Sitting of 21 May 1996

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration has been given to extending the mobility component of the disability living allowance to children aged under five years suffering from defined illnesses. [28803]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): Entitlement to disability living allowance is not defined by a specific illness or disability, but is based on the effects of a disability on an individual's care and mobility needs. There is no age limit for the care component because we accept that the care needs of disabled children may be significantly greater than those of able-bodied children. However, there is generally not such a great difference in the help needed for mobility between children under five with disabilities and those without.
    Mr. Mudie: Is the Minister aware that the seemingly sensible starting point for the mobility component of five years of age is of great inconvenience to parents with children below that age who have certain restrictive illnesses? Will he give some thought to that starting point, and consider parents without private transport who experience the sheer trauma of taking ill children and, often, burdensome medical equipment, on public transport?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman raises a particularly difficult child policy matter. I am aware that he has written to me about the case of his young constituent, Jacob. I want to make two points in response. First, the mobility component is intended specifically to help people become independently mobile, and the starting point of five years of age—the age when a child starts school— strikes a reasonable balance. Secondly, in respect of the case that he has raised, the family are receiving disability living allowance care component at the higher level, and invalid care allowance. I hope that he accepts that benefit money is going to that family.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would cost tens of millions of pounds to pay the mobility component to children under the age of five? Will he further confirm that it is the policy of his Department to restrict expenditure wherever possible and to curb social security spending? Does he find it surprising that, again and again, Labour proposes extra expenditure in this field?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The cost of extending the mobility component to children under five years of age would be about £30 million. The Government have a proud record of spending on the long-term sick, which has increased by a factor of three since 1979, to £22 billion. We are now helping more than six times as many people as were helped by the previous Labour Government.

    Family Poverty
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet Church leaders to discuss the impact and extent of family poverty in the United Kingdom. [28804]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): Ministers regularly meet representatives from a wide variety of organisations, including Church leaders.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that the Christian Churches are concerned about the growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots in society, increasing family poverty and growing deprivation? If he agrees with that analysis, what is he doing about it? If he disagrees, will he explain why to the people who complement their spiritual work with pastoral care in the community, and who daily witness the consequences of the selfish society that has been created during the past 17 years?
    Mr. Burt: Until his final throw-away remark, I thought the hon. Gentleman's question was important. The point about poverty and how we deal with it concerns us all. The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing about it. We have introduced a variety of measures to encourage people into work, as we know that work is the best answer to low income and poverty. I agree, however, that poverty is not just about material things—it includes spiritual matters as well. In my work with the single regeneration budget and city challenge, I see what the Government have done to bring about the right spirit in many poor communities. Indeed, Easterhouse, where Prince Charles and Jacques Chirac were last week, is an object lesson in what can be achieved. If the hon. Gentleman agrees that work is one of the answers, I am sure that he will welcome the drop in unemployment in his constituency in the past few years and, if he does, I cannot see how a minimum wage would help him to help people keep their jobs.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people welcome the assistance that the Government gave 10 years ago to the "Faith in the City" report? Many were present when our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at Southwark cathedral on such issues, years before he took over the Department. I am glad that the

    83
    Government have followed many of the recommendations of that report in so far as they are directed to the nation, because trying to change people's lives in inner-city areas and to give them freedom from poverty is one of the main responsibilities of people in politics.
    Mr. Burt: I entirely agree. Several initiatives were created in response to "Faith in the City" and the Church urban fund has a number of projects. I was interested to learn that a new chief executive has been appointed to the fund, who also believes that it is important that the advance into material well-being is accompanied by a change in people's spiritual attitudes. That is what the work of the Church is about. We have followed that line in a number of projects throughout the country. By restoring power to people as tenants and through education, the Government's policies have helped to stimulate the very changes that people need.

    Reduced Earnings Allowance
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the reduction in reduced earnings allowance. [28805]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): A number.
    Mrs. Clwyd: What would the Minister say to those disabled constituents of mine—many of them ex-miners—who were suddenly faced with a drop in income of £30 a week? How are they expected to cope with that sort of drop? It is yet another vindictive attack by the Government on the poor and the disabled.
    Mr. Evans: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has misunderstood. The reduced earnings allowance is intended to compensate for reduced earnings. If a person is over pensionable age and not earning, it is unreasonable for them to go on receiving that allowance. Parliament decided as long ago as 1988 that, when people stopped earning after retirement age, the proper benefit was retirement allowance, which is tax free and non-contributory. Under the regulations and developing case law, some people managed to retain the reduced earnings allowance although they were over retirement age and had stopped earning, while many others did not. That was unfair and unreasonable and the Government have amended by regulation to correct that position.
    Mrs. Peacock: I am sure that we all appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. We also appreciate that any change in anyone's income and life style is always a trauma. Can he confirm that the allowance was always meant to be for reduced earnings and was, therefore, available while people were of working age? When the rules were changed in 1988, some people managed to continue drawing that money after pension age and others did not, which in itself has set up differences between households.
    Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister answer the central thrust of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)? We have been
    84
    told by such organisations as the Disablement Income Group that 20,000 old disabled people are losing an average of £30 a week without any notice. Does he accept that that is completely unacceptable? How will he answer the ex-miners in my hon. Friend's constituency, mine and elsewhere, who are suffering from pneumoconiosis, and the ex-building workers who are suffering from asbestosis, who are claiming that their incomes have been drastically reduced? Are not the Government showing once again—as they did on the Community Care Direct Payments Bill—that they could not care less for the problems of older disabled people?
    Mr. Evans: The change was announced last November. It has been Government policy since 1988. It was accidental and arbitrary that some people managed to take advantage of the rules. It was possible for people who retired the day before their retirement birthday to go on receiving reduced earnings allowance even if they never did another day's work in their lives. The interesting question for the hon. Gentleman is whether, at a cost of £25 million a year, he is pledging to restore the change.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not clear from its attacks on the Government that the Labour party wants to give the impression that it would restore the social security spending changes while telling the country that it, too, would cut social security spending? Is that not yet another case of saying two opposing things at the same time?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right on all points.

    Social Fund Loans
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants were refused a social fund loan on the grounds of inability to pay, in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [28807]
    Mr. Roger Evans: In 1991–92, out of 2.07 million applications, 37,213 were refused on that ground. In 1994–95, out of 2.5 million applications, 12,303 were refused on that ground. Refusals on grounds of inability to repay decreased again in 1995–96 to 10,411 out of 2.5 million applications.
    Mr. Battle: Is not the social fund loan system proving to be a classic Catch-22? Unemployed people cannot afford to pay back the required interest. Moreover, grants are made only to people who have been discharged from long-term stays in hospital or who have been released from prison. There is nothing for families who want to set up home. Are not the Government dumping their social obligations on charity second-hand shops and driving people into the hands of unscrupulous loan sharks?
    Mr. Evans: That is wrong on all points and a grotesque exaggeration. For an outlay of £344 million since the fund was set up, £1.6 billion-worth of loans have been made, which have helped five times as many people as a simple grant scheme would have helped for the same cost. In the past year, 41,000 budget loan applications were refused and grants given instead.
    Mr. Bradley: Does the Minister recognise that the social fund is failing to help the people in greatest need— 60 per cent. of the budget is swallowed by administrative costs? The excellent children's charities report, "Out of pocket the failure of the social fund", shows that many vulnerable groups, especially children in families, are not receiving adequate help. How does the Minister respond to the many examples in the report of families having to cut back on food and other essential items because they have to repay loans instead of getting grants? Will he consider the workings of the social fund and ensure that it alleviates poverty rather than reinforces it, as it does for many families?
    Mr. Evans: I can only conclude, from the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, that he would scrap loans and replace them with grants at an annual extra cost of £263 million. Is that a spending pledge from the Labour party?

    Social Security Expenditure
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to social security expenditure (a) in 1994–95 and (b) in 1995–96. [28808]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): In 1994–95, social security expenditure accounted for nearly 13.1 per cent. of GDP. For 1995–96, it fell to just under 13 per cent. We expect reforms already introduced to bring it below 12 per cent. by the end of the century.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State say how much of the reduction in the share of GDP taken by social security spending is being borne by people who are already poor through benefit cuts, and how much is the result of more people getting jobs?
    Mr. Lilley: I have not made any allowance for our great and continuing success in reducing unemployment. If that continues, as I assume it will, the situation will be further improved. The reforms that I have introduced have been sensible, well thoughtout and designed to focus benefit on those in need. I do not propose to take away benefit from children who stay on at school to study and get qualifications because that would deter—as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) proposes to—children from doing that and getting good jobs. That would mean that they would be more likely to be on the dole and increase public expenditure.
    Mrs. Roe: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that social security spending would increase if the jobseeker's allowance were scrapped, because work incentives would be damaged and dependence increased? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that work-to-welfare policy was revealed as being on the Labour party's hidden agenda in the article by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that appeared during the weekend?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We are committed to a policy of getting people off benefit and back into work. All Labour's proposals would get them out of work and on to benefit.
    86
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) let the cat out of the bag by saying that Labour was committed to abolishing the jobseeker's allowance. He has since told us that they were words he did not write in an article he had not read. None the less, what he said was official Labour policy; he is a Labour spokesman. Another Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), said in the House on behalf of Labour Members:
    "We reject the JSA and all it stands for … we will get rid … of the ISA".—[Official Report, 17 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 765.]
    Hon. Members: Ah.
    Mr. Lilley: Were they words he did not say?

    Unclaimed Benefit
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of unclaimed benefit in the last year for which figures are available. [28809]
    Mr. Burt: The rate of take-up varies from benefit to benefit. It is lowest among income-related benefits, but even for those only about £1 of every £10 available goes unclaimed. Child benefit has a particularly high take-up.
    Dr. Wright: Does the Minister agree that, although it is very important to crack down on fraud, it is equally important to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled? Does he understand that there is much anxiety about the proposed threat to the benefit line service, the freeline service and the out-of-hours service which, if it is carried out, would make it much more difficult for people to know about and claim the benefits to which they are properly entitled?
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important that the Benefits Agency gets its message about benefits over. No decisions have been taken about the matters that he raises, but the Department and the Benefits Agency spend £26 million a year getting over information. We have good local information services. Our information officers travel to meet people. There was a joint meeting in Coventry last week with Age Concern, to which more than 300 people came, so there is a wide variety of mechanisms for getting information about benefit out, plus as many welfare rights organisations as anyone would care to mention.
    I do not believe that it is possible to substantiate a charge that many people do not know about the availability of benefits or where they can go for help, but we count it as very important that people have information available to them, and the Government and the agency will continue to make available information about benefits.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend take to heart what the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said about people receiving the benefits to which they are entitled? Are not 16 to 18-year-olds entitled to the £1,000 or so help that they receive from child benefit to get them through their A-levels? Would he, like me, be ashamed to be a member of a party that proposed to rob them of that money?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend has said it all.
    Ms Lynne: The Minister must accept that the low take-up of benefit is a problem; that is why child benefit is so effective. Does he agree that scrapping child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds would deter many young people from entering further education? Will he also give a guarantee today that the Government will uprate child benefit at least in line with inflation?
    Mr. Burt: The Government's child benefit policy was laid out in the manifesto, and we have stuck to it as the cornerstone of support for families. I appreciate the support that the hon. Lady has given to child benefit and her opposition to the cut proposed by the Labour party. If she supported the Child Support Agency instead of organisations such as NACSA—Network Against the Child Support Act—that would be equally welcome to Conservative Members.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the payment of child benefit to children between the ages of 16 and 18 often determines whether they can stay on in education, and that taking away their child benefit significantly decreases their life chances? Is not that a disgrace?
    Mr. Burt: Yes, child benefit has been one of the most significant benefits for families—certainly for those who may find it difficult to put their children through education. This extra help for those between 16 and 18 has counted for a great deal. I find it difficult to understand why the Labour party has proposed the cut.
    Mr. Denham: Why is the Minister so complacent about the 600,000 pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled? Will he confirm his Department's estimate that they go without an average £14 a week? Does he agree that such pensioners must be among the poorest people in Britain? Is that why they are so low on his list of priorities?
    Mr. Burt: When the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power, the lowest 10 per cent. of the population by income included almost double the number of pensioners who occupy that decile now. I do not think that he cared much about the pensioners then; he does not seem to care about 16 to 18-year-olds now. Care and concern for young people and pensioners is best left in our hands.

    Social Security Expenditure
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual average real growth in social security expenditure since 1966; and what was the figure in 1995–96. [28810]
    Mr. Lilley: Between 1965–66 and 1995–96, social security expenditure grew in real terms by an average of 4.4 per cent. a year. Growth to 1998–99 is projected to be 1.3 per cent. a year—well within the expected growth of the economy.
    Sir Michael Neubert: What does that reduction in average real growth represent in savings to the social security budget? What prospects are there of its continuing into the next century?
    Mr. Lilley: The reforms that we have introduced, amounting to the biggest programme of welfare reform since the Beveridge policy was introduced in 1948, will save in the next Parliament some £5 billion a year and in due course more than £15 billion a year. All our reforms have been opposed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: As the Minister reflects on the growth of social security spending, will he also consider how small a part of that growth is accounted for by support for carers, who save the Exchequer an estimated £34 billion a year but who often impoverish themselves in giving that service? Will he review the system of benefits for them, including the threshold of earnings at which the invalid care allowance is withdrawn; and the hours of caring that have to be put in to qualify for invalid care allowance? Will he particularly review the ridiculous and hurtful rule that allows people the allowance if they support one person for 35 hours a week but not if they support two people—perhaps two elderly parents—for the same amount of time?
    Will the Minister raise the invalid care allowance and extend the carers premium on income support to people who take up the responsibility after the age of 65?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he studies these matters, that carers' benefits are the fastest growing area of expenditure in the welfare system. He was outspoken on welfare issues during his time in my party. I wonder whether he is going to say in public what we know he believes in private about the proposals of his new party to take away child benefit from those who stay on at school. Or is he now less willing to parade his conscience in public?
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his reforms are designed to target those in greatest need and to increase incentives to get people back into work?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A key to getting people back into work is the jobseeker's allowance, which we introduced in the teeth of Labour opposition and which we know Labour is determined to withdraw and abolish. We are amused to hear Labour Members say that this is part of another review—it is time they stopped reviewing and came up with concrete proposals and policies.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that a major component of rising social security expenditure in recent years has been the growth in expenditure on housing benefit? Does he accept the conclusion of the Social Security Committee last week, that something like £2 billion a year is being defrauded from the housing benefit system, much of it by private sector landlords? Will the Secretary of State now take far more seriously the issue of landlord fraud on housing benefit? Will he accept the sensible recommendations of the Select Committee?
    Mr. Lilley: I have introduced a number of reforms to deal with exactly the problem of housing benefit fraud. The Labour party opposed them all. I introduced penalties and rewards for local authorities—particularly Labour-controlled authorities—that had done shamefully little to crack down on housing benefit fraud, which was

    89
    their responsibility. We want to know when the hon. Gentleman will produce concrete proposals on anything. John Smith set up a social justice commission to review social security policy. When it reported, the Leader of the Opposition promised to review its proposals and ordered the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to review that review. As soon as his hon. Friends make any concrete proposals, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) promises a further review. The hon. Gentleman is a serial reviewer.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State detect a certain convergence of views between the two Front Benches on the need to contain escalating social security spending, which will otherwise race out of control in the next century?
    Mr. Lilley: I wish that there were a convergence between the two Front Benches on the issue of social security, but the Labour party has opposed every reform that I have introduced. Every Labour proposal involves increased spending. What Labour Members describe as "hard choices" are simply methods of financing further Government expenditure by taking away money from ordinary families. I am afraid that Labour remains the party of high spending.

    Social Security Reforms
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the long-term effect on public spending of his social security reforms. [28811]
    Mr. Lilley: The major reforms that I have announced to date are expected to reduce public expenditure by £5 billion a year at today's prices by the turn of the century. That will rise to £15 billion a year in the longer term.
    Mr. Booth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas Conservative policies are based on fairness and targeting help to those who are most in need, those of the Opposition are weighed down by the millstone of past commitments and the albatross of future divisions?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Opposition have been unable to produce any concrete proposals for reforming the social security system. We were promised six months of thinking the unthinkable and then some concrete, costed, detailed proposals. Instead, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made a speech that even his friends thought he would regret. I shall quote one of them, writing in The Spectator:
    "he is a decent fellow"—
    I share that view—
    "and I cannot believe that he could re-read his own text without embarrassment."
    The Opposition should forget about thinking the unthinkable and just do some thinking.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: How can the Secretary of State possibly know what future benefits there will be when the reply that I received from his Department in response to
    90
    a series of questions asking how many claimants have been taken off the benefit register in only two benefit offices in response to his social security benefits changes was that no such information is held and the cost of obtaining it would be disproportionate? Is it not the case that he neither knows nor cares how many people are living in penury because of his brutal changes?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady knows that we have put forward and implemented detailed, concrete and costed proposals. The fact that the information is not necessarily broken down parish by parish does not discount that achievement. When the Labour party offers concrete, costed proposals, she will be in a position to argue and to ask those sorts of questions.

    Benefits System (Computerisation)
    Mr. Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce the decision on equipment for the computerisation of the benefits system. [28812]
    Mr. Lilley: On 15 May, I announced that Pathway Group Ltd. had won the contract to design, install and operate the equipment that will automate the payment of benefits at post offices.
    Mr. Atkins: I welcome the fact that a British company, ICL, has led the Pathway consortium to winning the biggest computer contract in Europe to cope with the problems of fraud. As it is also coupled with the innovative software of companies such as Escher and De la Rue, does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefit card will go a long way to solving the problems of fraud and thereby provide substantial sums of money for those in real need?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's welcome for that further step toward the introduction of the benefit payment card. Over the lifetime of the eight-year contract, we expect to save more than £1 billion a year by virtually eliminating method of payment fraud on order books and giros. It will make life easier for claimants and they will be less vulnerable to theft and attack. It will save the taxpayer money and reinforce the viability of the national network of post offices.
    Mr. Miller: Some months ago, the Secretary of State agreed with me about the importance of maintaining the privacy of personal data on his Department's computers. Will he publish any evidence that he has submitted to the Home Office's prior options review regarding the function of data protection in the registrar's office, or were they simply weasel words, as he has not submitted any such evidence?
    Mr. Lilley: We must stick by our duty to maintain the confidentiality of the data that we receive from benefit claimants and recipients. I will happily see whether I can publish any evidence and give it to the hon. Gentleman in order to assist him with his inquiries.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend has said that computerisation and the benefit payment card will help to crack down on fraud. Will he give a commitment to

    91
    publicise the telephone number that the public can use to provide information about those who are fraudulently claiming benefit?
    Mr. Lilley: Members of the public throughout the country help us by providing information about benefit fraud and abuse, and they do so by telephoning their local benefit agency. We are running spotlight campaigns throughout the country which focus on particular areas. We urge those who have drifted into fraud to make good their arrangements with us and invite people to help us. I am happy to say that thousands of people are providing information and we are making substantial savings as a result.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the eligibility criteria for those seeking the jobseeker's allowance. [28814]
    Mr. Roger Evans: A number.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is it not a fact that there is room for a decent jobseeker's allowance in this country? However, will not the allowance that the Government are introducing penalise at least a quarter of a million people who will be worse off after its introduction? Why is it that, every time the Government tinker with and slash the welfare system, they make people's lives worse rather than better?
    Mr. Evans: There are many winners from the jobseeker's allowance: those who benefit from the earnings top-up, the four week run-on for housing benefit and so on. The interesting query arising from the hon. Gentleman's question is whether the Labour party is committed to abolishing that allowance. If it is, that represents another spending pledge of £170 million a year. Added to what Labour Front-Bench Members have spent already this afternoon, their expenditure would amount to £475 million each year.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Is that not what we expect from a party that only thinks the unthinkable and, when it comes to implementing something, only says the undoable?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right: the Labour party is deeply divided and unfit for office.
    Mr. Skinner: When are the Government going to deal with that other jobseeker's allowance whereby 40 Tory Members of Parliament have jobs on the side, moonlighting? They get massive allowances, but they do not have the guts to reveal them in the parliamentary register. The Tory party takes money from Serbs and all the rest of them to finance the general election. Let us get rid of those allowances.
    Mr. Evans: Union paymasters deeply divided and unfit for office—the hon. Gentleman makes my point.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the annual effect of inflation on the number of pensioners eligible for social security payments in addition to the state pension. [28815]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): Benefits for pensioners are uprated annually in line with inflation. The Government's low inflation policy has meant that benefits retain their value over the year—in contrast to 1974 to 1979, when inflation was running as high as 27 per cent. Pensioners' savings, too, are protected and able to grow. Investment income now contributes an average of £27.40 per week to their income—unlike the earlier period, when high inflation all but wiped out their savings' real value.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour levels of inflation hurt pensioners in two ways: first, by weekly devaluations of the spending power of their benefits between upratings; and, secondly and most importantly, by wiping out the value of their savings? Does he have any estimate of the number of pensioners who, today, are still adversely affected by Labour's achievement of 25 per cent. annual inflation?
    Mr. Heald: As a result of inflation in the 1970s, people who had saved all their lives saw their life savings destroyed by inflation. Under this Government, increasingly more pensioners have savings of higher value, leading to a rise in income of 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
    Mr. William O'Brien: What is the Minister's response to my constituents who received the pension increase that he outlined, but who then suffered a decrease in housing benefit and in council tax refund and who received from Yorkshire Water a demand that is 2.5 per cent. above the inflation rate—leaving them worse off than before the pension increase?
    Mr. Heald: The increase—which was 3.9 per cent., based on the retail prices index in September—takes into account all increases in costs. The average income has now increased by 51 per cent. since 1979. That would not have happened under Labour.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that 66 per cent. of recently retired people now receive income from an occupational pension, compared to only 55 per cent. in 1979? What does he think an inflation rate of 27 per cent. would do to that occupational pension, were we to return to inflation rates that existed under the previous Labour Administration?
    Mr. Heald: The same betrayal that happened in the 1970s would happen again. That is why it is vital that pensioners continue to support the Government, who have so much improved their position over the years.

    Cold Weather Payments
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to announce the outcome of this year's review into the cold weather payments monitoring stations. [28816]
    Mr. Roger Evans: A comprehensive review is currently under way. Any proposals to change the existing weather stations or postcode links will be laid before the House in the autumn.
    Mr. Kennedy: As a part of that review, will the Minister give me at least an interim update on what has happened since we last met vis-a-vis the Tiree weather station trigger point and those parts of my constituency that are currently adversely affected? Is he more optimistic or more pessimistic since we last spoke?
    Mr. Evans: Tempted though I am to answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot do so. He came to see me and, like many other hon. Members, made representations, all of which will be most carefully considered.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend is conducting his review, will he remember that there are parts of the United Kingdom that are colder than others, and that those parts are not always in the most northern extremes? Therefore, one must remember that people who suffer, suffer equally badly, regardless of where they are, if the temperature is low.
    Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I should emphasise that weather stations are chosen in consultation with the Meterological Office, using its judgment and expert climatological experience.
    Mrs. Ewing: The Minister will remember that, in his response to a parliamentary question, he said that it normally took 63 per cent. more fuel to heat a gas-fired house in Braemar than to heat such a house in Bristol. When considering the replacement of weather monitoring stations, will he take into account the prevailing weather conditions, which include wind-chill factors and damp and are not solely related to cold snaps during the winter? Will he also accept the recommendations of the all-party warm homes group?
    Mr. Evans: I shall take into account all representations that are made, but the wind-chill factor is a rather difficult element to reflect in a national scheme.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in favour of abolishing child benefit. [28817]
    Mr. Lilley: I have received no representations from any hon. Members in favour of the teenage tax proposals of
    94
    the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to abolish child benefit for over-16-year-olds staying on at school.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that the Labour party has taken a Trappist vow? Is he—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, going to ask a question relating to a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.
    Mr. Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations advocating that child benefit be paid to foreigners and taken away from British children between the ages of 16 and 18? Does he find it surprising that there are those who want to pay more to teenagers who are not studying, and to take money away from those who are?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One reason for the extreme embarrassment among Labour Members at the proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is that, while he proposed to withdraw child benefit from those aged over 16 who stay on to acquire qualifications, the Labour party voted to extend it to foreigners who enter this country on the express understanding that they would not be entitled to British benefits. What a slap in the face for British children.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28832]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister tell the House about the foreign policy implications, and the implications for our troops on the ground, of the governing party's decision to accept lots and lots of Bosnian Serb money? Does he accept that our troops cannot be seen as impartial when their commanders at home have accepted money from a—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility whatever for any funding for his party. [Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about troops, that is an entirely different matter. Let me make it clear, in case any hon. Member wishes to ask the same question later, that the Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for money that goes to the Conservative party. Now, put the question properly and correctly.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that there are foreign policy implications, and implications for

    95
    our troops on the ground, in the position that the governing party has adopted with regard to Bosnian Serb money?
    The Prime Minister: Nothing ever stands in the way of the interests of British troops as far as the Government are concerned.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to take note of the report of the Transport Select Committee on airport capacity? Will he undertake to give serious consideration to the formulation of a long-term framework for airport policy, possibly including the provision of an estuarial airport, so that there may be environmental relief for the existing London airports?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly look carefully at the report to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Blair: In the light of the concern expressed even in Government circles about the funding of political parties, is not the right, fair and honourable thing to do to widen the remit of the Nolan committee so that the funding of all political parties could be looked at in a proper and impartial manner?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. Party funding has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which made a number of recommendations on the openness of party accounts. The Conservative party accepted all those recommendations: the Labour party has not accepted all those recommendations. If the Labour leader is concerned about the matter, perhaps he will now commit himself to do so.
    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister has allegations to make about any party's political funding, is not the proper and reasonable thing to do to refer the matter to the Nolan committee so that it can consider it impartially? If the governing party does not accept that, the inevitable question that everyone will ask is what it has got to hide.
    The Prime Minister: The leader of the Labour party may not have heard in the hubbub, but I answered his second question—since it was the same as his first question—a few moments ago. I will repeat it for him. The matter has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee. We follow the remit it set out: the Labour party does not.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Does Mr. Blair wish to come back?
    Mr. Blair: I do. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Be quiet.
    Mr. Blair: I rise by popular request. When gifts are disguised as loans and money is accepted from foreigners, most people in this country would think—would they not?—that the best thing would be to have the Nolan
    96
    committee consider party funding, so that justice could be done and be seen to be done and not covered up and hidden by the Conservative party.
    The Prime Minister: It is really no use the leader of the Labour party flying into a tantrum. It is only in the Labour party that donations and money buy influence. In the Labour party, the trade unions provide the funds in return for votes at Labour's party conference and the party's trade union paymasters still have a say in Labour's election manifesto. That is the real scandal in party funding and the Labour leader cannot duck it.
    Mr. Jessel: Here is a popular matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, this morning, the National Heritage Select Committee reported on the national lottery? It said that the national lottery is a huge success. It is twice the success hoped for by the most optimistic optimists.
    The Prime Minister: It is undoubtedly a great success and is raising huge sums of money for good causes. I am especially pleased to note that the fears expressed by so many people some months ago that charitable donations would fall are now shown to be wrong. In addition to the fact that donations have risen, a substantial amount from the lottery fund also goes to charities.
    Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with Government officials donations from Serb sources to the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: I do not discuss donations to the Conservative party with civil servants, nor have I. The right hon. Gentleman should know—it was pointed out to the House some time ago—that I devolved any responsibility whatever for party fund raising more than three years ago to avoid any possible conflict of interest. I did that not recently, but several years ago.
    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the efforts of Mr. Gerry Adams to try to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA? Will my right hon. Friend remember that, when Mr. Adams tells us that he has consulted the IRA, he has merely looked in his bathroom mirror?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that Sinn Fein and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. That point is well known to every right hon. and hon. Member. We believe that it is extremely important that the talks on Northern Ireland are successful. The only way in which Sinn Fein will find itself a part of those talks is if there is a clear-cut, unequivocal ceasefire by the IRA. In the absence of that, Sinn Fein will not be part of the talks. I hope that that is entirely clear to Sinn Fein, to the IRA and to every hon. Member.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28833]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Prentice: Given the respective states of their finances this time last year, can the Prime Minister tell the House why his Government are still massively in debt but his party, all of a sudden, is not?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady looks at the figures, she will see a substantial reduction in the fiscal deficit; the figure has been falling for some time and will go on falling. I am sure that she will be pleased about that.
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28834]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of families have cause to be grateful to him for his introduction, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the tax-exempt special savings account? Is that not the right way to create a real stakeholder society, rather than abolishing child benefit and imposing new taxes on cars, which one half of the Labour party wishes to do and the other half does not?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right in both aspects of his question. TESSAs have proved a huge success. Literally billions of pounds have been saved by families in TESSAs; many of them are now coming to maturity, and a large proportion of that matured sum is now being reinvested. I believe that that is the right way to encourage wealth, for the determination of individual purchases and to pass on between generations. We believe in the acquisition of wealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am pleased to hear that the Opposition do not believe in that. It explains their proposal for a tartan tax, and the shadow transport spokesman's desire to tax people more often; it explains their proposal to tax families with youngsters going through A-levels and their proposal to tax everything that they can possibly lay their hands on to fund their expenditure plans. I am happy to set out the clear difference between our party and the Labour party on spending and taxes.
    Mr. Fatchett: Has the Prime Minister seen the report on Yorkshire Water's failure last summer to deliver a regular and uninterrupted water supply to the people of west Yorkshire? Does he recognise that that privatised company failed in its obligations to the people of west Yorkshire and in its obligation not to put at risk the health and economic activity of those people? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that the people of west Yorkshire benefited from Yorkshire Water and had a reduction in their water bills? Can the Prime Minister explain why he is the only person in the country who now seems prepared to defend the privatised Yorkshire Water?
    The Prime Minister: I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman still has such innate hostility to private ownership. I am delighted to say that large numbers of people yesterday showed no innate hostility to buying Railtrack when, once again, we had a privatisation that was massively over-subscribed.
    I made it perfectly clear that we want Yorkshire Water to consider and to take action, as the commissioners have recommended that it should. It has begun to do so. It has completed a £100 million programme of pipeline and pumping station construction and this year it has made a £12 million investment in leakage reduction. Those are
    98
    the measures that we expect it to take so that it can provide the service that consumers in Yorkshire expect and deserve.
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28835]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to endorse the timely and apposite speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the European Research Group last Friday? May I especially draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Home Secretary's suggestion that some states in a flexible Europe should be able to repatriate powers from Brussels? In that regard, could not Her Majesty's Government give notice at the intergovernmental conference that we intend to repatriate to our country control over our own agriculture and fisheries, and make British laws superior to European laws?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I first raised the question of what subsequently became called variable geometry in Europe well over two years ago, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he was Foreign Secretary. We have no doubt that that is the direction in which the European Union must develop as it enlarges in future. In relation to fisheries, as I have said to the House before, we shall be seeking changes in the common fisheries policy in the intergovernmental conference.
    Madam Speaker: Rev. Martin Smyth.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I will take the point of order after questions and statements.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Prime Minister's earlier response, does he accept that it is not enough for Sinn Fein to say, "We are no longer part of the IRA'" when, through its leadership, it has at no time condemned the atrocities and bombings of the IRA? It would be only in that context that anyone could have confidence in it as a qualified political party.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that everyone would condemn terrorist outrages. There can be no justification for them. As we have made clear, we expect every party that is eligible to take part in the talks that will take place after 10 June to accept at the outset, without equivocation, each and every aspect of the Mitchell principles. That is an essential prerequisite to taking part in the talks.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that points of order are taken after statements, of which there are two today. The first is from the Prime Minister.

EU Beef Ban
3.32 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on our continuing efforts to get the ban on British beef and beef products lifted, and on the implications for our wider European policy.
As the House will know, we have been making every effort with the European Commission and with the member states to lift the ban on beef and beef products imposed two months ago by the European Union. We appreciate the difficult situation on the beef markets of a number of member states, the fragile state of consumer confidence throughout Europe, and the political pressures faced by a number of Governments, but we have put in place a wide range of measures to ensure that all products reaching the market are safe on any normal definition of the word.
As a result of controls on feed, the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Britain is falling rapidly, and will continue to do so. There can no longer be any conceivable justification for the ban remaining in place. It is having a hugely damaging effect on the beef industry throughout Europe.
We have explained very clearly the extent of the measures that we have taken—going well beyond those in many other European Union member states—to ensure the safety of British beef and beef products. The Commission has played a notably helpful role in following carefully the scientific advice.
As a result, the Commission recently made a proposal to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. That is based on the scientific evidence that those products are safe when produced in agreed ways. A majority of member states supported that proposal when it was put to the standing veterinary committee yesterday, but it did not attract the required qualified majority to enable it to take effect. I should like to thank those countries that supported it, and President Santer and Commissioner Fischler for their determination to put the matter to the vote.
President Santer and Commissioner Fischler have confirmed that they stand by the proposal that they put to the standing veterinary committee yesterday. That proposal has to be confirmed by the Commission tomorrow. It will then be submitted to the Agriculture Council on 3 and 4 June. Under the procedures, the proposal would then be implemented unless there were a simple majority against it in the Council.
There is therefore a prospect of progress on that narrow front. I am grateful for the firm view taken by the Commission, and for the support of the majority of member states. However, the present position is clearly unacceptable. A balanced proposal based on the best scientific advice has been ignored by a number of member states, in some cases despite prior assurances of support. I must tell the House that I regard such action as a wilful disregard of Britain's interests, and, in some cases, a breach of faith.
Moreover, we have still been unable to reach agreement on further steps towards a progressive lifting of the wider ban, which is clearly our main objective. Some of our partners are reluctant even to contemplate moves in that direction, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the science involved.
100
Important national interests for Britain are involved in this matter. I cannot tolerate those interests being brushed aside by some of our European partners, with no reasonable grounds to do so. The top priority of our European policy must be to get the unjustified ban on beef derivatives lifted as soon as possible and to establish a clear path for the lifting of other aspects of the wider ban. We shall continue our present efforts, although these are not enough.
We have a strong legal case against the ban as a whole, and particular aspects of it. We made it clear from the outset that we believed the ban to be unlawful and disproportionate, and that we would therefore be bringing proceedings. Those proceedings will begin this week. We shall also begin this week our claim for interim measures, aimed at achieving those interim remedies unreasonably denied us in negotiation. Although our wider proceedings will inevitably take time to be heard, the application for the interim remedies should be heard within two to six weeks at the outside.
The interim measures application has a number of separate elements. One is the lifting of the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. If the Agriculture Council does not approve the lifting of the ban on 3 and 4 June, we shall ask the court to lift it. We shall also be asking the court to lift the worldwide ban on exports of British beef. The beef is safe, and there is no practical possibility of it being reimported into the Community.
A third element is the ban on beef from specialist beef herds, in particular slow-maturing, grass-fed herds that have never seen a single case of BSE and are among the finest in the world. As soon as appropriate verification schemes are in place—and preparations are already well advanced—we shall ask the Council to lift this ban— [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear the statement.
The Prime Minister: I repeat that a third element is the ban on beef from specialist beef herds. That is not justified. As soon as appropriate verification schemes are in place, we shall ask the Council to lift the ban. If we get no satisfaction, we shall again pursue the legal remedies open to us.
But those legal steps are not in themselves sufficient. We shall continue to press the scientific case on our partners and pursue our own programme to eradicate BSE. I have to tell the House that, without progress towards lifting the ban, we cannot be expected to continue to co-operate normally on other Community business.
I say this with great reluctance, but the European Union operates through good will. If we do not benefit from good will from partners, clearly we cannot reciprocate. Progress will not be possible in the intergovernmental conference or elsewhere until we have agreement on lifting the ban on beef derivatives and a clear framework in place leading to lifting of the wider ban.
We will raise the question of the ban at all Councils, including the Foreign Affairs Council. If necessary, we shall seek special Councils. I shall make it clear that I expect agreement on how to deal with those problems to be behind us by the time the European Council meets in Florence on 21 and 22 June. If it is not, the Florence meeting is bound to be dominated by the issue. It could

101
not proceed with our normal co-operation unless it faced up to the crisis of confidence affecting not only consumers but Governments throughout Europe.
That is not how I wish to do business in Europe—but I see no alternative. We cannot continue business as usual within Europe when we are faced with the clear disregard by some of our partners of reason, of common sense and of Britain's national interests. We continue to want to make progress through negotiation; but if that is not possible, we are bound to use the legal avenues open to us and the political means at our disposal.
I believe that the whole House recognises the strength of our case and the urgent need for progress. The approach that I have outlined deserves to command support throughout the House.
Mr. Tony Blair: Let us now find out exactly what the Prime Minister means by that statement. We share the great disappointment at the failure to get the ban at least partially lifted. We believe that there is no justification whatever for its continuing. The right regulations are now in place, and all reasonable scientific measures have been taken. Of course we shall support the Government in any sensible moves to ensure that the negotiations are successful.
There is no doubt about the deep sense of frustration, especially if, as the Prime Minister says, assurances have been given privately and then broken. However, can I now be clear about exactly what the Prime Minister proposes? As I understand it, he is saying that, unless there is both an agreement to lift the ban on derivatives—as we know, that may happen for other reasons—and a framework in place for easing the wider ban totally by 21 June, Britain will engage in a policy of non-co-operation.
May I ask two questions about that? First, what does the Prime Minister believe would be an acceptable framework and time scale for easing the wider ban? Secondly, and more importantly, I ask him to be specific as to what the policy of non-co-operation actually means. For example, does it mean—[Interruption.] Conservative Members—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Marlow, do be quiet.
Mr. Blair: With all due respect, before judgment can be passed on the policy of non-co-operation, we must know exactly what is meant by it.
For example, does the policy mean non-payment of European contributions, or doing anything in breach of treaty obligations, as many of the Prime Minister's hon. Friend would like? Will it involve a boycott of European institutions, non-attendance at meetings, or attendance with silence? Or does it mean refusal to participate in any other discussions at the intergovernmental conference unless the ban is lifted? Will the policy involve, as we read in the newspapers yesterday, the blocking of progress on Europol, and Europewide co-operation on policing? That suggestion has been made.
I assume from what the Prime Minister said that he has a clear strategy. At the moment the language is strong, but there is an absence of particulars as to exactly what it means. [Interruption.] It is the Prime Minister who is proposing the policy, so we should be clear what he means by it.
102
The right hon. Gentleman's statement should not mask or disguise the wider questions that must be asked about the Government's handling of the BSE crisis. There has been profound dissatisfaction with the way in which the negotiations have been conducted. What is the current negotiating position of other countries? What are they now asking us to do?
May I ask the Prime Minister about a specific point that has been raised by hon. Members from all parties? Is not the reason for the opposition of some member states to lifting the ban the collapse in their own consumer confidence? Does that not put us in a Catch-22 position, in that, to raise confidence in these countries, we need to lift the ban; yet to lift the ban, we need to raise confidence?
Should not one part of our strategy be a massive information and propaganda exercise in other member states—this has been suggested by representatives of the farming interests and by hon. Members from all parties— to tell those states exactly what we are doing, why it has dealt with the problem and why our beef is safe? May I put it to the right hon. Genetleman that farmers in this country—[Interruption.] Many farmers are deeply concerned about the situation, and would like some answers from the Prime Minister.
Is there not now a yawning discrepancy between what Ministers are saying about the current slaughter scheme and what the farming industry is saying? Reports from all parts of the country suggest that there is insufficient capacity in the abattoirs, confusion in the list of approved abattoirs, problems with collection centres, inadequate cold storage and uncertainty about the details of compensation. Does the Prime Minister agree that that situation cannot possibly be tolerated any longer?
Is not the incompetence with which the scheme is now being administered of a piece with the serial incompetence that has characterised the Government's handling of BSE? Is it not true that, throughout the early 1990s and late 1980s, the Government utterly failed to take action on BSE, although constant warnings were being given by Opposition Members that they had to act? The Government's response has been too late at virtually every stage of the crisis. Whatever the purpose of the Prime Minister's statement today, it should not obscure the incompetence with which the issue has been handled by him.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that no attempt was made before the announcement on 20 March to speak either to the farming industry or to our European partners to warn them or to secure their agreement to the measures that were being taken? Can he imagine any other Government behaving in that way? Does he accept that, at every stage—the years up to March 1996, the announcement itself, the policy of the slaughter scheme and the conduct of negotiations—his Government have shown a talent for error? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order.
Mr. Blair: We are entitled to ask questions about the Government's handling of the issue. These are the questions that are being asked outside this House. The Prime Minister has embarked on a new initiative today.

103
I assume that he has a clear understanding of what it will mean in practice. I certainly hope so, because otherwise he will make a serious situation even worse.
The Prime Minister: The leader of the Labour party has a great gift for hindsight, but very little for foresight. In all of that long, rambling address, he did not express a single opinion on how to handle the matter in any respect. In that, he was consistent with the approach of the Labour party from the outset of this national problem.
Let me answer those of the right hon. Gemtleman's questions that were clear. We are seeking a plan for a progressive lifting, and have already been discussing that with the Commission—starting with the beef derivatives and moving on progressively through herds that are clear of BSE, with a stepped lifting of the ban. That is under detailed discussion with the Commission.
On what I had in mind when I spoke about us not being able to reciprocate if we were not receiving good will and co-operation from Europe, I will be quite specific with the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
I do not believe that we will be able to agree any matters requiring unanimity until such time as we are able to agree on how to deal with this crisis with our European partners. I do not believe that we will be able to make progress at the intergovernmental conference, and any agreement that may be reached against our wishes at that stage we would reopen at the point at which we were again in a position to reach agreement with our partners. We will certainly take the issue to Florence and ensure that it dominates the proceedings at the Florence Council. There will not be co-operation with Europe until our partners in Europe are prepared to sit down and co-operate with us.
Mr. Blair: What does this mean?
The Prime Minister: I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman. If he reads Hansard, he will find it perfectly clear. I am sorry that he is being quite so slow on this occasion.
As to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about 20 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture did speak to Commissioner Fischler before the statements in the House. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the question was leaked in a Labour-supporting newspaper on the morning of 12 March. We spent hours that morning discussing the matter with scientists, before doing what he would have condemned us for if we had not done—coming straight to the House to report on precisely what was happening. He tries to suggest at this stage that we should not have come to the House, but should have gone outside and tried to fix deals. I wonder what he would have had to say this afternoon about us ignoring the House if we had done so.
Right from the beginning of the affair, we have followed the scientific advice on public health that we have been given—followed it as any responsible Government must and should. What is so frustrating is that the right hon. Gentleman asks what we are discussing with our European partners, but in the discussions it has
104
not yet proved possible to persuade some of those partners to engage seriously in debate on the decisions that need to be taken.
We are ready for that debate; some of our European partners are not. That is why we are taking the approach that we have taken this afternoon. It is necessary that they consider the problem seriously so that we can find a way through. Until they consider this problem, we shall be unable to consider other matters that are of interest and concern to them.
Sir Peter Hordern: Since beef consumption has been affected to a greater degree in the European Union than in this country, does it not make sense that it is in the interests of the EU countries to lift the ban as soon as possible, and that, above all, a decision should be based on scientific evidence and not on populism to do with their national electorates? That being the case, does it not make sense that any progress must be made through hard negotiation, and that nothing whatever will be achieved by threats of our leaving the EU?
The Prime Minister: Yes, there is no suggestion of our leaving the European Union, or, indeed, of indulging in actions that would be illegal before the British courts or the European Court. That is not what we are seeking to do. We need to continue with the negotiations, but it is essential that we are able to persuade our partners properly to negotiate on the details of how we proceed, and that, as yet, we have been unable to persuade all of them to do. Some of our European partners and the Commission have been, in many respects, extremely understanding and helpful, but we need to ensure that that extends right across the European Union, so that we can reach an agreed way forward.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister find any irony in the fact that the Government's hopes now rest in the operation of the majority voting system—something that they are determined to get rid of, or diminish, in the forthcoming IGC? Does he find any irony in the fact that the Government's first action in this matter is to run to the European Court of Justice— something that his Back Benchers want to get rid of and whose power some of his Cabinet Ministers want to diminish? Having listened to the Prime Minister's statement today, most people will conclude that the Euro-sceptic minority on his Back Benches has taken control of the Government's foreign policy, and that this has much more to do with appeasing them than restoring confidence in the beef market.
Does the Prime Minister realise that one reason why our European partners have so little confidence in the operation of the BSE eradication scheme is that it has sunk into disorder, confusion, chaos, farce and fiasco? Abattoirs across the country have been ringing me and my hon. Friends this morning to say that they are withdrawing from it.
As a specific example, St. Merryn Meat in Cornwall last week killed one fifth of the national cull under the BSE eradication scheme. Its operational viability has been on the basis of 1,750 head of cattle every week. Yesterday, that was reduced to 800, without compensation, notice or consultation. In consequence, the abattoir is liable to become economically non-viable and

105
close down, which would make 400 people redundant— and perhaps another 200 in two or three weeks' time. That is the direct result of the chaos that the Government have inflicted on agriculture, and it is one of the reasons why Europe has no confidence in them.
The Prime Minister: I can only say, after listening to his question, that, if abattoirs are ringing the right hon. Gentleman, I dare say they were soliciting for custom.
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the European Court show vividly how little he understands about either the policy we have set out or the European Court. We support the European Court and its proper responsibility in applying the single market; it is essential. What we oppose is the reinterpretation of laws by the European Court and its extension of laws, as in the Advocate-General's recent opinion on the working time directive. It is those matters that we are seeking to change.
The right hon. Gentleman may wish for a progressive determination of law by the European Court outside this country, but it is our wish for it to interpret laws that this House has agreed, not to determine laws by the extension of previous case law, which is what it has been doing. If he does not understand that, it explains why he is in favour of a federal Europe, which very few people in this country would wish to see.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement merits strong support throughout the House? Is he confident that his fellow Heads of State and Heads of Government, especially Chancellor Kohl, understand fully the tremendous political damage that has been done by their intemperate actions over the past eight weeks?
The Prime Minister: I very much hope that that point will be clear. I am seeking a proper dialogue and agreement: I am not seeking confrontation. I wish to find a way through that enables the British beef industry to return to what it was—one of the healthiest and best beef industries in the world. To ensure that there is proper negotiation, it is necessary to tell our partners that we no longer believe that the way in which the negotiations have been proceeding is satisfactory. That is the purpose of this statement. I shall certainly emphasise my hon. Friend's points to my fellow Heads of Government, although I think that it will be apparent to them from the statement.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In disregard of the cackling of the chappies behind him on this serious issue, and, of course, with requisite respect, does the Prime Minister not realise that his handling of this matter is not going to achieve the aims that he thinks? Does he realise that the tactic of the empty chair, in his person, will not achieve the stature of the action that a de Gaulle might have achieved?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. I have not said that we will leave an empty chair and not be there; I have said that we will not agree matters that need to be determined by unanimity. We will be there, to ensure that this issue is raised on each and every occasion, so that people are aware of what is necessary. An empty chair would achieve nothing—the hon. Gentleman may be right about that. We will be there to argue the case of the British beef industry on every occasion.
106
That is the point that is really at issue. Forget all the extraneous matters that are sometimes raised; what is of concern to me is getting a proper agreement with our partners that can remove this ban and restore the health to the British beef industry that science says it should have. Science is on our side. Science is being rejected by our European Union partners, and we must make it clear to them that that is not acceptable.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although his statement is very welcome in tone, in order for us to be able to bring substantial pressure to bear in the run-up to Florence, it would be helpful to have another look at whether the suspension of payments would be illegal? Does he accept, moreover, that all that that would result in is a modest increase in interest that we might have to pay; whereas, if we did impose such a suspension of payments, it would bring the other members firmly to the negotiating table, as my right hon. Friend wants?
The Prime Minister: I have to tell my hon. Friend that it would involve breaking the law, and it would not be a question of having to face the European Court of Justice; it would, within a matter of days, be a question of having to face the courts in this country. For that reason and others, I am not attracted to measures that are illegal.
First, as we believe that the British beef industry is being unfairly treated, I do not think that we would help its case by an illegal act that would entrench opposition abroad. Secondly, I do not believe that it would be appropriate, because in any event the law is against us, and it would not be effective. That is why I have chosen the measures that I have announced this afternoon.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The lifting of the ban depends on the confidence of the European Commission, the standing veterinary committee and others that the BSE eradication programme is right and proper. How can that confidence be enhanced when the Minister of Agriculture behaves like a demented gambler in the last chance saloon, offering to double the number of cattle that might be culled, directly contrary to the scientific evidence he cites, which suggests that only the right number of cattle should be culled?
In those circumstances, why does not the Prime Minister do as he offered to do some days ago, personally take charge of this, and hold a European summit with other colleagues in Europe—or is he afraid to lose there as well?
The Prime Minister: We shall be having a European summit in Florence, and, as I have told the House, this will be the main issue on its agenda if it is not solved before then. A great deal of negotiation and discussion on science and other matters needs to be undertaken. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been discussing those matters in Europe and, daily, domestically, not only with the agricultural industry but with all the allied interests that have a direct interest in the beef industry as a whole.
There are two elements. The first and most important element is that it is in the interests of the British beef industry for us to determine a way to eradicate BSE. Forget any pressure that may be put on us by other people

107
or the ban by other people. If we forget that and put it entirely to one side, it is in the long-term interests of the British beef industry to eradicate BSE, so that there is world confidence in British beef. That is what we are doing, and we are not being subjected to undue pressure from other people about that. We are looking ourselves at what needs to be done and how best it shall be done.
In terms of slaughtering those animals that need slaughtering, about 38,000 have been slaughtered, and the slaughterhouses are moving towards capacity. I will, of course, look into the particular case that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) mentioned, but they are moving towards capacity. We have to look at that in our own interests and in the interests of our own industry.
So this is not just a matter of a disagreement with our European partners, important though that is, because they have imposed the ban. Quite separately from that, we need to look domestically at how we get rid of BSE, and that is what we are doing.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement he has made today will be greatly welcomed and strongly supported by the British people right across the nation, and that they will have noted with distaste the fact that, at a moment of national crisis, the leaders of the two Opposition parties have shown themselves incapable of speaking for Britain?
The Prime Minister: I think that what my hon. Friend has had to say will find a echo in every part of the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dun woody: Exactly what is the Prime Minister proposing? He is wiping out the beef industry, including the veterinary section and the slaughterhouses, in my constituency, so it is bizarre to hear him seriously say that he intends to implement sanctions, without making it clear what they are. It is even stranger to hear him say that he intends to go to a court which he himself has labelled wholly political, unacceptable and irresponsible. If that is his solution to the problem, I am not surprised that the whole farming community in my constituency is in despair.
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady understands so little that she tells the people in her constituency what she has just told this House, I am not surprised that they are in despair—it is probably with her. I have already answered each of her three questions at least once.
My purpose is to save the British beef industry. I just wish that some Opposition Members would stand up for it for once.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will know only too well how much the president of the National Farmers Union and all farmers in this country welcome the strong links that he has established with them over the past eight weeks. Can he assure me that the link will be directly maintained with the president of the NFU? Can he further assure me that we will not up the ante in the slaughter policy week by week in the vain hope of attracting support in Europe? Finally, will my right hon. Friend give the lead in a "buy British" campaign in this country?
The Prime Minister: From what I have seen, I think that many people have already followed that last piece of advice. I have nothing but praise for the way Sir David Naish, Mr. Ben Gill and the leaders of the farmers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have behaved throughout. The whole agriculture industry has behaved with great restraint and maturity. I am grateful for the advice that it has given us. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend's door is open to representatives of the industry at any time; so is mine, whenever that should prove necessary.
No one is proposing a wholesale slaughter of herds just to satisfy the wishes of people overseas. That proposition is not under consideration. The science does not support such a proposition, as my right hon. and learned Friend has repeatedly stated in Europe and the United Kingdom.
Mr. William Ross: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he sees a verification scheme as a clear path towards the complete lifting of the ban? Given that such a scheme has existed for a good number of years in Northern Ireland, will he consider asking our European partners to lift the ban in respect of that region of the United Kingdom, if only as a test of good faith?
The Prime Minister: There is indeed a good verification scheme in Northern Ireland. We seek to ensure a proper verification scheme across the United Kingdom—that is one component in the progressive lifting of the ban to which I referred earlier. I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend dismiss the brazen effrontery of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats today? Will he accept that this country owes a great debt to our farming industry, which has served us well in times of crisis? We should stand by it now.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that, when dealing with the European Union, we are dealing not with our partners but with our competitors, and that that should always be borne in mind? This afternoon, my right hon. Friend has spoken for Britain.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him about the agriculture industry. I can certainly confirm that we stand by the British beef industry, and will continue to do so.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the past few days' negotiations have shown that simply asking Europe to accept an increase in the culling programme will not be enough and that we really need the over-30-months slaughter scheme to be fully operational throughout Britain? In Wales, for example, only 700 cattle were slaughtered last week and this week the figure should increase to at least 2,000 to 2,500. Does he recognise that, when our European partners can see that the scheme is fully operational, it will be far easier to persuade them to lift the partial ban?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman sets out precisely the matters that we have been discussing with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Cabinet Office in Brussels in the past week or so and at the innumerable meetings that my right hon. and learned

109
Friend has attended. Each and every matter that the hon. Gentleman has just raised has been among those that were discussed with the Commission and our European partners. It is precisely because we have discussed all those matters, yet we are still unable to determine what further is sought by the European Union from the United Kingdom before it will lift the ban, that there is such frustration over those negotiations.
I did not lightly come to the House this afternoon. I brought the measures to the House because there is deep frustration over the nature of the discussions and the fact that, when we make proposals, there is no clear indication whether they are acceptable or, if not, in which areas they are unacceptable. It is no good our partners making demands of us and not sitting down and discussing with us precisely what those demands should be.
For those reasons of frustration, we have felt it necessary to illustrate the importance that we attach to these matters and say that, until our European partners are prepared to sit down and discuss them in detail with us as they affect Wales, Northern Ireland and England, and the Aberdeen Angus industry in Scotland, we shall be unable to sit down and discuss with them other matters that are dear to them. That is why we shall block matters that require unanimity.
Mr. David Nicholson: Over the last eight weeks, Ministers—in particular, my right hon. and learned Friend—have shown extraordinary patience with our European partners, and we have seen hopes raised time after time only to be dashed again 24 hours later. Therefore, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has come to the House this afternoon to make this most welcome statement as a result of the fact that on these Benches, I hope elsewhere in the House, and also in the countryside, that patience with our European partners has now rapidly evaporated?
Is it not also clear that the response of the Leader of the Opposition shows not only that he is confused, because that I think we are familiar with, but that he is, on this subject, frankly rattled?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's generous words about my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: That will not save him.
The Prime Minister: A non-farmer speaks. In many cases, my right hon. and learned Friend has been the whipping boy for frustration, but I know the efforts that he has made to determine a way through a particularly difficult problem and to represent the interests of the fanning industry. When he reports to the House in a few moments, they will see again his efforts on behalf of Britain.
Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that, when he was asked precisely what the sanctions were, he said that Ministers would raise the matter at every meeting? Does that imply that they have not been doing that already during the past eight weeks?
110
The Prime Minister also said that he would get in touch with all the various leaders. They have been trotting across here to Britain in the past few weeks. The Prime Minister has invited President Chirac over here and filled him full of beef. He also had Helmut Kohl over here. It says something about the Prime Minister's influence with those leaders that he invited them over here, he wined and dined them, and then they voted against him—or they got somebody else to do their dirty work.
The Prime Minister should realise that the Common Market is now moving from social issues to economic and political issues. It is now dealing with issues on a political level. Why does he not have the guts to do the only thing he can do? When I used to negotiate with the pit manager, I would threaten to stop the wheels. If he had any guts, he would tell the people in the Common Market that we will stop the flow of money. That is the only real sanction he has.
The Prime Minister: It is always good to hear from new Labour.
Mr. Terry Lewis: That is insulting.
The Prime Minister: I could not comment about that. However, I hope that it is duly noted that Opposition Members below the Gangway consider it an insult to be referred to as "new Labour".
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that European leaders have been over here, I have wined and dined them and then they have gone home and voted against us. But President Chirac voted for us. The hon. Gentleman makes one assertion, and he gets it wrong. It is good to see that old Labour is alive and kicking, if not thinking. [Interruption.] I must say, it is very instructive to watch the body language above and below the Gangway. I hope that the cameras are pointed in that direction.
I must refer to some of the hon. Gentleman's omissions. He forgot to mention that we said that we would block all measures requiring unanimity—a number of which will come up in the next few weeks. He forgot that we said that we would block progress in the intergovernmental conference. The IGC cannot reach a conclusion without unanimity, so it cannot reach a conclusion unless this matter is completely determined. Neither will the present agenda at the foreign summit proceed unless it deals with the beef question.
Apparently none of those facts reached the hon. Gentleman. He clearly was not listening earlier, so I hope that he is listening now. [Interruption.] He may listen, but I fear that he does not understand.
Mr. Phil Gallie: In his words today, my right hon. Friend clearly identifies with the frustrations felt by many of my constituents who work in the agriculture and food processing industries. They recognise the need for dialogue in Europe. Their frustrations have grown in the past two months, and their lives have been totally disrupted. It is now time to make a stand, and they will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That statement presages a renewed attempt to reach agreement by negotiation. As my hon. Friend says, we are acting in the interests of the beef and allied industries, and we want to solve the problem as speedily as we can.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), has the Prime Minister noticed that Farming Ministers in three of the countries that voted against Britain yesterday—Germany, the Netherlands and Spain—have expressed an interest in the position of specialist beef herds, particularly those in Scotland and in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister mentioned that in his statement.
I ask that the argument about specialist beef herds be put at the forefront of the United Kingdom strategy because it seems to offer a practical way forward. Eight weeks into the crisis, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Scottish Office to accelerate work on the verification schemes, which would allow us to trade on the reputation of Scottish beef and lead all beef back into European markets?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the verification schemes are very important. We are accelerating progress on those schemes, not only in Scotland but elsewhere in the United Kingdom where there are no proper schemes in place. The point he raises is at the forefront of the negotiations.
I repeat that we are prepared to sit down and reach an agreement that will lead to a proper framework for lifting the ban comprehensively. However, other people must sit down with us. If they are not prepared to accept our offer to sit down and engage in constructive dialogue in order to bridge the difference between us, and if they simply say—as they have done—"We do not think what you are proposing is sufficient," but will not then engage in proper dialogue about what is sufficient, it is not a two-way dialogue.
I wish to obtain that two-way dialogue. It is largely frustration over that matter that has led to our decision to elevate the political imperative of reaching agreement on the issue for the farming industry.
Mr. Richard Alexander: My right hon. Friend's robust response today will get a wide welcome in the country, not least in the agricultural community. Is he aware, however, that, if the United Kingdom were to offer an increased cull of cattle beyond what is absolutely necessary, it would cause grave damage not only to the acceptability in the country of what we are doing but to our future milk and beef supplies? Those aspects must be considered, too.
The Prime Minister: I should like to deal with that point, because I know that it is a matter of concern to some of my hon. Friends.
I say emphatically that our proposals do not envisage culling whole herds in which BSE cases have occurred; that would not be justified on the science. The original
112
proposal for a selective cull was based on identifying cases of BSE in cattle born between 1990 and 1993 and to cull cattle born on the same farms at the same time— which therefore might reasonably have been expected to be exposed to the same infected feed. That was broadly estimated to lead to the culling of about 40,000 cattle. Further proposals would extend that to cover only cases of BSE that are confirmed in the future. In the interests of eradication, we would need to deal with those cases of BSE as well.
Those are the matters to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture referred last week, and not to a general slaughter of healthy cattle. I should like to make that point clear to the House, because it is a matter that has caused some concern among some of my hon. Friends and among the farming industry. I hope that the position is now clear. The proposals cover only cases of BSE that are confirmed in future.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Before the Prime Minister launches a war of bull semen against Europe, will he answer one simple question? Given the market signals from the United States, which banned British beef in 1987, from Westminster council, which stopped serving it in its schools a couple of years ago, and from Hong Kong, which banned British beef about two years ago, what retaliation does he propose to take against them?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not sneer at an important industry.
Mr. MacShane: I was not sneering.
The Prime Minister: At the beginning of his question, he was sneering at an important industry. There is no doubt that he was sneering. People will have noticed that he was doing so, and they will have noticed many Labour Members' attitude on this issue.
We are seeking to have the ban lifted everywhere. We will be in discussion with Hong Kong, America, New Zealand, Australia and other countries that have previously banned British beef or beef derivative products. That is the reason why we are trying to deal comprehensively domestically with cases of BSE—so that there can be no credible shred of justification anywhere in the world for the ban on British beef.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his measured but forceful statement, and assure him that it will be welcomed by butchers, farmers and meat traders across my constituency. May I ask him to acknowledge that he is starting down a road of forceful but restrained escalation, and that, until there is a happy resolution to this matter, there can be no turning back?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. I did not lightly embark upon this course, and I am perfectly aware that we must proceed with this course until we have a satisfactory outcome.

