was involved, Ecstasy was identified as the main cause of death; and what other legal or illegal drugs were involved. [17844]

  Mr. Bowis
  The table shows the number of deaths registered in England and Wales from 1990 to 1994 from drug poisoning where Ecstasy was the only drug mentioned.

  Year

  Deaths

  1990

  1

  1991

  6

  1992

  5

  1993

  12

  1994

  10

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18138]

  Mr. Horam
  Civil servants are permitted to undertake and be paid for work outside official time, for example, directorships, if there is no conflict of interest. Staff who disclose relevant interests to their managers do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer. We do not hold central records of these declarations.

  British Tourists
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what structures are in place to ensure that when(a) the Association of British Travel Agents or (b) the Federation of Tour Operators are advised of possible health and safety hazards to tourists at a resort overseas, customers are informed. [18306]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 December 1995,Official Report, at column 529, which gave details of the Department of Health's agreement with the Association of British Travel Agents about notifying it of outbreaks of disease. The Department now has a similar agreement with the Federation of Tour Operators. Once in receipt of the information, it is for the travel industry to decide when it is appropriate to inform customers.
  745
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that British tour operators' staff working abroad have training in control procedures concerning legionnaires and other infectious diseases; [18311]

  (2) what plans he has to review communications concerning outbreaks of serious diseases, between the United Kingdom Government, British tour operators and holiday resort hotels used by United Kingdom tourists; [18312]

  (3) what discussions he has had with United Kingdom tour operators in respect of the factors underlying the delay in informing British tourists of the occurrence of legionnaires disease in the Hotel Imbat, Kusadasi, Turkey. [18313]

  Mr. Horam
  Officials from the Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service are liaising with the Association of British Travel agents and the Federation of Tour Operators to review communications between organisations and clarify what action needs to be taken in response to future reports of travel-related legionnaires disease.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate an inquiry into the role of(a) ABTA and (b) the Federation of Tour Operators in allowing customers to travel to the Hotel Imbat, Kusadasi, Turkey in September 1995. [18314]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health will follow the recommendations of the Public Health Laboratory Service's report, copies of which are available in the Library, into the recommendations into the outbreak of legionnaires disease at the Hotel Imbat, and will review, with United Kingdom tour operators, the exchange of information on outbreaks associated with tourist hotels abroad.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to monitor whether Public Health Laboratory Service recommendations relating to the Hotel Imbat, Kusadasi, Turkey, in 1995 are carried out by the Turkish authorities; and if he will make a statement; [18307]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the results of recommendations made by the Public Health Laboratory Service in its report dealing with an outbreak of legionnaires disease at the Hotel Imbat, Kusadasi, Turkey, in 1995 are relayed to potential British visitors. [18308]

  Mr. Horam
  The Public Health Laboratory Service's report, copies of which are available in the Library, into the outbreak has been sent to the travel industry. The PHLS is in contact with the Turkish authorities through the European working group for legionalla infection to monitor that the recommendations are being followed up. A member of the PHLS investigation team is planning to revisit the Hotel Imbat to monitor that all of the recommendations relating to the hotel itself are carried out. It is for those tour operators who have contracts with the Hotel Imbat to ensure that the hotel has taken the relevant steps to safeguard the health of tourists.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18140]

  The Attorney-General
  There is no requirement, in the Departments and agency for which I am responsible, for civil servants to report privately held company directorships. However, civil servants faced with a conflict of interest must declare their interest to senior management in accordance with the staff handbook of each Department and agency. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like other employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer. There are no civil servants in the Departments and agency for which I am responsible who hold directorships of companies for developmental reasons or on an ex officio basis.

DEFENCE

  Married Quarters Discounted Sale Scheme
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace the married quarters discounted sale scheme for regular members of Her Majesty's armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [19077]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The purpose of the married quarters discounted sale scheme has been to assist service personnel into home ownership. It has been popular, but has over the years necessarily helped a relatively modest number of personnel. This, combined with the proposed sale of the married quarters estate, has resulted in consideration of a replacement scheme.

  We now intend to replace the MQDSS with an interest-free advance of pay for house purchase which is based on the current scheme available in the Royal Navy. The replacement scheme will come into effect on 1 August 1996.

  The scheme will allow us to target resources more effectively to assist retention. It will be available to all regular Army and RAF personnel aged 35 and over, on pensionable engagements or commissions. The advance will be a maximum of £8,500 and will be repayable over 10 years of service. The qualifying age for the Royal Navy scheme will reduce from 25 to 23 years.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17490]
  747
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Yes. A list is being prepared and will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18134]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There are five MOD civil servants who hold non-executive directorships arranged by the Department for career developmental reasons. These directorships are with the following companies:

  Northern British Newsprint

  Rank Organisation

  Marks and Spencer Subsidiary Board

  Avery Berkel

  Thorn Security.

  These appointments are unpaid, although in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, individuals may accept payment of expenses incurred while carrying out the duties of the directorship.

  Other staff may have privately held non-executive directorships, for example, the board of a family company. If there is no conflict of interest and the duties are performed outside official time there would normally be no bar to an individual holding a directorship and being paid accordingly.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has been made with regard to the sale of Greenham Common to the Greenham Common Management Company Ltd. [18310]

  Mr. Soames
  No decision has yet been reached on the sale of Greenham Common.

  Dartmoor National Park
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the advertised usage in days of(a) Okehampton, (b) Merrivale and (c) Willsworthy ranges in Dartmoor national park for live firing in the year ended December 1995; and how many days firing took place. [18350]

  Mr. Soames
  The advertised usage in days for the ranges in question was 78 days for Okehampton, 118 days for Merrivale and 145 days at Willsworthy. The following actual firing days took place: 53 at Okehampton, 93 at Merrivale and 107 at Willsworthy.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he had with the secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16604]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 22 February]: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

  Kentigern House, Glasgow
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received in relation to arrangements, in the case of fire, for disabled employees at Kentigern house in Glasgow not to be evacuated but to go to facilities described as fire-proof; what reply has been made; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement. [17916]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: At local health and safety and Whitley committees, the trades unions have asked what arrangements are available for staff in wheelchairs in the event of fire and the arrangements have been explained to them. The provision of fire protection areas, which can serve as refuges for disabled people including those injured in the incident itself, is in accordance with regulations and standards which apply equally to the Ministry of Defence, other Government Departments and the private sector.

  The trades unions are content with both existing and proposed arrangements. Action will continue, in consultation with the trades unions, to improve emergency evacuation procedures and to ensure that planned building re-development meets current building regulations and British standards.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments were made in the winter of 1994–95; and what was the total amount paid. [17538]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  During the period 1 November 1994 to 31 March 1995, 10,969 cold weather payments were made totalling £76,786.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18148]

  Mr. Burt
  Under the rules set out in the civil service management code, a copy of which is held in the Library, staff must report business interests, including directorships, which might conflict with their work in the Department. Any such details are treated as confidential and no central record is kept.

  In-work Benefit Project (Newcastle)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was, for each year since the project's inception, the cost of the in-work benefit project in Newcastle, breaking down costs separately for the Benefits Agency and each other agency involved. [18240]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  749
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 29 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was, for each year since the project's inception, the cost of the in-work benefit project in Newcastle, breaking down costs separately for the Benefits Agency (BA) and each other agency involved.

  The costs incurred by the BA's Newcastle office for their involvement in the In Work Benefit Project are as follows:

  1992/93: £15057.00

  1993/94: £15208.00

  1994/95: £15520.00.

  Salary costs for one Executive Officer on full time secondment to City Challenge (sponsors of the In Work Benefit Project).

  Due to the success of the project the need for advice and information has diminished and the post is now on a part time basis. Therefore, from April 1995 to date the cost is approximately £7500.

  During 1993/94 a high level evaluation of the Project was carried out at a cost of £32,000. This cost was shared equally between Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Newcastle City Council.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate in 1996–97 and 1997–98(a) the cost of producing and posting the child benefit statement sent to recipients each year showing the general increase in benefit rates payable as a result of the benefit uprating, and (b) the cost of new notifications of entitlement. [18099]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  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 Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 29 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question asking if he will estimate in 1996–97 and 1997–98 (a) the cost of producing and posting the child benefit statement sent to recipients each year showing the general increase in benefit rates payable as a result if the benefit uprating, and (b) the cost of new notifications of entitlement.The estimated costs in 1996–97 and 1997–98 for producing and posting Child Benefit statements as a result of a benefit uprating are £546,185 and £556,562 respectively.The estimated costs in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of producing and posting new notifications of entitlement are £227,200 and £226,404 respectively.These estimated costs are based on current day prices.I hope you find this reply helpful.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Hain
  to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take in respect of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section K8.16 that Ministers have an obligation to provide information to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [16949]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself on 26 February.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost in each case to businesses and others of complying with the regulations set out in "Compliance Cost Assessments: 1 January 1995 to 30 June 1995". [17954]

  Mr. Freeman
  The compliance cost assessment procedure requires Departments to show a number of different costs including recurring and non-recurring costs for a typical business and for all businesses affected by the proposed regulation. Details for the period 1 January 1995 to 30 June 1995 can be found in the individual compliance cost assessments, copies of which are available in the House Libraries.

  Special Advisers
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account is taken of Ministers' pay in relation to the pay of special advisers. [18503]

  Mr. Willets
  No account is taken of Ministers' pay in determining the pay of special advisers.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many responses he has received to the Cabinet Office news release on 28 December 1995—Office of Public Service 315/95—from(a) members of the public, (b) the self-employed, (c) small business men and (d) company directors; and which rules and regulations they each identified as suitable for deregulation. [18351]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received 60 responses to the news release and a further 420 responses from members of the Federation of Small Businesses in response to my invitation to write to me about regulations which are hampering their business. The 60 responses are mostly from small business people and members of the public. In the majority of cases the responses do not identify specific rules or regulations but the main issues raised were planning and building; metrication; health and safety: various licensing issues: and VAT. I shall reply to each letter individually.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of the delegation and (d) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17496]

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of the information requested for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Parliamentary Secretary have been placed in the Library of the House. The information covers the Office of Public Service and Science—April 1992 to July 1995—and the Office of Public Service from July 1995.
  751
  The Deputy Prime Minister has made no overseas visits.

  Civil Service (Employment Law)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what anomalies remain since United Kingdom law relating to employment in the civil service was brought into line with EC law in 1991. [19076]

  Mr. Freeman
  The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 brought United Kingdom law into line with European Community requirements by permitting nationals of other member states to apply for certain civil service posts, but a number of anomalies remain. One of these is that citizens of the Republic of Ireland—and of Commonwealth countries—are currently eligible for recruitment to a wide range of posts in the home civil service, including those which constitute"employment in the public service"
  in EC treaty terms, whereas nationals of other European Economic Area countries are eligible only for those posts which do not constitute such employment.

  It is clear that we need to amend the current rules. Recruitment schemes with closing dates for the receipt of applications on or after 1 June 1996 for posts which constitute
  "employment in the public service"
  will therefore be reserved for United Kingdom nationals and will not be open to Irish or Commonwealth citizens. Applications from citizens of these countries will from 1 June be treated on the same basis as those from citizens from other European Economic Area countries.

  The change will not affect the position of citizens of the Republic of Ireland and of Commonwealth countries already in post on 31 May 1996. Neither will it affect the position of candidates from those countries for recruitment schemes with a closing date for the receipt of applications before 1 June 1996.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is making arrangements for changes to the rules for entry to the Northern Ireland civil service which will achieve the same position there in the same timescale.

  Seconded Staff
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the individuals, by name and company, who are engaged on temporary secondments in the Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service; and if he will list the type and nature of the secondment. [14675]

  Mr. Willetts
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 February 1996, c. 728]: I regret that the list of staff seconded into the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service, from industry and commerce was incorrect. It should have included Ms R. Haddow. The correct list is as follows:

  Name

  Company

  Mr. M. Blessing

  PA Consulting

  Mr. S. Culhane

  Lloyds Bank

  Mr. M. B. De Ferranti

  GEC/Marconi Ltd.

  Mrs. L Emin

  Cable and Wireless plc

  Ms M. Guiot

  British Telecom

  752

  Name

  Company

  Mr. S. Greenstreet

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Ms R. Haddow

  Binder Hamlyn

  Mr. A. Harris

  Clifton Corporate Services Ltd.

  Mr. S. Hoffman Womersley

  Shandwick Communications Ltd.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of gas-fired electricity generation in the United Kingdom currently; and what the estimated capacity is likely to be based on section 36 consents by(a) the end of 1998 and (b) 2000. [17198]

  Mr. Page
  At present, combined cycle gas turbines—CCGT—provide 9.5 GW of electricity generating capacity. Another 5.7 GW of CCGT capacity is currently under construction and should be completed by 1998. A further 7.6 GW of CCGT capacity has received section 36 consent and applications totalling 2.8 GW of CCGT capacity are currently under consideration. The decisions on whether to proceed with construction and its timing are matters for the companies concerned.