Agriculture Council
4.22 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the discussion about BSE at and in the margins of the Agriculture Council on 20 and 21 May, at which I represented the United Kingdom with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and my noble Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Office and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
The standing veterinary committee voted late last night on a proposal that could have been expected, in due course, to bring about the lifting of the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. However, a qualified majority was not established. Forty-eight votes—representing eight member states, including the United Kingdom—voted in favour, and 39 votes, representing seven member states, voted against.
This morning, the Commissioner informed the Council that the Commission would put the proposal to the Council. A special meeting of the Council to consider that and other matters will be held on 3 and 4 June. Under the procedures, the proposal will then be implemented, unless there is a simple majority against it in the Council.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained, it is extremely disappointing that no final decision has been taken on lifting the ban on those three products, for which the scientific case is overwhelming. The Council meeting fixed for 3 and 4 June provides a further opportunity, which should be taken.
I also explained to the Council the comprehensive nature of the measures that the United Kingdom has put in place to protect the public and to eliminate BSE. On the idea of a selective cull, I confirmed that the United Kingdom was in principle prepared to cull all animals in the three age classes 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, identified by farm of origin, in respect of which a case of BSE had been found. I made it clear, however, that such a proposal would need the consent of the House, and that the opinion of right hon. and hon. Members would be influenced by what was said and done in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe. I have seen no evidence to justify going beyond the proposal that we have advanced.
The Government's first duty is to protect the public. We have put the necessary measures in place, as is confirmed by any unprejudiced and careful reading of the scientific evidence. Member states should now accept their responsibilities, and agree to a rapid ending of the ban.
Dr. Gavin Strang: May I reiterate that we fully share the Government's bitter disappointment at the failure of the standing veterinary committee even to agree to the modest proposal for the lifting of the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen?
Does the Minister feel that the confusion surrounding the implementation of the 30-month slaughter programme contributed to his lack of progress? May I remind him that it is seven weeks since he took that programme to the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Luxembourg? Is it not clear that there is still great confusion throughout the industry about its implementation? Indeed, divisions are developing between different sections of the industry.
114
Is it not time to consider whether some new initiatives are required in relation to the programme if it is to operate effectively?
May I put to the Minister the allegation that some abattoirs are refusing to take cattle aged over 30 months, thus forcing farmers to sell them in markets where the abattoir owners or their agents are able to buy the cattle at knockdown prices and make a profit at the expense of farmer and taxpayer? Is the Minister still certain that he is right in requiring that cattle for our food and cattle aged over 30 months that must be slaughtered and kept out of the food chain be slaughtered in the same slaughterhouses?
As for the additional selective slaughter programme— the programme that still involved 40,000 cattle at the time of last Thursday's debate; the Minister upped the figure to 80,000 on Friday—can the Minister explain clearly what is the proposal's current status? Is he saying that we will not go ahead with the second slaughter programme until we have a clear agreement on a timetable for the lifting of the overall ban on our beef and beef products?
The Prime Minister accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—most unfairly—of not making constructive suggestions. May I ask the Minister what progress has been made on three of our constructive suggestions? First, what progress is being made on the quality assurance scheme for late-maturing cattle, and will the Government extend such schemes to other beef breeds?
Secondly, has the Minister had a chance further to consider our call for an investigation into the 67 per cent. of BSE cases that are now in cattle born after the feed bans were implemented? He has acknowledged that after those bans were put in place in 1989 cattle have consumed a continuous stream of contaminated feed. Surely it would help the introduction of an additional slaughter programme if we were to identify the cattle most at risk. If we were to carry out an inquiry, it might help us to have a more closely targeted selective slaughter programme.
Thirdly, with regard to the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) a few minutes ago, will the Minister seriously consider the proposition that many people in countries such as Germany may not fully understand the measures that have been put in place in this country and that we should seek to address that by directly communicating to them— through people who speak their language in the media or in a clear booklet—what we are doing in the United Kingdom? We argue that proposition on the basis that there has been a return of confidence—not complete, but substantial—in the market in British beef, and that may partly be because the people understand that the Government are taking measures following the announcement on 20 March.
The Government are right to emphasise the importance of lifting the ban on our export of beef and beef products, because only then can we start to rebuild our markets. But that must not deflect the Minister from the priorities at home, including ensuring that all the measures to keep the BSE agent out of our food are effectively enforced and addressing the huge problems surrounding the slaughter programme, which are causing such suffering among farmers and others in the industry.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. In following the policy of slaughtering cattle over

115
the age of 30 months, to date about 38,500 beasts have been slaughtered. The standing veterinary committee did not focus to any great extent on that slaughter policy. My judgment is that the objections that have been advanced in the standing veterinary committee and elsewhere are primarily political in character, although scientific language is used as a cover for a political stance.
Further to the question of the slaughter policy, we are now operating very close to current capacity. We can increase capacity, as we discussed last week, by bringing on cold storage and additional incineration. The choke point is essentially the rendering capacity. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) mentioned specific allegations about behaviour bordering on misconduct, if not misconduct. If there are such cases, I hope that they will be brought to my attention.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the position on additional slaughter, but perhaps I should repeat it. We are focusing on three class years, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. If—in any of those class years-there has been a case or there is a case of BSE, we will go back to the farm of origin and find and slaughter the cohort. It is the future cases that I have introduced into the discussion in Europe.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked about the context in which the selective slaughter policy has been introduced. I have already made it plain to the Council in Brussels and to the Commission too that the proposals for a selective cull have to be considered in the context of programmes for relaxing the ban. Indeed, I said today at the Council that to secure a selective cull policy I would have to have the consent of the House of Commons. In truth, the House's opinion will be directly influenced by what is said and done in Europe, and I made that very clear to the Council today.
We completed consultation on the quality assurance scheme at the end of last week. We have now raised it with the Commission and the Commissioner himself specifically mentioned it to the Council this morning.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that last Thursday we discussed cattle born after the ban. The relevant figures are to be found in the dossiers that we have lodged with the Library. He will bear it in mind that, from the beginning of April, we placed a total prohibition on the incorporation of any mammalian protein in farm rations— food going to any farm animals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have to safeguard the business of the House. Hon. Members who might be fortunate enough to be called on this statement should ask their questions briskly, and only one each. I am sure that the Minister will oblige by giving a speedy answer. Who rose on the previous statement and was not called?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that hundreds of farmers in my constituency will be delighted at the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in standing up to those of our European partners who do not have the slightest intention of lifting the ban on the export of beef, whatever offers we may make to try to win their support?
116
Those farmers are asking exactly how much European beef we are importing and why on earth we do not require as high a standard of quality in that beef as the Europeans require of British beef. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that would be not retaliation but justifiable action in defence of British beef producers?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's support. He made an important point about extending to Europe the specified bovine material controls that we now operate in countries where there are cases of BSE. We are raising that matter with the Commission. He asked about the importation into the United Kingdom of beef from European Union countries. The position is that cattle over the age of 30 months are affected by the general restriction now in place.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In view of the Prime Minister's reference to the National Farmers Union and the tribute that he paid, rightly, to its responsible attitude, is the Minister aware that in its briefing today it has said that the
"30-month scheme is in jeopardy"
and that "chaos reigns"? Is he aware that while he has been abroad a number of abattoirs, as a result of the chopping and changing of the intervention board, have threatened to get out of the scheme? Is he confident that, far from being in a state of growing deterioration, the scheme will be on stream by the next meeting of the Agriculture Council and that he will be able to report that, in his own words, the "necessary measures" are in place?
Mr. Hogg: As I have already said on a number of occasions, to date we have slaughtered about 38,500 head of cattle over the age of 30 months; the estimate for 21 May is that we will have slaughtered about an additional 4,188. I have seen reports in which supermarkets have said that they do not wish to take clean cattle for consumption from abattoirs that have been used for the cull. I discussed that point with the retailers last week.
I do not believe that that judgment is based on good science. However, if any abattoirs withdraw from the culling scheme, I believe that we will be able to fill the gap and to continue slaughtering at the capacity that is afforded by the renderers, as topped up by incineration and the cold storage facilities that we are bringing on stream.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, until eight weeks ago, the standing veterinary committee based its decisions on scientific facts and veterinary practice? Is not it an absolute disgrace and an indictment of their professional capacity that some of those vets have changed their minds on the orders of their political masters? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if the principle of science and veterinary practice is not stuck to, when this whole sorry mess is over there will be an opening for the manipulation of food and other materials for reasons of disease, simply covering over bad trade practices, which the committee was designed to stop?
Mr. Hogg: There is much force in what my hon. Friend says. In some cases, the language of science has been used to advance political objectives or to conceal political

117
positions. I agree that, when forming policy, it is extremely important, as a general principle, to follow the science; otherwise, there is no clear benchmark.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Minister confirm that he has heard reports that supermarket chains' meat buyers are considering not buying supplies from abattoirs that are participating in the culling of animals under this scheme? If those reports are true, will he have urgent talks with the heads of the supermarket chains to point out that there is no scientific basis for that fear and that their best contribution to enhancing consumer confidence in British beef's safety would be to recognise that the disease is not contagious in those circumstances?
Mr. Hogg: I touched on this point in answering the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Last week—on Thursday night, I think—I discussed this very issue with supermarket representatives. There is no good reason why supermarkets should not take beef for consumption from abattoirs that are also being used for culling, provided there is a clear distinction in time and that appropriate measures are in place. It is worth reminding the House that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee originally contemplated that, provided it was sold in a deboned state, beef from cattle over 30 months of age would be sold for human consumption.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a problem with the slaughter policy is that cattle have been earmarked for abattoirs but have not been able to go until perhaps the following week? The cost to farmers is running into hundreds of pounds. Is it not about time that we appointed someone— an individual of substance and quality—to oversee the policy? Should we not have a system whereby the discrepancy between the live weight and the dead weight is removed, so that abattoirs and marts operate on equal terms?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend might be reassured to know that, under the 30-month scheme, the cumulative total of cattle slaughtered in Scotland between 3 May and 21 May amounts to 9,997 beasts. The House will, of course, know that we do not possess powers of direction. We must rely on persuasion, negotiation and encouragement.
Mr. Walker: And advice.
Mr. Hogg: And advice. That is what is being done. If there are ways of reinforcing that process, we will gladly consider them.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: What consideration has the Minister given to the Consumer Association's suggestion today—following a poll showing that 71 per cent. of people believe that the Government withheld important information about BSE's risks—that an independent food authority should be set up?
Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with the criticism and I do not agree with the proposal.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of some farmers' concern
118
that dealers are doing sweetheart deals with abattoirs and are seeking to pick up cheap cattle from farmers who cannot get their cattle into the abattoir? Is he aware of the concern that some cattle will be able to get into the scheme under existing rates, but that other farmers, because of the difficulty of getting cattle to the abattoir in time, might lose out on the existing deal? Will he ensure that farmers who, through no fault of their own, are delayed in getting their cattle slaughtered receive exactly the same compensation as farmers who get in earlier?
Mr. Hogg: I understand my hon. Friend's points. On cattle that are not able to get into the abattoirs, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear our position about the top-up payment being carried forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) will recall that on Thursday my hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined our thinking on an advance payment ultimately to be made under the slaughter scheme. That will provide considerable reassurance to the farmers of whom my hon. Friend speaks.
We are increasing slaughterhouse throughput under the 30-month scheme. We are operating very near to capacity, but it can be increased as we bring cold storage facilities into play and perhaps identify further disposal methods— incineration, for example.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: A rather bizarre auction is taking places: the 40,000 figure was raised to 80,000 and then rejected by the European Community, some of the members of which want perhaps 10 times that figure. That is not based on good science. What is the Ministry's best estimate of BSE's incidence in the present cattle herd? Is it under 1 per cent. perhaps 5 per cent. or up to 10 per cent?
Mr. Hogg: I do not think that it is sensible to answer the question in the form that it has been asked, but I can give the hon. Gentleman some idea of how many confirmed cases we expect. He will find our best estimate of likely figures in the dossier that we have placed in the Library, but I do not have the figures in front of me so I shall use broad figures. If we were to do nothing else by way, for example, of a selective cull, in the current year we expect about 8,500 cases, next year about 5,000 and in 1998 about 2,800. At the height of the epidemic in 1993 there were about 36,000 confirmed cases, which fell to about 15,000 last year.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at times like these, we need to know who our friends are? Will he therefore say which countries said that they would support us but reneged on that commitment in the vote? Bearing in mind the earlier welcome and bullish approach of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, will my right hon. and learned Friend support immediate action to protect the UK consumer on health grounds by banning imported beef and beef products from cattle that have not been raised, transported or slaughtered to the same high standards and welfare as are practised in this country?
Mr. Hogg: I think that I would turn my hon. Friend's point on its head by saying that no beef product in the world is created and produced in a better environment, or is subject to better and more sophisticated controls,

119
than British beef. One can honestly say that British beef is produced under the most rigorous controls anywhere in the world.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister has given assurances that the slaughter policy is near capacity: it is a mere trickle in Wales, which is a considerable worry to many thousands of farmers.
Mr. Alex Carlile: It is a disaster.
Mr. Llwyd: Yes, a disaster.
May I impress on the Minister the need for far more cold storage? Will he impress on the intervention board the need for that to be provided urgently?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that the throughput in Wales has been less than we would wish: about 1,000 beasts have been slaughtered under the 30-month scheme. Clearly, it needs to be accelerated and I agree that cold storage is a partial solution to the problem.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is not the grotesquely irrational response from European politicians rather depressing? Was any quantitative analysis made, comparing the risks of different forms of human activity, to put the matter in perspective when it was discussed in the Council? For example, is it not a far greater risk to get into one's car to drive to the supermarket to buy beef than, even on the most pessimistic assumptions of alarmists, it is to eat it? There is therefore an even greater case for banning all forms of motorised transport throughout Europe than there is for banning British beef.
Mr. Hogg: It has always been one of the problems that it is extraordinarily difficult to express risk in terms that are readily understood. That is why, when pressed on that point, Professor Pattison has said that, to use ordinary language, British beef is safe. That is the way in which he prefers to express risk and I endorse that approach. My hon. Friend is right about the depressing character of some of the conversations that we have had on this subject in recent months. In truth, usually the language is not that of considered judgment based on fact, argument or science, but rather an expression of concern about damage to domestic markets, which is then expressed in language of science. I do not think that that is the proper way around.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that the problem is as bad in Germany—in fact, worse. Confidence in beef in Germany dropped dramatically after the Germans banned British beef, because it raised the possibility of beef not being safe. If the proposals to ban foreign beef were taken up, we would once again undermine the very beef market that we are trying to maintain in this country. It is a matter of consumer confidence. Supermarkets do not buy beef from abattoirs that participate in the culling scheme not because of science, facts or figures, but because they fear that they cannot sell the beef. Lifting the European ban does not matter if we cannot convince people.
Mr. Hogg: It is true that the consumption of beef in Germany has been gravely damaged. I have frequently
120
said to German Ministers that it would help confidence in Germany enormously if the ban were lifted. It would be an expression of confidence in beef generally. To put the argument differently, the fact that every time the Agriculture Council meets there is a row about the safety of beef is bound to have a deleterious effect on confidence in Germany and, indeed, in other countries of the Union where there has been a substantial reduction in consumption. I make those points to Agriculture Ministers.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his conduct in negotiations and on what he has said today. He has struck a bell that is in tune with what the British people want. Are our European partners aware that the House of Commons will not accept ever-increasing senseless culls, which are unjustified by science, and that the British taxpayer will not accept the bankrolling of an institution that acts irrationally? Will he reassure me on a local point, which I put to him in the agriculture debate last week, about the availability of abattoir facilities to local beef farmers?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour—indeed, my constituency Member. He is entirely right to say that the consent of the House of Commons is absolutely essential if a selective cull policy is to be adopted. I have made that very clear to the Council today and on a number of previous occasions. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the lack of local abattoir facilities. I saw a number of farmers from our area on Friday and was able to say that very shortly an abattoir would be operating in Lincolnshire.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that nobody could have done more—day and often night—as a Minister for the farming industry than he has? Opposition Members' criticism is purely party political and not a matter of fact.
The beef breeder, who will obviously still lose money in getting his animal to be culled at top weight, is terribly worried that he cannot get his animals through the abattoirs. He is having to feed the animals and might still be three, four or five weeks away from getting them to the abattoir, which is costing more and more. Is it not possible for the animals to go to market and be weighed and tagged so that the farmer does not have to continue feeding them with feedstuffs? The animals can be put out to grass and their weight allowed to fall—they are to be culled and incinerated anyway. Farmers would not therefore lose more money by pursuing a policy that cannot be in their interests or necessarily in the interests of the policy that my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to promote.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks: such remarks from one of the most senior Members of the House are particularly welcome. He is making an important and interesting suggestion on which I had not previously reflected. I shall consider what he has said. I suspect that the logistical problems would be too great; none the less, I shall consider his specific suggestion. I also draw to his

121
attention the concept of advance payments and our policy of operating slaughterhouses at their maximum, which I hope will go some way to meeting his constituency point.
Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister agree that although his policy of culling a particular cohort when reactor or BSE cases are found in that cohort will do quite a lot to help the farm of origin, it has meant that the problem has spread to every farm where the cohort has been by trade and sale? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the suckler herdsman who buys one of those cattle will have a problem several months down the road when suckler calves from such a contact herd go to market? Will he carefully consider how we are going to deal with that policy, since the suckler herdsman depends not on milk sales but on his calves and the subsidies that he receives every year?
Mr. Hogg: I am sure that if we pursue the cohort tracing policy that the hon. Gentleman has described we will encounter some difficulties. Broadly speaking, however, the concept is right. It is very difficult to think of any other concept that is underpinned by science and gives a proportionate result. I am glad that the Commission's advisers have supported that approach; it is our approach. I recognise that there may be some difficulties, but in trying to stand back, I commend the approach to right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Michael Lord: I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to stick to the golden rule of slaughtering only the cattle for which there are genuine scientific reasons for doing so. There would be great anger among farmers and people in general if we were seen to be slaughtering perfectly healthy animals in large numbers simply to appease our so-called partners in Europe. There is still a fair amount of confusion on the ground about the system. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to do all that he can to ensure that his staff get things moving as quickly and efficiently as possible, and that most of all he ensures that farmers are regularly informed what is going on.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point when he says that we should do our utmost to ensure that the farming community is aware of all relevant facts and new developments—we shall certainly do our best. I recognise that very great anger could arise at any selective cull policy that did not seem to be proportionate or justified. The concept that we have introduced to trace cohorts is designed to identify the beasts that one could sensibly say are at a pronounced risk of developing BSE because there is a high likelihood that they have been fed contaminated foodstuffs. I cannot think of a better way of adopting a cull policy. I am prepared to argue in favour of a selective cull policy, and I think that many right hon. and hon. Members would support that approach were they to reflect in great detail on the scientific arguments underpinning it. I hope that my hon. Friend may feel able to do so as well.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister recall that in a debate last week I said that some abattoirs, including one in my constituency owned by Ben Elliott, were on the original list but were then, for some
122
mysterious reason, taken off it? The only thing that had happened in the meantime was that somebody from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had asked, "Are you a member of the federation?" I got the clear impression that Mr. Ben Elliott, not being a member of the federation, or part of some kind of freemasonry—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: A closed shop.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, a closed shop. Ben Elliott was being penalised for not being a member. Representations have been made over the weekend. Ben Elliott can slaughter about 200 cows a day, and many farmers in the area, despite the fact that they do not agree with the cull, have to get rid of their animals, so can I have an assurance that he will be back on the list so that he can help to deal with the problem?
Mr. Hogg: I believe that that is the first time that I have ever heard the hon. Gentleman refer to a closed shop in a somewhat disparaging manner. I regard that as progress.
The problem is that we must slaughter at the maximum capacity, and that means linking abattoirs to renderers. It also means that we must not have too many abattoirs at the outset, because if we did we should not be making the most effective use of the rendering capacity. For that reason, the original number of abattoirs was reduced to 20 or 21. We have it in mind substantially to increase that figure, to about 40—next week, I think. I do not know whether the new list will include the abattoir that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), is considering that point, because the hon. Gentleman raised it with her in last Thursday's debate.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is apparently confusion in some abattoirs? One in my constituency, which is on his list, is not slaughtering because the intervention board will not provide it with the necessary information. Despite having made and sent 20 or 30 telephone calls and faxes, the abattoir has had only one reply in six weeks.
Secondly, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is now impossible to send barren cows to slaughter in some parts of the country? From a humane point of view it is distressing that because of bottlenecks, some injured animals cannot be slaughtered. Will he give that situation some thought?
Mr. Hogg: We have made provision for casualties, including injured cattle, although I am afraid that I cannot comment on the particular constituency case that my hon. Friend identified. I suggest that he raises it with the Minister of State, who has day-to-day charge of such matters in the Ministry.
The real problem is that we cannot give approval to every abattoir on the original list, because that would make for inefficient use of the rendering capacity. If we went down that road we would not be able to achieve the maximum throughput that I believe is the desired objective of all right hon. and hon. Members.

Points of Order
5.3 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you examine carefully the reply to the last question answered by the Secretary of State for Social Security during Social Security questions? Having spent the weekend with NATO listening to the Secretary-General and Carl Bildt talking about the tragedy of Bosnia, and the great part that ethnic cleansing and racism played in that terrible civil war, I believe that you will agree that racism such as we heard in that answer today has no part in the House or in our great democracy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am sure that if Madam Speaker had heard anything that was out of order she would immediately have addressed the matter. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's point is brought to her attention.
Mr. Denis MacShane rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?
Mr. MacShane: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that, as one of the distinguished sportsmen in the House, you will have been outraged by today's report in the Daily Mirror about the treatment of Sir Alf Ramsey, who has not been invited to the England v. Switzerland game that will open the European championships—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's compliment; indeed, I played tennis this morning. Leaving that aside, I do not think that football managership has anything to do with Madam Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2)
  Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Diane Abbott and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, presented a Bill to impose national spending limits on political parties at parliamentary general elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

  Licensing Act 1964 (Amendment)
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the power of the relevant court to award costs in respect of a decision by licensing justices to grant a justices' licence, in cases where the unsuccessful objector is a properly constituted residents association.
  The purpose of my Bill is to remove from courts the power to levy costs against those representing residents associations in opposing the award of justices' licences. Knowing the fate of most ten-minute Bills, I am especially glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), has come to hear the presentation of my Bill, and I hope that he will listen to some of my arguments and consider whether something can be done to alleviate the problem encountered by some of my constituents.
  I preface my remarks by saying that although the horrifying story that I am about to tell happened in Harrow, it could have happened anywhere—and that as a result of what happened in Harrow, it could now happen in anyone's constituency.
  The background to the problem is the purchase of a British Rail sports ground at Headstone lane, in my constituency, by an organisation now known as Broadfield sports and social club. That is a cosy-sounding name that suggests people who want to do things for the local community and for people who play sport. But that is not the view of the local community, and it is not mine either.
  We must take into account the fact that the organisation consists of people who operate under assumed names, and who disguised their sources of finance and concealed their objectives, as well as threatening local residents. They are an unsavoury bunch, and in my judgment, although regrettably not in the judgment of the Harrow licensing magistrates, they are unsuitable people to be running a club. Residents had every reason to question the application for a local licence. Local people were worried, and continue to be worried. I remind the House that the applicants lied about their ownership and obscured their intentions.
  In the Harrow magistrates court a retired man, Frank Hayward, represented the Headstone residents association—a respected local residents association which I believe is the oldest in the borough—and two other families also represented local feeling. The applicants were represented by an array of expensive advisers, including a barrister. Of course, they were entitled to be so represented.
  The licence was granted. I do not agree with that decision, but that was the judgment. Of course, the magistrates are entitled to make a judgment on the issues as they see them. The magistrates accepted the fact that the residents had put forward a bona fide case, yet the residents finished up with a bill totalling £1,000 in costs. The applicants wanted £5,000 in costs, and £500 was awarded against Mr. Hayward, £250 against Mr. Warburton and £250 against Mr. Way
  When I have spoken to magistrates from other areas no one has been able to recall another case in which that has happened. Indeed, the other magistrates to whom I spoke

  125
  were stunned that such a thing should have happened. In my judgment, the ramifications are serious. Because of what I regard as an irresponsible act on the part of Harrow magistrates, no residents association can now risk opposing a licence application. They have made this a high-risk activity.
  Local residents received what I regard as threatening letters the night before the hearing from the Broadfield sports and social club, which said that the club would be applying for costs. I met a delegation from all the residents associations in Harrow. They want the matter to be sorted out, and they also want people in other parts of the country to know what a serious position they may be put in.
  My Bill aims to protect community representatives when speaking for local people. It will remove the right of courts to levy costs against those representatives, and require courts to keep a list of residents associations that are properly constituted. That is not a big imposition. Councils do this already, as I know from my experience on a council. We do not want to protect a bunch of cronies or a few cranks who get together to oppose a proper licence application, but properly constituted residents associations who represent local people should be protected. Residents associations have a right to represent people, and people in turn have a right to have their views put for them against applicants, however expensively represented they may be, who may threaten local people.
  The Bill is simple and direct, and it will not be a burden on legitimate licensees or anyone else in the legitimate trade, including the brewers. But it will give people in every community the right to be heard. I believe that they demand and need that right. The actions of Harrow magistrates court show that something must be done to protect people who exercise their rights.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Michael Brown, Sir Sidney Chapman, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Miss Kate Hoey and Mr. Eric Pickles.

  LICENSING ACT 1964 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to remove the power of the relevant court to award costs in respect of a decision by licensing justices to grant a justices' licence, in cases where the unsuccessful objector is a properly constituted residents association: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 140.]
Orders of the Day

  Defamation Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a law reform Bill that has a slightly unusual history and derivation. There have been not one but three consultation exercises in England and Wales, and additional consultation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, that led to the Bill being introduced in another place. The House will be aware that it was while it was in the other place that an addition was made that has a special significance for Members of the House. Although that addition appears towards the end of the Bill, I shall—with hon. Members' leave—explain the provision separately, before turning to the more general law reform provisions in the Bill.
  Clause 14 would allow an hon. Member or any other person whose conduct in relation to parliamentary proceedings is an issue in an action for defamation to waive protection, such as that given by the Bill of Rights so as to enable evidence to be given and findings to be made in court about his conduct in Parliament. At the same time, the clause preserves the essential protection afforded by the Bill of Rights to Members of both Houses and other persons, such as witnesses before Select Committees, from any legal liability for what they may have said or done during proceedings in Parliament. That is the historic basis of free speech in Parliament, which must be preserved.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I shall complete this passage. The House will want to know exactly what the Government's position is.
  The clause also provides that a waiver by one person will not affect the protection afforded to any other person who does not choose to waive it.
  Mr. Carlile: Why do the Government appear to be in favour of granting the right to waiver to an individual Member of Parliament? Why do they not give that right to the Privileges Committee, which could then consider the issue and—if it thinks appropriate and while retaining the privileges of the House—give permission to the individual hon. Member to waive protection?
  Mr. Evans: I want to continue with my speech, because it would be helpful if I outlined the Government's position in relation to the clause.
  The matter has arisen following the libel case brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) against The Guardian. The case was stayed on the grounds that it could not be tried properly without hearing evidence about my hon. Friend's conduct in Parliament— the subject of the allegations against him—and that evidence could not be heard because of the prohibition in

  127
  the Bill of Rights on the questioning or impeaching by the courts of proceedings in Parliament. At about the same time, an action brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was similarly stayed.
  If this clause were enacted, any hon. Member who wished to would be able to waive his or her protection for the purposes of the defamation proceedings. The defendants would be able to call evidence to justify their published allegations and the issue between them and the hon. Member could be tried by the court.
  This is a Government Bill, but not a Government clause. It was introduced for debate by one of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffmann. The Government recognise that the problem raised by my hon. Friends' cases is a real one, but as far as the solution proposed by the clause is concerned, the Government are neutral. We regard this as a matter for Parliament, rather than the Government, to decide, since it raises important questions touching on the Bill of Rights and the privileges of the House.
  The concern of Ministers is that this issue should be properly ventilated in debate. I hope that hon. Members will find an opportunity to study the proceedings on Third Reading in another place, when the case for and against the clause was fully argued. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members as the Bill proceeds through its later stages.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As this is an extremely important matter and as there is a variety of business before the House today, is it my hon. Friend's intention that the matter should form the subject of a special debate on Report on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Evans: I anticipate that the clause will be dealt with at that point.
  Mr. John Morris: The Minister said, properly, that the Government are neutral, and that was the view of the Lord Chancellor in another place. What would be the attitude of the Government to a proposal that the matter should go to a Select Committee of both Houses?
  Mr. Evans: The issue was the subject of a full debate in another place. I have studied the debate, and I was present for a part of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there was a full debate in the other place, during which clear arguments for both sides were made. In those circumstances, the means of disposing of the matter that I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would seem to be the appropriate way of proceeding.
  I turn now to the other provisions of the Bill. I hope that all hon. Members received copies of the draft Bill.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not want to detain the House on Second Reading, but I want to get this point absolutely clear. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that whatever view one takes, this issue goes right to the heart of the privilege of Members of Parliament. It is terribly important that the debate on the matter is not time-constrained. I do not wish to detain the House by making a five-minute speech today—I am sure that other
  128
  hon. Members feel the same way—but I hope that the usual channels can guarantee time for a full debate on this issue on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Evans: I shall take into account my hon. Friend's observations, but that is a matter for the usual channels to resolve. I am sure that his views will be taken into consideration.
  On the other provisions, I hope that all hon. Members received copies of the draft Bill, which were sent to them during our consultation exercise last summer.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting, but this matter arises from what was just said about an extremely important issue—one about which many of us are greatly concerned. Is it correct that no Minister can guarantee a debate on any particular issue on Report as that is a matter for Madam Speaker? As we go through what is bound to be a short debate because we are time-constrained, perhaps the Minister or the Leader of the House can help us to understand how we can be guaranteed a debate on the Floor of the House on a matter that goes to the root of parliamentary accountability.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The more points of order there are, the longer we will take to debate the issue. The Chair has ears, as well as the usual channels.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The consultation exercise undertaken last summer was a relatively new pattern of consultation, in which we published a complete draft Bill, with brief explanatory notes, inviting views on the detailed drafting, structure and presentation of legislation to implement important reforms to defamation law and procedure, which the Government had already announced. That consultation proved immensely valuable and we were able to make a number of useful modifications and improvements when preparing the Bill for introduction.
  Full notes on clauses are available for any hon. Members who wants to examine the provisions in greater detail. Fuller explanations of the current law and the need for reform may be found in the published consultation documents. The Bill brings together defamation reform proposals from several separate sources. A substantial part of the Bill implements recommendations made by the working group set up under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill, in response to the Lord Chancellor's invitation to the Supreme Court procedure committee to examine the rules and practice for pleadings in defamation cases and to propose reforms.
  We published the working group's report on "Practice and Procedure in Defamation" for consultation in July 1991. We are indebted to Lord Justice Neill and his colleagues for all the work and assistance that they have given us, not only in identifying the problems and proposing solutions in their report, but during the process of working the proposals up into a legislative form for implementation. Lord Hoffmann also played a major role at the very earliest stage, as he suggested to the Lord Chancellor that a special regime should be set up for the summary hearing of defamation claims. That is to be found in clauses 8 to 11 of the Bill. I should like to express my gratitude for those valuable contributions and I am sure that hon. Members would wish to join me in doing so.

  129
  The other reform proposal—in clause 1 of the Bill— is the result of the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper, "The Defence of Innocent Dissemination", which was published in July 1990. While the Lord Chancellor's review of defamation law began as a review of the law in England and Wales, many of the changes introduced by the Bill will apply in Scotland as well, as although there are some differences in both the substantive law and the procedures, the systems are broadly similar. The reforms will also apply to Northern Ireland.
  I propose to explain the Bill's provisions in fairly broad terms. Clause 1 contains a new statutory defence, which will supersede the common law defence of innocent dissemination. That defence has always been subject to some uncertainty, particularly as to who could rely on it, and those uncertainties have inevitably increased as modern technology has provided us with entirely new concepts in communication.
  The statutory defence concentrates on the concept of responsibility for publication. It will not be available to authors, editors or publishers—in the commercial sense— of defamatory material, but it will be available to others whose work may in some way have contributed to the publication of defamatory material that someone else has chosen to publish, unless they knowingly took part in producing a defamatory publication, or had reason to believe that they were doing so.
  Clauses 2 to 4 also provide a new defence to replace an existing defence that does not fulfil the purpose for which it was created. There is already a statutory defence of unintentional defamation, which is available when amends have been promptly offered, but it is cumbersome and has been little used. Lord Justice Neill's working group recommended that it should be replaced by a new defence, which would be more streamlined and would be available only to a defendant who was willing to pay compensation assessed by a judge as well as publishing an appropriate correction and apology.
  That is the foundation of clauses 2 to 4, which have been substantially modified since we published the draft Bill for consultation last year. That has been done to provide a replacement for section 4 of the Defamation Act 1952, which will enable a large number of cases to be resolved quickly and cheaply—and, it is hoped, amicably—instead of developing into full-scale litigation.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Can the Minister clarify whether he sees clauses 2 to 4 as an alternative way of dealing with inaccurate reports about an individual in newspapers, if the paper offers to correct the statement that has been made, rather than going for a full libel case?
  Mr. Evans: I anticipate that that may be the case in appropriate circumstances, but if the hon. Gentleman examines clause 4(3), he will find that there are circumstances in which that defence would not be available. That is particularly so when the offer is made in circumstances in which, at the time that the statement was complained of, it was "false and defamatory" of a party, or
  "referred to the aggrieved party or was likely to be understood as referring to him".
  Clause 4(3) limits the operation of clauses 2 to 4 and so it does not have the more general application to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is certainly a useful addition to the Bill. The more general application can be found in clauses 8 to 11, which I will deal with later.
  130
  We have introduced the concept of a "qualified" offer, which allows the offerer to specify the defamatory meaning that he accepts that his statement conveyed, so that he will not find himself committed to making amends in respect of some wholly different and more defamatory meaning, the possibility of which he may not even have contemplated when making the offer.
  Clauses 5 and 6 reduce the limitation period, both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, in actions for libel or slander and for malicious falsehood. One year is the time within which most actions are begun; they need to be, if the proceedings are to minimise damage to the plaintiff's reputation. The court will have a discretion to disapply the strict limitation period in favour of a plaintiff who had a good reason not to proceed within it. In exercising that discretion, the court will balance the prejudice that the defendant would suffer if it did proceed against the prejudice that the plaintiff would suffer if it did not.
  Clause 7 is part of a minor reform, designed to eradicate delaying tactics by parties going through the unnecessary extra stage of applying for rulings as to meanings that statements are "arguably" capable of bearing.
  As I told the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), clauses 8 to 11 bring defamation proceedings into line with most other civil proceedings in providing powers of summary disposal. The clauses introduce a new fast-track procedure, which will provide a prompt and inexpensive remedy in less serious defamation cases.
  Those clauses give judges new powers, enabling them to consider the strength of the claim and the defences raised and to dispose of the claim summarily in favour of either party.The summary relief that the judge will have power to grant includes damages up to £10,000, a declaration that the statement was false and defamatory and an order requiring the defendant to publish a correction and apology, which may take the form of an approved summary of the judgment.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Evans: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress as the debate is fairly time-constrained.
  Clauses 8 to 11 also provide a substructure for the special rules that will be needed in the context of summary disposal.
  Mr. Ashton: I am not a lawyer so the Minister may be able to correct me, but what is to deter a newspaper from running up costs of much more than £10,000 so that the complainant has to settle at an early stage or drop the case? The cost factor is the deterrent.
  Mr. Evans: It is and one reason why the fast-track procedure should be supported is that it presents an alternative to one party—the monied party—dragging out proceedings and increasing the level of costs, thus depriving people of their legitimate rights. It was suggested in another place that £10,000 was inadequate and that it should, perhaps, be £20,000 or something of that nature.

  131
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor agreed to examine any specific proposals for a more appropriate sum and what the arguments might be. He has an open mind on that. To date, no such representations have been made although the issue has been raised in debate. I give the same assurance that we would be prepared to examine arguments for a different figure.
  Clause 12 changes the rule that in an action for libel or slander in which the question whether a person committed a criminal offence is relevant to an issue arising in the action, proof of his conviction is conclusive evidence that he committed the offence. Plaintiffs in defamation proceedings will no longer enjoy the artificial advantage of the lightness of someone else's conviction being unchallengeable.
  Clause 13 prevents the plaintiff from recovering damages for injury to his reputation beyond those to which he would be entitled if everything likely to affect his reputation were public knowledge. The defendant will now be allowed to lead on and to rely on evidence of conduct which, if known, would affect the plaintiff's reputation. The clause is designed to prevent injustice. It is clearly wrong, for reasons explained with great expertise in the report of Lord Justice Neill's working group, that the court should be forced to assume—and sometimes appear to provide a confirmatory reference— in assessing compensation for damage to a reputation, that a wholly unblemished reputation is deserved, even where there may be available evidence to demonstrate the contrary. That cannot be right. There is, of course, a need to restrict the evidence on which the defendant is able to rely in mitigation to evidence that is relevant to that aspect of the plaintiff's reputation—for instance, his business probity or conduct towards his family—to which the defamatory statement relates.
  Clauses 15 and 16, with schedule 1, bring up to date existing statutory privileges. The new privilege under clause 16 for certain reports of legislative, judicial and other public proceedings will apply to publications in general, not only to newspapers and periodicals, and will extend to a wider category of reports—in particular, recognising the need to give reports of proceedings of European institutions protection equivalent to that already given to those in this country. Clauses 17 to 21 contain general supplementary provisions.
  The Bill is a useful measure of law reform and has been the subject of widespread consultation. It simplifies a complex area of law and procedure and fits well with current developments in the conduct of civil litigation generally. I commend it to the House.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The law of libel is a complex and sometimes arcane area in which often only the wealthy, the brave or the foolhardy dare to tread. Looking around the Chamber, I fancy that we shall hear from some hon. Members who have had experience in one or more of those categories. The law of libel presents the nation with an arena for theatre as much as anything else, but it has ramifications for our national life that go beyond the chuckles, snide remarks and sneers that too often accompany libel actions, and that themselves reflect the harm and sense of hurt involved in such actions.
  132
  The law of libel seeks to reconcile the conflicting concerns of the right to know, the right to privacy and the right to free expression. It is not easy to balance those rights in a free society. It is a pity that the Bill, broadly welcome though it is, is not part of a wider package that would enable us to address concerns about freedom of information as well as those raised in the past by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about a right to reply.
  The Bill continues to leave on the shelf the issue of how we can make it possible for people of little or no means to defend their reputations. One of the less satisfactory elements of our law is the fact that the reputations of most ordinary people count for little as far as the law is concerned because they will never have the means with which to defend them. That is one of the great pities of our system of civil justice, but sometimes it can be one of the great scandals. We cannot address that problem at present through the legal aid fund and I do not suggest that that would be an appropriate way of addressing it.
  The Bill attempts to establish a new fast-track summary procedure, which is welcome as far as it goes. For most people, even that will be inaccessible because they will not be able to afford the large lawyers' fees that inevitably follow such actions. There is probably no more lucrative area of practice. It is not a field, in my 20 years as a solicitor and a barrister, in which I have had the opportunity to graze but there are some hon. and learned Conservative Members with much experience in it. They will no doubt share with the House the problems of ordinary people of limited means—in so far as they are aware of them—in gaining access to the law of libel. The Bill does nothing to address the concerns of such people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) mentioned some of those concerns when he noted that the cost of going to law was a deterrent for most people. The Bill will address that issue—I welcome this—in several ways; for example, by introducing a power for judges that will enable them to dispose through a summary procedure and to grant damages of up to £10,000. It is to be hoped that that will focus the minds of the parties concerned and reduce costs. There is a question mark over that, which we shall no doubt want to explore in Committee. There is a danger that the summary procedure will become yet another procedural staging post and not necessarily provide the relief that it was intended to provide. It is important to ensure that that is not allowed to happen as the rules of practice and precedent develop.
  The Bill is welcome to that extent. It is also welcome— although it may not go far enough—in its attempt to meet the challenges presented in the law of libel by developing technology. Internet communications open up a new area of potential libel. They open up new vistas of opportunity for those who pay no heed to the reputations of others, and who will seek the anonymity of technology to disseminate defamatory material.
  The Bill considers the responsibilities of operators of Internet communications. It seeks to protect them against liability for defamation resulting from innocent dissemination of material. That is all well and good, as far as it goes. The Bill does not help, however, in that it does not say how the Internet is effectively to be policed to tackle the dissemination of defamatory material. It does not say how defamatory material, once identified, might easily and without undue cost be removed.

  133
  I look at the Minister, and envisage him surfing the Internet. These days, more and more of us, in our little offices, have an opportunity to surf the Internet—indeed, it is the only opportunity for surfing that we get, and we do not even have to adopt a specific mode of dress for that experience. Policing the Internet and ensuring that defamatory material is removed remain significant problems. Some time, it will be necessary for the House to legislate more comprehensively on that than it has done.
  We shall wish to explore several aspects of the Bill in more detail in Committee. We are worried about the implications of reducing the limitation periods for actions for libel, slander and malicious falsehood from three years to one. That is a significant problem. Let us take an example. It may be difficult for a police officer who seeks to address defamation as it may affect him in the course of his duties, to bring an action within one year. Before the way is clear to take an action, he is likely to have to undergo the police complaints procedure and the internal disciplinary procedure. What is to happen to him?
  What is to happen to people who are obliged to spend a considerable amount of time getting together the money to launch an action? That is related to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. Some people need to obtain the money from a friend or through a public appeal. Have the Government sufficiently taken that into account in reducing the period as they do? Opposition Members have doubts about that.
  It is not clear why in one jurisdiction—Scotland—it should be possible to bring an action within three years yet in another—England and Wales—the time should be restricted to one. I do not suggest for a moment that in Scotland the limitation period should be reduced from three years to one, because I know that the Law Society of Scotland strongly opposes that. Its members have good reason for opposing it, as have Opposition Members.
  We shall ask some questions about another aspect of the Bill, which the Minister mentioned—the issue of how far it is proper to go into the background of a plaintiff in libel proceedings for the purposes of defending the claim and mitigating the damages, known as "the rule in Scott v. Sampson". Others may have different views on this, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and learned Members on that subject, but concern has been expressed by practitioners that the Bill might be a muckraker's charter. It would benefit certain newspaper defendants to undertake an in-depth investigation into the plaintiffs private life in an endeavour to unearth something to his discredit that they can then expose in open court as a way of diminishing the plaintiff—
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: And frightening them off.
  Mr. Boateng:—or, as the hon. Lady says, frightening them off. That is an important point, which we wish to explore in Committee.
  I shall now discuss an aspect that turns an otherwise relatively uncontroversial and broadly welcome Bill into something that rightly provokes controversy and concern—the introduction, almost by a side-wind, on Third Reading in the other place, by Lord Justice Hoffmann of an amendment that goes to the heart of the privileges of the House.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I may be mistaken, but it was not introduced on Third Reading in the Lords; it was
  134
  introduced in Committee. It was debated at that stage. It was then debated again on Report and, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, a decision was postponed until Third Reading to give even more peers who wished to participate in the debate full notice and thereby to give the maximum opportunity for Members of the other House to debate the issue thoroughly—which they did.
  Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and of course he does have a real interest in the clause—
  Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise this, but would it not have been better, indeed proper, for the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) to have declared his interest?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members know that it is not for the Chair to determine which hon. Members should raise which interests. That rests entirely with hon. Members, and they must live with their decisions.
  Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend because the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) does have an interest, and he will of course want the House to know that. I understand his interests, and I mean him no disrespect by pointing that out, save to—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in believing that if an issue affects all Members of the House equally, all of us have an interest that is not registrable?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That seems painfully obvious.
  Mr. Boateng: "Painfully" is perhaps the operative word. The intervention by the hon. Member for Tatton reflects his real interest in this subject. The turnout for the debate on Third Reading in the other place made it quite clear that the hon. Gentleman's interest has excited the interest of others. Some of those who took part do not usually get so interested in innocuous law reform measures.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Would it not be more correct to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has a predicament, not an interest in the sense that we usually use the word in this Chamber? I make no comment one way or the other on that predicament.
  Mr. Boateng: As usual, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point. It was precisely the hon. Gentleman's predicament that led to this provision. Having latched on to that helpful word, let us further explore the hon. Gentleman's predicament and whether the predicament of one hon. Member is a proper reason to revisit such a fundamental element of our constitution.
  Parliamentary privilege and any amendment to article 9 of the Bill of Rights are far too important matters to be changed for the sake of one hon. Gentleman's predicament. The issue should of course be examined with the utmost care and debated in depth, but I am worried about the Government's proposal for dealing with the issue.

  135
  A debate on Report is always time-limited. Right hon. and hon. Members may want to debate other matters on Report. It seems to us important to learn the views and listen to the wisdom of others on the subject—
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I declare the same predicament as the one already mentioned by the Minister. This is not just a question of the predicament of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). If any Member of the House brings an action for defamation against a newspaper, he will discover that the newspapers have found a useful loophole under article 9 of the Bill of Rights. As a result, 652 people have been disadvantaged in a way that has nothing to do with what is said in the House or with our proceedings. By dint of the fact that they are Members of the House, they have been disadvantaged vis-a-vis all the other citizens in the country. The attempt here is to close the loophole in question.
  Mr. Boateng: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I think Mr. Justice Owen told him: he must take the good with the ill. Hon. Members enjoy great privileges and there is a price to be paid for them. Those privileges are not ours; they belong to the House. First and foremost they are for the benefit of our constituents, not us. We must therefore think very carefully before we do anything to undermine them.
  Parliamentary privilege has stood the test of time these 300 years. This is the first time in 300 years that the predicament has arisen in quite that way. We would be most unwise to discard the protection that the House has been afforded for 300 years merely because of the predicament of one, two or even three Members of this House—
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: Even me.
  Mr. Boateng: We all recognise that the privileges attached to membership of the House are attached to us all. To that extent, the plight of one may be the plight of all. We must also recognise our overriding responsibility to those who send us here and who, through the ballot box, confer on us and on the House the privileges of speech that enable us to fulfil our role in this place.
  The point was put succinctly in a report of the Privileges Committee when it examined the position of the late and right hon. Member for Streatham in the early days of the second world war. He was threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911 simply for asking a question about the state of London's anti-aircraft defences. The Committee's report, afterwards endorsed by this House, stated:
  "The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by Members of Parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents. It is secured to Members not for their personal benefit but to enable them to discharge the functions of their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal."
  That, surely, is the point.
  We must not alter the basis of privilege without careful investigation. That is why Labour proposes that, following Second Reading, the Bill be committed to a Committee
  136
  of both Houses so that it may be properly examined and so that the constitutional issues that clause 14 throws up can be properly explored.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the weakness of that suggestion to be found in the fact that, if that sort of debate took place, it would preclude the full and proper debate on the Floor of the House which is essential—there having been a similar debate in another place?
  Mr. Boateng: We have been advised that a Joint Committee of both Houses, having taken evidence and debated the matter, would report back to both Houses and that a full debate, informed by the evidence taken and any conclusions reached, might then take place.
  That is the attraction of the Opposition's proposal. We make it because we are all too conscious of what the implications would be were clause 14 to pass into law. We are concerned about the overthrow of a long-established protection of parliamentary privilege and of right hon. and hon. Members provided by article 9 of the Bill of Rights and about the erosion of that cherished constitutional principle.
  We are also concerned about a possible arbitrariness. A potential litigant would not know if, when and to what extent a Member of Parliament involved in litigation would waive parliamentary privilege. That, in turn, could lead to uncertainty in the law and unfairness. [Interruption.] One bears in mind the predicament of the hon. Member for Tatton, who no doubt will make his own speech in due course. However, such matters are not best debated by way of sedentary muttering.
  We have to consider whether the House can view with any equanimity the proposal that the definition of the term "proceedings" should be the subject of judicial interpretation. I see a puzzled expression on the face of the hon. Member for Tatton. Perhaps he should consider the implications of clause 14.
  I hesitate to go into too great detail, bearing in mind that we are debating the Bill on Second Reading, but we have to consider what a judge will be asked to do. A judge will be asked to consider whether a particular aspect of the work of the House falls within the definition of "proceedings". That must involve a degree of scrutiny and interpretation by the judiciary of the rights, privileges and functions of the House and that raises serious concerns, not least at a time of increasing judicial intervention. We want those matters to be explored in detail.
  The Minister has explained to us that the matter can be explored on the Floor of the House on Report. That is all well and good as far as the House is concerned, but what about the views of the various Commonwealth Parliaments that also rely on the Bill of Rights and that look to article 9 for protection? How are they to be consulted? Have they been consulted? Perhaps they ought to be consulted. After all, the Prebble v. Television New Zealand case and the Privy Counsel ruling therein, which is at the heart of the predicament of the hon. Member for Tatton, arose from a case in a Commonwealth jurisdiction. We should also consider the other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Any change in United Kingdom privilege law is likely to have reverberations across the Commonwealth, the directness of the impact varying according to local constitutional arrangements.
  The Bill raises all those concerns that touch the rights and privileges of each and every hon. Member, not least those who may not choose to lift the veil when another

  137
  does in the course of proceedings—a problem recognised by Lord Hoffmann when he moved clause 14 on Third Reading in the other place.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that Lord Hoffmann called for a vote on the clause, but did not vote for it?
  Mr. Boateng: That may be a matter of some significance. When one reflects on the high regard in which the noble and learned Lord is held by members of our profession and his wisdom and knowledge of the law, the fact that he did not vote may well tell us something. There is all the more reason for us to take great care before proceeding down the route that clause 14 suggests.
  The Minister said that it is not a Government measure, but one contained within a Government Bill. That would have carried a little more conviction had the Lord Chancellor not expressed himself in such clear and unambiguous terms in support of clause 14; nevertheless one hears what the Minister says. It is all the more reason for the Government to make time for the issue to be considered in a Joint Committee—rather than having it dealt with on Report without sufficient time being guaranteed—and to give the motion a fair wind.
  The Bill is significant and important. We broadly welcome its main thrust, but one aspect causes the Opposition great concern. We shall return to it repeatedly to make sure that the privileges of the House and its Members—which are not ours, but are held in trust for our constituents—are properly represented.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: I was rather disappointed, but not surprised, to hear an establishment speech from the Minister when we have the opportunity of a radical change in the defamation law. I was surprised, however, to hear an establishment speech from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and I expect one in due course from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). They are all part of the establishment. I am not.
  I have no interest to declare except my experience of one of the more deleterious libel cases. I had the temerity to challenge a national newspaper. I was in a fairly unique position. As a lawyer at the criminal Bar, I had no experience of civil proceedings, and I came to the libel action as an informed layman, and no more than that. I hope that my experience will help the House.
  The fact of being defamed was undoubtedly the worst experience of my life, although some say that birth is pretty traumatic. The effect of the article and the newspaper coverage left me with a physical shock that was not dissimilar to that of a serious road accident. Sleep left me, and I found myself bursting into tears for no reason. I suffered acute depression, severe ill health, and mental and physical exhaustion. Many other aspects of my personal and private life have been affected and are well documented by the press, who never leave me alone.
  I have no doubt that the libel laws need urgent and radical reform. Let us put the matter in context. For years, hon. Members and the public have been amazed by the antics of the press. Parliament has wrung its hands in anguish, but it has lacked the courage to deal with the problem. Press commissions, press complaints
  138
  commissions, inquiries such as Calcutt, and drinks in the last chance saloon with Ministers have ended in admissions from one and all that they are too frightened to do anything.
  Basically, the problems relate to press standards. Newspaper standards are at a very low ebb. Journalists and editors appear to lack professional integrity, while at the same time the newspaper industry is being concentrated in the hands of a few. The battle is on, with a ruthless, no-holds-barred circulation war, breaches of privacy and salacious intrusions into private lives. Every ethical standard has been sacrificed to the bigger headline that will sell more newspapers.
  Newspapers assume a ruthless arrogance: claiming the right to know and holding themselves up as defenders of the public, when they simply want more information so that they can print more lurid stories and sell more copies. The first point that the House must understand is that newspapers do not exist to serve some public good: they exist to make a profit—and sensational and libellous stories make money for the newspaper proprietors. The libel laws must address that point: libel victims and the courts have a right to know how much money the newspapers are making from their libellous activities.
  Secondly, the libel laws are the only way of controlling what the press print and, ultimately, press quality. I cannot over-emphasise that point, and I draw it to the attention of all those who think that the Bill is unimportant.
  We all want to see a responsible and a courageous press which provides news and comment about important and relevant matters. We do not want to know about Elton John's fictitious diet or about an actor's behaviour 40 years ago. The editor has responsibility and control over a newspaper's contents—whether the stories are written by journalists or by freelance reporters. If we are to improve the quality of our newspapers, we must enshrine that point firmly in our defamation law.
  Some people may be surprised to learn that that responsibility is not spelled out in law. The editors must have a vicarious liability for all that is printed in their newspapers—they must be held accountable. Furthermore, if a newspaper wishes to defame, the editor should give evidence in court to explain why he thought it was right to allow that defamation. Editors allow defamation freely because they seldom have to explain themselves: they hide behind a right to silence, while people's reputations are destroyed. When an editor is not called to explain himself, it should be presumed, first, that the article is libellous; and, secondly, that there is no defence for the libel.
  In my case, Times Newspapers Ltd. sheltered behind the fact that The Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neill, was sunning himself in Bermuda and did not know about the lying story that was written. The effect was disastrous for me, because I could not put before the jury the sheer malice that was displayed by The Sunday Times. If editors were held accountable for newspaper content, press behaviour would improve at one stroke. Editors would question journalists about their actions and their sources, because they might have to go into the witness box and explain an article. At one stroke, editors would become more responsible.
  The Bill arises from the Neill report. My overwhelming impression of the libel courts in the High Court of Justice is that they are there to look after the newspapers.

  139
  The newspapers can do little wrong. At every interlocutory point, the newspapers are granted extensions of time, orders to give further information, and opportunities to waste the poor victims' time and money. Newspapers have the time and the money on their side, and they know how to use it to their advantage. Even in the Court of Appeal, the judges back the wealthy newspapers that have seriously libelled a victim, and invariably reduce damages. I shall return to the question of wealthy newspapers and damages in a moment.
  Therefore, it is no surprise that, when a judge heads a committee on defamation, he totally ignores the victims— as the Neill committee did—and takes evidence only from the newspapers. Solicitors who represent victims of libel—they did not even know of the committee's existence—and the victims were ignored. The only people asked to submit evidence were the gang of in-house solicitors who represent the newspapers. What a committee report.
  The result is a report that is a newspapers' charter, and a Defamation Bill that will have journalists laughing with glee in the public houses of Fleet street. At every turn, the Bill makes it harder for the victim and easier for newspapers to defame. God knows it is hard enough for the poor sod whose life is ruined.
  I return to the question of newspaper wealth. A libel action is a serious and an expensive business for the victim—I use the word "victim" every time—which can ruin him financially. Newspapers often employ the tactic of prolonging the case and increasing the costs, so that the victim runs out of money.
  Newspapers indulge in defamation only to make money. They make vast sums out of the reports of proceedings, and I believe that they should pay for that indulgence. For a few months, I read every part of every national and regional newspaper, and I can report that the press are ruining many lives up and down the country. The victims have no redress, because they cannot afford to sue.
  We must do something about that problem. I believe that a new legal aid fund, financed by a levy on the newspapers, should be established specifically to deal with defamation. If the newspapers want to defame, they should finance the consequences. They are getting away with it at the moment, and they must not continue to do so.
  It is not a level playing field, for two reasons. First, newspapers can offset the damages and the costs against their vast profits, but the victims cannot. That must be stopped. Secondly, juries understand the severity of the effects of libel on the victim better than appeal judges. The only language that the newspapers understand is money. Juries should be free to assess the damages. Those damages should remain, and should be changed by the Court of Appeal only in the most exceptional circumstances. That would make newspapers better and more responsible—although they would squeal about it.
  The third major change required is to the defences open to newspapers. Clause 13 is quite outrageous: it allows newspapers to write a completely fictitious story and then dredge through a victim's life from beginning to end, throwing as much mud as possible in the hope that it will stick and justify their defamation. The House rejected that
  140
  measure in the past as unfair, unjust and unworthy. Only a libel judge would think of resurrecting it for the benefit of the press.
  In my case, the press ruthlessly resorted to every dirty trick in the book to justify the story. I suffered burglary, theft, impersonation and computer hacking. No bank accounts are safe—Mr. Leppard of The Sunday Times boasts that he hacks into every one of our accounts. He does it freely. In my case, there was a note from an editor saying, "Please do not spend too much on hacking into the accounts" to find out how much we owned and how much we earned. That is what they do. I believe that that conduct is not right, that it should not be allowed, and that any evidence obtained in such a manner should not be allowed to be used in any court.
  It is simply no good complaining. In my case, the trial judge said that I could take my complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. This was a full-blooded defamation action, and I was the victim. The PCC is a toothless watchdog.
  Being defamed is not a game, as the courts, lawyers and newspapers seem to think it is. What is at stake is a person's integrity and reputation. It is absolutely incredible that, if I were in a criminal court, allegations would have to be proved to a standard so that the jury was sure, whereas, in a libel action, I can be absolutely destroyed—as I have been—on the balance of probabilities.
  The standard of proof must be changed, and there should be no justification for printing a pack of lies. The burden of proving justification should always lie on the person making the allegations, and the victim should never have to reply to that allegation if he does not wish to.
  I have raised points to which we should be addressing ourselves if we are to try to get the law of defamation right. Let us consider the Bill. Clause 1 provides for responsibility for publication. I cannot understand why it is unreasonable that those who broadcast, invariably for commercial gain, should not take responsibility for what is broadcast, because the victim will otherwise be left without any effective redress.
  Clauses 2 to 4 deal with making amends. They are a means by which publishers without a leg to stand on can avoid damages being assessed by a jury. As the law currently stands, a publisher can make a qualified offer of amends in respect of one or more defamatory meanings. So, under this section, a publisher can offer to apologise, make a correction and pay damages in relation to one allegation, but seek to justify the rest of the article. The victim, who may reject the offer, may end up losing even the damages to which he was entitled. In this respect, the present law is good enough.
  We have already dealt with the limitation period. Why should defamation laws be unique in having a one-year limitation period? Why should it not be three years? It was recently decreased from six years to three years. Why should we not have a three-year limitation period, as in other proceedings?
  The summary disposal of a claim simply adds to the victim's burden. The only effect of this section is to create a ceiling of £10,000 for the victim. That is the only effect, because, if the victim wishes to go down the road of summary disposal and the judge finds that there is a realistic prospect of success—as the judge invariably does—for the newspapers, which have masses of money

  141
  to spend on the most expensive counsel, the poor victim has wasted money, and has to bear the costs of the claim's summary disposal. There is already a swift method, and we should continue with it.
  The provision on evidence of convictions worries me, because it could bring the law into disrepute. Obviously investigative journalists want to be able to argue that a conviction was wrong when a libel action is brought by, for example, police officers. So they seek to prove something according to one standard of proof in a jurisdiction in which there is another standard of proof. That brings the law into disrepute.
  My speech has had to be somewhat hurried, but I have set out my misgivings about the Bill—in which Lord Justice Neill has clearly been over-impressed by the newspapers' house lawyers. No attempt has been made in the Bill to strike a balance between victims of defamatory articles and publishers. I know that publishers will either squeal about freedom of the press or ignore this speech, in the hope that the less the public know about it the better. I heard squeals earlier from the Press Gallery.
  My suggestions are not about taking away press freedoms but about reducing newspapers' arrogant right— as they see it—to defame freely. My suggestions focus responsibility on editors, making them do the job properly and responsibly. My suggestions would improve integrity in journalism and in the newspapers.
  Finally, my suggestions would restore a long-lost balance for the victims, who are often in humble circumstances—I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Brent, South on that point—who seem to have been forgotten by the House, and who are frequently sneered at by the newspapers. The House owes a duty to them.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. John Morris: I should like to express concern, as other hon. Members have done, that the House is being asked—with minimum publicity and certainly none of the widespread consultation that the Minister was boasting about—to amend the Bill of Rights 1688, which is one of the cornerstones of our liberties. We have been told that this House was exclusively concerned with the defence of our liberties in that year, but that privilege is now, of course, enjoyed by another place.
  An amendment was passed in another place—after a very short debate in Committee, and another, longer debate on Third Reading—to amend article 9. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) told us, Lord Hoffmann, the proposer, commended the amendment, but curiously did not vote for it. The Lord Chancellor was neutral on it.
  I shall not relate article 9 at length because of the need to save time, but it is also our safeguard and our shield. The current problem has arisen because of the difficulty in that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) wants to go to the courts to clear his name. In so doing, he issued proceedings for libel, and The Guardian pleaded justification. As I understand it, for the court to investigate the issue would have involved an investigation of what the hon. Gentleman had done in the course of his parliamentary duties. The court held that that was contrary to article 9, and the action was stayed.
  Article 9 is the guarantee of our freedom of speech, and it protects us from actions against us for libel for whatever we say in Parliament. It is our shield, and it has been our
  142
  shield for centuries. The actions of the hon. Member for Tatton would have involved throwing away the shield and using our proceedings as a spear—they would certainly have had to be used as a spear—in the course of those proceedings.
  I say immediately and sincerely that I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Tatton in his efforts to clear his name. Strangely, there has never been a case in English history in which an hon. Member has sought to bring a libel action that raised the question of his parliamentary conduct.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has already referred us to the well-known case of R. v. Pebble, a decision of the Judicial Committee. The court then decided that it could not inquire into parliamentary conduct, and that, if the effect was to stifle a defence—in that case it was a television company's— that defamatory allegations were true, the hon. Member's actions would be stayed. As I understand it, that was the position as regards the hon. Member for Tatton.
  As I have said, I have the greatest sympathy for the hon. Member, and I certainly would not lend my name to allowing a ministerial career to be wrecked, at least temporarily, because he is denied access to the courts to attempt to clear his name. I am concerned about what is the right way in which to accomplish such access. In my view, an amendment that was passed at Third Reading in another place, without any previous consideration or consultation, is not the way in which to do it.
  We are overturning with a simple amendment 300 years of history in which the system apparently worked. The old adage,
  "hard cases make bad law",
  has more than a grain of truth in it. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a distinguished former Law Lord, whom some of us—few, perhaps, by now—remember fondly as a particularly able and helpful Solicitor-General in a Conservative Government, advised caution on it in another place. He believed that this was a question of the highest constitutional importance. He wanted the whole matter to go before a Select Committee of both Houses. I am respectfully supportive: Lord Simon has much greater knowledge than me. I consider it strongly desirable for the issues raised in the amendment to be considered in such a way.
  In the past few days, I have consulted one of the most eminent of our constitutional lawyers, Professor Sir William Wade in Cambridge, who has advised Governments all over the world—and individuals—on constitutional law. While he is relaxed on the issue of actually amending the Bill of Rights, he recommends further study before any change is made. That is good counsel, from someone who sincerely believes that justice should be done.
  Why should the matter be studied further? First, it is not the privilege of an hon. Member—or any other Member—that we are discussing; it is the privilege of Parliament—the privilege of this House. I would be happier if an amendment had been carried allowing the House, when it was thought right, to waive that privilege in a fit and proper case. Secondly, speech after speech in the debate in the other place pointed out the unfairness of Members' not being able to clear their names, while ignoring the fact that that is precisely the position of the man in the street who is attacked by a Member during a debate in the House.

  143
  That curious state of affairs was ignored by advocates of a waiver, who were more than content to bask in the shelter of privilege while continuing to claim a right to disparage those outside without putting themselves in any danger. If a Member is allowed to take up his spear and waive the privilege of the House, may not pressure be exerted in due course for us to lose our shield as well? The public will want to know, and there will be pressure from that source.
  There has been considerable interest in the matter in the Commonwealth, and at least one case has been dealt with there. Some may want to follow us, because they also have the advantage of article 9. Should we not hear what they have to say, and take evidence from them?
  Thirdly, there is the issue of the definition of proceedings in Parliament. That, too, has been raised in another place. The High Court in the Strand might take one view, and this High Court of Parliament might take another.
  Fourthly, what if more than one Member is involved? What if one wants to waive his privilege—or the House's privilege—and the other does not? During the debate in the other place, Lord Hoffmann said that he could not think of an easy answer. "Leave it to the judges": that is what he advised. Judges are used to handling tricky situations.
  With respect, I doubt very much that the judiciary who must try such cases would welcome this particular baby if it were put into their lap. Surely, if Parliament wishes to change the position, it should resolve such obvious problems rather than walking away from them.
  Lord Simon also asked why the issue should be limited to defamation. What if there were fisticuffs between two Members, or—perhaps more probable—between an investigative journalist and a Member? A reputation can be won or lost in such circumstances. Lord Lester pointed out that a Member who had been defamed would be under pressure to waive our collective privilege so that he could sue.
  If the amendment is carried in both Houses, let there be no doubt that cross-examination will have few limits, and could possibly cover the whole of a Member's career and his actions in Parliament, rather than being confined to the narrowness of one incident. If we want to go along that road, we should know what the difficulties are. If the Select Committee agrees to my suggestion, and the suggestion of the Opposition, may I suggest some safeguards to the Committee?
  First, the matter should be decided by resolution of the House, because that is the House's privilege—I believe that it can already act in that way—rather than through the waiver of an individual Member. Secondly, a Member should be allowed to refer his case to the new Privileges Committee, to see what the problems are and examine them.
  Thirdly, if that Committee agreed—I speak as one who served for many a long year on the Committee of Privileges—it could, if it wished, recommend to the House that the House waive its privilege. That would be a better way of safeguarding a specific situation that had not been considered by the whole Select Committee; we are examining it now, perhaps a little more academically.
  144
  There may be other problems. One, raised in the other place, is that the Bill of Rights preceded the Act of Union, and does not, in its present form, apply to Scotland. We should not put our hard-earned right of freedom in the House in jeopardy—the right to speak without fear or favour, knowing that what we say will not be held against us in the courts.
  Having read all the debates in the other place and considered the matter as widely as I could, I advise the House that the only proper course is to refer the matter to a Select Committee for further consideration.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to be called, and will be as brief as I can.
  First, let me declare an interest—or, perhaps, a predicament—as a practitioner at the libel Bar. Let me also place on record my thanks to the Neill committee, and to Lord Justice Neill and other committee members, for their work. I am afraid that they have not received unstinting praise from some hon. Members this evening; that is a pity, because they deserve it. Irrespective of whether we agree with their conclusions, their work should be recognised and they should not be abused in the House.
  I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I shall therefore confine my remarks to as brief a compass as possible. I am aware that other hon. Members who have found themselves in predicaments wish to speak. I accept that the new defence under clause 1 is worth having, and that we should allow it to work its way through the law of defamation to see whether it proves useful—I think that it will—but I should like to refer briefly to some other clauses, explaining why I agree with some and am concerned by others. I do not expect an answer to some—indeed, most—of my questions during the debate, but I should be very pleased to receive a written response to some of them if my hon. Friend the Minister finds that convenient.
  Clause 2(5) states:
  "An offer to make amends under this section may not be made by a person after serving a defence in defamation proceedings brought against him by the aggrieved party in respect of the publication in question."
  I ask, "Why not?" If a defendant, having overreached himself, realises that he should more sensibly come to terms with the plaintiff and he can do so by offering to make amends under clause 2, he should be allowed to do so even if that requires that he withdraw his already-served defence.
  Clause 5 deals with limitation and I wish to echo the concerns of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), which, I believe, are uppermost in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I suggest that a year is too short unless other safeguards are built in. I note the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, South that those who are involved in police disciplinary proceedings may exceed the year before the proceedings are concluded, but the court can take that factor into account when it exercises its discretion to extend the limitation period. Would not it be more sensible to leave the limitation period at three years rather than allowing an additional discretion to the court?
  The same applies—the point may be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay—to Press Complaints Commission matters. I stand to be corrected, but I

  145
  understand that the Press Complaints Commission will not accept complaints if proceedings have already been initiated. If a plaintiff issues proceedings within a few days or weeks of the cause of action arising, he is prohibited from going to the PCC. If the limitation period is to be reduced to a year, the rules of the PCC should be adjusted so that an action can be commenced. The proceedings could be stayed pending the resolution of the PCC hearing. The simple answer is to leave at three years the limitation period for causes of action in libel and slander and others in clause 5(3).
  I also note the points that the hon. Member for Brent, South made about poverty. Some litigants will not be able to bring a case immediately because they do not have the funds. Many people are assisted by, for example, the Police Federation, other trade associations and trade unions and they are not inhibited by lack of funds, but others will not have such assistance and they should be given the opportunity to raise the money before bringing proceedings. As I said earlier, the court has a discretion to extend the limitation period, but it is tidier and more sensible to leave the limitation period as it is.
  Clause 7 deals with the meaning of a statement and states:
  "In defamation proceedings the courts shall not be asked to rule whether a statement is arguably capable, as opposed to capable, of bearing a particular meaning or meanings attributed to it."
  I welcome that change to the rules about the joining of issue on what a defamatory statement may or may not mean. At the moment, despite the introduction of order 82, rule 3A, the procedures for defamation are being used as a dead bat and not always as intended, following the case of Keays v. Murdoch Magazines (UK) Ltd.
  I am worried about some of the philosophy behind the summary disposal aspect of the Bill. The provisions have some good bits and some less good bits and I am concerned about the limit of £10,000 in clause 9(l)(c). I appreciate that that figure can be adjusted—and may be adjusted—upwards, but many litigants do not want an award of what, to a newspaper, is no more than petty cash. They want a public vindication of their reputations. Even when the defendant cannot afford to pay the huge sums awarded as compensation, the fact that a jury or judge has awarded a large sum often acts as a vindication and a message to the world. One has to think only of the case of Lord Aldington, who was awarded £1.5 million. I must confess that I acted for one of the less successful parties in that case. I doubt that Lord Aldington will collect that £1.5 million, but at least the world knows that the jury thought so little of the conduct of the defendants—and possibly at least one of their counsel—that it found it necessary to award £1.5 million to mark its disapproval.
  I appreciate that the cases that may come before the courts under the summary disposal procedure will not be the Aldington-Tolstoy type of case—under clause 8(4)(d), cases of serious libel, which are widely published, are not suitable for summary procedure—but the procedure still causes me some difficulties, not least because it gives the court editorial power over newspapers. The court will have the power to order a defendant to publish or cause to be published a suitable correction and apology. It would be better for apologies and corrections to be agreed between the warring parties, rather than ordered by the court. What will be the consequence of disobeying that order? Will there be a contempt procedure or will the court enforce the order in some other unspecified way?
  146
  I am also concerned about clause 10, which authorises
  "the court at any stage of the proceedings—
  (i) to treat any application, pleading or other step in the proceedings as an application for summary disposal".
  The intention behind that is that the court should get a grip on proceedings that should not been allowed to live and dispose of defences that have no merit. I applaud the hands-on approach that the courts take these days and that the Bill would inject into this aspect of the law, but we should be careful about allowing the courts to take too interventionist an approach. Proceedings take place between two citizens and, ideally and subject to safeguards, those parties should work out how their cases and defences should be run.
  Clause 13 deals with the rule under Scott v. Sampson. I am in two minds about the clause, although I do not intend to join the Liberal Democrats on that account. We must be careful that a case that may be about only the meaning of words—and thus, in addition, damages—does not extend into a long debate about matters that are not directly connected to the libel. I do not accept the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), sincere though they may have been, because some of them were unreal. But there is a danger that a simple trial could be extended unnecessarily or unfairly because a plaintiff must have a right to respond to, and to seek to demonstrate to be untrue, the allegations made against him in mitigation of damages by the defendant. We must be careful not to extend trials unnecessarily.
  Clause 14 is the most contentious. I shall not enter a long argument about the merits or demerits of the amendment tabled by Lord Hoffmann in another place, but I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and others interested in the subject, to study carefully the report of the Third Reading of the Bill in another place on 7 May at columns 29–33, 33–35 and 38–42 and to read Lord Hoffmann's speech at columns 24–29. There is much to be learnt there and some of it has been repeated by the hon. Member for Brent, South and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Others may share their views, but I think that it would be a mistake, despite my great sympathy for my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Torbay.
  Mr. Allason: Hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Gamier: Following his success in the law courts on a number of occasions, although not last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay can probably be dubbed "my learned Friend". He certainly claims to be.
  I think that it would be unwise to bolt on to a defamation Bill a clause that will fundamentally adjust the relationship of hon. Members with their constituents. After all, we are the guardians of the privileges of Parliament and we should be careful before putting them into the hands of an individual hon. Member.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay was not quite right when he said that unless the clause is part of the Bill no Member of Parliament will be able to bring a libel action. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights comes into play only in cases that will require a court to impeach or question the proceedings, speeches or debates of the House or another place. All I ask is that my hon. Friends bear it in mind that this issue is bigger than their personal problems.