  The Department does not prepare forecasts of electricity capacity, but in the scenarios produced to assess energy related emissions of CO2—published in Energy Paper 65—it was assumed that, in the year 2000, CCGT capacity would be in the range 16 to 18 GW.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1990 to ensure diversity of supply in the electricity generating industry. [17199]

  Mr. Page
  In considering an application for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1990, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would as a general rule treat matters such as the choice of fuel to be used and type of plant as commercial matters for the applicant concerned.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were killed or injured as a result of accidents involving fireworks in each year since 1990. [18298]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of people killed or who attended an accident and emergency department as a result of accidents involving fireworks in the last five years in Great Britain are as follows:

  Year

  Injuries

  Fatalities

  1990

  805

  0

  1991

  723

  0

  1992

  942

  0

  1993

  1,058

  0

  1994

  1,574

  2

  1995

  1—

  1—

  1 Figures not yet available.

  North Sea
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was spent by(a) the previous Department of Energy and (b) the Department of Trade and Industry on research work into the decommissioning of fixed installations in the North sea in the past five years. [17840]

  Mr. Eggar
  Research into the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas installations on the UK continental shelf is funded primarily by industry. In the past five years neither the Department of Energy nor the Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned research related directly to decommissioning. My Department is currently considering the scope of a generic study relating to the best practicable environmental option for the decommissioning of installations in the southern sector of the North sea.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish new guidelines pertaining to decommissioning of North sea installations in the oil and gas sector; and what estimate has been made of the number of fixed installations requiring to be decommissioned up to 2005. [17839]

  Mr. Eggar
  I expect to publish guidance notes for industry on the decommissioning of offshore installations after I have had the opportunity to consider the report of the House of Lords Science and Technology sub-committee II on the subject.

  Depending upon field performance and economic factors at the time, current estimates indicate that some 40 fixed offshore installations on the UK continental shelf could be decommissioned by 2005.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department intends to spend on research into the removal of drill workings in the North sea. [17838]

  Mr. Eggar
  A study has recently been commissioned to assess the environmental implications of the presence of drilling cuttings piles. The cost of this study will be shared by Government and industry. Future research into the removal of drill cuttings in the North sea will be influenced by the findings of the study and funds will be made available as required. The Government do not expect to incur high expenditure as the research should be primarily funded by industry.

  German Construction Sector
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the impact on the employment of British construction firms and workers in Germany of the recent decision by the German Government to enforce common pay and conditions on all workers in the German construction sector. [17962]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is too early to assess the likely impact of the new law but I shall continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of 754
  Trade what proportion of the work force is covered by the minimum wage in each EU state according to the latest available evidence. [16282]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following table shows the latest available evidence on the proportions of the work force covered by the minimum wage in a number of countries in the form requested:

  Country

  Coverage of national minimum wage

  Netherlands

  All employees

  Luxembourg

  All employees

  Spain

  All employees except civil servants and local government officers

  France

  All employees

  Greece

  45–65 per cent.

  Portugal

  All employees over 18

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is being taken to ensure householders are warned of the dangers of the storage and use of pet coke. [17945]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am not aware of a particular hazard associated with the storage of petroleum coke. Suppliers of this material have been advised, in fulfilling their obligations under the General Products Safety Regulations 1994, to provide clear written instructions to anyone buying petroleum coke for domestic use.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests, indicating in each case if this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [16817]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I will ascertain the information requested and write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17690]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: Statistics concerning staff employed in my Department are normally based on pay and personnel records which include information on gender. Statistical information about personnel can therefore usually be broken down by gender.

  The regular statistical surveys run by the DTI are business surveys, where questions on gender are not relevant. In addition, statistics on individual insolvencies are collected from official receivers' offices. There are no plans to break these statistics down by gender. The home accident and European home leisure accident surveillance systems collect gender statistics on home and leisure accidents.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from small business organisations concerning companies purporting to offer advisory services about Government and European grants available to small businesses; what proposals he has to regulate the activities of such companies; and if he will make a statement. [18130]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: I have received representations from a number of hon. Members and from one small business organisation concerning companies offering advisory services about Government and European grants available to small businesses.

  There are many reputable private sector providers of grant information in addition to organisations such as local business links in England, business connect in Wales, together with local enterprise companies and business shops in Scotland, which offer easy access to such information. However, I remain concerned about the activities of some grant consultants and the DTI is doing what it can to stop such practices.

  Misleading claims made by sales people are a trading standards matter, and my Department is assisting trading standards departments in taking forward their inquiries. This is leading to direct action. For example, trading standards officers in Birmingham are pursuing inquiries under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 against a company known as Business Grants Advisory Group Ltd, operating in their area. My Department has also recently issued a press notice advising companies how to avoid being taken in by so called grant "cowboys" and how to find a reputable consultant.

  I do not believe further regulation is necessary or desirable.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise Management Act
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will carry out a review of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. [17223]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  On 15 June,Official Report, column 627, I announced in the House that Customs and Excise had set up a three-year wide-ranging review of the various Customs enactments as part of the Government's wider deregulation drive and this review is in progress. Part of this review is to rationalise and simplify both existing and new Customs provisions into consolidation Acts, including a replacement for the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

  Furthermore, on 26 February 1996, Official Report columns 596–97, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced in the House that the Government largely accept the recommendations of the Scott report in relation to Customs legislation and have asked for these recommendations to be implemented subject only to further consideration of some detailed technical legal matters.

  Tax Reliefs
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total tax relief, expressed in terms of revenue lost to public funds in each of the last three years benefiting(a) partners and (b) closed company men. [18174]

  Mr. Jack
  No special reliefs are available to individuals in partnerships or to directors or participators in close companies. Information is not available about the total value of reliefs given to these two groups of taxpayers.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals declared themselves as partners for the purposes of tax relief in each of the last three years. [18173]

  Mr. Jack
  According to the latest information available from the "Survey of Personal Incomes", the number of individuals regarded as partners for tax purposes was about 1.3 million in 1993–94 and in each of the previous two years. Individuals who carry on business in partnership are not entitled to any tax reliefs other than those they would be entitled to if they were in business on their own account.

  Written-off Debts
  Ms Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the value of debt to Government written off in each privatisation since 1979. [18487]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) on 23 March 1995,Official Report, columns 286–88.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Treasury of profit-related pay schemes in lost public revenues. [18315]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates of the cost of income tax relief for profit-related pay schemes in 1994–95 and 1995–96 are published in table 1.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1995", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Tax Law
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress HM Customs and Excise is making on simplification of tax law. [19022]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Inland Revenue produced a report on tax simplification in December 1995 under Section 160 of the Finance Act 1995 entitled "The Path to Tax Simplification". HM Customs and Excise (Customs) shares with the Inland Revenue the objective of seeking to simplify legislation and reduce burdens on business.

  The two departments have already started working closely together wherever possible to reduce burdens, particularly on small and new businesses. Early benefits include, for new businesses, a joint leaflet, "Starting Your Own Business" to help them assimilate information on VAT, income tax and national insurance; the provision of a joint notification form for business start-up and the availability of joint seminars. Other developments include

  757
  the provision of each other's leaflets at inquiry points and the extension last year of the Inland Revenue independent adjudicator's role to cover complaints against Customs. A trial is also taking place in Scotland to assess the value to business of a single low-cost telephone number for inquiries about taxation issues.

  However, because of significant differences in their role, Customs is following a different approach to simplification. Like the Revenue, Customs collects taxes for the UK Government: VAT and excise duties—oils, tobacco and alcohol; insurance premium tax; and, in due course, landfill tax. Unlike the Revenue, however, Customs also has other obligations. Customs collects customs duties for the EC; operates a range of duty relief and suspension regimes; protects society and UK trade by operating import and export prohibitions and restrictions; and collects trade statistics.

  The separate legislation—either UK or EC or both—for each of the taxes operated by Customs creates complexity for business through the different requirements for similar activities, such as registration. Many of Customs' legal requirements also apply to non-fiscal regimes such as the collection of trade statistics or licensing. Altogether, Customs legislation encompasses over 40 Acts of Parliament and more than 500 statutory instruments, together with over 200 Community instruments.

  Customs recognises that these different legal requirements impose costs on business, and the importance of removing or reducing them, wherever possible, across nearly 50 duty and suspension regimes it operates. In some cases, complexities are created by exemptions and special rules introduced to meet the needs of businesses. Where appropriate, existing reliefs will need to be retained, but keeping tax legislation simple may well mean resisting the introduction of new reliefs.

  Customs is working through a rigorous deregulation programme, which has already included repealing a number of unnecessary or redundant provisions. Clause 20 of the Finance Bill is an example of a current proposal here. Likewise, legal consolidation contributes to deregulation, for example The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, where 62 sets of existing regulations were brought together into a single document.

  As a Government we have encouraged the EC to deregulate. Some EC law, such as the Community customs code, is directly applicable and wherever opportunities are identified, Customs presses the Commission to simplify regulations. In co-operation with UK trade representatives, Customs has contributed significantly to a review of inward processing relief which, subject to agreement by a majority of member states, should result in simplification.

  Similarly, we have to have regard to existing Community obligations in relation to a number of fiscal regimes. Nevertheless, there have also been a number of recent simplification initiatives. The measure to simplify the EC VAT system is one which the UK has actively encouraged. Another is the relaxation in the financial security requirements for excise warehousekeepers achieved following UK representations.
  758
  As I announced in June 1995, Customs has started a project, known as LEGIS, with two goals. The first is to converge and simplify common procedures and rationalise individual enactments. The second is to simplify the structure of the law by consolidating the revised legal provisions. This will reduce burdens for businesses which have dealings with Customs on more than one tax or relief regime and result in a more coherent body of law for the benefit of taxpayers, practitioners and revenue officers alike.

  Customs has identified the main processes which it needs to review in order to assess the scope for rationalising policies, procedures and legislation across all the tax and other regimes. These are: registration and authorisation, declaration, payment and repayment, reviews and appeals, compliance assurance, debt management, civil penalties, and offence procedures.

  The reviews are under way. I expect most of them to be completed by the end of the year and the remainder to be completed early in 1997. Customs will consult business on emerging findings later in the year and I expect to introduce simplification and deregulatory measures flowing from the project as soon as is practicable thereafter.

  Press Gallery Writing Rooms
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February. [16471]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: None.

  BSA Tools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if access has been granted to Iraqi assets frozen in the United Kingdom in pursuance of a legal action against the Birmingham-based company BSA Tools. [16505]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The Bank of England advises that Iraqi funds were released on application to pay expenses incurred in pursuance of a legal action against BSA Tools, which was eventually settled out of court. This is in accordance with long established policy, where sanctions have been imposed, of allowing access to frozen funds to pay the cost of legal representation.

SCOTLAND

  Special Protection Areas
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete the designation of special protection areas under article 4 of EU directive 79/409. [16268]

  Mr. Kynoch
  An accelerated classification programme for Scotland is now in place. On current estimates the UK's special protection area network should be virtually completed in the year 2000.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidance he(a) has issued and (b) plans to issue to planning authorities to ensure that current or

  759
  proposed developments are consistent with the requirements of EU directives on the conservation of birds (79/409) and natural habitats (82/43); [16269]

  (2) what guidance he has given to the skiing industry and local authorities on his policy towards protecting mountain areas from environmentally inappropriate development and the requirements under international obligations to protect the flora and fauna of such areas. [16270]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Comprehensive guidance on the implementation of the habitats and birds directives is contained in circular No. 6/1995 which was issued to Scottish regional, island and district councils by the Scottish Office environment department in March 1995. A draft national planning policy guideline for skiing developments in Scotland was issued by the Scottish Office for consultation on 19 February 1996. When finalised the NPPG will supersede existing guidelines published in 1984. The draft NPPG reflects the Government's policies for both the environment and skiing interests.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the expansion of provision for pre-fives within the voluntary sector that will arise from the voucher initiative. [17537]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In the voluntary sector, as elsewhere, the expansion of provision will follow demand.

  Grants (Voluntary Bodies)
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reached a decision on the allocation to voluntary bodies of grants under the special grants (environmental) programme in 1996–97. [19145]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to have been able to offer 53 individual grants totalling £450,000 to 46 voluntary bodies in Scotland to assist them in carrying out their valuable environmental conservation, improvement and education work. The sums available in the special grants (environmental) programme in 1996–97 match those available in 1995–96. This continued level of support reflects the Government's commitment to the voluntary sector, and its role in carrying out the Government's environmental objectives.