  147
  I do not say that to belittle their appreciation of their own problems, but the constitutional issues are bigger and should be thought about more carefully before we include clause 14 in the Bill. I suggest that a more sensible means of dealing with it should be found.
  Statutory privilege is dealt with in clause 15. It is a welcome updating of the list of proceedings that can be safely reported by non-malicious newspapers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire does not believe that there is such a creature as a non-malicious newspaper, but I can assure him that there is, even if we do not meet it very often.
  I have a problem. Paragraph 12 in part II of the schedule to the Defamation Act 1952 states:
  "A copy or fair and accurate report or summary of any notice or other matter issued for the information of the public by or on behalf of any government department, officer of state, local authority or chief officer of police."
  That was included in the category of statement that was privileged subject to explanation or contradiction. It seems to be missing from the schedule to this Bill. I wonder whether that is a mistake.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: While my hon. and learned Friend is dealing with qualified privilege, does he think that it would be appropriate, between now and the Committee stage, to look at the judgment referred to this morning in The Daily Telegraph where a press conference was held by a judge not to be a public meeting and a newspaper lost an action on those grounds? Should not that be clarified at the same time?
  Mr. Garnier: I am sure that if my hon. Friend is lucky enough to be chosen to be a member of the Committee, he will be able to draw that to hon. Members' attention.
  Those are my brief comments about this otherwise welcome Bill. It brings up to date certain aspects of the law of defamation and I fear that it may bring me some pleasure a little further down the Strand. That is another matter and the Nolan committee may prevent me from speaking on it in the future. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has a few quiet moments, I hope that he will consider the points that I have made, which apart from my comments on clause 14 are not destructive of the passage of the Bill, which, in broad essence, I am happy to welcome.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Although I am a practising member of the Bar, I would not claim the expertise of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in defamation law. I recall once drafting a statement of claim against the Liverpool Daily Post, and there ceases my contribution to the annals of defamation law. Sometimes in later life we gain the opportunity to dip our finger into that lucrative field which the hon. and learned Member has enjoyed for many years, although no doubt less so now because of his responsibilities in the House.
  Clause 14 has become known as the Hoffmann amendment. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) took good and ample advantage during his speech of his parliamentary
  148
  privilege—well, not of his parliamentary privilege, but his right to use the privilege of the House. The confusion in the way in which I just expressed that depicts the misunderstanding of the dilemma facing many hon. Members.
  The privilege is not the privilege of an individual hon. Member, but of the House. Indeed, in the Privy Council case of Prebble, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, on behalf of the Judicial Committee, said:
  "The privilege protected by Article 9 is the privilege of parliament itself. The actions of any individual Member of Parliament, even if he has an individual privilege of his own, cannot determine whether or not the privilege of Parliament is to apply".
  Those words seem to define clearly the dilemma that we face: are we to hand to individual hon. Members an immunity—a privilege—of the entire House, which has been such since article 9 was enacted?
  What troubles me greatly is that we do not have the tradition in either this House or the other place of granting hon. Members immunities from suit. The Hoffmann amendment smacks of the continental tradition of giving members of legislatures immunities from suit or at least the right to pick and choose their way among the privileges available to such a member.
  It is worth reflecting on the fact that far more hon. Members have enjoyed the protection of privilege than have suffered from its limiting effects. Probably every day in the House hon. Members take advantage of parliamentary privilege for the benefit of their constituents, whereas, once in a lifetime a case such as that affecting the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) comes before the courts showing itself to be an anomaly.
  I am sure that all hon. Members have a degree of sympathy with the hon. Member for Tatton, who wishes to bring his action. I would not seek to obstruct his ability to do so, but it seems that the Hoffmann amendment is not the way to do it. Indeed, it is not clear that Lord Hoffmann thought that it was the way to do it. In the other place he said that it would be wrong not to test the opinion of the House and a Division then took place. One cannot escape noticing that, having commended the amendment to the other place, although Lord Hoffmann did not vote against it, he did not vote for it. That creates a puzzle. It seems to indicate that he may have had some misgivings about whether it was appropriate, although he did not express himself in terms of neutrality when moving the amendment.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: For the sake of clarification, I should make it clear that in his speech Lord Hoffmann gave the other place an indication of his intention not to vote on the issue. He indicated, in general terms, that he did not consider himself to be an advocate, but felt that in the circumstances it was necessary that the issue should be debated. It would be wrong to invest some sort of mystery into his actions.
  Mr. Carlile: I read the debate and saw that he said something along those lines. However, it is right to reflect on the fact that it is not unusual for Law Lords to speak in debates or for them to vote. It is not all that unusual for Law Lords to move amendments where they feel that it is appropriate to do so, and it is normal for them to support those amendments. What happened in this case was highly unusual and we have not heard Lord

  149
  Hoffmann's explanation of why he acted as he did. Since that debate, it has been brought to my attention that many of their lordships thought that Lord Hoffmann's decision not to support his amendment was odd. They wish to hear an explanation of why he acted in that way.
  On this important issue, it does not present much of a challenge to produce an amendment to article 9 of the Bill of Rights that would meet the requirements of the hon. Member for Tatton and the requirement of retaining the privilege as the privilege of the House.
  It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

  Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill's provisions are modest. The Bill is essentially about land management and conservation. Its principal proposal is to establish a Bodmin moor commoners council on a statutory basis. All other objectives in the Bill relate to the functions, work and operations of the council.
  The Bill does not seek to deal with the wider question of access. I must emphasise, however, that nothing in the Bill alters the availability of public access to the commons. Public access was discussed extensively when the Bill was considered in the other place, but at that stage the clause relating to wider public access was withdrawn.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Why is there not, under the Bill, a right of access to Bodmin moor for horse riders? May I remind my hon. Friend that a similar lack of provision under the Dartmoor Commons Bill in 1985 led to its defeat neck and crop?
  Mr. Hicks: In view of my hon. Friend's experiences with the Dartmoor Commons Bill, I am pleased and relieved to tell him that the two petitions that were lodged against the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill have been withdrawn because the promoters have been successful in reaching an accommodation with the petitioners in respect of horse riding.
  Although this Bill's objectives are limited, they are of real significance to the people who live and work on the moor. Local Bodmin moor communities are looking to the House today to give its support to what they seek and have asked their elected representatives to deliver.
  The origins of the legislation go back to January 1992, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At that time, he was considering extending the number of environmentally sensitive areas and many of us were anxious that Bodmin moor should be included in that list.
  My right hon. Friend kindly agreed to receive a delegation from Cornwall, which I arranged and led. Those attending included the then hon. Member for North Cornwall, and I am pleased to see his successor here today in support of the Bill because—as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know with your west country links—since the redistribution of constituencies in 1983 the majority of Bodmin moor is now located in the North Cornwall constituency rather than in mine.
  Members of that delegation included representatives from Cornwall county council, the two district councils that cover Bodmin moor—North Cornwall and Caradon—the Bodmin Moor Commoners Association, representatives from both the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association and the co-ordinator of the Minions Heritage Trust project.
  Irrespective of the merits of the case for Bodmin moor to be designated an environmentally sensitive area, which we presented on that occasion, my right hon. Friend was

  151
  unable to agree to our request. His reason was succinct and understandable. I recall vividly his saying to me on that occasion, "Bob—much as I would like to designate Bodmin moor an ESA, I am afraid that I cannot do this because there is no organisation or body in place with which I can treat"— a lovely old-fashioned word that is appropriate for my right hon. Friend to use. That was the sole reason for the rejection—that no statutory authority could guarantee to deliver the obligations that ESA status demands. I mention that small, but significant piece of political history because it explains concisely why the House is considering this Bill.
  It may help if I say a brief word about the geography of Bodmin moor and about the nature and extent of present-day economic activities. From that, I hope that the House will recognise how important it is that the Bill should obtain its Second Reading today—so that in time, I hope, Bodmin moor can be designated an environmentally sensitive area.
  Bodmin moor is the most south-westerly upland area in the United Kingdom. It is an unglaciated granite area with a distinctive topography. Although characterised by large tracts of semi-natural habitat, there is considerable landscape diversity. It almost goes without saying that a great variety of wildlife is found on the moor.
  Those physical components are reflected in man's response to that environment over the centuries. Farming has undoubtedly always been the principal economic activity and has helped shape the environment as we know it today. The traditional land use of the commons is grazing by cattle and sheep belonging to occupants of moorland farms and to people who live adjacent to the moor and have grazing rights.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: My hon. Friend kindly supported me when I piloted the Dartmoor Commons Bill through the House in 1985 and I pay tribute to him for his support, but my concern about this Bill is that it excludes the statutory right of access for members of the public and the statutory right of the horseman. Other than that, I am entirely with him on the Bill, but why have those two important ingredients been left out? In Dartmoor national park, every walker has a statutory right to walk and every rider to ride across the moor, despite the landowners. As Bodmin moor is not a national park, my hon. Friend has a double duty to include such a provision in the Bill.
  Mr. Hicks: Perhaps my hon. Friend was not here when I responded to a similar intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). As a result of an accommodation agreed by the Bill's promoters— Cornwall county council—the questions of access for horse riding are covered. The promoters initially tried very hard to accommodate the issue of pedestrian access. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—if I may refer to him in such terms in this debate—will deal specifically with the sequence of events in respect of the more general question of access. In the end, the promoters took the view that access was a national issue and that it would not be appropriate to deal with it in a Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has been listening very carefully, will know, provides for a statutorily based
  152
  authority to deal with conservation, land use, and so on with respect to Bodmin moor. Bodmin moor is not within a national park; it does not have such a statutory basis.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I have been present since the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech and I found the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) very vague and imprecise. I am not certain that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) has strengthened his assurances greatly in answering the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). We do not know what accommodations have been agreed with the petitioners. Will the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall give us an absolute guarantee that the Bill will not lead to a reduction in access to Bodmin moor for pedestrians and for horsewomen and horsemen?
  Mr. Hicks: I am glad to be able to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Nothing in the Bill in any way reduces the existing rights of access. The fact that the two sets of petitioners have withdrawn their respective petitions as a consequence of accommodations agreed by the promoters shows that the petitioners are now satisfied that there will be no depletion of existing rights.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about "rights". As I understand it, there are very few rights to go on to the moor. It is simply custom and practice that enables people to go on to the moor. If the hon. Gentleman were able to guarantee that people could go on to the moor without restriction, it would go a long way to meet the concerns. He knows that the question of rights is somewhat doubtful. I am particularly interested in a commoner giving me the right to go on the moor. The hon. Gentleman referred to national legislation. Nationally, if I ask a farmer whether I can walk across his fields and he gives me permission, that is all that I need. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a commoner on Bodmin moor could give me such a right?
  Mr. Hicks: The hon. Gentleman knows that the great majority of land historically and euphemistically referred to as commons is in private ownership. The House should be addressing the fundamental point that nothing in the Bill in any way reduces the existing practices—if the hon. Gentleman does not like my use of the word "rights"— concerning pedestrian access.
  I shall turn to the powers of the new statutory body in a moment. It will be incumbent on that body to draw up certain proposals and plans of action to exclude certain activities which currently take place on the moor, and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman, the promoters and I are all anxious that those provisions should be put in place, as they will prevent the moor, which is already fragile, from deteriorating any further. As I said, one of the Bill's purposes is to promote conservation of the moor.
  Mr. Steen: Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I thank him for his great generosity and customary patience? The Bill is obviously important to the west country, and my hon. Friend's experience of all the west country moors is well known to the House. My hon. Friend differentiates between Dartmoor and Bodmin

  153
  moor, both of which are owned by commoners, on the basis that Dartmoor is a national park while Bodmin moor is open moorland. National parks have national park authorities to protect walkers and riders. Surely walkers and riders need statutory rights to Bodmin moor, the more so since the moor is not under such authority. Bearing in mind that recreation and the environment are so important to hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, should we not be giving walkers and riders some statutory rights? That is the trend; it started on Dartmoor. Surely with a little fine tuning such a right could be achieved in respect of Bodmin moor as well.
  Mr. Hicks: I respectfully point out to my hon. Friend that I was born and bred on Dartmoor—indeed, my mother still lives in the Dartmoor national park. National parks legislation is national legislation. I f6rget the date of the original national parks legislation—
  Mr. Flynn: It was 1947.
  Mr. Hicks: That national legislation was passed by the House in 1947 or 1948. This Bill is a private Bill, promoted by Cornwall county council, to deal with a specific difficulty. That is why, for totally understandable reasons, the promoters feel that it is not appropriate to encompass the wider national question of access. Perhaps I may be allowed to make some progress.
  I was saying that farming has undoubtedly always been the principal economic activity and has helped to shape and modify the environment as we know it today. The commons have traditionally been used for grazing sheep and cattle belonging to the occupants of moorland farms or to those who live adjacent to the moor and have grazing rights. Today, about 30 parcels of common land—large and small—are separately registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965.
  I should also inform the House that Bodmin moor is classified as a less-favoured area under a European Community directive, and it lies in the Cornwall area of outstanding natural beauty. Other parts are recognised as areas of great landscape value, and many more specialist designations cover smaller areas such as sites of special scientific interest, or particular features including ancient monuments and archaeological sites, under the jurisdiction of statutory bodies such as English Nature and English Heritage.
  I hope that that brief description of the moor will provide sufficient evidence to establish not only that it is crucial for the correct legislative framework to be put in place to safeguard the conservation and enhancement of the commons, but that that objective is compatible with— indeed, complementary to—a management of the commons that will allow those who live and work there to sustain their economic livelihood and thus to continue with both their traditional and their newer ways of life.
  Mr. Steen: As a final intervention, may I ask my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Hicks: How does my hon. Friend know that I have given way to him?
  Mr. Steen: I thought that my hon. Friend would be generous. I knew that his customary generous habit would not desert him, even under great provocation.
  154
  I want to clarify one point. My hon. Friend differentiated between Dartmoor and Exmoor on the basis that the arrangements for Dartmoor are part of national legislation. But may I remind him that the Dartmoor Commons Bill of 1985 was introduced by Devon county council, just as this Bill is being introduced by Cornwall county council? It happens that the categorisation of the moors is different, but the type of promoter is the same. As Devon county council introduced a statutory right of access for walkers in its legislation, surely Cornwall county council can do the same.
  Mr. Hicks: I am tempted to pass on to the House what my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) muttered to me—that the great deregulator is now apparently intervening to try to introduce greater regulation into our legislation. [Interruption.] No, I am not "screwing it up", as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams so bluntly puts it.
  I was hoping that I would not have to bore the House by telling hon. Members so, but I happen to be a geographer by training. It is more than 26 years since I was involved with the subject, but I still remember that the original designation of Dartmoor as a national park resulted from national legislation. The Dartmoor Commons Bill, promoted by Devon county council, came later.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to move on now. The Bill is being promoted by Cornwall county council and has the support not only of the two district councils affected, North Cornwall and Caradon, but of all the political groupings on all three of those councils—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat, plus Mebyon Kernow and the independents.
  Equally important is the fact that the Bill enjoys the support of the commoners and the landowners, who are clearly the key participants in the proposals, as well as organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and local community and recreational groups. Especially significant is the fact that to the best of my knowledge there have been no objections either formal or informal from local people or groups who form part of national amenity and recreational organisations.
  There is a strong conesnsus in Cornwall in support of the Bill—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams is listening when I say that. Indeed, many people throughout the duchy have been surprised and disappointed by the fact that the Bill has taken so long to reach the House, especially as it had its Second Reading in another place on 7 June 1994, almost two years ago. If it were to fail at this stage, people in Cornwall would be astonished and annoyed that Parliament, for whatever reasons, had failed to respond to their legitimate needs and aspirations.
  As I have already said, the most important provision in the Bill is the establishment of a commoners council. Membership is defined in clause 3. The commoners would form the largest group on the council, but it would also include representatives of local authorities and landowners, as well as one or two other special categories. The remainder of the Bill is concerned with the structure, funding, functions and operations of the council.
  I remind the House that one important duty of the council is to prepare a management plan after consultation with Cornwall county council, with statutory bodies such

  155
  as English Nature, English Heritage and the Countryside Commission, and with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Furthermore, the management plan and any amendments will have effect only when approved by those two Ministers.
  The council will also have the power to make regulations designed to control the exercise of common rights in the interests of the commons as a whole. The precise nature and purpose of those objectives are set out in clause 6. As well as having those statutory responsibilities to protect and manage the commons, the council will have powers to repair damage and to provide for open-air recreational uses of the land. Those provisions are the subject of the proposed amendments to the Bill that I have already mentioned, which have been negotiated with petitioners who have now withdrawn their objections.
  It would be a tragedy if the Bill were not given a Second Reading tonight. Its provisions are what the local communities have asked for. I say unashamedly that in this day and age it would be extraordinary if the House were to deny a Second Reading to a measure that would protect and enhance the environment, promote the economic well-being of the local community of Bodmin moor, and facilitate public access, as well as rendering such access a more enjoyable experience.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Imust announce to the House that Madam Speaker has not selected the motion for an instruction.
  7.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. It would be helpful if I gave the Government's view.
  We welcome the Bill, which we believe will do a great deal of good. Both my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food strongly support the principle that common land should be subject to proper and effective management. The House will notice that the Minister for Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), is also present this evening.
  Although comprehensive legislation along the lines of that proposed in 1986 by the Common Land Forum is neither feasible nor practical, in the White Paper, "Rural England", the Government undertook to support solutions tailored to local circumstances, such as those provided by the Bill.
  I congratulate the promoters on their efforts to provide the means by which proper management of the commons of Bodmin moor can be accomplished.
  Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister explain something to the House? He said that the Government had decided to drop the idea of national legislation on access to and regulation of the commons—a decision that disappoints many people. As I understood it, the argument was that such matters should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. So surely when we are dealing with a particular case, the Minister cannot justify failing to make access provision in the Bill.
  Mr. Clappison: The Government are firmly of the view that there should be local solutions tailored to local
  156
  needs. We welcome the Bill as an example of something that will give rise to a local solution. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) has clearly set out the position on access in response to repeated interventions, and has dealt with the effect that the legislation will have.
  Mr. Steen: With respect, I do not think that the matter has been dealt with satisfactorily. There is a national park in Dartmoor and a similar, although smaller, landmass some 50 or 60 miles away at Bodmin. Your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, is very close to Dartmoor, and you will be aware that some 8 million people enjoy the beauties of Dartmoor, an increasing number of whom travel across Bodmin moor. Can the Minister explain why the public haye no right to leave their cars and go on to the private land at Bodmin moor, but have a statutory right to do so on Dartmoor? I fear that the Bill will bring the landowners together, and will exclude the public who have no right to go on the moor. The Bill may protect the commons from overgrazing, but will not allow the public to have the same free access to Bodmin that they currently enjoy on Dartmoor.
  Mr. Clappison: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but he must realise the current position that was explained clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall, who made it clear that local solutions had been suggested for this case. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who is interested in local solutions, will appreciate the importance of seeking such a solution in this case.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to come to the aid of the Minister. For six years, I was a member of the Dartmoor national park committee, and I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steer) has answered his own question. Dartmoor was designated as a national park, and one of the reasons for that was that it was necessary in national legislation to provide for specific rights of access on Dartmoor.
  Some might think that Bodmin moor should also have been designated as national park, but the Bill is not a national park designation Bill. If it were, it would come from the Treasury Bench and we could discuss it in those terms. However, the Minister is absolutely right and I support him—this is a local response to a local problem, and it is a private Bill for that reason. If the hon. Member for South Hams wants to join me in looking at the case for making Bodmin moor a national park, we can do so on another day, as it is a separate issue.
  Mr. Clappison: A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the local question, and I made it clear at the outset that the Government are in favour of local solutions in this context. Among the local solutions that will be put in place, the Bill will seek to provide a comprehensive basis for the management of grazing on the commons and the promotion of the conservation of wildlife and habitats. I am sure that that objective will command wide support in the House this evening, and I therefore recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Although this is a private Bill, I wish to put on record the position of the official Opposition. We very much support the Bill in principle, and we accept that it is important for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks). There is a need for proper management of the moor, particularly grazing management. That is an important conservation tool, although it can cause problems in terms of other grazing. Grazing can also be important in protecting plant species if managed correctly. There is a sound argument for the introduction of a commoners council, and we agree that it should be given the duty to draw up a management plan in consultation with the county council and the various statutory bodies. That will be a great advantage in bringing together the disparate ownership of the land, as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall outlined.
  For all those reasons, we think that the main thrust of the Bill is absolutely correct, and we would like to see it proceed. We have noted—and perhaps I can speak on a more personal level—the concerns about public access and the points that were reasonably made by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I recognise the issues and the differences between Dartmoor and Bodmin, but the Bill is being promoted in a similar way to the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 and I would have thought that it was not unreasonable to expect that the Bill would contain a provision for public access.
  I am sorry that there has not been more agreement between the promoters and the considerable number of organisations which have petitioned against the Bill. These organisations are well respected, and include the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering Council and the Youth Hostels Association. These are national and responsible organisations, and I am sure that their representations on access provision have been constructive and reasonable.
  The 1985 Common Land Forum recommended that there should be access to common lands, and Labour thought that the recommendations were sensible and constructive. We are sorry that they have not been acted upon, and although it seemed at one stage that the Government were going to implement them, that has not taken place to date. I also note that the Countryside Commission has expressed great disappointment that the access arrangements have been withdrawn from the Bill. The commission has made it clear that it believes that such arrangements should be included if at all possible, and again that is not unreasonable.
  In the discussions on the Bill, the issue of the right to roam—and whether it should be dealt with by a national policy or by legislation of the kind we are debating—has been raised. I understand the arguments, and the Labour party is committed to a qualified right to roam. The Country Landowners Association today published the document "Access 2000", which has a bearing on the Bill. The document contains a number of sensible suggestions, although I confess that I was surprised to see in the document and in some sections of the farming press that Labour is promoting a universal right to roam. I would like to state for the record that that has never been a right.
  The CLA document contains a reference from the Liberal Democrats' submission—I do not know who provided it—saying that Labour is promoting a
  158
  "near-universal" right to roam. That seems to suggest that we are advocating that people should go through other people's gardens or crops, or appear in their back yards. That was never the case. Our proposals on the right to roam apply to common land and to open moorland, but that right would have to be qualified in terms of sensible restrictions for land management and conservation management, and for the various rural activities which may require areas to be closed at times. There is a question as to whether we should wait for the next Labour Government to bring in the national policy or whether we should take this opportunity to ensure that there is adequate legislation at present. I am in favour of the former, but the House has been given an opportunity by the Bill and it should be taken.
  I am concerned about the powers of the commoners council—I do not know whether the sponsor of the Bill can deal with this—because it appears that the council has the power to restrict access. While one could argue that it also has the power to encourage access—I do not dispute that—the fact remains that the majority of places on the council will be filled by landowners. They may well want to be reasonable and to encourage access in a balanced way. I am sure that that is so, but it may also be that, for whatever reason, that body may restrict access at certain times or to certain parts of the moor. I would welcome some clarification on that as it is a matter of concern, particularly for some of the petitioners.
  Mr. Steen: Is not the point that the hon. Gentleman is making this: if a Bill is brought before the House for a particular area of the country, it must be a special and definable geographical area, not just a group of fields. Bodmin moor is definable and, that being so, special considerations apply. It is not like anyone's back yard or field—like Dartmoor, which happens to be a national park—Bodmin moor is a geographical area. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be rights for people to roam and walk in the area and that they should not be barred by a commoners council technically erecting a ring fence around it and saying, "You have no rights"?
  Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows the issues very well. I pay tribute to his involvement with the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985. Bodmin clearly is a definable area and it is not unreasonable that people should have access to it. Indeed, there is a long history of access to many parts of the moor and I am sure that local groups recognise that. The concern is over what may, or may not, happen and whether there is a legal right of access or a right that might at some stage be blocked for whatever reason. I think that I am right in saying that access to Dartmoor is governed by byelaws, which may well be a better regulatory approach.
  Mr. Steen: The House gave a statutory right for riders and walkers to walk in the national park—I think that the Dartmoor Commons Act was the first private Bill to give such a right and it was introduced by a county council. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support my view that it is a slightly retrograde step if, 12 years later, we do not have the same rights for Bodmin.
  Mr. Morley: I understand that and I agree. In that 12-year period, I imagine that the demand for public

  159
  access has grown and that more groups now want such access. In that respect, the provision certainly seems a retrograde step. Given all the sensible measures in the Bill and all the worthwhile things that it is trying to do, this seems to be an opportunity to tackle the issue of public access.
  With a commoners council and a Bill of this type, an application can be made for Bodmin to become an environmentally sensitive area. Again, that is a sensible move and the Opposition would support it. ESAs have a valuable role to play in supporting local farmers, particularly in the less-favoured areas where incomes are low, and ensuring a proper management regime within which they can operate within. That will involve such things as maximum stocking densities, which are very important. Such schemes have worked well. ESAs involve public money, however, and if we are putting public money into land management schemes it is not unreasonable for the public, who are paying, to derive some benefit. One of the benefits is access to the moor. I accept that environmental management is also a benefit.
  Mr. Bennett: There are two arguments about letting people go into environmentally sensitive areas. The first is that people can see that the money is being well spent. The second concerns balance and, if one is reducing stocking levels, it ought to be possible to allow more access.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I know of his long-standing interest in rights of access. I strongly endorse the need for balance. We are talking of a balance between the needs of landowners, farmers, the local community and national recreation groups. We very much support that balance and I am not sure that it is quite right in the Bill as it stands.
  Mr. Steen: I have walked over Dartmoor for many years and occasionally over Bodmin moor. If the promoters fear that, by putting in a statutory right of access, they will be swamped by charabancs of tourists, they should realise that Bodmin is even more inhospitable to walk over than Dartmoor—it is the most difficult and treacherous moor. The hon. Gentleman and the landowners will be relieved to know that giving the public a statutory right of access would not result in the place being covered with thousands of tourists.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Member knows the area well and I am sure that he is right. I have been researching statutory access to help with Labour's policy formation. I had talks about the New Forest, which is very much a honeypot area, with the Forestry Commission. The commission's surveys show that a high proportion of people do not stray far from their cars when they park in the car parks provided, another group of people might walk further, but do not stray from the footpaths and only a comparatively small number of serious walkers go into the more remote and difficult areas—they are responsible people when it comes to having regard to the environment.
  Mr. Steen: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman by giving him the figures for Dartmoor—the figures for Bodmin would not be dissimilar— 70 per cent. of the
  160
  people who travel across the moor do not stop, but admire the view while driving slowly and carefully, 28 per cent. stop their cars and walk up to 100 yd and only the remaining 2 or 3 per cent. go beyond 100 yd. If that figure is the same for Bodmin, the promoters and the landowners have nothing to fear.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's figures are similar to those of the Forestry Commission and that puts the issue into perspective.
  There are honeypot areas that attract large numbers of people and require management because of the pressures on the environment, but I am not sure that Bodmin moor is one of those areas as it is remote. In that respect, I am surprised that the promoters have not reached some accommodation with the people who have been petitioning against the Bill. The Opposition want the Bill to progress and to become law. We want an accommodation between those groups.
  In environmentally sensitive areas, an element of public subsidy is involved. It is not, therefore, unreasonable for access to be one of the criteria that is taken into account. One can achieve a balance between the not unreasonable desire for recreation and the management needs of local farmers and landowners. If access were a problem for environmental or management reasons, perhaps the commoners council could deal with it. We do not disagree with such an approach. We want a constructive approach.
  There are not many opportunities to promote legislation such as this Bill, which contains so many worthwhile elements. It is also an opportunity to give people a right of access. I would have thought that Cornwall county council would have jumped at that. I understand that originally the landowning interests were not especially averse to it.
  The Country Landowners Association document that was launched today makes it clear that it wants to promote increased access. That is a worthwhile objective. The CLA has the opportunity to support the principles outlined in its document though a Bill such as this. I hope that its promoters take note of the points made by the groups that have petitioned against it and especially those by the hon. Member for South Hams, who put his case very well. The Government should bear them in mind, especially as they originally said that they would support the findings of the Common Land Forum. If they once thought that the forum's 1985 recommendations were reasonable, this is an opportunity to incorporate some of them in a measure that would meet with universal support.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I had hoped to be able to speak at the end of the debate so that I could respond to as many as possible of the points made by hon. Members. However, I was forewarned that if I did, I might be squeezed out by hon. Members with a different agenda. I shall try to respond to the points that have been raised so far.
  I must declare an interest—not financial, but personal. I live on the edge of Bodmin moor and I walk on it almost every weekend. Some weekends, I spend more time on it than in my garden, which results in calamity for the latter. I have had a long association with the moor and with Dartmoor, as I was previously a councillor in Devon. My mother unfortunately emigrated to England and

  161
  married a Devonian. When I returned to Cornwall, I spent much time getting to know the moor. I have a long family association with the area going back to 1066.
  I have also had a long association with the various access organisations in Cornwall and nationally. I endorse the view of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) about the value of the Common Land Forum. If his statement is a commitment that an incoming Labour Government will promote legislation on the basis of the forum's proposals, I very much welcome it.
  As the Minister said, legislation to promote access to common land must be national. It would be inappropriate to use a local private Bill as a stalking horse. However, I welcome on behalf of the promoters the fact that both the Labour Front-Bench spokesman and the Government have committed themselves to the Bill's principles and to its passage to a Second Reading. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks), who eloquently promoted the Bill, both today and on many previous occasions locally, will join me in welcoming that.
  Clearly, there is a problem with the Bill, but I believe that it can and should be resolved. The Bill and the environmentally sensitive area status that we hope that it will permit are primarily concerned with the conservation, and the environmental and agricultural management of the moor.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe made copious references to ESAs. I share his concern that public money should not only be invested wisely but seen to be invested wisely. He and the Minister for Rural Affairs, who was also in the Chamber and supports the Bill, would agree that ESAs are not inherently about public access. Several of them preclude public access because the ecology of their habitats is so sensitive and vulnerable that public access would be improper. Neither in national nor in European Union terms does ESA status inherently increase or change rights of public access, and nor should it. Its primary purpose is environmental enhancement.
  The statement that the promoters released to coincide with the Bill clearly sets out its purpose and meets some of the objections that have been made this evening. First and foremost, it would grant powers to promote grazing management and conservation of the commons. The target is specific and carefully defined. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said, it has had the full rigour of examination in the other place over a long period. It has been the subject of petitions and much local consultation. He and I have met many organisations and individuals during the Bill's passage through the other place and I endorse his statement that it enjoys the widest possible support in Cornwall—including support from both environmental and access organisations.
  It is true that the commoners council is empowered to regulate the exercise of common rights in the interests of the commons as a whole but, as the promoters' statement says:
  "In discharging that duty the Council is to have due regard to the conservation of the commons and to the existing permitted use of the commons as a place of resort for open air recreation."
  Mr. Bennett: What does "due regard" mean? Does it not mean that as long as the council considers the present access carefully, it will be entitled to alter it?
  Mr. Tyler: I will come back to that as my speech unfolds.
  162
  The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has just slipped out of the Chamber but I assure him that it is recognised that there are growing pressures on the moor from peaceful recreation. However, there are also pressures from less peaceful recreations. I know, from my experience as a member and vice-chairman of the Dartmoor national park committee for five years, that Dartmoor has already experienced major problems. It is important that powers should be available, for example, to control access for four-wheeled vehicles which not only damage the moor's ecology but make it difficult for other people to enjoy peaceful recreation such as my weekend walks.
  There is considerable anxiety in Cornwall about the state of the commons on Bodmin moor. Some suffer from overgrazing while others are insufficiently grazed. As a result, environmental quality is visibly deteriorating in several parts of the moor at an alarming rate. It is intended that the primary purpose of the commoners council should be to take action to correct that deterioration. Such action will involve considerable restrictions on the activities of some local commoners, but they accept that in the interests of the wider community and of the long-term stewardship of the land.
  I emphasise that there is nothing in the Bill that alters the availability of the commons for public access. It may be that a better definition of open country, as the Common Land Forum has suggested, would, in the long term, greatly benefit Bodmin moor and other parts of the UK. However, it would be inappropriate to use a private Bill to pioneer such a new definition. I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall that the petitions against the Bill lodged by the British Horse Society and the owners of a riding establishment on the edge of the moor have been withdrawn because they have accepted that the promoters have met their concerns.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned public access. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that discussions have taken place, not only during the passage of the Bill through the Lords and locally, but in the past few days, in anticipation of this debate, and in recognition of the concerns that gave rise to the attempt to lay an instruction before the House and therefore the Committee.
  Last week—I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish will not mind me saying so, because it is material to the discussion—there was a useful meeting, at which I was present, between the promoter and the hon. Gentleman, and at that meeting we sought to find a way to meet his concerns. It was suggested that a voluntary agreement on access might be in place before Royal Assent or before the Act came into operation. That was the subject of some discussion locally. I understand that, yesterday, the promoter, Cornwall county council, agreed that it would seek to achieve that in whatever form was appropriate to the legislation, to enable the Bill to proceed.
  I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said about the need for balance. That balance is well understood by the promoter and all the organisations that have promoted the Bill. That is why I am delighted to tell the House that I understand that the

  163
  promoter is able to put on record tonight that it agrees to seek a voluntary access agreement with the landowners and the commoners of the Bodmin moor commons.
  Mr. Bennett: What the hon. Gentleman says goes 90 per cent. of the way towards what we want. We now need evidence of the good intent of the county council. All we need to hear from the hon. Gentleman is that the county council will not seek Royal Assent until the access agreement is in place because, if it goes that far, we can simplify the procedures tremendously. I do not doubt the good will of the county council, but if one or two of the more awkward commoners were to refuse to go along with an access agreement, there is little that the county council can do as things stand. If, however, the county council were to give an undertaking tonight, or very soon after, that it would not go ahead with Royal Assent until the access agreement were in place, I do not say that we could all go home, but we could all go home without saying much more.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that I am a Member of the House, not the promoter. It would be much more appropriate for the specific wording of the statement that he requires to be dealt with in Committee, which is the right place for petitions to be heard; the hon. Gentleman is not a petitioner in his own right.
  Following the meeting that I mentioned, at which the hon. Gentleman was most generous with his time—and his coffee—and during which we made good progress, I am able to convey to the House the assurance that the promoter, Cornwall county council, has agreed to seek a voluntary access agreement along the lines suggested at our meeting last week, and the county council has already set in motion the appropriate machinery to make that action take place forthwith.
  I accept, as I am sure does the promoter, that that may not meet all the wishes of the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society, which have lodged petitions against the Bill and which, if the Bill is read a Second time tonight, will be entitled to appear before the Committee. However, the Bill is not about compulsion, and Cornwall county council does not propose to embody compulsion in the Bill. That is borne out by negotiations that the promoter has already carried out, as I have said, with the two other petitioners—the British Horse Society and the T.M. international school of horsemanship.
  Amendments have been suggested by those two petitioners, and will be submitted for the Committee's approval if the Bill is read a Second time tonight. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the passing of the Bill and the coming into being of the commoners council will not change the position to the detriment of the British Horse Society or its members on or near Bodmin moor or of the T.M. international school of horsemanship. As a result of that agreement, those two petitions have been withdrawn.
  The amendments would provide that the commoners council, when preparing the management plan that the Bill requires to be prepared, must have due regard to the existing permitted use of open-air recreation. That includes any existing permitted use by ramblers. Were
  164
  that not to be the case, I should not be supporting the Bill tonight, because I believe, as do many others in and around Bodmin moor, that that existing permitted use is of great importance.
  The hon. Member for South Hams is probably right that only 2 or 3 per cent. of people who visit Bodmin moor walk miles, as I do. Nevertheless, sometimes we have invasions. Only a few years ago, about 30,000 people came for the so-called White Goddess festival on Davidstow moor, on common land in my constituency, and caused chaos to farmers and everyone else in the local community. It is not inappropriate to be aware that such possible threats can not only destroy the habitat and environment and prevent the quiet enjoyment of the moor by people who walk or ride, but cause immense damage to the local community as a whole.
  The suggested amendments would also ensure that the commoners council makes certain that unlawful interference with the commons is precluded, but also ensures that recreational access on foot or horseback does not cause material damage. There is no intention to destroy the sensitive balance that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe rightly mentioned.
  There is almost unanimous support for the Bill throughout Cornwall, as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said. Conservationists and farmers alike are looking to the House to create an effective framework for more sensitive management of the commons on Bodmin moor. I hope that they will not be disappointed.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should first declare an interest that does not need to be included in the Register. It is only fair to tell hon. Members that I am an honorary life member of the Ramblers Association and vice-president of the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society. I have spoken on behalf of walkers many times in the House, but I have also spoken several times about the private Bill procedure, which I find very, very unsatisfactory indeed.
  As a result of efforts in the House on occasions to delay Bills, it was possible to pass the Public Works Bill, and we have substantially reduced the number of private Bills that come before the House, so we now deal with private Bills rarely. Nevertheless, it is a very unsatisfactory procedure for dealing with the Bill before us.
  Traditionally, Bills were used to promote railways, canals and other major works. The tradition grew up that, as the Bill progressed through the two Houses of Parliament, it had to become progressively narrower. In other words, no one's rights could be taken away as the Bill progressed; all that could happen was that people could be exempted from the Bill.
  In this case, we have a very odd procedure. When Cornwall county council started to promote the Bill, there was a balance in it. The rights of access were balanced by the right of the commoners to regulate the legislation. By a procedure that I have never quite understood, which is not quite a lottery—I suspect that it is more Machiavellian than that—some Bills start in the House of Lords and some start in the Commons.
  In the case of a public Bill, if the Lords remove something from the Bill, it is easy for us to disagree with them and put it back in; or, if the Lords put something

  165
  into the Bill, we can remove it. If necessary, the Bill can shuttle backwards and forwards, until eventually a meeting takes place between the two sides, at which usually one or other gives way.
  With a Bill such as this, however, if the House of Lords has removed a provision from it, usually the House of Commons cannot put it back. Rather foolishly, the House of Lords removed the provision that guaranteed access. The question is do we have the right to put access back in the Bill as it goes into Committee? At some stage, that could become a major point at issue.
  I hope that we can find a way around the problem and thereby avoid some fraught proceedings in this House. I have a suggestion to make. I have talked to the promoters, and proposed that we need not have an access agreement on the face of the Bill. It is perfectly possible for county councils to draw up access agreements, just as it is possible for national parks to make access agreements under legislation dealing with the countryside and dating from the late 1940s.
  It would be quite possible for the county council in this case to put in place an access agreement to cover the relevant area before the Bill received Royal Assent. That would restore the balance that we began with. If we do not restore that balance, the people in Cornwall who did not oppose the Bill originally because it contained access provisions will feel cheated because they will not have had the opportunity to petition the House of Lords, assuming as they did that the Bill contained measures of which they approved.
  Mr. Tyler: I assure the hon. Gentleman that to my knowledge—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Soufh-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) can confirm this—there are no petitioners or objectors from Cornwall to the Bill in its present form.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is misled. I am assured by the ramblers and some of the other petitioners that some local groups still object strongly. More to the point, one commoner and two other people telephoned me this afternoon, all claiming to come from Cornwall. Their accents served to confirm that. I rang one of them back, and he was certainly on a Cornwall number, so I have no reason to believe that they were not ringing me in good faith. They said that they had been cheated, and would never have supported such a Bill without the access provisions.
  When the county council published notices about the Bill, it still contained the access provisions. These people therefore did not realise that they should petition the House of Lords to strengthen the access provisions. Now the latter have been taken out, so a group of people's rights have been disregarded. I suggest that that is a serious matter.
  Mr. Tyler: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the exclusion from the Bill has been widely known about in Cornwall for many months—as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it was in the Lords for a long time. I have met innumerable organisations and people in Cornwall during that period—I suspect that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall has, too—and no doubt the promoters have had representations as well. I find it extraordinary that the only person in the House who
  166
  seems to have received these complaints is the hon. Gentleman. We certainly have heard nothing about these people.
  Mr. Bennett: I will not pursue the issue now. I merely suggest that there is a way out of an impasse that might involve a great deal of argument and procedure. I have met the promoters we are very close to a deal which would virtually eliminate the problems.
  The Bill is being debated today. It will then go into Committee, where no doubt petitioners will want to make their case. Members of the Committee may be sympathetic to the petitioners, so there will be some discussion as to how far access can be reinstated at that stage.
  My guess is that the Bill will emerge from Committee just before the summer recess. If it does, it is possible that the Chairman of Ways and Means will find time for it to be debated before the recess—but I am doubtful. There are rumours that there may be no carry-over in the autumn. If there is no carry-over, that may present difficulties. There will have to be a revival motion, either in the autumn or in the next Parliament. Everyone knows that revival motions are debatable, and can prompt a great deal of discussion and argument.
  I can see this Bill stretching out a long way into the future. For my part, I do not want to be involved in stretching it out. I hope that the county council can thrash out an access agreement and get it in place so that the promoters can tell the Committee that an access agreement has been reached with the county council, using the powers that it already has. The petitions can then be withdrawn, the Bill can become an unopposed Bill, and it can return to the House in late June or early July. The Bill can then proceed unopposed to Royal Assent by the autumn, and management procedures and access arrangements can be put in place.
  There is a good prospect of some sort of agreement being reached. We are asking the promoters to go only a short distance further. The county council has said that it will seek an agreement—it need only take one more step. I admit that that will change the balance of power, but if the county council is keen to get the Bill through at the moment, objections to it from just one or two commoners can stop it; whereas, once the balance of power is changed and restored to what it was when the Bill arrived in the Lords, there is a good chance that agreement will be reached.
  I strongly contend that the promoters have a chance now to get their legislation quickly and cheaply and to satisfy the commoners and local people who want their access guaranteed. National groups such as the ramblers would also like to witness a local agreement that has been sensibly reached.
  I understand the local problem. I am aware that some— not all—of the commoners are on low incomes and are under pressure to put more stock on the parts of the moor to which they are entitled. They see people in other parts of the country being paid taxpayers' money not to put stock on land but to manage environmentally sensitive areas better and with less stock—thereby preserving the countryside. These local people rightly ask why the same cannot apply to Bodmin moor.
  What is preventing that is the fact that no commoner can enter into agreement with the Government about stock levels, because any other commoner can wreck the whole

  167
  procedure. That is why the legislation is needed. But if the land is to be managed for the benefit of commoners by limiting stock numbers, access must also be successfully managed.
  What is the point of paying out large sums of taxpayers' money to protect environmentally sensitive areas? The answer is that they are part of our heritage, and the argument goes that people should be able to go and look at their inheritance.
  I got out the two maps that cover the area in question. I once walked over Bodmin moor, although I admit that it was a wet, misty day, and I saw little besides the footpath in front of me.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about the beast?
  Mr. Bennett: I certainly did not see the beast. When I walked the moor, the stories about the beast had not yet surfaced. I do not think that it would have frightened me off, but it might have added some amusement to the walk, especially in the rain. My hon. Friend may have all sorts of ideas about Bodmin moor, but I shall not be sidetracked.
  I took the trouble to look at the maps of Bodmin moor, and I was disappointed to see that very few footpaths had been recorded. As many people visit it and it has obvious attractions, particularly in good weather, why are so few footpaths recorded on it?
  Clearly, over the years the custom and practice has been that people have walked on the moors and have not been stopped. When rights of way had to be recorded as a result of the legislation in the 1940s, few people found it necessary to claim a right of way, because, de facto, they could walk on the moors. As there is de facto access, one might ask why we need an access agreement.
  The practice appears to have changed, however. I can think of large areas of the countryside that used to have de facto access. I am particularly conscious of the Berwyns and the Arans in north Wales, where for more than 100 years people could walk without restriction, until a small group of farmers decided that there should be no access and no right of way, and that people could not walk on that land. We cannot continue having merely de facto access to the moors. It has to be in legislation or an agreement that is worked out by the county council.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, access agreements have worked well throughout the country. There was a tremendous amount of conflict about the peak district in the 1930s, and some of it lasted until the 1950s when people were denied access, but the Peak District national park managed to get access agreements in place. By and large, those agreements have worked.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the peak district, where there is intense demand for walking and recreational pursuits because of the huge conurbations in the surrounding areas, access agreements have not damaged walkers' access to the open moorland?
  Mr. Bennett: I was making that very point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The more access is agreed,
  168
  the better it works. Many farmers have said to me, "Twenty years ago, I was a bit worried about the access agreement, but it is now working well. I am pleased to see the walkers on my land, and I prefer them to use the access land rather than the footpaths, as one or two of the footpaths are being worn away. It is much nicer to see them striding out on to the moor."
  I have to say to those who are concerned about Bodmin moor—and the commoners who may be doubtful about them—that access agreements work well. Another important consideration for the commoners is that the county council will pay them a little money. I shall not say that too loud, because the county council does not have a great deal of money, but it will pay for access agreements.
  Mr. Morley: I understand that the commoners originally supported the idea of a statutory right of access. Can my hon. Friend explain say why they have changed their minds during the Bill's passage?
  Mr. Bennett: I am puzzled about that. One of the people who telephoned me today was a commoner. He told me that he thought access was a good idea, and that other commoners wanted it. He was trying to put the blame on some of the bigger landowners who have some rights to the common. He said that Bodmin was caught up in a national argument and that, because the ramblers and the Open Spaces Society argued that access should be granted, one or two other organisations had advised the commoners not to agree to an access agreement, as it might undermine their national stance.
  It is disappointing that the commoners, having initially supported access agreements, have now backed off, and some would prefer not to have them. My evidence is that access agreements work and could benefit local people who would be getting a little money not just from the Government for using lower stocking levels, but from the county council for letting people walk on the land.
  I now turn to de facto access. Local people have told me that there is no problem because they can get on to the land. I have mentioned the problem in the Arans, where there was de facto access but it was revoked. In most parts of the country, if one wants to get access to land, one can use rights of way or access agreements. One can also say to the landowner: "Do you mind if I walk across your land?" I have often asked the farmer whether I could walk through his farmland either to go for a walk or to look at a historic or archaeological site. Farmers very rarely refuse access.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: They set the dogs on you.
  Mr. Bennett: I know that there can be problems and that people are not always made welcome, but my experience is that, if one asks nicely, one is normally allowed onto the land.
  What happens on Bodmin moor? Presumably one would have to find one of the commoners and say, "Please may I go on to the land?" and one would then be able to walk across it. The commoner I spoke to today— Mr. Budge—told me that he was not quite sure. He said, "I always tell people that everyone goes on anyway, so you don't need permission, but I do not think that I have the right to give permission, because I am not the landowner. I have only commoners' grazing rights."

  169
  So who is entitled to grant people permission to go on to the commons? Mr. Budge, as a commoner, could ask me to look at his stock, round it up or do something else, and I would then have the right to be on the common, but if I just wanted to have a look at it, I am not quite sure how the de facto right would work.
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend would have to ask Prince Charles.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend may wish to lead me in that direction, but I know nothing about Prince Charles, and would not wish to involve him in the debate.
  Mr. Skinner: Does not Prince Charles own part of Cornwall?
  Mr. Bennett: I am sure that, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will be able to develop that argument further.
  Mr. Tyler: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the commoner who had been in touch with him today was a certain Mr. Budge? If so, perhaps I should let him know that Mr. Budge is no longer a commoner, as he no longer farms on the edge of the moor, so he no longer has any common rights. He may also have a somewhat different agenda from that of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bennett: I shall not go into detail. Mr. Budge raised a particular point with me. If the hon. Gentleman disputes it, I understand that the commoners originally agreed to access. If the hon. Gentleman is denying that the commoners originally agreed to access, I shall gladly give way to him. As I understand it—I think that Mr. Budge was perfectly correct on that point—the commoners agreed to access when the legislation was first proposed. If that is wrong, will the hon. Gentleman please intervene?
  Mr. Tyler: It is perfectly true that everybody tried to find acceptable terms in which the access problem could be resolved. I and the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall did our very best to find such terms. We found it impossible to approve and support appropriate terms for the Bill. If we could have done so, we would have been delighted, but it became increasingly apparent that such terms were appropriate only for national legislation, and not for a private Bill.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman attended the negotiations last week, when he said that the county council—in good faith—would seek an access agreement. He cannot have it both ways. Either an access agreement is impossible because the commoners cannot agree among themselves, or we can negotiate an access agreement. We should put that idea to the test: let us delay the Bill's progress and put the access agreement in place. The Bill could then race through the House. The hon. Gentleman has said that the county council will use its best endeavours to reach an agreement. That is one approach.
  Mr. Skinner: Is it a Liberal county council?
  Mr. Bennett: It is a funny county council—I think that there is no overall control. However, I do not wish to go
  170
  into the composition of the council. I want to concentrate on the question of access, and particularly the problem of guaranteeing de facto access.
  As the Bill stands currently, the commoners will have the right to regulate access. I approve of that provision. If a part of the moor is being damaged through over-use, or should be burnt in line with heather management, it is logical that people should be denied access to that area for a specified period. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has powers to prevent people from entering certain areas where diseased animals have been discovered. It would be logical for an access agreement to contain the right to suspend access in certain circumstances, such as in the event of a fire risk.
  However, the rules regarding fire are quite odd. The Environment Committee found that almost all the access agreements in the peak district prevented people from roaming on the moors when the fire risk was high. However, the attitude in the New Forest is to allow as many people as possible on to the moor when the fire risk is high, so that they may give an early warning of fire and almost certainly assist with fighting it. An access agreement should address such issues, and I argue strongly that we should try to put such an agreement in place.
  Some of the blame must lie with the Government. A proposal emerged from the Common Land Forum to deal with commons up and down the country. The Government were so impressed with the forum's recommendations that they made a manifesto commitment in 1987—which I think was repeated in 1992—to legislate in that area. That legislation would involve recognising grazing rights and allowing access to commons. Sadly, the Moorland Society nobbled the Government. The big landed interests—I suppose that they are still the Tory grandees—said no, and the Government stupidly gave in to them.
  As a result of that backdown, there have been continuing problems with our commons. It is interesting to note that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have begun to realise that it is not in the interests of those who work on the land to keep others out. I do not approve totally of the Country Landowners Association publication that was released today, but it is now talking about encouraging access. It says that access should be negotiated locally.
  In the case of Bodmin moor, access could be negotiated locally. If organisations such as the Country Landowners Association and the NFU want to argue that access should be negotiated locally and agreed on the basis of existing access provisions in earlier legislation, they must demonstrate that the agreements are working. If we cannot have access agreements on Bodmin moor, perhaps we should take a different approach—for example, right to roam legislation, or perhaps a walkers charter. That approach would have many advantages, because it gives the walker rights and responsibilities. Anyone who cares about the countryside would favour that approach.
  I do not like going into the countryside carrying a pair or wirecutters in my back pocket to cut barbed wire that has been placed across a footpath. I do not like having to telephone or write to a county council to report obstructions on footpaths. I do not roam the countryside looking for conflict: I go to the country to enjoy the peace and quiet. That enjoyment is spoilt by arguments and problems about access.

  171
  I want to see a way out. Nothing would please me more than if the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Moorland Society were to rush to put access agreements in place across the country in the next 12 or 18 months. Perhaps that would reduce the need for right to roam legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will introduce right to roam legislation as a Minister in the next Labour Government. However, both the NFU and the Country Landowners Association say that they support this Bill. Therefore, they must demonstrate that access agreements can be successfully negotiated locally.
  The next question is, who will serve on the Bodmin moor commoners council? I understand that the Bill contains a fairly complicated procedure for appointing people to that council.
  Mr. Flynn: Is it a quango?
  Mr. Bennett: I suppose it is. However, its members are also shareholders—those who have grazing rights have a right to participate in the election of commoners who can serve on the council. We should ensure that the access groups are represented on that body, and have a veto over restrictions on access.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) said that I would approve of some of the powers to restrict activities on the moors. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and I would like to stop four-wheel-drive vehicles with bull bars entering moorland. However, if we deny access to four-wheel-drive vehicles, to people on mountain bikes, trail riders and so on, how will we differentiate between those powers and the powers that allow access to people on foot? What about those people who enter moorland on foot with the intention of engaging in other activities, such as hang-gliding, para-gliding and so on? We should have in place a management access agreement in order to regulate those activities properly.
  There is another question regarding archaeological sites. There are traces of early civilisations all over Bodmin moor, and people like to visit those sites. Some of the sites and structures have been nicely preserved by English Heritage. But it can be more interesting and more fun wondering whether a shape on the ground is a geological formation or is the result of human activity— one can use one's imagination.
  Currently, there is no legislative provision to allow people to visit such sites, and I should like to see those rights enshrined in access agreements. However, we must again consider regulation. Many people who like to visit historical sites take their metal detectors. I have seen them on many occasions: as soon as something sets off their metal detector, they begin scrabbling around and digging to try to find the object. Usually they find a penny or 10p piece that another metal detectorist dropped earlier; but on some occasions they start to dig things up. I certainly do not approve of people just digging around on those sites. It should be properly regulated.
  I hope that commoners will have the opportunity to represent all those interests and that they can put into some access agreement a balance between all those different groups.
  172
  I should like to return to the point I made at the beginning of my speech. There is an opportunity for a deal that satisfies everyone—a statutory access agreement in the current legislation that would be set up by the county council on a voluntary basis, which would then allow quick passage by means of this Bill, and let the graziers get the management in place.
  I think that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall suggested that it is now five years since he first went to Ministers to plead for this to be designated an environmentally sensitive area. I can understand how commoners who are on low incomes are aggrieved that it has taken so long, but I must tell him that, if the matter continues to drag on through the House for any length of time, it will be because of the failure of those same commoners to agree an access provision.
  I hope that, even at this late stage, people who are promoting the Bill will appreciate that there will be sustained opposition to it unless concessions are achieved. Sustained opposition will cost the promoters money and will delay the Bill. For all those reasons, I hope that we can get an undertaking very quickly that will satisfy the petitioners—the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society—that we can have an access agreement, and that the commoners can get the proper management that they deserve. Before the Bill progresses very much further, I hope that some sort of agreement can be reached.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who speaks with such authority on this matter. I think that all hon. Members enjoyed his succinct speech. I hope to be equally brief.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned the private Bill procedure. There was a young hon. Member who said that the private Bill procedure is archaic, slow, inefficient and long overdue for reform. His name was Benjamin Disraeli. There have been some changes in the private Bill procedure since then, but much of his criticism is still valid.
  Many hon. Members will remember the painful experience of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which was in the House for longer than the first world war lasted. I think that it occupied more of the House's time than any Bill since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I do not say that as any form of threat to anyone. I remember a time during that Bill's passage when I was in the Chamber at 5 am, passionately advocating the cause of retaining the habitat of the barking Grangetown rat. Of course many hon. Members were talking on behalf of other forms of wildlife, such as the bird. There is a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but no society for the protection of the barking Grangetown rat, and, if there were, it certainly would not be a royal society.
  There is a concentration on certain attractive forms of wildlife and not on those equally rare forms of wildlife to which we should pay attention.
  Mr. Morley: I remember very well those debates late through the night. I inform my hon. Friend that the black rat that he mentioned is a protected species.
  Mr. Flynn: I am delighted to hear that, but the species that I mentioned is fictitious. I mentioned it in the early

  173
  hours of the morning to make a point about the attempts that were being made to protect creatures that were reduced to their last 28 billion in the world. I should return to speaking about the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I call on the hon. Gentleman to tell us something about the Bill.
  Mr. Flynn: I shall not try your patience any longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We must examine the Bill and consider the concession that is sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. All hon. Members would say that we are in favour of the Bill's general purpose, but that we have misgivings about what is absent from it—the guarantee of rights of access to all those who use this wild and beautiful part of the country, which is part of our heritage.
  I was enthusiastic about the suggestion that access must be denied to those who abuse our countryside with noise pollution, light pollution and—the worst pollution we have seen in recent years—the barbarous, four-by-four vehicles that have caused so much damage to our green lanes and countryside. They should be denied access. There is a particular mindset among the people who buy those vehicles. They usually had Tonka cars when they were children, and they grow up to want those great, chunky, inefficient and unsafe vehicles. Their effect on green lanes is disastrous, leaving huge ruts and great damage. Some roads in Wales have suffered greater damage in the past 20 years because of four-by-fours than they have suffered since they were built by the Romans. One of those is Sarn Helen.
  One may ask why a Welsh Member of Parliament should have a keen interest in this Bill. We see the area as part of our common heritage of national life, but I also have a particular interest in the relationship between Wales and Cornwall. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) used two words of the Cornish language: Mebyon Kernow. I remember tabling a question about the future of Brythonic languages. Many of the names on Bodmin are Brythonic names. The Department inquired what I was talking about. I made it clear that I wanted an answer about the Cornish language, and the answer was given to me by the Secretary of State for Wales.
  I do not know whether the Government have some secret agenda to annex Cornwall to Wales and to reunite those two ancient nations, which were once united but, unfortunately, divided by the immigration of Saxons, who came to these islands and divided those two groups of people. In Wales there is a legitimate interest in those groups.
  A great amount of play has been made about what is claimed to be the Bill's universal support, but that is not so according to the information that I have. I know that the Ramblers Association has complained and has many misgivings about it. Members of that organisation have told me that they know of no local access bodies that agree with the view that the Bill is without fault. The most prominent access bodies are of course the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society and the splendid Youth Hostels Association. They have all petitioned against the Bill. To suggest that the local branches of
  174
  those organisations are somehow in favour of it is, as I understand it, untrue. I hope that that point will be answered by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall.
  Mr. Hicks: May I clarify my remarks, which are on the record? I said that no local amenity or recreational groups, organisations or societies, to the best of my knowledge, have expressed their opposition to the provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Flynn: I should be happy to improve the hon. Gentleman's knowledge, because my understanding is that there are local branches of those organisations and that it is entirely misleading to suggest that they disagree with their national organisations in any way.
  We are opposed to access to all parts of the moors by those who would damage them, but other groups that have a keen interest in the flora and fauna of Bodmin moors should have open access to them. For the sake of brevity, I shall mention only one such organisation—the Butterfly Conservation Society. Earlier this year, I had the great privilege to present the prizes in its annual photograph competition. The taking of such photographs requires generous access to the habitats of the butterflies and moths that are part of the life of Bodmin moor.
  We must not treat this as a matter of no importance. We all love butterflies, which are beautiful, living jewels of nature: we love the enormous variety and subtlety of their colours, and note the differences that occur from one area to another only a few miles away. Butterflies are important for another reason, however, which makes them the subject of considerable study: they are a prime indicator of biodiversity. Any reduction in the number of species is an accurate indicator of the extent to which biodiversity is deteriorating, or becoming less important.
  Certain groups are very well protected by the Bill. Clause 16 contains firm guarantees, stating:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section (and without prejudice to the general law concerning the application of statutes to the Duchy of Cornwall), nothing in this Act shall prejudice any of the rights, powers, privileges or authority attaching to the possessions of, or exercisable by, the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall in relation to land belonging to the said Duchy and nothing in this Act shall apply to the said possessions or possessor by virtue of an interest in land belonging to the said Duchy without the consent specified in subsection (3) below."
  There we have a copper-bottomed guarantee, which cannot possibly be breached, in favour of—whom? In favour of the person who received the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. We all know who that person is, and I do not want to break the rules of the House by identifying him. There is a strong case for saying that, given the extraordinary history of the land of the Duchy of Cornwall—the income from which now goes to just one person—that land actually belongs to the people of this country. Clause 16 gives an absolute guarantee that those rights will be protected.
  The Bill goes on to say that certain other rights are protected. For instance, the protection of the trustees of the recreation ground of P. R. Blarney is enshrined in it. Clause 17 makes it clear that the commons and grounds of P. R. Blarney will be protected under what will become section 5, and there is no doubt that the draftsmen took the issues fully into account and were prepared to include the measure in the Bill. Why on earth will not the promoters agree to the modest request made by my hon.

  175
  Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish during long meetings? Why are not the small concessions that, it has been suggested, will be forthcoming tonight included in the Bill? Why should we not be given a chance to prove tonight that they will be made? I am sure that we all consider such a development desirable.
  Dr. John Marek: I apologise for not being present during the first part of my hon. Friend's speech. I have read the Bill, however. May I make a plea? As the Bill is generally acceptable to the House, will my hon. Friend try to persuade the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks)—whom I respect—to establish whether an access agreement that is generally acceptable to the various parties could be negotiated? If that could be done, I think that the Bill could be passed in two minutes flat. That is a challenge; can the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall and others rise to it? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the nub of the issue?
  Mr. Flynn: I agree entirely. I am sure that many of us can think of other ways in which we could be using our time tonight. The Bill is important, but, as one who has not been involved in the negotiations, I sense that there is little space between the two sides.
  It has been claimed that the Countryside Commission gave its blessing to the Bill, but in its most recent letter it expresses many serious misgivings. It speaks of a "strong preference": although it wants to continue to back the Bill, which deals with matters of some importance, it wants more attention to be given to public access, regarding that as one of the most important and accepted uses of Bodmin moor. In a letter to Cornwall county council, it says:
  "We regret that it has not been possible for you to achieve a negotiated settlement of the petitioners' concerns."
  Its position has always been that it wants the Bill to succeed—as we all do—and it believes that
  "such a settlement would have assisted the passage of the Bill through Parliament."
  I think that we would all agree with that.
  Misgivings have also been expressed by the Ramblers Association, which represents a great many people. Its interests have not always been respected. The Country Landowners Association and the commoners have not always been friendly towards ramblers, and there is a continuous history going back to the beginning of the century—possibly beyond that—of ramblers having to fight for their rights of access against selfish landowners who have sought to restrict the access that we should all enjoy. The Ramblers Association has said that it believes that, if the Bill is passed, it could lead to a loss of access on the moors. That right of access should be enshrined in the Bill.
  I do not know whether any of those who speak for the Bill's promoters are willing to grant us any extension, or any reaffirmation of what they are saying, or whether the matter must be left until the Committee stage—if that takes place in the near future. There is a suggestion, however, that the Bill goes against the long-held view that access to and management of common land should go hand in hand. That point was made in the 1958 report of the royal commission on common land, which we all remember so well. It was then endorsed by the Common
  176
  Land Forum in its 1986 report, which was signed, and has long been supported, by interests including the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Association of County Councils, speaking with the support of Cornwall county council, and many others. The important point is that recreation and amenity organisations should support the two main principles. They should be part of the principles of the Common Land Forum and govern our use of the wonderful wild habitat in this countryside.
  Bodmin moor has been preserved in its wild state while we have seen encroachments into other beautiful areas. It is the task of everyone in the House to ensure that the Bill does the best that it can for wild areas and the habitats of creatures, but there is no excuse for leaving out of the Bill the right of access to the moor for those with an interest in nature. The Bill could provide for that access to be regulated by the county council and others to protect the area sensibly, reasonably and practically. I urge the promoters to strengthen the right of access in the Bill.
  8.58 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I understand the concerns that have been expressed in the House today about the lack of agreement over the right to access in the Bill. I have listened to much of the debate, and I have read about the Bill, and it seems to me that—in the preliminary planning stages of the Bill—all concerned intended to settle the issue of access for recreational purposes to Bodmin moor at the same time as the other elements of the Bill, such as common grazing rights and the establishment of the commoners council. We support those interesting measures, but if there is a reluctance to include a small clause about access on the face of the Bill, we must conclude that the promoters and some landowners are deeply reluctant to allow sensible access agreements for Bodmin moor.
  I decided to speak in the debate partly because the day before yesterday I participated in a re-enactment of the 1932 Abbey Brook mass trespass over Strines moor in my constituency. As a result of that, and as a result of many years of pressure, access was gained to one right of way across the moor, but the land was owned by the Fitzwilliam estates on one side of the right of way and by the Broomhead estates on the other. When 40 people re-enacted the Abbey Brook event on Sunday, I was struck by the disadvantages of having not an open access agreement covering the whole moor but only an access agreement covering the rights of way.
  Mr. Bennett: I went to the Library today and looked carefully at the areas covered by the moor. The problem is that few of the historic rights of way were recorded. Local people thought that they could go where they wanted on the moor and that they did not have to stick to paths. Unfortunately, because the paths were not recorded as rights of way, there is only de facto access. As the Bill is now worded, the commoners could stop that access. There is the example of the Arans where de facto access existed for years, but suddenly people were restricted to one or two paths.
  Mrs. Jackson: It is a further cause for concern if the powers that the Bill could give to the commoners council could be used to restrict even further the rights of way of people over the existing paths and tracks over Bodmin

  177
  moor. If access is officially restricted to one or two paths and access is denied to the general moorland, that puts more pressure on those paths and tracks which could then be more open to the damage caused by four-wheel-drive vehicles. If there is general access, hikers and walkers will use the moor more for recreational purposes and they will constitute a strong lobby to prevent four-wheel-drive vehicles or other noisy activities from taking over and destroying the peaceful environment of the moor.
  When we discussed in the Select Committee the countryside leisure activities and the environmental damage that they could do, one of the issues that was raised time and again was that most problems could be solved and a satisfactory way forward could be found by careful management and negotiation and by obtaining agreement from all the bodies concerned.
  Mr. Bennett: I agree with my hon. Friend, but does she accept that it is important to increase the areas to which people have access so that the crowds are spread out? One of the things that came out of the inquiry was the advantage of making more and more areas available for people to walk over.
  Mrs. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I well remember the evidence that we received in the peak district, which is a heavily used open area with many conurbations around it. It was crucial to maximise the area to which people had a right of access and to ensure that there was good negotiation about who should be allowed to undertake their various leisure, agricultural and community pursuits. When the various bodies work in harmony, it is invariably possible to achieve a satisfactory and well managed way forward.
  Mr. Skinner: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's last statement about getting all those people together. How on earth can one get together the Country Landowners Association, the fanners, the commoners and all the ordinary, run-of-the-mill people who demand a right of access? I have listened to the debate for the past hour and I think that what we have here is a classic case of market forces versus planning agreements. It looks to me as though we are not battling against something tiny: it is the old-fashioned battle between those with property and rights and the rest of the people who want access to this part of Bodmin moor. For the life of me, I cannot say that I am too keen on travelling there, but it is obvious that many others want to do so.
  Mrs. Jackson: I suspect that there is some truth in my hon. Friend's point, but I also suspect that it is an oversimplification in this case. I was interested to read the letter from the Country Landowners Association suggesting that it is important to obtain environmentally sensitive area status for Bodmin moor—such status will be brought nearer by the Bill—partly because it
  "would encourage the conditions in which further voluntary access agreements could be reached"
  Mr. Skinner: I would like to believe that, but I have just been reading a letter from the Ramblers Association which says that we should not believe everything in the letter from the Country Landowners Association because it is full of misleading statements. We all know what the crack is in this place: the Government are at it every day,
  178
  trying to gloss over what they are up to. I think that the letter from the Country Landowners Association needs to be read over and over again because it is a sprat to catch a mackerel—although not on Bodmin moor.
  Mrs. Jackson: There is great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. Unless we have this agreement at this stage, before the Bill receives Royal Assent, we cannot guarantee that a small clique of landowners among the Common Land Forum will not put in place the restrictive measures which we have experienced over many years in the peak district in Yorkshire and Derbyshire.
  Mr. Bennett: There is a suspicion that country landowners have a double function in this. We started off with agreement that there would be access, but between patches of common there are landowners' holdings, some of which are substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned one. Landowners' interests are different from those of commoners. Landowners would like to have environmentally sensitive area status, but if commoners gain access to the commons, the logic is that they can gain access to the big landowners' land by the side of them. I suspect that that is where the country landowners, among others, started to change their attitude from supporting access to saying, "Hang on a minute—if we give access to the common, we shall have to give it on surrounding land."
  Mrs. Jackson: I suspect that my hon. Friend may be right. I do not want to keep harking back to last Sunday, but on Strines moor in my constituency the large landowner, Fitzwilliam estates, which has owned that moor for generations and which has been so stubborn that it will not give an inch—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about Bodmin moor, not the hon. Lady's constituency.
  Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was just that larger landowners were mentioned and I was making a point about my experience of them and their possible intentions in relation to Bodmin moor.
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend has mentioned large landowners. I think that she has studied clause 16, referring to allegedly the largest landowner in Cornwall: he owns the Duchy of Cornwall. My hon. Friend will notice that the Bill has the normal preamble referring to the Royal Assent that it will need. As we know, that is on all Bills. It is done in the name of Her Majesty, according to our unwritten constitution.
  Mr. Skinner: What if the Queen does not give Royal Assent?
  Mr. Flynn: Indeed. There might be unforeseen circumstances. But is there not a conflict of financial interest here? We have just had Lord Nolan's recommendation on declarations of financial interest. Is it inconceivable, as there is a family connection between the sovereign and the person who has the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was all very interesting, but it was a very long intervention.
  Mrs. Jackson: That was an interesting intervention, but it perhaps stresses only my general point: the crux of the

  179
  issue is that, if a negotiated settlement about an access agreement were in the Bill, we would not be debating it at such length as all parties would be agreed.
  I was especially interested in the letter on this issue from the Countryside Commission, which is financed with Government grants. Dated 10 February 1995, the letter said:
  "We regret that it has not been possible for you to achieve a negotiated settlement of the petitioners' concerns. Our position has always been that we want this Bill to succeed"—
  which the Opposition want as well—
  "and we believe that such a settlement would have assisted the passage of the Bill through Parliament."
  That is obviously true. If there had not been an attempt in the House of Lords to rule out the inclusion in the Bill of clear access provision, there would be no problem.
  I am further concerned that there are not sufficient safeguards to ensure the establishment of rights of access for recreation through the commoners council. Clause 5 covers access to leisure but does not mention or specify rights of access of ramblers, walkers and people who want to enjoy the open countryside or go off the beaten track to enjoy the very special wildlife and vegetation that I am sure one can find on Bodmin moor.
  Mr. Skinner: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talk about the council. When he was asked whether it was a quango, he said that it was not quite, but sort of. I want to know exactly how the council will be formed. Will people be nominated? Will there be a lot of patronage? Will there be wealthy people on it per se? Will some people be elected, and if so, will the elections be first past the post, the Liberal Democrats' proportional representation system, or what? My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who is well versed in such matters, did not give the proper information. Can my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) shed any light on the matter?
  Mrs. Jackson: My understanding is that the commoners council will comprise people who have an interest in grazing, farming or otherwise using parts of Bodmin moor. If the sponsors of the Bill have any further information, I am sure that they would want to explain the matter.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the moor consists of parcels of land in what most people would call Bodmin moor, the physical area? For each parcel of land, selective groups of people have commoners' rights which go back to the middle ages. The intervening bits of land were taken away by the Enclosure Acts. Anybody who has a right to use the common for grazing—I think that there are other rights, but I am not absolutely certain—is entitled to elect representatives. One of the people who was complaining about the Bill explained to me that the process was not particularly democratic. I can understand the argument that one piece of land might have two representatives and another might have three and that, like parliamentary constituencies, it is very difficult to establish fairness between—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an awfully interesting point, but the hon. Gentleman is taking a long time to explain it.
  Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). As what one might call the grazing industry reorganises itself, the commoners council could easily become one, two or at the most three people over a number of years. The same people might therefore be involved in different pockets of land and the crucial issue of access would again be determined by a very small number of people who have grazing interests on the common areas of Bodmin moor. That would concern us all.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady admit that there is a perfectly good footpath network throughout the moor? Is she merely rehearsing arguments for a wider right to roam over the whole of the United Kingdom?
  Mrs. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber while we have been discussing the paucity of rights of way over Bodmin moor that are shown on maps. The danger is that even the existing footpaths, which are few and far enough between, may be affected by the Bill.
  Mr. Bennett: As I explained before the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) came into the Chamber, I looked at the Ordnance Survey maps of Bodmin moor in preparation for the debate and was disappointed to find few rights of way recorded. I counted 16 ancient monuments and other archaeological sites on the map, none of which was linked to a public footpath. As I asked earlier, how does one get permission to look at those sites if there is no one with the right to say that one can go there?
  Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), too, will be aware that ancient monuments in open country are rarely close to public footpaths. My father liked to look at archaeological remains, including those on Bodmin moor, and probably the first and last time that I went rambling in that area was as a fairly small child looking for archaeological sites. I do not remember their ever being close to public footpaths.
  As we were saying earlier, such leisure activities are of interest only to a minority. There are not millions of people desperate to explore every archaeological site and trace of ancient history on Bodmin moor, or on any other moor. As has been argued through the ages, and certainly here today, an access agreement for areas of open country such as moorland or woodland—by no means across the whole country, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury suggested—would enable the relatively small number of people who want to indulge in such recreations, or to make academic studies, to do so without having to approach a rather nebulous body such as a commoners council, from which it might be difficult to get permission.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, the Opposition do not suggest that landowners and farmers are unreasonable people—perhaps one of us might, but my hon. Friend the

  181
  Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not suggesting any such thing at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish described how in his experience, if farmers are approached nicely for permission to walk across land and look at something that one finds interesting, there is usually no problem.
  Mr. Bennett: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that most people who work with their hands are proud of their skills. Most working farmers are proud of the land that they till and look after, and they are pleased to let other people go on to it. The problem arises with some of the people who own land but never do a day's work on it. They often want to keep people out so that they can use the land occasionally for shooting or some other such activity.
  Mrs. Jackson: I agree. I do not know whether that now happens on Bodmin moor, but to speed the progress of the legislation through the House, all we ask is that an access agreement be negotiated with all the parties so as to satisfy the petitioners from the Ramblers Association and the other organisations that have petitioned against the Bill. That is a small problem, and an easy one to solve. Once it has been solved, we can then allow this excellent Bill to go forward through the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. John Gunnell.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.
  Mr. Gunnell: I was going to start by referring to that matter. I apologise to the House for being a late entrant to the Chamber for the debate, although I have watched some of it on the screen in my room. I have thus heard speeches from some of the hon. Members who are sitting near me now.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the arguments regarding hon. Members watching debates in their rooms is that no one would come into the Chamber? Does he agree—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must get on to the Bill.
  Mr. Gunnell: My hon. Friend is correct. The availability of television broadcasts of the Chamber debates can have two effects. It can make Members lazy, but it can make people realise that an issue is important.
  Mr. Skinner: There is nothing wrong with watching "Brookside" on the other channel.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill, and the hon. Gentleman should get back to that subject.
  Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have not managed to get on to the Bill yet. My connection with Cornwall is as a tourist, and it is clear that tourism
  182
  is an important aspect of the Cornish economy. Any members of Cornwall county council who are listening will accept that it is important that Cornwall gets its share of the tourist industry. As someone who is in favour of as much public access as possible, I thought it important to speak in the debate. That is my direct connection with Cornwall. I have no relatives in the area.
  Tourists are interested in access, and some people will go to the moorlands because it gives them an opportunity to see a particular kind of habitat. They may, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), have a particular interest in archaeological sites. But others want to visit Bodmin moor to get away from things. Those people's views are represented by various organisations, whose briefings I have read since I became interested in the Bill.
  The interests of landowners and farmers are represented on one side, and the interests of ramblers on the other. The Countryside Commission seems to represent one side of the argument, but if one looks carefully at its letter, one realises that it is on the other side. The letter has been referred to in the debate, and it is not necessary to quote from it again.
  The Country Landowners Association and the farmers obviously have legitimate interests in the land, but they are not the only people with an interest. Judging by the words and works of the Countryside Commission, access to the countryside and to this particular stretch of countryside is important to people. I submit that it is also an important aspect of tourism. Most people go to Cornwall to visit the coast. The coastline is an area of outstanding natural beauty, but many also welcome the opportunity of a mixed holiday that enables them to visit the moor.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the coastal paths in Cornwall are extremely attractive but very popular? Many people go to the countryside for peace and quiet and to look at wildlife. One does not see much wildlife when there are hordes of people. The attraction of Bodmin moor is that there are far fewer people there. So, if one wants a balanced holiday, it is good to spend some time on the moor, if one gets good weather, and some time on the coastal footpath.
  Mr. Gunnell: I entirely agree. I come from Yorkshire and my family home is near open countryside, so I appreciate being able to walk there. I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker has the same view of access to the countryside in Yorkshire as is being presented—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I welcome walking on Bodmin moor, which is what we are talking about.
  Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important none the less to point out that the way in which we view the matter depends to some extent on our upbringing.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we come from Yorkshire, we understand that boggy moors have attractions, contrary to some of the sedentary comments that I have heard? Moors that may on the face of it seem boggy have significant attractions and a wealth of wildlife and interest.
  Mr. Gunnell: That is correct and there are people who study particular habitats and who will particularly want to

  183
  see the type of habitat available on the moor—to see the flora and creatures that live there—which is of particular interest to them.
  Mr. Skinner: While my hon. Friend is discussing the Bill, he should bear in mind that he represents a chunk of a city. I sometimes get the impression that city people lord it over people who live in rural areas. I was born and bred in a rural area—in most of the mining areas, the pit villages are surrounded by loads of fields, as Mr. Deputy Speaker will know—so I know. One of the problems that we always face with such Bills is that we can give the impression that people from the city somehow know best.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but I doubt whether there are any coal mines on Bodmin moor.
  Mr. Gunnell: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is correct.
  The availability of open countryside is extremely important to my constituents, who are very concerned because their open land is being spoiled by opencast mining. Six opencast sites have been agreed in my constituency, but I can see that I am making you restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend is too modest to mention the fact that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are distinguished photographers and need access to beautiful sites to take the sort of wonderful photographs that are now on exhibition in Bradford. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us how access is important to him to take those wonderful pictures.
  Mr. Gunnell: That is true. The law in many other countries allows better access than does ours and would not let a collaboration of landowners and farmers—and many people belong to organisations of both and so have two votes, so to speak—to cut off public access.
  I think of the years that I spent in the United States, which I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) were important to me for taking the photographs that he mentioned. I spent time in the national parks there. Access to them in the United States is different from that which we are discussing. It is almost open access. One cannot advertise in such areas. People have the freedom to go where they want, which is limited only by national park rangers who can decide whether an area is unsafe because of—
  Mr. Skinner: Guns?
  Mr. Gunnell: It is not because of guns. No guns are permitted.
  Mr. Skinner: What, in America?
  Mr. Gunnell: Guns are permitted in America but not in national parks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is testing my patience. We are debating the Bodmin Moor
  184
  Commons Bill. He must confine his remarks to its contents. If he does not, I shall have to ask him to take his seat.
  Mr. Gunnell: I was brought up in Birmingham, so I am fortunate that my interest in the countryside was stimulated when I was an evacuee during the war when my aunt used to take me into the country.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I have walked regularly on Bodmin moor with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and I have a great love for it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour party will never be forgiven in Cornwall for its disgraceful tactics in trying to talk out and destroy this important Bill? He should remember what he is doing to the Labour party's reputation in Cornwall.
  Mr. Gunnell: I am given to understand that I have been in the Chamber for longer than the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). I have apologised to the House for not having been able to be here at the start of the debate.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that our whole argument is that if the Bill's promoters give us an access agreement, they can have the Bill quickly? The people in Cornwall who want regulation must accept a balance between control of the moor and control of access to it. It is they who are delaying the Bill. We will have petitions and arguments on Report. Give us the access agreement and get on with it.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for making that clear. The Bill's position on access is more restrictive than hon. Members have been led to believe. Some clauses have been taken out from the Bill as originally drafted. A Bill that it was thought would give access to the public for rambling has been reduced.
  Mr. Morley: I do not think that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) was here at the start of the debate or he would have heard that the Opposition support the principle of the Bill. He knows that concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about access.
  Mr. Gunnell: When a tourist visitor intervenes in a measure that is specifically geared to an area, he enters a controversy. I should say why I am prepared to speak tonight. It is because I believe that public access is very important.
  I believe that that issue has not yet been determined. Many people would share the view of hon. Members like myself, who have spoken in the debate, that access to that land should be as open as possible, and that at the moment the proposals in the Bill are too restrictive. As I understand it, it is also agreed that Cornwall county council did consider the issue of more open access.
  Mr. Skinner: It should be placed on the record—I ask my hon. Friend to comment—that, earlier in the debate, the Tory hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made a speech opposing the proposals in the Bill, and other Back Benchers have done the same.
  What I am saying has nothing to do with the Labour party's position. Some of us, having read the Ramblers Association document, have taken the view that it has made a strong case, and the Ramblers Association has people in every constituency, including Worcester.

  185
  We are not here to try to prevent someone getting decent rights; we are here to ensure that everyone gets rights, and by a small amendment and an access agreement we can get satisfaction for everyone. Let us make it absolutely clear that that is what the business is about tonight.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for describing the position so clearly. I had recognised that to be the position. There is no intention of preventing the Bill's passage entirely. It is recognised that there is much in it of value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] No; I will not. I understand that, in order for that to happen, and in order for both parties to be satisfied—especially those who want a greater degree of access—there must be further discussion. There must be a proper—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that he is getting very near to tedious repetition. I have heard it time and again, so we are getting pretty nearly there.
  Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly would not want to be guilty of repetition of the type that you have described. Admittedly, only one important issue in the Bill concerns Members, so there is a certain amount of repetitiveness in what hon. Members are saying. They are saying that, currently, access is too limited and in the control of too few people.
  It is uncertain how many people serve on the commoners council, how they get there, and who determines how long they keep their places; so one does not know whether the matter will ever be reopened if the Bill passes as it is structured. We do not know whether the opportunity for public access that people strongly feel is necessary, and which many people feel is necessary, will be available if we allow the Bill to pass in its current form. There is no intention, as I understand it—
  Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, if he had heard—he probably did hear part of it on the teleprompter or whatever—the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), he would have known that he, with all his views and knowledge about rambling, felt that we were close to an agreement? We are talking about something that will last for a terribly long time, and it is important that we get it right. It is well known that, in private Bill procedure in the House of Commons, the way to get things done properly is to hold the Bill up and have further discussions. There are countless examples of private Bills that have emerged better as a result of long discussions and the chance to get people round a table again.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for explaining that, as the hon. Member for Worcester may agree, the process in which we are engaged is not obstructive but constructive. To make possible the constructive dialogue that I believe will follow tonight's debate, there must be the necessity for it, and that necessity will be found only if the Bill as it stands is not accepted by the House. There will follow negotiations that will result, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, in a better Bill.
  I think it right to play my part in such a cause. Access is important and should be determined democratically. It may be argued that Cornwall county council is a
  186
  democratic body. I used to be the leader of West Yorkshire council. I dare say it was not our countryside policy that led to our abolition; that resulted, rather, from our radical view on certain other matters—notably public transport. The Peaks park, a national park, was part of our area. We believed in providing access to the public—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman continues to test my patience. We are talking not about west Yorkshire but about Bodmin moor. I would be obliged if he confined his remarks to the latter. I do not want to have to interrupt again.
  Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Bill is but one of many such Bills. The restrictions placed on access to Bodmin may reverberate around the country in the form of other private Bills—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be so, but we are still debating the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill.
  Mr. Gunnell: I might just add—
  Mr. Bennett: Some of the local bodies say that they do not want a local agreement—there must be a national agreement. But national bodies such as the Country Landowners Association and the NFU say that they do not want a national agreement—agreements must be reached case by case. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the problem? Does not his west Yorkshire experience show that in this case we have to go for local negotiations?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made my ruling. I am fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's familiarity with west Yorkshire; I just wish he understood this Bill a little better.
  Mr. Gunnell: I shall speak just a little longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will give you no cause to tell me to be quiet again.
  I believe it possible to reach a local agreement if the Bill in its current form is rejected. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would understand that if the land concerned were on your doorstep.
  Mr. Hicks: While the hon. Gentleman was watching his television monitor in his office, he may have missed the reference to assurances that have been given by Cornwall county council, the promoter of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) confirmed earlier that, following discussion, the county council has agreed to seek a voluntary access agreement with the landowners and commoners of Bodmin moor commons. Furthermore, the county council, as of today's date, is setting the necessary machinery in motion forthwith. That is precisely what Opposition Members have been asking for during this debate, especially during the past hour or so. The positive dialogue for which the hon. Gentleman has called will be denied, as will access agreements, if the Bill fails to obtain a Second Reading this evening.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must reply to the intervention.
  Mr. Gunnell: I was about to do so. There is a great difference between a provision appearing on the face of

  187
  the Bill and a commitment that an issue will be addressed in future. I have served on a number of Standing Committees in which hon. Members raised important matters that were not mentioned in the Bill concerned. Ministers were sympathetic and suggested that those issues could be dealt with later. In practice, however, it is rare that those issues are addressed.
  It is important that certain issues appear on the face of the Bill. I hope that the discussions that I believe will take place will make the Bill more positive. I am also concerned about the cost to the county council of promoting the Bill.
  Mr. Tyler: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could contemplate the consequences if the Bill does not get its Second Reading here in the House. There will then be no discussion and no access agreement on Bodmin moor. If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier, he would know that I am a regular walker on Bodmin moor. If there is no Second Reading, there will be no discussion and no access agreement.
  Mr. Gunnell: I would be surprised if the county council wanted the Bill to fall.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one or two of us have dealt with many private Bills in the past— sadly, too many? We all know that if the Bill does not complete its Second Reading tonight, it can be scheduled for Second Reading on another day. If it is unopposed, it will go through on the nod at 2.30 pm. If we can achieve an agreement, the whole process will be extremely quick.
  Mr. Gunnell: I am aware that my hon. Friend has worked on a number of private Bills in order to improve them from the public perspective. I know that he has been successful in a number of cases.
  I assume that Cornwall county council is not prepared to bury its head in the sand. Promoting a Bill costs a considerable amount of money as I am well aware, having taken the Leeds Supertram Act 1993 through the House. I took over the responsibility for that measure from my predecessor, now Lord Merlyn-Rees.
  I recognise the there are important costs associated with promoting such a Bill. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made it absolutely clear that the matter can be corrected in a very simple manner, provided that there is access. As there was access when the Bill was originally conceived, it would seem to me that Cornwall county council does not wish to stop access to Bodmin moor. I accept from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that there is a degree of access already, but that access appears to be put at risk by the framework of the Bill. As do not know the constitution of the body on which it depends, we do not know how the matter will be handled. I accept that Cornwall county council has put the Bill before us with the best of intentions. It is not the intention of hon. Members to thwart that Bill and to make it spend the money again.
  We intend to put in place a satisfactory access agreement. I understand that the present agreement is in the hands of people to whom the House, and perhaps
  188
  Cornwall county council, cannot dictate. Therefore, it is important that proper access provisions should appear on the face of the Bill. We should participate in a constructive process and reach an agreement that makes good sense to the local people and to the tourists who visit Cornwall.
  In my contribution tonight, I have tried to keep closely to the remit of Bodmin moor as we are considering a private Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber recognise the issue on which the debate is based. I am anxious that there should be legislation that allows people appropriate access to the moor and that those provisions should appear on the face of the Bill. We should not allow another body to determine that when we do not know what its intentions might be. Perhaps it would limit access and the hon. Member for North Cornwall would not be able to continue his walks across the moor.
  Therefore, I do not believe that I have been part of an obstructive process. As a consequence of our debating the legislation tonight, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) has a distinguished record in this area—and I have been unable to attend a cricket dinner.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that the Labour party is involved in a filibuster in order to prevent the Bill's Second Reading.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will decide what is in order in the House.
  Mr. Gunnell: This will be the last time that I stand up as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I have made my point clearly: I do not regard this process as obstructive. I do not believe that it is inimical to the interests of the county council which represents the people of Cornwall and is responsible for the local economy. Perhaps we have upset certain country landowners and some farmers who believe that their land should be inviolate. I believe that we should spell out what sort of access is permissible.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is important to remember that, apart from the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who spoke in support of the Bill, one of the main contributions to the debate came from the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). We may not agree about some issues, but tonight he made it abundantly clear that he opposed the Bill in principle because it is not good enough. It is not a party political issue. Another major contribution to the debate came from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Hon. Members who have been here for some time know that my hon. Friend understands the British countryside better than anyone.
  Mr. Hicks rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 19.

  Division No. 130]

  [9.58 pm

  189

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Bates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Harvey, Nick

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Hendry, Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Hicks, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Carrington, Matthew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Knapman, Roger

  Chidgey, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Clappison, James

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Congdon, David

  Legg, Barry

  Conway, Derek

  Lidington, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  MacKay, Andrew

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

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Day, Stephen

  Malone, Gerald

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Marlow, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mates, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Merchant, Piers

  Duncan, Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Norris, Steve

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  190

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tracey, Richard

  Pearson, Ian

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tyler, Paul

  Richards, Rod

  Walden, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wells, Bowen

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Streeter, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Sweeney, Walter

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Thomason, Roy

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

  NOES

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Loyden, Eddie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Flynn, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Gunnell, John

  Hanson, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hoyle, Doug

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mr. Terry Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Defamation Bill [Lords], the Police Bill [Lords], the Industrial Tribunals Bill [Lords] and the Employment Rights Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Question agreed to.

  Defamation Bill [Lords]
  Postponed proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, resumed
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am pleased that, after that ramble across Bodmin moor, during which the beast of Bolsover was temporarily transmogrified into the beast of Bodmin, I can resume the speech that was interrupted at 7 o'clock. At that time, if my memory serves, I was talking about clause 14 and the Hoffmann amendment. Lord Hoffmann himself did not vote for his amendment and I suggest that it went further than is necessary to achieve the end desired by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) in his defamation action against The Guardian and by any other hon. Members who might find themselves in a similar position because of parliamentary privilege.
  I suggest that there is an alternative way to deal with the problem, which would not have the effect of handing over decisions on privilege from the House itself to individual Members of the House. The Hoffmann amendment should be altered in due course so that the decision-making power on the waiving of privilege would be held by the Committee dealing with privilege in each House of Parliament.
  I propose to make some comments on other clauses, and I would be grateful for the Parliamentary Secretary's observations, either tonight or in due course. Clauses 5 and 6 deal with time limits and we have heard several submissions to the House on that subject, including one from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) who, as we have discovered, is the in-House expert in such matters. He said that a 12-month time limit may be too short—I respectfully agree—and he gave the good example of a potential plaintiff who has to await the end of police disciplinary proceedings. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that if we consider the law on the extension of time for the service of writs in personal injury actions, we see that the law can be unpredictable. It would be far better to have a clear statutory definition of the time limit, but it should be longer than one year.
  In any event, if the time limit is reduced to one year, it will create an anomaly between the law of England and Wales and the law of Scotland. I am glad to see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in his place because he has experience of such matters. I am advised that the time limit in Scotland remains three years. If the time limit in Scotland is three years and the limit in England and Wales is one year, that is likely to lead to what is nowadays called forum shopping in cases in which proceedings are not brought timeously in England and Wales, or in Northern Ireland, to which the one-year limit would also apply.
  These days, most publication is UK-wide, although generally the burden of publication is in one of the jurisdictions. Although private international law addresses some of the problems that might arise, it does not meet them all. I am told that the doomsday scenario among Scottish lawyers—but I find it hard to believe that Scottish lawyers are reluctant to earn any fees that might result—is that libel lawyers in London might use the Scottish courts as a forum in which to start proceedings that would otherwise be time-barred. It would make us
  192
  look rather foolish if cases could be brought in Scotland on the same facts in the same publication after a time bar had run out in England. The case for a shared time bar must be strong.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: My hon. and learned Friend is making a good fist of understanding Scots law. Perhaps he has in mind some forum shopping after the next election, or the one after that. Has my hon. and learned Friend turned his mind to the inhibition that the present law places on attacking the character of the plaintiff? That inhibition, from which certain prominent individuals have obviously profited in the past, is to be removed by the Bill, but it will remain in Scotland. Has my hon. and learned Friend given any consideration to the anomaly that will arise if those two different systems stand side by side?
  Mr. Carlile: I have, and I will deal with it in my next point but one. My hon. and learned Friend suggested that I might be interested in the odd wee briefie in Scotland. The answer is, of course, any time that I am free. Perhaps he would like to have a word with his clerk.
  Clause 8 deals with the summary procedure. I am concerned that the damages limit of £10,000 is much too low. A point was made earlier about the money that newspapers make from sensational stories—and no doubt they do. What is more, there is no doubt that newspapers calculate the effect on their circulation of publishing a sensational story which may have risks attached to it. They are prepared to pay not very reliable witnesses sums far in excess of £10,000 just to be able to quote them, and photograph them for the story.
  The damages payable under a summary procedure, which we do need, should be proportionate to the sums that the newspapers can make from the stories. If we do not do that, newspapers will make £50,000 or £60,000 clear profit from the story, which they will have assessed with great and cynical care. Paying £10,000 to the poor person who has been libelled will pale into insignificance and will go down as a small business expense.
  Those who have been libelled, and there are quite a number in the House now, including one or two who share this Bench with me—they will go to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for advice next time—would share the view that it is important that newspapers should not be able to see libel as a profitable business to be indulged in at will.
  I want to make a point about clause 8, and clause 9, which is associated with it. It has been put to me by an entirely partial organisation—the Fleet Street Lawyers Society—but it has expressed it well and may be on to something. In clause 9(2) there appears to be a provision which will enable a judge to draft an apology and direct that those words should appear in a particular form and in a particular place in a newspaper. I am all in favour of newspapers being called to account when they defame—
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: Except in my case.
  Mr. Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening earlier, he would have heard me make it clear that I support his wish to have his case tried. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? Many hon. Members would like to see the hon. Gentleman's case tried, and I am one of them.

  193
  My point is that clause 9(2) creates a new spectre for the press which is the drafting and placing in newspapers of certain forms of statement by judges. That may be one step too far against the freedom of the press. There are certain circumstances in which the adage, "Publish and be damned" has some validity. The House should hesitate before it goes down the road of judge-drafted apologies, placed in a form directed by the judge and in a place in a newspaper directed by the judge. No doubt, we shall return to that discussion.
  Evidence of convictions and character was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East. It is dealt with in clauses 12 and 13. Clause 13 plainly gives newspapers the opportunity to rake up dirt about employment that was not known at the time of the defamation and that was sought only after an action was started. I have been involved professionally not in defamation cases, but in other cases where expensive private investigators have been sent to rake up dirt on people. The way in which they do so is extremely intrusive. We heard some illustrations earlier. They usually start with the dustbins and go downwards from there. We should hesitate before permitting such activity to take place.
  Furthermore, as my hon. and learned Friend intimated, we may allow that to happen in England, but the law of Scotland will remain different. The rule in Scott v. Sampson will continue to be in force in Scotland, whereas it will be abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The present law in Scotland allows a dishonest pursuer, as they call him there, or plaintiff, as we call him here, to protect his reputation in court. The judge or jury is not entitled to know that, in truth, he is a dishonest person or a person of bad character. The defence is not allowed to introduce evidence to that effect. The likes of, let us say, the late Robert Maxwell have made much use of those provisions to conceal their true character from the courts.
  The Bill permits a disparity between England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland. That will encourage forum shopping because, plainly, plaintiffs who feel vulnerable as to their character will start their action, if they possibly can, in Scotland. What is more, as I understand it, in Scotland, they would be able to insist on a jury trial. I see my hon. and learned Friend shaking his head. I ask him to sort that one out with the Scottish Media Lawyers Society when he is next in Edinburgh. There is, however, an anomaly between English and Scottish law. I urge the Minister to resolve it before the Bill is finalised.
  Apart from clause 14, which causes great anxiety, and about which the House has heard from me and other hon. Members, the Bill is useful and can be turned into a tidying-up and reform of the law of defamation. That will make it simpler and give more people access to the courts, although still leaving many way outside the financial prospect of bringing an action for libel or slander.
  I hope that we shall be permitted to have a full debate on the Hoffmann amendment on the Floor of the House, that we will be able to offer alternatives for debate by the House and that it will not, in any sense, be a whipped debate. There are fairly ugly rumours and suspicions that, in the House of Lords, there was an unofficial whip on the Hoffmann amendment—certainly a great deal of encouragement—and that the neutrality that the Government contend that there was, was somewhat
  194
  artificial. If that is so, I hope that we will not have a repeat performance when the House considers the matter during later proceedings on the Bill.
  10.23 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In a House that, as usual, seems to be stuffed with members of the legal profession, it is slightly intimidating for a lay person such as myself to contribute to the debate. I feel already their blood rising when they see someone standing not exactly in the box, but in a sort of court; they are waiting just to get their teeth into what I am about to say.
  I want to say only three things. One is about the plaintiff being given a proper right of reply should they be libelled. Clause 2(4) mentions an opportunity to do that in an offer to make amends. Will the Minister consider building into the Bill a provision that, when newspapers make an apology, as they sometimes offer to do when settling out of court, they should have to make it as prominent as the original libel, and—possibly—reproduce in its entirety the apology that they made in court?
  In my experience, newspapers usually fillet the large slice of humble pie that they have had to eat. It is reduced to a relatively small piece of pie that they tend to poke away in some obscure part of the newspaper. That is extremely annoying to the person who has been libelled. They do not feel that they have had a fair showing in the paper.
  A line in a popular song says, "It ain't what you do do, it's more what you don't do." My second point is that the Bill don't do justice to the fact that newspapers can offset all their costs in actions, whereas plaintiffs have to pay out of their net income. That is totally wrong. Newspapers offset not only their legal costs and VAT, but are often insured—partly at least—against the award that may be made against them. Although it is not the place of my hon. Friend the Minister, the Bill's tax implications should be seriously considered.
  An individual, not the newspaper as an institution, should be held responsible for the libel. There is something to be said for newspaper editors being held partially liable. Unless they are hit in their own pockets, they will not have any incentive to act otherwise—not even to make their own staff check the details of what they are about to print. We all know that stories go to print without the person whom they are about to traduce being contacted.
  The third thing missing in the Bill, not surprisingly, is any reference to the gouging fees that the legal profession charges people who have to go to court to defend themselves. I admit that, on occasions, some of my hon. Friends have assisted me. Lord Williams said that he did not support an amendment to the Bill in another place on the basis that scales are often uneven in defamation cases—which is absolutely true—where the plaintiff is a private person who cannot get legal aid and the defendant is often a wealthy corporation.
  I would love it if we could incorporate something in the Bill to address the fact that plaintiffs who cannot get legal aid can hardly find a barrister to do the job for less than £300 or £400 an hour. In fact, silks charge about £1,000 an hour, which is simply appalling. [Interruption.] That is certainly the case in London libel courts.
  In Committee—where I very much hope that I shall have the opportunity to speak—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear it in mind that we should be trying

  195
  to establish a level playing field on both sides of a libel action. At the moment, the scales are loaded in favour of newspapers, which is why there is so much discontent about how defamation laws in this country work. In Committee, we must try to strike a balance.
  10.28 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: I have only two points to make. I am neither a lawyer nor a Member with a grievance, which makes me a distinct minority among those who have spoken in the debate. But what I am is a Member of Parliament—one who has an interest in how Parliament has developed, and how it has attempted to claim its rights over the years.
  As a Member of Parliament, I view with some alarm the casual way in which, into an otherwise perfectly benign, uncontroversial, helpful Bill, has been slipped an amendment that would have the effect of striking out a fundamental of our constitution. That may seem rather an extravagant thing to say to a thin Tuesday night House on the day before we rise for the recess, but I am afraid that that is what we are talking about, and I hope that the House will understand it.
  Many of us will say that we have genuine sympathy with the hon. Members who find themselves in the predicaments that we have heard about, and that we want to do something to help them, but we live in an environment in which privilege has been claimed for proceedings here, and we would be ill advised to trespass on that arrangement unless we had given the whole idea the most careful consideration and knew precisely what we were doing.
  In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that if we did as is suggested we would simply be "closing a loophole". Actually, we would be altering the Bill of Rights of 1688. That is the "loophole" that we would be closing. I know that it may be a bit old-fashioned, but it is worth reminding ourselves what the Bill of Rights says:
  "Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".
  On the whole, that formulation has served the House rather well for 300 years. It is rather sharp and acute, and has a point to it. Above all, it has kept Parliament and the courts out of the conflicts that have bedevilled political systems all over the world. Each has known its place, because ever since 1688 privilege has been enshrined in that clause of the Bill of Rights.
  When amendments are introduced late in the day to deal, so it is believed, with particular court cases of the moment by allowing hon. Members a waiver of privilege, as though that were a matter affecting no one but the individual hon. Member concerned, whatever our sympathies with such individuals, many of us will say, "I am afraid that things are just not like that." The matter of privilege is just not like that.
  It is not possible for individual Members of Parliament to claim waivers of privilege, because privilege belongs to the House of Commons itself, and it is there for a reason. We hold privilege not so much for ourselves but on behalf of the people, who have set up a system of democratic representation and given us certain rights of privilege to speak on their behalf.
  196
  We have to exercise that right responsibly. I could stand here and say the most outrageous things, about the chairman of my constituency party—
  Mr. Boateng: Surely not.
  Dr. Wright:—or about the editor of The Times, and sometimes I feel provoked to do both. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, the first part of that sentence should immediately be deleted from the record.
  The right of privilege is there for a reason, and the obligation that goes with it is to use it responsibly.
  On the other side, we know that journalists have treated politicians with magnificent contempt not only in latter days but for hundreds of years. They have lampooned them, traduced them, defamed them and done all kinds of monstrous things to them. Despite the predicaments in which some hon. Members find themselves, all that was far worse in the past than it is today,
  But in all that time—even when a daily columnist has suggested that an hon. Member does not possess his own hair—it has never been suggested that we should rush to the courts because of such treatment. Such matters are too important for that. Matters of privilege are embedded in how the House works.
  This is not the time to rehearse the arguments and anxieties expressed in another place and by hon. Members about some of the implications of the Bill. I want to focus simply and briefly on a fundamental point. Only Parliament itself could waive a privilege that belongs to it on behalf of the people. An individual hon. Member could not waive it because that would undercut the purpose of privilege itself. It might be possible to introduce a mechanism so that Parliament could find a way of allowing individuals to waive privilege, but that would require a special procedure. We are in deep and dangerous territory, and casual amendments to Bills are not the solution.
  I end with my second point, which is a procedural one. We are told that Lord Hoffmann tabled the amendment in the other place only so that it could be discussed and debated. As we have heard, he did not feel that he could vote for it. In addition, the Minister said earlier that he wanted only to have the matter debated. The problem is that Parliament does not have the mechanism to enable that immensely important constitutional debate to take place. With great respect to those hon. Members who will serve on it, such a debate will not take place in Committee. It will not take place on Report, although we have been promised some discussion and a vote later. Our discussion will not be informed by the extensive, expert and critical scrutiny that an amendment or a derogation from the Bill of Rights warrants. Such an amendment would require a Committee of Privileges to pronounce on it, and would certainly require a Joint Committee, as proposed by hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), to consider it.
  The real problem is that when Parliament wants to consider such matters, it does not have the mechanism to do so. I speak as someone who favours constitutional change—I am not conservative in these matters. In wanting to make constitutional change, however, we must not make change as Parliament tends to—on the hoof and without thought, storing up problems for the future.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman's party is committed to a great deal of constitutional change. Is he

  197
  suggesting that the House is incapable of dealing with such constitutional change and that it would have to refer it to special Committees?
  Dr. Wright: The Minister's intervention invites me to go further than I intended, but I shall resist that temptation. I shall say simply that the fact that we have no special procedure to deal with constitutional matters, and instead treat them as though they were ordinary laws, is the source of many of our problems and discontents.
  The time has come to try to develop the mechanisms and machinery that would enable us to deal with the Bill and all the other things that we propose. Personally, I would favour a constitutional commission—analogous to the Law Commission—to which such matters could be referred and which could produce expert and authoritative advice for the House. The way in which this change is being made is precisely the way in which it should not be done. We should not proceed casually and in a hurry without the reflection and expertise that is required.
  We have had a golden rule governing the relationship between Parliament and the courts for 300 years. It has been enshrined in the article of the Bill of the Rights to which I have referred. In so far as we have anything resembling a written constitution, that article of the Bill of Rights is an important component of it. I do not believe that, on reflection, the House would want to sweep all that aside without consideration on the back of a Bill that is really about something else.
  10.40pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall intervene in the debate for about 60 seconds. On Report, we may be able to go into clause 14 and, in Committee, I hope that I will not have to draw on my personal experience of libel and defamation, but I must repeat the notice that I gave my hon. Friend the Minister about the judgment in Northern Ireland in the case involving The Daily Telegraph.
  I am glad that paragraph 12(2) of schedule 1 states:
  "In this paragraph a 'public meeting' means a meeting bona fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance or discussion of a matter of public concern, whether admission to the meeting is general or restricted."
  This is not a criticism of the judge, but it is incredible that a press conference—with members of the press invited to give more publicity to an issue—could have been determined in any court in any part of the United Kingdom as not being a public meeting.
  I have no interests as a long-term reader of The Daily Telegraph, but it should be disqualified from trying to argue that it had qualified privilege, subject to explanation or contradiction, in reporting what was said at the press conference. I hope that that can be overturned on appeal, but I certainly believe that that part of the schedule should be sufficient to ensure that a newspaper trying to do its duty in sharing honestly expressed views with the public is able to do so without being liable to being left without any defence if the matter becomes the subject of a libel case.
  10.41pm
  Mr. Boateng: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an important debate, albeit it one that was interrupted by other matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon
  198
  (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) made contributions which underlined the importance of the deliberations that the House is about to engage upon in relation to article 9 of the Bill of Rights, as did other hon. Members. I am concerned that the Government clearly do not intend to accede to any provisions by which it might be possible to give that important constitutional issue the airing and deliberation that the Opposition believe that it deserves.
  Clearly, the Government are not prepared to accede to the motion for a Joint Committee of both Houses. If that is not to be the case, I urge them at this late stage to consider whether dealing with the matter on Report is the most satisfactory way to proceed, particularly when they have the option of splitting consideration of the Bill hereafter between a Committee of the whole House, on the Floor of the House—to consider clause 14 and debate it at length, with the opportunity for amendment—and a Standing Committee to deal with the remainder of the Bill. That at least would give an opportunity for the full and considered debate that this important issue deserves and would not cause those who take note of our proceedings to believe that we treated it with anything other than the seriousness that it deserves.
  Whatever some Conservative Members have said, we are talking about a major constitutional change, and it should not be dealt with in the way that the Government propose. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister and his colleagues to think again.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been an excellent debate and, in a way, we have managed to focus the attention of the House on those aspects of the Bill that are likely to lead to further debate in Committee and on Report.
  A number of contributions have been made—by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—about the position regarding the limitation period. The Government have always said that the limitation period should also be subject to the operation of the discretion that is attached thereto. I do not want go into the detail now, but many of the concerns ventilated in the debate will be addressed by that. I look forward to developing those arguments in Committee.
  The ruling on Scott v. Sampson and the Bill's proposals on that—and the way in which it impinges on the Scottish situation—were also of great interest. I hope that those concerns are addressed by the limitations attached to the relevant clause. Again, because of the wide concern that has been expressed in the debate, I hope that we can deal with the matter in more detail in Committee.
  Finally, I must deal with some of the points on clause 14. I must correct the impression that it was added as a side wind, as it was described. It was introduced by Lord Hoffmann in the House of Lords. In Committee, the Lord Chancellor said that he did not think it appropriate that a vote should be taken because there had not been enough time to debate the issue at length. It was then debated yet again on Report. That was an excellent and very full

  199
  debate. People who have read the report of that debate— I know that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery agrees—know that it was a wide-ranging debate with excellent contributions from people with wide experience. In my opening remarks, I said that that debate would be helpful to hon. Members. I hope that all hon. Members will have had the opportunity of having read it when we discuss the matter on Report.
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the view of the majority of those who spoke on Third Reading in the Lords that the matter should be considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses. He has had ample opportunity to consider that proposal. If the Government have decided against it, does he not have the responsibility to tell us why? It is not a matter that should be dealt with by a deafening silence. Why will the Government not agree to its being considered in a Joint Committee?
  Mr. Evans: Again, I turn to the suggestion that I made in my opening statement that the report of the Lords Third Reading debate should be read by hon. Members. They would see that the Lord Chancellor made it clear that there were two options: the matter could have been referred to a Joint Committee or it could be dealt with then, with a similar vote being taken in this House, and that is the course of action that was taken.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  POLICE BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. Streeter.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. Streeter.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. Streeter.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5th June, Standing Orders Nos. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) and 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996.— [Mr. Streeter.]

  Community Care (Scottish Borders)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to rehearse some of the fears and anxieties felt in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) about the consequences of the budgetary constraints facing the new unitary authority in the provision of community care in the borders.
  I do not wish to waste valuable time tonight in detailed castigations of central Government for causing that problem, although it would be easy to do so. Opposition Members often resort to blaming the Government for how we got here. I do not care to rehearse those problems tonight.
  I start by placing on the record the difficulties facing the local authority as a result of the fact that the 1996–97 financial settlement required the social work committee of the new unitary Scottish Borders council to reduce its social work budget by 9 per cent. in the current financial year.
  For the purposes of tonight's argument, it does not matter how we arrived at the situation or who is to blame. Recrimination will not help us to make the best progress we can. I am anxious to confront the future, consider the problems that confront the local authority, and discover what can be done, in partnership with central Government, to try to solve some of the problems.
  I should be misleading the House if I did not say that I was deeply anxious and troubled by the position that is unfolding locally. I shall use the time available to me to ask the Government whether they will consider undertaking a fundamental and thorough review of the current system of finance for community care, not only in south-east Scotland and the Borders region but throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The Scottish Borders council is now being forced to save about £240,000—nearly a quarter of a million pounds—from this year's general care budget of £3.7 million. It is being forced to make that saving in 12 months, and as a result must take decisions that mete out an extreme form of rough justice—especially, in the first instance, on the home care assistants, who are being made to bear the brunt of the cuts, which are being made in a rush.
  Having spent some time studying the local authority's position, I support the principles behind the decisions that the council is taking, because they are obviously the least worst option. I have been persuaded by the social work department that any other attempt to make savings of that magnitude in the required time scale would have required a significant reduction in the hours of care available to clients, which is in no one's interests and must be avoided at all costs.
  The measures are being forced on the council in an unduly short period, with indecent haste. People throughout the Borders feel great distress and concern. No one opposes sensible attempts to obtain value for money, but the scale of the savings that must be made in such a hopelessly short period has forced the council to reassess
  202
  all its existing clients and determine whether current levels of care were appropriate to their current needs, and whether they could survive with less care. That in itself is a difficult process.
  Secondly, the council is considering a pilot project to externalise a significant proportion of the in-house services provided in home care. That will effectively create, for the first time, a two-tier system of pay for home care assistants—comprising care tasks, which involve personal duties such as bathing people; and domestic tasks, which involve lighting fires, cleaning and so on.
  All this is being done at the same time as the council is expected to deal with changes in the system of social work, including the alteration in the capital disregard when calculating the means available to clients for residential long-term care. That change was announced in last year's Budget, and the money being offered in recompense does not begin to meet the loss of income that the council will suffer.
  Moreover, there are increased costs associated with paying for a raft of new social work duties involved in the implementation of the Children Act 1989 and the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995.
  Taken together, all these elements produce extreme financial pressure on social work departments such as the one run by Borders council. This evening, I call on the Government to look carefully again at these financial pressures, and I ask the Minister to consider whether it is possible, even at this late stage, to continue the three-year transitional relief that the council until recently enjoyed. That would give the council more time to prepare for the changes and to ease their implementation.
  I suggest that the pilot scheme implemented by Borders council runs with the grain of Government policy. It seeks to do much of what the Government want councils in general to achieve. The scheme could serve as a model for other areas if it were properly financed and implemented.
  The real danger for the Government is that the problems facing the council are likely to worsen significantly because of the shortage of money and the lack of time to make the necessary changes. That combination will lead to difficulties which, in the long run, will not do anything to promote the idea and policy of community care—a policy to which the Government are rightly committed.
  A series of problems face Borders council at present, and the Government should be alive to them and should seek to work with the council to remedy them. First, there are the severe cuts that could be made to the income available to home care assistants. These are vital workers who perform intimate services for the clients they help, often for far longer than the hours for which they are paid. Their morale has, not surprisingly, been severely hit. If the good will of this vital group of workers is lost, we shall, in effect, have cut off our nose to spite our face.
  Secondly, the break in continuity between clients and home care assistants is a worrying aspect of the changes. These relationships have often been built up over many years; they are invaluable to the physical, mental, social and psychological care of some clients, some of whom live in isolated parts of the rural, landward areas of the constituency. There is also the possibility that the contract requirements will be so restrictive and tightly drawn in terms of financial constraints that either they will not be tendered for by any organisation because it will be

  203
  impossible to keep their profit and loss accounts in the black, or they will be taken over by private companies that will make them work by cutting corners. As a consequence, standards will fall and the social work department will have to pick up the pieces.
  I received a letter from the Royal College of Nursing which expands on some of those fears. It makes two points about the Scottish Borders council that the Government should take on board. First, it states:
  "The RCN is particularly concerned that cutbacks in domiciliary care services will have knock-on effects on community health services,"—
  which come out of another budget but are still public expenditure—
  "placing yet more pressure on community nurses."
  That would be in no one's interests.
  Secondly, the RCN is rightly concerned about some of the aspects of the proposals to externalise some of the domiciliary services which
  "raise questions of accountability and health and safety both for the carer and the client. There are also concerns about assessing the suitability of carers and whether police checks will be mandatory for services contracted out."
  Those are all important questions.
  I wonder whether we are giving ourselves enough time to think matters through, given the way in which the pilot project is being forced on the local council in the Borders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is most concerned and had he not had engagements elsewhere, he would have told the Minister that the financial constraints have been so severe that the Scottish Borders council social work department has been unable to negotiate realistic fees with the owners of local private homes. The department is simply laying down levels of fees that it can afford and that bear no relation to the costs borne by private home owners. Therefore, the plural provision in the private sector in the Borders region could be severely prejudiced.
  I hope that the Government will examine the problem as a matter of urgency. I perceive a willingness to change and run with the grain of the Government's policy. Externalising some of those domiciliary services could be done sensibly in a bona fide way particularly through voluntary organisations such as Crossroads. However, such organisations would face great difficulties in tendering for contracts as they do not have the administrative or financial capability to do so. That is a great shame. It is also possible that home care assistants could organise a service more cheaply and efficiently and provide better value for money, but not within the time scale or in the present circumstances in the Borders. The Government should take those problems very much to heart and sort them out in future.
  In conclusion, I hope that I have laid down some markers to show that there is real concern in the Scottish Borders about some of the enforced decisions that are being taken by the social work department. I pay tribute to the work that is being carried out, but there could be real problems later this year. If the pilot scheme does not work because client needs exceed the available budget and nobody tenders for the contracts to externalise the services, the social work department will be left with no alternative way of making the savings required but to cut
  204
  the number of hours available to clients. That will put people at risk, so it is not acceptable. If things are bad this year, according to some of the references from Ministers that have been reported to me, they will be even worse next year.
  Can the Minister reassure those who are struggling with the problems and trying their best to make the system work according to Government policy? They are shackled to taking difficult short-term decisions that are causing great distress to people who do not deserve to suffer in that way. We must sort out the mess and ensure that there is sensible provision of community care which meets the needs of clients in the Scottish Borders council area in the near future.
  11.5 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing the debate, and on making many useful points tonight.
  I have good news about Crossroads, which is currently funded by the Scottish Office. It recently received a one-off additional grant in recognition of its contribution. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues that are relevant not only to the Scottish borders but more widely regarding the arrangements for funding, service provision and support for the most vulnerable people in our society.
  I shall address the specific points about community care services in the borders, but first I shall refer briefly to the funding of social work services in Scotland. The implementation of the community care policy has initiated a significant shift in the provision of health and social care services for vulnerable people towards care in their own homes and in residential accommodation in the community.
  The substantial additional financial resources that have been allocated to authorities reflect the central role of social work departments in developing the pattern of social care provision in their areas. In the current year, local authorities have some £662 million available for their community care responsibilities, compared with £378 million at the beginning of the decade.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to cuts in services and to concerns expressed by the Royal College of Nursing. By making more effective use of their resources, authorities should be in a strong position to ensure that appropriate levels of support are available for vulnerable people. The local authorities will continue to be responsible for undertaking care needs assessments. When services are contracted out, authorities will continue to promote standards through contract conditions. Users of contracted-out services will continue to have access to local authority complaints procedures. I accept the importance that the hon. Gentleman placed on monitoring.
  An additional £250,000 has been allowed within the grant-aided expenditure allocation to the Scottish Borders council for the provision of adult community care services. We would encourage all local authorities to accord appropriate priority to the provision of services on which vulnerable people rely.
  Concern has been expressed that the criteria for receiving home help services will be reassessed as part of the tendering process. As a matter of good practice, all local authorities should regularly re-examine the services

  205
  they provide, to ensure that resources are targeted properly. That exercise will identify the types of home care service that people require. Eligibility criteria in the borders will not be changed.
  As to the cost of new circulars—for example, guidance about the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995— we have issued a number of guidance documents advising councils about their social work functions as part of the arrangements for local government reorganisation. They relate to existing responsibilities and do not require the provision of additional resources.
  Transitional protection was provided to authorities where there was a traditionally high level of DSS expenditure on residential placements proportional to population needs. The arrangements ended last year, but monitoring of local authority expenditure on residential accommodation in the borders shows that the original DSS transfer allocation was generous.
  I accept that many authorities are now reviewing their budgets. That is a matter of good practice, but it is particularly important when a legacy of reduced surpluses and unrealistically high underlying expenditure levels has been inherited from outgoing councils.
  Reference was made to funding in the borders. I believe that the allocation was generous, as I said. Many of the residents in residential and nursing home care supported by DSS funding prior to 1993 had not been from the Borders. The borders region thus had no responsibility to fund its successors.
  Despite that, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities agreed that Borders should receive funding, in the form of transitional protection, to help in the first three years. During that period, the former local authority's expenditure on purchasing places in independent sector residential and nursing home accommodation was well below the levels estimated when the DSS transfer allocation to the authority was calculated.
  None the less, the allocation for community care responsibilities has increased by more than £250,000 from last year's level, to over £14 million. It is for the local authority to determine its funding priorities.
  Particularly important is the fact that we have encouraged authorities to plan the use of current and future financial resources as part of a strategic approach to the provision of community care services. Authorities are therefore required to set out those proposals in their community care plans, which are reviewed—rightly—on an annual basis. In addition, local community care arrangements can be monitored closely, first, through local consultation; secondly, by the Scottish Office through research; thirdly, through statistical returns; fourthly, through the social work services inspectorate; and fifthly, through the community care implementation unit.
  I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, that monitoring is very important. If people are to receive the services they need, authorities must aim to achieve value for money from all the services they purchase—both those purchased from independent providers and those from their in-house services.
  Local authority residential care homes are generally substantially more expensive than independent sector homes, without necessarily providing better standards of
  206
  care. Research has not found a relationship between cost and quality. The typical unit cost to Borders council of care for people in its own residential care homes is about £6,000 per person higher than equivalent independent sector provision. If people currently in local authority homes in the borders were in independent sector homes, the saving would be more than £1 million.
  Our aim is not to end the long tradition of local authority provision of social care services. That would be neither practical nor desirable. However, as purchasers of community care services, authorities must ensure that they are even-handed in buying care provision and obtaining value for money in the best interests of the patients and consumers.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has expressed concern about externalising home help services, which are currently provided in-house by Scottish Borders council. Total social work expenditure on home help services in Scotland is about £100 million each year. Almost all that is for services provided directly by authorities.
  Compulsory competitive tendering has been introduced to the purchasing of many services provided by authorities, which includes many manual and white-collar jobs. That discipline has brought about substantial improvements in the cost and the quality of services and applies both to services purchased from independent sector providers and to the authorities' in-house teams, where they have been successful. We have not introduced compulsory competitive tendering to the provision of social work services, in the belief that authorities will seek to make the best use of their resources in helping vulnerable people,
  Scottish Borders council's social work committee proposes to put out to tender part of the home help service for the elderly. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is concerned about a loss of quality for the recipients of the services. Both he and I share an interest in maintaining a very high quality of care and securing value for money in the provision of services.
  Potentially this is the first example of an authority purchasing such services from the independent sector on a significant scale. The contract will initially be for a 12-month period. The council has indicated that it will review the contract arrangements after nine months to ensure continuity of service provision. I can assure the hon. Member that we also will monitor the progress of this initiative.
  Concern has also been expressed about the time scale for the tendering process. The council developed a specification for tendering for the home help service some time ago, which is applicable to its in-house service and to external providers. The specification articulates the principles of care, health and safety issues, procedures and routines, and reviews and staffing on which the service should be based.
  The provision of home help services has increased markedly, even in the last five years. In 1990, more than 82,000 people in Scotland were assisted by home helps; by 1995 that had increased to over 93,000, a rise of 14 per cent. Over the same period, however, the increase in such services in the borders area was double the national figure—a rise of 28 per cent., to almost 2,000.
  Despite that increase relative to population, the number of home helps in the borders was lower than in any other local authority in Scotland. It is against that background

  207
  that the authority is considering how it can best meet the needs of its local population. It is right that it should seek to purchase services as cost-effectively as possible. The terms of such purchases will be a matter for negotiation between the authority and individual providers.
  It is inevitable that there will be a range of unit costs, just as there is a range of service demands. The home help service meets the needs of older persons in a wide range of practical ways, which vary among individuals, and range from help with household tasks such as shopping and cleaning to help with personal care tasks such as washing and dressing. Home helps often provide company as well as assistance for older people, but the local authority home help service largely excludes heavy lifting or working above floor level—for example, cleaning windows or replacing light bulbs—from its stated responsibilities.
  Authorities must take account of differing needs when considering how services can best be delivered in the most cost-effective way. The views and interests of service users and their carers should also be considered. The Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which came into effect on 1 April, gives carers a statutory right to request an assessment of their own needs.
  In the case of the home help service in the borders, the authority is, in the tendering process, differentiating between domestic and personal care, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I understand that it is the former that is being put out to tender, while the more skilled personal care services will continue to be provided by staff who have a proven record in that area.
  The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about the conditions of home help staff when the management of services is transferred to independent sector providers. The vast majority of independent sector social care providers offer high-quality care and appropriate wage levels to their staff. As with other public sector areas, authorities have been encouraged to ensure that wage increases are funded from efficiency savings. If that advice has been followed, authorities should be able to tender for former local authority-managed services at realistic funding levels. Regardless of who provides the service, they must offer a high standard of care and be seen to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the quality of services. Contract specifications are very important. They must include criteria against which
  208
  quality can be measured and monitored, so that the welfare of the recipients of the services can be protected. Another means of ensuring that standards are maintained is registration of providers. We believe that the current arrangements for self-regulation have proved an effective means of maintaining standards in the independent domiciliary sector.
  The private sector played an integral role in the work of the Joint Advisory Group of Domiciliary Care Associations in producing a standards guidance document. The United Kingdom Homecare Association has also produced a code of practice for providers and a recommended complaints procedure for clients.
  The need for statutory control of domiciliary care provision was considered in the Department of Health document "Moving Forward", on the regulation and inspection of services in England and Wales. It was also considered by the Scottish Office working group on residential care home registration procedures, which is due to report to very shortly. We shall then decide what action, if any, to take in the light of the working group's deliberations. Authorities may, however, introduce their own measures. I understand that Borders council purchases services only from independent sector providers that are registered with it as approved suppliers of domiciliary care.
  The provision of domiciliary services, including home helps, is central to allowing older people to retain maximum independence. Our aim is for services to be developed that can respond flexibly and sensitively to the needs of individuals, and concentrate on those with the greatest need.
  This year, the social work services inspectorate published a report on an inspection of local authority home help services for older people. It examined provision in six areas of Scotland, including Kelso. The report found that, overall, the home help service was reliable, but that difficulties were experienced at times of staff holidays and sickness, during evenings and at weekends, with certain household tasks such as window cleaning and with the frequency and length of service.
  The report also—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HEALTH

  Asthma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 34, when he expects to announce his conclusions on the inclusion of asthma as a target area in the "The Health of the Nation". [29201]

  Mr. Horam
  In due course.

  Research
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken to prevent conflicts of interest in biomedical research addressed by the Government bodies funding such research. [29562]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department is committed to maintaining high standards in the management of research commissioned by the Department through peer review and guidelines on good practice—the Department's code of practice for commissioning and managing research, introduced in 1992.

  Guidelines on the protocols that govern the operations of the national health service research and development programme, including conflicts of interest, have been issued to all those working within the programme. Under the guidelines members and the chairperson of NHS research and development commissioning groups are reminded of the need for impartiality in the commissioning of research and advised that they must declare a conflict of interest when one occurs and withdraw from the discussion.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each of the last five years, the number of cases of research sponsored by Government agencies which have been shown to be fraudulent; and if he will list the estimated cost to public funds of that misconduct. [29564]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many scientific research units in the United Kingdom supported by Government funds have held formal courses in the organisational ethics of scientific research in the past two years. [29559]
  86
  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Training carried out by research units is a matter for directors of the individual research units concerned.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on liaison between his Department and private research charities about research fraud. [29565]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department gives a high priority to collaborating with other research funders to increase understanding of matters of mutual concern and to promote co-operation.

  We work closely with the Association of Medical Research Charities, which represents some 48 charities. The AMRC is also represented on the national forum which brings together a wide range of research funders and provides an important means of establishing closer links between research interests in the NHS and elsewhere.

  Within this framework, the guidelines for good research practice to which different research sponsors adhere are discussed and kept under review.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the procedure his Department follows when a case of suspected misconduct in medical research is reported to it. [30005]

  Mr. Malone
  Any allegation of misconduct in medical research reported to the Department would, in the first instance, be referred to the host institution for investigation in line with the clearly agreed terms of the contract signed between the Department and the research organisation.

  If necessary, following the outcome of the inquiry, the complaint would be referred to the relevant professional body for further investigation. The Department would ensure that it was fully informed of the result of these inquiries and would, if appropriate, terminate any contract in place at that time.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30119]

  Mr. Horam
  Since the "Competing for Quality" programme started in 1992–93, the Department of Health's four executive agencies have market tested activities with a total value of £10.68 million with resulting savings of £3.66 million. This is broken down by agency in the table.

  £ million

  Agency

  Cost of activity before competition1

  Resulting savings1

  Medicines Control Agency

  0.260

  0.132

  Medical Devices Agency

  0.195

  0.150

  NHS Estates Agency

  2.981

  0.041

  NHS Pensions Agency

  7.248

  3.339

  1 Rounded up to 3 figures.

  87

  School Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent(a) school nurses and (b) school doctors have been employed by the NHS in each NHS region in each of the last seven years. [28454]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 15 May 1996]: The information relating to school nurses is shown in the table. School nurses provide health surveillance for children

  NHS hospital and community health services qualified nursing and midwifery staff, excluding agency staff, working in the school nursing area of work by regional health authority in England at 30 September each year 1988 to 1994

  Whole-time equivalents

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  England1 2

  2,510

  2,480

  2,540

  2,460

  2,440

  2,470

  2,350

  Northern

  190

  180

  180

  170

  190

  170

  150

  Yorkshire

  180

  190

  180

  170

  170

  180

  180

  Trent

  270

  270

  260

  260

  250

  290

  280

  East Anglia

  80

  90

  90

  100

  100

  100

  90

  North West Thames

  200

  210

  210

  170

  140

  180

  170

  North East Thames

  200

  220

  220

  200

  210

  210

  210

  South East Thames1

  140

  110

  200

  200

  210

  140

  100

  South West Thames

  130

  130

  120

  110

  120

  130

  130

  Wessex

  130

  120

  120

  110

  110

  110

  100

  Oxford

  100

  110

  120

  120

  110

  130

  110

  South Western

  150

  120

  120

  140

  120

  130

  140

  West Midlands

  300

  310

  310

  300

  310

  300

  300

  Mersey

  190

  180

  180

  170

  160

  150

  140

  North Western

  250

  230

  230

  240

  250

  250

  230

  Note:

  1 Figure for South East Thames, and subsequently to a lesser extent the England totals, should be treated with caution. There was evidence of considerable under recording of the occupation codes used to allocate staff to particular areas of work in the South East Thames region in 1989 and several years prior to this.

  2 Figures for 1989 and 1990 do not match those previously published due to minor changes to the definition used for earlier years. Figures in this table have been provided using the same definition in each year.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will urgently commission an inquiry into(a) the number of school nurses, (b) the provision of funds for training of school nurses and (c) the provision of a programme of incentives to encourage recruitment of school nurses. [29548]

  Mr. Horam
  The Health Select Committee is currently taking evidence on school health services in its inquiry into children's health.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by name the current general practitioner fundholders in the Easington constituency. [30213]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage of the population served by general practitioner fundholders in each health authority in England. [30584]

  Mr. Malone
  The percentage of the population served by general practitioner fundholders in each health authority in England is given in the table.
  88
  who miss child health or general practitioner health screening, immunisation and developmental checks. The latest data available, published in October 1994, shows that 96 per cent. or 25,400 general practitioners perform childhood immunisations and 94 per cent. 24,900 carry out child health surveillance.

  School doctors include community paediatrician and general practitioners depending on local arrangements and therefore cannot be identified separately in Department statistics.

  Population coverage by general practitioner fundholders—health authorities in descending order

  Health authority

  Coverage (April 1996) percentage

  North Derbyshire

  91

  Warwickshire

  84

  Isle of Wight

  84

  Solihull

  82

  Worcestershire

  82

  Wakefield

  82

  Bury and Rochdale

  81

  Herefordshire

  80

  South Derbyshire

  79

  Kingston and Richmond

  77

  West Hertfordshire

  77

  East and North Hertfordshire

  76

  South Cheshire

  75

  Sandwell

  74

  Northumberland

  71

  Morecambe Bay

  71

  Buckinghamshire

  71

  South Humber

  69

  North Yorkshire

  69

  West Surrey

  67

  Lincolnshire

  66

  East Riding

  66

  Brent and Harrow

  64

  Doncaster

  64

  89

  Population coverage by general practitioner fundholders—health authorities in descending order

  Health authority

  Coverage (April 1996) percentage

  North and Mid Hampshire

  64

  West Sussex

  63

  East Lancashire

  63

  Berkshire

  62

  Barking and Havering

  62

  Wiltshire

  60

  Bradford

  60

  Stockport

  60

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  59

  East Kent

  58

  North Essex

  57

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  56

  North Staffordshire

  55

  South Staffordshire

  55

  West Kent

  55

  East Norfolk

  55

  Coventry

  54

  Oxfordshire

  54

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  54

  Bexley and Greenwich

  54

  Walsall

  53

  North Cheshire

  52

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  52

  Sheffield

  52

  Leeds

  51

  Hillingdon

  51

  Sunderland

  50

  North West Lancashire

  50

  County Durham

  50

  Northamptonshire

  50

  Dorset

  50

  Leicestershire

  50

  Birmingham

  49

  North West Anglia

  49

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  49

  Wirral

  49

  Rotherham

  49

  North Cumbria

  48

  North and East Devon

  48

  Liverpool

  48

  South Essex

  48

  Sefton

  47

  South Lancashire

  46

  West Pennine

  46

  Dudley

  45

  Shropshire

  45

  Wigan and Bolton

  44

  Somerset

  44

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  44

  East Surrey

  42

  Salford and Trafford

  42

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  41

  North Nottinghamshire

  41

  South and West Devon

  39

  Gloucestershire

  39

  Wolverhampton

  39

  Barnet

  39

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  38

  Avon

  37

  Suffolk

  37

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  35

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  35

  Barnsley

  35

  East London and The City

  35

  Bedfordshire

  34

  Tees

  34

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  32

  Croydon

  27

  Bromley

  27

  Enfield and Haringey

  27

  90

  Population coverage by general practitioner fundholders—health authorities in descending order

  Health authority

  Coverage (April 1996) percentage

  Nottingham

  26

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  26

  Manchester

  25

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  23

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  18

  Camden and Islington

  10

  Source:

  Regional offices.

  Heathway Residential Home, Seaham
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Heathway residential home in Seaham. [30215]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for County Durham health authority, in discussion with Priority Healthcare Wearside national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority for details.

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many HIV patients have been provided with IVF treatment in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [30237]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The decision to provide fertility treatment to any particular patient is one for the clinicians involved, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 requires as a condition of any treatment licence issued under the Act that account be taken of the welfare of any child who is born as the result of treatment.

  NHS Trust Hospitals (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the chairpersons of each national health service trust hospital covering the Greater London area, indicating the annual salary paid to each for the year 1995–96. [30307]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on all appointments of chairmen and non-executive directors to national health service authorities and trusts, and the remuneration paid, will be published in the summer of 1996.

  Contact Lenses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons get free repeat prescription contact lenses on the ground that they are susceptible to eye infections, for the most recent years for which figures are available. [30357]

  Mr. Malone
  Where a consultant ophthalmologist decides that a patient requires frequent changes of lenses on clinical grounds, the patient pays only for their first pair unless they are, in any case, entitled to help with national health service charges, in which case they can use their vouchers to help meet the cost. The number of patients who benefit from this provision is not available centrally.
  91

  Child Care Workers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which bodies are responsible for checking the suitability of child care workers supplied by employment agencies. [30406]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of each individual employer to ensure that people they employ to work with children are suitable for such work.

  EU Health Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Health Council on 14 May. [29655]

  Mr. Malone
  The Council took note of a working document submitted by the Commission on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and, after an extensive and constructive debate, agreed conclusions on action to be taken to understand better the pathogenesis and transmissibility of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and to extend epidemiological surveillance of the disease.

  The Council agreed a common position text based on the Commission's proposal for a decision adopting a programme of Community action on health monitoring, taking account of the European Parliament's opinion on that proposal.

  The Council confirmed that, as a number of European Parliament amendments to its common position text could not be accepted, the Conciliation Committee should be convened to reach agreement on a joint text for a decision adopting a programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence.

  The Council had a short orientation debate on the Commission's proposal for a decision creating a Community network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases and took note of action in hand to develop a global early warning system and response network for communicable diseases, within the context of the EU-US action plan which was agreed in December last year.

  There was a short discussion also of the Commission's amended proposal for a Council directive on the approximation of laws relating to the advertising of tobacco products and of a paper from the Italian presidency that explored possibilities for making progress with the proposal. The presidency concluded that it had not found the basis for a compromise.

  Carers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information of a financial nature is required, under guidance issued by his Department, from a spouse who is a carer where the person receiving care, being the marriage partner, requests(a) domiciliary services and (b) respite care, from a local authority social services department. [29865]

  Mr. Bowis
  Advice relating to these issues is in the Department's guidance to local authorities, "Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide", copies of which are available in the Library.
  92
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information of a financial nature is required, under guidance issued by his Department is required from a partner of a person to whom he or she provides care where the person receiving care requests(a) domiciliary and (b) respite care from a local authority social services department and where there is no marital relationship. [29866]

  Mr. Bowis
  Advice relating to these issues is in an advice note on non-residential services, "Discretionary Charges for Adult Social Services", for use by the social services inspectorate, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Euro 96 (Emergency Services)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much additional funding is being accorded to North Manchester hospital emergency services to serve the June Euro 96 competition being held in Manchester. [30040]

  Mr. Horam
  Trusts are not funded directly by the Department but from contracts with purchasers. The hon. Member may wish to approach Professor Joan Higgins, chairman of Manchester health authority, for details.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30064]

  Mr. Horam
  The members of staff working centrally in the Department on deregulation issues are a grade 5, a senior executive officer, an executive officer and an administrative officer, a total of 2.5 whole-time equivalents. All are career civil servants. In addition, there is a network of officials around the Department, responsible for co-ordinating deregulation activities in their area of work—where appropriate in close consultation with people from the private sector. The budgeted expenditure for the unit in 1996–97 is £70,000.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collates on(a) chief executives and (b) senior managers who resign employment with one NHS employer and take up employment with another. [30411]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive have declared potential conflicts of interest over the last three years. [30431]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 27 February at column 461.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive have undertaken into conflicts of interests involving (i) trust board and (ii) health authority members. [30432]
  93
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 12 July 1995 at column 552.

  Trusts and Health Authorities (Debts)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collects on(a) debts owed to and (b) bad debts written off by (i) trusts and (ii) health authorities. [30426]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department collects annual returns from each trust and health authority. Included in these returns is the total debtors for each body analysed in accordance with the current generally accepted accounting principles. Unaudited high level analyses are also collected in the year for management purposes.

  Prior to the 1995–96 annual returns trusts did not separately analyse bad debts written off. The 1995–96 annual returns will show bad debts and claims abandoned analysed by private patients, overseas visitors and others.

  Prior to the 1995–96 annual returning health authorities analysed bad debts and claims abandoned by private in-patients, private non resident patients, overseas visitors, Road Traffic Act claims and other. The 1995–96 annual returns will show the same analysis as trusts.

  Health Services (Private Contractors)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which services previously provided by regional health authorities have been won by private contractors; and if he will list the contractors. [30430]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no information available centrally on all services previously provided by regional health authorities. The table lists the former regional health authority trading agencies which are known to have been transferred to the private sector since 1989.

  RHA Service

  Company

  South and West

  Swift IT services

  EDS

  IT services (Wessex)

  AT and T Istel/Hoskyns

  Estates department

  MRM

  West Midlands

  Computer services

  AT and T Istel

  Legal Services

  Lewington Partnership

  Payroll services

  Hartshead Solway

  Parkfields Sterile Supply

  CCL Industries

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Legal Services

  Hampsons

  Financial Services

  Hartshead Solway

  Architects' department

  Fletcher Joseph Partnership

  Computer services (Northern)

  AT and T Istel

  Quantity surveying

  Beard Dove

  IT services (Yorkshire)

  Anderson

  Architects' services

  Fletcher Joseph Partnership

  Engineering services

  DSSR

  Quantity surveying

  Edmund Shipway and Partners

  Anglia and Oxford

  IT services

  SEMA

  Legal services

  Mills and Reeve

  Design services

  Roughtons

  Mandeville Medicines

  Chapter Ltd.

  94

  RHA Service

  Company

  Oxford Consortium

  CSC

  Architects' department

  Bickerdyke Allen and Partners

  Engineering services

  Couch. Perry and Wilkes

  Surveying services

  Davies, Langden Everest

  North West

  Legal services

  Hampsons

  Professional Data Care

  SMS (UK) Ltd.

  Estate services

  EML

  South Thames

  Estates Design and Management (EDAM)

  Capita

  Project management services (capital)

  AYH

  Architects' department

  MRM

  Engineers' department

  Gregory

  HCR and SE Computing

  Hoskyns

  North Thames

  Signet Computer Centre (NE Thames)

  Data Med/HBO

  IT Services (NW Thames)

  SEMA

  Trent

  Computer services

  AT and T Istel

  Engineering Department

  Mala and Pearce Design Group

  Quantity Surveying

  Beard Dove

  Patients (Discharge from NHS Care)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collates on patients who refuse discharge from NHS care. [30428]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS trusts have(a) a chairman, (b) a chief executive and (c) a board of directors; [30250]

  (2) how many NHS health authorities have (a) a chairman, (b) a chief executive and (c) a board of directors. [30251]

  Mr. Malone
  All 429 national health service trusts and 100 NHS health authorities have chairmen and chief executive posts, and they all have a board of executive and non-executive directors.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collates on management and administrative spending by individual trusts and health authorities. [30429]

  Mr. Malone
  For national health service trusts, information is collated on management and management consultancy spending and non-clinical administration spending as defined by the Audit Commission and circulated to trusts under circular FDL(95)32. For health authorities, information is collated on health authority costs as defined in circular FDL(96)20. Copies of FDL(95)32 and FDL(96)20 will be placed in the Library.
  95

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 419, what information his Department collates about consultants. [30438]

  Mr. Malone
  The annual medical work force census gathers data, as at 30 September each year, on consultant vacancies by specialty. These refer to posts which were vacant for whatever reason on the actual day of collection, including, for example, vacant posts in the process of being filled.

  Beta Interferon
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which health authorities trials were conducted on the effectiveness of the drug beta interferon for sufferers of multiple sclerosis; on how many patients; and over what period. [30313]

  Mr. Malone
  Such information is confidential. Section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 precludes the disclosure of confidential information received in pursuance of the Act.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those authorities which have(a) agreed and (b) refused to prescribe beta interferon to MS sufferers who are suitably fit to receive it; [30314]

  (2) what guidelines have been issued to health authorities regarding the prescription of the drug beta interferon to MS sufferers. [30315]

  Mr. Malone
  Executive letter (95)/97 issued to health authorities in November 1995 suggested that, where it is clinically appropriate to prescribe beta-interferon to treat multiple sclerosis, it should be prescribed by hospital neurologists. The guidance was accompanied by clinical advice from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee. Decisions about prescribing in individual cases are a matter for clinical judgment.

  Health Authorities (Efficiency Targets)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have failed to meet their efficiency index targets in each of the last two years. [29669]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: 1993–94 and 1994–95 are the last two years for which final figures are available. The national efficiency index targets were applied at regional health authority level for these years and they all achieved them.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what account was taken of the place of residence of the individual granted legal aid in January 1996 (reference 06936J). [30039]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. Legal aid is available for most matters justiciable in the courts of England and Wales, subject to the statutory tests of eligibility.
  96

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [29028]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [29029]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will arrange the withdrawal of(a) export licences and (b) export guarantees issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in relation to the supply to India by British Aerospace of Hawk aircraft and the transfer of technology enabling the production of Hawk aircraft in India; and if he will make a statement; [30145]

  (2) if he will make representations to British Aerospace urging to cancel any agreement with the Government of India concerning the supply of Hawk aircraft and the transfer of technology enabling India to manufacture Hawk aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [30144]

  The Prime Minister
  No. I have nothing further to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 15 May,Official Report columns 942–43.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty's Government have taken in the case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, in relation to the statement of Colonel George Styles, Professor Hugh Thomas, and Home Office pathologist, Professor Bernard Knight, since the Adjournment debate on 8 May. [29290]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The investigation of crime is a matter for the police. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Department made clear to the House on 8 May, the Metropolitan police are aware of the television programme to which the hon. Member refers, and are reviewing its contents as part of their continuing investigation into the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will extend the conscience clause of the Abortion Act 1967 to non-NHS employees affected by abortion procedures. [30236]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government always encourage employers to give due consideration to their employees' beliefs and feelings, and to operate fair and objective disciplinary procedures. It has been a longstanding convention that the Government do not initiate change in legislation relating to abortion. It is open to Members of both Houses to introduce proposals for parliamentary consideration.
  97

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish in the Official Report his letter to the hon. Member for Jarrow of 10 May. [29729]

  The Attorney-General
  No. I have, however, placed in the Libraries of the House a copy of the letter to which the hon. Member refers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 45, how many respondents to the consultation on the Asylum and Immigration Bill (a) were in favour of the measures and how many against, (b) mentioned costs or burdens to business, (c) objected to the checking of documents other than national insurance and (d) suggested that compliance costs would be higher than those indicated in the compliance cost assessment. [29964]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: A summary of 67 responses to the consultation document on the prevention of illegal working was made available to the House before report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. It indicates that
  Fifteen respondents indicated either support or opposition. Of these four respondents actively supported the particular proposals whereas 11 expressed clear opposition to the principle of employers making any checks on their new employees;
  Twenty-seven respondents commented on costs or burdens to business in response to a specific question on compliance costs. Fifteen respondents suggested that compliance costs would be higher than those indicated in the compliance cost assessment. Ten said that they expected no, or very minimal, compliance costs and two indicated that in their view the assessment seemed reasonable.
  Three respondents suggested that national insurance numbers should provide the sole defence for employers. Twenty-one respondents indicated that the checking of documents such as foreign passports would be more complicated or onerous, although five suggested that such checking should not be too difficult if written guidance and a telephone helpline were available.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department estimates will be the initial and annual cost per small firm of the implementation of clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [29963]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: The compliance cost assessment prepared last November estimated that the non-current costs of clause 8 will be £13,524,800. For a firm with under 100 employees non-recurrent costs were estimated to be £10.70. It was estimated that the total recurrent costs for all employers might be up to £11,451,200 or less than 68p per employee per annum, but no assessment was made of the proportion of those costs which might fall to small firms.
  98
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost to business of clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill; how much it will cost each year; and what estimate he has made of the cost to businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29950]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The compliance cost assessment prepared last November estimated that the non-recurrent costs of clause 8 will be £13,524,800. For a firm with under 100 employees non-recurrent costs were estimated to be £10.70. It was estimated that the total recurrent costs for all employers might be up to £11,451,200 or less than 68p per employee per annum. No assessment was made of the proportion of the recurrent costs which might fall to firms of the sizes mentioned.

  Illegal Working Helpline
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the cost of the proposed helpline on illegal working; how many people will staff the helpline; and when it will begin. [29952]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of how the helpline will operate are currently under consideration. Full information about the facility will be given to employers in the written guidance to be issued in due course.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has carried out into the ease with which small employers can identify the documents required under clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [29948]

  Miss Widdecombe
  In our consultation document, we asked respondents, including representatives of small employers, to comment on this point.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the funding arrangements after March 1997 for projects funded by his Office under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; for what reasons there has been a delay in the announcement; and when he expects to be able to notify local education authorities of the arrangements. [29853]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The funding position from April 1997 remains under consideration. I expect to be able to let local authorities have more information shortly.

  Crimes Against Children (National Registers)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will establish a national register of persons convicted of offences of a violent nature against children; [30423]

  (2) if he will establish a national register of persons convicted of offences of a sexual nature against children. [30422]

  Mr. Maclean
  The national criminal records contain details of all those convicted of offences of a violent or sexual nature against children. In order to strengthen these arrangements, the Government are considering suggestions that convicted sex offenders should be
  99
  required by law to notify the police of any changes of address. We plan very shortly to issue a consultation paper which will canvass these and other measures to improve public protection against sex offenders.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist under Home Office guidelines for unsolicited communication to local authority(a) social service, (b) education and (c) youth services departments of the termination of employment of those persons convicted of sexual and or violent offences against children. [30424]

  Mr. Maclean
  The arrangements under which the police report convictions of employees to local authorities are set out in Home Office circular HOG 45/86 a copy of which is in the Library it is for the local authority concerned to decide on the action which it wishes to take.

  Live Animal Experiments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to increase public scrutiny of project licence applications for experiments on live animals. [30374]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents disclosure of confidential information.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many small animals were bred in medical schools in the London area for research purposes over the past five years for which figures are available. [30373]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to increase the publicity given to procedures adopted by the Home Office inspectors overseeing experiments in live animals. [30375]

  Mr. Sackville
  Public information is already available in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the guidance to that Act, and the annual statistics published by the Home Office.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the eligibility criteria for appointment to the Animal Procedures Committee; and how many lay-persons are included in the current membership. [30376]

  Mr. Sackville
  The eligibility criteria for appointment to the Animal Procedures Committee are set out in section 19 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The current membership consists of nine scientists and veterinary surgeons, two academic lawyers, one academic philosopher and four animal welfarists.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has, in relation to the Europol convention, to appoint the data protection registrar to(a) the national supervisory body and (b) the joint supervisory body; and if he will list the countries which do not submit disputes concerning the convention to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. [29691]
  100
  Mr. Maclean
  Officials are in discussion with the data protection registrar over a number of aspects of the Europol convention and its implementation. These include the designation of the national supervisory body, members or representatives of which will comprise the United Kingdom delegation on the joint supervisory body.

  The Europol convention is not yet in force. On signing the convention, 14 member states made a declaration that they intended to refer to the Court of Justice disputes between them that were not resolved by the Council. The United Kingdom did not make such a declaration.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the implications of the Europol convention for the Data Protection Act 1984 in respect of powers of access of the Data Protection Registrar. [29693]

  Mr. Maclean
  Ratification of the convention will not require any amendment to the Data Protection Act 1984. Officials are discussing with the data protection registrar practical aspects of its implementation.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to come forward with proposals to allow for wider access to criminal records; if these proposals will include proposals to stop enforced subject access under the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [29701]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government expect to publish a White Paper setting out our proposals for new arrangements for access to criminal record checks within the next few months.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to include drink-drive offences on the Phoenix database on the police national computer. [30668]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police will begin to record drink drive offences on Phoenix from 1 June. This will allow the police, for the first time, to have access to records of drink drive offences dealt with in forces other than their own. Such offences include driving or being in charge of a vehicle when under the influence of drink or drugs and failing to provide a specimen of breath when required to do so.

  Fire Safety Legislation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement and on the implementation of the general fire safety aspects of the EC framework and workplace directives. [30669]

  Mr. Sackville
  The review was established to examine what scope there might be for rationalising relevant legislation and enforcement arrangements whilst maintaining or improving standards of fire safety. It found that there were overlaps in present legislation and enforcement arrangements which could impose burdens on business and create uncertainty. Consultation on the report showed that while there was general agreement that
  101
  existing legislation should be simplified and made more coherent, there was no consensus on what precisely should be done to effect those improvements.