  Organisation

  Grant £

  Association of Deer Management Groups

  3,000

  Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland

  3,000

  Biological Recording in Scotland Campaign

  4,000

  Buchan Countryside Group

  2,000

  Centre for Environment and Business in Scotland (CEBIS)

  8,000

  Council for Scottish Archaeology

  16,000

  CSV Scotland

  17,000

  Easter Ross Rights of Way Society

  800

  Education for Sustainability Development Group

  10,000

  Friends of the Earth Scotland

  36,300

  Game Conservancy Limited

  4,000

  Game Conservancy Trust

  4,000

  Garden History Society

  3,000

  Glasgow Building Preservation Trust

  8,000

  Heatwise Glasgow

  4,000

  Heather Trust

  7,000

  Highland and Islands Forum

  18,000

  760

  Organisation

  Grant £

  Kilmartin House Trust

  8,000

  Lothian and Edinburgh Environmental Partnership

  4,000

  National Society for Clean Air

  4,400

  Planning Aid for Scotland

  17,000

  Plantlife

  3,000

  Recycling Advisory Group Scotland

  8,000

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  20,000

  Rural Forum Scotland

  24,000

  Scottish Conservation Projects Trust

  27,000

  Scottish Ecological Design Association

  6,000

  Scottish Environmental Education Council

  37,000

  Scottish Environmental Forum

  7,000

  Scottish Farm and Countryside Educational Trust

  4,000

  Scottish Historic Buildings Trust

  11,700

  Scottish Native Woods Campaign

  5,000

  Scottish Redundant Churches Trust

  2,300

  Scottish Rights of Way Society

  7,000

  Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link

  12,000

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  38,500

  Strathclyde Greenbelt Trust

  8,000

  Sustrans (Sustainable Transport Scotland)

  8,000

  Treewise

  5,000

  Venture Scotland

  3,000

  Vision 21

  3,000

  West Galloway Fisheries Trust

  3,000

  West Sutherland Fisheries Trust

  5,000

  Woodland Trust

  4,000

  World Wide Fund for Nature

  9,000

  Youth Clubs Scotland

  8,000

  Total

  450,000

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17316]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February 1996, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many hectares and what proportion of Forestry Commission land in Scotland is(a) leased, (b) held in dominion directum and (c) held in vassal; [17381]

  (2) how many hectares and what proportion of Forestry Commission land in England is (a) leasehold and (b) freehold; [17382]

  (3) how many hectares and what proportion of Forestry Commission land in Wales is (a) leasehold and (b) freehold. [17383]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Scotland

  Hectares

  Proportion per cent.

  Leasehold

  5,829

  1

  Held in dominion directum (freehold)

  560,460

  81

  Held in vassal (feu)

  121,912

  18

  761

  England and Wales

  England

  Wales

  Hectares

  Proportion per cent.

  Hectares

  Proportion per cent.

  Leasehold

  73,958

  28

  24,905

  19

  Freehold

  192,956

  72

  108,962

  81

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sex Education
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances parents have the right to withdraw their children from classes in maintained schools in which sexually explicit materials are used. [16749]

  Mr. Paice
  Parents can withdraw their children from all or part of sex education provided beyond the requirements of national curriculum science. The parental right of withdrawal applies to all pupils attending maintained schools.

  Young People (Formal Qualification)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged 16 to 24 years in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands have no formal qualification. [17200]

  Mr. Paice
  Estimates from the summer 1995 labour force survey show that 21 per cent, of people aged 16 to 24 years in the west midlands metropolitan area reported that they had no formal qualifications. Data for Coventry are not available.

  Woodland Management
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps further to encourage coppice management. [16810]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: We have recently taken steps to encourage coppice management, particularly by helping to develop markets for coppice timber. The Forestry Commission has, for example, launched a sales magazine in partnership with East Sussex council, organised seminars, and appointed a market development officer.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Government policy towards woodlands management and woodland conservation. [16811]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: One of the key aims of the Government's forestry policy is the sustainable management of our existing woods and forests. Our policy is set out in detail in "Forestry Policy for Great Britain" and "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme", copies of which are in the Library.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has to enter into binding agreements for fuel reprocessing at Dounreay in advance of a new authorisation by the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. [17709]

  Mr. Richard Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UKAEA has powers to enter into binding arrangements under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954. The UKAEA enters into binding agreements only for fuel reprocessing at Doureay which it can carry out under current regulatory authorisation.

  Tertiary Education Teachers, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many full-time equivalent teachers were employed in tertiary education in Northamptonshire in each year since 1979. [17553]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information on full-time equivalent staff in further and higher education is shown in the table:

  Academic years

  Further education FTES

  Higher education FTES

  1987–881

  646.8

  182.1

  1988–89

  621.4

  183.0

  1989–90

  693.0

  187.3

  1990–91

  652.3

  224.8

  1991–922

  695.4

  246.9

  1992–93

  694.5

  312.9

  1993–94

  695.4

  381.3

  1 Figures prior to 1987–88 are incomplete.

  2 HE colleges transferred from LEA control to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  Academic year

  FTE providing teaching and learning (Provisional)

  Higher education FTES

  1994–95

  3621.3

  n/a

  3 From 1994–95 onwards, data are being collected by different systems, and the figure does not include as high a proportion of teacher time as the former measure.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme, Westminster
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the refusal of a child's parents to participate in the nursery voucher experimental pilot scheme in Westminster will lead to the exclusion of that child from a local education authority nursery school. [17956]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A valid nursery education voucher will be necessary for a school to claim grant. It is therefore in the interests both of the parent and the school that all eligible parents apply for vouchers. In the most exceptional cases where a parent does not apply for a voucher, and subject to certain conditions, the headteacher will be able to do so on their behalf. The admissions policies local education authority maintained schools will remain the responsibility for the LEA or the governing body as the case may be.

  Employment Agencies (Insurance)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statutory provisions cover the requirement for persons supplied by employment agencies to clients under contracts for service to possess adequate insurance in the event of claims for liability incurred in the execution of such contracts; and if she will make a statement. [17353]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  There are no statutory requirements for insurance in the circumstance described where the contract is for service. However, if the contract is one of service, an employer is required to insure against liability for personal injury or disease sustained in the course of employment.

WALES

  Bridges
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of(a) bridges on trunk roads and (b) bridges on country roads which require strengthening to carry 40-tonne lorries; and what is his estimate of the total cost of undertaking this for (a) and (b) [17227]

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated that 160 trunk road—including the M4 motorway—bridges will require strengthening. This work is estimated to cost £20 million of which £6 million has been expended to date.

  Local authorities are responsible for bridges on non-trunk roads.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department has adopted to combat vandalism; and if he will make a statement. [17378]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has adopted a number of measures to combat vandalism. In 1994 we published a good practice guide with the safe neighbourhoods unit. We have urged housing authorities to fill empty properties as quickly as possible, to reduce potential for vandalism. The estate partnership programme provides an opportunity for authorities to introduce anti-vandalism measures, and the Welsh Office has approved strategic development scheme grants totalling over £3 million for some 40 crime prevention-related schemes in 1995–96 and 1996–97. The current Housing Bill also contains proposals which are designed to combat the problem.

  Mostyn Docks
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the planning application for the development at Mostyn docks, Mostyn, Clwyd was(a) first presented to Delyn borough council, (b) called in by his Department, (c) considered by the public inquiry and
  764
  (d) completed at public inquiry; when the report was presented to his Department; and when he plans to announce his decision. [17046]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The application currently before the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Transport was received by Delyn borough council on 16 December 1994 and called in on 7 March 1995. The public local inquiry was held between 6 July and 8 August 1995 and the inspector's report was received by the Department on 7 November 1995. A decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Chungwha Picture Tubes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of the package offered by his Department to Chungwha Picture Tubes; and if he will make a statement. [17733]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The potential package of support discussed with the company, the detail of which must remain confidential, was the best that could be made available for the location in Wales considered by the company.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department was informed that Chungwha Picture Tubes would not be investing in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17740]

  Mr. Jones
  The company's position became clear at the end of August last year. Whilst the project will not be going ahead in Wales, I am delighted that the United Kingdom, rather than one of our other competitors for inward investment, will benefit from this investment.

  Employment (Overseas Companies)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by companies from(a) Canada and (b) Australia in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17525]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Canadian owned manufacturing companies employ 2,870 people in Wales and Australian owned manufacturing companies employ 670 people in Wales. They form a small but important part of Wales' inward investment success.

  Siemens and Samsung
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations were made by his Department to the Invest in Britain Bureau concerning recent projects with special reference to Siemens and Samsung; and if he will make a statement. [17730]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department and the Welsh Development Agency are in regular contact with the Invest in Britain Bureau. Siemens and Samsung chose locations elsewhere in the United Kingdom which met their particular requirements.

  A465
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the construction companies currently working on the A465 Aberdulais to Glynneath project.[17565]
  765
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The main contractor on the A465 Aberdulais to Glynneath scheme is Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 56, if he will publish the views expressed to him by the Welsh Language Board. [17769]

  Mr. Hague
  The views of the Chairman of the Welsh Language Board on the European charter for regional or minority languages were made public in a press release dated 29 April 1995. Views expressed by Welsh Language Board officials in discussion with my officials were consistent those expressed by Lord Elis Thomas.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representation Wales has on the Invest in Britain Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [17808]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Development Agency is represented on the Committee on Overseas Promotion. There is also regular dialogue and contact with the bureau by both my Department and the Welsh Development Agency.

  Employment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list his Department's estimates of(a) full-time and (b) part-time, (i) males and (ii) females in employment in agriculture, forestry and fishing in (1) 1995, (2) 1992 and (3) 1990 within the areas covered by the valleys initiative; and if he will make a statement; [16750]

  (2) if he will list his Department's latest estimates of (a) full-time and (b) part-time females in employment in construction in (i) 1995, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1993 within the area covered by the valleys initiative; and if he will make a statement; [16755]

  (3) if he will list his Department's latest estimates of (a) full-time and (b) part-time, (i) males and (ii) females in employment in metal manufacture and chemicals in (1) 1995, (2) 1990 and (3) 1985 within the areas covered by the valleys initiative; and if he will make a statement; [16763]

  (4) if he will list his Department's latest estimates of (a) full-time and (b) part-time, (i) males and (ii) females in employment in manufacturing industries in (1) 1995, (2) 1993 and (3) 1991 within areas covered by the valleys initiative; and what percentage change in each category level occurred in 1995 against 1993 and 1991; [16761]

  (5) if he will list his Department's latest estimates of (a) full-time and (b) part-time males in employment in construction in (i) 1995, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1992 within the areas covered by the valleys initiative; and if he will make a statement; [16765]

  (6) if he will list the latest estimates of (a) full-time and (b) part-time, (i) males and (ii) females in employment in transport and communications in (1) 1990, (2) 1987 and (3) 1984 within the areas covered by the valleys initiative;
  766
  and what percentage change in each category level occurred in 1990 against (x) 1987 and (y) 1984; [16764]

  (7) if he will list his Department's latest estimates of (a) full-time and (b) part-time males in employment in banking, insurance and finance in (i) 1995, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1985 within the areas covered by the valleys initiative; and what percentage change in each category level occurred in 1995 against (1) 1990 and (2) 1985; [16754]

  (8) if he will list his Department's latest estimates of (a) full-time and (b) part-time, (i) males and (ii) females in employment in service industries in (1) 1995, (2) 1990, (3) 1985 and (4) 1980 within the areas covered by the valleys initiative; and if he will make a statement; [16762]

  (9) if he will list his Department's latest estimates of (a) full-time and (b) part-time, (i) males and (ii) females in employment in metal goods, engineering and vehicles in (1) 1995, (2) 1992 and (3) 1990 within the areas covered by the valleys initiative; and what percentage change in each category level occurred in (x) 1992 and (y) 1990. [16766]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of full-time and part-time employees by gender and industry at ward level is available from the 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991 and 1993 censuses of employment. The programme for the valleys area can be approximated by 1981 and 1991 wards as detailed in annex 1 and annex 2 of the Welsh Office report "Programme for the Valleys, A Statistical Profile, 1993". The report is available in the Library of the House. Census of employment data are available from the NOMIS database which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House. It may not be possible to release all the data due to confidentiality restrictions.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-Ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17493]