  In the light of the consultation exercise we have decided:
  that fire safety should, in general, be treated separately in legislation and that its enforcement should rest principally with fire authorities;
  that the outstanding fire safety elements of the European Community framework and workplace directives will be implemented by regulations to be made under the European Communities Act 1972; we believe that the minimum safety standards required by the directives broadly reflect the safety standards required by existing legal obligations on employers and therefore that the good employer has nothing to fear from the proposed regulations;
  that monitoring, control and supervision of the fire safety aspects of the risk assessment and of the other actions that the regulations require employers to take will be the responsibility of fire authorities;
  that section 9A of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 will be disapplied by the regulations to the extent its provisions overlap with the specific requirements of the regulations;
  that the powers provided under section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 will be applied to the enforcement of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, to improve further the fairness, transparency and consistency of the supervision and control of the Act's requirements;
  to consult, by July, on widening the scope for fire authorities to exempt premises which do not constitute a high risk from the need to have a fire certificate;
  to consult on a revised fire certification system based on risk assessment to target it more accurately at premises where there is a high risk of loss of fire from life;
  to invite the Health and Safety Commission to review in parallel the operation of the Fire Certificates (Special Premises) Regulations 1976 (for which it has policy responsibility);
  to commence consultation in June 1996 on the elimination of overlaps between the physical fire standards in national legislation and fire safety provisions in local acts and byelaws;
  to review physical fire standards and codes of practice to ensure greater consistency and simplification for business. We shall commence consultation in the autumn;
  to bring forward proposals by the summer to amend the building regulations to cover certain physical fire precautions currently covered by fire certification to provide a "one-stop shop" for developers;
  to clarify the respective responsibilities of building control and fire authorities with the aim of streamlining current arrangements to help reduce costs for developers;

  We are issuing today for consultation draft regulations intended to give effect to our remaining obligations under the European Community framework and workplace directives. The draft regulations will be made under the European Communities Act 1972. The draft aims to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens and so, where appropriate, follows as closely as possible the language of the directives to ensure that the regulations go no further than strictly required. The duty imposed on all employers by the directives to conduct a risk assessment for their workplaces has generally been implemented by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992. Employers will be able to carry out the fire safety element of the risk assessment either as an integral part of an overall risk assessment, or may undertake it separately.
  102
  Where an employer fails to comply with any duty in relation to fire safety, the fire authority may apply to the courts for an order requiring compliance or if the breach is a serious one, may issue an enforcement notice. If the breach is deliberate, reckless and is serious, the employer can be prosecuted.

  The powers provided under section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 will be applied to the Fire Precautions Act 1971 by means of a statutory instrument to be laid before Parliament by the end of 1996 and we shall identify other fire safety legislation where these powers could apply. The proposed new regulations to give effect to our Community obligations will also incorporate the principles underlying these powers.

  We intend that rationalisation and simplification of the fire safety regime to reduce burdens on business while maintaining necessary safeguards, should be a continuing process. Subject to an analysis of the costs and benefits, we will be looking for further opportunities to rationalise both law and practice.

  Copies of the consultation document, which includes the draft regulations, are being placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government to support efforts to initiate negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty as cited in paragraph 146 of the statement on the Defence estimates, column 3223; and if he will make a statement on the progress achieved to date in these negotiations. [29979]

  Mr. David Davis
  We supported the mandate agreed at the conference on disarmament in Geneva in March 1995 for an ad hoc committee to work on a fissile material cut-off treaty banning the future production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. We regret that it has not yet proved possible to start work on this issue. We continue to urge all members of the CD to agree to the early establishment of an ad hoc committee to begin negotiations.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30117]

  Mr. Hanley
  There has been no market testing of the services provided by FCO agencies.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the British ambassador to the Council of Europe, on the proposals of the council of Europe Assembly, to up-date the computerisation of its services. [29997]
  103
  Mr. David Davis
  None so far, but the Council of Europe secretariat is elaborating a package of proposals to go into the 1997 budget. These proposals will draw on the report by the hon. Member and will be discussed with representatives of Governments in Strasbourg. Costs and priorities will need to be borne in mind during any such discussions.

  EU Membership Application
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of each applicant for membership of the EU. [30003]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government welcome the prospect of EU enlargement and look forward to the applicant countries joining as soon as they are ready. We believe that each applicant should be treated on its merits. Applicants will have to meet the criteria for membership set out by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993.

  Galapagos Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister for Overseas Development has had with the Government of Ecuador about the shooting of female goats on those parts of the Alcedo area of the Galapagos Islands where giant tortoises breed. [28908]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There have been no discussions between the ODA and the Ecuadorean Government about shooting goats in the Galapagos Islands. The British ambassador in Quito recently visited the islands to see the problem caused by feral goats on Alcedo which threaten the survival of the population of giant tortoises. The ambassador has offered to donate £5,000 from the heads of mission gift scheme to the national park and to the Darwin Foundation for their programme to protect the tortoises. He is also examining the possibility of a contribution to the goat eradication programme from a FCO fund for small environmental projects.

  General Affairs Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU General Affairs Council on 13 to 14 May. [29656]

  Mr. David Davis
  The "A" points in document 7127/96, which will be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is available, were approved.

  The presidency noted the resolutions adopted by European Parliament in document 6216/96, PE-RE 33 and drew attention to Nos. 8 (co-operation on EU fisheries with Morocco), 23 (outcome of Turin European Council), 24 (central and eastern Europe integration into internal market), 30 (Baltic sea co-operation) and 32 (economic and monetary union and social cohesion).

  The Council heard a progress report from the chairman of the consultative commission on racism and xenophobia, Jean Khan, about the comission's study on a possible EU observatory on racism and xenophobia.
  104
  The Council reached political agreement on draft negotiating directives for a new EU-Mexico agreement. The Commission also presented draft negotiating directives for new agreements between the Community and Cambodia and Laos; and updated agreements between the Community and Bangladesh and Pakistan.

  The Commission gave a brief report on progress in the negotiations for Euro-Med agreements between the EU and Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon; progress towards opening negotiations with Algeria; and the Commission's exploratory contacts with the Palestinian authority and Syria. The Council decided to reconsult the European Parliament on the text of the MEDA regulation.

  The presidency reported on progress in the middle east peace process and Ministers had a meeting in the margins of the Council with Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. Ministers also discussed reconstruction aid for the Lebanon.

  EU high representative Carl Bildt briefed Ministers about the current situation in Bosnia. Mostar administrator Casado briefed the Council on the Mostar elections. Ministers also had a brief discussion on Albania.

  The Council agreed the EU-Russia action plan and adopted conclusions reaffirming its support for the reform process, looking forward to free and fair elections, and restating EU willingness to take part in observation of them.

  The Council endorsed conclusions on preparation for the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Singapore in December.

  The Council also adopted conclusions on Niger, foreseeing progressive resumption of EU cooperation, subject to a review at the Council on 10 June of the results of the 12 May referendum and the lifting of the ban on political parties; and on Liberia, expressing concern at the humanitarian situation and affirming EU willingness to provide humanitarian aid.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary urged EU partners to agree to a relaxation of the ban on the export of gelatine, tallow and semen.

  The second substantive ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference also took place on 13 May. Ministers had before them a presidency note, CONF 3847/96, which has been deposited in the Library of the House, which raised two broad issues for discussion: flexibility of the Union and the efficiency and balance of the institutions. On the former, Ministers considered the desirability of more flexible structures in the Union and whether treaty provisions were necessary to provide a framework for this. On the latter, Ministers considered a range of institutional issues, including the size of the Commission, the scope and weighting of qualified majority voting, the role of the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, in particular in the light of future enlargement.

  The ministerial session was preceded by an exchange of views with the European President and two representatives of the European Parliament.

  There were association Councils with Malta and Cyprus on 14 May, followed by a joint structured dialogue meeting and lunch.
  105

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement about his policy towards that country. [29843]

  Mr. David Davis
  I visited Gibraltar on 7 and 8 November 1995. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 14 December 1995 at columns 753–54.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Mr. Carl Bildt; and if he will make a statement about the progress of the reconstruction fo Bosnia. [29844]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last met Carl Bildt at the EU General Affairs Council on 13 May.

  At the Brussels donors conference on 12 and 13 April, $1.25 billion was pledged for reconstruction projects for the remainder of 1996. United Kingdom bilateral programmes, aimed at restoring power and water supplies to both entities, are well under way.

  Croatia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met President Tudjamn; and if he will make a statement about his policy towards the progress of democracy in Croatia. [29845]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met President Tudgjman on 19 September 1995 in Zagreb.

  We continue to encourage the Croatian Government to bring about greater democracy in Croatia so as to achieve stronger political and economic relations with Europe and its institutions.

  Diplomatic Representation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries in the continent of(a) Asia, (b) Africa, (c) America, (d) Europe and (e) Australasia in which the United Kingdom has diplomatic representation indicating the level of representation, and by number and grade his Department's staff serving in these countries. [29846]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is published in "H.M. Diplomatic Service Overseas Reference List", a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries which are members of the Untied Nations in which the United Kingdom has no diplomatic representation. [29847]

  Mr. Hanley
  The member states of the United Nations in which the United Kingdom has no resident diplomatic representations are listed in table 1. Those states in which an office has been opened but has no UK-based resident staff are listed in table 2.
  106
  TABLE 1: MEMBER STATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS WITH NO RESIDENT REPRESENTATION

  Andorra

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Burkina Faso

  Cape Verde

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  Comoros

  Congo

  Djibuti

  Dominica

  Equatorial Guinea

  Gabon

  Guinea

  Guinea-Bissau

  Iraq

  Korea (Democratic People's Republic)

  Kyrgyzstan

  Liberia

  Liechtenstein

  Maldives

  Mali

  Marshall Islands

  Mauritania

  Micronesia

  Moldova

  Monaco

  Niger

  Palau

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  San Marino

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Somalia

  Suriname

  Tajikistan

  Togo

  Western Samoa

  TABLE 2: MEMBER STATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS WITH NO RESIDENT UK-BASED REPRESENTATION

  Afghanistan

  Burundi

  Eritrea

  Haiti

  Laos.

  Albania
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress of democracy in Albania; and if he will make a statement about his policy towards that country. [29849]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The British Government have good relations with the Government of Albania. We believe that Albania has made good progress towards greater democracy since the fall of communism in 1992.
  107
  We are contributing to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission to observe the forthcoming Albanian elections.

  Former Warsaw Pact Countries
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the likely date of the accession to the North Atlantic treaty of members of the former Warsaw pact. [29850]

  Mr. David Davis
  NATO has yet to decide when to invite countries from the former Warsaw pact to join the alliance. NATO Foreign Ministers decided in December 1995 to consider the way forward at their meeting this December.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30058]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are not directly involved in domestic deregulation policy and therefore have no deregulation unit or staff.

  British Council
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government propose to make available to the British Council to help with its restructuring costs and to avoid overseas port closures. [30511]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have today written to the chairman of the British Council informing him that my Department is prepared to meet 80 per cent. of the actual costs of redundancies among its grant in aid funded UK appointed staff this financial year. I propose to finance this from the Overseas Development Administration's contingency reserve. Since this reserve is higher than originally planned, this can be accommodated without affecting our ability to respond to foreseeable emergencies or reducing planned aid programmes. That part of the funding which serves aid objectives will be provided directly through the ODA vote. For the balance, I shall be seeking parliamentary authority later this year to make the appropriate transfer between the ODA and British Council votes.

  In my letter to the chairman I have also assured him that an additional £5 million in 1997–98 and £9 million in 1998–99 will be made available to the Council from within my departmental programme in order to avoid closures of British Council offices overseas to help sustain their programmes in priority countries and to contribute towards their continuing redundancy costs.

  The British Council will of course be continuing with their existing programme of efficiency savings.
  108

DEFENCE

  Bosnia and Croatia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what has been the total cost to date to his Department of renting property for use as British bases as part of the implementation force operations in(a) Bosnia and (b) Croatia; [29672]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 January, Official Report, column 468, if he will update the information on charges for the bases currently used by British members of the implementation force operating in (a) Bosnia and (b) Croatia. [29824]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: A list of the major sites in Bosnia and Croatia currently occupied by British forces is as follows, together with the monthly charges where these have been established.

  Between January and April this year, my Department spend £665,000 and £688,000 on leases for all sites occupied in Bosnia and Croatia respectively.

  Bosnia

  Monthly charge £

  Banja Luka—factory

  38,000

  Bosanski Petrovac—garage

  5,000

  Bugojno—factory

  Not yet known

  Glamoc—sawmill and factory

  8,000

  Gornji Vakuf—2 factories

  44,000

  Jajce—factory

  6,000

  Kljuc—depot

  Not yet known

  Krupa—factory

  3,000

  Kupres—various sites

  34,000

  Mrkonjic Grad—2 factories, sawmill and dam

  Not yet known

  Sanski Most—factory

  8,000

  Sipovo—3 factories, hotel and sawmill

  Not yet known

  Tomislavgrad-warehouse and other sites

  42,000

  Vitez—Bulk Fuel Installation (BFI) and school

  3,000

  Croatia

  Split—3 factories and warehouse

  243,000

  Split—North Port and warehouse facilities

  Not yet known

  Trogir (near split)-Divulje Barracks

  No charge

  Royal Navy Wrecks
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the recovery of munitions and other weapons from sunken Royal Navy ships; and what environmental monitoring is undertaken at such sites where it has not proved possible to recover military material. [29980]

  Mr. Soames
  Our policy, in normal circumstances, is to leave munitions and other weapons on Royal Navy wrecks undisturbed. However, recovery may be considered where sensitive technology is involved, or where there is a risk that the munitions may fall into the hands of terrorists, criminals or unfriendly foreign powers.

  Should munitions be disturbed in some way, consideration may be given to their recovery on a case-by-case basis, taking account, among other things, of the extent of any danger to the public, the potential risk to those who would be involved in the recovery operation, and technical feasibility.
  109
  As current scientific evidence shows that, provided they remain undisturbed, such sites do not present a significant risk to safety, human health or the marine environment, my Department does not undertake environmental monitoring of wrecks in which there is remaining military material.

  Wine and Spirits Stocks
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) number of bottles and (b) value of stocks of (i) wine and (ii) spirits are held by (1) the Army, (2) the Royal Navy and (3) the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement. [29999]

  Mr. Soames
  The only stocks of publicly funded wines and spirits held by the armed forces are for use in cooking, as recipe ingredients. Details of the stocks held for this purpose are not maintained centrally. Spirits can be authorised for issue in special circumstances, but these are purchased only when required. Stock levels of wines and spirits purchased with non-public funds are a matter for individual messes and no central records are held.

  Polaris
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of decommissioning the Polaris system; and from which subheads of which votes these funds will be taken. [29871]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of all costs associated with decommissioning or disposal of equipments and facilities connected with the Polaris programme are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The cost of the defuelling, de-equipping and day-up procedure for the four submarines is expected to total some £61 million; to be attributed to vote 2 subhead 2A21.

  Disposal of rocket motors and propellant is expected to cost some £2 million; to be attributed to vote 2 subhead 2F2.

  It is not our practice to reveal costs associated with the warhead.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date he expects to publish the third competitiveness White Paper. [29955]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government plan to publish the third competitiveness White Paper in mid-June.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the deregulation orders which passed into law, indicating which of them affect firms with under(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees. [29959]
  110
  Mr. Freeman
  The deregulation orders which have passed into law are:

  The Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order

  The Deregulation (Building Societies) Order

  The Deregulation (Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868) Order

  The Deregulation (Special Hours Certificates) Order

  The Deregulation (Fair Trading Act 1973) (Amendment) Merger Reference Time Limits) Order

  The Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Time Limits) Order

  The Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Variation of Exempt Agreements) Order

  The Deregulation (Length of the School Day) Order

  The Deregulation (Long Pull) Order

  The first four orders are sectoral measures intended to assist all firms in those sectors, regardless of their size. The next three orders amend competition legislation and, again, could potentially benefit any firm regardless of size.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Monitoring)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of ethnic monitoring within the civil service. [29929]

  Mr. Freeman
  Equality of opportunity in employment is vital to the effectiveness of the civil service and to good race relations. Ethnic origin monitoring data provides a powerful tool for identifying where barriers exist for the recruitment and advancement of ethnic minority staff. Since 1989 departments and agencies have been working to an agreed code of practice on collecting this information from entrants and existing staff, and they continue to do so. The programme for action on race, introduced by the Cabinet Office in 1990, provides a strategic framework for progress towards race equality in Departments and agencies, which includes monitoring. Regular reports on progress as regards equal opportunities across the civil service are published by the Cabinet Office and placed in the Commons Library. In the year to April 1995, the ethnic minority representation across the civil service rose to 5.4 per cent., which compares with 4.9 per cent. in the economically active population. Information for April 1996 is currently being compiled and will become available later in the year.

  Privatised Utilities (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) serving civil servants and (b) retired civil servants have been appointed to the boards of privatised utilities. [30254]

  Mr. Freeman
  There are currently no serving civil servants who are non-executive directors of any privatised utilities on the list of non-executive directors supplied to the Office of Public Service by Departments. Comprehensive information of this kind on retired civil servants is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  111

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Nigeria
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of Commonwealth sanctions on Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [29848]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) on 9 May 1996 at column 211. If Nigeria does not respond positively to the Commonwealth ministerial action group's invitation to dialogue by the end of May, the group has recommended that Commonwealth countries adopt a package of measures broadly similar to those already taken by the EU.

  Somaliland
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has evaluated and what contacts he maintains with representatives of the self-styled Republic of Somaliland; what is the position of Her Majesty's Government with respect to that regime; and if he will make a statement. [29968]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our embassy in Addis Ababa regularly reports on its contacts with the administration in north-west Somalia. Our position remains that the future of that region must be for the Somalis as a whole to determine.

  Oslo Conference (20/20 Initiative)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by whom the United Kingdom was represented at the Oslo conference in April to try to consolidate implementation of the 20/20 initiative; and if he will make a statement. [30123]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom was represented at the April Oslo conference on the 20/20 initiative by the ODA's principal finance officer, chief social development adviser, and an ODA economic adviser.

  The Oslo meeting agreed that donors should be prepared to support well-considered plans for enhanced spending on basic social programmes, and recognised that it was now for developing countries to put forward such proposals, initially through consultative groups and round table meetings.

WALES

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had from organisations and individuals about the implementation of the nursery voucher scheme; and how many replies have been sent. [29332]

  Mr. Richards
  In addition to a number of petitions, some 3,300 representations have been received to date, the vast majority continuing to consist of printed pro 112
  forma letters and postcards; approximately 85 per cent. have been sent a reply and the remainder will have a response as soon as possible.

  Out-of-town Superstores
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to limit the spread of superstores in out-of-town locations in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29610]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has today issued revised planning guidance recognising the importance of town centres and encouraging retail development within those centres rather than at out-of-town sites.

  I have arranged for copies of the revised planning guidance to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have contacted each family health services authority asking for help in finding a dentist in the period since December 1993; and if he will make a statement. [29602]

  Mr. Richards
  According to information supplied by Welsh family health services authorities, the following numbers of patients contacted them between the beginning of December 1993 and the end of March 1996:

  Clwyd: 6,821

  Dyfed: 4,533

  Gwent: 3,352

  Gwynedd: 15,478

  Mid Glamorgan: 584

  Powys: 2,466

  South Glamorgan: 2,814

  West Glamorgan: 221.

  The Welsh Office has made £3 million available for a unique initiative aimed at addressing the needs of those areas where patients may have difficulty in registering with a dentist close to their homes. The initiative demonstrates the Government's determination to address the dental manpower needs of Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many family health authorities have been unable to provide emergency dental services in the period since December 1993; and if he will make a statement. [29600]

  Mr. Richards
  According to information supplied by Welsh family health service authorities, one authority was unable to provide emergency dental services for unregistered patients during the period December 1993 to 1 July 1995. Since 2 July 1995, all authorities have been able to do so.

  General dental practitioners are required by their terms of service to provide emergency cover for their registered patients.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many continuing care dental patients have been de-registered; how many dentists have de-registered patients in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [29612]
  113
  Mr. Richards
  From the information supplied by family health service authorities since August 1992, the number of patients in Wales who have been deregistered is as follows:

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  19921

  8,167

  15

  8,182

  1993

  9,138

  75

  9,213

  1994

  20,172

  53

  20,225

  1995

  18,300

  67

  18,367

  19962

  1,750

  9

  1,759

  Totals

  57,527

  219

  57,746

  1 1 August to 31 December.

  2 To 31 March.

  These are cumulative figures and do not indicate how many of those patients subsequently registered with another dentist.

  The number of dentists deregistering patients in any fortnightly period has varied between 0 and 38.

  This information was supplied for management purposes only and is not statistically validated.

  Statistics published by the Dental Practice Board indicate that, at the end of December 1995, the number of registered patients in Wales was 38,194 higher than it was at the end of June 1992.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists have given written notice to have their name removed from dental lists since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [29597]

  Mr. Richards
  Information supplied by Welsh family health services authorities indicates that 121 dentists gave written notice to have their names removed from dental lists between 1 August 1992 and 31 March 1996. During the same period, 265 dentists joined the authorities' dental lists.

  This information was supplied for management purposes only and has not been statistically validated.

  Press Office (Expenditure)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total spent by his press office in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [29595]

  Mr. Hague
  The total spent by my press office, including running costs, is as follows:

  1992–93: £360,215

  1993–94: £418,370

  1994–95: £406,150

  1995–96: £395,531.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30068]
  114
  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office deregulation unit is responsible for promoting and monitoring progress with deregulation activities which are undertaken by policy divisions across the Department. The 1996–97 budget for the unit, which is part of the Department's business services division, is £19,140 for running costs plus £10,000 programme. The unit consists of one higher executive officer, 0.75 whole-time equivalent.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the termination of negotiations with Exel Logistics for the material managements contract under the market testing procedure; [30434]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the award of the materials management contract under the market testing procedure to the in-house team; and if he will make a statement. [30433]

  Mr. Hague
  None. My Department was kept informed of developments in the negotiations between the authority and Exel Logistics which led to the decision not to award the contract to the company.

  Medical Treatment Centres
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 980, if he will list the number of procedures available in 1996–97 in each of the treatment centres, indicating the numbers allocated to each health authority. [30408]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of procedures available in 1996–97 at each of the treatment centres is as follows together with each health authority's allocation:

  Health authority

  Surgical center

  Ophthalmic center

  Orthopaedic center

  North Wales

  0

  0

  39

  Dyfed Powys

  190

  200

  62

  Gwent

  200

  340

  60

  Bro Taf

  310

  245

  59

  Morgannwyg

  360

  295

  44

  Total

  1 1,060

  1 1,080

  264

  1 These figures were transposed in my previous answer of 2 February, Official Report, column 980.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when the consultation period will end on the Wales ambulance policy advisory group revision to ambulance service configurations in Wales; [30378]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Wales ambulance policy advisory group consultation paper on ambulance service configurations in Wales. [30377]

  Mr. Richards
  I have not received any application to reconfigure ambulance services. If such an application is received the document would be subject to public consultation and a copy placed in the Library of the House.
  115
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the NHS ambulance trusts in Wales, and those ambulance services which form part of a NHS trust in Wales, their budgets for each of the last five years and the current financial year, the number of staff and the number of ambulances in each case. [30380]

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

  Medical Staff (Suspensions)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 98, how the notification procedure for consultants suspended over six months applies to those (a) already suspended prior to 1 April 1995 and (b) suspended after that date. [30409]

  Mr. Hague
  NHS trusts and health authorities were asked to ensure that the guidance issued on 7 April 1995 is taken into account in drawing up local procedures for handling all suspensions of hospital and community medical and dental staff.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the membership and terms of reference of the Wales ambulance policy advisory group; and if he will make a statement. [30379]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh ambulance policy advisory group was set up by the ambulance trusts themselves. Details may be obtained from the group's current chief executive, Mr. S. Harrhy, chief executive, Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS trust.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the director of the Civil Service College concerning departmental participation in courses on devolution; what training courses he has put in place for his staff in preparation for constitutional change; and if he will make a statement. [30435]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

TREASURY

  Value Added Tax
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how Her Majesty's Customs and Excise calculates the risk of businesses not complying with VAT for the purpose of determining which businesses should receive an assurance visit. [29910]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: Customs use statistical methods to evaluate information on businesses and their likelihood to make errors. This provides the relative ranking of each business which is advised to local offices. Staff use this ranking together with local knowledge for the purpose of determining which business should receive an assurance visit.
  116
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of(a) VAT and (b) excise duties that remained uncollected or written off for each of the last five years; and if he will estimate the amount that will be uncollected or written off for the next two years for the same categories. [29911]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: Write-off figures for 1995 have not yet been finalised. The value of VAT remitted or written off in the previous five calendar years was as follows:

  1994: £550,464,000

  1993: £742,376,00

  1992: £745,773,000

  1991: £515,335,000

  1990: £212,715,000.

  Excise write-off figures are consolidated with Customs figures. The value of Customs and other duties written off in the same five years was as follows:

  1994: £1,713,000

  1993: £2,138,000

  1992: £844,000

  1991: £733,000

  1990: £1,020,000.

  The level of write-off in the present and future years is dependent on external factors, such as the rate of insolvency. Customs expect that VAT debt will be contained within 2.3 per cent. of liability for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  EU Preliminary Budget
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals Her Majesty's Government put to the Council of Ministers of the EU with regard to deleting elements of non-compulsory expenditure from the draft preliminary budget for 1995–96. [30168]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's policy is to scrutinise all expenditure, both compulsory and non-compulsory, during the annual EC budgetary process, and to seek reductions where appropriate. This was the case in the preparation of both the 1995 and 1996 Community budgets, as in other years.

  Tax Complaints
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases in each year since 1993 the revenue adjudicator has found(a) wholly and (b) partly in favour of the complainant; and if he will make a statement. [29606]

  Mr. Michael Jack
  The table provides details of the number of complaints about the Inland Revenue which the adjudicator has upheld wholly, substantially or partially in the three years to 31 March 1996, the figures in parenthesis denoting the proportions of the total number of complaints reviewed during the years concerned:

  Year

  Substantially/wholly

  Partially

  1993–94

  50

  48 per cent.

  15

  14 per cent.

  1994–95

  98

  26 per cent.

  95

  25 per cent.

  1995–96

  144

  29 per cent.

  92

  19 per cent.

  Total

  292

  30 per cent.

  202

  21 per cent.

  117
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases have been referred to the revenue adjudicator as complaints arising out of the taxpayers charter in each year since May 1993; and if he will make a statement. [29604]

  Mr. Jack
  The table shows the number of complaints about the Inland Revenue that the adjudicator received in the three years to 31 March 1996:

  Year

  Total received

  Take up for full investigation

  1993–94

  1,615

  308

  1994–95

  2,581

  504

  1995–96

  2,500

  470

  Total

  6,696

  1,282

  The 5,414 cases which she did not take up for full investigation were mainly ones where the complainant had not first tried to sort out their complaint through the Inland Revenue's own complaints system. In these cases, the adjudicator puts the complainant in touch with the right person in the Inland Revenue; and where necessary helps the complainant clarify the terms of the complaint. The adjudicator calls such cases "assistance cases".

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25270]

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 April 1996, c. 498]: I regret that the list that I gave inadvertently omitted 15 compliance cost assessments produced by the Building Societies Commission and the Friendly Societies Commission, both of which are responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I apologise to the hon. Member for this oversight. The full list of 30 compliance cost assessments produced by the Chancellor's Departments in 1995 is given in the list. In each case, a copy of the assessment was placed in the Library at the time it was presented to Parliament.

  HM Treasury

  The Financial Markets and Insolvency (Money Market) Regulations 1995

  The Investment Services Directive (EEC/22/93) and the Capital Adequacy Directive (EEC/6/93)

  HM Customs and Excise

  Approval of Inland Clearance Depots

  Landfill Tax

  Excise: Two Band Duty Structure for Cider

  VAT: Groups (Preliminary Assessment)

  VAT: Change to Tour Operators Margin Scheme

  VAT: Annual Returns and Annual Payments for Small Businesses Registered for VAT

  VAT: Changes to the Payments on Account Scheme for Large VAT Payers

  VAT: Implementation of the Second VAT Simplification Directive: Fiscal Warehousing and other Technical Changes

  VAT: Extension of the Special Accounting System for Gold

  VAT: Credit Notes

  118

  Inland Revenue

  Reform of the Taxation of Gilts and Bonds

  Proposed Changes to the Construction Industry Tax Deduction Scheme: Registration Cards

  Gilt Repo Regulations

  Building Societies Commission

  Building Societies (Liquid Assets) (Amendment) Regulations 1995

  Building Societies (General Charge and Fees) Regulations 1995

  Building Societies (Commercial Assets) Order 1995

  Building Societies (Aggregation) (Amendment) Rules 1995

  Building Societies (Designation of Qualifying Bodies) Order 1995

  Building Societies (Provision of Services) Order 1995

  Building Societies (Limits on Transactions with Directors) Order 1995

  Building Societies (Non-retail Funds and Deposits) (Limit on Election) Order 1995

  Building Societies (Mergers) (Amendment) Regulations 1995

  Building Societies (Designation of Qualifying Bodies) (No. 2) Order 1995

  Building Societies (Liquid Assets) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1995

  Building Societies (Accounts and Related Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1995

  Building Societies (Syndicated Lending) Order 1995

  Friendly Societies Commission

  Friendly Societies (General Charges and Fees) Regulations 1995

  Friendly Societies (Activity of a Subsidiary) Order 1995

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requests have been made by the Court of Auditors of the European Community to the European Commission to be consulted concerning(a) the drafting of any proposed regulation concerned with the expenditure and (b) amendments to current regulations in directives aimed at the prevention of irregularities and fraud. [29986]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Any correspondence between the Court and the Commission is a matter for the institutions in question.

  The European Court of Auditors submitted in May 1995 a report to the "Reflection Group" containing their proposals for treaty changes in the context of the intergovernmental conference. The general position is that in the case of legislative proposals under article 209 the Commission is required to consult the court; in other cases consultation is optional. In its report, the court considered that (a) article 209 should be used as the legal basis for all legislation intended to lay down new financial regulations or to derogate from the financial regulation; and (b) that as regards optional consultation the court could be systematically consulted on any draft legislation which, on bases other than article 209, affects the Community's budgetary and financial mechanisms, especially regarding control. The intergovernmental conference is considering the court's comments.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have to avail themselves of each opportunity for officials or their agencies to conduct joint inquiries and activities with officials of the Commission of the European Communities under powers to be provided under the
  119
  proposed regulation covering on-the-spot inspections and checks relating to any use of funds provided by the Community. [29987]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This will be an operational matter for the authorities in question. However, my expectation is that UK officials would normally exercise their right to accompany Commission officials.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29433]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: It is not possible to give this information as the Treasury does not distinguish between its suppliers on the basis of their number of employees. The Department's aim is to award contracts which offer the best value for money irrespective of the suppliers' size.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29448]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The information requested is not available as the Treasury does not distinguish between suppliers from the public and private sectors. However the total expenditure of the Department on goods and services during the year in question was £23.7 million.

  Procurement Guidelines
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that the central unit for procurement's best practice guidelines cover large lead contractors which sub-contract to small and medium enterprises. [29957]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The central unit on procurement's best practice guidance covers prime contractors and their subcontractors. The provisions apply to all subcontractors, whether large or small.

  The contractual relationships between prime contractors and their subcontractors is largely a matter for the contracting parties.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Key Stage 2 Test Papers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedures are in place to prevent the improper early opening and misuse of key stage 2 test papers. [29717]

  Mr. Paice
  Teachers have received clear advice about procedures in the "Key Stage 2 Assessment Arrangements 1996" booklet distributed by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to all participating schools. Headteachers are required to keep the test papers and the separately packaged mark schemes as confidential and stored securely from receipt in school until the day of the particular tests. Early opening of the tests is permissible 120
  for pupils with special requirements but specific permission has to be requested for pupils without a statement of special educational needs. In all cases it remains the headteachers' responsibility to ensure that the contents of the test papers are kept confidential.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities currently include a special educational needs factor in their local management of schools formulae based on a local SEN audit; and what is the comparative value of funds allocated for pupils through such a factor, according to the stage in the code of practice they have reached, for each local education authority for which information is available. [29903]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Business Starts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new programmes she is introducing to enable people to start their own business. [29823]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department will continue to offer considerable help for unemployed people to set up in business through training for work and support for the Prince's Youth business trust.

  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to institute a comprehensive system for monitoring the achievement levels of pupils according to ethnic origin. [29755]

  Mrs. Gillan
  As I told the House on 21 November last year, we have introduced and are extending new arrangements to monitor the number of minority ethnic pupils and pupils for whom English is a second language in each maintained school. We also intend to obtain information about the progress of minority ethnic pupils in individual schools, by means of information gathered by Ofsted as part of its regular inspection cycle; and to undertake research as necessary, to look in greater depth at particular issues.

  The Dearing review of 16–19 qualifications included a recommendation for work on developing a framework for national monitoring of candidate achievement by ethnic origin, which my right hon. Friend has remitted to the School Curriculum Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications for further study and advice.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each of her Department's agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30112]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Teachers' Pensions Agency market tested its teacher pensions payment services in 1994. Three year contracts beginning in April 1995 were awarded to:
  121

  i. The Office of HM Paymaster General (Paymaster Agency)— for the supply of a pensioner payment database;

  ii. The Midland Bank plc—for the supply of banking services to support the payment of pensions; and

  iii. The TPA itself—for the supply of customer services to answer enquiries from individual pensioners.

  Responsibility for the Employment Service has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to rely to your request for details of the Employment Service (ES) market testing programme.
  The attached list sets out the ES services so far market tested, and the outcome in each case. Please note that, with the exception of Jobclubs, Employment Rehabilitation Centres and Disability Occupational Psychologists supporting Placing Assessment and Counselling Teams, all entries relate to internal ES corporate support services, rather than external services to clients.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Employment service market tests

  Market test

  Date test completed

  Part 1: Where the work was contracted out

  Travel Service (contract commenced June 1992 for 3 years with extension to March 1996)

  May 1992

  Materials Management

  April 1993

  Jobclubs (82 in-house wins 6 contracted out as listed below)

  December 1993

  Financial Management Training

  April 1994

  Estates, Maintenance and New Works, Regional Works Consultants (contracts commenced October 1994 for 3 years)

  September 1994

  Field Training: First Aid Training

  September 1994

  Field Training: Management and People Development Northern and North West Regions only (other regions in-house wins)

  December 1994

  Regional Office Support Services Scotland Northern and Wales (other regions in-house wins)

  December 1994

  Personnel Legal Services

  August 1995

  Group Welfare

  October 1995

  Jobclubs (retest) 12 contracted out; 66 in-house wins

  December 1995

  There are also contracts for Employment Rehabilitation course provision with over 400 organisations nationally. Only two contracts are held centrally these being with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal London Society for the Blind. All additional provision is contracted via ES regions. This test was completed in April 1993.

  Market test

  Date test completed

  Part 2: In-house wins

  IT Mainframe Services (Accounting System)

  July 1992

  Security, Messengers and Typing Services(Sheffield Head Office)

  December 1993

  IT Microcomputer Training (Sheffield Head Office)

  December 1993

  Jobclubs (see also above) 82 In-house wins; 6 contracted out

  December 1993

  Management Training

  March 1994

  Inspection (Fraud) Training

  March 1994

  Business Consultancy Services

  April 1994

  Occupational Psychologists

  May 1994

  Disability Occupational Psychologists supporting Placing Assessment and Counselling Teams and Ability Development Centres

  May 1994

  122

  Market test

  Date test completed

  Internal Audit

  September 1994

  London and South East Recruitment Administration

  September 1994

  Field Training (Procedural)

  September 1994

  Field Training (Management and People Development) see above; in-house win in seven regions; two regions contracted out

  December 1994

  Regional Office Support Services see above in-house win in six regions; two regions contracted out

  December 1994

  Field Management Services

  December 1994

  IT Small Systems

  February 1995

  Jobclubs (retest) 66 in-house wins; 12 contracted out

  October 1995

  Part 3: Value for money reviews

  The following internal services also formed part of the ES Competing for Quality Programme. They were considered for market testing but ultimately it was concluded in each case that a Value for Money Review was the most appropriate and cost effective way forward.

  Regional Micro User Support Service

  IT Services

  Finance Office Payments

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the members of the national committee of inquiry into higher education indicating in the case of those drawn from the business community how many people are employed in the business from which they are drawn. [30124]

  Mr. Forth
  The members are as listed. In the case of those drawn from the business community, the number of people employed in the business from which they are drawn is shown in brackets.

  Business

  Sir Ron Dearing (Chairman)

  Professor John Arbuthnott

  Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Strathclyde

  Baroness Dean of Thornton le Fylde

  (formerly Brenda Dean)

  Ms Judith Evans

  Director of Corporate Personnel, Sainsbury's (131,298)

  Sir Ron Garrick

  Managing Director and Chief Executive of Weir Group (6,913)

  Sir Geoffrey Holland

  Vice-Chancellor of the University of Exeter

  Professor Diana Laurillard

  Pro Vice-Chancellor (Technology Development) of the Open University

  Mrs. P. A. Morris

  Headteacher, The Blue School, Wells

  Sir Ronald Oxburgh

  Rector of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  Dr. David Potter

  Chairman of Psion plc (491)

  123

  Business

  Sir George Quigley

  Chairman of Ulster Bank(4,015)

  Sir William Stubbs

  Chief Executive of the Further Education Funding Council and Rector Designate of the London Institute

  Sir Richard Sykes

  Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of Glaxo-Wellcome plc (47,189)

  Professor David Watson

  Director of the University of Brighton

  Professor Sir David Weatherall

  Regius Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford

  Professor Adrian Webb

  Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glamorgan

  Mr. Simon Wright

  Education and Welfare Officer, Students Union, the University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Universities and colleges are also employers in their own right.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number of(a) men and (b) women studying in medical schools in England and Wales. [29990]

  Mr. Forth
  In 1994–95, the numbers of students studying medicine in those universities in England and Wales with medical schools were 14,760 men and 14,961 women.

  Feversham College, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received in the current year concerning the granting of voluntary-aided status to Feversham college in Bradford; when her officials(a) last met representatives of the college and (b) last visited Bradford to meet college representatives; when she expects to take a decision on an application from the college for voluntary-aided status; and if she will make a statement. [30146]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations in the current years. Officials of the Department met representatives of the college in Bradford on 14 May 1996. There is currently no application for voluntary aided status before my right hon. Friend but she will, of course, consider carefully and on their merits any proposals which come to her for a decision.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil
  124
  servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30063]

  Mr. Forth
  The departmental deregulation unit is part of the briefing unit, a division which also has various other functions. The staff who deal with deregulation as part of their duties consist of one grade 5—plus personal secretary—one grade 7, one higher executive officer, one executive officer and one administrative officer. The annual salary and general administrative costs attributable to deregulation functions are approximately £29,000. None of the current staff have been seconded from business. The grade 5 divisional manager has experience of secondment to the private sector.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 460, how many firms there are with fewer than 50 employees in each region listed. [30436]

  Mr. Paice
  Estimates of the numbers of firms of different sizes for the United Kingdom are published in the DTI statistical bulletin "Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Statistics for the UK 1993".

  A regional breakdown is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A copy of the publication is available in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  DoA Ltd. (Liabilities)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the continuing funding of DoA Ltd.'s liabilities to Strathclyde passenger transport executive. [30670]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department has given Strathclyde written assurances that DoA Ltd.'s obligations to the PTE under the deeds of assumption will be met. A minute dated 20 May has been laid before the House.

  Drivers' Eyesight Tests
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now received all replies from the relevant national authorities on eyesight requirements for lorry drivers, required by the second European directive on driving licences. 91/439/EEC; when a final decision will be made; and if he will make a statement. [31417]

  Mr. Norris
  Information has not yet been received from all national authorities. We are currently considering precisely how the new eyesight requirements should be implemented.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reconsideration has been given to his earlier pronouncement about the abolition from 1 July 1996 of the rights of drivers who under previous United Kingdom regulations had obtained a bus or lorry licence by satisfying the then statutory or administrative eyesight requirements and whose eyesight had not since their last renewal deteriorated below those standards. [30414]
  125
  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend announced on 25 April at column 248 that implementation of some of the provisions of the Second EC directive on driving licences, including changes to eyesight requirements for driving lorries and buses, would now take place on 1 January 1997.

  Unused Rail Tickets (Refunds)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussion he has had with the Office of the Franchise Director regarding administrative charges by rail franchises for refunding unused rail tickets; what the outcome of those discussions were; what controls have been placed on rail franchisees with respect to administrative charges; and if he will make a statement. [29628]

  Mr. Watts
  None. Under condition 25 of the national conditions of carriage, train operators are allowed to make a reasonable administrative charge when refunding unused rail tickets.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what power the Rail Regulator has to control the administrative fees charged by rail franchisees when refunding unused rail tickets. [29629]

  Mr. Watts
  Refund on unused rail tickets are covered by the national conditions of carriage, approved by the Rail Regulator under condition 7 of each operator's passenger licence. The national conditions of carriage allow a reasonable administrative charge to be made. If a train operator was to charge an excessive amount, he could be in breach of his licence obligation and subject to the regulator's enforcement powers.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector, [30065]

  Mr. Watts
  This Department's deregulation unit has a staff running cost budget of around £100,000 per year and a complement of six staff.

  Five are civil servants with little direct experience of the private sector; they include a grade 5, a grade 7, an HEO and two clerical staff—the other is a private sector consultant, who is retained to advise on deregulation issues. The civil servants in the DDU have other responsibilities in addition to the Government's deregulation initiative and this has been taken into account in the budget figure.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 328, how many of the bids for Network South Central offered new rolling stock. [30425]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is commercially confidential.
  126

  Road Building
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the network enhancement projects announced in the Highways Agency business plan for 1995–96 were started by 31 March. [29989]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody dated 21 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking which network enhancement projects announced in the Highways Agency Business Plan 1995/96 were started by 31 March.

  Of the network enhancement projects announced in the Highways Agency's 1995/96 Business Plan, 9 in the £1 million to £3 million category and 156 in the £50,000 to £1 million category were started by 31 March 1996. These projects are those ticked on the attached lists.

  The Agency's 1996 Business Plan was amended to include 3 new network enhancement projects in the £50,000 to £1 million category. These were:—

  A570 Rainford Bypass, Bushey Lane Bypass, Merseyside

  A3 Milford-Thursley Boundless Road, Surrey—Safety Fencing

  A10 Buntingford to Royston, Herts—Safety Improvements

  All three were started by 31 March 1996.

  Major network enhancement project starts.

  The following 16 major network enhancement projects costing between £1 million and £3 million 1995–96.

  1. A1 Hithchcroft to Cawledge, Northumberland— Upgrading to dual carriageway.

  2. A1 Shotton Edge, Northumberland—Junction Improvement.

  3. A19 Easington to Hawthorn upgrading, County Durham.

  4. M60 Manchester Outer Ring Road, Greater Manchester— Upgrading and Improvement of Signing.

  5. A65 Chelker Bends Improvement, North Yorkshire.

  6. A616/A628 Flouch Crossroads Improvement, South Yorkshire—Provision of a Roundabout.

  7. A30 Kennards House Improvement, Cornwall—Junction Improvement.

  8. A39 Fairy Cross to Horns Cross Improvement, Devon.

  9. A30 Mienzies Down, Cornwall—Improvement of westbound carriageway.

  10. A30 Allins to South Penlean Improvement, Cornwall.

  11. A259 Brookland Improvement, Kent.

  12. A3 Painshill to Wisley, Surrey—Lighting Improvements.

  13. A41 Rosehill to Heath House Improvement, Shropshire.

  14. New Traffic Management Schemes, East Midlands— Signing Improvements.

  15. M40 Junction 9–10, Oxfordshire—provision of Maintenance Compound.

  16. Birmingham—Nottingham—M25—Signing Improvements.

  Other network network enhancement project starts

  The following 280 network enhancement projects costing between £50,000 and £1 million and shown by region are scheduled to start in 1995–96:
  The North East—16 projects totalling £3.5 million

  1. A1(M) Sherburn to Bowburn Climbing Lane, Durham.

  2. A1 Newcastle Western Bypass—Laybys and Accident Reduction Measures.

  127

  3. A1 Metrocentre Gantries, Gateshead.

  4. A1 Low Lynn to Haggerston, Northumberland.

  5. A19 Hylton Bridge Lighting, Tyne and Wear.

  6. A19 Tyne Tunnel Approach—Pedestrian Fencing in Central Reserve near Kirkstone Avenue Footbridge.

  7. A19 Kirkstone Avenue, to Hedworth Lane Interchange, Jarrow—Fencing in Central Reserve and Footpath Guardrail.

  8. A19 Hedworth Lane Interchange to Field Way, Jarrow— Fencing in Central Reserve.

  9. A19/A1231 Junction Signalling, Tyne and Wear.

  10. A19A/183 Junction Signalling, Tyne and Wear.

  11. A66 Darlington Southern Bypass Dualling.

  12. A66 Great Burdon to County Boundary, Durham.

  13. A69 Bank Foot Junction Closure, Greenhead, Northumberland.

  14. A69 Bank Foot, Hexham—Corbridge Bypass—Upgrading of Layby.

  15. A167 Redhills Lane/Toll House, Durham—Junction Signals.

  16. A696/A1 to Kenton Bank, Newcastle—Lighting.

  The North West—47 projects totalling £10 million

  17. M6 Cumbria—Raised Rib Edge Lining.

  18. M6 Cumbria—Safety Fencing and Matrix Signals.

  19. M6 J28, Lancashire—Lighting.

  20. M6 Bridges, Lancashire—Widening of Hardshoulders on Bridges.

  21. M6 Brocstedes Bridge Improvement, Lancashire.

  22. M6 Shaft Footbridge Replacement, Lancashire.

  23. M53 Wirral—Drainage Improvements.

  24. M61 Greater Manchester—Southbound Merge with A666—Improvements to Signing and Road Markings.

  25. M61 Greater Manchester—Underbridge Lighting Improvements.

  26. M62 J12, Greater Manchester—Provision of Link Road.

  27. M62 J12, Greater Manchester—Gantry Emergency Route.

  28. M62 J18, Roundabout, Greater Manchester—Widening of Circulatory Carriageway.

  29. M62 J20, Rochdale—Provision of Free Flow Lane.

  30. M62 J20, Greater Manchester—Direction Signing Improvements.

  31. M62 J21-J22, Greater Manchester—Drainage Improvements.

  32. M63 J9, Greater Manchester—Slip Road Improvement.

  33. M63 (J10, 13, 14 and 15), Greater Manchester-Equipment Improvements.

  34. M63 J13-J15, Greater Manchester—Provision of Hardstandings.

  35. A41 Bell o' the Hill, Cheshire—Bend Improvement.

  36. A41 Eastham Rake, Wirral—Traffic Signal Improvement.

  37. A41 Hooton Point, Wirral—Traffic Signal Improvement.

  38. A49 Greenacres Farm, Cheshire—Bend Improvement.

  39. A57 Traffic Signal Improvement, Mottram Moor, Greater Manchester.

  40. A57 Greater Manchester—Cycleway Provision.

  41. A59/A582 Penwortham Triangle, Preston—Traffic Signal Improvements.

  42. A59 Burscough to Rufford, Lancashire—Traffic Calming.

  43. A59 B6230 Trafalgar Hotel, Lancashire—New Traffic Signals.

  44. A59 Chatburn—Crawler Lane.

  45. A59 Chatburn Sawley Bend, Lancashire—Carriageway Realignment.

  128

  46. A59 Longsight Road, Lancashire—Traffic Calming.

  47. A66 Briery Interchange, Keswick—Provision of Climbing Lane.

  48. A556 Plumley Moor Road, Cheshire—Junction Improvement.

  49. A556 Lostock Gralam, Cheshire—Carriageway Improvement.

  50. A565 Crosby North/South Road, Merseryside—Junction Improvement.

  51. A565 Liverpool Road, Crosby—Traffic Signal Improvement.

  52. A570/M58 Junction, Lancashire—Improvement and New Laybys.

  53. A570 Southport Road, Lancashire—Provision of Laybys.

  54. A580 Church Lane, Lowton, Lancashire—Provision of Right Turning Lane.

  55. A580 Old Clough Lane, Greater Manchester—Closure of Central Reserve Gap.

  56. A585 Skippool Roundabout Improvements, Lancashire.

  57. A590 Newby Bridge Improvement, Cumbria.

  58. A596 Ramsey Brow and Jane Street, Workington.

  59. A646 Burnley Road, Lancashire—Road Marking and Signing Improvements.

  60. A5036 Church Road—Netherton Way, Merseyside— Lighting Improvements.

  61. A5036/M57/M58 Switch Island Improvement, Merseyside.

  62. A5117 (M56-A550), Cheshire—Lighting Scheme.

  63. A6119 Whitebirk Roundabout, Blackburn-Signing and Road Marking Improvements.

  Yorkshire and Humberside—33 projects totalling £9.3 million

  64. M1/M62 Lofthouse Interchange, West Yorkshire— Provision of Turning Lane.

  65. M1/M62 Lofthouse Interchange, West Yorkshire— Provision of Turning Lane.

  66. Ml J34, Sheffield—Northbound Exit Lane—Provision of Extra Lane.

  67. M18/A1(M) Wadworth Interchange, South Yorkshire— Safety Improvements.

  68. M62 J29-J30, West Yorkshire—Lighting.

  69. M181/A18 Junction, Scunthorpe—Safety Improvements.

  70. Humberside Motorways—Verge Safety Fencing.

  71. A1(M) Warmsworth—Marr, South Yorkshire—Lighting

  72. A15 Central Reserve Safety Fencing.

  73. A19 Black Swan Crossroads, North Yorkshire—Lighting.

  74. A19 Cross Lanes, North Yorkshire—Carriageway and Junction Improvements.

  75. A19 Nether Silton-Over Silton, North Yorkshire—Safety Improvements.

  76. A19 New Parks Bends, North Yorkshire—Carriageway Improvements

  77. A57 Mansfield Road Junction, South Yorkshire—Provision of Roundabout.

  78. A57 Todwick-Anston, South Yorkshire—Lighting.

  79. A61 Turnpike Crossroads Improvement, South Yorkshire.

  80. A63 Local Central Reserve Safety Fence Improvements in Humberside.

  81. A64 Copmanthorpe-Wild Man, North Yorkshire—Safety Improvements.

  82. A64 Rillington-Malton, North Yorkshire—Pedestrian and Cycle Facilities.

  83. A64 Tadcaster-Wild Man, North Yorkshire—Safety Improvements.

  129

  84. A64 West Heslerton, North Yorkshire—Drainage Improvements.

  85. A65 Ilkley-Accident Remedial Measures.

  86. A180 Humberside—Pollution Chambers to Protect Aquifer.

  87. A616 Stocksbridge, South Yorkshire—Safety Fencing.

  88. A646 Mytholmroyd, West Yorkshire—Provision of Roundabout.

  89. A646 West Yorkshire—Safety Fence Improvements.

  90. A650 Aireville-Cottingley Bar, West Yorkshire—Lighting.

  91. A660 Otley Chevin, Leeds—Safety Fencing.

  92. A1079 Dunnington, North Yorkshire—Traffic Calming.

  93. A1079 Hayton, Humberside—Traffic Calming.

  94. A1079 Kexby, North Yorkshire—Traffic Calming.

  95. A6120 Leeds Outer Ring Road, Weetwood Lane—Traffic Signals.

  96. A6120 Ringwood Drive, Leeds—Junction Improvement

  The West Midlands—21 projects totalling £6.3 million

  97. M5 J1 and J2, West Midlands—Queue Detection Measures.

  98. M6 Midland Links Variable Message Signing Stage 2.

  99. M42 J3A J9 and J10, West Midlands—Queue Detection Measures.

  100. M50 Hereford and Worcester—Improvements.

  101. A5 Fazeley-Two Gates, Staffordshire—Remedial Works.

  102. A5 Priorslee-Gailey, Staffordshire—Remedial Works.

  103. A34 Aston, Staffordshire—Provision of Footway.

  104. A38 Hilliards Cross, Staffordshire—Lighting.

  105. A38 Lickey End Widening, West Midlands.

  106. A40 Ryeford Diversion, Herefordshire.

  107. Closure of Windmill Hill Slip Road, Coventry.

  108. A45 Stonehouse Lane Footbridge, West Midlands.

  109. A45 Tollbar End Improvements, West Midlands.

  110. A49 Belmont Roundabout, Herefordshire—Traffic Signals.

  111. A52/A523 Staffordshire—Safety Trial.

  112. A435 Warwickshire—Climbing Lane.

  113. A449 Halfcot, Staffordshire—Drainage Improvement.

  114. A449 Hurcott Road, Kidderminster—Traffic Signals.

  115. A452 Chester Road/Little Aston Lane, West Midlands.

  116. A458 Rowton Phase 3, Shropshire.

  117. A4123 West Midlands.

  The East Midlands—24 projects totalling £5.1 million

  118. M1J 25, Nottinghamshire—Traffic Signals.

  119. Ml J24, Junction Improvement Leicestershire.

  120. A1 Five Lanes End Roundabout Improvement, Nottinghamshire.

  121. A1 Marksham Moor Roundabout Improvement, Nottinghamshire.

  122. A5 Dodwells Roundabout Cycleway, Leicestershire.

  123. A5 Nutts Lane Ghost Island, Leicestershire.

  124. A6 Accident Reduction Measures, Great Glen, Leicestershire.

  125. A6 Barmoor Clough Roundabout, Derbyshire.

  126. A6 Darley Dale-Chapel, Derbyshire—Accident Reduction Trials.

  127. A14 Layby Improvements, Northants.

  128. A16 Boston—Traffic Signals.

  129. A16 High Ferry Level Crossing, Lincolnshire—Lighting.

  130. A17 Access to Fosdyke Village, Lincolnshire.

  131. A46 Stragglethorpe Crossroads Improvement, Nottinghamshire.

  130

  132. A47 Allexton-Belton Improvement, Rutland.

  133. A47/B6047 Junction near Billesdon, Leicestershire— Lighting.

  134. A52 Cropwell Road Junction Improvement, Radcliffe on Trent, Nottinghamshire.

  135. A52 Derby-Leek—Accident Reduction Trials.

  136. A52 Derby Road/Thoresby Road Junction Improvement, Bramcote, Nottinghamshire.

  137. A52 Nottingham Road Junction Improvement, Radcliffe on Trent, Nottinghamshire.

  138. A57 Tom Otter's Bridge, Lincolnshire.

  139. A61 Unstone-Dronfield, Derbyshire—Central Reserve Safety Fencing.

  140. A61/A615 Junction Improvement, Alfreton.

  141. A5111 Sinfin Lane, Derbyshire—Junction Improvement.

  East Anglia—21 projects totalling £4 million

  142. A5 Beeches Road, Dunstable—Traffic Signals.

  143. A5 Kelly's Kitchen, Buckinghamshire—Roundabout Improvement.

  144. A5/A6 Layby Improvements, Bedfordshire.

  145. A10 Harston, Cambridgeshire—Traffic Calming.

  146. A11 Chalk Hill, Suffolk—Gap Closure.

  147. A11 Worsted Lodge, Cambridgeshire—Rest Area.

  148. A12 Hopton, Great Yarmouth—Cycle Track.

  149. A12 Hopton, Great Yarmouth—Roundabout.

  150. A12 Kessingland Bypass, Suffolk—Roundabout Improvements.

  151. A14 Bar Hill-Swavesey, Cambridgeshire—Slip Road and Layby Improvement.

  152. A14 Bythorn, Cambridgeshire—Environmental Barrier.

  153. A14 Dock Spur, Suffolk—Safety Improvements.

  154. A14 Girton-Kentford, Cambridgeshire—Layby Improvement.

  155. A14 M11-A1 Cambridgeshire—Safety Fence Improvements.

  156. A14 Seven Hills, Suffolk—Provision of extra lane.

  157. A47 Dereham Bypass—Laybys.

  158. A47 Old Oundle Road, Wittering—Junction Improvement.

  159. A47 Plumstead Junction Improvement, Norfolk.

  160. A47 Swaffham Roundabout Improvement.

  161. A140 Suffolk—B1077/C517—Junction Improvements.

  162. A428 Northampton-A1—Traffic Calming, Lighting, Cycle Tracks.

  London—47 projects totalling £9.8 million

  163. Ash Fullers Way North-Junction Improvement.

  164. A3 Highfield—Bus Facilities.

  165. A3 Putney, Playing Fields Scheme—Gap Closure.

  166. A3 South Lane—Bus Facilities.

  167. A4 Chiswick Roundabout—Pedestrian/Cycle Facilities and Environmental Improvements.

  168. A4 Hatch Lane Junction—Provision of Right Turning Lane.

  169. A4 Hogarth Roundabout-Sutton Court Road—Central Reserve and Environmental Improvement.

  170. A4 Moor Roundabout—Replacement by Traffic Signals.

  171. A4 Oxford Avenue—New Pelican Crossing.

  172. A4 Thornby Road Junction—Pedestrian Facilities.

  173. A10/A406 Great Cambridge Circus—Accident Remedial Measures.

  174. A10 Bullsmore Lane—Junction Improvement.

  175. A10 Bury Street—Junction Improvement.

  131

  176. A10 Carterhatch Lane-A406—Provision of Cycleway.

  177. A12 Mawney Road Footbridge Replacement.

  178. A13/A117 Junction—Removal of Tidal Flow.

  179. A13 Dagenham and Barking—Environmental Improvements.

  180. A20 Sidcup Road, Central Reserve—Environmental and Safety Improvements

  181. A23/A205 Junction, Strestham—Pedestrian Facilities and Right Turning Lane.

  182. A23 Streatham—Pelican Crossing, Gap Closures and Landscaping.

  183. A30 Clock House Roundabout—Traffic Signals.

  184. A40 Provision of Cycle Track.

  185. A40 Islip Manor Road Footbridge Replacement.

  186. A40 Western Circus-Wood Lane—Central Reserve Concrete Barrier.

  187. A41 Finchley Road/Swiss Cottage—Cycle Facilities.

  188. A41 Safety Improvement Schemes.

  189. A102 Blackwall Tunnel—Height Gauge Northbound.

  190. A102 Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach—Safety Fencing.

  191. A102 Blackwall Tunnel—Automatic Overheight Detector.

  192. A102 Blackwall Tunnel Southern Approach—Safety Fencing.

  193. A127 Gallows Corner-Bryant Avenue—Environmental Improvements.

  194. A205 Putney—Alignment Improvements.

  195. A205 Upper Richmond Road/Oxford Road/Carlton Drive—Traffic Signals.

  196. A316 Chalkers Corner—Traffic Flow Improvement.

  197. A316 Whitton Road Roundabout—Traffic Signals.

  198. A406 Ashley Gardens Footbridge—Addition of Ramps.

  199. A501 Euston Road—Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements.

  200. A501 Euston Road, Camden Town Hall-Upper Woburn Place—Bus Lane.

  201. A501 Euston Underpass—Variable Message Signing.

  202. A1400 Woodford Avenue-Clayhall Avenue—Pedestrian Facilities.

  203. London-wide enhancement of Closed Circuit TV traffic monitoring.

  204. Traffic Enforcement Schemes in London.

  205. Installation of improved traffic management systems at six junctions.

  206. Installation of 12 Variable Message Signs.

  207. Remote Monitoring of Traffic Signals improvements.

  208. Speed and Red Light Cameras in London.

  209. Urban Traffic Control System Improvements.

  The South East—47 projects totalling £7.5 million

  210. Ml J6 Hertfordshire—Extra Lane on Northbound Exit.

  211. M3 J1 Surrey—Improved Pedestrian Facilities.

  212. M3 J6 Blackdam Interchange, Hampshire—Traffic Signals.

  213. M4 Berkshire—Additional Safety Fencing.

  214. M4 Berkshire—Raised Rib Edge Lining.

  215. M11 J4–5, Essex—Provision of 3 Lanes Southbound.

  216. M25 J11-J13, Essex—Safety Fence Improvements.

  217. M25 J15, Buckinghamshire—Safety Fencing for Lighting Columns.

  218. M25 J16, Buckinghamshire—Safety Fencing for Lighting Columns.

  219. M25 J24, Hertfordshire—Improvement to Exit Slip roads.

  132

  220. A1(M) J3, Hertfordshire—Traffic Signals.

  221. A1(M) J6, Hertfordshire—Flood Prevention.

  222. A2 Kingston Bridleway Bridge, Kent.

  223. A2 Lydden, Kent—Junction Improvement.

  224. A2/M25 Junction—Improvements to Traffic Signals.

  225. A3/M25 J10 Wisley, Surrey—Improved Traffic Monitoring.

  226. A10 Cheshunt, Hertfordshire—Central Reserve Safety Fencing.

  227. A12 Feering-Marks Tey, Essex—Central Reserve Safety Fencing.

  228. A12 Hatfield Peverel-Marks Tey Essex—Safety Measures.

  229. A12 Witham-Hatfield Peverel, Essex—Central Reserve Safety Fencing.

  230. A21 Sevenoaks Bypass—Safety Improvements.

  231. A23 Pease Pottage-Handcross, West Sussex—Improved Signs and Lane Markings.

  232. A23 Warninglid-Brighton—Improved Signs and Lane Markings.

  233. A27 Avisford-Tortington, West Sussex—Safety Improvements.

  234. A27 Bognor Roundabout—Pedestrian/Cycle Bridge.

  235. A27 Lancing, West Sussex—Drainage Improvement.

  236. A27 Ripe Junction Improvement, East Sussex.

  237. A27 Sussex University Junction Improvement, Brighton.

  238. A30 The Billet, Staines—Overheight Detector Upgrade.

  239. A30 The Billet, Staines—Traffic Signals.

  240. A30 Staines-Ashford—Improved to Signs and Lane Markings.

  241. A31 Cadnam-Stoney Cross, Hampshire—Safety Improvements.

  242. A31 Stoney Cross-Picket Post, Hampshire—Safety Improvements.

  243. A40/B4425 Junction Improvement, Burford, Oxon.

  244. A40 London Road, Headington, Oxon—Traffic Signals.

  245. A41 North of Dome Roundabout, Hertfordshire— Parking Improvement.

  246. A259 Nicholls Quarry, Kent—Junction Improvement.

  247. A259 New Beach Junction Improvement. Kent.

  248. A259 Redoubt Way Junction Improvement, Kent.

  249. A282/M25 Dartford Crossing—Variable Message Signing.

  250. A282/M25 Essex—Variable Message Signing Gantry.

  251. A420 Buckland Junction Improvement, Oxon.

  252. A420 Hartwells/Rockley Cottages, Oxon—Junction Improvement.

  253. A420 Longcot Turn, Oxon—Junction Improvement.

  254. A420 Pusey Turn, Oxon—Junction Improvement.

  255. A420/A338 Junction Improvement, Oxon.

  256. Hertfordshire—Improvements to Communications Equipment.

  The South West—24 projects totalling £5.8 million

  257. M4 Wiltshire—Emergency Gap Closure Advance Works.

  258. M4 J15, Wiltshire—Traffic Signals.

  259. M4/M32 Junction Improvement Phase 2, Avon.

  260. M5 Devon—Railway Safety Fencing.

  261. M5 Somerset—Safety Fencing.

  262. A4 Saltford Safety Schemes, Avon.

  263. A30 Bodmin Bypass—Layby Improvements.

  133

  264. A30 Monkton, Devon—Provision of Footbridge.

  265. A30 Temple Junction Improvement, Cornwall.

  266. A31 St. Leonards Footbridge, Dorset.

  267. A31/A35 Dorset—Central Reserve Safety Fencing.

  268. A35 Fulvens, Dorset—Edge Support and Safety Fencing.

  269. A35 Whiteway Cross, Dorset—Junction Improvement.

  270. A36/A27 Junction, Wiltshire—Traffic Signals and Lighting.

  271. A36 College Roundabout, Wiltshire—Traffic Signals.

  272. A36 Wick Farm Improvement, Somerset.

  273. A38 Landrake Footbridge, Cornwall.

  274. A39 Bangors Improvement, Cornwall.

  275. A39 Collans Cross-Starra Peak, Cornwall.

  276. A40/A48/A417 Gloustershire—Speed Camera Facilities.

  277. A361 Devon—Central Reserve Safety Fencing.

  278. A361 Little Gornhay, Devon—Flood Relief.

  279. A361 Moortown Junction Improvement, Devon.

  280. A417 Birdlip, Gloucestership—Signal Lane Dualling.

  Thames Leisure Craft Operators
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what training and qualifications are required of masters of passenger pleasure and leisure craft on the River Thames. [29541]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 21 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the training and qualifications required for masters of passenger, pleasure and leisure craft on the River Thames.

  Masters of vessels on the River Thames which carry more than 12 passengers must be qualified in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Local Passenger Vessels) (Masters' Licences and Hours, Manning and Training) Regulations 1993. The 1993 regulations require masters to hold a current Boatmaster's Licence which is appropriate to the waters in which their vessel is being navigated and the number of passengers being carried. The training requirements which must be satisfied before the licence is issued are described in Merchant Shipping Notice M. 1525. I enclose copies of the 1993 regulations and M.1525 with this letter.

  Exemptions from the requirement to hold a Boatmaster's Licence can be granted where the master holds a qualification the standards for which are considered at least equivalent to the Department's standards for the relevant grade of Boatmaster's Licence. The Port of London Authority's (PLA) Waterman's Licence is recognised as equivalent to the MSA's Boatmaster's Licence for masters of vessels on the River Thames which carry more than 12 passengers. To obtain such a licence a master has to pass four independent professional examinations before achieving a full licence. Thereafter, they are required to maintain its validity by working on the river for 150 days every 3 years. Anyone failing to meet this experience criterion has to be re-examined.

  Masters of vessels on the River Thames carrying 12 passengers or fewer are required by the PLA to hold the PLA Waterman's Licence.

  Airport Development
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 542, what is the time scale of each of the detailed assessments listed. [29570]
  134
  Mr. Norris
  Detailed assessments of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton were carried out by the RUCATSE working group as it judged only these airports offered worthwhile prospects of responding to forecast levels of demand. The group took the view that Southampton, Manston and Lydd did not merit detailed assessments. RUCATSE's report was published in July 1993.

  King's Cross Railway Lands (Gasholders)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to relocate the gasholders on the King's cross railway lands. [30356]

  Mr. Watts
  Union Railways and London and Continental Railways, who will be responsible for designing and constructing the channel tunnel rail link, are consulting English Heritage about the priority which should be afforded to the gasholders among other St. Pancras heritage projects.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what opinion surveys were commissioned by his Department to test public support for plastic photocard driving licences; and what were the results. [29984]

  Mr. Norris
  A preliminary public consultation during 1991 showed strong support for including photographs on driving licences. Subsequent public consultation in 1994 confirmed the earlier support.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his Department's press notice of 10 April, Reference 110, how he measures the benefits in terms of establishing identity from the introduction of plastic photocard driving licences. [29982]

  Mr. Norris
  Introduction of plastic photocard licences will, among other benefits, reduce the possibility that lost or stolen licences may be used to support a false identity—for example, when taking a driving test or hiring a vehicle.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact on the levels of fraud of the introduction of plastic photocard driving licences. [29983]

  Mr. Norris
  We intend to introduce stringent checking procedures which will make it extremely difficult to obtain a photocard driving licence fraudulently. The card format will incorporate a number of security features designed to prevent counterfeiting.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his plans to increase the reliability of identification procedures for the issuing of driving licences; whether these plans involve the taking of fingerprints or any other biometric measures; if access to personal data held by the Government Departments is involved; and what additional data items, not related to driving licences, are being considered to be included in
  135
  space on the licence allocated to member states for their own purposes. [30048]

  Mr. Norris
  The checks on the identity of applicants for photocard driving licences are being considered in the light of the best practices of the Passport Agency. These do not include fingerprints or biometric measures.
  136
  Access to personal information will be regulated under the provision of the Data Protection Act.

  EU legislation allows member states to include additional information on the driving licence and designates an area on the licence for that purpose. No decision has yet been made on what it will contain.
  137

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Colliery Areas Regeneration
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total allocation of the RECHAR funds over the last three years(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales. [29465]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The United Kingdom allocation for 1990–93 was 179.0 mecu, in 1992 prices of which 31.2 mecu was for Wales. The UK allocation for 1994–97 is at present 163.24 mecu, in 1995 prices, of which 20.46 mecu was for Wales. These figures reflect the preponderantly earlier incidence of job losses in the Welsh coal industry.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the areas under consideration for contracting out in the Radiocommunications Agency indicating the number of staff involved and the proposed time-scale involved; and if he will make a statement. [29376]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Radiocommunications Agency and its predecessors has an excellent record for contracting out services. Licensing which does not involve frequency assignment has been contracted out; in other areas they have encouraged self management by industry groups wherever possible where this improves customer service. It is agency policy to review continuously all licensing activities to identify any potential candidates for future action. The support services of the agency were all contracted out on relocation to new headquarters in London's docklands last October.

  The Radiocommunications Agency is also currently completing its prior options review, which is examining, among other things, the scope for any further contracting out across the agency. Ministers announced the outcome of the review of the customer services branch on 31 October 1995. It is anticipated that the review of the remainder of the agency will be completed within the next few months.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the terms of reference for the proposed strategic partnership between the Radiocommunications Agency information technology service and the private sector; how many staff are involved; and what are the estimated costs; [29378]

  (2) if he will list (a) those parties which responded to the advertisement in the EC Journal with regard to the strategic partnership between the Radiocommunications Agency information technology service and the private sector, (b) the date for proposed tendering, (c) the mechanisms for union involvement in the consultation process and (d) the number of union representatives to sit on the bids evaluation panel; and if he will make a statement; [29380]

  (3) when a new contractor will be selected to complete refurbishment of New Kings Beam house; if he will make a statement on the process for evaluating new bids and the criteria for selecting a new contractor; who will sit
  138
  on the evaluation panel; if unions will be permitted to participate in the selection process; and if he will make a statement; [29382]

  (4) how many consultants have been employed in the Radiocommunications Agency to date; at what cost; and if he will make a statement; [29377]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the procedures employed by his Department to monitor outfitting and refurbishment work in New Kings Beam house prior to the contractor going into receivership; what is the cost of unfinished work; and if he will make a statement; [29381]

  (6) if he will make a statement on the future location of staff in the Radiocommunications Agency. [29379]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the chief executive of the Radiocommunications Agency. I have asked him to arrange for replies to be given.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Nick Harvey, dated 21 May 1996:

  As promised in Mr Taylor's response to your Parliamentary Question No. 97/2277 I am writing to you to provide the information you requested about our procurement of an IT Strategic Partner.

  (a) The Agency is using EC Services Directive negotiated procedures to recruit an IT Strategic Partner from the private sector. The detailed terms of reference for the partnership will be agreed later this year in negotiations with the short listed companies. It is the Agency's intention to acquire a partner who can work with the Agency to provide a broad range of information technology services which fully meet the Agency's business needs and provide value for money. It also sees opportunities for the partnership to exploit the Agency's expertise in spectrum management in international markets, benefiting the UK industrial and diplomatic interests, subject to ministerial approval.

  (b) Some 45 Agency staff are currently directly involved in IT. We have made clear to all staff that, subject to discussion with line management, they will be able to apply for redeployment work in the Agency's Intelligent Customer Function, to apply for other work within the Agency or to transfer to the chosen 'Strategic Partner'.