  Mr. Hague
  I have arranged for a list containing appropriate details of overseas visits made by Ministers of my Department since 1990, to be placed in the Library of the House. However, information on costs is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18152]
  767
  Mr. Hague
  Staff in my Department are required to declare an interest if they are a director of a company or companies. This requirement is set out in the Welsh Office terms and conditions of service code. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for 768
  Wales what estimate he has made of the threat to migrating birds in those areas affected by oil from the Sea Empress. [18357]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Countryside Council for Wales is collating data on dead and affected birds and it is too early to assess the full effect of the incident on any species. Particular concern has been expressed about the wintering Common Scoter population in Carmarthen bay, where up to 700 dead and over 1,000 oiled birds have been recovered by the RSPCA.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [H.L.]
11.6 a.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a useful measure of law reform which derives from recommendations of the Law Commission in two reports. It gives effect, with minor changes, to the recommendations in the report on Transfer of Land: Trusts of Laud (Law Corn. No. 181), and also gives effect to the second recommendation, which concerns bare trusts, in the report on Overreaching: Beneficiaries in Occupation (Law Com. No. 188). Rather than detain your Lordships for a long time with a detailed explanation of the somewhat technical provisions of the Bill, I propose, with your Lordships' leave, to explain the Bill's provisions in fairly broad terms. Fuller explanation of the current law and the proposed changes may be found in the two Law Commission reports to which I have referred, and full Notes on Clauses will also be available to any noble Lord who wishes to examine the technical provisions in greater detail. Since the Bill was introduced there has been a substantial opportunity for commentators, practitioners and professional bodies to consider the Bill in detail, and many helpful comments and suggestions for improving the Bill have been received, to which the Government will endeavour to give as positive a response as possible.
The Bill extends to England and Wales only. It amends and replaces much of the law governing joint ownership of land, which was last changed significantly by the property legislation of 1925, in particular the Law of Property Act 1925, which did away with most of the complications of the old, essentially feudal law. Indeed this Bill represents an arguably overdue development of the process of simplification which, although most obviously represented by the 1925 legislation, began in the late 19th century.s
The 1925 legislation simplified conveyancing by ensuring that a purchaser should not as a rule have to undertake lengthy investigation of the beneficial interests in the property, but can take free of them if the relevant statutory machinery is used. It restricted joint ownership of land to two forms: the strict settlement, where land is limited in trust by way of succession, and which is rarely used today; and the trust for sale, where the legal interest is held by a trustee or trustees on trust for sale for those who have the beneficial interest. If the appropriate statutory machinery is used (generally conveyance by two trustees for sale or a trust
1718
corporation), the beneficial interests are "overreached" and transferred from the land to the proceeds of sale, and thereby cleared off the title so that the purchaser takes free of them. Certain interests cannot be overreached; namely, legal interests and those which are protected either by registration where the land is registered or because the purchaser has actual notice of them where the land is not registered.
There are three main problems with the existing law in this area. First, although it represented a considerable simplification of the law in its day, it is unnecessarily complicated, and the settled land provisions particularly so. Those provisions in particular have been recently described as redolent of a world which was already dying in 1925 and has long since disappeared. Secondly, because of the priority which the 1925 legislation gives to settled land, it is possible for testators or grantors to trigger the complex settled land provisions unintentionally, thereby causing problems and expense for both beneficiaries and purchasers. Thirdly, the trust for sale mechanism is not appropriate to the conditions of modern home ownership, which represents the majority of jointly-owned real property, since it is based on an assumption that property which is not subjected to a strict settlement is intended as an investment rather than as a home, to be bought and sold as market conditions demand, with the beneficiaries being interested in the proceeds of sale rather than the property for its own sake.
The Bill replaces trusts for sale and strict settlements with a new single system of co-ownership of land known as the "trust of land". Trusts for sale are abolished and existing trusts for sale become trusts of land as from commencement. The creation of new settlements after commencement is prohibited, although it will be possible for a similar effect to be achieved by express provision in a trust of land, as I shall explain later. Existing settlements, however, are left untouched and subject to the existing regime for as long as there remains land or heirlooms subject to the trusts of the settlement. In addition, there is an exception allowing resettlement of settlements in existence at commencement, and settlements created in the exercise of powers of appointment contained in settlements in existence at commencement. These provisions will avoid problems with settlements which may have been in existence for a long time.
Under the trust of land, title is vested in the trustees, who are given power both to sell and to retain the land, rather than being placed under a duty to sell. As a consequence, the doctrine of conversion, under which a joint beneficial interest in land is deemed to be an interest in the proceeds of sale rather than in the land itself, is abolished. The resulting position reflects the fact that most co-ownership of property is for the purpose of providing a home rather than an investment, and that most joint home owners already believe themselves to have an interest in land rather than in money. Existing protection for purchasers of land subject to a trust by way of the overreaching machinery is to be maintained and will cover all cases of co-ownership except existing settlements, so that conveyancing will be simplified. In accordance with the

1719
Law Commission's recommendation in the overreaching report, this will include bare trusts which presently fall outside the statutory scheme.
The Bill makes detailed provision for the administration of the trust of land, giving the trustees broad and flexible powers balanced against extra rights for the beneficiaries. Trustees of land will have, in relation to the land which is subject to the trust, all the powers of an absolute owner. This does not override any restrictions on trustees' powers under any other enactment. It is also subject to the requirement to act in accordance with the trust instrument, which may expressly limit the trustees' powers, and with the general equitable duties attaching to the position of trustee, in particular the duty to have regard to the interests of the beneficiaries in exercising such powers.
A particular power specifically conferred on trustees of land enables them, acting unanimously, to delegate any functions relating to the land to any beneficiary who is of full age and capacity and who has a present vested interest. This will, among other things, permit the effect of a strict settlement to be broadly reproduced, but without the possibility of creating a settlement unintentionally, which is one of the main problems of the existing law.
These powers are further balanced against additional rights for the beneficiaries, such as a right for beneficiaries of full age and capacity to be consulted about the management of the property unless the trust deed provides otherwise; and a right for beneficiaries in certain circumstances to occupy land subject to the trust.
The existing provision for enabling application to the court to resolve disputes over ownership or disposal of the property is also simplified, with flexible guidelines reflecting the different purposes for which the property may have been bought. This will carry through the effect of the existing provision under Section 30 of the 1925 Act as it has been applied and developed by the courts, with the amendments necessary to ensure that the court's powers are sufficiently broad and flexible to reflect the nature and purpose of the trust.
The Bill also makes detailed provision for such matters as the application of the new regime to trusts of the proceeds of sale of land, and to the position of personal representatives.
The detailed provisions of Part I of the Bill apply only to trusts of land. Part II makes provisions which will apply to trusts of personalty as well as trusts of land, concerning the appointment of new trustees, for example, where a trustee has become unfit or incapable or wishes to be discharged. These provisions, which apply only where all the beneficiaries are both ascertained and of full age and capacity, give them the right, which would be required to be exercised unanimously, to direct the appointment of a new trustee or trustees. In addition, trustees intending to make such an appointment are required to notify the beneficiaries and give them the option of giving a direction to appoint another person or persons. It is in recognition of the fact that these provisions extend beyond trusts of land that
1720
the Short Title of the Bill has been changed from the Bill annexed to the Law Commission's report, the title of which was the Trusts of Land Bill.
Finally, Part III of the Bill makes general provision for such matters as interpretation, commencement and for consequential amendments and repeals of other legislation.
I began by suggesting that I would not go into the provisions of the Bill in great detail. Having heard what I have had to say, your Lordships will no doubt be very grateful that I chose not to do so. The Bill is of a highly technical nature, but it is reassuring that apparently it has support. I believe this to be a useful measure of law reform which will simplify an area of the law which has become somewhat arcane but which in practice affects a great many people, particularly homeowners. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it takes a Lord Advocate with the clarity of mind and speech of the noble and learned Lord to introduce the Second Reading of this highly technical and to a large extent esoteric Bill with comparative simplicity, and even succeed in making it sound interesting. In speaking for the Official Opposition I have the pleasant task of congratulating him on that introduction, and of thanking the Law Commission for its two reports and for all the work and erudition that went into them, while noting, as I am sure the House will, that these reports were made as long ago as 1989. I can tell the House that the Law Society, as well as leading academics, having been extensively consulted as the noble and learned Lord mentioned, approves generally of the principles governing this Bill, and that this is one of those occasions when the Opposition can announce that the government measure is not opposed and indeed has their support.
Any necessary modernisation or tidying up of the law is a good thing. That is what the Bill achieves, based as it is, with some fairly minor amendments, on the two Law Commission reports which have been summarised by the noble and learned Lord.
Trust law has never been simple, but it did not have to be as complex as it has been, or as self-defeating, by having different legal consequences resulting from trusts for sale and strict settlements in respect of land. The basic proposition in the Bill, as it was in the recommendations contained in the Law Commission's two reports, is to have a new, single system of co-ownership of land known as "the trust of land". That will apply to all trusts of land, including bare trusts, but excepting strict settlements under the Settled Land Act 1925 already in existence when the Bill becomes law and is effective, and certain new settlements derived from such settlements.
I express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which they in turn may wish to pass on to or share with Parliamentary Counsel, for their decision not to follow the form of the draft Bills which, with its usual helpfulness, the Law Commission

1721
attached by way of appendix to its two reports. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate knows, the present Bill has been extensively redrafted as against the method adopted in the commission's draft of textual amendment of existing legislation. That is, and especially in this instance would be, a cumbersome and confusing method by which to legislate, and would not be appreciated by legal practitioners, not to mention the unfortunate proverbial occupant of the Clapham omnibus in the event of his choosing this Bill as light reading on his journey. Instead of adopting such a procedure, the reforming measures provided in the Bill are formulated as new, freestanding provisions.
I should also like to emphasise, as did the noble and learned Lord, the importance of the manner in which under the Bill trustees have been given broader and more flexible powers and beneficiaries, for their part, rights which they do not now have. Included in those rights is a very new one, where beneficiaries not only under trusts of land but of personalty become entitled in certain circumstances where it is necessary to appoint somebody new as a trustee to direct the trustees to appoint someone of their own choice. Under Clause 19 of the Bill trustee are required to serve notice of intention to appoint a new trustee on their beneficiaries if all are of full age and capacity and to give the beneficiaries the opportunity to exercise by direction their right to choose a trustee themselves.
Clause 21 of the Bill gives the beneficiaries a similar right to choose a trustee where an existing trustee is mentally incapable and there are no other trustees willing and capable of making an appointment. The Law Society has suggested that those provisions could give rise to some difficulties in practice and that trustees may in future want to ensure that trusts and wills expressly confer power of appointment in order to avoid their operation.
While dealing with the right to nominate trustees perhaps I may mention that the Bill does not appear to deal with any overlap with the Pensions Act 1995, which includes some similar provisions; for example, members of pension schemes having the right to nominate trustees. I understand that draft regulations under that Act are the subject of consideration and consultation. Where pension trustees hold land as assets of the pension fund both pieces of legislation might apply unless specific provisions are made to avoid overlap. Would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate care to look at that?
Furthermore, the existing provisions in Section 26(3) of the Law of Property Act for statutory trusts for sale under which trustees must consult beneficiaries of full age and capacity wherever practical when exercising their functions are also extended in Clause 11 to all trusts of land unless expressly excluded. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may know, it has been suggested by some practitioners that that could well prove onerous in some circumstances and is causing some concern.
Again on this subject, it is appropriate that the Bill should not give discretionary beneficiaries rights which should sensibly be kept for beneficiaries who are
1722
definitely entitled to share in the trust. Apart from the principle that a discretionary beneficiary has no right until he is appointed to receive a benefit, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would agree that it would be wholly impracticable for everyone in a large class of discretionary beneficiaries to be consulted on trust matters.
Perhaps the use in various clauses of the Bill of the word "ascertained" in relation to beneficiaries is intended to exclude merely potential beneficiaries under a discretionary trust. However, in view of past uncertainties over language in existing legislation on the same point (for example, whether discretionary beneficiaries have an "interest"), might it not be much safer to put the position beyond doubt rather than use shorthand expressions on such an important point? I appreciate that that is more of a Committee point, but I thought that it might be useful to mention it at this stage so that it can be duly considered.
One particular reform contained in the Bill, which was emphasised by the noble and learned Lord in his opening speech, will interest the House and the public at large, the majority of whom would think that they had no personal interest or connection with the law appertaining to trusts. What they may not have realised, until some lawyer explains it to them when it becomes appropriate to do so (sometimes, unfortunately, on a matrimonial break-up) is that when with the other spouse they jointly purchased their matrimonial home they created in law a trust for sale. Technically that means that there is a duty to sell even if the law implies a power to postpone the sale.
As the Law Commission report points out, house ownership is a common feature today among all sections of our community. The figures are interesting. The proportion of owner-occupied dwellings goes from 7 per cent. in 1914 to 43 per cent. in 1938 and 66 per cent. by 1992. In the old days joint ownership on the title deeds by husband and wife was a rarity. In these days it is very common, and the intention of most spouses when purchasing the matrimonial home in joint names is not to hold it as an investment for sale or as an investment asset pending sale but to use it and keep it as a home. Lawyers have been trying to deal with the position by developing a principle, to which the noble and learned Lord briefly referred, known as "collateral purpose". That means recognising that the intention and purpose was to provide a family home so that where there is a dispute the court can refuse to order a sale. In many respects, that has made confusion more confounded in regard to what is the true legal position and, as has been pointed out, there are conflicting precedents in the judgments of the Court of Appeal.
The new concept of a single trust for land and the provisions of this Bill supply a welcome solution to a very real current problem as, under the new style trust, the trustees (in this case the husband and wife) will hold the legal estates on trust with a power to sell and a power to retain the land rather than having the primary duty of sale as in the position under the existing law.
I do not wish, especially on a Friday morning, to weary the House with a detailed survey of the many provisions of the Bill. I believe that that paraphrases the

1723
opening remarks of the speech of the noble and learned Lord. As I have said, that has already been done so ably by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I have merely attempted to select some of the principles which underlie the desirable reforms which the Bill contains, to point out why some of those reforms are necessary and to put to the noble and learned Lord a few matters which have arisen in the minds of legal practitioners which can doubtless be dealt with at later stages in the Bill's history. I follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in commending the Bill to the House and in supporting the Motion for its Second Reading.
11.32 a.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanation of the Bill. I should also say how grateful I was for the early receipt of the Notes on Clauses, which give a clear description of what is a formidable subject. I am sure that I am not alone in always having been rather afraid of the bewildering law relating to trusts of land with its strange language such as "overreaching", "springing interests" and the like. The strict settlement and the trust for sale were taught to students as if they were immutable and sacrosanct, cast in the magnificent language of the 1925 legislation. They were always concepts which were very difficult to grasp—to me, at any rate—even once one had got hold of the basic point that they were mutually exclusive.
But the practising common lawyer cannot avoid the law of trusts, much as he or she may want to. The trust for sale or variants of it have become frequently used by the matrimonial courts as one solution to property and financial disputes after divorce. Conversely, when advising on potential claims against an estate under the inheritance provisions of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, one is quite often faced with wills which inappropriately use a trust for sale in favour of a widow. There, the authorities suggest that the machinery of the Settled Land Act 1925 is more appropriate. Indeed, that Act is used to deal with certain claims under the 1975 legislation.
As I understand it, the Bill will not preclude that sort of flexibility in future, although the labels may change. The reforms in the Bill are, as we have been told, the product of reports from the Law Commission. They are generally welcomed, so far as I can tell, both academically and among practitioners to the north of the Law Courts. Frankly, it is hard to detect the emotional turmoil in Lincoln's Inn on almost any subject. But, as far as I have been able to discover, there is no seething discontent at the changes now proposed.
I understand that the complexity of the present law has led drafting, even by competent lawyers, to produce unexpected results. The Bill seems to produce a scheme which is simpler, albeit sometimes less certain, and may place a greater burden upon the draftsman. Of course, this is not simply an arid area of the law. The law of trusts has been creatively used to produce equitable solutions to social problems and informal arrangements between unmarried couples and between family members of different generations. For example, with the
1724
release of council house tenancies for sale, one quite often comes across quite elderly couples who have been tenants for a long time and so are entitled to a substantial discount under the right-to-buy scheme, who use the mortgage capability of their children to exercise that right. That all works perfectly well if everyone remains harmonious, but it can cause acute conflict if the generations fall out.
The use by the Court of Appeal of the Settled Land Act 1925 in the recent case of Costello in 1994 is a striking example of that use of the existing law to meet such a situation. A case called Dent in which the High Court found against a settled land Act tenancy for life was reported only this week. It is to be hoped that the Bill might reduce the need for such costly litigation.
Perhaps I may particularly welcome the formulation of a court's powers in Clause 14 of the Bill and the formulation of the relevant matters for consideration by the court in Clause 15, especially the express reference to the welfare of any minor child. It seems to me that that will assist in preserving the home for children so far as may be practicable.
I should like now to raise a point that I was asked to mention by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who regrets that he is unable to be present today. It concerns charitable trusts which sometimes, by historical accident as much for any other reason, can hold land either as settled land or under trust for sale. Under the Bill as drafted, a considerable difference will be created because those trusts which are settled land will not have the benefit of the powers in Clause 6 and will remain subject to the restrictions of the 1925 legislation but those which were set up as trusts for sale will be free of such restrictions.
There may be good reason for retaining such distinction in private trusts, but it is hard to see why they should affect charities, given the safeguards under the existing charities legislation. Indeed, I understand that the Charity Commission favours allowing existing charitable settlements to become trusts of land under the proposed new law but that the Home Office has suggested potential problems under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. At this stage, I do not propose to swim yet further out of my depth, but I would inquire whether the Government have advanced their thinking on that topic and whether they might be prepared to bring forward their own amendments in Committee—failing which, I suspect that the noble Earl may be inclined to do so.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about the present intentions as regards the commencement of the legislation. Can be tell us when that might be and whether it is intended that good notice will be given to the various professional bodies? With those remarks, I welcome the Bill.
11.39 a.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, those who have spoken before me have managed splendidly to avoid the technicalities of what is a technical Bill. Unfortunately it is my area of technicality but, even so, I shall do my best not to get lost in it.

1725
Perhaps I may begin by welcoming the Bill personally. For the reasons that those who have spoken before me have given, we are at last going to get a little bit of common sense into the law affecting the matrimonial home, instead of leaving it to people like me to work out what ought to be the simplest thing in the world by reference to Acts designed to deal with the settled estates of the Duke of Omnium. That must be an enormous leap forward.
Secondly, perhaps I may echo the welcome for a complete redraft of the law in the sector, which is much overdue. Anything that gets rid of some of the matters that I have had to consider for the past 30 years cannot be anything but good. Finally, on that aspect, I shall miss my expertise in one way, but I have no doubt that for everyone, if the Bill goes through, it will make dealing with land and homes easier, better and, if I may say so, cheaper.
I hope to detain your Lordships for only a short while on the concerns which have been drawn to my attention by the Association of Pension Lawyers. It is an astonishing feature of our trust law that when people talk about trusts and trusts of land, they are inclined to think of matrimonial homes or the trust of half Essex. What they do not think about is pension funds. I do not know how many hundred billion pounds are currently invested in occupational pension schemes, but in terms of value it dwarfs any other trusts which are now subsisting. I do not blame anyone in regard to the drafting or presentation of the Bill, but it looks as though the interaction between those provisions and the running of pension funds has somehow been overlooked to date.
I am sure that the Government will be as aware as I am that it is of great importance that the provisions of the Bill are brought into line so that the regulation of pension schemes, which has recently been undertaken by Parliament in the Pensions Act 1995, does not come into conflict in any way with the provisions of the Bill. The definition of a trust of land in the Bill includes any land held in trust. Pension schemes have large holdings of land. It goes wider than that; many other large trust funds have holdings of land as investments. I am not quite sure of the extent to which the Bill has so far addressed the problem of people, pensioners or pending pensioners, being entitled to occupy number 22, Smithfield. That is an admirable provision when applied to the matrimonial home, but not entirely apposite when brought to bear on pension schemes and any other large trust fund which is invested in land.
Therefore, I hope that when we reach the Committee stage, or possibly before, the House will address how this admirable scheme is to be adjusted so as to ensure that the regulation under the Pensions Act is not frustrated, at the same time as preserving all the benefits that the Bill otherwise has.
I have a small number of technical points on which I shall not dwell because this is not the appropriate time. If I may, I shall provide to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a note of matters which have been brought to my attention and which I endorse.
1726
I finish with one technical point of general importance. Various rights are conferred on beneficiaries, if they are ascertained and of full age. That theme recurs throughout the Bill. For myself—and I am not alone—I am not quite sure what the statutory formula means. Do beneficiaries have rights if all beneficiaries are ascertained and if all are of full age or do those who are ascertained and of full age have rights, even though there are many other unascertained parties? That is a technical point, but a real one because under the Bill great powers are being given to a class of beneficiaries. I hope that there can be no doubt at all, as a matter of drafting, which class is intended. Are the rights only conferred when all the beneficiaries are of full age and ascertained, or are they conferred on those beneficiaries who are ascertained, notwithstanding that there is a huge class of other beneficiaries to follow thereafter? I hope that, when we reach the Committee stage, careful attention will be given to the position of pension funds and, to my mind, the legitimate difficulties that they see arising in certain provisions in what otherwise is an admirable Bill.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one whose practice of the law was rudely interrupted by the late Adolf Hitler 56 years ago, perhaps I may express my deep personal gratitude to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and clarified my understanding of the Bill to a considerable extent. I wish particularly to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the clarification which they gave. At least I hope they know that one Member of the House understands the Bill a great deal better than he did before and is truly grateful for it.
11.46 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which the Bill has received from all sides of the House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the eloquent way in which he conveyed his warm support for the Bill. He obviously has an extensive knowledge and understanding of this field of law. It is reassuring to me and the Government that the Bill commands his support. I shall pass on to Parliamentary Counsel the appreciation which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed—an appreciation which we all share.
I am happy to indicate at this stage, dealing with the specific points which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised, that they will all be looked at fully and sympathetically as soon as possible. The concerns which he raised are understood and I am optimistic that the Government will be able to address them in the course of the next few weeks, before the Bill returns to your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, reinforced with some recent examples how trust law has been developed in new fields in recent years. The examples illustrate the desirability of simplifying the law as much as possible, and again it is reassuring to have his support.

1727
Dealing with the specific point which he raised on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, it has already been discussed with officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department and I am in a position to say that the officials see no reason why an appropriate amendment cannot be ready in time to be brought forward by the Government for the Committee to consider. As my noble friend indicated, the Charities Commission has supported the point and I am advised that there is no problem under the European Convention in bringing forward an amendment to deal with the concern.
The final point which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised is the issue of commencement. It is accepted that the Bill could only come into effect some time after Royal Assent and ample notice will be given to all practitioners who might be affected, assuming that the Bill follows the normal passage. It is anticipated that it will be some date next year before commencement takes place. I hope by Committee stage to be in a position to give a more specific indication of when that might be.
Turning to the points which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, raised, it is extremely reassuring to have support from that quarter as well. He explained the concerns of the Association of Pension Lawyers about the possible overlap. The two matters have been discussed with the officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department: the anxieties are of importance and they will be addressed. I hope that amendments can be brought forward to deal with those suggestions which the Government accept, so that they can be properly considered at Committee stage.
As to the final point raised by the noble and learned Lord, I am advised that the intended meaning of the provisions of the Bill is that the beneficiaries must all be ascertained and be of full age and capacity. I hope that that provides an answer to the specific point raised.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for joining in and providing his support, on the basis of his long experience, for a Bill which, it is accepted, commands support on all sides. I commend the Bill to the House and invite noble Lords to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
11.50 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before the House on 13th February, be approved.
This is one in a series of financial orders covering Northern Ireland departments which come before the House each year. The draft order before us today
1728
authorises expenditure of £96 million for Northern Ireland departments for the current financial year. This is in addition to the £6,142 million voted by the House last June. The order also authorises the vote-on-account of £2,821 million for 1996–97, to enable the services of Northern Ireland departments to continue until the 1996–97 main Estimates are brought before your Lordships later this year.
Before turning to the details of the Estimates, I should like to set them in the context of recent economic developments in Northern Ireland. Both official data and survey evidence show that there is a marked improvement in the recent performance of the local economy and that the prospects for the economic future of Northern Ireland are now brighter than for many years. This is also reflected in the figures for those in employment and those out of work. The number of employees in employment in Northern Ireland now stands at 570,290—an all-time high for the Province. Seasonally adjusted unemployment, at 11.4 per cent. of the workforce, is now at its lowest level for over 14 years.
This is encouraging, as is survey evidence from the local business community, which shows that confidence in the Northern Ireland economy remains strong across the hoard, with reported investment levels well above other regions in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the positive growth in exports is continuing, and consumer demand remains buoyant. The output of manufacturing and production industries continues to rise at a rate well above that achieved at national level. Over the past five years Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased output by just over 13 per cent., compared with a 1.3 per cent. rise nationally. Government will continue to assist local industry to improve its competitiveness and to maximise the opportunities offered by the new economic climate.
All this, without doubt, is very welcome news for the people of Northern Ireland and I am confident that the prospects and performance of the economy will continue to improve. But, let there be no mistake, all this success could be put at risk if there were continuing violence.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main items in the Estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. In Vote 1, a net increase of £1.1 million is required. Some £1.5 million is for capital grant commitments, £1.3 million of which is required for additional uptake under the farm and conservation grant scheme. These increases are offset by savings in other areas.
In Vote 2, covering local support measures, a net increase of £1.1 million is sought. This includes £3.6 million which represents the carry-forward of capital and running costs from 1994–95 to 1995–96. These increases are partially offset by projected easements elsewhere within the Vote.
Turning to the Department of Economic Development, a token increase of £1,000 is sought in Vote I. Some £3.5 million is for the Industrial Development Board for the provision of land and buildings. This is to meet additional expenditure on factories for recent inward investment projects. Some