  (c) It is estimated that the external cost of setting up the Partnership will be some £300k, for the use of CCTA consultancy, and that the annual value of the contract will be some £2.5m to £3m over 7 to 10 years.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Nick Harvey, dated 21 May 1996:

  As promised in Mr Taylor's response to your Parliamentary Question No. 95/2279 I am writing to you to provide the information you requested about our procurement of an IT Strategic Partner.

  (a) The attached annex provides a list of the companies who responded to the advert in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  (b) It is expected that final tenders will invited from a short list of three or four companies during February 1997.

  (c) The Agency Trade Union Side is being kept informed about progress at our regular Whitley Council meetings. Additionally the Agency is establishing an IT Staff Consultative Group which will be regularly consulted during the development of the Agency's partnership requirements and when negotiations with the short listed companies are progressing.

  (d) Although the Agency's Management Board will take the final decision on the selection of the Partner, the Trade Union Side will be kept in touch with developments.

  139
  RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY

  IT STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP PROJECT

  List of companies responding to the OJEC Advert

  Netpoint

  Pyramid Technology Ltd.

  Prolog Systems Ltd.

  Triad Group Ltd.

  Admiral Management Services Ltd.

  Elan Communications

  Electric Data Systems Ltd.

  Shiva Europe Ltd.

  Sherwood Computer Services Group Ltd.

  Real Time Maintenance

  Hoskyns Group plc

  Origin Data Realisation Ltd.

  Anthony Cook Associates

  SAIC Ltd.

  Coda Ltd.

  Kalamazoo Computer Group plc

  CFM Group Ltd.

  P and I Data Services Ltd.

  Mackenzie Tribbeck Associates (Computer Consultants) Ltd.

  Cril Ingenierie Groupe Coritec

  Aegis Systems Ltd.

  CMG Computer Management Group (UK) Ltd.

  IT Counsel Ltd.

  Amdahl (UK) Ltd.

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  Data Sciences UK Ltd.

  Sema Group UK Ltd.

  ITnet Ltd.

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Deloitte and Touche Consulting Group

  CSC Computer Services Ltd.

  PA Consulting Group

  ICL Enterprises Ltd.

  Syntegra

  Sequent Computer Systems Ltd.

  BMC Software Ltd.

  ASE Consulting

  Systems Express Ltd.

  VEGA Group plc

  Kept for summary file

  BT Sales

  Unisys

  Redifon Mel Ltd.

  FI Group plc

  WS Atkins Consultants Ltd.

  Parity Solutions Ltd.

  Cray Systems Ltd.

  Mason Communications

  Easams Ltd.

  National Telecommunications Ltd.

  DSSD

  Integris UK (division of Bull Information Systems)

  Data General Ltd.

  Targetfour Ltd.

  Origin/C and P UK

  140
  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Nick Harvey, dated 21 May 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the employment of consultants in my Agency.
  This Agency did not assume responsibility for letting its own contracts until 1994. During the financial year 1994/95 contracts for external consultancy were let to 6 organisations at a cost of £238,000. During 1995/96 8 consultancy firms were engaged at a cost of £256,000. Because of the nature of this work there is some overlap of contracts between the years and therefore some double counting of the numbers of firms engaged.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Nick Harvey, dated 21 May 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question concerning procedures for monitoring refurbishment work at New King's Beam House.
  A project manager was employed to monitor the project. Formal weekly meetings were held on site and were attended by the RA's project sponsors. They also inspected the site and discussed all aspects of the project with the project managers and other professionals on a daily basis. Cost information is a commercial matter between the parties.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Nick Harvey, dated 21 May 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the selection of contractors for the refurbishment of New King's Beam House.
  A new contractor has been selected. Departmental procurement procedures were followed throughout. Trade Union participation in the selection process is not part of those procedures and they were not invited to participate.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Nick Harvey, dated 21 May 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question concerning the further location of staff in the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The Headquarters staff of the Radiocommunications Agency are currently located at New King's Beam House and will remain there until South Quay 3 in Docklands is ready for reoccupation.

  Trade Associations
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage the merger of trade, industry and employer associations and federations into more representative bodies. [29658]

  Mr. Page
  My colleagues and I are continuing to meet with trade associations and other representative bodies to encourage them to become more fully representative of whole sectors, in line with the principles in my Department's best practice guide for the Model Trade Association.

  Encryption Algorithms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to restrict the use of encryption algorithms to protect the activities of the law enforcement agencies. [29696]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  There are no plans to introduce measures which would restrict the use of encryption algorithms. As I have made clear in previous answers, however, discussions have been taking place between Government Departments on the type of arrangements
  141
  that could be introduced to provide encryption services for business whilst preserving the effectiveness of the law enforcement agencies. No decisions have yet been taken.

  We are watching closely developments in the USA and the impact they may have on commercial interests in the United Kingdom.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much has been spent on providing briefing material to members of industrial tribunals in each of the last five years; and what is his estimate of the amount likely to be spent during the current year; [29937]

  (2) what change has been made in the amount of briefing material made available to industrial tribunal members; and if he will make a statement; [29936]

  (3) what consultations he has had with industrial tribunal members about the type and quantity of briefing material they want to have provided by the Department. [29938]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Regular briefing is provided for members through the Incomes Data Services brief. The annual costs of this publication for the last five years and the current year is:

  Year

  1991: £71.8k

  1992: £77.4k

  1993: £100.1k

  1994: £101.6k

  1995: £102.1k

  1996: £80.7k

  These figures include the cost of providing this publication to tribunal chairmen as well as members. It is not possible to identify separately the cost for the lay members. Additional briefing material is provided to members as part of their initial and annual refresher training.

  The instrument of appointment for lay members provides for up to three days initial induction training, plus up to two refresher days general training each year.

  There has been no change to the range of briefing material made available to members, although in the interests of good financial management, there has been a reduction in the total number of copies of the IDS brief. This reduction in the number of copies was the subject of full consultation with the president of the tribunals and the regional chairmen.

  Sun Alliance-Royal Insurance Merger
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what ways he proposes to ensure that the public interest, with particular reference to the consequences for public finances of the effects on employment, are taken into account during consideration of the proposed Sun Alliance-Royal Insurance merger. [29730]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This merger does not fall to be considered under the public interest test in the merger 142
  provisions of the Fair Trading Act, as it comes within the jurisdiction of the EC merger regulation. Under this legislation, the EC Commission is responsible for appraising the merger's impact on competition, taking into account the views of member states.

  Bread Pricing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Office of Fair Trading the subject of predatory pricing of bread by supermarkets. [29760]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Director General of Fair Trading is currently considering the impact of the pricing policies that are pursued by supermarkets, including allegations of predatory pricing of bread, and is taking the opportunity to review a wide range of competition issues in relation to supermarkets. He will decide in due course whether there are any grounds for him to take action. If anyone has firm evidence that supermarkets may be breaching competition law they should bring it to the attention of the DGFT.

  Council of Europe (Meetings)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995 have been attended by Ministers or officials of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [29369]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: There have been 212 meetings of or organised by the Council of Europe since January 1995 attended by members of staff of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. DTI officials do not routinely attend.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list, for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30129]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Services within my Department's agencies which have been market tested with an in-house bid are as follows:

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory:

  Typing services: Awarded to in-house team

  Patent Office:

  Reprographic services: Awarded to in-house team

  The Insolvency Service:

  Central Accounting Unit: Awarded to in-house team

  Crown Post Offices
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices in(a) Scotland and (b) throughout the United Kingdom have been converted to agency status in each financial year since the introduction of the policy. [29988]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the Post Office that numbers of crown post offices converted to agency
  143
  status in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom in each financial year since 1989–90 are as follows:

  Year

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1989–90

  32

  153

  1990–91

  29

  164

  1991–92

  40

  147

  1992–93

  11

  108

  1993–94

  13

  117

  1994–95

  11

  106

  1995–96

  2

  45

  Statutory Employment Rights
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the proportion of full-time workers qualifying for statutory employment rights in(a) 1978, (b) 1988, (c) 1992, (d) 1993 and (e) 1994 in the United Kingdom and in each standard region and nation. [30405]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The requested estimates cannot be provided, for a number of reasons. These include the fact that not all employment rights have the same qualifying conditions, and that the rights themselves have been amended over the years so that no direct comparisons can be made. Employees now qualify for a number of important rights regardless of their hours of work or length of service.

  Advertising Standards Authority
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what measures he takes to ensure that the decisions of the Advertising Standards Authority reflect public concerns on matters of taste and decency; [30194]

  (2) what monitoring he routinely undertakes of the Advertising Standards Authority. [30198]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Advertising Standards Authority is independent of Government. It supervises an agreed code of practice under which the advertising industry is self-regulated to ensure that the system works in the pubic interest and to publicly acceptable standards.

  The authority assesses advertisements according to the standards of taste and decency generally accepted at present in the United Kingdom. The authority will be conducting research into current public attitudes on taste and decency during this year.

  My Department maintains regular contact with the authority, raising with it matters of concern as considered necessary.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to extend the protection of employment rights for those at work. [30304.]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We have no plans at present.

  Computerisation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's involvement in the development of a software package to allow PAYE/NICS/VAT/CSO requirements to be integrated. [29953]
  144
  Mr. Page
  DTI is not involved directly. The feasibility of a computer based package is being considered jointly by the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency.

  "Your Business Matters" Conference
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date he plans to publish the Government's responses to the "Your Business Matters" conference. [29956]

  Mr. Page
  A comprehensive response to the "Your Business Matters" conferences and subsequent report, will be published alongside the third "Competitiveness" White Paper in June.

  Company Payment Practice
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he plans to publish the consultative document on reporting of payment practice in company accounts; [29947]

  (2) what the deadline will be for responses to consultation on reporting of payment practice in company accounts. [29946]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department intends to publish a consultative document on reporting of payment practice at the end of June. In accordance with standard practice, consultees will have three months to respond.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30059]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The running costs for the departmental deregulation unit for 1996–97 are approximately £150,000. It has a core staff of three private civil servants—one G7 and two HEO grade—one of whom has experience of the private sector. In addition the DDU draws upon a variety of other departmental resources, including the expertise of business secondees to the Department.

  Science, Engineering and Technology
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the 1996 "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology". [30642]

  Mr. Lang
  The 1996 "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology", and its companion volume, "Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics 1996", were laid in the House this morning. This year, in response to a recommendation of the Science and Technology Committee, I have presented the documents as Command Papers. This will increase their accessibility to Members of both Houses.

  This is the third such annual publication. The "Forward Look" reiterates the Government's commitment to the White Paper policies set out in "Realising Our Potential".
  145
  It describes the Government's strategy for publicly funded science, engineering and technology (SET) within a framework of five broad objectives:
  to develop publicly funded SET to meet the country's future needs, taking account of 'Technology Foresight', and fostering partnership between the science and engineering base, industry and Government.
  to maintain the excellence of UK science, engineering and technology, to advance knowledge, increase understanding and produce highly educated and trained people.
  to improve public awareness and understanding of SET
  to maximise the effectiveness of our EU and international collaboration in meeting UK objectives
  to promote collaboration between Government Departments and ensure that trans-departmental SET issues are handled effectively, while improving efficiency and value for money.

  The "Forward Look" also presents future SET expenditure plans, includes statements by individual departments and research councils on their programmes, and reports progress on implementing the 1993 White Paper.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has carried out into the ease with which small employers can identify the documents required under clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [29949]

  Mr. Page
  No research in this ares has been carried out by my Department. I understand that the Home Office asked respondents to its consultation document on the prevention of illegal working to comment on this matter.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations his Department has received from businesses about the cost and burden of implementing clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill; what percentage was in favour; and what percentage was against the clause. [29962]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: This Department has received no such representations.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions the Minister for Science and Technology has met collectively(a) the chief executives of the research councils and (b) the chairmen of research councils, and on what dates. [29001]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: I met collectively the chief executives of the research councils on 13 December 1995 and the chairmen on 20 February 1996. In addition I have met individual research council chairmen or chief executives on several occasions before and since these meetings.

  Company Collapses
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take following the collapse of Homepower Ltd. and Power Store Trading Ltd. [29258]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 14 May 1996]: None. The administrators are seeking to preserve as much of the business and jobs of these companies as possible.
  146
  They are reviewing the financial and trading prospects of the business and the individual stores with a view to a sale as a going concern.

  Company Annual Accounts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what provisions he has made for extension for the filing of annual accounts by Firland's Training of Aylesbury; [29385]

  (2) how many special provisions he has granted to companies to postpone filing their annual accounts beyond the penalty date; in what circumstances; and if he will make a statement. [29384]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answers 14 May 1996]: The registrar and chief executive of Companies House executive agency has delegated authority to deal with such matters on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The registrar has been asked to write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 21 May 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions regarding the number of special provisions granted to companies to postpone filing their annual accounts beyond the penalty date and in what circumstances, and the provisions made for extension of the filing of annual accounts by Firlands Training of Aylesbury.
  Information on the number of extensions granted each year appear in the Department's Annual Report to Parliament. For your convenience, the numbers are as follows:

  1993/94: 4,910

  1994/95: 6,610

  1995/96: 6,708

  Extensions to the time allowed for delivering accounts are granted by Companies House on a discretionary basis on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. They are granted in exceptional circumstances where there are "special reasons" that are unforeseen by the company and which are beyond the control of its officers. There is no comprehensive or prescribed list of acceptable reasons, since each case is considered on its merits.
  With regard to the matter of Firlands Training Limited, it is not our policy to disclose to third parties the reasons for individual discretionary decisions. These are matters between the Department and the company concerned.
  However, I can confirm that as my officials have been satisfied as to the existence of "special circumstances", this company has been granted an extension of 3 months to the period allowed for delivering its 30 April 1995 accounts. The accounts are now due to be delivered no later than 31 May 1996; the company's public record has been noted accordingly.

  Torture Equipment
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to reply to the letter about the export of torture equipment by British companies about which the hon. Member for Stretford wrote to the Prime Minister on 20 March. [29177]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 14 May 1996]: This related to a matter which aroused public interest and

  147
  which needed careful consideration, and inquiries made, before responding. I wrote to the hon. Member on 16 May 1996.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29425]

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: My Department follows the advice issued by the central unit on procurement in its guidance note No. 48 "Bonds and guarantees", copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The guidance note makes clear that bonds are not always necessary and are not a substitute for considered judgments about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the available contractor. These factors will vary for each contract independent of the size of the contractor.

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

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29435]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29450]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish and Newcastle Breweries
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, (1) pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 330, how many of the 23 separate letters or parliamentary questions relating to Scottish and Newcastle Breweries were in letter form; [30169]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 May, Official Report, column 330, which hon. Members have written to him on matters relating to Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. [30170]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: Fifteen separate letters and eight separate parliamentary
  148
  questions were answered. It is not the practice to release details of correspondence between hon. Members and Ministers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times BSE infection has been found in cattle being imported into the United Kingdom; and from which countries the infected cattle originated. [28852]

  Mr. Ancram
  I understand that 14 animals have been imported into the UK which have been subsequently confirmed as having BSE. Although exact dates of importation are not known, the animals are believed to have resided in the UK for a sufficient period to have been exposed to BSE infective material. It cannot be concluded that the animals were affected with BSE when imported.

  The countries from which the animals were imported are as follows:

  Belgium: 1

  France: 4

  Italy: 3

  Netherlands: 1

  Republic of Ireland: 5.

  Environmental Improvement Schemes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which location environmental improvement schemes have been completed; which schemes are presently under construction; what funds have been allocated for such schemes in each of the next three years; what proposals there are for an environmental improvement scheme at Killyleagh; and if he will make a statement. [29874]

  Mr. Moss
  The following lists set out the locations where environmental improvement schemes are under construction. For each of the next three financial years, £2.7 million has been programmed by the Department of the Environment for environmental improvement schemes.

  A scheme has been identified at High street, Castle place, Killyleagh, to link with a roads scheme. At present, it is programmed for 1998–99 at a cost of £200,000 approximately.

  LOCATION WHERE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED—1 APRIL 1993 TO 31 MARCH 1996

  Ballymena

  Dungannon

  Magherafelt

  Carrickfergus

  Antrim

  Armagh

  Dromore

  Loughgall

  Newry

  Markethill

  149

  Portrush

  Ballymoney

  Enniskillen

  Strabane

  Downpatrick

  Ballynahinch

  Donaghadee

  Lisburn

  Bangor

  Holywood

  Draperstown

  Carnlough

  Keady

  Hilltown

  Cullyhanna

  Newtownhamilton

  Cushendall

  Belleek

  Derrygonnelly

  Garrison

  Belcoo

  Castlederg

  Coalisland

  Carrickmore

  Newtownstewart

  Stewartstown

  Cushendall

  Londonderry

  Belfast

  Newtownabbey

  Edenderry

  Newtownards

  Strangford

  Killough

  Bryansford

  Dunmurry

  Castlewellan

  Portaferry

  Castlereagh

  LOCATION WHERE SCHEMES ARE PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

  Coleraine

  Antrim

  Draperstown

  Lurgan

  Portadown

  DFP

  DENI

  DED

  DOE

  DANI

  DHSS

  NIO

  Senior Civil Service

  5

  3

  2

  1

  —

  8

  2

  Grade 6

  12

  15

  2

  3

  1

  7

  21

  Grade 7

  12

  6

  20

  15

  45

  19

  16

  Deputy Principal

  37

  13

  42

  61

  42

  47

  50

  Staff Officer

  73

  31

  79

  134

  101

  132

  75

  Executive Officer I

  55

  26

  232

  156

  76

  300

  72

  Executive Officer II

  89

  64

  206

  293

  142

  947

  117

  Admin Officer

  317

  122

  419

  1,020

  341

  2,223

  308

  Admin Assistant

  112

  39

  164

  422

  291

  721

  177

  Other

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  7

  Totals

  714

  319

  1,167

  2,105

  1,041

  4,404

  845

  150

  Richhill

  Omagh

  Coagh

  Clogher

  Drumquin

  Irvinestown

  Trillick

  Londonderry

  Belfast.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30069]

  Mr. Ancram
  The annual budget for 1995–96 for the Department of Economic Development's deregulation unit, which co-ordinates the deregulatory activity of Northern Ireland Departments was £154,065. The budget provides for the following career civil servants, none of whom have private sector experience:

  1 grade 5 (part-input)

  1 grade 7 (part-input)

  1 deputy principal

  2 staff officers

  1 administration officer

  1 typist (part-input).

  The unit does not have any secondees from business.

  Teilifis na Gaeilge
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he has had with Teilifis na Gaeilge; and if he will make a statement. [29973]

  Mr. Ancram
  There have been no meetings between Northern Ireland Office Ministers and Teilifis na Gaeilge.

  Departmental Employees
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by grade the number of women employed in each Government Department of the Northern Ireland Office. [30495]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is in the table:
  151

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which(a) universities and (b) further education colleges (i) he and (ii) his Ministers have visited since assuming office; when these visits took place; and what further plans he and his Ministers have to visit universities and further education colleges in the next two months. [25191]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Since July last year, Scottish Office Ministers have undertaken engagements in the following further and higher education institutions:

  Date of visit

  Secretary of State

  University of Strathclyde

  30 November 1995

  University of Strathclyde

  13 January 1996

  University of Stirling

  26 April 1996

  Minister of State

  University of Edinburgh

  10 July 1995

  Heriot-Watt University

  8 September 1995

  Mr. Robertson

  University of Stirling

  4 August 1995

  Banff and Buchan College

  21 August 1995

  Cardonald College

  5 September 1995

  Fife College

  2 October 1995

  Aberdeen College

  6 October 1995

  Heriot-Watt University

  6 November 1996

  University of Strathclyde

  13 November 1995

  University of Strathclyde

  24 November 1995

  Anniesland College

  4 December 1995

  Perth College

  2 February 1996

  Dundee College

  26 February 1996

  Mr. Kynoch

  Cardonald College

  14 December 1995

  University of Aberdeen

  17 April 1996

  Earl of Lindsay

  Heriot-Watt University

  5 September 1995

  Moray House Institute of Education

  19 September 1995

  University of Aberdeen

  12 October 1995

  University of Stirling

  14 February 1996

  Scottish Agricultural College

  1 March 1996

  Napier University

  2 May 1996

  Engagements are also planned, or being planned, for the following further and higher education institutions:

  Mr. Robertson

  Glasgow School of Art: 31 May 1996

  Langside College: 31 May 1996

  John Wheatley College: 31 May 1996

  Queen Margaret College: 18 October 1996

  University of Abertay Dundee:

  University of Edinburgh:

  Edinburgh College of Art:

  Glasgow Caledonian University:

  Moray House Institute of Education:

  The Open University:

  152

  The Robert Gordon University:

  St. Andrew's College of Education:

  Mr. Kynoch

  University of Strathclyde: 11 June 1996

  Earl of Lindsay

  Elmwood College:

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the annual costs of the(a) salaries, (b) secretarial support and (c) accommodation and travelling expenses for his two advisers; and if he will make a statement. [25490]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: I refer the hon Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Brown) on 18 December 1995 Official Report, column 818. The salary levels have increased by 2.7 per cent. since that reply.

  Secretarial support is provided by one secretary in London and one in Edinburgh. It is not our practice to divulge individual salaries, but the average cost of a personal secretary in the Scottish Office is £17,247— salary plus national insurance plus superannuation.

  Accommodation costs are not separately identified as they form part of the overall Scottish Office charges.

  The annual travel and subsistence charge for a special adviser is estimated at £9,000.

  Health Care International
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the Scottish Office expenditure(a) in cash terms and (b) at current prices on (i) the Health Care International hospital in Clydebank and (ii) developing the land. [25421]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The Scottish Office itself paid £18.6 million in regional selective assistance—of which £1 million was subsequently recovered—to Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd (HCI). The company also, however, received other support from public funds. In addition, the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise incurred expenditure on physical works not specific to HCI to render the relevant site safe and capable of development as part of the Clydebank enterprise zone.

  The financial support from pubic sources to HCI, and the expenditure on physical works not specific to HCI, were set out in cash terms in appendix 5 of the memorandum of the Comptroller and Auditor General annexed to the report of the Committee of Pubic Accounts on Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd (HMSO, House of Commons paper 32). The information is reproduced in the table, together with recalculations of the expenditure concerned to March 1996 prices. For a few items expenditure took place over a period of months and is not readily attributable to a single month: in these cases the recalculation to March 1996 prices has been based on the average price for the period concerned.
  153

  Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd. Financial Support from public sources

  Direct Support

  £

  Month disbursed

  £ (at March 1996 prices)

  (i) Shares

  Class A Ordinary Shares bought from Scottish Enterprise

  500

  July 1991

  566

  Class A Preference shares bought by Scottish Development

  October 198773,615

  Agency converted from development loan advanced 1987

  50,000

  Scottish Development Agency: release towards consultants'

  January 1988-July 1991

  1,640,016

  fees

  1,285,302

  Scottish Enterprise: final purchase July 1991

  64,698

  July 1991

  73,257

  GE Capital position taken over by Scottish Enterprise

  Ordinary Shares

  1,107

  £3 million, March 1992

  1,227

  Preference Shares

  5,500,000

  £2.501 million, April 1992

  6,003,242

  Interest and Fees

  503,804

  August 1993

  540,172

  Less: Disposal to British Aerospace plc

  (5,501,107)

  (August 1993)

  (5,898,215)

  (ii) Loans and Grant

  LEG-UP Loan (Scottish Development Agency/Scottish

  (Enterprise)

  March 1994

  4,252,632

  Enterprise)

  4,000,000

  Regional Selective Assistance Grant (Scottish office Industry

  1[December 1991 to September 1994]

  20,101,449

  Department)

  18,600,000

  (iii) Physical Works-Specific to HCI

  Value of Land

  900,000

  July 1991

  1,010,058

  Scottish Enterprise Contribution

  500,000

  March 1992

  554,133

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise Contribution

  1,600,000

  October 1991-March 1992

  1,784,540

  (iv) Other Support

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise Training and part running costs Healthcare Liaison Office

  108,500

  [from financial year 1992–1993 to financial year 1994–1995: not readily attributable to particular dates] 115,775

  Total direct support

  27,612,804

  £30,261,467

  Physical Works not Specific to HCI

  Scottish Development Agency: Site Works

  6,700,000

  February 1988-December 1989 March 1992-June 1994: £2 million; June 1994-January 1996; £0.5 million; £0.2 million retention not yet paid out2,867,620

  9,113,538

  Scottish Enterprise: Additional Asbestos and Methane treatment

  2,700,000

  Total for physical works not specific to HCI

  £9,400,000

  £11,981,158

  1 December 1991: £2 million; April 1992; £2 million; December 1992: £4 million; April 1993; £4 million, October 1993; £3 million; February 1994; £1.3 million; February 1994; £1.3 million; September 1994: £1 million (this final payment was subsequently recovered).

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27574]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: The executive agencies under the control of my Department have available, for employees, all of the provisions listed with the exception of (d) parental leave and (m) childcare allowances. The criteria used to judge eligibility are as provided in the Scottish Office staff
  154
  handbook, a copy of which will be placed in the House of Commons Library, and in Scottish Office management staff notices.

  Employees in the Scottish Court Service have available all the provisions listed with the exception of (l) workplace nurseries and (o) career break schemes. The Scottish Prison Service has available all the provisions listed with the exception of (d) parental leave, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries and (m) childcare allowances.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts,

  155
  (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27575]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: My Department has available, for employees, all of the provisions listed with the exception of (d) parental leave and (m) child care allowances. The criteria used to judge eligibility are as provided in the Scottish Office staff handbook, a copy of which will be placed in the House of Commons Library, and in Scottish Office management staff notices.

  Improvement and Repair Grants
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent in each of the last five financial years by islands and former district councils in Scotland on(a) improvement and (b) repair grants. [28594]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Amount spent on improvement and repair grants, 1990–91 to 1994–95

  Amount Spent (£000)

  Year

  (a) Improvement grant1

  (b) Repair grant

  1990–91

  56,261

  42,604

  1991–92

  69,181

  44,216

  1992–93

  72,431

  38,349

  1993–94

  67,127

  33,793

  1994–95

  50,985

  27,934

  Total

  315,986

  186,896

  1 Includes amounts for standard and conversion grants.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes in the eligibility criteria resulted from the 1995 Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grant) Scheme 1995; and if he will make a statement. [29176]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: Engines and other machinery for propelling the vessel and any items of a structural nature, including stability work, are now specifically excluded from grant under the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Schemes 1995.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Galbraith
  to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a statutory code of conduct for the transfer of Scottish Homes' housing stock to private landlords; and if he will make a statement. [29969]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Scottish Homes has published its procedures relating to the transfer of its stock to alternative landlords. The arrangements it has put in place include a code of conduct for staff to follow when they are involved in proposals to acquire stock.

  Wee Bankie
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the Wee 156
  Bankie in the Firth of Forth being designated an undisturbed area in accordance with the Esbjerg declaration. [29885]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: The Esbjerg declaration invited the European Commission and Norway to consider a proposal for experimental undisturbed areas for research purposes. We will be contributing to this work in advance of the intermediate ministerial meeting on the integration of fisheries and environmental issues, to be held in Norway in March 1997.

  School Meals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken to improve school meals, following the publication of the report on the Scottish diet by a working party under the chairmanship of Professor Philip James in December 1993. [29302]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The provision of school meals, including the standard and quality of the food provided, is a matter for each education authority to determine. Following the publication of Professor James' report, the Government established the Scottish diet action group in November 1994 to make recommendations on action to improve the diet of the Scottish population, including that of children. This group is led by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and its membership includes Professor James and representatives of educational interests. The group has now completed its work and expects to publish its action plan this summer. The Government will consider how best to advise education authorities in the light of that plan.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29424]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The Scottish Office policy on the use of performance bonds is in line with the guidance set out in the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48 "Bonds and guarantees", copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses. This guidance makes clear that bonds are not always necessary and are no substitute for considered judgments about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the available contractors. These will vary for each contract independently of the size of the contractor. In practice the Scottish Office has used performance bonds only on rare occasions in some major road contracts where the risks were considered to merit it. Statistics are not held centrally on the cost of bonds or the size of contractors involved.

  Meat Companies (Compensation)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce additional compensation measures for meat companies which derived the majority of their sales revenue from beef exports prior to the imposition of the worldwide ban on British beef. [30011]
  157
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The Government have announced a number of changes to the beef stocks transfer scheme following consultation which will be of assistance to licensed abattoirs and cutting plants which previously exported beef. The scope of the scheme has been extended to stocks owned by these bodies which were in transit to or stored in export markets on 9 April, in certain circumstances, destroyed overseas by, or at the instruction of, foreign Governments as a result of the crisis. The higher chilled value will be allowed for boneless primals frozen in the seven days before 25 March, where it is clear that this action was taken in response to frustrated export orders.

  Special export refund beef will all be purchased at the chilled valuation. For eligible exports stocks currently overseas or in transit, destruction overseas may be allowed where this is the most cost effective method of disposal.

ENVIRONMENT

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking with his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to preserve endangered species in the European Union. [29144]

  Mr. Clappison
  The primary instruments of the European Union to protect endangered species and their habitats, are directives 79/409 EEC and 92/43/EEC. Member states are obliged to transpose the provisions of these directives into national law and to take practical measures to meet their obligations for the conservation of listed species and their habitats.

  Uranium Swarf Dumping
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to complete its inquiries into the dumping of drums of uranium swarf at Poplar farm, Chelveston; and if he will make a statement. [29581]

  Mr. Clappison
  HMIP has been incorporated in the new Environment Agency. I am informed by the agency that it has reviewed the evidence gathered during the investigation by HMIP, but that it has not yet taken a decision on whether to bring a prosecution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. I have asked the agency for a further report on progress by the end of June, following which I will write to the hon. Member.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of applications for secure accommodation by homeless households were rejected for each of the last five years for which information is available. [29817]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is not available. Data are collected from English local authorities on applications/inquiries made but they reflect differing local administrative practices, and because they 158
  are not reported on a common basis they cannot be used to produce national or regional estimates of applications, nor of the proportion rejected.

  Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department has taken to monitor the level of research into recycling. [29851]

  Mr. Clappison
  Research into the many diverse forms of recycling is of interest to a wide range of policy areas in Government. Steps taken to monitor this research vary according to the needs of each policy area. The Enviroment Agency is under a duty to monitor research in the areas for which it is responsible, namely the regulation of solid waste, water and air quality.

  As far as materials recycling is concerned, both my Department and the Environment Agency fund relevant research, including work on related economic and statistics issues. My Department also funds the Waste Management Information Bureau which collates information on waste research worldwide.

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new steps he is taking to ensure that all public houses have sufficient areas which are free from the dangers of passive smoking. [29822]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government are considering how best to target advice and publicity about its code of practice on smoking in public places in those areas, such as public houses, which lag behind in establishing effective smoking policies.

  The implementation of smoking policies in public houses is a matter for the discretion of managers, in line with the Government's voluntary policy which encourages the implementation of suitable smoking policies in all enclosed public places. Guidance on implementing smoking policies is given in the Government's code of practice on smoking in public places published in 1991. The code makes it clear that the Government expect every effort to be made to cater for the interests of the non-smoker.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those of the United Kingdom's environmental policy aims and commitments made at the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 which have not yet been implemented, indicating in each case when he expects their implementation. [30135]

  Mr. Clappison
  Following the earth summit, the Government set out an eight point plan, which we subsequently agreed with our EU and G7 partners, for taking forward commitments entered into at Rio. The plan covered the ratification of the climate change and biodiversity conventions; the publication of national strategies on sustainable development, climate change, biodiversity and forests; contributing to the restructuring and replenishment of the global environment facility and a continuing commitment to financial assistance to developing countries.
  159
  The Government also announced the establishment of the Darwin initiative to provide grants to developing countries for biodiversity projects; the technology partnership initiative; and the holding of an international conference bringing together NGO experience from around the world.

  All these commitments have been met. The Government also publish a White Paper annually which provides detailed information about progress in meeting commitments to sustainable development and which sets out priorities ahead. The latest in the series, Cm 3188, was published in March this year.

  Air Pollution (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department takes to monitor air pollution in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [29978]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are currently 13 automatic real time air quality monitoring sites in Greater London within the Department of the Environment's national network, listed in the table. In addition, there are more than 100 non-automatic monitoring sites within Greater London as follows: 90 nitrogen dioxide sites, 16 sulphur dioxide and smoke sites, three lead and multi-element sites and one site measuring toxic organic micropollutants.

  As part of the expansion of the national automatic network, the Department aims to establish another two sites and integrate 11 locally operated monitoring sites within London, resulting in a total of 26 real time national monitoring sites in Greater London by the end of 1996.

  Site name

  Pollutants measured

  Grid ref

  Bexeley

  NOx, SO2,. CO, O3, PM10

  TQ 518763

  Bloomsbury

  NOx, SO2, CO, O3, PM10

  TQ302820

  Brent

  NOx, SO2, CO, O3

  TQ200840

  Bridge Place, Victoria

  NOx, SO2, CO, O2

  TQ291790

  Cromwell Rd

  NOx, SO2, CO

  TQ264789

  Eltham

  NOx, SO2, O3, PM10 Hydrocarbons

  TQ440747

  Earls Court

  NOx, SO2, CO, O3, PM10

  TQ251788

  North Kensington

  NOx, SO2, CO, O3, PM10

  TQ401821

  Sutton, Roadside

  NOx, SO2, CO, PM10

  TQ256646

  Sutton

  NOx, O3

  TQ278548

  Tower Hamlets

  NOx, CO

  TQ521816

  University College

  Hydrocarbons

  TQ299822

  Wandsworth

  SO2, CO, O3

  TQ234746

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis his Department has undertaken of the impact that market liberalisation has had upon industrial and commercial sector investments in energy efficiency. [30151]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Trends in energy efficiency are kept under review by the Department, but it is too early to say what the impact of market liberalisation has been on industrial and commercial sector investments in energy efficiency.
  160

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of her Department's agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30116]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since April 1992 the Department's remaining agencies market tested the following services:

  Agency

  Outcome

  Building Research Establishment

  Engineering workshop

  Test replaced by efficiency review resulting in savings.

  Staff catering

  Won by private sector

  Audio visual services

  In-house win

  Office and printing services

  In-house win

  The Planning Inspectorate

  Secretarial support

  In-house win

  Two agencies, the Security Facilities Executive and the Buying Agency, previously the responsibility of this Department, have now moved to the Office of Public Service. In addition, the Department has itself tested the services provided by its agencies as follows:
  management of the Queen Elizabeth 11 Conference Centre, which was won in-house;
  21 separate research projects, which would previously have been undertaken by the Building Research establishment, with the result that 15 have been won by the private sector.

  Out-of-town Shopping Developments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many out-of-town shopping developments he gave approval for in England and Wales, during 1995. [29985]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Statistics on appeal decisions in England, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, are not classified by location. Consequently, the information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Homelessness (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent surveys have been undertaken by his Department as to the extent of homelessness among young, single people, in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [29993]

  Mr. Clappison
  In November 1990, my Department commissioned a survey to collect comprehensive and up to date information about single homeless people in England. The results, based on interviews and field work in 10 local authority areas in England, including five London boroughs were published by HMSO in 1993 in the report, "Single Homeless People", ISBN 0 11 752800 5. This provided information on the characteristics of single homeless people, the reasons why they were homeless and their accommodation needs and preferences.
  161
  Monitoring arrangements for the Government's rough sleepers initiative include counts of people sleeping rough, undertaken twice a year by voluntary sector agencies. The latest count, in November 1995, found 270 people sleeping rough in central London—down from estimates of over 1,000 in 1990 before the initiative began. Of the 270 people found, only three were recorded as being under 18 years of age.

  In October 1995, my Department issued a consultation paper, "Rough Sleepers Initiative, Future Plans", which invited all local authorities in England to assess the extent of rough sleeping in their areas. On the basis of responses to this consultation exercise, we have proposed further evaluation of the extent of rough sleeping in the London boroughs of Barnet, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond upon Thames, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest and 16 areas outside London. I expect the information from this further evaluation to be available in September.

  Factory and Agriculture Inspectors
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) factory and (b) agricultural inspectors were in post during the period 1987 to 1995. [30303]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following table shows the number of(a) factory and (b) agricultural inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive from 1987 to 1995. All figures are full-time equivalent staff in post.

  1 April

  Factory

  Agricultural

  1987

  621.5

  166

  1988

  592.5

  158

  1989

  604

  165

  1990

  634.5

  171

  1991

  651

  177

  1992

  698.5

  183

  1993

  707.5

  182.5

  1994

  702.5

  187

  1995

  664.55

  169

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which will cover all or part of each of the parliamentary constituencies which will come into existence at the end of the present Parliament. [30354]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is contained in the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1995, S.I. 1995/1626.

  Council Tax (City of Nottingham)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total sum, (b) the amount paid to the City of Nottingham, (c) the percentage of the total paid to the City of Nottingham and (d) the amount paid per dwelling in the City of Nottingham, in transitional relief in respect of council tax in each year from 1993–94 to 1995–96. [29270]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:162

  (a) Total amount of transitional relief

  1993–94: £378,652,826

  1994–95: £111,283,108

  1995–96: £27.178,1791

  (b) Amount of transitional relief paid to Nottingham city council

  1993–94: £692,040

  1994–95: £173,218

  1995–96: £40,6051

  (c) Percentage of total amount of transitional relief paid to Nottingham city council

  1993–94: 1.8 per cent.

  1994–95: 1.5 per cent.

  1995–96: 0.15 per cent.1

  (d) Amount paid per chargeable dwelling in Nottingham

  1993–94: £6.18

  1994–95: £1.54

  1995–96: £0.41.

  These figures are averages. The actual amount of transitional relief varied according to a household's council tax banding, its composition and its previous liability for community charge.
  1 Information for 1995–96 is provisional and is subject to final grant claims to be made during 1996–97.

  Wildlife Habitat
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that wildlife which is dependent on the mudflats and grazing marsh of the Thames upstream of Gravesend and Tilbury is fully protected; and if he will make a statement. [29864]

  Mr. Clappison
  The most important areas for wildlife, West Thurrock lagoon and marshes and the inner Thames marshes, are notified as sites of special scientific interest. All areas of inter-tidal mud are acknowledged as being important for wildlife in the Thurrock borough local plan, deposit draft, and in the respective London boroughs' unitary development plans to varying degrees and are so annotated. A partnership of the main managers of the Thames has worked together to produce a Thames estuary management plan which will be launched for public consultation shortly. This inter-disciplinary plan is in line with recommendations in the UK biodiversity action plan to which the Government responded on 15 May, Cm. 3260.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30060]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The deregulation initiative in the Department of the Environment is co-ordinated by two career civil servants, at grade 7 and higher executive officer level. Since it does not account for the whole of their workload, and all policy divisions devote resources to implementation of the initiative, it is not possible to define an overall annual budget. The deregulation unit in the Health and Safety Executive comprises one part-time
  163
  and four full-time career civil servants, at grade 7, senior executive officer, higher executive officer, executive officer and administrative assistant level, who work solely on deregulation matters. It does not have a separate budget.

  Regeneration Spending
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum spent by Government Departments on regeneration in the last year for which figures are available. [30125]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Economic, social and physical regeneration is supported through main programme expenditure by a number of Government Departments— including on housing, training and education, business support and other programmes. This main programme expenditure is supplemented by targeted programmes which have been brought together into the single regeneration budget. The provisional out-turn figure for SRB expenditure in 1995–96 is £1,358 million. Details about SRB expenditure is contained in the Department's 1996 annual report presented to Parliament on 20 March.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for changes to the existing system for registering the bird species listed in schedule 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement. [30585]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has been reviewing the scheme of fees for registration of certain bird species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wildlife and Countryside (Registration and Ringing of Certain Captive Birds) Regulations 1982, Statutory Instrument No. 1221.

  In the light of this review uncertainty has arisen concerning the power to charge for registration of certain bird species under regulation 3. We have concluded that certain changes are required.

  Accordingly, I propose to introduce a Bill, at the earliest possible opportunity, to clarify the powers to charge such fees. The Bill will, if Parliament agrees:
  provide a clear statutory basis for the charges levied in the past under the 1982 regulations:
  enable the Department to seek to recover fees in respect of registrations made between today's date and the date when the Bill's provisions come into force; and enable the Department to continue to levy charges in the future in respect of these registrations.

  As from today, therefore, I shall not be requiring the payment of any fee in respect of registrations under the 1982 regulations, pending the commencement of the proposed new statutory provisions. However, if and when this legislation comes into effect, my Department will be seeking to recover fees in respect of registrations made from today until the new statutory provisions come into force.

  This announcement and the proposal to legislate does not affect the requirement in section 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for keepers of specimens of bird
  164
  species listed in schedule 4 to that Act to ring such birds and register them with the Department. It relates solely to the power to charge for such registrations.

  The proposed legislation will also cover fees previously collected by the Department under Statutory Instrument No. 1219/1982, the Wildlife and Countryside (registration to sell etc. certain dead birds) Regulations 1982. The scheme was discontinued on 1 January 1995.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to the existing framework for compulsory competitive tendering from local authority housing management and professional services. [30643]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Yes. Compulsory competitive tendering is improving the standards of local government services and delivering greater efficiency. However, the implementation of CCT for professional services and housing management has given rise to significant criticism from private sector bidders and professionals about the approach which many authorities have taken. They consider that many authorities are frustrating competition by any means at their disposal. Equally, local authorities have said that the competition is too weak to justify the start-up costs of competition. Against this background, the Secretary of State has reviewed progress on implementation to date and the preparations which local authorities are making for future CCT. This has confirmed the need for changes.

  A consultation paper has been published today which sets out the details on the changes which the Secretary of State is minded to make. The proposals involve selective increases in the competition requirements, most notably a new 65 per cent. competition requirement on finance services, tightening-up the rules on the credits and allowances which local authorities can offset against the competition requirement, and changes to the values below which authorities do not need to go out to competition, most notably on housing management services. These changes will complement the new guidance on competition which was issued earlier this year and the robust line being taken with cases of anti-competitive behaviour by particular authorities.

  A copy of the consultation paper, which invites comments by Tuesday 2 July, has been placed in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to encourage private finance initiatives in local government. [30644]

  Mr. Curry
  Since launching the local government private finance initiative in October 1994, we have encouraged links with the private sector by making important changes to the capital finance rules. These have been welcomed by authorities, but we promised to go even further.

  I am today announcing radical measures to help local authorities harness private-sector finance and management expertise. In many cases these will remove genuine private finance projects from local authority

  165
  capital spending limits and provide revenue support for such projects. My aim is to encourage the provision of privately-financed and serviced facilities such as schools, leisure centres, transport schemes and police stations. I hope local authorities will take maximum advantage of these new opportunities.

  Provided that schemes meet certain risk transfer tests in the regulations, and subject to the usual requirement for value-for-money appraisal, local authorities will in future be able to provide their services using facilities delivered under private-sector contracts, without any cost whatsoever to their capital resources.

  The new regulations will define the circumstances in which such contracts need make no charge on authorities' capital resources. In summary eligible contracts will be those where:
  the contractor is providing a service to a defined standard,
  responsibility for designing, building, financing, and operating any physical assets rests with the contractor,
  the authority's payments are directly related to performance or usage, or both, and vary according to the availability and quality of the service. If the service falls significantly below expectations the level of payments should be no more than 70 per cent. of that anticipated. This will mean the acceptance of real risk by the private sector.

  We envisage that these regulations will cover the bulk of worthwhile PFI cases, and will give a clear target for authorities and prospective contractors to aim at. However, where the project is not strictly eligible under the regulations but nevertheless involves significant risk for the private-sector partner, we will allow authorities a second chance to protect their capital resources. Government Departments will be able to issue additional supplementary credit approvals on a case by case basis for PFI schemes meeting more flexible criteria than those in the regulations.

  We recognise that these measures, while eliminating the capital impact of qualifying projects, could leave pressures on the revenue account. To combat this, we will

  Housebuilding completions: West Midlands region

  Private enterprise

  Housing association

  Local authority

  Total

  Numbers of dwellings

  Change from previous year (per cent.)

  Numbers of dwellings

  Change from previous year (per cent.)

  Numbers of dwellings

  Change from previous year (per cent.)

  Numbers of dwellings

  Change from previous years (per cent.)

  1990

  13,200

  +3.9

  2,100

  +70.9

  1,100

  +4.3

  16,400

  +9.5

  1991

  13,600

  +3.1

  1,531

  +27.7

  1,100

  -13.2

  16,100

  -2.0

  1992

  12,200

  -9.9

  2,300

  +53.2

  400

  -60.9

  15,000

  -6.6

  1993

  13,200

  +7.5

  2,900

  +23.8

  200

  -49.3

  16,300

  +8.3

  1994

  12,700

  -3.4

  3,100

  +5.4

  200

  -4.1

  16,000

  -1.9

  1995

  12,500

  -1.9

  2,700

  -13.2

  100

  -43.0

  15,200

  -4.6

  Figures individually rounded, so the total may not be the exact sum of the component series. Percentage changes calculated on the unrounded figures.

  These figures are based on reports to the Department by local authorities and the National House Building Council, and include estimates for those local authorities that have not provided statistical returns for their districts.

  While these figures cover newly built accommodation, housing associations also provide additional social lettings by the rehabilitation of existing properties and through the various home ownership incentive schemes. Local authorities also provide a significant number of additional
  166
  ensure that authorities undertaking projects will be eligible for revenue support. This will be arranged by adapting the existing system of standard spending assessments and revenue support grant.

  My Department will be consulting local authority associations and other interested bodies on these proposal. It is hoped to publish draft capital finance regulations for consultation within a few weeks, and to lay them before the House in time for them to come into effect in the autumn.

  Construction Industry (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in the west midlands were employed in the construction industry in each year since 1990; and for each year what was the percentage change on the previous year. [30155]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Construction employment in west midlands

  Employees

  Employees and self-employed

  Number

  Percentage change

  Number

  Percentage change

  Spring 1990

  101,100

  —

  174,100

  —

  Spring 1991

  97,000

  -4

  158,000

  -9

  Spring 1992

  88,300

  -9

  153,300

  -3

  Spring 1993

  78,800

  -11

  139,800

  -9

  Spring 1994

  72,100

  -8

  141,100

  +1

  Spring 1995

  76,000

  +5

  145,000

  +3

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) private and (b) social houses, have been built in the west midlands in each year since 1990; and for each year what was the percentage change on the previous year. [30157]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The figures requested are as follows:

  new lettings through cash incentive schemes. The relative importance of incentive schemes has been growing with the greater emphasis being placed on making more effective use of existing stock.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many construction industry companies in the west midlands closed in each year since 1990; and for each year what was the percentage change on the previous year. [30156]
  167
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: Information in the form requested is not available. The following is the available information:

  VAT Deregistrations in the construction industry: West Midlands

  Number deregistered

  Percentage change on previous year

  1992

  3,396

  n/a

  1993

  3,051

  -10

  1994

  2,275

  -25

  VAT deregistrations are not synonymous with business closures and estimates for 1993 and 1994 include adjustments for the effect of the VAT threshold increase in November 1993.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many social houses were built in the west midlands in 1979. [30158]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: Figures reported to the Department by local authorities show that there were some 2,000 housing association dwellings and 8,900 local authority and new town new dwellings completed in the West Midlands region during 1979.

  Oil Spills, River Mersey
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the detergents used in the clean up operations following oil spills in the River Mersey from 1980 up to the latest spill; and if he will list each detergent's constituent chemical elements. [29716]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: I understand that neither North West Water Authority nor the National Rivers Authority used detergents as a dispersant in incidents of this kind. It is possible that other bodies may have made limited use of detergents. If this is the case, I shall write to the hon. Member with the relevant information.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agriculture Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial contribution to the European Union common agricultural policy was paid by each of the member states in 1995. [29722]

  Mr. Baldry
  Member states contribute to the European Community budget as a whole, and not to parts of it. A breakdown of member states' gross contributions to the European Community budget in the 1995 Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1,Official Report L276 of 20 November 1995, page 39, a copy of which has been placed in the House Library.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the animal feed products 168
  currently on sale to UK farmers which (a) include and (b) do not include a clear list of contents on the packaging. [29579]

  Mrs. Browning
  All compound feeds are required by the Feeding Stuffs Regulations to carry lists of ingredients either by their specific name or by category.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent reports he has received about prohibited parts of cattle finding their way into the food chain; in how many cases such material had been certified fit for human consumption by the Meat Hygiene Service; what inquiry has been undertaken as to how these errors occurred; how many officials have been disciplined; what was the average length of time to identify such material; and if he will make a statement. [28459]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on 30 April,Official Report, columns 483–84.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the companies which have civil servants from his Departments as directors, and for each company, the occasions on which it has been found guilty of improper trading or misrepresentation of company financial status in the last five years. [29252]

  Mr. Boswell
  The following companies currently have civil servants from my Department as non executive directors under the "Guide to Non-Executive Directorships for Civil Servants":

  H. R. Wallingford

  The Albert Fisher Group PLC

  Cadbury Ltd.

  As to "improper trading or misrepresentation of company financial status", there are no such offences in law.

  Goosanders
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications he has received in each of the last five years for licences to kill goosanders; how many of these were granted; and how many birds were killed. [29840]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of applications received

  Number of licences granted

  Actual number shot

  January-December 1991

  0

  0

  0

  January-December 1992

  0

  0

  0

  January 1993-April 1994

  11

  7

  39

  May 1994-April 1995

  28

  0

  0

  May 1995-March 19961

  25

  5

  22

  Statistics on licences are now collated for the period 1 May to 30 April., Prior to 1994, figures were collated on a calendar year basis.

  1 Latest information available.

  2 Provisional figures.
  169
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the assessment of damage to fisheries underlying each licence to kill goosanders issued in 1996; what other methods were evaluated to tackle the problem; and if he will make a statement. [29842]

  Mrs. Browning
  Where licences were granted to shoot a limited number of goosanders as an aid to scaring, the Ministry was satisfied that serious damage was being caused to the fisheries. A wide range of alternative non-lethal scaring methods had been tried, for example, gas and rope bangers, rockets, horns, shooting blanks, human presence, but were found to be ineffective.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the total cost to public funds of all registered fishing vessels decommissioned over each of the last five years; [30366]

  (2) what plans he has to promote further decommissioning of the United Kingdom's registered fishing vessels. [30367]

  Mr. Baldry
  There were no UK decommissioning schemes in 1991 and 1992. The 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 schemes have cost £7.8 million, £8.8 million and £9.6 million respectively.

  In the light of experience with these schemes, a consultation paper was issued seeking views on possible improvements to the arrangements. These are reflected in the details of the 1996–97 scheme announced on 9 May, for which some £13 million is available. There is currently provision of up to £12 million for a further scheme in 1997–98.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of United Kingdom registered vessels fishing for demersal species in the North sea over the past five years together with the total size of the demersal catch, the total value of the demersal catch and the number of demersal vessels decommissioned during each of the last five years for which figures are available. [30365]

  Mr. Baldry
  Figures showing the landed quantity and value of demersal fish, including nephrops, caught in the North sea, ICES area IV, for the years 1991–1994 inclusive are given in table 1.

  These include species for which there is no mandatory reporting requirement in respect of fishing activity. Moreover, fishing activity is generally recorded in terms of total effort deployed by stocks and area. Extracting the information requested about numbers of vessels would involve disproportionate cost and fail to give a complete picture of activity in relation to all demersal species in the North sea.

  Table 2 gives details of the number of vessels decommissioned in each round of the current programme by broad demersal segment.
  170

  Table 1: Landings of demersal species, including nephrops, by the UK fleet of catches in the North Sea: quantity and value

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total demersal (including nephrops)

  Tonnes liveweight

  202,603

  215,132

  142,339

  249,715

  Thousand.

  215,948

  209,873

  225,705

  237,756

  Table 2: UK fishing vessels decommissioned in the last 5 years; number by demersal segment

  Decommissioning scheme for:

  Vessels over 10 metres overall length

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Segment

  Beam trawl

  4

  8

  6

  Demersal trawl/seiners

  84

  109

  54

  Nephrop trawl

  17

  8

  0

  Lines and nets

  9

  24

  33

  Fishing (Irish Box)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels from other EU member states have fished in the Irish box since 1 January; which EU flags they were flying; what is the estimate of the tonnage caught by these vessels; and what were the principal ports where they landed their catches. [30368]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Irish box comprises waters which fall within both British and Irish fishery limits. Information about the total number of fishing vessels from other member states which have fished in the Irish box since 1 January 1996, the tonnage of fish caught by these vessels and the principal ports at which that catch was landed is not available on a systematic basis.

  New regulations to monitor fishing effort in western waters including the Irish box came into operation on 1 January this year. They apply to vessels over 18m in overall length, 15m between perpendiculars, with effort ceilings being set for the over 18m fleet of each member state by the principal types of fishery other than those for pelagic fish. Vessels over 18m from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom are permitted to fish in the Irish box within the effort ceilings which have been set. The number of Spanish vessels permitted to fish in the Irish box is limited to a maximum of 40 at any one time.

  Fishing (Spanish and Dutch Ships)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the amount of fish caught by(a) Spanish (b) Dutch flagged ships which is eventually marketed in the United Kingdom. [30370]

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the amount of fish which is caught by such ships and which is eventually marketed in the United Kingdom is not available. In 1994 we estimate that Spanish and Dutch flagged ships landed about 2,150 and 2,200 tonnes of fish into the UK respectively. Some of this fish may subsequently have been exported.
  171

  UK-registered Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how many vessels previously registered in other EU member states are now registered as United Kingdom fishing vessels; and what estimate he has made of the annual tonnage of fish caught by vessels so registered for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [30369]

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the number of current UK fishing vessels previously registered in other member states and the tonnage of fish which they have caught over the last three years is not available.

  Under the UK merchant shipping regulations it is possible for vessels previously registered in other member states or third countries to be registered as fishing vessels in the UK. But such vessels would not be permitted to fish for profit without acquiring a licence from UK Fisheries Departments. Under our present restrictive licensing arrangements no new licences are granted and an owner wishing to fish with a vessel new to the UK fleet would need to obtain a licence from a previously licensed vessel.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the benefits assessed by his Department as accruing to the United Kingdom fishing fleet from the common fisheries policy. [30363]

  Mr. Baldry
  The benefits to the United Kingdom fishing industry flowing from the common fisheries policy include:tighter restrictions than applied before we joined the Community on access by foreign vessels within our 12 mile fishery limits;
  restrictions on access to areas such as the Shetland box and the Irish box;
  a larger share of fish quotas in Community waters than was justified by our historic catch record in the 1973 to 1978 reference period used when quota shares were decided;
  fishing opportunities in the waters of non-member states secured through the Community's bilateral agreements with those countries;
  access to European Community grant schemes;
  a co-ordinated policy to reduce the size of fleets of all member states;
  a common policy on conservation rules enabling us to influence the rules applied in the waters of other member states to the benefit of our industry;
  monitoring of enforcement standards in all member states by the European Commission.

  Fishing (200-mile Limit)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps would be required to regain control of the fishing effort within 200 miles of the United Kingdom coast. [30364]

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom has never exercised exclusive control over fishing effort within 200 miles of its coast. We would have to leave the common fisheries policy in order to do so; I explained to the House on 172
  22 November 1995 at column 591 the steps necessary for that to happen.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the enlargement of the EU on the viability of fish stocks in the North sea; [30372]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the measures under consideration to conserve pressure fish stocks in EU waters during the current negotiations leading to enlargement of the EU. [30371]

  Mr. Baldry
  Negotiations for the further enlargement of the European Union are not scheduled to start until after the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference. Any impact on fish stocks will depend on a number of factors including the terms and timing of accession by the countries concerned, developments in the industry and developments in fisheries policy within the European Union where measures currently under consideration to conserve stocks include further reduction in fishing effort, new technical conservation rules and improved enforcement measures.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) of 24 April,Official Report, column 209, on what date each animal was confirmed to have been suffering from BSE. [29410]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 May 1996]: The following table gives the dates of birth of the 10 youngest cattle, including estimated ages, and the date at which BSE was confirmed:

  Date of birth

  Date of BSE confirmation

  Autumn 1986

  31 January 1989

  January 1987

  24 July 1989

  November 1987

  28 November 1989

  Autumn 1987

  11 May 1989

  Autumn 1987

  22 November 1989

  Autumn 1987

  26 March 1990

  May 1988

  26 July 1990

  November 1988

  26 March 1991

  June 1989

  20 January 1992

  October 1990

  20 May 1993

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many, and what percentage, of the maternal transmission test group study by the veterinary laboratory at Weybridge have been diagnosed as suffering from BSE. [29345]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 May 1996]: Forty-seven or 7 per cent. of the 630 study animals have so far developed BSE.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what preliminary assessment he has made as to the most likely cause of BSE in those animals in the maternal transmission test group study by the veterinary laboratory at Weybridge that have been diagnosed as suffering from BSE. [29346]
  173
  Mr. Browning
  [holding answer 15 May 1996]: The detailed cohort study into the possibility of maternal transmission of BSE will not be complete until early 1997. Some information about this experiment has been published in the progress report on BSE laid in the Library of the House in November 1995, but the result cannot be interpreted until it is complete. As the study is being carried out blind we do not know whether the 47 animals which have succumbed to BSE in the trial are offspring of BSE cases or whether they are control animals. The details of these animals are given in the table.

  Distribution of confirmed cases in the offspring study by month of birth and period at 1 May 1996

  Period

  Month and year of birth

  July-December 1991

  January-June 1992

  July-December 1992

  January-June 1993

  July-December 1993

  January-June 1994

  July-December 1994

  January-June 1995

  July-December 1995

  Total

  1987

  September

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  October

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  November

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  December

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1988

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  February

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  March

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  May

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  1

  3

  1

  11

  September

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  6

  October

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  6

  November

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  December

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1989

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  February

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  March

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grand total

  2

  2

  8

  4

  6

  10

  5

  7

  3

  47

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the means of disposal for the remains of cattle aged 30 months or over following processing of carcasses at rendering plants as part of the scheme to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy from British herds. [29654]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced in the House on 16 April, Official Report, col. 513 that, following the process of rendering, the resultant material would be disposed of by the best practicable environmental option. The Government are actively pursuing the ways and means of achieving this objective and a further statement will be made when conclusions have been reached.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle were slaughtered in the United Kingdom under the 30-month scheme in the week beginning Monday 29 April. [28919]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: One hundred cattle were slaughtered in the United Kingdom under the scheme in the week beginning 29 April.
  174
  In all cases the farms of origin for the animals in this study have had cases of BSE, notably in the experimental animals dams, which indicates that some exposure to contaminated feed did occur on the farms. To take account of this a control animal was purchased from the same farm as the offspring of a confirmed case.

  Until the experiment is completed and the results unblinded and analysed, it will not be possible to say whether maternal transmission of BSE can account for any of the cases, or whether all should be attributed to contaminated feed.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with under(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29415]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The Ministry's policy is to review the need for performance bonds in the light of the value and complexity of the contract to be let. The Ministry has occasionally used performance bonds which would allow it to call in financial guarantees should a contractor fail to meet specified standards. These would be used to compensate the Ministry should a contractor fail to complete a contract because of, say, liquidation or default. The Ministry regards "on demand" performance bonds as unjust and undesirable. The Ministry believes that bonds are not always necessary and are no substitute for considered judgments about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the chosen contractor. These factors will vary for each contract independent of the size of the contractor.
  175
  From records held centrally no performance bonds have been called in during the last five years.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29462]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: Data extracted from its financial management system reveals that the Ministry, including its six next steps agencies, paid the sum of £262.98 million to the private sector for goods and services in the financial year 1995–96.

  Food Labelling Regulations
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the consolidated food labelling regulations; when they will come into force; and if they will be accompanied by guidance notes published on the same day. [29921]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The Government expect to lay regulations before Parliament by 7 June. These will come into force on 1 July and the accompanying guidelines will be published on the same day.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to appoint the independent complaints adjudicator for the Child Support Agency. [28824]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  An independent complaints examiner will be recruited for the Child Support Agency later this year following a pilot study to assess how best to support the examiner's operations.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the alleged child maintenance arrears and background calculations for CSA Ref. 1003420826; and for what reasons he has received documentation requiring payments in the year 2001, when his youngest child will be 24 years of age. [29867]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The Child Support Agency is charged with collecting legally due maintenance. Any arrears agreement negotiated is based on the amount of debt and the absent parent's ability to pay. The payment of arrears may, therefore, continue after the child has reached the age where regular maintenance is no longer due. The chief executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, will write to the hon. Member separately detailing the circumstances of the case referred to.

  Child Support
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number of parents in one-parent families are entitled to child support; and of these, what proportion are receiving it. [28828]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  It is not known how many parents in one-parent families could obtain child support from the other parent if they applied for it. However,176
  341,500 parents with care, including 29,100 in two-parent families, had a full maintenance assessment from the Child Support Agency in November 1995. This includes 96,000 cases where the absent parent is assessed to pay nothing. In 60 per cent. of the remaining cases, maintenance is being paid in full or in part.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to tackle housing benefit fraud. [28818]

  Mr. Heald
  On 5 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a series of measures including an £8 million challenge fund to develop local authority innovation against fraud and a data-matching service to detect fraudulent benefit claims. These will not only step up the fight against housing benefit fraud, but also move towards preventing fraud from getting into the system in the first place.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff in his Department have been employed full time in tackling social security fraud for each year since 1979. [30419]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the list:

  1991–92: 3,344

  1992–93: 3,344

  1993–94: 3,328

  1994–95: 3,363

  1995–96: 3,793.5

  1996–97: 5,046.

  Notes

  1 The numbers relate to staff employed in the benefit fraud investigation service (formerly sector fraud), organised fraud teams and staff employed on instrument of payment anti-fraud initiatives.

  2. Prior to the creation of the Benefits Agency in April 1991, staff employed on fraud investigation duties were part of the local and regional office complement and information relating to numbers employed are not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings accruing to public funds from campaigns against benefit fraud in each since 1979. [30416]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Year

  Savings£ million

  1986–87

  144

  1987–88

  196

  1988–89

  262

  1989–90

  309

  1990–91

  341

  1991–92

  446

  1992–93

  558

  1993–94

  654

  1994–95

  717

  Notes:

  1. Savings from the Department's anti-fraud measures have only been routinely collected from 1986–87.

  2. Finalised figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.
  177
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the annual amount of money lost through fraud in child benefit payments; [30311]

  (2) how many successful prosecutions there have been in the last year relating to child benefit fraud. [30312]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is not available.

  The Benefits Agency is undertaking a series of benefit reviews which determine the amount of incorrectness, including fraud, in each benefit reviewed. Over the five-year period of the security strategy launched by the Secretary of State in July 1995, all the major benefits, including child benefit, will be reviewed.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much is being spent on the publicity campaign to tackle benefit fraud, set out by parliamentary constituency. [30421]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested as costings specific to parliamentary constituencies are not kept. However, to date the estimated total publicity costs for the first seven areas of the anti-fraud campaign are £407,710.

  This figure covers radio and printed advertising, leaflet and poster production and distribution and press support material production.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the level of pension contributions in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries. [28820]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1994, employers and employees contributed almost £30 billion to occupational and personal pension schemes in the United Kingdom. It is this level of commitment that has generated pension funds of nearly £600 billion—substantially more than is invested in all the other countries in the European Union put together.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement concerning the level of funds currently held in the United Kingdom for private pension provision; and what assessment he has made of the level of funding relative to that in other European Union countries. [28822]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1993, the total value of funds in private pension schemes in the United Kingdom was nearly £600 billion. This is substantially more than the latest estimate of the level of funds in all the other countries in the European Union put together.

  Dunn
  25. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the retired population will have occupational pensions by 2006. [28829]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department's pensioner incomes simulation model projects that in 2010 more than 75 per cent. of 178
  pensioner units will be in receipt of payments from an occupational pension.

  Details of the methodology and assumptions used in the model, and a brief overview of basic results, will appear in a technical paper to be released shortly.

  Notes:

  For the purposes of PENSIM, a pensioner unit is defined as a single pensioner over state pension age in 2010, or a couple with at least one partner over state pension age.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of pensioners over the age of 80 years, who receive the extra 25p per week on their state retirement pension. [29992]

  Mr. Heald
  At 30 September 1995, there were 2.4 million people over age 80 who received the 25p age addition to their state retirement pension.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample of the pension strategy computer system.

  Notes:

  1. All people in receipt of the state retirement pension aged 80 or over, including people who qualify for a non-contributory retirement pension, receive the 25p addition.

  2. The figure is rounded to the nearest 0.1 million.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of parents with children aged 16 to 19 years who receive child benefit; and what representations he has received about the payment of child benefit to them. [28819]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The latest figures available indicate that at 31 December 1995 there were 1.09 million families receiving child benefit in respect of children aged over 16 and under 19 in full-time non-advanced education. I have received only one letter questioning the payment of child benefit in respect of those over 16.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people between 16 and 19 years in full-time education are currently in receipt of child benefit. [28827]

  Mr. Mitchell
  At the end of last year child benefit was payable in respect of 1.16 million people aged over 16 and under 19, in full-time non-advanced education. Entitlement to child benefit will continue until they leave that education or reach age 19, whichever is sooner.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [28831]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The estimate of child benefit expenditure for 1995–96 in respect of 16 to 18-year-olds is around £640 million.

  I believe that all families with dependent children should receive some help from either the tax or benefit system, a principle recognised throughout Europe and beyond.

  The Government have a manifesto pledge to continue to pay child benefit to all families in respect of all children, including 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time non-advanced education, and to uprate it in line with prices. We have honoured that pledge.
  179

  Lone Parents
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average age of the income support claims withdrawn by parents with care following action by the Child Support Agency or liable relatives section in(a) 1995 and (b) 1992. [29673]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is not available.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents were on income support in each year since 1989. [29674]

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

  Lone parents receiving income support

  Year

  Number of claimants

  1989

  756,000

  1990

  793,000

  1991

  871,000

  1992

  957,000

  1993

  1,013,000

  1994

  1,039,000

  1995

  1,056,000

  Notes:

  1. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Lone parents are defined as claimants receiving the lone parent premium.

  3. Sample size 1 in 20.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries 1989–1993

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries May 1994 and May 1995.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount paid to lone parents in income support(a) in money terms and (b) at constant prices in each year since 1989. [29675]

  Mr. Evans
  The information available is in the table.

  Lone parents income support expenditure cash terms—1989–90 to 1995–96

  £ million

  Year

  1989–90

  3,961

  1990–91

  4,680

  1991–92

  5,728

  1992–93

  7,107

  1993–94

  8,124

  1994–95

  8,884

  1995–96

  9,510

  Lone parents income support expenditure real terms (1995–96 prices)—1989–90 to 1995–96

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  5,096

  1990–91

  5,574

  1991–92

  6,423

  1992–93

  7,657

  1993–94

  8,505

  1994–95

  9,128

  1995–96

  9,510

  Source:

  March 1996 departmental report and earlier equivalents.
  180

  Income Support
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of children under 10 years old are in families receiving income support. [28821]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The number of children under 10 years old in families on income support in May 1995 was just over 2 million. This is approximately 27 per cent. of the total number of children under 10 years old in Great Britain.

  Notes:

  1. May 1995 is the latest available data in Income Support recipients.

  2. Latest available estimates for the GB population relate to mid-94, the proportion is therefore based upon mid-94 population estimates.

  Source: Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry—May 1995. Population Estimates Unit, ONS.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families with children have been dependent on income support for five or more years; and what proportion this is of the total. [28823]

  Mr. Evans
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, in May 1995 there were 685,000 families with children—nearly 44 per cent. of the total— who had been on income support for three years or more.

  Notes:

  1. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. May 1995 is the latest date for which data are available.

  Source: Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry: May 1995.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about reduced earnings allowance; and if he will make a statement. [28825]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Reduced earnings allowance continues to be paid as before to anyone who is under pensionable age or continuing in regular employment. A number of hon. Members have written to Ministers about the amendments to regulations from 24 March which brought in fairer rules for the transfer of people on reduced earnings allowance to retirement allowance when they reach pensionable age and give up regular employment.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the reduced earnings allowance. [28909]

  Mr. Evans
  Parliament agreed, in passing the 1988 Social Security Act, that compensation for loss of earnings through reduced earnings allowance should continue to past pension age only for those men and women who continued in regular employment. Otherwise it should cease and be replaced by retirement allowance, payable at no more than 25 per cent. of the rate of reduced earnings allowance.

  Amendment regulations which came into force on 24 March ensure this principle is applied fairly and

  181
  consistently. These regulations were debated in Standing Committee on 8 May 1996.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current cost of administering the habitual residence test; and what savings in benefits have been made in the current calendar year following the introduction of the test. [28826]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) on 23 April,Official Report, column 131.

  Pensioners Poverty
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security what action he proposes to take to tackle poverty among pensioners. [28830]

  Mr. Heald
  Our policy has been to increase the basic retirement pension in line with the annual rise in prices, encourage personal provision through occupational and private pensions and to target additional resources on poorer pensioners through income-related benefits. Between 1979 and 1993 pensioners' average income increased by more than 50 per cent.

  Local office

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  Greenock

  57.5

  59.5

  50.0

  52.3

  58.4

  53.4

  51.9

  55.8

  63.9

  60.4

  63.3

  Port Glasgow

  72.2

  64.2

  53.7

  56.6

  59.8

  63.2

  60.0

  66.2

  —

  —

  —

  Clyde Valley

  Motherwell

  66.9

  60.1

  65.6

  64.9

  64.5

  63.7

  62.8

  64.7

  66.2

  63.4

  65.3

  Hamilton

  75.6

  62.3

  64.9

  60.3

  68.6

  69.6

  62.9

  60.4

  68.9

  64.8

  69.1

  Coatbridge

  Coatbridge

  72.8

  59.9

  60.0

  64.1

  51.2

  65.4

  59.8

  61.5

  62.8

  67.2

  62.4

  Airdrie

  59.5

  65.1

  61.1

  55.7

  54.1

  60.3

  63.9

  54.9

  66.8

  59.6

  65.1

  East Lowlands

  Edinburgh South

  71.5

  62.9

  53.7

  60.0

  57.2

  57.5

  50.6

  61.4

  59.0

  52.6

  50.5

  Edinburgh East

  50.8

  65.8

  58.8

  54.2

  46.7

  51.5

  53.8

  57.0

  54.0

  56.8

  52.0

  Galashiels

  72.7

  60.0

  64.5

  62.2

  59.5

  56.0

  67.1

  63.6

  65.4

  58.9

  60.7

  Fife

  Kirkcaldy

  64.5

  57.6

  55.6

  55.0

  48.6

  62.7

  59.3

  59.5

  55.0

  59.5

  54.4

  Cowdenbeath

  66.1

  62.7

  57.6

  62.1

  55.1

  57.3

  64.3

  62.8

  72.2

  59.6

  52.3

  Leven

  65.4

  62.3

  66.4

  54.6

  54.0

  66.7

  59.4

  70.7

  62.7

  60.2

  55.8

  Dunfermline

  66.4

  57.5

  52.1

  66.4

  60.6

  63.1

  59.1

  61.2

  56.7

  55.7

  60.0

  Forth Valley

  Stirling

  72.6

  56.2

  63.1

  62.8

  55.8

  59.8

  64.4

  58.5

  55.1

  63.0

  57.1

  Falkirk

  64.8

  63.4

  58.4

  55.9

  63.1

  57.9

  66.1

  58.4

  68.9

  62.2

  59.0

  Glasgow City

  Glasgow City

  36.0

  53.4

  27.7

  33.8

  38.5

  32.8

  40.0

  28.3

  45.8

  42.9

  40.0

  Glasgow Maryhill

  57.9

  55.1

  59.2

  54.5

  49.1

  54.4

  55.6

  55.1

  59.6

  59.4

  52.7

  Glasgow East

  Glasgow

  Shettleston

  67.6

  57.4

  60.1

  60.6

  56.8

  58.9

  53.7

  56.8

  62.5

  58.6

  61.6

  Glasgow

  Bridgeton

  48.4

  37.8

  39.1

  43.0

  44.9

  42.8

  47.0

  44.3

  46.2

  42.3

  41.1

  Glasgow Provan

  47.9

  42.9

  43.1

  44.6

  32.2

  43.2

  47.3

  52.4

  50.6

  43.1

  46.1

  182

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage success rate for applications for incapacity benefit at each Benefits Agency office in Scotland for each month up to the most recent available; what was the number of appeals against refusal; and what percentage were successful in each case. [29280]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. George Foulkes, dated 20 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the percentage success rate for applications for Incapacity Benefit (IB) at each Benefit Agency (BA) office in Scotland for each month up to the most recent available; what was the number of appeals against refusal; and what percentage were successful in each case.