1729
£6 million is for selective assistance to industry, mainly to meet claims made under existing offers to major inward investment projects. These increases reflect the continuing success of the board in attracting competitive companies to Northern Ireland. The increases are offset by increased receipts and reduced requirements elsewhere in the Vote.
In Vote 2, a token increase of £1,000 is also sought. This is mainly to cover residual expenditure in relation to the privatisation of the electricity supply in Northern Ireland. These costs are being met from dividend receipts and proceeds from the sale of shares.
In Vote 3, a net increase of some £1.6 million is sought by the Training and Employment Agency. The main requirement is £6 million to meet increasing capital under the company development programme. Partial offsetting of savings declared elsewhere in the Vole has reduced the additional requirements to £1.6 million.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment. A net increase of some £6.5 million is sought in Vote 1, including some £3.4 million for roads and bridges maintenance and for capital works. Some £2.8 million is for compensation payments and capital grants to Northern Ireland railways. These increases again are partially offset by increased receipts.
In Vote 2, covering housing, a net increase of some £3 million is sought, mainly to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Some £6.8 million is to provide private sector housing renovation grants. This increase is partially offset by the re-allocation of some £2.8 million in housing grant and by additional receipts from housing associations. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is expected to be about £599 million, some £25 million more than in 1994–95.
In Vote 3, covering water and sewerage services, a net increase of some £2.1 million is sought. Additional expenditure of some £4 million, mainly required for operational, new construction and improvement work. This has been offset by a reduction of some £2 million on water and sewerage administration.
In Vote 4, covering environmental and other services, a net increase of some £0.2 million is sought. Environmental and urban regeneration programmes are included in this increased expenditure, which again is offset mainly by additional receipts.
In Vote 5, covering office and general accommodation, £8.2 million is for new public building works, alterations and purchases.
In Vote 6, covering the Fire Service, a net increase of £0.9 million is sought for turnout and attendance fees for retained firefighters and other miscellaneous increased costs.
I now turn to the Department of Education, where a net increase of some £8.3 million is sought in Vote I. This includes some £7.1 million for grants to education and library hoards, mainly for maintenance, minor works and frost damage, and for replacement buses. Some £1.4 million is for voluntary schools, mainly for health and safety works. These increases are offset by savings elsewhere in the Vote.
In Vote 2, a net increase of £0.3 million is sought. Some £0.9 million is needed for an increase in the student support budget, £0.3 million for arts and museums, and a further £0.3 million for sport and community services. Increases are also required for departmental administration and youth cervices. These increases are offset by reduced requirements elsewhere in the Vote.
I now turn to the Department of Health and Social Services. Where a net increase of £17.6 million is sought in Vote I. This includes £26.1 million for hospital, community health and personal social services and family health services revenue; and £1.9 million for capital expenditure. These increases are offset by increased receipts and a reduction of £7.1 million in the centrally financed services.
Moving to Vote 3. where additional net provision of £5.3 million is required, his is due to a decrease in receipts of £6.8 million, most of which relates to recoupments from the National Insurance Fund in respect of administration costs and an increase in funding for the centrally financed miscellaneous health and personal social services of £2.8 Those increases are offset by reductions of £4.3 million elsewhere in the vote.
In Vote 4, which covers social security, £29 million is sought. This is due mainly to a greater than anticipated demand for disability benefits, in particular attendance, invalid care and disability living allowances. This is offset by decreases in income support and family credit.
Finally, in Vote 5 £5.3 million is sought. This is due mainly to increased expenditure on rent allowance and rates rebates. Those increases are partially offset by reduced requirements elsewhere in the vote.
In addition to the aforementioned increases, provision has been included within individual votes under the European Union Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. European funding has been provided initially for a three-year period 1995–97, with further funding for two years up to 1999, subject to review. Northern Ireland has been allocated £200 million, which, together with 25 per cent. matching funding, brings the total value of the programme in Northern Ireland to some £266 million. Both the European funding and the matching funding will be fully additional.
I hope that your Lordships have found this summary of the main components of the order helpful, if detailed. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
12.3 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn very much regrets that he is unable to be in his place this morning, due to a previous commitment.

1731
I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for introducing the appropriation order with its range of figures, for her account of the main items of expenditure and her encouraging report on the economic background to the developments in Northern Ireland.
I believe I should not be going wide of the subject we are discussing if I were to say at the outset that the explosion in Canary Wharf three weeks ago which brought the IRA ceasefire to an end filled us all with disbelief and dismay. It seems to many of us that the clock went back that night. On the other hand, I believe that the message from the people of Northern Ireland right across the land is clear: they want the politicians to work towards a lasting peace and reconciliation. We were therefore immensely encouraged when the two governments were able to issue a joint statement two days ago. That statement showed a great deal of flexibility and contained elements which should have been acceptable to all parties. The statement sent out a signal of hope. As the Minister said, it is upon the expectations for peace that so much depends in Northern Ireland. However, the signals overnight from the IRA are sombre and it would appear that the reinstatement of the ceasefire is very much in doubt. That is the situation we are in.
I should like to hear from the Minister on the transfers which have been made during the past 12 to 15 months from the security budget to other budgets, such as those for economic development, health and social services. If the reinstatement of the IRA ceasefire is not likely to be imminent, do the Government intend to claw hack any of the funds which have been transferred from the security budget to the economic, health and social services budgets'? The stark fact is that there is horrendous dependence on the dole and social benefits in Northern Ireland. I believe it is agreed that to reduce this dependence should continue to be a central aim of government policy. The Secretary of State has been reported in the Belfast Telegraph as saying:
"if violence resumes, this saving will have to be restored to the budget".
Can the Minister clarify at whose expense it will be restored, hearing in mind that, notwithstanding what the Minister said about the health vote, at least two of the health and social services hoards are at present facing some financial difficulties, as is the ACE youth employment scheme'? I do not overlook the personal difficulties of the 40,000 long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland.
Though I have been considerably reassured by what the Minister has said, is there any evidence that any of the international bodies are contemplating the withdrawal of funds if the ceasefire is not restored? If such a move were to be one of the consequences of a resumption of violence, it would be shortsighted. However, I believe the Minister assured the House that the European Peace Fund, for example, is secure. Is there any evidence that some overseas companies or municipality funds, such as the New York City Employee Pension Fund, considering not proceeding with their plans to invest in Northern Ireland until the
1732
ceasefire has been reinstated? Surely the investment plans of overseas companies and large municipalities are more relevant than ever.
There is agreement, fully supported by Coopers & Lybrand, that the period of 17 months since the ceasefire has been one of the most successful periods for Northern Ireland in living memory. Clearly, the ceasefire contributed significantly to that achievement. That is not to belittle the admirable commitment of the Minister to the task of rebuilding the Northern Ireland economy. As the Minister said— I believe she touched on this in her speech this morning— we have to ensure that all the hard work of the past 17 months is not squandered.
I am conscious that it is Friday morning and therefore I have just a few specific questions for the Minister. They fall within the Minister's area of responsibility. We have all read of the worries at Short's, Ulster's biggest private sector employer. Those difficulties flow from the financial problems of its key customer, Fokker, the Dutch aerospace company. The loss of Short's would be a severe blow for Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Blease tells me that 1,500 redundancy notices have already been issued. No doubt that is no more than a precautionary move. However, that gives a stark indication of the size of the potential loss.
Can the Minister tell us how complex is the position as at today's date, 1st March'? Can she give us any reassuring information additional to what we read in the newspapers? I am sure that it would be appreciated if the Minister could give an indication of when the company and its 1,500 employees may anticipate a firm decision on the company's future.
I have a question about Northern Ireland's largest single industry, agriculture, which is facing critical years. Compared with the huge investments referred to in the order, my question is relatively minor; nonetheless, it is important for rural Northern Ireland.
Last December the Scottish Secretary of State made an order, the Rural Diversification Programme (Scotland) Regulations (1995 No. 3295). That order was made under the terms of the European Community Act 1972. The regulations provide a range of small but useful measures for promotion of rural diversification. They provide for the payment of grants up to £ 25,000 to a legal occupier of an agricultural unit— I believe those are Scottish tenns— to finance such measures on his land. I have a feeling that such an order would also be welcomed by the owners and tenants of agricultural land in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister say therefore whether the department intends to bring forward a comparable order for Northern Ireland in the near future?
My third point relates to an important growth industry— the tourist industry. The British and Irish Parliamentary Body, since its founding, consistently encouraged greater co-operation between the two tourist hoards. One is pleased to say that that co-operation has been forthcoming. I was therefore particularly sorry that the two hoards found it necessary, understandably, to postpone this year's joint advertising campaign in Britain because of the breakdown of the ceasefire. Can the Minister tell the House whether that campaign can be reinstated at short notice?

1733
As the Minister said very eloquently, the past 17 months has been an excellent period for inward investment in Northern Ireland. However, I have read that it is claimed that there is a worrying gap between promise and achievement on the part of the IDB. Can the Minister clarify the position? Is there or is there not a gap of some 4,000 or 5,000 between the number of jobs promised by the IDB (and part-financed by the IDB) and those achieved in the year 1994? If there is a gap of that order, why should that be the case? On the other hand, if there is no gap, is the Minister satisfied that there are no additional ways in which the IDB can be made to function successfully in Northern Ireland?
With those few questions I am pleased on behalf of this Front Bench to give our approval to the appropriation order.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness for her introduction of the order and state the obvious; that is, that it is only the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Holmc of Cheltenham which finds me here.
The economy of Northern Ireland has undoubtedly been transformed over the past 18 months. While there has been an uncertain recovery in the rest of the United Kingdom, the recovery in Northern Ireland has been more substantial— I understand some 13 per cent. more so. Business confidence rose as the political situation developed. Many more overseas investors have become aware of the latent opportunities in the north and consumer spending has risen sharply, largely because of people travelling from Britain and from the Republic.
The present is promising and the future looks even brighter. However, we are not yet out of the woods. Unemployment is falling and is lower than it has been for many years. but it is still worryingly high. It is higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom by some 3 or 4 per cent. and a much greater proportion of that unemployment is endemic. More than half of those people are long-term unemployed. If the order can help those people, it will have a disproportionately beneficial effect on the economy of Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, I see that help for the long-term unemployed was cut severely. The Action for Community Employment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred, is facing a cut of one quarter of its overall value. Up to 3,000 jobs may be lost, and those are jobs that can reach the long-term unemployed and strengthen the fabric of the community. The Minister may say that government funds are creating jobs elsewhere and that the private sector created some 11,000 jobs, which is both impressive and welcome. But that will not convince the community worker in the Shankhill or the Falls. I understand that the cuts in this scheme went down badly in Northern Ireland. If the Government have a case, they have some explaining to do; if not, then the cut is a false economy of serious magnitude.
I understand that the amount allotted to education for the coming financial year rose again, which is welcome. But the rise is small and insufficient. Education Vote I
1734
spending has risen by 3 per cent. over three years amounting to marginal increases above the amount required to keep pace with inflation. I understand that there is anecdotal evidence that education in Northern Ireland is in need of a boost. On these Benches we would like to see much of that boost directed towards integrated schools, which have done a great deal of good in Northern Ireland and must be supported in their efforts. Schools considering integrated status need financial backing to encourage them to make the break and gain integrated status, with all the difficulties and awkwardnesses that inevitably follow in the short term. But that point is not confined to integrated schools. Education generally, in most sectors and most schools, is as short of money in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Finally, perhaps I may make a brief comment about agriculture, which is by some measures three times more important to the economy of Northern Ireland than it is to the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom. I understand that the Vote 2 sum granted has fallen again, as it has done now for several years. I ask whether there is some plan behind this reduction. Is there some way in which this figure is falling but agriculture is somehow better off? I suspect that that is not the position; in which case I should like to know why this sum continues to be cut, and cut so substantially. I conclude by joining in paying tribute to the work of the noble Baroness the Minister.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this debate is taking place in a somewhat more constructive atmosphere than one might have perhaps expected only 48 hours or so ago. I welcome that. The moral of this— it is something worth repeating over and over again— is that the two governments, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, simply have to stick together. If they do not, they are all too likely to hang separately. When they agree, it is possible to make progress; when they diverge, everything falls back.
I therefore welcome the timetable recently announced. I welcome the absence of general preconditions for negotiations. I welcome the electoral element, provided this does not exclude the very small parties entirely from negotiations. I welcome also the possibility of referenda, but it is quite essential that there should be separate and distinct referenda in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. If perhaps a third referendum might be desired in Britain, well so be it. The six principles so clearly set out in the Mitchell Report would, I suggest, provide an excellent basis for the question to be put in simultaneous referenda.
In view of the timetable already agreed by the two governments, it seems reasonable to ask that those who organise traditional marches in Northern Ireland should consider whether perhaps the right to life: and limb is not more important than the freedom to march and demonstrate. Such a request would come well from the leadership of the constitutional parties, from employers, from trade unions and from Churches; in short from all who have worked so hard and for so long to bring about a state of peace. Perhaps it may become possible to