  The attached tables give details of the percentage success rate for applications for IB at each BA office in Scotland. The information requested for the number of appeals against refusal on application and the percentage that are successful is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  The following table shows the percentage of successful (applications) claims to incapacity benefit for 1995–96. These decisions are made prior to the application of the IB all work test.
  183

  Local office

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Glasgow Laurieston

  Glasgow Laurieston

  52.8

  58.9

  54.5

  47.2

  55.8

  53.8

  51.9

  55.0

  58.9

  55.1

  46.7

  East Kilbride

  71.1

  66.3

  63.8

  65.9

  67.9

  67.1

  68.1

  70.8

  71.7

  63.6

  66.1

  Glasgow South West

  Glasgow South West

  West

  55.7

  53.1

  56.5

  54.5

  51.8

  51.9

  56.6

  51.4

  61.9

  52.8

  55.7

  Glasgow Springburn and Cumbernauld

  Glasgow Springburn

  67.1

  58.0

  50.9

  53.9

  54.7

  62.5

  57.4

  52.2

  66.7

  60.4

  49.6

  Glasgow Cumbernauld

  70.9

  71.0

  64.5

  71.1

  69.0

  68.3

  69.9

  67.1

  72.7

  69.4

  68.5

  Glasgow West

  Glasgow Anniesland

  42.9

  50.0

  53.9

  49.3

  51.8

  45.9

  43.0

  54.7

  58.1

  50.4

  50.0

  Glasgow Patrick

  58.5

  56.4

  56.0

  52.8

  46.5

  48.9

  44.1

  47.1

  54.1

  50.9

  47.8

  Grampian and Shetland

  Aberdeen

  71.8

  65.8

  63.3

  67.8

  65.3

  66.1

  58.5

  65.8

  63.9

  60.3

  61.5

  Lerwick

  83.3

  79.1

  77.7

  82.2

  80.5

  66.7

  73.0

  73.9

  73.3

  77.8

  70.3

  Peterhead

  69.1

  69.6

  63.3

  69.2

  65.1

  64.4

  66.9

  66.9

  64.8

  65.7

  65.6

  Highlands and Islands

  Inverness

  67.5

  57.1

  54.7

  53.4

  59.7

  55.1

  59.1

  59.6

  61.3

  59.6

  66.0

  Elgin

  65.6

  62.5

  53.9

  62.5

  62.3

  63.5

  55.2

  66.4

  64.2

  61.3

  64.5

  Fort William

  60.0

  58.8

  47.6

  61.7

  61.7

  56.5

  63.0

  59.6

  57.1

  51.3

  52.8

  Kirkwall

  68.0

  61.1

  69.6

  46.4

  78.4

  41.4

  69.7

  70.8

  63.3

  63.6

  54.5

  Stornoway

  56.5

  65.8

  76.1

  59.1

  57.9

  80.0

  67.4

  82.6

  80.0

  42.1

  45.8

  Wick

  60.0

  62.5

  60.3

  75.6

  50.0

  66.7

  62.9

  67.9

  47.8

  61.8

  71.4

  Irwine and Kilmarnock

  Irwine

  61.6

  54.2

  58.5

  55.8

  59.2

  61.5

  57.9

  61.9

  64.0

  59.4

  60.3

  Kilmarnock

  66.7

  57.7

  60.2

  65.2

  60.9

  50.0

  60.0

  63.3

  52.7

  51.0

  61.9

  Lomond and Argyll

  Clydebank

  61.5

  59.6

  63.7

  61.5

  58.5

  58.8

  62.0

  61.2

  61.8

  62.9

  63.1

  Cambeltown

  47.3

  58.3

  46.9

  58.9

  51.5

  60.7

  64.3

  50.0

  75.0

  52.9

  58.8

  Oban

  47.4

  69.7

  65.6

  73.8

  80.0

  58.1

  51.1

  56.0

  73.7

  62.5

  59.3

  Lothian and Central

  Edinburgh City

  55.0

  51.5

  44.2

  53.4

  43.5

  45.3

  49.1

  55.6

  50.8

  44.2

  72.4

  Leith

  54.4

  48.9

  56.8

  55.3

  52.7

  50.0

  47.1

  56.6

  51.4

  56.5

  52.0

  Lothian West

  Lothian West

  69.2

  64.9

  62.3

  62.1

  59.3

  59.6

  58.1

  62.2

  60.8

  62.2

  58.1

  Renfrew

  Renfrew

  72.8

  61.2

  61.9

  64.8

  61.8

  60.6

  63.3

  64.0

  64.2

  61.9

  65.0

  South West Scotland

  Ayr

  66.7

  56.7

  58.6

  54.7

  57.4

  56.4

  58.0

  55.3

  68.6

  63.4

  55.3

  Dumfries

  72.4

  72.5

  63.4

  67.7

  61.4

  65.4

  64.4

  72.3

  64.7

  67.2

  62.1

  Stranraer

  67.6

  51.1

  66.7

  60.3

  71.4

  58.7

  70.5

  51.2

  68.5

  63.3

  55.0

  Tayside

  Dundee

  63.8

  61.3

  60.3

  61.1

  61.1

  59.9

  57.7

  65.4

  59.7

  58.7

  56.8

  Arbroath

  65.2

  62.4

  66.7

  69.2

  62.7

  66.7

  63.0

  67.5

  60.5

  62.4

  55.7

  Perth

  69.7

  61.0

  58.1

  67.6

  63.5

  60.5

  68.6

  64.7

  69.9

  60.3

  63.6

  Notes:

  1. Data for April 1995 is unavailable.

  2. Clyde Coast and Cowal district: incapacity benefit claims moved from Port Glasgow to Greenock from January 1996.

  3. Data is provsional and subject to amendment.

  Source:

  100 per cent. count of cases on the incapacity benefit system. Excludes a small number of clerically processed cases.
  184 185

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30061]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  DSS Deregulation Unit

  Staff

  Staff

  Budget 1996–97

  Civil servants

  Seconded from business

  Grade

  Number

  UG7

  0.751

  £88,000

  HEO

  2.001

  None

  AA

  0.25

  Total (wte)2

  3.00

  1 Have experience of the private sector.

  2 Whole-time equivalent.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received a report on the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's review of the prescription for industrial injuries disablement benefit purposes of chronic bronchitis and emphysema in underground coal workers; and if he will make a statement. [30645]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary for State has today laid a copy of the council's report before Parliament, Cm 3240. As with all Industrial Injuries Advisory Council reports, it will be given careful consideration. We will respond to the council's recommendations once the medical, administrative and financial issues raised by the report have been fully examined.

  Claimant Statistics
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the number of people claiming means-tested in-work benefits, (b) the number of claimants' adult dependants and (c) the number of their children in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1995. [27830]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Figures for 1994 are given as this is the last year for which complete information is available.

  Persons claiming means-tested in-work benefits1

  May 1979

  May 1994

  October 1995

  Family income supplement/family credit7

  Number of persons claiming

  78,000

  551,000

  643,000

  Number of adult dependants6

  40,000

  315,000

  355,000

  Number of children

  9184,000

  1,123,000

  1,297,000

  186

  Persons claiming means-tested in-work benefits1

  May 1979

  May 1994

  October 1995

  Disability working allowance

  Number of persons claiming

  8n/a

  4,251

  7,644

  Number of adult dependants6

  8n/a

  1,633

  2,881

  Number of children

  8n/a

  3,048

  5,764

  Housing benefit

  Number of persons claiming

  3n/a

  316,000

  4n/a

  Number of adult dependants6

  3n/a

  139,000

  4n/a

  Number of children

  3n/a

  349,000

  4n/a

  Council tax benefit

  Number of persons claiming

  3n/a

  332,000

  4n/a

  Number of adult dependents6

  3n/a

  186,000

  4n/a

  Number of children

  3n/a

  382,000

  4n/a

  Notes:

  1 Means tested in-work benefits are defined as family income supplement/family credit, disability working allowance and housing benefit and council tax benefit paid direct to people with earnings who are not on income support. The same individual may be claiming more than one benefit.

  2 Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand except for disability working allowance where exact figures are quoted.

  3 Comparable data on housing benefit and council tax benefit is not available for 1979.

  4 Data for housing benefit and council tax benefit is not available for 1995.

  5 The figures include estimates due to the data collection procedure in Scotland.

  6 Adult dependants are defined as the partner of the claimant.

  7 Family credit replaced family income supplement in April 1988.

  8 Disability working allowance was introduced in April 1992.

  9 Approximate figure based on number of families with varying multiples of children.

  Sources:

  Social Security Statistics 1979.

  Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample taken at the end of May 1994.

  Departmental Property (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the tender board for the rationalisation of his Department's land and buildings in Newcastle upon Tyne to reach a recommendation on choice of tenders; when he expects to make a decision; and if he will communicate his decision to the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). [30427]

  Mr. Heald
  A recommendation as to the choice of the preferred supplier for the DSS Newcastle estate development project is due to be made early in June. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State will make a decision following careful consideration of the recommendation. A copy of the announcement will be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

NHS Trusts: Government Guidance
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have issued or are issuing any new guidelines to National Health Service trusts following the National Audit Office report on the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, guidelines were in place on most issues before the National Audit Office published its report. The National Health Service Executive has nevertheless clarified its guidance on a number of points raised in the report.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I know that the Minister studies these matters thoroughly. Does she recall that two or three years ago your Lordships' House spent much time discussing the Wessex and West Midlands health authorities as regards which some serious financial irregularities had arisen? The report states quite clearly that the same irregularities were occurring in the Yorkshire health authority at the same time. It would appear that there was an epidemic of such incidents at that time. Will the Minister try to persuade the Secretary of State to investigate health authorities as I believe that much money has been misused that could be reclaimed to the advantage of the health service? Is the Minister also aware that Mr. Alan Langlands, the chief executive of the health service, said that Mr. Keith McLean, who was involved in the incident I am discussing, would not be offered another contract by the National Health Service but nevertheless he has been given one by a National Health Service trust based in Mansfield? Will the Minister explain how that can occur?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I refer first of all to the Wessex situation which was on a completely different timescale from the Yorkshire situation. The Wessex incidents occurred in 1987 to 1989. In 1990 that whole project was abandoned. In the case we are discussing the first improper payments came to light in 1992. Therefore, it was a totally different timescale. This practice is not widespread. It would be remiss of the noble Lord to suggest that it is. It was in the 1990 legislation that we introduced the Audit Commission to supervise and monitor regional health authorities, district health authorities and trusts. Indeed the Audit Commission unearthed this particular instance. It has reassured us that there are no other cases pending at the moment. Finally, on the question of the job that was
726
offered to Mr. McLean, we have to look at the laws governing this land. It was a different employer because trusts have employment contracts with individuals. They are not employed by the National Health Service per se.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in an organisation employing over a million people quite obviously every now and again there will be cases of human error, deplorable though that may be? Does my noble friend further agree that the way the health service has been run in the past 15 or 16 years has resulted in lower waiting lists and more treatment for patients? That is one aspect of the health service that we should surely blazon from the hill tops.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those contributions. Of course he is absolutely right in that the health service has never been better as regards the services it gives to patients. I agree with his first comment. One has only to look at organisations such as the Salvation Army, of which I am a great admirer. It also has had problems in terms of a few million pounds walking away, but it has also recovered them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with the scandals in health authorities involving their purchasing and employment practices, the hospital consultants association is forecasting—in its words— a financial meltdown for NHS trusts? The Audit Commission has called into question the claimed benefits of GP fundholding and the Secretary of State has had to launch a major initiative to reduce the mountains of paperwork which are the direct result of the Government's own policy. Is the Minister still absolutely sure that the internal market is working?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that Ms. Harriet Harman also agrees with that. In the "Today" programme only this week she said that if the Labour Party came into power it would want to keep the purchaser/provider split. We are at one on that. Of course consultants and doctors in the health service are finding some of the changes difficult, and some of that is because they are being called to account in a way that they were never previously called to account.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the Minister does not know the difference between the purchaser/provider split and the internal market, it is no wonder that the NHS is in such a mess.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think the noble Lord totally misunderstands the purchaser/provider split and the internal market.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Salvation Army got back the money?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I said that it did; and in this case we also got back a great deal of the money.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I speak as one who has had experience of and battle scars from the past five years of the internal market in the NHS. Does the Minister accept that there is a large difference between separating responsibility for assessing health needs and responsibility for providing it; and what is the time-wasting, money-consuming, paper-chase of the internal market that diverts us from clinical priorities?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that before the purchaser provider split we saw fewer patients, as my noble friend said. We treated fewer people. We had much longer waiting lists; we had "never-never" waiting lists; patients recognised that they would never be treated. Today we have brought the waiting time down to under two years, under 18 months and, in the West Midlands, under six months. That is a huge improvement. We are seeing general practice undertaking more and more. Primary care is being strengthened in terms of vaccination and immunisation. We have almost eliminated measles, the first country in Europe to do so. The successes go on and on.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the Minister's answers; I do not usually do so. However, when comparing the timescale between Wessex and the West Midlands, is the noble Baroness aware that I did not quote my own figures but the observations in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General?
Finally, I am deeply concerned, as I am sure that most noble Lords are, that, while Mr. Alan Langlands, the top person in the National Health Service, has stated that Mr. McLean will not be offered a contract because of his conduct in this area, there is no mechanism to prevent him obtaining a contract from a national health trust in another area. Is that what the Minister is saying? If so, the legislation needs altering very quickly.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is a question of employment law. If the noble Lord feels that the legislation is wrong, he will have to bring a Bill through Parliament and change the employment law. Individual contracts for employees are held with individual employers. In this case, as the noble Lord is aware, regional health authorities, other health authorities at district level, former FHSAs, and trusts, hold the contracts.
Finally, I respect the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. He has diligently sought to ensure that the health service provides good services with propriety. I respect that and I thank him for bringing this to our attention.

Youth Service: Funding
2.46 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the current arrangements for funding the youth service.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have no plans to do so. The Government provide grant to
728
fund all the services for which local education authorities are responsible. This grant is not earmarked for specific services. Arrangements for funding youth services will continue to be a matter for local authorities. My department also funds local education authorities to train youth workers through its programme of specific grants for education support and training.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that over the last four years for which figures are available there has been a reduction of 22 per cent. in the funding of the maintained and voluntary sectors of the youth service? The reduction is even greater in London boroughs and other metropolitan areas. It is attributable to the increasing pressure on local authorities. As the Government continue to express concern over youth crime, drug addiction and truancy, will they urgently reconsider their policy of ending their direct spending on services that provide positive alternatives to criminal and disruptive behaviour by young people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by correcting the noble Lord's figures. The amounts spent by local authorities over the last four years for which we have figures (up to 1994–95) have remained in real terms broadly consistent. I accept that the figures have fallen, as the noble Lord puts it, in particular in inner London. However, the amount spent per head is still considerably larger than the amount spent in other parts of the country.
We believe that it is for the local education authorities to decide how they should spend their resources. It is for them to assess their priorities and not for the Government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the answers he gave relate to England and Wales and not to Scotland? People sometimes are a little confused when the figures differ, the funding being different in Scotland.
Lord Henley: My Lords, although at the Dispatch Box we generally answer for Her Majesty's Government and therefore for the United Kingdom as a whole, on this occasion the figures relate to England and Wales, for which my department is responsible. If my noble friend wishes for either myself or one of my noble friends in the Scottish Office to write to her giving her appropriate figures for Scotland, we shall be more than happy to do so.
Lord Howell: My Lords, the demise of the youth service can be traced back to the decision to abolish the Youth Service Development Council. That led to the closing of many training colleges for professional youth leaders. It has had extremely unfortunate results, in particular in the inner cities, which demonstrate the results of so much boredom because no trained leadership or facilities exist. Would it be a good idea for the Government to re-establish something like the Albemarle Committee which a previous Conservative Government set up? It could review the serious situation existing in the youth service and come forward with recommendations which perhaps we could all accept as being pertinent to the problems facing young people today.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again I start by correcting the noble Lord. There has been no demise of the youth service, which continues in all local education authorities throughout the country. Most authorities provide a good service; some are trying new, interesting and innovative ideas. As I made clear earlier, the amount of money spent by local education authorities has remained broadly consistent over the past few years. I dare say it will remain the same in subsequent years. It is a matter for the LEAs themselves to decide on their priorities. It would not be right for the Government to impose a diktat in the area.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that in no way will the Government fund any kind of youth service by stealing £2 billion or £3 billion of shareholders' money from the privatised utilities—because that is the intention of the Labour Party in funding its youth scheme?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I understand it, the party opposite has plans to steal a great deal of money from the privatised utilities and spend it not once, not twice but of the order of 10 times over.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if we spent more money than appears to be spent at the moment on the youth service? Is he aware that the Council of Local Education Authorities has advised us that the funding of the youth service is a continuing problem, as LEA grant settlements become less and less adequate? For an LEA with a priority in the area of teachers' pay—which is one of the first priorities—discretionary grants come much lower down the agenda. For that reason, I fear, the youth service advises us on this side of the House that it currently faces a severe crisis, particularly in London.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am interested in that further commitment to spending from the party opposite. I dare say that the noble Baroness has checked it with the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe I can say that her party will probably spend the money it plans to raise from raiding the privatised utilities not 10 times but 11 times over.
We make considerable sums available to local education authorities for education. It is then up to those authorities to decide on their priorities. We increased the SSA for education by nearly £1 billion this year. It is therefore for the local education authorities to decide on their priorities. I do not believe that the party opposite would like me to start telling its members exactly how they should spend the money.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one cannot escape spending money? As a result of the Government not providing facilities, there is the cost of delinquency and hooliganism in our society which cannot be lost. It must be met by police committees and by the Government themselves. When the Minister makes such statements, will he please discuss the finely judged balance between the cost of providing youth facilities and the cost when the Government fail to provide such facilities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, what the noble Lord said is simply nonsense. We are not failing to provide resources for the youth service. We provide money through the educational side of the standard spending assessment for local authorities. It is up to them to decide on the appropriate priorities, and they do so, because spending has remained broadly the same throughout the United Kingdom and throughout England over the past few years.

Female Offenders: Non-custodial Sentences
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue guidance intended to reduce to a minimum the imprisonment of women responsible for the care of young children and to encourage the use of non-custodial sentences.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, within the limits laid down by Parliament, it is for judges and magistrates to decide what sentence to impose. It would not be appropriate for the Government to give them any guidance on this. However, I know that judges and magistrates take account of the circumstances of the offender as well as the offence when considering the most appropriate sentence available to them. I am also aware that the Magistrates' Association is currently revising its guidance to magistrates on sentencing.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is well known for his care for the interests of children. Does he agree that the number of women in prison in the last three or four years has risen twice as fast as the number of men and that approximately half the women have dependent children? Does that not indicate a real need for more guidance than is currently available to magistrates' and other courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am concerned about the issues which the noble Lord raised. My understanding is that the pattern of sentencing for women, to which the noble Lord referred, is related to the nature of the crimes in respect of which women are sentenced. I am told that between 1991 and 1995 the numbers of women sentenced for violence against the person, robbery and drug offences rose by 46 per cent., 128 per cent. and 41 per cent. respectively. So it is not surprising that there should be some, perhaps not immediately corresponding increase, but an increase in the sentences of imprisonment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that in a recent case where a husband and wife had both been imprisoned because both had falsely claimed that she had been driving when he was the driver, the Court of Appeal, in quashing her prison sentence, emphasised that the courts are always reluctant to send the mother of young children to prison? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that there is a disquieting number of cases throughout the country in which women who are responsible for the care of young

731
children are being imprisoned because they are fine defaulters? That is happening to the great prejudice of the children. Will the noble and learned Lord take the opportunity of the Question to emphasise to the magistrates' courts that imprisonment must be regarded as a punishment of last resort and that responsibility for the care of young children is a major factor telling against a sentence of imprisonment?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on the first matter, I confirm from my recollection what the noble Lord said about the case. On the second part of the question, it needs to be clear that imprisonment for fine default is in the nature of a last resort. The higher courts, the Divisional Court in particular, have emphasised the point to magistrates. That would be more appropriate than my doing so from this position. I do it, therefore, by reference to a quotation from the judgment in the Divisional Court of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the case of Cawley in November last year. It is not related particularly to women but generally to fine default. He said:
"Of course there are occasions when detention is called for when the defaulter is cocking a snook at the enforcement system and this ultimate sanction is necessary to underpin it. But it really must be a last resort".
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I accept what the noble and learned Lord said about the rise in serious offences among women, although he will agree that the numbers involved in the beginning were relatively small. However, perhaps I may press him further on fine defaulters. I believe he will confirm that quite a few cases of judicial review have set aside the decisions of magistrates' courts to send fine defaulters to prison. Given that prison costs £500 a week per person, and that many fine defaulters are inside for relatively tiny financial debts, could the noble and learned Lord consider any way in which he could draw the attention of magistrates' courts to the decisions of higher courts in many cases?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the decisions of the higher courts are brought to the attention of magistrates. The noble Baroness's point is made in the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the sentence following the passage which I have just read. He was dealing with a young person and he said:
"To send a young person into custody, sometimes following an offence not itself punishable by custody, with all that that involves, not only for the defaulter but in the way of prison overcrowding and public expense (cancellation of the fine apart) is no small thing".
There, the Divisional Court expresses itself in a way that is much in accord with the question which the noble Baroness asked.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us who have sat on the Bench for many, many years are most reluctant to send people to gaol, and it is done only as a last resort? Many of us on the Bench who give our time voluntarily realise the consequences and the cost involved. We do everything in our power to try to avoid people going to prison. It is only a last resort.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord expresses the sentiments of many magistrates who give their service voluntarily to this particular responsibility. There are over 30,000 of them up and down the country. Their service in this connection has to be taken note of. I believe that the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord are widely shared by the magistracy.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that when, for example, a woman on benefit who has a child is fined for having no television licence, the only way she can pay the fine is by starving her child, going out onto the street or bringing in a boyfriend. None of those methods contributes to her future and may lead to a charge in terms of the national health in the future. Will the Government try to introduce some method whereby those sorts of people are able to do piecework in order to earn money to pay off the fine rather than having to go out onto the street?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the question of non-payment of the television licence fee is certainly a difficult one. Perhaps the most practical way of dealing with it is to try to introduce some system of smaller payments spread over a year, instead of the present system, in the hope of avoiding the need for action on the basis of evasion. It is a very difficult problem. As noble Lords know, so far it has not been possible to have a person's television set turned off if that person has not paid the licence fee.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the noble Baroness who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches is correct in saying that the increase in the number of sentenced women is due not only to an increase in the number of violent offences but to an increase in the readiness of courts to imprison non-violent female offenders? Given the overall damage to society when the mothers of young children are imprisoned, is that not a course that we should follow with the greatest reluctance?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the explanation for the rise in respect of sentence following on conviction is the one that I gave. The sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness is very much the same as that expressed earlier by the noble Lord. I am sure that these issues are in the minds of judges and magistrates when they come to sentence any particular case.

Russian Nuclear Submarines: Decommissioning
3.3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have offered technical advice and other assistance to the Russian Government as part of an international scheme to help with making safe the decommissioning of redundant Russian nuclear submarines.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, Russia has not sought international assistance in decommmissioning its nuclear submarines, and there is no international scheme specifically working on this issue. However, UK experts from AEA Technology are undertaking a feasibility study for the safe removal and storage of unstable spent nuclear fuel from the Russian support ship the "Lepse" in Murmansk harbour.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I am glad to think that we are helping in some way. Do the British Government accept that the Russians have a problem in disposing of many submarines containing elements of nuclear reactor engines and that, for reasons of safety and prevention of serious pollution, special measures will be needed that are likely to be expensive?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we do accept that there is a real problem. That is why the United Kingdom has been playing a key role, along with our G7 and European Union partners. Real progress is being made in the Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania and Bulgaria. The environmental concerns about a whole range of nuclear safety issues in Russia, including the disposal of nuclear components of obsolete vessels, are well recognised. In addition to the work being done by AEA Technology, MoD and MAFF scientists are also contributing under the auspices of the IAEA to a Russian/Norwegian programme to assess the implications of past dumping operations. Progress is being made. We welcome the Russian commitment last month to accept formally this year an amendment to the 1972 London Convention banning the dumping of all radioactive waste at sea permanently. We expect Russia to adhere to that commitment and we are doing our best to help Russia do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that information. Do the Government have any feel as to the extent of the problem north of Murmansk? As the noble Baroness will be aware, there are press stories that many nuclear reactors from Russian submarines have simply been dumped in the sea without any protection at all. Is there any estimate as to how many and what the effect might be?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I, too, read the Sunday Telegraph article. It is very difficult to know the precise figures since they are literally known only to the Russians. We believe that at least 70 submarines have been decommissioned, although spent nuclear fuel has been removed from only 21. The most urgent problem probably relates to 10 submarine reactors which, either as a result of accidents or solidification of liquid metal coolant, are known to be impractical or impossible to defuel. In relation to the number of submarines to be decommissioned by the end of the millennium, I have heard estimates of as many as 150. There is a huge job to be done. It is very expensive; the cost is possibly as high as 4 billion dollars. Funding will be required from the international financial
734
institutions as well as from Russia itself. We are working through TACIS and various other programmes to give all the help we can.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report of the Bellona Foundation on the Russian Northern Fleet, in respect of which Alexander Nikitin, one of the co-authors, has been charged with espionage and high treason, notwithstanding the fact that all the information contained in the report was already in the public domain? Is the Minister aware that the report claims that 18 per cent. of the world's nuclear reactors are in the Kola Peninsular and that the risks involved in their inadequate storage and handling may be compared with the risk from a slow-motion Chernobyl? Will the Government, together with our partners in the European Union, make representations to the Russians in regard to the treatment of Mr. Nikitin and raids on the offices of the Bellona Foundation? Will they ask the Russians if they will enter into discussions with the international community on how best these appalling risks—which affect not just northern Russia and Norway but the whole of Europe—can best be solved?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a large number of questions. We know that Mr. Nikitin worked for the Norwegian environmental group, as the noble Lord said; he wrote, with another, the report on the storage of spent fuel and waste from Russian naval reactors in the Murmansk region; he was arrested last February; he was accused of passing secret and top secret information on the Russian Northern Fleet to Bellona Although this is a matter for the Russian authorities, we are watching closely. Our ambassador in Moscow has raised this case. I understand that Mr. Nikitin has now been allowed access to a lawyer; and we expect Russia to follow the due process of the law.
Whatever the reports and efforts of this organisation or any individual, the problem is there. That is why we have been in the forefront of international efforts in trying to make sure that as many high-risk civil reactors, as well as any other nuclear spent fuels, are made as safe as they can be. That is why a sum of over 100 million ecus has been committed to nuclear fuel recycling and radioactive projects, of which we pay some 16 per cent. We are working hard to resolve this matter.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Union beef ban. In view of the presence of a maiden speaker on the list for the first item of business today, I suggest that the convenient moment might be after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winston.

Housing Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Housing Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 7,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 8 to 50,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 51 to 54,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 55 to 77,

Clause 89,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 90 to 97,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 78 to 80,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 81 to 83,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 84 to 88,

Clause 98,

Schedule 8,

Clause 99,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 100 to 107,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 108 and 109,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 110 to 126,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 127 to 154,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 155 to 188,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 189 to 194,

Schedule 15,1

Clauses 195 to 199,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 200 to 205.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
First, I should like to say how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, who has been unstinting in his commitment to the National Health Service and has given so much time, energy and skill to its management.
In the past five years we have seen a transformation of the structure of the NHS. By setting up hospital and community trusts and by establishing health authorities as commissions we have seen services develop, waiting times plummet and more people treated in both secondary and primary care. We have encouraged efficiency and given trusts both freedom and incentives to respond to patients' needs.
The 1995 Health Authorities Act, which came into effect on 1st April this year, completes the last stage of our reforms. It streamlines significantly the management structure of the National Health Service. The abolition of regional health authorities allows decisions to be devolved to a local level closer to patients, and it will deliver savings of £100 million per year. Creating single health authorities through merging district and family health services authorities will also result in better services to patients.
Having completed this latest stage in the reforms, we are confident that there now exists a structure that is flexible and responsive to local needs. Society is not static and the NHS has to continue to reflect changes, as it has done successfully since 1948. In the future we will almost certainly see trusts alter and, subject to statutory consultation, merge where it is in the best interests of patients. It is that flexibility in structural change and the wish continually to improve health services that provide the context for this Bill. Proper and prudent management of the health service should ensure that patients continue to receive the services they need and that those who contract with the NHS can do so with absolute certainty.
Under current legislation, provision for the liabilities of trusts, health authorities and special health authorities which cease to exist is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. In the past, where a health authority or trust, and before that a hospital, has merged, the liabilities have been transferred elsewhere. Recently in the lead-up to 1st April when district health authorities and family health service authorities were merged, their property, rights and liabilities were transferred. We have used the discretion to transfer liabilities in the past, and it is most unlikely that any Secretary of State would not do so in future. The provisions of this Bill, however, remove all doubts in the matter.
The Bill, if enacted, will reassure all those who contract with the NHS. In the event of further reorganisation involving the exercise of Ministers' powers, it will ensure that no liability will simply be extinguished.

737
In detail, Clause 1 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all liabilities of a health authority, special health authority or National Health Service trust are dealt with on their ceasing to exist; that is, on their dissolution or abolition. "Dealt with" in this context means that the liability is transferred to another NHS body, being an NHS trust, a health authority or special health authority, or to the Secretary of State. The property and rights will remain subject to the Secretary of State's discretion to transfer, except to the extent that they need to be transferred to secure that all the liabilities of the body are "dealt with". The effect of this is that all the liabilities must be transferred, but they need not be transferred to the same person or body.
Clause 2 imposes the same duty on the Secretary of State with respect to trusts, health boards or special health boards in Scotland, except that liabilities may also be transferred to the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service, which can itself be abolished only by primary legislation.
Clause 3 allows any corresponding provision made by Order in Council in respect of Northern Ireland to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
During the debate on the Bill in another place, much time was spent discussing the benefits of the private finance initiative in the NHS. It is indeed the case that this Bill has arisen in the context of the PFI. The Bill will give comfort to all those who contract with the NHS and pave the way for the continued development of the PFI, to the benefit of patients and taxpayers alike.
We believe that the PFI offers a great opportunity to develop, be innovative and produce modern facilities to the benefit of patients. In the past five years the value of new starts on major schemes (that is, schemes with a capital cost of £1 million or more) has been £0.5 billion or less annually, following the peak in the late 1980s. There are now about £1.5 billion worth of schemes seeking private finance. Around 25 large schemes, each over £25 million in value, have placed advertisements in the Journal of the EC to seek a PFI partner. In the 10 years from 1985 to 1994 only 10 contracts of that size were placed. If only half the schemes seeking PFI now succeed, that will expand the NHS capital programme significantly.
Nevertheless, I want to reassure your Lordships of one thing; namely, that there are some important principles that will not change. The NHS will continue to be committed to the provision of a universal health service, largely free at the point of delivery and largely funded from taxation. There is a collective government commitment to the key founding principle of the National Health Service, that healthcare should be available to those who need it on the basis of their clinical need without regard to their ability to pay. The private initiative in no way erodes that principle.
The PFI is not intended to herald a new period of upheaval in the NHS. Health authorities will continue to manage budgets on behalf of their resident population; fundholding GPs will continue to reinforce the purchaser function of the health service; and responsibility for providing health care to meet the needs of patients will continue to rest on NHS trusts.
738
All will continue to operate in the public sector. All will continue to be accountable through Ministers to Parliament.
Concerns were expressed in another place that the Government will be needlessly taking on uncontrolled and uncontrollable risks. That is not the case. Trusts are subject to a full and detailed framework of financial governance and there is a comprehensive system of controls already in place.
In terms of controls on trust borrowing there are four key elements. One: that trusts must obtain value for money in carrying out their functions, including any borrowing they undertake to support that. This generally means loans from the Secretary of State or guaranteed loans from the commercial sector. The process of issuing guarantees provides a supervision mechanism. Two: trusts may not mortgage or charge their assets as security or borrow in non-sterling currency without express permission. Three: every trust has an external financing limit—a limit on the amount of borrowing that the trust can make. Trusts submit a financial plan each year demonstrating how they will meet it and are monitored throughout the year to ensure that they do not exceed it. Four: the quarterly monitoring of expenditure would quickly alert regional offices if trusts started to take on unusual debts.
There is a statutory requirement for trusts and certain other NHS bodies to keep accounts which are audited by the Audit Commission. That audit is in addition to the examination within the NHS Executive of the annual accounts, which are statutorily required to be prepared and transmitted to the Secretary of State in respect of each financial year.
Chief executives of health authorities and trusts act as "accountable officers" and are expected to answer to Parliament through the NHS chief executive for the efficient, effective and proper use of all the resources in their care. In cases of serious management failure or unacceptable conduct, the accounting officer would expect the appropriate chief executive of the health authority or trust to accompany him to a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee to answer personally to the committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General also scrutinises the accounts of trusts, health authorities and special health authorities and lays them with his report before both Houses of Parliament.
Finally, the change the Bill makes is a technical one and does not represent any change in policy. This Government have always understood that any liabilities incurred by trusts should be transferred on dissolution. This Bill ensures that the Government will stand behind their liabilities in a proper and prudent manner. In conclusion, the provisions contained in this Bill are sensible and appropriate. They demonstrate the continued commitment that this Government have to the NHS—to those who work in it, are cared for by it and whose livelihoods depend on supplying goods to it. This is a sensible measure and we believe one worthy of the support of your Lordships' House. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this short but significant Bill and, like the Minister, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, with his interest and particular involvement in this subject.
As your Lordships will know, this Bill has been designated as a money Bill and will not therefore be considered in detail by this House. But this afternoon we have an important opportunity to discuss our concerns about the troubled state of the private finance initiative in the health service. Frankly, it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest, as the Minister did in introducing the Bill, that it is about the NHS paying its debts. That suggests that somehow, over its 50-year history, without this legislation being in place, the NHS has had a rickety financial background from which the Bill may rescue it. When that assertion was made in another place honourable Members rightly challenged Ministers to show when, in its 50-year life, the NHS had not met its financial obligations without this legislation being on the statute book. But answer came there none.
Let us be quite clear what the Bill is about. It is not designed to fill some historical gap in the health service financial administration which the Government may suddenly have identified; it is designed to try to rescue, to breathe life into the private finance initiative which at the moment is in unproductive chaos. Let us also be clear how serious that unproductive chaos is.
In last autumn's Budget the capital resources for the health service were cut by nearly 17 per cent. The Chancellor and financial Ministers blithely suggested that the money for hospital building programmes and other major capital investments would be raised through the private finance initiative. A figure of £135 million was mentioned as a reasonable target to raise from private sector funding during this next year, even though I should point out that that target of £135 million would be less than half the cuts in public expenditure made in the autumn Budget even if it were practically realisable.
The real tragedy for the health service is that not a single private contract for a hospital has been completed and nothing has been finely agreed. That is not just since last November, since the cut in the public expenditure budget, but since 1992 when the PFI was introduced. People throughout the country—there are specific examples in Carlisle, Norwich, Amersham, North Durham, Swindon and several other places—have been promised new hospitals through the private finance schemes and not one brick has been laid. Several of those communities have been waiting for those hospitals for a number of years, waiting for the PFI to deliver, but nothing happens. And, as the Treasury Select Committee report on private finance in the health service published last month said,
"In some circumstances it [the private finance initiative] has delayed rather than encouraged investment".
One would not be aware of that from the stream of Department of Health press releases which emerge with regular optimism announcing new schemes, trumpeting new developments. But the private financiers, the bankers, just do not bite on those projects. I am grateful
740
to my noble friend Lord Eatwell, the Treasury spokesman on these Benches, for defining the PFI as "probably fictitious investment". It certainly has little reality in the health service today.
The Government have now realised that hospital development and building programmes have ground to a halt and hence the rush to push this Bill through Parliament in order to reassure the bankers and persuade them to invest in order to get at least some building started in this pre-election year.
We on these Benches support the principle of joint public/private partnerships and the potential for spreading risk on major capital ventures. But ironically this Bill, by compelling the Secretary of State for Health to accept a health service trust's residual liabilities if that trust ceases to exist, simply brings the ultimate risk back to the public sector. Private bankers may invest; individual trusts may run up liabilities; but if things go wrong, the taxpayer must pick up the pieces. One would have thought that that would make any entrepreneur look at any investment in this area as very attractive; it is virtually gold plated.
Unfortunately for those who proposed the Bill—and indeed most unfortunately for the health service—since the Bill finished its passage through another place there has been growing evidence that the bankers and the building industry are still not convinced. John Laing plc, the construction group which has been a leading bidder for some of the NHS schemes, called the existing arrangements for negotiating contracts "farcical and appallingly slow". Mr. Martin Laing, the chairman, is calling for a complete overhaul of the Government's PFI arrangements by the Treasury.
At a banking conference in London earlier this month there was international scepticism about the extent of the guarantees provided by the Bill. Potential investors spoke at the conference about the risks involved in negotiating long-term financial deals with individual trusts who themselves have only one to three years guaranteed income from their contract with local health purchasers. There was also concern that the Bill does not exclude the possibility of an insolvent trust continuing to exist but being unable to pay the PFI investors. The magazine Building of 3rd May headlines its report on that conference,
"Banks Scorn PFI Hospital Safeguards".
That is not an encouraging verdict on something which was designed to give the private sector a total guarantee of its investment.
It is also not surprising that the Treasury Select Committee in another place, which recently took evidence from some trust chief executives, states in its report—also published since the Bill began its passage through another place—
"the evidence reveals some concern about the suitability of PFI for health projects".
The sixth report of the Select Committee on PFI published, as I say, since the residual liabilities Bill was first considered in another place, is a thorough and critical appraisal both of this Bill and of the general situation. Honourable Members in another place of all parties who serve on the committee were particularly

741
concerned to establish how finance raised in this way—I remind your Lordships that under this Bill that would be ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayer—was to be monitored; how priorities were to be decided and what guarantees exist to prevent individual trusts not only raising private money for buildings and equipment, but also privatising clinical services and thus undermining the basic principles of the NHS.
The important issue of responsibility for sanctioning and monitoring borrowing by individual trusts seems to be extraordinarily complicated and obscure. Initially the Secretary of State for Health told the Treasury Select Committee that trusts did not have the power to borrow at all. Not surprisingly, Department of Health officials as well as better-informed honourable Members, quickly pointed out the arrangements which the Minister repeated this afternoon whereby, under Schedule 3 of the 1990 legislation, trusts can borrow. As the Minister said, they can borrow as long as they do not mortgage, do not borrow foreign currency or together do not borrow more than £5 billion.
After some rather confused discussions in the Select Committee hearing, the Secretary of State said that he thought it would be helpful if the Department of Health produced a paper on trust borrowing powers and the constraints on those powers—somewhat late in the day, it must be said, because the Bill your Lordships are considering this afternoon was due to have its Second Reading in another place a week after that hearing. However, the paper was produced and now forms Appendix 23 to the Select Committee report. Appendix 23 follows the lines that the Minister has described this afternoon and appears to give a clear line of accountability, albeit in rather general terms, through the various health service financial systems back to the Secretary of State, back to the Treasury and ultimately to Parliament. But in practice, when my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Milburn, asked the Secretary of State in a Parliamentary Question how many NHS trusts had borrowed from the commercial sector in the past year, the answer, as it is so often nowadays in the health service, was that the information was not available. Therefore, the trusts appear to be able to borrow up to £5 billion—now, under this Bill, secured by the taxpayer—and the Department of Health will not hold information on who has borrowed what.
There have been assertions—the Minister made them this afternoon—that the PFI would be controlled by the trusts' external finance limits which are subject to the conventional annual public expenditure controls. But I am advised that this is not the case simply because, unlike publicly funded projects where capital charges are up front in the first year in which they are committed, under PFI schemes there is almost no expenditure in the first two or three years. These schemes involve long-term charging for constructing a building or providing a service over the years in which the project is delivered. The EFL—the external financing limit—is therefore irrelevant because the commitment is made for future years in which there is no agreed EFL. Evidence from the Treasury to the Select Committee revealed that trusts are "encouraged" to register PFI projects, but this is entirely voluntary.
742
The Select Committee report describes the overall monitoring process as "rather haphazard". "Rather haphazard", my Lords, and do not forget that we are talking of up to £5 billion in private loans underwritten by the Government.
Perhaps even more haphazard and worrying is the way that using this type of PFI in the health service may distort priorities and may undermine the ability of any Secretary of State to develop a national strategy for investment and service provision. If, as the Government are now suggesting, all NHS capital schemes must be subject to private finance schemes, we are effectively transferring the choice about which hospital projects go ahead from a publicly funded, publicly accountable system to one where the private sector calls the shots and chooses which projects are commercially attractive.
Perhaps I may give an example. If the Secretary of State were to decide that breast cancer services were most effectively and efficiently delivered through particular centres of excellence with a specific geographical spread, but, at the same time, individual trusts negotiated individual private sector loans to create their own breast cancer units, they, the trusts, could well cut across a carefully considered set of health service national priorities. Equally, if private investors decide that a necessary local unit—necessary, that is, on clinical grounds—is unacceptable and unprofitable, it will therefore not be available. Unless it can compete for some public money over a longer term it will not be available to local patients. This must further undermine the already shaky national framework of the NHS. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the present PFI arrangements to prevent it happening.
Again, I refer your Lordships to the bipartisan Treasury Select Committee report. In paragraph 7 the report states:
"If the need for a facility, and its probable profitability, do not coincide, the Government will need to take steps to ensure that services continue to be planned and provided. It would be unacceptable if the Government's planning for the future provision of … hospitals began to be driven by the shorter-term perspectives of private bidders. The Committee would welcome therefore the Treasury's views as to whether the prioritisation of projects should be the responsibility of Government and Parliament, or those seeking to provide projects on a commercial basis".
I can tell the House that there is little doubt which position we on these Benches would take about that.
This last point brings us inexorably to the issue of whether the PFI in its present form is bound to lead to the privatisation of clinical services, not just buildings. Again, there seems to be little to prevent this happening. The Secretary of State has said that clinical services should not be provided under the PFI—this is an interesting caveat—"without the consent of local clinicians". But frankly that does not seem to me to be a watertight enough guarantee against piecemeal privatisation. For example, one can easily imagine circumstances where local clinicians as well as local managers may well be prepared to make major compromises in order to get a new hospital building off the ground. Already at the Stonehaven Hospital in Scotland we are told that the design, building and management, including the delivery of clinical services, will be put out to private sector bidders. Indeed, there

743
was some discussion—there was detailed but inconclusive exchanges between my honourable friends in another place and the Secretary of State and between Mr. Dorrell and the Treasury Select Committee—about what constituted clinical services and how to try to protect them.
As in so much of this area, the official picture is unclear but suspicious. I should be very grateful if when the Minister replies she could tell the House whether or not the department has come to a conclusion about whether, for example, clinical services which would be specifically excluded from PFI include such things as haematology, pathology, radiography or MRI scanning. If the Government genuinely wish to preserve the public service NHS, they must speedily define and ring-fence clinical services and specifically exempt them from the private finance initiative.
I hope I have shown that the Bill is not a technical measure designed to correct a long existing small problem in NHS finances. The Bill is part of the Government's determination to reduce public services, to devolve proper control and accountability in the health service to the individual small businesses that now make up NHS trusts. At the same time, ironically, the Bill compels the taxpayer to meet the private liabilities of dissolved trusts. I am extremely glad that, although this House cannot seek to amend the Bill because of the parliamentary timetable, we will have the benefit this afternoon of contributions from several of my noble friends who have vast expertise in Treasury matters, in economics, and practical experience of industry as well as of the NHS itself. At least their authoritative comments will be permanently recorded in the Official Report.
The authoritative and generally discouraging verdicts of the private sector and the Treasury Select Committee are already on the record but no doubt the Government will try to press ahead in their rather blinkered way. We shall just have to wait for the speedy election of a Labour Government to develop a system in which private finance may be able to work creatively in partnership with public finance in the public interest. The Bill before your Lordships today will certainly not achieve that.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for introducing the Bill and for trying very hard to justify it. I should also like to say how much I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham.
I was more than a little puzzled when I first saw the Bill. The reason for the introduction of it seems very difficult to comprehend. Ever since 1948 the Secretary of State has had the power to deal with the liabilities of any health authority or trust which finds itself with financial problems. As far as I am aware, this has always worked well. I do not know of any case where a supplier has been the loser because of reorganisation or closures. From reading the debate in another place, I note that not a single case was brought to the House's attention.
744
The Bill changes the position of the Secretary of State by imposing a duty on him to deal with the situation. Why is that necessary if the system has worked well for 48 years? During the whole life of the NHS it has been understood that the taxpayer stands behind the liabilities of the health service. So why the need for the Bill to impose a statutory duty? It leaves us with no alternative, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, indicated, but to assume that it has more to do with the Government's desire to introduce into the health service the private finance initiative than with a need to improve a system which has worked well for 48 years.
I believe that the Government have two reasons for introducing this Bill. One has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. It is that the private finance initiative has not so far been a success in the NHS. Most investors have been wary about the health service partly as a result of the Government's endless reorganisation, but also because of medical advances and the difficulty of looking into the future. No private investment consortium is prepared to invest the money needed to build a district general hospital without at least a 25-year guarantee of a return on its investment. That means that the health authority, the trust or the taxpayer in the last analysis will be saddled with this revenue expenditure for 25 years, even if for any reason, and not always within its control, the hospital were no longer needed. If the hospital had been built with NHS capital funds, it would still belong to the NHS and the proceeds of a sale would accrue to the National Health Service. It would also be relieved of the recurring revenue cost, and that money could be used for patient care.
I suspect that the second reason why the Government need this Bill is that if they can persuade private capital to invest, they will be able to reduce the capital allocation to the NHS and present a Budget which opens up possibilities for tax reductions. They have already reduced capital allocations to the NHS this year by just over 16 per cent. However, the real cost to the NHS has not been reduced because all that has been done is to move the expenditure from the capital account to the revenue account in future years.
Can the Minister assure me that in the event of a hospital being built under the private finance initiative, the health authority will have its revenue allocation increased year by year by the amount it has to pay in the lease money to the consortium? Unless that is guaranteed, what we are doing is burdening future generations with the cost of possible improvements now to the detriment of patient care in the future.
I read with interest the evidence to the Treasury Committee of Stephen Dorrell on the private finance initiative. When asked if it were not true that some of the bankers wanted this Bill, he replied (at page 106 of the report):
"It is perfectly true that in the discussions with partners this lacuna in the law has been pointed out. What is not true is to suggest that this is in some sense special to the Private Finance Initiative. The same problem applies to the potato supplier to Southend Hospital. The potato supplier to Southend Hospital finds himself at risk at this moment of me reorganising the hospital and leaving his bill unpaid".

745
I have been involved in the health service for many years, as governor of a teaching hospital, as chairman of a postgraduate hospital and as chairman of South West Thames Regional Health Authority for eight years. I have never been aware of difficulties in obtaining a regular supply of potatoes because the supplier was concerned about non-payment of his bill.
The demand for this Bill has certainly not emanated from regular suppliers to the health service. One must therefore conclude that the only reason for the Bill is an intent to encourage private venture capital to invest in capital projects in the NHS.
Stephen Dorrell also claimed that the private provider is carrying a great deal of risk under the PFI arrangements—that is to say, if the hospital is not completed on time and there are cost overruns. That is not new. A prudent health authority or trust will ensure that a contract with a construction company includes a time limit and a penalty clause for non-compliance. So the project can be carried out without the PFI.
The Select Committee in the other place warns that the PFI may not provide the best value for money and that capital spending on health will be cut on the basis of expected PFI investment which has still to materialise. It is not there yet and the investment has already been cut.
Finally, the willingness of the private sector to become involved in a new building project will increasingly influence whether the project goes ahead or not. This raises the prospect of the siting of hospitals being determined by commercial considerations rather than being planned on the basis of need. I believe that the public are deeply concerned about the expansion of the private finance initiative into the National Health Service. They are worried about the impact and whether it will still remain a truly national service. I realise that there are opportunities for extra capital in the health service through the PFI, but I do not accept that to cut capital expenditure by 16.8 per cent. before we have any guarantee of PFI is the right way to go about it.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Harris of Peckham: My Lords, I do not believe that I have ever been so nervous as I am today in making my maiden speech in this House. I thank noble Lords for my welcome.
I am going to talk about the importance of administration and management in NHS hospitals and NHS trust hospitals. My experience is of two years as chairman of Guy's and Lewisham Trust between 1991 and 1993. I should like to explain to noble Lords the size of the budget that we had at Guy's and Lewisham. It was £140 million, which is bigger than most companies in the top 100 of the FT Index. We employed over 7,000 staff.
On becoming chairman, I had to appoint a new chief executive, two new general managers—one from within the hospital and one from outside—and promote other people from within. What is also very important is that we had four new non-executive directors, and I believe that they are a very important part of the NHS. One of the non-executive directors is now chairman of the
746
Lewisham NHS Trust, and one of the others is deputy chairman of the Guy's and St. Thomas' Trust; the other three still work at Lewisham.
The total cost of the total administration was £250,000, which is a lot of money, but less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of the total budget. When we speak about administration today, at Guy's and Lewisham we moved the director of nursing, who was a matron, onto the administration costs: the medical director changed his status from being on the hospital budget to the administration budget. The total budget of Guy's and Lewisham Trust was £250,000.
Once I became chairman of the trust, I had to look at the previous year's budget and performance. I was told in the trust application that there would be a profit—or rather, a surplus—of £1 million. However, once we had the numbers, we saw that there was a deficit of £1.5 million. If we had carried on in the same way in the following year, we would have had a deficit of £7 million.
Of course, difficult times lay ahead and we had to make difficult decisions. Between 65 and 70 per cent. of the total cost of the NHS goes on the payroll. We had to reduce our staff by 300, but we did not lose any nurses or doctors. We stopped using agency nurses as soon as possible because they cost double the rate of an ordinary nurse. We started to use what is called a "banking system" of nurses. We started to use people who had worked at Guy's and Lewisham previously but who now wanted to work only one or two days a week. We brought them in at a lot less cost than agency nurses. The savings on that alone amounted to £5 million.
We also budgeted slightly differently than ever before. We allocated 48 per cent. of our budget for the first half of the year and kept 52 per cent. for the second half. That was important because it meant that there was no shortage of cash in February or March so we could still treat as many patients as possible.
I made sure that all members of management and the board, including the non-execs, spent two hours each week walking round the hospital, talking to staff and patients. We also went out to see local GPs. Having done that, we could tell what we needed to do, and the board produced a charter. I have four copies of it with me. The charter told the public, our patients, staff, the local community and GPs exactly what we were going to do. Every six months we report back on what we have achieved and how far we have moved forward. In the first year we fulfilled 90 per cent. of the promises that we had made. That was a high level of achievement, but by the second year we had increased it to 93 per cent. We concentrated on improving patient care, treating more patients and on putting the patients first.
We also improved working conditions for our staff. We provided a canteen service for those staff working at night. We paid attention to health and safety matters and made sure that our staff were safe when working at night. We installed video cameras to try to prevent attacks. We provided better restrooms for them. After 12 months, we reduced the hours worked by junior doctors to 80 hours per week and, after two years, we further reduced them to 72 hours. I believe that we were the first trust in the country to do that.

747
Communications are very important but very difficult in an NHS hospital. We had to talk to, and liaise with, 7,000 workers. As I have already said, we also had to talk to the patients and their GPs. We did that all the time. We felt that we had to do it; we concentrated on it and we learnt much from it. All that—and we had to live within our budget.
After that, staff morale definitely improved. We had an agreement whereby we would pay low-paid staff—that is, anyone earning less than £4.92 per hour—an extra £6 per week for turning up at work. If staff turned up for work for five days a week, they got £6. Attendance increased from 70 per cent. to nearly 90 per cent., so the scheme was definitely self-financing. We also improved the quality of our supervisors. The extra rate for supervisors in the NHS is only about £2.50 or £3 a week more. We reduced the number of supervisors from 24 to 12 over the two hospitals, but paid them an extra £2,000 a year. Again, that was self-funding.
We also opened a nursery at Guy's for the first time. That meant that many staff who had left Guy's when they had had children then returned to us. We introduced a hotline so that staff could raise problems immediately with the general manager. We let our nurses have £2,500 per ward twice a year so that they could choose the equipment they wanted to have. They knew what they wanted to have on the wards far more than we did centrally, so they picked it and we bought it for them. As I have said, morale in the hospital was constantly improving. For the first time, all the nurses, doctors, other staff and unions were working together.
We provided a card on which patients could tell us what they thought about the service in the hospital. In its first year, we asked people to fill it in while they were in hospital. However, when we later sent the cards to people's homes, we received slightly different results. After 12 months, 75 per cent. of in-patients thought our service was excellent; 20 per cent. thought it was good; 3 per cent. thought it was average; and 2 per cent. thought that we could do better. We concentrated on that last 5 per cent. One of the problems that such patients reported to us was that no bed was available for them when they arrived in the hospital. Another problem was that when they left hospital no one told them what to do or what treatment they should follow. Having looked into that, we now have a "leaving hospital package" which tells patients what should happen when they leave hospital.
We increased daycare provision by 12 per cent. That resulted in a waiting list reduction of 12 per cent. in the first year and another 12 per cent. in the second year. Fewer than 50 people wait more than 12 months for treatment.
We have spent an extra £6 million on hospital maintenance. We painted the outside of Guy's for the first time in 14 years and refurbished 16 wards—that is double the previous average. The in-house cost of that was £25,000; but when we tried to contract out that work, we found that it would cost £250,000. The in-house cost was 90 per cent. of that.
748
We introduced signposts in the hospital so that people knew where they were going. Previously, people could not find their way around Guy's, but that is no longer the case. I am also very keen on keeping places clean and tidy. I firmly believe that a clean and tidy hospital leads to better service and helps the patients, so I installed waste paper bins. That is all very well, but they have to be emptied. As I said earlier, members of the board walked round the hospital regularly and we sometimes found that those waste paper bins needed emptying. We were always told that they had only just been filled, but we decided to have a change of thought. We used black bin liners on Mondays, grey on Tuesdays, black again on Wednesdays and grey again on Thursdays, so we could soon tell whether they were emptied regularly.
In our first year we treated 6,000 more patients. That figure rose to 8,000 in the second year. In our first year we reduced the unit cost of treating patients by 12.9 per cent., and in the second year by 14 per cent. That was the first time in 20 years that the hospitals comprising the Guy's and Lewisham Trust lived within their income. In fact, we have a slight surplus. Over the two years we have made savings totalling £20 million. That money has been put back into the buildings and our staff; but, more importantly, it is spent on treating more patients and on providing a better service.
Finally, perhaps I may say this: people think that the NHS is free. It is only free when you use it. For the rest of the time, we all pay for it from our taxes, so we must make sure that patients get first-class treatment as soon as possible.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I suppose that I should first declare an interest in that I am a National Health Service consultant, with an academic backing, working in West London.
With my usual lack of organisation, I have only just noticed my position on the speaker's list and I find that it is my privilege to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, for his maiden speech. His expertise within the National Health Service will be of considerable relevance in this House and we are delighted to hear from him today. The noble Lord has a very distinguished business record. He is a member of the Court of Patrons of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London, to which I belong. He has given most distinguished service to that college. I believe that he is also an honorary fellow of Oriel College. A little while ago I mentioned that I had gone through Dod and made a study of the number of noble Lords who had been to Oxford or Cambridge. I find that very few noble Lords have a relationship with Oriel College, Oxford, so it is very good to welcome the noble Lord on that ground alone. Most of all, I wish to thank the noble Lord for his extreme generosity and remarkable commitment to many health issues, in particular research. I refer to his support for so many charitable endeavours. Sadly, I do not believe I have ever benefited myself from it, but I am very pleased that so many others have. Having seen the results of that work, I can assure noble Lords that it is work of very

749
high calibre and international standing. Without people like the noble Lord, the National Health Service and the university sector in this country could not function.
The problems that face the National Health Service are basically three in number. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will wish to argue with me about it. However, from my side of the fence it appears that the first chronic problem faced by the National Health Service is that of under-resourcing. I know that the Government have increased health service funding. I will not argue about it, and I do not make political points. However, most people who work in the health service feel strongly that, because of the way in which health is financed in this country, the health service is under-resourced. That can be seen in many areas. For example, one recent example is the difficulty in west London to get emergency beds for patients. I do not believe that the PFI will help under-resourcing in any way.
The second problem was the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred: morale. Only a month or so ago we debated this issue. I believe that there was overwhelming support for the notion that the health service suffered from a terrible loss of morale. That is patently clear. Of course, we are all proud of the health service and no one wishes to talk it down, but there is a crisis of confidence among those who work in it. The PFI will not prove to be a benefit in that regard either.
The third problem, which in many ways is the most crucial one, is the lack of central planning. That is no fault of this Government. It was in place long before this Government or any previous government this century came into power. As far as concerns the old hospitals like Guy's, St. Thomas', Barts or the London Hospital—all of which were founded in previous centuries and have outlying hospitals associated with them that provide various kinds of specialist care—it is inevitable that there will be a lack of planning. In the major cities, particularly London, this is a very serious problem. First, in view of the way that the PFI is currently structured, I do not believe that this kind of central planning will be improved. I argue that, as the PFI is structured, it is likely to make the situation worse. Building in the health service is bound to be haphazard, is unlikely to reflect many regional needs and cannot reflect national needs.
Secondly, the PFI requires income stream. It requires the companies to generate income to service borrowings and make some kind of profit. Consequently, as we know from the Government's own document, the companies which come in need to take over many activities. It is true that there is a notional split between clinical and non-clinical activities. Thus, one may hive off one's cleaning activities to the PFI but retain nursing, but in practice that will be very difficult. Already a number of hospital trusts have mentioned this, as in the case of Sheffield. Recently, I have been involved in negotiations relating to a relatively small PFI rebuilding project at my own west London hospital. At the initial negotiation, those who were eager to put venture capital into it came up with the notion that they would try to pay pretty well all salaries except medical salaries. There is already a conflict. They believe that
750
they will generate much of their profit and income from taking over and rationalising, or (as they say), improving these services.
Thirdly, those matters which are glossy, i.e. profitable, are much more likely to be funded and improved under the PFI than perhaps less essential services which will not generate income. I believe that that is a very serious issue which requires much more thought. I hope that the Minister will answer that point at the end of the debate.
Fourthly, the PFI is bound to increase delays in many rebuilding schemes in the health service. Indeed, there is evidence of it already. For example, the Central Sheffield University Hospitals Trust has that particular concern in regard to its own PFI. I believe that that concern is shared by many other trusts in the country. Therefore, it is not an advantage to the health service where sometimes there is a need to get on with these projects.
Fifthly, there is an inevitable tendency for the PFI to increase competition. The whole purpose of setting up a PFI is to encourage competition between those who tender. That is mentioned in the report of the Treasury Select Committee. My difficulty with that philosophy is that competition will spill over not only after the passage of the Bill but in terms of the services that are supplied. Perhaps I may take the trivial example of my own service because I understand it. We may undertake a PFI for new obstetric and gynaecological services in west London. Any sensible person who tries to initiate a PFI on the company side will immediately conclude that IVF is very profitable and perhaps one should snatch at it and downplay essential gynaecological services which, on the whole, do not make much money but are desperately needed.
I believe that there is a very special problem in regard to the university sector. There is a growing need for the interface between hospital and university practice. In the debate on the research councils last week I was rather critical of the fact that sometimes that interface was not present. I congratulated the Medical Research Council on its clinical research initiative. If we want our medical research to bite it must do so in the closest proximity to clinical services. There must be a concomitant degree of development of both services and rebuilding of both services. While the NHS may provide income stream, the university sector in general cannot provide it. It may do so if its research is so glitzy that it makes new developments, but there is no guarantee of that in any private finance initiative.
Finally, there is a genuine concern about the health service ethos. On all sides of the House we are proud of the National Health Service. It is something that has been freely accessible. However, speaking as someone who works in the health service that attitude is already being corrupted. There is no question that managers, doctors, nurses and other workers in the health service now look to see where the finance is coming from for the individual patient and his or her treatment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that that is beginning to colour the practice in the health service. I fear that it is very much to the detriment of that service in the long term. While the PFI may be

751
necessary, its structure has to be considered carefully so as not to cause those areas of damage. I fear that the current recommendation goes far short of what is needed for rebuilding in the health service.