1735
postpone all marches for a period of, let us say, one year, thus reducing tension and providing space for serious negotiations aimed at a lasting political solution.
It may be known that since 1979 I have taken a deep personal interest in the subject of prisoners, including those prisoners whose motivation has arisen from political violence and conflict. I therefore urge both governments to co-ordinate and harmonise their approach to such offenders. Those in prison and former prisoners made a significant contribution to the achievement of the 1994 ceasefires together with civilian intermediaries, several of whom from both traditions I am honoured to know as friends. They have helped to minimise the adverse consequences of the recent partial breakdown of the ceasefires. I therefore appeal to both governments to be as imaginative and as constructive as humanly possible in their approach not only to politically motivated prisoners but also to the probably larger numbers of paramilitary activists now at liberty.
These people need new lives in the context of an eventual agreed political settlement. They need to know that resettlement will be available to them, perhaps sometimes in a new country and under a new identity. Every possible measure should be taken to prevent paramilitaries drifting into organised crime and in particular into illegal drug trafficking. Planning and action are needed now and not only after a long period— perhaps two or three years— of political negotiations. Fortunately, we have a range of voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland with expertise in employment and in the resettlement of former paramilitaries. I have therefore put down Questions for Written Answer and I ask Her Majesty's Government to treat them with the seriousness and urgency that I think they deserve. Should Ministers wish to take me into their confidence, I hope they will do so.
I come now to Action for Community Employment, ACE, which has already been mentioned by two previous speakers. Since I have already written a three-page letter to the noble Baroness the Minister, to which she has not yet had time to reply, I shall not go into great detail. Suffice it to say that ACE provides a very valuable employment and training service for young people and older unemployed people in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State may perhaps have been justified in imposing a 25 per cent. cut in the circumstances of last December. He was certainly wrong in my view in doing so without previous consultation with the voluntary sector. I say that because NGOs provide most, if not all, the employment and training. They also use ACE workers to deliver much needed services to the poorest, most deprived and most handicapped residents, often in inner city areas and large post-war housing estates. Much cross-community work is done by ACE workers and remains vitally necessary in today's situation.
In the circumstances of today, so different in many ways from those of December, the cuts are unwise and ill timed. Nevertheless, I congratulate the noble Baroness the Minister on having already rescued £ 2.5 million or perhaps £ 3 million out of the original
1736
£12.5 million reduction. I urge her to still greater efforts. I suggest that no ACE workers should have to be laid off before they finish their year's period of employment. The urban and rural priority areas where poverty, unemployment and deprivation are concentrated should be fully protected from the impact of cuts. ACE core workers should be kept on and, if necessary, redistributed to the areas of greatest need. That, in my view, is a minimum rescue package, but I trust very much that the programme as a whole will be reconsidered and if possible saved.
12.28 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin by
apologising most deeply to the Minister and to the House for my late arrival. I miscalculated and I am extremely sorry, the more so because I missed what I know must have been a deeply interesting speech. I hope that she and the House will forgive me if, not having heard it, I put a foot wrong.
I intervene in the debate in any case with some diffidence since I am no economist but I have read with care the debates on the appropriation order in another place and the first report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on employment creation in Northern Ireland. I have been deeply impressed not only by the amazing courage, resilience and determination of the people of Northern Ireland but also by the range of initiatives undertaken by the Government to promote the economy, provide more employment and stimulate inward investment as well as supporting such different organisations as ACE, the IDB and LEDU.
My reason for speaking now is political and social. The recurring theme in the Northern Ireland Committee's report— and I should like to say how greatly I welcome the creation of that committee and its own imaginative agenda of travel; for instance, to the Far East, which has had the happy effect of promoting Northern Ireland as a place for investment— is that there would have been a much higher level of inward investment in the past two decades but for what it delicately describes as,
"the off-putting effect of the violence and the related political difficulties".
Elsewhere it describes the effect of the violence on the political life of the Province as severe. It goes on to estimate that as many as 46,000 manufacturing jobs were not created in the 1970s, early 1980s, directly as a result of Northern Ireland's difficulty in attracting inward investment.
Before making my main point, which is directly related to the issue of the breakdown in the ceasefire (which I have to say few would call partial), its impact, and what might be done about it, I should like, while paying tribute to the generous regime of government assistance and the help given in marketing abroad— not least by my noble friend the Minister and her energetic and splendid efforts— to urge that a special further commitment should be made to support schemes to train the many— too many— young people leaving school with no qualifications. The various community

1737
employment schemes which suffered the cuts were bringing hope to the young leaving school in areas where there is no employment; and to young people who have in any case little or nothing to offer in skills to a prospective employer.
I understand that £ 2 million will now be put hack, but this, I imagine, scarcely equates with the 25 per cent. cut suffered by these programmes and others designed to help the unemployed to re-enter employment. I also urge, at any rate for the next appropriations round, far more support for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit. Northern Ireland needs to be enabled to play its part in new research, innovation in industry and new ideas in a fast-moving industrial world.
As Principal of Somerville I had occasion to know many excellent young women who were a credit to the very high academic quality of Northern Ireland's schools. I believe that we now need to see a similar effort put into vocational and technical education and training so that Northern Ireland's labour force will be ready to respond effectively and fast when inward investment brings new industrial and technical challenges— challenges which Shorts are already meeting; but that is only one part of the industrial sector.
However, what I wanted to say in the context of this debate is that the economic regeneration of the Province through inward investment and through first-class training programmes for the future workforce, is a very important and effective battlefield on which we should be fighting the IRA. In the other place, the Minister of State having said that,
"Any increase in the Northern Ireland [Office] security budget as a result of the breakdown of the ceasefire will inevitably have repercussions for other important economic and social programmes".— [Official Report. Commons, 19/2/96; col. 1451
added that the blame lay fair and square with those who had returned to violence. He hoped that the people of Northern Ireland, in all parts of the community, would be fully aware that that is the price of the decision by the IRA to return to violence.
I urge the Government in the strongest terms to make clear to the widest possible audience, but especially in the US, precisely what inward investment has been jeopardised, if not lost, by the return to violence, and what energetic and wide-ranging measures have been, and are, being undertaken to ensure that Northern Ireland will have a well-trained and skilled labour force, which is only waiting for the opportunity to work.
Who has put that wantonly at risk?— the IRA. We should then go on— I know that this means spending more money, but it must still be infinitely less costly than the need to return to a very expensive military and security apparatus geared to resist indiscriminate and permanent violence— to announce further investment by us in our own country. It would surely send a signal to the people of Northern Ireland that we believe in their ability to develop and thrive, and that we do not intend to be driven off course in a part of the UK by the reversion to violence.
Since prosperity in Northern Ireland inevitably spills over into the South, such initiatives could only be welcome in Dublin, too. Let us tell President Clinton
1738
that his best contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and the breaking of the power of the IRA would be to bring about some serious US investment. there, or to reinstate investment now in the balance, rather than to contemplate convivial drinks with Gerry Adams on St. Patrick's Day. He might also be asked to establish the truth or otherwise of Gerry Adams' claim that Sinn Fein has been raising funds in the United States for the economy. I should be very interested to know whether that is the drug economy.
The IRA can scarcely be said to be in touch with the people of Northern Ireland, of all communities, in that it has failed to recognise the deep resentment felt against those who have destroyed their hopes and plans for employment and prosperity. It is not just the absence of terror that the people of Northern Ireland have welcomed— after all Gerry Adams reminded them last year that the IRA had not gone away; people are regularly and brutally beaten and intimidated and still no one knows where the IRA have buried those they have murdered— because terror has never actually gone away. What people mind just as much, I suspect, is that the prospect of work, prosperity and being able to plan has been wantonly and arrogantly snatched away.
So I appeal to my noble friend the Minster, who has so tirelessly and successfully promoted the economic and other interests of Northern Ireland, and hope that she will be able to urge on the Government the idea that whatever happens to the peace process in the coming months, and given that so far the IRA remains intransigent, there is everything to be said for putting our bets on the economic horse. The odds may be long, but I do not think we could lose by taking the battle against the IRA onto ground where they cannot compete and have been shown to bear the whole blame for any loss in confidence by investors. The latest news suggests that the IRA remains long on arrogance and very short on plain commonsense.
12.37 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I speak very briefly in what we call "the gap". I begin by thanking my noble friend the Minister. I shall also follow up the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Meston. Should any expert on Northern Ireland be absent. very much in the words of the Bible, "Cast out one devil for Beelzebub"— I do not necessarily believe that anyone speaking on Northern Ireland is of that persuasion— and one gets some more. In other words, I shall speak in the gap and I notice that there are other noble Lords who might follow me.
On pages 3 and 8 of the order there is some very encouraging news which has been briefly referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord F'rys-Davies. It is to be found in Vote 2 for the Department of Agriculture, both in Part I, which is on page 3 and Part II, which is page 8. Clearly, the wording has been very carefully followed for expenditure by the department on the development of agriculture and agricultural products industries.

1739
I believe that these two aspects unify the tremendous talents of my noble friend the Minister. The agricultural industry is the No. 1 industry in Northern Ireland and my noble friend has made enormous efforts to make sure that everyone who participates in that industry, as well as all the incredibly hard-working officials in the Department of Agriculture, contribute to a seamless web of success in Northern Ireland. It was successful all the time I had the honour to serve the Province and during the short time my noble friend Lord Elton was there.
The success of the Northern Ireland agricultural industry has certainly spanned the past 20 years. It has been the stewardship, if I may call it that, of my noble friend which has brought this industry to new peaks of success. The Province is benefiting from her experience in small businesses and industry, coupled with the enormous hard work of what I might call the "men in overalls" as opposed to the "men in suits", about whom we have been hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lady Park, in relation to the political aspects.
I hope that none of your Lordships will forget the enormous amount of work that is carried out by my noble friend and, above all, by the Department of Agriculture. I would go so far as to call those working in agriculture in Northern Ireland the "unsung heroes". On television and in the media we hear a lot about the peace dividend and about all the opportunities for inward investment in Northern Ireland, but I believe that the Department of Agriculture and the agriculture industry are incredible examples of the hard work and success of an indigenous industry which is competing against the agricultural industries in England and Wales, in Europe and in my own country of Scotland. Everything that I have seen and heard has shown me that what is provided in the order is continuing to push the success of Northern Ireland's No. 1 industry.
I hope that, if not today then at a later stage, my noble friend will be able to confirm that new initiatives and new ideas are emerging all the time in terms of marketing as well as producing the unique output of Northern Ireland's agricultural industry.
12.41 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It may have a dull title, but it is a very important debate in terms of life in Northern Ireland. In particular, I express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Meston. When the regular teams are absent— not, I know, from choice— they must be relieved to know what great substitute Benches they have. I am sure that the noble Lords will not be offended if I say that it is not an elevation from the under-21 team.
We have covered a great range of topics and although I shall try to answer all the points that have been raised, I commit myself to reading Hansard carefully and writing to noble Lords on any point that I may forget to mention now. I am also grateful for the advance notice which so many noble Lords have given me of their points of concern.
1740
I start by giving one figure which I believe will please your Lordships. Around 90 per cent. Of the total decrease in unemployment over the year is due to a fall in the number of long-term unemployed. They are now returning to employment. Long-term unemployment is down by 9.9 per cent. On January 1995. Your Lordships are right to draw attention to that issue. The rate of short-term unemployment in Northern Ireland is now closely related to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, but we have a hard core of long-term unemployed and our efforts must be directed to them. I assure your Lordships of my commitment in that area. Furthermore, I have a personal target which is to get Northern Ireland off the bottom of the unemployment league. I should like us to move up that league. We have all the talents and skills that will enable us to do so.
I turn now to the issue which concerned so many of your Lordships— the reduction in the ACE programme. I am well aware of the concerns that that has created in the community. It may be helpful if I explain why that decision was made. It was not because of any lack of commitment to the long-term unemployed. There is still £ 46 million in the programme, almost £ 40 million of which is in the ACE programme. However, we have a new situation. There is growth in what might be described as "real" jobs, which undoubtedly usually pay better than any ACE scheme while allowing people to have aspirations and to look forward to building their own futures. For the first time we have a record number of registered vacancies. There are now 7,000 registered vacancies in Northern Ireland. To fill all those vacancies would make a significant impact on the unemployment figures. It seemed to us that it was important to give our people the skills to take on those vacancies. We have slanted the programme towards working to ensure that the people who fill those vacancies are the people of Northern Ireland.
We are working with the Jobskills programme. I should like to reassure both the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and my noble friend Lady Park that the Government's pledge to provide training places to unemployed school leavers is being successfully delivered through the Jobskills programme. The programme has already been able to put 60 per cent. of the people on it hack into employment. We have yet to achieve 50 per cent. on the ACE programme.
However, the real issue about the ACE programme is the bonus that it has provided. The primary purpose of the ACE programme is to assist the long-term unemployed. In doing that, the programme has delivered great benefits to the community. I brought forward the transitional fund and I do not want to be negative this morning, but I am afraid that it is £ 2 million, not £ 2.5 million or £ 3 million. It seeks to ensure that there is not an immediate gap in the lives of the vulnerable, the needy and those to whom we owe a great debt. We are working on that— doing so will ensure that many core workers are retained.
I should also like to correct the impression about the 25 per cent. cut. That 25 per cent. relates to the average occupancy of the scheme. Where the scheme has not been occupied fully, the statistics appear to suggest more. We are working on that. Officials who are tasked

1741
to do this are in discussions to ensure that that point is fully understood. I believe that the future looks brighter. This year we shall be undertaking a full review of the long-term unemployed, looking at their needs. We shall work exceedingly hard on that.
In closing on that issue, I should like to praise the voluntary sector which has made it possible for so many people to have training. I am delighted that future programmes will move away from the one-year programme of ACE where for six months you spend time getting used to going to work and for the last six months you worry about what to do next. We are looking at three-year programmes for skilling and qualifying. I should like to place on the record the fact that that was not forced on us by the Secretary of State in the public expenditure round. The communication difficulty arose because it was a PES statement, but the judgments were made by those working in the area.
On the subject of work, your Lordships have correctly drawn attention to the importance of Shorts in the community of the Province. Shorts is our largest employer. It is also a brilliant role model and is globally competitive. Wherever you travel in the world there is praise for Shorts. Shorts has been instrumental in bringing other work to Northern Ireland because of the excellence of its skills, particularly in engineering. 1 stress that the company is not at any risk, whatever the Fokker decision. Shorts has worked some fair miracles in past years and there is no question of Fokker decisions putting the company at risk. I believe that there is no question of there being a loss of 1,500 jobs. Protected redundancy notices are out, but I have seen the efforts that Shorts has made in terms of planning for redeployment. I believe that the number will be much less than 1,500 and that we shall certainly be able to look at a three-figure number rather than a four-figure number.
I raised at a meeting with representatives of the Dutch Government the importance of the company to Northern Ireland. I understand that, following discussions with potential investors, an announcement will be made today about plans for Fokker's future. The impact on Shorts will be considered carefully following that announcement. Should the aerospace division continue in Fokker, there is no more competitive place than Northern Ireland in which parts for those planes can be built. It is unequalled on quality and cost. Should the aerospace division continue, we shall see more work. Noble Lords should be reassured by a remark made to Inc by the chairman of Rolls-Royce. He said that Shorts used to be his worst supplier but is now his best supplier.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked, rightly, what would be the cost to the community of the breakdown in the ceasefire were it to continue. He shared the depression that many of us feel at this morning's comments from Sinn Fein/IRA. We shall look forward to the future, and we shall work for the future. However, there can be no getting away from the fact that if there is a return to heavy violence, the savings that have been made from areas such as the security forces' overtime will have to be reconsidered.
1742
I have made a commitment that the current community work programme will continue. We celebrated the fact that it arose from the peace dividend. If we lose the dividend, which must be earned like any other dividend, we shall be at risk. Instead of waiting for resources in the future to be available for education and employment, they will once again have to go to other public services. We must hope and pray that that does not happen.
We may rest assured that we have a good friend in Europe— the Regional Policy Commissioner, Monika Wulf-Mathies. She has said that she is pleased with the progress made on the programme for peace and reconciliation, and does not see it walking away from us. She recognises the efforts that we need to make to sustain it so that those funds keep flowing.
We shall see a slowdown in private sector funding, however good our economic package. At the moment people are in a wait-and-see mode. We have not lost inward investment, although we shall never know when the telephone was not picked up. We are finding it harder to obtain the bottom line signature. We are working on that. We are working to reassure the pension funds and City funds such as Mr. Hevisi's New York fund, which the noble Lord mentioned. There is much to do. However, I stress that the economic package that we have sold throughout the 17 months is not one of charity or emotion but one of shareholder value. We have got that message out to so many people during this period that I believe we can look forward to seeing continuing investment.
The infrastructure we have built, the extra air routes and the increased capacity on the ferry services will continue to exist. I am delighted to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we are not behind Scotland. I did not expect that we would be, but I am pleased to say that the equivalent of the. Scottish Rural Diversification Programme Regulations are in place in Northern Ireland under the Sub-Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development Regulations 1994. They allow payment for grant towards farmers who wish to diversify from mainstream agriculture. Given the creative nature of the Irish, we can be certain that their diversification will be innovative.
The noble Lord asked also about IDB's job creation targets for the current financial year. It is difficult to attract inward investment from countries which are themselves undergoing recession. In particular, we have noticed a slowing down in Japanese overseas investment in recent years. However, I am delighted to say that there are over 2,300 inward investment jobs in place and there is much in the pipeline. The response to Wednesday's communique will make all the difference to how soon we can bring those jobs to the people who need them.
One of the good things which will not go away is the building of targeted social need into IDB's programme. I hope that the message will go through that it is doubly important that we attract new jobs because they are going to the areas of greatest deprivation. The Tourist Board's TV advertising campaign will be reinstated. There is no problem with that. It was sensible. Having

1743
seen Canary Wharf and the London bus, people hesitated and wondered what was going on. Sometimes those of us at the heart of the matter wonder what is going on. Although we saw tourist inquiries drop, they were still above pre-ceasefire levels. We are optimistic about a good summer. Last year's was brilliant. I only worry about whether people expect every summer in Northern Ireland to be hot and sunny. I just hope that I am not subject to a trade descriptions summons.
The noble Lord, Lord Mcston, asked about education. It is crucial. It is crucial to any economic programme. Education spending plans provide for an increase of £ 47 million next year— an increase of 3.5 per cent.— which includes an increase of £ 37 million for schools, which is in line with the equivalent settlement in England. The quality of education in Northern Ireland is well recognised. People often make the decision to return to Northern Ireland when their youngsters are about three or four years old.
The Government remain committed to supporting viable proposals for integrated schools. I know the interest in integrated education on the noble Lord's Benches. I am pleased that recently four further integrated schools have been approved— two new secondary schools and two existing primary schools have been transformed into integrated status. There continues to be progress. Of course that progress is at the request and instigation of parents, which is as it should be.
Wearing my agriculture hat, I am delighted to confirm) that the underlying expenditure in the agriculture programme has not been falling. The decline between 1994– 95 and 1995– 96 was due to exceptional additional spending on the agricultural development operational programme which amounted to £ 26 million in the earlier year. That figure is engraved on my heart because I had to do very special pleading with the finance people to obtain the extra money, but we obtained it and it has gone to farmers.
It is worth noting that for the fifth year in succession total farming income in Northern Ireland increased in real terms. It makes my life somewhat easier. It also makes the life of the retail motor trade in Northern Ireland somewhat easier.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as usual brought to the debate his considerable knowledge of Northern Ireland. I hope that I have given him some reassurance that the ACE decision was not casual but part of the economic strategy for the future. I listened with interest to his proposal that it was worth looking at postponing the marches during the coming 12 months. I shall ensure that my colleagues take note of that suggestion. I hope that in the long term we can work to a position where the marches are a celebration of culture and not a statement of position, as, regrettably, they are now. I shall take that message to my colleagues, as I shall what he has said about prisoners and their great needs on release.
We continue to look carefully at ways of reintegrating prisoners into society in the light of the changing circumstances. The noble Lord rightly drew attention to
1744
the fear that we all have of the drug problem increasing in Northern Ireland. We work to try to retain, perhaps not easily, our record of Northern Ireland being the safest place in the UK, although at a high price in security costs. I am sure that everyone appreciates the work of the noble Lord in the reintegration of prisoners and will recognise the close understanding that he has of this subject.
I sympathise with my noble friend Lady Park. It is difficult for any of us to estimate how quickly lawyers will debate a previous item on the Order Paper. I am delighted to be able to reassure her that my opening speech was not deeply interesting. I was grateful for her input into the debate. Of course, we need to extend the research and technological development in Northern Ireland. We must be globally competitive and I am pleased to say that we capture a large number of the DTI Smart awards.
My noble friend Lady Park drew attention to the fact that even during the ceasefire period there were horrendous punishment shootings and beatings. They were barbaric and were rejected by every civilised member of the community. There is no place in society for vigilantes. The RUC continues to have the Government's full support for its vigorous operations to deter and detect those responsible. My noble friend also drew attention to the important role which the Americans can play in bringing about a peace process and getting the message across to those who appear to have difficulty in understanding democratic processes.
There can be no end to a peace process in a democracy. Violence never has and never can lead to solutions. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach announced a programme to allow all who believe in the democratic process to come to the table. They reaffirmed something which we all know well; their absolute commitment to exploring every avenue to bring about peace. I am sure that the whole House will share my admiration for their tireless efforts.
Perhaps I may say that 99.9 per cent., and possibly more, of the people in Northern Ireland want peace, have earned peace and deserve peace. While my colleagues wrestle with the difficult political discussions, I shall continue to work for the best cement for peace, which is jobs. I do so with great comfort from the encouragement of your Lordships' House. I wish to express my gratitude and the gratitude of perhaps all people in Northern Ireland for the support that we receive in this House. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1996
1.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 12th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1996, laid before the House on 12th February be

1745
approved and on this St. David's Day I wish all noble Lords Dvdd Gwyl Dewi Llawen, in my slowly improving Welsh.
The purpose of the scheme is to extend for a further period of two years those elements of the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 which remain extant. Various elements of the 1989 scheme have been withdrawn over the intervening years. There now remain the provision, replacement or improvement of shelter belts for shading stock, the enclosure of grazed woodland to encourage regrowth and the renovation of traditional boundaries such as hedges and stone walls. There are also grants for the provision of stiles, gates and waymarkings for public access and opportunities for the control of bracken and heather. And finally, there are grants for the repair and renovation of traditional agricultural buildings using materials which are traditional to the locality. Grants are available at rates varying between 15 per cent. to 40 per cent., depending upon whether activity takes place on land designated as either outside a less favoured area or inside a less favoured area.
Extending the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme in Wales will also allow other schemes which in part use this legislation to continue until other arrangements may be brought into place. These include capital grants for fencing under the water fringe, coastal belt and broadleaved woodland elements of the habitat scheme and the countryside access scheme. Similarly, provisions for bracken control and fencing can be applied under the moorland scheme. Also the Countryside Council for Wales uses this legislation for the hedgerow renovation scheme where that operates outside the three pilot Tir Cymcn areas.
The Welsh Office will in the course of 1996 review the overall provision of its various grant schemes to ensure their cohesive delivery and value for money. This is expected to result in proposals for the integration of remaining grants available under the farm and conservation grant scheme with other suitable mechanisms. I commend the scheme to the House.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 12th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].— (Lord Lucas.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing this modest but useful scheme. I thank him too for evidence of his growing mastery of the Welsh language.
The Minister has explained the purpose of the scheme and my noble friend Lord Carter assures me that I can welcome it. Indeed, my noble friend tells me that it has been desperately slow in coming. I have only two questions to ask the Minister. First, there is anxiety that the scheme appears to disallow all claims for a grant in respect of effluent disposal if they are received after 19th February 1996. Is that correct? Can the Minister
1746
confirm whether a scheme which commenced before 19th February 1996 but was not completed by that date will be eligible for a grant?
My second question looks ahead to 1998 when the 1989 scheme will end. Is it intended that capital grants for the planting of hedges and the repair of stone walls and traditional agricultural buildings in Wales will be available in some form or other after February 1998, possibly within an integrated scheme, as I believe may be the position in England and Scotland? If that is so, can the Minister assure the Welsh farmers that their proposal will be subject to the fullest consultation? With those two questions, I am pleased to support the scheme.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for having introduced the scheme. The reprieve for Wales is most welcome, even though it has come at the last moment. I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in the two questions that he has asked, in particular since farmers who started work on projects for effluent disposal facilities may have had their work interrupted by the adverse weather conditions. It would be sad if they were unable to take advantage of the scheme.
The noble Lord asked about the important maintenance work on valuable environmental features such as hedges and stone walls. I welcome that work, but there appear to be fears that there may be onerous and restrictive conditions on future work. I would like an assurance that the Government will keep a continuing watch to ensure that nothing happens to stop the welcome return of encouragement to retain these important parts of the environment, the countryside and the farming community.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for their support for the scheme.
I shall reply briefly to the questions which they raised. In relation to the grant for effluent disposal, the expenditure eligible under the grant must have been incurred before 30th November 1994. The date of 19th February 1996 is only the date by which the claim must have been made. We feel that a reasonable time has passed and the time in which the claims had to be made has been well publicised. Since the expenditure had to take place in 1994, the recent bad weather will, if anything, have given the farmers an opportunity to sit inside and fill in their claims, so, in fact, that may have hurried things on a hit.
I do not wish to anticipate our plans for the future other than to say that, since we are continuing the scheme, we maintain a strong commitment to the projects which we are supporting under the scheme. When our proposals are ready, we shall consult fully on them with farmers and all other bodies with interests in the countryside. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past one o'clock.