Beef Exports: Ban
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is on our continuing efforts to get the ban on British beef and beef products lifted and the implications for a wider European policy. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will know, we have been making every effort with the Commission and the member states to lift the ban on beef and beef products imposed by the European Union two months ago. We appreciate the difficult situation on the beef markets of a number of member states, the fragile state of consumer confidence across Europe and political pressures faced by a number of governments.
"But we have put in place a wide range of measures to ensure that all products reaching the market are safe on any normal definition of the word. As a result of controls on feed, the incidence of BSE in Britain is falling rapidly and will continue to do so. We believe that there can no longer be any conceivable justification for the ban remaining in place. It is having a hugely damaging effect on the beef industry throughout Europe.
"We have explained very clearly the extent of the measures we have taken—going well beyond those in place in many member states—to ensure the safety of British beef and beef products. The Commission has played a notably helpful role in following carefully the scientific advice.
"As a result, the Commission recently put forward a proposal to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. This is based on the scientific evidence that these products are safe when produced in agreed ways. A majority of member states supported this proposal when it was put to the Standing Veterinary Committee yesterday but it did not attract the required qualified majority to enable it to take effect. I should like to thank those countries that supported it and President Santer and Commissioner Fischler for their determination to put it to the vote.
"President Santer and Commissioner Fischler have confirmed that they stand by the proposal they put to the Standing Veterinary Committee yesterday. That proposal has to be confirmed by the Commission tomorrow. It will then be submitted to the Agriculture Council on 3rd and 4th June. Under the procedures the proposal would then be implemented unless there were a simple majority against it in the Council.
"There is therefore a prospect of progress on this narrow front. I am grateful for the firm view taken by the Commission and for the support of the majority
752
of member states. However, the present position is clearly unacceptable. A balanced proposal based on the best scientific advice has been ignored by a number of member states, in some cases despite prior assurances of support. I must tell the House that I regard such action as a wilful disregard of Britain's interests and in some cases a breach of faith.
"Moreover, we have still been unable to reach agreement on further steps towards a progressive lifting of the wider ban, which is clearly our main objective. Some of our partners are reluctant even to contemplate moves in this direction, for reasons which have nothing to do with the science involved.
"Important national interests for Britain are involved here. I cannot tolerate these interests being brushed aside by some of our European partners with no reasonable grounds to do so. The top priority of our European policy must be to get this unjustified ban on beef derivatives lifted as soon as possible and to establish a clear path for the lifting of other aspects of the wider ban. We will continue our present efforts. But this is not enough.
"We have a strong legal case against the ban as a whole and particular aspects of it. We made it clear from the outset that we believed the ban to be unlawful and disproportionate and that we would therefore be bringing proceedings. Those proceedings will begin this week. We shall also begin this week our claim for interim measures aimed at achieving those interim remedies unreasonably denied us in negotiation. Although our wider proceedings will inevitably take time to be heard, the application for these interim remedies should be heard within two to six weeks.
"The interim measures application has a number of separate elements. One is the lifting of the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. If the Agriculture Council does not approve the lifting of this ban on 3rd and 4th June, we shall ask the Court to lift it. We shall also be asking the Court to lift the worldwide ban on exports of British beef. The beef is safe and there is no practical possibility of it being reimported into the Community.
"A third element is the ban on beef from specialist beef herds, in particular slow maturing grass-fed herds which have never seen a single case of BSE and are among the finest in the world. As soon as appropriate verification schemes are in place—and preparations are already well advanced—we shall ask the Council to lift this ban. If we get no satisfaction, we shall again pursue the legal remedies open to us.
"But these legal steps are also not enough. We shall continue to press the scientific case on our partners and to pursue our own programme to eradicate BSE. But I have to tell the House that without progress towards lifting the ban we cannot be expected to continue to co-operate normally on other Community business.
"I say this with great reluctance. But the European Union operates through good will. If we do not benefit from good will from partners, clearly we cannot reciprocate. Progress will not be possible in

753
the IGC or elsewhere until we have agreement on lifting the ban on beef derivatives and a clear framework in place leading to lifting of the wider ban.
"We will raise the question of the ban at all Councils, including the Foreign Affairs Council. If necessary, we shall ask for special Councils. I will also be making clear that I expect agreement on how to deal with these problems to be behind us by the time the European Council meets in Florence on 21st and 22nd June. If they are not, the Florence meeting is bound to be dominated by this issue. It could not proceed with our normal co-operation unless it faced up to the crisis of confidence not only affecting consumers but also governments.
"This is not how I like to do business in Europe but I see no alternative. We cannot continue business as usual within Europe when we are faced with this clear disregard by some of our partners of reason, common sense and Britain's national interests. We continue to want to make progress through negotiation. But if this is not possible, we are bound to use the legal avenues open to us and the political means we have at our disposal.
"I believe that the whole House recognises the strength of our case and the need for urgent progress and that the approach I have outlined should therefore command support across the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement that was made in another place by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and, as always, I declare an interest as someone involved in dairy farming.
My first response to the Statement—I have to say this with some regret—is that it has much more to do with the internal problems of the Conservative Party than the future of the beef industry. That split within the Conservative Party and the attitude of some members of the Government have been in large part responsible for the problem. When Ministers refer, as they have, to ignorance and malevolence by our European partners, that is no way to influence them or to get them on our side. We have had a Statement a week, sometimes two, for the past nine weeks. Every Statement has promised progress and each subsequent Statement has revealed another reversal in Europe.
The Minister referred to the controls on feed. The incidence of BSE in Britain is falling rapidly and will continue to do so. However, the Government have still not produced a satisfactory answer as to why there have been 27,000 cases of BSE in animals born after the feed ban. I understand that some time ago Professor Lamming, who is well known in agricultural scientific circles, recommended the appointment of a committee to oversee the feed ban. The proposal was supported by the SEAC but was not accepted by the Government. Why was that?
It has been agreed and recognised that contaminated feed is the cause of the disease. However, we have been told that there was a continuous flow of contaminated
754
feedstuff to our cattle after the feed was banned and that that was why the rules were tightened up as recently as April this year. Does the Minister accept that if we were able to identify more accurately the cattle which are likely to have been exposed to the contaminated feed a more effectively targeted slaughter policy would be allowed, which would do us no harm when it came to convincing our European partners that BSE was under control and that therefore the ban on beef should be lifted?
We all welcome the Commission's proposal to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. That is important but it is not the major problem. Billions of pounds are involved in the overall ban affecting the beef cattle and not the derivatives. Furthermore, it appears that in the Standing Veterinary Committee the proposals did not attract the required qualified majority. Will the Minister confirm that the proposals that we made to change the qualified majority have now caught us out, which is ironic?
There is to be a meeting of the Agriculture Council on 3rd and 4th June. If there is a simple majority—there is a chance that we will get the proposal through that meeting—it will take three months to achieve the lifting of the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen.
The Statement refers to establishing a clear path for the lifting of the other aspects of the wider ban, which is much more important than the ban on the beef derivatives. However, as it has taken three months to lift the ban on the tallow, gelatine and semen will the Minister give us an idea of how long the Government believe it will take to get the rest of the ban lifted?
We welcome the fact that the proceedings will begin this week in the European Court but why has it taken so long? When we debated the matter on 7th April we were told that the proceedings would be brought soon. We also welcome the claim for interim measures. I believe that we suggested that; indeed, I referred to a claim under Article 186 of the treaty.
The appropriate verification schemes have been mentioned. When will such schemes be in place? We have heard about them for weeks and weeks but still there is no sign of verification schemes to exclude the old and the clean beef which never had BSE. When will those schemes be in place to relieve the great worry on all the farmers who are involved?
A disturbing figure was given on the "Farming Today" programme this morning. The estimate for the cull cows is 750,000; that is, 15,000 a week to be slaughtered. However, this morning's programme reported that when the proposal was made neither the NFU nor the Government knew the number of clean beef animals over the age of 30 months which would be involved. We are now told that the figure could be between 300,000 and 400,000. Can the Minister confirm that or say whether the Government have other figures?
The Statement refers to pursuing our own programme to eradicate BSE. We have the cull cow slaughter policy, the problem with the clean beef animals and also selective slaughter. We began with a figure of 40,000 but yesterday that rose to 80,000. We have said many times that the Government are playing a numbers game

755
which they cannot hope to win. We were told that the slaughtering of the first 40,000 animals would catch one in 30; in other words, for every 30 animals slaughtered one potential BSE case would be removed. I was told only last night that the slaughter of the second 40,000 would produce an incidence of 300 cases; that is one in 100. Are those figures correct? If so, the slaughtering of 80,000 cattle to reduce incidence at that level is extraordinary. I see that the Minister is nodding. How many more animals must we slaughter in order to get the ban lifted?
If the ban is lifted through the European Court, what will happen to the slaughter schemes? Presumably the cull cow, the over-30-months scheme, will stay in place. If the ban is lifted, will the selective slaughter scheme have to be imposed? The Statement refers in Delphic terms to matters in Europe not proceeding with our normal co-operation. If the normal co-operation of the past few weeks has been any example we can all worry. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would tell us exactly what the Prime Minister means by,
"could not proceed with our normal co-operation".
The Statement marks a complete failure of our negotiations in Europe; it contains vague threats of non-co-operation. However, I ask your Lordships to consider the dates. We are told that interim relief might take from two to six weeks. If we know the European Court it will be six weeks. That takes us to the week beginning 1st July to wait for the judgment on interim relief. There will be the Agriculture Council meeting on 3rd and 4th June and the European Council in Florence on 21st and 22nd June. All our partners have to do is to sit and say that they will wait for the judgment of the European Court in July on the interim measures.
Non-co-operation is not defined in the Statement. It has taken two months to get the claim to the European Court and it will probably be July before we know the judgment on interim relief. In the meantime, how will any of that help the farmers and those in the rest of the beef industry to deal with this truly awful crisis?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we in no way under-estimate the seriousness of the problem and the great desirability for British beef farming of finding an early solution. Therefore, we are fully disposed to support the Government's objectives on British beef, if not always their tactics. The Government increasingly proclaim that British beef is the safest in the world. In that case, what exactly was the point of Mr. Dorrell's Statement on 16th March which began the whole matter?
Government policy has tended to alternate from day to day—indeed, sometimes within a few hours in the same day—between pleading for support and reaching for a big stick. The latter tactic was generally renounced within a few hours on discovering that we did not have a big stick. Today's Statement appears to combine the two tactics within the same 10 minutes. The first part of the Statement thanks the Commission, which is something fairly new from this Government, for its constructive attitude and the fact that its view was
756
supported by a majority of member states. However, under the present rules it was not sufficiently large enough to get it adopted.
That is a classic example of the Government being hoist by their own petard. We all enjoyed yesterday's intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, when he asked what on earth is allowing the German Government alone to hold it up. What is allowing them to hold it up is the near approach to a national veto, which I believe the noble Lord considered to be the epitome of the only thing good about the European Community. Indeed, the fact that we could not get the vote through yesterday marches oddly with the tremendous effort of the British Government in ensuring that the qualified majority should be as high as possible. Our hope for the future is that we shall be able to achieve that by the Commission having a second go at it with a simple majority. I hope that the Government will reflect on those issues and will learn a little from their experience in these matters.
If that does not work, we go to the Court. That seems to me perfectly proper. I am glad that the Court has not so far been undermined by some of the Government's ideas—although they are put forward by their Back-Benchers—so that it is not in a position to be totally ineffective on this matter.
Beyond the Court, if necessary, we shall withhold our normal co-operation up to and at the European Council in Florence in late June. That threat might be more formidable if our normal co-operation was more co-operative than it normally is. As our normal co-operation is to try to block everything and, if it goes through, to ask for an opt-out, I am not sure that that will be exactly earth-shaking in its effect upon the Community.
I just make two further points. In order to try to understand this issue in a more co-operative way from the point of view of Europe, we should occasionally put ourselves in the shoes of others. Let us suppose that there was no case of BSE in Britain and there were 160,000 cases in France and another 160,000 cases in Germany. What does the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal think would be the attitude of the Sun or the Daily Mail—the Euro-sceptics, the Euro-nihilists—to that filthy foreign food coming across the Channel in those circumstances?
Finally, I believe that certain other factors which have emerged rather slowly illustrate, like a flash of sheet lightning across a rather bleak landscape, how few are our other options in reality. Should we turn from the unco-operative Community which, it was suggested, is almost conspiring against us, to welcoming countries across the oceans? The Americans and Canadians banned British beef in 1989, as did the Australians. The New Zealanders had a flicker of co-operation. They imposed a ban which they then removed but it has now been imposed again. There is not a great alternative course. I hope that the Government will succeed because I really wish to see confidence restored in the British and European beef industry and I wish to see removed those grave difficulties for British farmers. But I hope

757
that the Government will reflect on some of the lessons which can be drawn from the rather sorry experience of the past two months.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am at least grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his support for the Government's objectives. Knowing the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as I do, I am sure that he would associate himself with that expression of support although he confined himself to what was clearly a rather tempting jibe about what he sees to be the internal divisions of my party. The noble Lord also declared a direct interest. Sadly, I am no longer able to declare a direct interest, as the noble Lord knows, because I sold my dairy herds as soon as I discovered a high incidence of BSE in them. But, as he knows, I have something of an indirect interest which perhaps your Lordships would expect me to declare.
What underlies the questions of both noble Lords is some puzzlement about what precisely my right honourable friend and the Government mean by a threat to withdraw co-operation. I make it clear to your Lordships beyond peradventure that this Government are not now, never have been, and never will be interested in pursuing policies which involve the breaking of the law. I do not believe that either noble Lord would expect that of any British government. Also, we are not interested in pursuing what I might describe as a Gaullist empty chair policy. However, the Government have followed a determined co-operative policy in the wake of the original SEAC declaration. But, as my right honourable friend says in his Statement, they have been confronted by evidence of at least lack of goodwill and some bad faith on the part of some of our partners. Therefore, it seems reasonable that we should react fiercely and firmly when we have tried as hard as we can to show co-operation, in spite of the elegant jibes of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, a few moments ago.
We have in mind that there are certain matters which require unanimity and not necessarily agreement by QMV. Until there is a clear path established towards the lifting of the ban we propose to withhold our agreement to those matters. We shall look extremely carefully at any decisions which can be blocked at the IGC. In consequence, we may find it extremely difficult to co-operate in relation to reaching decisions.
I merely give two examples of the sort of matters which my right honourable friend and my colleagues and I have in mind. The convention on insolvency requires unanimity and that is to be brought forward this week. There is also the convention on Europol. We hope to reach some agreement on those parts of it which relate to the ultimate power of reference to the European Court of Justice. We have made some very good progress on that but we shall find it difficult to see our way towards making any further progress.
Also underlying the remarks made by both noble Lords is the implication that we are interested in being difficult for its own sake. I make it clear that we are interested in establishing a clear path towards the eventual lifting of the ban. We regard the lifting of the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen as a first step towards
758
that. There is no question in my mind that the assurances that we have been given were those on which we thought we could rely. It would be curious if any British government worth their salt were not to react firmly in the face of what we regard as an act of bad faith by some of our partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked, in so many words, "How long, oh Lord, how long?" As I say, we need to agree a framework. We hope that we shall be able to see that first step taken by 3rd and 4th June. We should like to see the next steps taken in as short a time as possible.
The noble Lord also asked about the relationship between the lifting of the ban and further culls. I should remind the noble Lord that our original proposal for a selective cull was based on identifying cases of BSE in cattle born between 1990 and 1993. The proposal was to cull cattle born on the same farms and at the same time which might therefore have been exposed to the same infected feed. It was estimated that that would lead to the culling of about 40,000 cattle, as the noble Lord knows.
The new proposals put forward last week extended that to cover any cases of BSE which are confirmed in the future. The impact of that is clearly uncertain for obvious reasons. The best guess at the moment is that that may lead to the culling of some 80,000 cattle in total. That includes the first 40,000. But that could be implemented only in the context of a programme for lifting the EU ban. The two would operate in tandem and we should not volunteer a further cull unless it was clear that it would lead to a full agreement implemented in good faith by our European partners.
As the noble Lord said—and he is a considerable expert in these matters, as the House knows—we are happy to rest on the advice given to us by SEAC and Professor Pattison. That advice is clear: for all everyday purposes British beef is safe. Therefore any additional measures that we take must clearly be measures directed at restoring confidence rather than implying that the measures we have taken so far are not adequate to improve safety. This is a distinction which again I know the noble Lord understands extremely clearly.
I am conscious that I am taking rather a long time over this but both noble Lords asked a number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also talked about traceability schemes. As he knows, these are complicated but we hope to have them running by early June—June this year, I hasten to add! We have taken steps to tighten the feed ban, including extremely rigorous inspections of feed mills. These, I am advised, are bearing fruit. I would be interested—as indeed would my colleagues—in view of the professional skill and knowledge of the noble Lord, if he could make any further suggestions for improvements in that area. He is in a good position to do so.
I do not think there is any point in having any more committees. We have more than enough committees as it is. What we need is clear and simple direction. Both noble Lords had a good deal of fun at the Government's expense over the question of QMV. I am sorry to disappoint them. I think it is perfectly plain that

759
whatever the position of QMV, it had no impact whatever on this particular vote. The vote in question was 39 votes. I think it is clear that QMV would not have changed matters at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked me about the Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, I should like to ask him what he would have said to me if my right honourable friend had not made a Statement as soon as possible and as soon as it was clear what the advice from the SEAC was. Even if the Government had not been careful to adhere to their long established policy—which I fully support—of telling Parliament as soon as possible and as frankly and as clearly as possible what the situation was in regard to matters of public health, I have no doubt whatever, given that we live in the world we live in, that the Government's desire to dissimulate (which of course does not exist) would have been revealed in an immediate leak from some helpful individual in the know. Given that the matter was leaked on the morning that the Statement was made, it was entirely sensible, purely from the point of view of self-preservation, let alone the higher motives which informed the Government's actions, that my right honourable friend came to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, as he did.
I ought to emphasise again in this context—this underlies a number of the comments made by both noble Lords—that the entire basis of the Government's approach in terms of safety has been to act on the recommendations of the SEAC under its chairman, Professor Pattison. We are not scientists—or at least I am not—and even my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is not a scientist. It would be rather curious if we had established a committee to give us clear advice in these matters and we had decided to disregard the advice it had given either by not doing as much as it had recommended or by doing more. As I say, it seems to me that the fact that we acted immediately on the advice that the SEAC gave us seems to me to be not only sensible but also in the best interests of all political self-preservation.
On the matter of cull cows and the operation of the various schemes which the Government have brought in, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would expect me to admit that the introduction of the scheme so far has been far from free of difficulty. He and I are probably in daily contact with people who have experienced difficulty. As he equally well knows, the introduction of a scheme on this scale is hugely complex. The Ministry of Agriculture has been extremely fortunate in the co-operation that it has received over the past few weeks from the National Farmers' Union, from individual farmers and from the agriculture industry in all its manifestations. It is absolutely essential that that scheme should be up and running as soon as possible with as few glitches as possible. The entire government machine is bent to make sure that that will happen, and that improvements are put in place.
760
I hope I may add one other remark in this context. I think that a free flow of information is extremely important. It is, I would suggest, important both that the victims of this ghastly crisis should feel that they have free access to government agencies and to the Government themselves, and that the Government should describe as openly as possible not only what their own position is and what they want to do, but be frank about the difficulties that they are experiencing because it is only through the building of a team effort that we shall be able to succeed in addressing the problem. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is nodding.
I have two other remarks to make. I apologise for taking so long. Let me make it perfectly clear that the European Court of Justice is an absolutely essential entity if we are to realise what is one of the most valuable benefits of European Community membership as regards the Government, and that is the establishment of the single market. It is clearly impossible for the single market to operate effectively unless we have an effective European Court of Justice. We therefore in no way wish to denigrate the existence of the court, or indeed to try to ensure that it cannot carry out its work properly. I hope that noble Lords will read again what we have put in the White Paper, which we published, setting out our negotiating position on the IGC. I hope noble Lords will agree with me that what we are proposing will, if accepted, improve the operation of the court rather than the reverse. After all, as I emphasised, it is no business of this Government not to support the rule of law.
I must finish with a rhetorical question. I listened as always with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who probably knows more than anyone else in this House about the nuts and bolts of agricultural matters. However, I have to say that I was particularly struck by the fact that he was—if I may put it this way—rather long on hindsight and rather short on foresight. It would be extremely helpful if during the coming weeks and months—and indeed perhaps during the coming days—the Labour Party could tell us in some detail what it would do now that is different from the Government's policy. If it would do nothing different I would hope that, with the good will that I always associate with the noble Lord, he would come forward with an enthusiastic endorsement of what the Government are doing.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Statement appears to many of us to be much more robust than any of the preceding ones, and that for that reason it is particularly welcome? I for one found the tone of the Statement ideally adapted to the situation and clearly calculated to have a substantial beneficial effect. I would therefore like to thank my noble friend for making the Statement in this way, and equally I express gratitude to the Prime Minister for originating it.
I have only one question of fact. I was not clear as to when it was indicated that the hearing by the European Court of the application would begin. Presumably we can be given a precise answer as to when the Government contemplate that the decision will be made

761
and known. It would be extremely helpful to have the one certain date for the beginning of the hearing and the Government's judgment as to when the result of the hearing is likely to be announced.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the welcome he gave to the tone and content of my right honourable friend's Statement.
I emphasise that we would be wise to remind our European partners that our habit of adhering to the rule of law makes us slow to anger and that we have attempted, as always, to be as reasonable and co-operative as possible, despite what our opponents occasionally allege in this House and the other place. However, it is clear that there has been some evidence of ill faith, in stark contrast, if I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to the extremely co-operative and helpful attitude of the Commission, which we have been only too happy to acknowledge. It is only when driven, if I may so put it, beyond endurance that we are forced to defend our interest in the only way left open to us.
On the hearing, as regards the interim measures we would hope to have some result within two to six weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, expects it to be nearer six weeks than two weeks. But I would not venture down the road of prophecy with quite the same gay abandon as he does.
As regards the main hearing, my right honourable friend the Attorney-General will probably begin proceedings this week; and those could be expected to take very much longer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I listened to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. In Germany and in other countries the issue appears to be one of confidence. That confidence was severely dented by the Government's attitude. The noble Viscount said that the Government announced that there could be a link as soon as they had the facts in their possession. However, the Government asked the committee to sit over the weekend to give them the essential facts. I believe that that dented confidence more than anything else.
Two months have now passed and I hope that the Government will take measures to ensure that the scientists now give a reasonable answer. For example, two or three who appear to seek publicity more than anything else prophesied an enormous increase in cases of the new form of CJD. Can the noble Viscount tell us whether there is any rise in the normal incidence of CJD? That appears to be a factor which could be used in argument in Europe. I believe that it would help.
First, the confidence of farmers at home in the effectiveness of the Government's measures has been severely shaken. I realise that the issue is complicated. The organisation of slaughter on the scale talked about is difficult. However, the allocation of slaughterhouses to different tasks should have been carried out quickly. That would have given confidence to the marketing chains which sell beef.
762
Secondly, the Government should press ahead with a test; I know that there are tests. What are the Government doing to see whether we can have a test for BSE? Slaughter of animals would then be a logical process instead of the guessing game that it is at present.
We are all anxious to back the Government and to make progress instead of being in the extraordinary state that we now are. But the Government must take some blame for what has happened.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the constructive tenor of his remarks. I do not wish to swap anecdotal history with the noble Lord. However, I should point out to him that the first intimation that my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture had about the SEAC's revised views on the possible transmission of BSE to humans occurred the weekend before the weekend to which he referred. Therefore, it was important that the Government made as rapid a judgment and as rapid a Statement as they possibly could in order to keep the public informed. It was important, if, as these issues always do, the matter were to leak, that the Government came forward and were frank earlier rather than later. The penalty was obvious; it meant that we had to wait a little longer before we and the public could be fully informed about the further deliberations of the SEAC. This is the goldfish bowl in which we all live. We must do what we can to ensure that the situation does not lead to panic.
As regards the allocation of slaughterhouses, I take to heart what the noble Lord said.
I believe that I am right in saying that at present we do not have a suitable test for BSE. Vast sums of money are now being spent on research into BSE in this country. The most obvious result is that in this country we probably know more about BSE than any other country in the world. That means that it is easier for people with a strong sense of sensationalism sometimes to build into scientific reports conclusions which they do not merit. Of course, if a test were to become available, it would be a very splendid result and we would hope to introduce it as soon as possible.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend help me on two points? First, there seems to be doubt about the link between the food and the cause of BSE. Many other countries, especially the Republic of Ireland, use the same food that we used and have not had a BSE epidemic. Secondly, the number of cattle with BSE does not seem to have been affected by the food ban in the bell curve of the epidemic. It fits more naturally into the phosnate use for warble fly eradication. The type that we used was, I believe, called Phthaladine. That was the active ingredient that caused the hassle as regards thalidomide babies. Will my noble friend please ask his scientists to look even more carefully at this issue? The logic that the food caused BSE seems to be broken by the fact that some places where such food is available do not have an epidemic. And the figure is not falling at the same rate as it should do had the feed ban worked.

763
The Government have stated consistently that there is no harm in any beef, even that over 30 months, and that they are doing this not for a public health reason but for a consumer protection reason. What possible legal authority do the Government have for killing many of our cattle so that the Germans will not be frightened? It seems more sensible not to pander to frightened Germans. If we say, "We're not going to kill the cattle. It's all right", and continue to eat the beef, eventually the Germans will not be frightened. They are so keen on being frightened, yet we seem to pander to their fear. Will my noble friend give the legal authority for the slaughter of healthy cattle when his colleague said that there is no health risk whatever?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, although I should not be, I am constantly surprised by the breadth and variety of my noble friend's technical knowledge. I am sure that government scientists will have noted his point. I am glad that I have no ministerial responsibility for what beef cattle or any other kind of cattle are fed in the Republic of Ireland so I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I do not comment on that point.
As to the authority, it is plain that my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture has the authority to make the culls that he has suggested and to pay the proposed compensation. As regards the Germans, from my reading of the Spectator, I understand that, particularly in recent decades, the Germans have become almost obsessively keen on hygiene. It is greatly to their credit, but it is no business of mine to do anything but encourage my right honourable friends to do the best they can to restore confidence in the British beef market. If possible, despite hysterical claims to the contrary, they should try to reassure our German friends and allies that British beef is a great deal more health-giving than sausage.
Lord Desai: My Lords, although the Statement concerned European matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, British beef is banned almost around the world. I believe I heard on a television programme that only Afghanistan and El Salvador have not banned British beef. First, what are the Government doing to lift the ban in countries other than those in Europe? Secondly, I am ignorant of such matters, but I heard that when a similar disease occurred in the Republic of Ireland, the culling was much more thorough and total and therefore the republic was able to restore confidence more quickly.
Lastly, if it is true that there have been 27,000 cases of BSE since the ban on the feed was introduced, do the Government know where the farms are? Should they be singled out not to receive compensation for their culling? After all, they broke the law and should therefore not be compensated for damage due to breaking the law.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, on the final point, it is by no means clear that it is always the farms' fault that BSE occurred after the ban on feed. There may be a number of reasons for the disease occurring. I agree
764
with my noble friend Lord Onslow that we are by no means certain that the new form of CJD is caused by BSE. It just appears on scientific advice to be the most likely cause.
There is one aspect which we must examine, as I tried to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who knows a great deal about such matters. If we can find a sensible way of passporting cattle, it would be a better way of closely directing the cull than having a blanket cull of animals. None of us wishes to see that, particularly when we know that not only is there a small danger but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the overwhelming likelihood is that the majority of animals would be unaffected by BSE.
As for non-European countries, I merely observe to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that one of the most effective ways in which we could reassure non-EU members as to the safety of British beef is for the European Union to lift the ban. That would be an enormous step forward. We shall continue to do the best we can to provide unbiased and sensible information to all inquirers and to press those in posts abroad to ensure that people are aware of the facts. The noble Lord has given me a chance to add that it is surprising how little foreign Ministers and some heads of government and state understand not only what is at stake but also what we have done so far. It is important that Her Majesty's Government should pursue a powerful information campaign. That is in the minds of a number of my right honourable friends.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does my noble friend accept, from someone like myself who has been involved in the production of beef cattle over a considerable time, that we realise the enormous logistical problem involved in the proposed killing of so many cattle? From time to time, we hear criticism of the Government for being slow in getting the process under way. However, those of us who understand slaughtering and what it involves become angry at those criticisms. Can my noble friend assure me that although the slaughter of the cattle is necessary and is going ahead, the process will be humanely carried out?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his understanding. We all wish to see the difficult process proceed seamlessly and without problems. The fact that it had to be introduced speedily, involving a massive number of cattle, has made teething problems more the order of the day than anyone would wish. However, I hope and believe that they are being solved rapidly.
Of course, humane killing is extremely important. My noble friend will be aware of the improved measures that have been taken in that respect in the past few years.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the Statement. All of us in this country who are connected with animal health, as well as those on the continent, in Germany, France and countries which appear to be giving us trouble, understand that the scientific evidence is that there is no reasonable connection between BSE and the human disease, CJD.

765
What needs to be done now is to make that fact abundantly clear, both to our own public and to people in the European Union by whatever means the Government have in their power. Unfortunately, I meet many people who ask me about the evidence when it is quite clear to me, but it seems that it has not yet reached the public. I make the plea that an effort be made in that direction, not only with our own public but also that of the European Union and elsewhere in the world where our beef is banned.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as the whole House knows, my noble friend speaks with great authority on such matters and I am grateful for what he said. I can only refer him to my earlier answers. The fact that he is as keen on it as I will make us redouble our efforts.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in order to put the significance of our current negotiations in Europe in proportion, can the noble Viscount tell us approximately what percentage by value of our traditional exports of beef and beef products is accounted for by tallow, gelatine and semen?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I fear that I cannot do so off the top of my head. Rather than mislead the noble Lord with an approximate answer which I could give him, I shall write to him.

National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill
5.8 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Blease: My Lords, the written content of the Bill is small but in my view the text presents large issues of definition, compliance and practical application. While I shall address my remarks to Clause 3 concerning Northern Ireland, I fully support and concur with the points ably and clearly stated by my noble friend Lady Jay.
Over the past five years, it has been my misfortune to be a more frequent user of the Northern Ireland health services than I should have wished. In my experience, there have been many great forward, progressive and effective developments in the health services in Northern Ireland, especially in hospital treatment and care. Much of that steady improvement has been the result of —of the personal attention and dedication of doctors, surgeons and nursing staff.
There is, I believe, a link between the issues in the Bill and the sitation in the Northern Ireland health service over the past few months. A newspaper leading article, after quoting a Northern Ireland doctor, who is also an MP, said that,
"the Health Service (…proudly) created in 1947, and which in the past decade has been systematically dismantled [by those] intent upon imposing free market ideologies on an essential service that belongs to us all".
I could continue with various quotations on the situation as expressed in numerous newspapers in Northern Ireland which indicate that the Northern Ireland health
766
service is in a very serious situation. Indeed, some of the trusts already established are on the verge of collapse. That is not an over-exaggeration. I do not want to take up the time of the House on that particular detail. I merely want to mention that there is a crisis in Northern Ireland and elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom in relation to the future of our health services and health authorities.
It is worth drawing attention to the fact that health and healthcare policies involve much more than financial and economic factors. Disciplines such as ethics, sociology and medicine have crucial roles to play in helping to resolve the difficult dilemmas that face contemporary health policy makers and the necessary health and hospital services. In that respect the Bill ignores the full implications of the proposed transfer of residual liabilities.
I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, kindly to defend the word "liabilities" in Clause 1. As I understand it, the legal implications of the word include obligations and duties. So, in any transfer, consideration must be duly given not only to finances and property rights, but also to obligations and duties and the commitment of the body concerned to patients and the community and the vital ethos of the health service unit concerned.
I turn to the proposed procedure for exercising the power in Clause 3 of the Bill relating to Northern Ireland. The Order in Council procedure of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is exercised by the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office. Surely the time factor involved in implementing the Clause 3 provisions is unwieldy, especially when one is faced with the consequences of the day-to-day administrative necessities of modern health services and hospital commitments and also the proposed transfer of liabilities, in the full sense of the word. What about community traditions? Can those be transferred? Can the Bill provide for the continued support of local voluntary workers?
It is claimed that the Bill is necessary to fill a gap in health service legislation. I hold that the Bill is seriously flawed and inadequate. I should welcome in the Minister's reply some hope of ministerial adjustment and administrative reality, all in the best interests of our world-renowned National Health Service.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I declare an interest. Until recently I was for nearly 40 years a National Health Service practitioner working mainly in a health centre but also in National Health Service hospitals.
In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill it is stated that there is,
"the possibility of … expenditure under other enactments relating to the NHS… [which] It is not possible to quantify".
Thus, the relatively innocent seeming change that the Bill introduces from the permissive mode of the 1990 Act to the mandatory mode in a reference to the Secretary of State's "duty" to settle the liabilities of trusts opens up a potentially bottomless pit, since trusts may borrow up to £5 billion. I found that a surprisingly

767
large amount. However, I read the Treasury Select Committee's report and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, also quoted that same figure from her reading of the report. It was a highly informative document. Despite that, perhaps we should take some of its contents with a little pinch of salt since it was published on 1st April. It certainly contains some passages which are truly worthy of a publication of that date.
The point is that although the Bill was designed to encourage PFI bids by giving applicants greater security in the event of the financial collapse or other inability of a trust to pay its due fees to a PFI contractor, it contains nothing restricting that proposal to the PFI scheme as such. So debts run up in a variety of other ways could be covered by the Bill. This is where the famous remark of the Secretary of State, already quoted by my noble friend, is relevant. When he said, erroneously, (in col. 618 of the Official Report) that trusts could not borrow, was he revealing his ignorance or was he trying to throw the committee off the scent? Up until now potential lenders may have hesitated a little before making a big loan to a trust. From 1990, when trusts were created, until now, a trust has not been able to offer its physical assets as security, as my noble friend pointed out. That was hastily mentioned by Mr. Andrew Neill, the Secretary of State's adviser before the Treasury Select Committee. Now the sky is virtually the limit in terms of what a trust can borrow, since the Secretary of State will pick up the tab if the trust cannot pay and is dissolved.
In theory, that presents another problem. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to settle outstanding liabilities only if a trust ceases to exist. I see a hypothetical situation in which a trust may not be in a position to pay its agreed PFI dues but does not cease to exist. In fact, it may well be in the Secretary of State's interest to keep that trust afloat, since under the new Bill, when it becomes law, the Secretary of State, in the name of the taxpayer, will be required to settle the liabilities only if the trust ceases to exist.
Potential PFI bidders may not be completely satisfied that this Bill offers them the total security (at taxpayers' expense) that the noble Baroness has claimed for it. It will be interesting to see whether and how quickly the many long awaited PFI-funded schemes get off the ground after the Bill becomes an Act.
Up to now, I have spoken largely about the Bill in front of us rather than the PFI scheme as a whole. With a professor of economics, businessmen, bankers and financial experts also speaking in this debate, I feel rather ill qualified to discuss matters of finance. However, I have a number of worries about the PH, which are shared by my noble friend Lord Winston and the British Medical Association. In a sense, the whole scheme is a form of hire purchase. It has always been my policy to avoid hire purchase like the plague, because I know that in the end I shall have paid through the nose, possibly double or more than the original price of the article for sale. If I do not have the money, it is cheaper to borrow from the bank. In the Government's
768
case, they can obtain a much better rate from their equivalent of my bank than I can. So why go for hire purchase?
I am aware that the public sector borrowing requirement is too large and we must try to avoid increasing it whenever we can do so. But if, through increasing the PSBR, an asset is created as a result, surely that is different from using money taken from the PSBR for current expenditure or revenue. It is the same kind of equation that is known by any competent housewife.
Finally, I am very concerned about handing over not only the building but also the running of a hospital to the private sector. Clinical services, it is said, will be exempt. My noble friend Lord Winston went into that matter in some detail. But the whole ambience of a hospital should be therapeutic. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his very interesting maiden speech, said as much. It has been pointed out here and in the other place that the ward or out-patient housekeeper is very much part of the clinical team. Making a profit from a fixed payment is difficult to reconcile with that. Also, voluntary help, which all hospitals have and need, may be less likely to be forthcoming when private profit rather than public interest sets the tone.
Nothing that we have said will be able to prevent the Bill becoming law exactly as it stands—so much for your Lordships' House being a revising Chamber—but it is appropriate that we record our misgivings. It is extremely important that the operation of the PFI is clearly monitored. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will be able to say that independent health economists outside the department will be invited to undertake carefully designed studies to evaluate the effect not only of the Bill but of the whole PFI scheme as it develops.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister clearly described the relationship between the NHS trusts and the Secretary of State. Obviously there is a flaw in that relationship which so concerned the banks that they required more than a clear statement from the Secretary of State that he will assume the liabilities of NHS trusts if the worst should happen. They required a law—hardly "a technical change", as the Minister described the Bill. Can the Minister tell us what that flaw is?
I am in favour of the PFI. Indeed, some would say that its origins lie with the Labour Party. I well remember some years ago working on a partnership system of raising additional finance for the railways from the private sector. I have no doubt that if private finance is to be used in the public sector, the public sector must be in control. That is not only because the public would expect the project to continue operating even if it got into financial difficulties, but also because, as my noble friend Lady Jay said, the public sector must set the priorities. That is why private finance is suitable for projects which are in addition to publicly financed projects and not, as the Government seem to intend, instead of them. That is why I am surprised that the Minister said to the Treasury Committee on 16th January 1996:

769
"the case where the PFI is the option that we are required now under our own guidance to examine first is where there is a major investment project".
Of course, that created a bottleneck, through which every NHS project had to pass. Perhaps that is one reason for the delays about which my noble friend Lord Winston complained. However, he will be pleased to hear that help was at hand. In April, the bottleneck was partly cleared by a Treasury circular saying that the PFI option need not be examined first if the option was "patently absurd or unrealistic".
Surely the decision on whether to use public or private finance is not a matter of absurdity. It must be a matter of suitability. It is suitable to use private finance in a long-term project, say, to construct a building and operate some of the services, where there is every incentive to benefit from good design, efficient management and the opportunity to create a goodwill element. However, the commercial reality that appears to prompt the Bill is different. Risks are being transferred and NHS assets pledged as security. The lenders take the view that the assets belong to the Secretary of State and so we have the Bill.
My business instincts are against the Bill. Perhaps I may explain why. First, no businessman rushes to take on more liabilities. If the Secretary of State already has those liabilities, the Bill is unnecessary. If he does not have those liabilities, does he know what he is taking on? My noble friend Lady Jay explained that he probably does not know, despite the Minister's assurance that "controls" are in place. My suspicions are aroused by the aura of undue haste which surrounds the Bill. Sensible businessmen and presumably sensible Ministers move gingerly and reluctantly to take on new liabilities, even in a sector that they know well. The PFI is untried in the National Health Service. To rush into taking on more liabilities in an area not fully understood will only end in tears.
Secondly, the commitment is open-ended. How can the Secretary of State honour the liabilities of any NHS trust, irrespective of the manner in which they have been incurred? Despite the monitoring, is the Minister satisfied with the probity of every NHS trust? Is the Minister happy to guarantee the liabilities of a yacht in Cannes harbour without which trustees and manager stoutly claim that they cannot run their business? My Lords, stranger things have happened. Would it not be wiser to guarantee the liabilities after proper control and appraisal and after adequate scrutiny by Parliament?
That leads me to my third objection, which is about the issue of off-balance sheet debt. The Bill seems to imply that, instead of using private finance to fund specific projects, the Government are using private finance to fund projects which are not separately identifiable. The benefits of the project appear in the trust accounts as an asset, but the liabilities are in another account. Is the Minister satisfied that the monitoring described by the Select Committee as "rather haphazard" will pick that up?
That kind of accounting is deliberately misleading. The only way to deal with it is to have full transparency because the devil is in the detail and the Bill ignores
770
that. It also ignores the fact that, by assuming that liability, the Secretary of State is removing the ultimate sanction of the market; that is, bankruptcy.
In normal business the sanctions are clearly understood. If a company goes bust and nobody else can be persuaded to take it on, then the business ceases. But if a company running an NHS activity goes bust, nobody expects the patients to be put out onto the street. Presumably the sanction is that the management is sacked and new management is brought in to sort out the problems. Without the normal sanctions there must be transparency and clear moral priorities.
The point I wish to make is that, as the sanctions of bankruptcy are removed by the Bill, so the discipline of clarity must be put in its place. Then it will be clear what happens if the trust or the supplier of the hospital goes bust; what the Government do; what the lenders do and who takes over the obligations. The public are entitled to know what arrangements have been made and they need to be spelt out clearly. That is why I entirely support the recent report of the Treasury committee in another place which raised similar concerns and recommended that an annual report be produced which brings together the details of PFI-financed projects undertaken by individual departments as well as details of projects where PFI finance was considered but conventional public finance was eventually preferred.
The Minister assured us that the finance of the NHS trusts is, in practice, under the effective ultimate control of the Secretary of State. If that is so, we need to know precisely what is the nature of their independence and why the Government have to guarantee their liabilities. What has changed since the NHS trusts were created in 1990?
One final point about the Bill that concerns me is the ever-increasing encouragement by the Government for hospital trusts to out-source. They do that not only by guaranteeing liabilities, but also, in April, by exempting the private health contractors themselves from VAT. I cannot speak from experience of serving on a hospital trust, but I can speak with experience of business. Out-sourcing is not all good, as we are finding out. It needs careful management to handle it successfully. The chances of success are much greater when we give an outside organisation something to run which is already up and working. If it is a new activity, it is far less risky to manage the development oneself and retain the skills in one's organisation. The Bill and the pressure to out-source encourage management to ignore that.
During the development phase there are constant changes, and every change costs more money when it is outside one's organisation. We are seeing that happen with the benefits system and the National Insurance computer system. Organisations must retain skills in-house so that they have the option of taking back activities which have been out-sourced unsuccessfully. The Minister may remember that that is exactly what happened when the police tried to out-source electronic finger printing. It was unsuccessful. Because we did not retain the skills, the work had to be contracted out to the police department in Seattle, Washington, at

771
immense cost. If the skills are not retained in the NHS, ultimately there will be no alternative to privatisation—whether or not the Government wish that.
Clearly there is uncertainty and confusion here—perhaps that is why there are so few noble Lords opposite supporting the Bill. A lot of public money is at risk and, more importantly, public health is involved. Where public health and public money are concerned, there should be no confusion. I therefore urge noble Lords to oppose the Bill and the Government to think again.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I listened with interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Haskel. It was extremely thorough from a business point of view about the dangers of mixing the public and the private sectors. I should like to ask one or two questions on the costing of projects.
Historically, in the health service and in local government, when local authorities were developing and hospital authorities were instituting procedures to undertake large capital projects, more often than not—certainly in the case of local authorities—they would run into the government yardstick. That quickly indicated whether the project was over the top or whether the money would be forthcoming in support of it. If the yardstick was not changed, the project did not go ahead.
I see my noble friend Lord Sefton nodding his head; I believe that I am right. But in this case we have the reverse. The project will go through and, when it gets into difficulty, the Government will help it out. The trouble is that there is no normal yardstick. Two trusts may have two different standards. If somebody built a hospital in one of the poorer areas of the country socially, I suspect that it would not be as palatial as one built in the stockbroker belt by the trust registered there. I wish to ask the Minister a question, though I do not expect her to answer tonight. Is it worth considering what yardstick should be used to prevent willing investors, if there are any, putting in their money and going over the top on the basis that they cannot lose anyway?
I read extensively the Second Reading speeches in the other place and some of the evidence submitted by the Secretary of State to the appointed finance committee on the subject. I can only draw the conclusion that, whatever takes place, if the project collapses the Government will have to step in. They certainly could not stand aside and do nothing. We have heard it asked in the past, "Who will launch the lifeboat?" There is no question but that the Government would have to launch it. They could not leave an area of the community without adequate health services simply because a business collapsed.
I asked a Question today which the Minister answered meticulously and pointedly. However, I may have misunderstood part of the answer; it may simply be a matter of words. It concerned a National Health Service chief executive who talked about a gentleman who was
772
extensively reported for his lack of probity in the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority. The chief executive did not say that the gentleman would not be employed in the health service; he said that he certainly would not be given another job as a regional controller when the changes took place.
I have with me today a friend who is a prominent consultant. He said that those comments underpin quite clearly the fact that, if a person is found to be at fault in connection with a large number of incidents which result in substantial sums of money being lost to the National Health Service—minor sums can be reclaimed—even though he can be dismissed for that lack of probity, there is no way that he can be prevented from taking a job with another trust if he applies and is offered one.
In my experience in local government, if a city treasurer—we are talking about a senior officer, not an office boy; the person involved was a regional controller—of one of the large cities was found to have manipulated funds to suit himself, he would receive short shrift. I have no doubt that none of the other local authorities would touch him. When we were on the Wessex trail before, I asked the Government to bring in punitive measures against people who were raiding public funds.
What comes across clearly from the examination by the National Audit Office is that those who were at fault felt in some way that what they were doing was all right by the Government and that they were not bound by the Whitley Council. One of the ladies concerned who was found to be grievously at fault in the Yorkshire Regional Office said that they had checked with some of the other regional authorities. They already knew what was going on in Yorkshire but they were using health service money to balance up the negative equity of their houses. It is beyond belief that health service money could be used for any such purpose. I am not a lawyer but that is not ultra vires; it is outright fraud. No one has been prosecuted.
When the Government first brought into the health service this method of privatisation I wonder whether they were right in saying, "We are going to introduce the entrepreneurial factor". An entrepreneur means someone who is a yuppie or a whiz-kid—they will do it their way but they will succeed. I believe that when they read that they were all entrepreneurs and that they were being given these jobs, they felt that the rules did not matter. Was any example set to dissuade them when the first clutch were found out?
I do not want to go back to the issue of Wessex but I must because it has been mentioned today. What took place there and subsequently is mentioned in the National Audit Office report. What did the Government do over Wessex? The loss of money to the health service in that area alone had reached £63 million. Those are not my figures but the figures of the National Audit Office. Some of that money was reclaimed but the majority was not.
It took me almost two years, with the assistance of other Members—the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was one—and of a new Back-Bench Member in another

773
place who lived in Wessex, to get to know what was happening in Wessex. The then Secretary of State, Mrs. Bottomley, and her number two, the Minister of State—the present chairman of the Conservative Party—had issued an instruction that a district auditor's report had to be kept confidential. The Public Accounts Committee met for four-and-a-half hours to grill the then chairman of Wessex, Mr. Robin Buchanan, and Mr. Duncan Nichol, who was then the top gun in the health service, and discovered that the way they had run the place was beyond belief. If a town clerk or a council leader had run a city in the way they had run their authorities they would soon have found themselves with Ronnie Barker doing "porridge". There is no question of what would have happened. But nothing was done.
One of the people most criticised by the Public Accounts Committee was then the chairman of Wessex. He was not the main culprit. He was put in to rescue the job. However, he did not do it very well and he himself came in for severe criticism from the Public Accounts Committee in its final report for purchasing a computer for £3 million which could have been bought for £1 million. Someone was criticised for paying 104 salaries for a period in order to privatise the computer sector when fewer than 70 people were actually working. When he was challenged by the Public Accounts Committee, he said, "You don't expect me to go round counting". No, but we do not expect someone to pay 104 salaries which he had no right to be paying.
I come back to this question. What did the Government do? They knew that all this was going on and they knew that it was bound to hit the surface. When Bob Sheldon, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, commenced his remarks by saying that the proceedings of the committee would be open as there was so much public concern on the matter, the lid blew off. But then the Government made a colossal blunder. They gave the impression that it did not matter, because while all that was going on, the second chairman, who had been severely criticised, was appointed chairman of the Supplies Authority, a new body which the National Health Service was setting up, which is the biggest spending unit in the National Health Service. It has an out-turn of between £3 billion and £4 billion a year.
It is only realistic to assume that all the chairman of these bodies knew what was going on. I had it in local government. I knew what they were doing in Liverpool and they knew what we were doing in Manchester because we used to meet and talk about what was going on. I firmly believe that when the chairmen of the former regional authorities came down to London for meetings and dinners they knew what their colleagues were doing. They were not islands. They did not act in isolation. They knew the code of conduct, but they all broke it. In this situation a person criticised by a senior committee of the House of Commons was not only not dealt with but was given a substantial promotion.
People who were doing the same or similar things, but not on the same scale, in other regional health authorities might say, "They are not going to touch us. It is okay". I pleaded in this House for the Government to subject those people to the same surcharges faced by
774
local councillors. I am talking about appointed members, as I know that employees can be dealt with. I am talking about appointed members, whoever they are and whichever party they belong to. But no one bothered. We were told that they had done nothing wrong, that they were lacking in probity but had done nothing illegal. We were told that it was ultra vires. And on that basis they got away with it.
I believe that there are still substantial sums of money which may have been removed from the aegis of the health authorities. The cases of Wessex, West Midlands and the one in Yorkshire may involve enough money to build a major hospital. We are not talking about peanuts. The former nine regional health authorities that were left ought to be examined on the basis of what people have said. As far as I am concerned—I might be wrong—three authorities have been examined and the probity of the people involved at the highest level was found wanting. It is worth calling in the National Health Service ombudsman or someone from the National Audit Office to go through the whole matter so that if there is a clean sheet we shall know and we need not waste our time in future tilting at windmills.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, this is a short Bill. I do not intend to discuss the merits of PFI as such. I shall confine myself to discussing whether the Bill is necessary. There is a cautionary tale behind the Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, there has always been a provision in the National Health Service since 1948 that the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for the assets and liabilities of hospitals and other practices in the National Health Service. So why do we suddenly need this particular Bill? Thereby lies a story of what I might call the unforeseen consequences of privatisation, as the Secretary of State said to the Select Committee in another place. Now it is necessary to make clear that the Secretary of State has the duty to take over the liabilities of trusts, etc., which may shut down. Before that the Secretary of State did not have a duty, but a general responsibility. That is because if there are private finance initiatives in the National Health Service, it is not clear what is the status of a trust. A trust is not a private company which can be made liable for its own debts. Therefore, one has to have some kind of a new quasi-law of bankruptcy as regards trusts.
Because of private finance initiatives one has to make the risk very clear to private investors that if they invest in a health trust and undertake a project in a hospital they will not be left with a firm which goes bankrupt with debts unpaid. So we are now saying that anyone who invests in the National Health Service under the PFI will have a clear guarantee that if anything happens the liabilities will be taken over by the Secretary of State for Health.
That is a very interesting consequence because PFI was originally invented in order to get money from the PSBR. We have not thought through the consequences of PFI properly and there is a likelihood that some of them may come back to the PSBR. I am intrigued to

775
read in the first clause of the Bill the words, "ceases to exist". Why does a hospital trust "cease to exist"? It can be administratively shut down or it may merge voluntarily. But can it technically go bankrupt? Is this Bill being introduced because we may find that units undertake liabilities for which there is no matching cash flow and, because of that, they go bankrupt? Is this Bill being introduced foreseeing the possibility of what we technically call bankruptcy in commercial operations as regards units in the National Health Service?
If that is so, we have to be very clear that such cases which involve a mismatch of cash flow and liabilities will not harm the clinical operations of the unit. A hospital trust may go bankrupt because some building, or whatever, takes place under PFI but does not generate sufficient revenue to meet the interest commitments. The unit will go bankrupt. That will happen if something is privatised or semi-privatised.
Given the distinction between clinical and non-clinical operations, how does one make sure that the clinical operations of a technically bankrupt hospital trust are protected? If bankruptcy arises that does not mean that it ceases to exist. The trust is only financially bankrupt and not physically destroyed. I would like the Minister to address the question of whether the Government have thought through technical bankruptcy for hospital trusts and whether this Bill is designed to foresee those conditions. If a trust ceases to exist for financial reasons, are there ways of protecting its clinical operations so that at least that side of the hospital is allowed to proceed while the unit is being restructured financially?
As I am sure noble Lords who have been in business know, a company which goes bankrupt can be reconstructed and begin operating again. I would like the Minister to say whether the financial and clinical side will be sufficiently separated to protect the latter, whatever happens to the former?
The next matter is germane to the general PFI issue although not necessarily to the NHS. This provision is going to come to the universities. The Government are urging PFIs on universities in quite a large way. The liabilities of universities are not going to be taken over by the Secretary of State for Education. If a university goes bankrupt because it has taken on private finance and cannot meet its commitments, have the Government thought through the consequences? The noble Baroness need not answer that question because it does not concern her department. Have the Government really thought through what will happen to universities which go bankrupt? Since the Government have postponed decisions by appointing a committee to look into university finance, within the next 18 months one or two universities are going to go bankrupt. At that stage we shall have to face up to the question of what happens to the assets and liabilities when they go bankrupt.
My general point is that if one adopts a market strategy without having a full range of private property institutions there will be problems. We shall have then a half-baked market. Hospital units are neither private firms nor government departments. We now have to consider the possibilities. The NHS operates not under
776
market conditions but with quasi-fixed prices, so we shall continue having the problem where this kind of privatisation will lead to unforeseen difficulties. I hope that the Government have thought through what they are doing in this Bill because it is too short and has no explanation. I am not at all sure whether the Government are aware of many of these difficulties.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had hoped to keep my contribution very short tonight. I hope to keep to that. It has been a very interesting debate so far. One of the most interesting contributions came in the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham. I believe he reported that there had been a 90 per cent. cost reduction by doing a job in-house rather than getting contractors to do it. I wonder whether, in the fullness of time, we might find out that massive savings to the Treasury and the Exchequer will be provided by converting these private finance initiative projects into straight, public sector borrowing requirement elements.
We are stuck a little by the creative accounting that appears to be emerging not only within the different National Health Service trusts and the way in which they seem to account for some things "off balance sheet", which I believe is a technical term, but also in terms of national accounts. Various speakers have mentioned the problem that the Government have with the very high PSBR that we are faced with and the desperate need to satisfy the international money markets to reduce it. We need to look a little more closely at how the Government are doing that. We have the PFI and the reason for it appears to be to cut the PSBR.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that the idea of the private finance initiative came from the Labour Party when it was looking at ways of ensuring capital investment in the railways. It is worth looking at that a little more closely. Perhaps I may give an example. Ford makes a large range of engines for its cars at Bridgend. The cars themselves are produced in Halewood, Dagenham, Germany, Belgium and Spain. If Ford decides that it wants to transport those engines from South Wales to its car manufacturing plants across Europe by rail, it could go to British Rail and the other railway companies on the Continent and say, "We would like to move our engines by rail. Will you provide the rolling stock and the engines to haul that rolling stock?" Given that most railway systems are nationalised, the burden of that would fall on the public sector borrowing requirement and the capital investment to provide that rolling stock would have to be provided by governments.
If, however, Ford invested in that rolling stock itself so that it retained ownership of the rolling stock and provided the capital financing necessary for that, and if that rolling stock was used on the national railway systems and hauled by national railway system locomotives, the effect would be to move what is a capital requirement for the public sector borrowing requirement on to the private sector. That would be genuine private financing of a capital requirement. I am sure that everybody recognises that. The international

777
money markets could say, "This is not a government liability. It is a private liability and Ford will have to carry it".
The added advantage of doing it that way is that Ford would have an incentive to utilise the capital stock that it had created by continuing to move its engines by rail. If Ford did not have that capital involvement, it could turn round a few months later and say, "We have decided not to bother moving our engines by rail", and the Government would then be saddled not only with a capital debt owed to the money markets through the public sector borrowing requirement, but would have assets that were virtually useless because the rolling stock would probably have been specially constructed to haul those Ford engines. That situation is rather different from what happens in the National Health Service, the university sector or the education sector generally, where the provision of the service is a public provision. The public can turn round and say, "We may or we may not carry on with that activity".
One of the interesting things about the Bill is that it changes that situation. Previously there was a real risk for private investors in capital projects in the National Health Service that an NHS trust would, effectively, go out of business and leave the investor with those liabilities. There was therefore a justification for charging a higher rate in the market because of that associated risk. In effect, the Bill says that that risk no longer obtains. In effect, the Government would be the lender of last resort and the liabilities that accrue as a result of capital expenditure patterns by NHS trusts would reside with the Government. In that situation, it would make sense for the Government to borrow money as a lender of last resort from the international money markets at a cheaper rate than is available to any private financier, and for the Government to use the money to provide the capital infrastructure. On that analysis, it seems to me that, although it absorbs some parliamentary time and keeps us in employment, putting this Bill through Parliament is a nonsense because it destroys the argument for private finance in the National Health Service.
6.4 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction of this far from technical little Bill and pay tribute to the sang froid that she showed in explaining its merits. It was perhaps a case of the unhesitating in pursuit of the unquantifiable. The precision with which other noble Lords have dissected this particular specimen speaks highly for their surgical and intellectual skills and just as tellingly of the extraordinary contradictions contained in the 37 modest lines of draft legislation.
I should repeat a previous declaration of an interest. A company of which I am a director has a subsidiary which acts as an adviser to NHS trusts on PFI funding and to consortia bidding for contracts with such trusts. I play no part in its running or its operations and I was not involved in setting it up. Indeed, I opposed it—not just on political but on commercial grounds. In the light of that and of the fact that the views that I shall be
778
expressing are unlikely to be regarded as in the company's financial interest, I decided that it would still be appropriate for me to speak today.
If that was the first quandary that I faced, I immediately came to a second. If any measure proposed by this Government promised to promote investment in the National Health Service, could there be any grounds for quibbling? Other noble Lords far more expert than me—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, in his authoritative maiden speech, and my noble friend Lord Winston—have described the urgent requirements of the health service, while my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington described the catastrophic shortfall in investment which this Bill is being rushed through to rectify.
Even increased funding may not be a sufficient condition for the improved provision of services by the NHS, but it is certainly a necessary one. It is perfectly possible to acknowledge that the nature of healthcare provision means that the demand for new services, updated technology and better resources cannot be fully met but still to assert that an improvement in the current level of investment is needed and can be determined within the insatiable demand that exists.
Does the end justify the means? I think not. My noble friend Lady Jay, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and others have demonstrated that rather than PFI adding incremental investment to the NHS, it is merely substituting for what has previously and properly been the Government's direct responsibility. Instead we should recognise that at the heart of the Government's rapidly growing projection for the use of PFI in health and other areas lies dodgy accounting—the public accounts equivalent of the racy old days of the 1980s when an enterprising company could buy another one twice its size and yet one would have been hard pressed to tell from the published accounts subsequently that the chairman had done any more than buy a new helicopter. Just as economic reality caught up with creative accounting in the corporate sector, the same will inevitably be the case in the public sector. When there is that rendezvous with reality, you can be sure that the reaction, the correction and the restructuring will negate whatever temporary benefits there may have been in the meantime, if any.
Let us go back and examine the principles of PFI. The Government may seek greater efficiency in both the construction and purchasing of new facilities and in their subsequent operation. There is no reason for that to be muddled up with how those facilities are financed. The subcontracted outside provision of non-clinical services on a turn-key project basis can be perfectly well achieved, if that is what the situation demands, quite independently of the source of funding for that project. The taxpayers' interest is that the funding of the project should be on the best possible terms. Since the Government will, in almost all circumstances, be able to borrow on finer terms than any other entity in the UK, the only justifiable reason for raising finance by other means is if there is a transfer of risk. As long as the Government had at least the theoretical option of allowing an NHS trust or any other PFI-funded enterprise to fail, there was at least a veil of intellectual

779
respectability behind the use of more expensive private sector funding in lieu of direct borrowing by the Government. This Bill removes that thin veil and lays bare the creative accounting, as described by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, that is being perpetrated by the Front Bench opposite.
Can the Minister say whether, as a consequence of this Bill, the aggregate future obligations of the NHS trusts to the private sector will be included in the public sector borrowing requirement? If not, why not? In the corporate sector the accounting standards bodies have increasingly required leases to be brought on to companies' balance sheets. Surely the fact that the Bill has been deemed a money Bill is prima facie evidence that the obligations covered by it should be included in the public sector borrowing requirement. Students of this Government's past inconsistency towards the definition of the PSBR may remember in the 1980s the abandonment of the gas-gathering pipeline project in the North Sea, which promised a valuable economic and environmental return, because of the Government's insistence that the residual liability entailed had to be counted in the PSBR. That occurred at the very time that the formal guarantee of the debts of the computer company, ICL, which the Government had deemed to be politically expedient to support, were excluded. Even with that and other precedents in mind, I find it difficult to imagine how the hard men of the Treasury—the praetorian guard of the financial Chief Secretary—can be squared to exclude these obligations from the PSBR. If the noble Baroness tells your Lordships' House that the obligations will be included in the PSBR, perhaps she can also justify the additional costs to be incurred by paying private sector rates for explicitly public sector obligations.
At the heart of this Bill lies not a commitment to the interests of the NHS and its patients but, I suspect, the most vivid illustration of the manipulation of the public accounts by the Government in a desperate attempt to give themselves the apparent ability to offer tax cuts in the next Budget—if they last that long. The ever-increasing levels of PFI funding projected in the Red Book in recent years—so little of which has taken place—betray the purpose of the Government, which is to consign essential, not optional, investment to the never-never world of the PFI in order to give themselves room for manoeuvre and throw the electorate a little pourboire here and a douceur there when the underlying state of public finances, stripping away the mirrors, wheezes, dodges and fiddles, would not otherwise justify this largesse.
We are watching the Benches opposite and their trick accounting. The country is watching them, too. When the Minister says in her introduction that the Bill is for the benefit of taxpayers and patients alike, we know that this is being as creative with words as the PFI is with public accounting. How can the noble Baroness maintain that it benefits the taxpayer when the cost of financing is higher than direct government borrowing? How can it be to the benefit of patients when the funds,
780
if and when they are raised, merely replace the 17 per cent. cut in the NHS capital budget referred to by my noble friend Lady Jay?
This should be the Bill that died of shame—shame at its intellectual dishonesty and cynical electoral motivation. As my noble friend Lady Jay has said, we on these Benches still support the principles of partnership funding, but only when there is a true reduction in cost or transfer of risk. That is unlikely to provide quickly a massive flow of funds. Therefore, in reality the largest part of the NHS's capital expenditure will need to be financed by traditional means and accounted for accordingly.
Nor do we accept uncritically what may be termed Treasury orthodoxy. There remains a powerful case for separating capital and current expenditure in an accurate fashion in the public accounts so that the Government, electorate and markets can judge more clearly the true position of the nation's finances. In the meantime, the Government should stop fiddling and get on with putting out the fires by direct and established methods.
In the end, however, this Bill will inevitably pass. It may at least free the investment blockage created by the Government's cynical policies that threaten the comfort, health and even lives of patients. For that we should be thankful.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have had a very good debate on the Bill. We have heard some excellent speeches, but none better than the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham. We look forward to future contributions from him to debates on the National Health Service with the great experience that he brings to them.
This is a money Bill. It will pass through all of its stages and we will not be able to amend it. From this side of the House—the lack of contributions from the Benches opposite is noted—we will try to point out the weaknesses in the Bill, which we believe has already been done very well, and examine the situation when the Bill becomes law, as it surely will. If we look for a definition of PFI in the context of the National Health Service, it can be described as a wheeze for transferring risk from the public to the private sector, at the same time as transferring a good deal of government costs from the pot marked "capital expenditure today" to the pot marked "current expenditure tomorrow". That definition, which was given in the Independent on 16th May of this year, sums up the position very well. That point was extremely well made in the speech of my noble friend Lord Chandos.
I should like to make clear from the Dispatch Box that the Labour Party is not opposed to PFI in every situation. However, in the present circumstances of the National Health Service it is not in favour of PFI as a substitute for proper capital investment by government and as a possible route to the privatisation of clinical services.
I shall deal immediately with clinical services. The Secretary of State has made clear that clinical services will not be put out to the private sector without the

781
consent of local clinicians. First, it means that the Government are prepared to contemplate in principle the letting out (privatisation) of clinical services. Secondly, it means that that will be done as long as local clinicians consent to it. But patients must also be involved in it. What is to happen to the Patient's Charter if we are to privatise clinical services and only the consent of local clinicians is required?
I turn to the heart of the PFI: the cost of money. At Second Reading in another place on 12th March the Secretary of State made it clear, at cols. 813 and 820 of the Official Report, that 48 schemes costing a total of £225 million in the NHS under the PFI had already gone ahead. Therefore, those schemes must have passed the value-for-money test and got the go ahead without this Bill. It follows that the Government must know the costs which the finance providers are charging without the Bill. They have said that they have already spent the £225 million involved in the projects which have been agreed without the Bill, so they must know the finance costs of those schemes. It further follows that the Government must now be able to negotiate the finance terms after the Bill becomes law. They can look at the proposals as they come forward and the cost of finance included in them with the Bill on the statute book. We know that it is the bankers who want this Bill. As lenders they will now have a government guarantee for their ultimate liability. If a trust or health authority goes broke, or whatever happens, they will be repaid. Therefore, the Government must be able to negotiate the keenest possible rate of finance to be provided when the Bill becomes law. The figures that we heard from my noble friend Lord Chandos throw doubt on that. But that is a fact. If the bankers know that whatever happens they have the finest possible guarantee for their ultimate liability, surely the Government must be able to negotiate a keen rate. There is a simple question which I am sure the Minister will be happy to answer. What is the cost of finance without the Bill, and what is the cost of finance with the Bill?
If I go to a bank and borrow today, the keenest rate I can obtain for lending, secured on, say, agricultural land, is 1 per cent. over base rate. In the calculations for the PFI, what are the carrying costs of the money which are being included, which has, as I said, a government guarantee against risk? It is a simple question. If the Minister is unable to provide the answer, our worst fears will be realised. To put it another way, as other speakers have done, exactly who carries what risk and for how much?
A further question arises. What are the residual arrangements at the end of these agreements? Normally, on a finance lease, the property reverts to the borrower at the end of the lease for a nominal sum. Do the Government intend to negotiate similar arrangements for the NHS PFI? What are the residual arrangements at the end of these agreements? Who gets the property?
I have to say in the nicest possible way that a Secretary of State who did not know that the NHS trusts had the power to borrow is likely to be something of a pushover when it comes to hard financial negotiations.
782
So where are we with the NHS PFI? The Evening Standard put it extremely well on 10th May in its pink financial section:
"The Private Finance Initiative could never be deemed one of the Government's greatest successes. It has been plagued by the worst excesses of civil-servanthood: delays, obfuscation, abrupt changes of plan and startlingly few completed projects".
It is the Evening Standard and not the Labour Party saying that, although we agree of course. The article continues:
"The Health Service has not been immune to these setbacks but it has a separate problem all of its own. This little difficulty cuts to the very heart of private finance in the State sector, exposing fundamental flaws in the way the Government proposes to fund its plans".
The article goes on to state that the bankers are saying that the funding mechanisms employed by NHS trusts and authorities are not compatible with long-term loans. Most trusts take on contracts with purchasers, which run for between one and five years, but we know that the trusts will be seeking much longer terms for their PFI agreements. We all know that borrowing long to operate short is a sure route to Carey Street, except in the case of the NHS PFI at the end of Carey Street will be the welcoming arms of the taxpayer, if the trust ever gets there.
However the Evening Standard had it wrong in its final paragraph when it stated:
"But banks will need more reassurance before they are prepared to risk their capital to fulfil the Government's ambitions. Eurotunnel can never be far from any banker's mind".
Eurotunnel is the wrong analogy, but a first-class warning. If Eurotunnel had been financed on the same terms as proposed for the NHS PH, it would be the taxpayer who would be picking up the £8 billion overrun costs and not, as it is now, the consortium of lenders. The Government and the banks have both learnt a lesson from Eurotunnel. Unfortunately the bankers appear to be quicker and shrewder learners than the Government.
Only this morning at a meeting of trustees—not to do with the Bill—it so happened that one of the other trustees present was the chairman of one of the largest building firms in the country. I happened to mention in passing that this afternoon I would be dealing with the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill. It is as well for the Minister that she was not present to hear his reaction. Naval language would be the politest way that I could put it. He said that the PFI in that company's case—it is a substantial household name in building—had led to delay, confusion and substantial extra costs with a substantial reduction in its hospital building programme.
Perhaps I may return to the point made by my noble friends Lord Chandos and Lord Monkswell regarding the PSBR. It seems to me that the Government are taking on what an auditor would call contingent liability. What are the Treasury rules on that? Do the Government intend to include a note to the national accounts as any auditor would, which would spell out that contingent liability? It will be interesting to see how the masterminds in the Treasury draft the appropriate note. If it is not to be included in the PSBR, there should

783
be some indication of the contingent liability that the Government are taking on. I never thought the day would come when I would see a British government indulging in financing off the balance sheet, which is the term usually used.
An interesting point arose in the speech of my noble friend Lord Desai: what about the university medical schools? He said that the universities are not protected in the way that the NHS will be. They have no protection. Is it correct that if a university were to go broke the Government would not be standing behind the liabilities as they will with the Bill? If there were a medical school in that university, how would it be affected?
Finally, we heard this afternoon in the Statement on BSE made by the Prime Minister and repeated in this House, that we have now wheeled out the heavy artillery with regard to Europe. We are going to hold up the convention on insolvency. Will that have any effect on the PFI?
Far from being the sound money government that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, espoused as Prime Minister, I fear that we now have a profligate government who are happy to adopt live now and pay later policies. There is a simple reason for that which has been referred to by a number of speakers. They know that they will not be there to pay the reckoning. As with so many other aspects of policy, it is a Labour government who will have to deal with the problem.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Now answer that!
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall endeavour to answer that. I am grateful to all noble Lords for having taken part in the debate and for the way in which today's proceedings have been marked by sensible discussion on the merits of the Bill. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who paid a tribute to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harris. I know that my noble friend is the chairman of a go-ahead and thrusting company called Carpetright. I can assure him that he does not get just his business affairs right, but also the business of this House.
Your Lordships will know that the Bill is about proper and prudent management of the health service. It seeks to ensure that patients continue to receive the services they need and that those who contract with the NHS can do so with absolute certainty. They need to be confident that the contractual liabilities of certain NHS bodies which become defunct will not merely die along with the defunct body.
I gained the impression from the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Robson, that all was well with capital schemes in the past. But the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who is a distinguished former regional chairman, will remember that year on year the NHS transferred capital to revenue. Capital funds, although available, were not used. Why? Because of the red tape. It is well known in the NHS that it took
784
20 years to build a hospital. Many of the schemes overran, despite the measures outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. With PFI, that will not be the case. With a private partner there is a real incentive to get on with schemes.
As noble Lords will be aware, and as I said in my opening remarks, there is £1.5 billion of schemes in the pipeline. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, suggested that PFI in the NHS is failing, but, as she stated, the Labour Party supports in principle a private-public partnership. That view was endorsed by other noble Lords on the Opposition Benches. So I am sure that she and those noble Lords will be pleased to know that some 54 schemes have been approved since the launch of the PR, bringing in private sector capital worth nearly £0.5 billion. A further 40 major schemes, each over £10 million, with a total capital value of over £1.5 billion, are testing private finance options as part of the PFI procurement process. Last month the Secretary of State for Health gave the go-ahead for the biggest ever private finance venture in the NHS at the Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust and for a major hospital rebuilding project at the Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked for a definition of clinical services.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are aware of the exciting proposals within the NHS/PFI agreements. However, have any of the contracts to which she referred in relation to the specific hospital building programmes been signed? If they have been signed has any building work been started?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am in a quandary on this issue because on the one hand I detect a sense of impatience on the Benches opposite but on the other I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who so wisely reminded us that it would be unwise to rush through the approval processes and the singing of the contracts simply to demonstrate the success of the initiative. We believe that there is a case to go forward with caution. As I said, the schemes are in the pipeline and I am sure that in time many of them will be signed.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. Is the answer to my question, no?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I explained carefully to the noble Baroness that a balance must be struck. She is right to say that not a single specific hospital buildings contract has yet been signed but I am right to say that there are many in the pipeline. I subscribe to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that it would be unwise for us to rush through the approval processes merely to demonstrate the success of the initiative. Noble Lords opposite would criticise us most severely for doing so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked about the definition of clinical services. She sought a definition of what constitutes a clinical service and a clear statement on a number of clinical specialisms. The division

785
between occupational groups which provide clinical and clinical support services, as she will know from her close contacts with the NHS, is becoming increasingly blurred and can vary from organisation to organisation. The concept of a recognised healthcare professional is evolving as new forms of therapy become accepted in clinical practice.
The noble Baroness also asked about the privatisation of clinical services. I remind her that it is no part of the Government's policy through PFI to transfer the delivery of NHS clinical services into the private sector. By sub-contracting responsibility for design, construction and operation of the building, support services and other supporting facilities, an NHS trust allows itself to concentrate on the efficient provision of high quality clinical services. However, if a trust explores local arrangements for private sector provision of some clinical and clinical support services we would not stand in its way. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is a matter of local determination and it cannot be carried through without the support of clinicians. If a PFI project is submitted for approval and its viability depends on the privatisation of clinical or clinical support services which does not have the consent of local clinicians it would not receive departmental backing.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for her clear answers. Will the patients be consulted if it is decided to privatise or to let out the clinical service contracts?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we believe that the running of trusts is up to the trust boards. The noble Lord will be aware that trusts work closely with community health councils which, I am sure, will want to listen to what the general population has to say. However, in the end it must be the decision of the trust or of the department if it falls within the parameters I have mentioned.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Robson, were concerned that PFI is replacing capital expenditure. The great benefit to the NHS in developing the opportunities given by PFI is that the private capital involved in this way is additional to that which can be obtained from public funding sources. The PFI allows a much greater number of major projects to proceed. As I pointed out in opening the debate, the capital programme for this year is £1,542 million.
The noble Baroness asked whether PFI removes the role of government in setting NHS priorities. We need to look at that in the context of a local devolved health service. If it is for local health authorities to set their priorities in their strategic purchasing plans and for local trusts to respond to that plan by coming forward with proposals for capital investment if those are needed for it to fulfil the requirements of the plan. However, it is
786
important not to ignore the fact that there is a substantial continuing publicly funded capital programme of £1,542 million for the current year.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is it purely coincidence that the emphasis on PFI comes together with a reduction of 16.8 per cent. in the capital grant?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I explained earlier, it is ridiculous to set aside whole sums of money which cannot be spent. That has been the tradition of the National Health Service. When I was a regional chairman almost every year we transferred capital to revenue. Therefore, it would be foolish to earmark the money for capital expenditure when it cannot be spent. Clearly, the PFI and the allocations made for capital expenditure must be seen in tandem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was concerned that PFI will be expensive for health authorities in the future. All schemes must be affordable to the purchasing health authorities which must be able to provide through contracts with the trusts the funding that the trusts need to pay a PFI partner. The affordability criterion is very important in the approvals process and helps to ensure that the health service is not committed to expenditure it cannot meet.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, raised the issue of morale. I can never remember a time when detractors of the NHS did not say that morale was low. I cannot accept that it is at an all-time low. I do not believe that people would be working so hard, that there would be more people treated, that GPs would be doing more sophisticated work and that nurses would be taking on an extended role if morale were low. And I do not believe that so many young people would want to enter the healthcare professions.
PFI makes a difference, although the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested that it does not. Only this morning I opened a new £1.8 million health centre. Almost every week I or my ministerial colleagues open wards, units, clinics, surgeries and departments. Although it is people who, in the end, matter with their professional skills, knowledge and commitment, buildings also have an effect on the way in which they work. We believe that the PFI and its train of new fabric and new buildings will help them to do their jobs better.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, from first-hand experience, vividly accounted the need to run hospitals and other healthcare facilities efficiently and well. Good management clearly affects the quality of care given to patients and that also raises morale. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who clearly listened so carefully to the noble Lord's well-informed maiden speech, will agree that there are many ways to raise morale, not least through enlightened leadership.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked for a definition of liability. The term "liabilities" in the Bill refers to the term as used in the Secretary of State's existing statutory powers to transfer property, rights and liabilities. Those are listed in paragraph 7 of the Notes on Clauses. If it would be fair to summarise a liability as an obligation enforceable at law.

787
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the use of the negative resolution procedure. Since the introduction of direct rule it has been normal practice to legislate for Northern Ireland by way of Order in Council in respect of the transfer of matters. They are those areas for which if there were a Northern Ireland Assembly the body would legislate. The Government recognise that the Order in Council procedure is not ideal but in the circumstances of direct rule it is the only practical way of dealing with the majority of Northern Ireland legislation. If it were possible to create a local administration with legislative powers in Northern Ireland locally elected politicians would have greater scope to debate and decide legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was concerned about the reaction of the private sector to PFI. If it is our view that at the end of the day the Secretary of State needs to retain his existing powers to organise the National Health Service as he thinks fit. If it would not be right to allow some outside body, however closely involved with the NHS, to make such decisions or to be able to require the Secretary of State to dissolve a trust. Perhaps I may add that no Secretary of State has ever ratted on a debt. Officials have held a number of meetings with firms on that issue and they have been helpful. I should be happy to follow that up if the noble Lord has further suggestions.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was also concerned about out-sourcing and market testing which he said can cause difficulties. I am aware that as a result of market testing of non-clinical services it is estimated that since 1993 the NHS has saved £1 billion. The improved value for money achieved has released additional resources for direct patient care. I agree that where it is not successful there must be an opportunity for the NHS to take back the service. Indeed, we have some examples of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, again raised the issue of the Wessex region. Your Lordships will be aware that earlier this afternoon I paid tribute to the noble Lord for his vigilance on the issue. But the noble Lord goes too far in suggesting that a former chairman and chief executive of the NHS should be "doing porridge." I think those were his words. The noble Lord has qualified privilege in your Lordships' House but those allegations are quite disgraceful and false. The noble Lord knows that the police were involved. The authority was totally open. Inquiries were held within the NHS and there were also in-depth investigations through Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee. 'Those who transgressed were disciplined. To defame others who were not found guilty and were not prosecuted is unworthy of the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked also about irregular payments in the Yorkshire RHA. Any suggestion of misuse of public funds is a matter for great concern and should be investigated fully. That has been done in respect of Yorkshire and in his report the Comptroller and Auditor General acknowledges the prompt and decisive action taken by Alan Langlands, the chief executive of the NHS Executive, in setting up an inquiry to investigate those matters.
788
I agree with the noble Lord that it is right that the public and Parliament should expect the highest standards of probity and public accountability in the NHS. We have sought to achieve that. Since those incidents occurred, the NHS has issued codes of conduct on accountability and openness. The codes are mandatory on all NHS boards and compliance is a condition of appointment for both executive and non-executive board members.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked when a hospital or NHS body ceases to exist. All the NHS bodies covered by the Bill are creatures of statute. They can be established only by statutory procedure and can cease to exist only by statutory procedure. Existing NHS Acts lay down the means whereby those bodies can cease to exist. There are no other means by which they can do so. There is nothing sinister about that. It is a matter of language. The 1990 Act gives the Secretary of State power to dissolve NHS trusts. The 1977 Act, as amended by the 1995 Act, talks about abolishing health authorities. "Ceases to exist" is merely a phrase which covers those actions in plain English. While I respect the noble Lord's greatly deserved reputation as a respected economist, I can tell him that yes, we have thought through those issues.
The PFI is about harnessing the skills of the private sector to improve hospitals and healthcare facilities from which dedicated NHS doctors, nurses and other clinicians provide high quality health care. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that the NHS is not for sale and NHS services will continue to be available on the basis of clinical need, largely free at the point of delivery. That applies as much to volunteers as it does to staff.
In fact, this Bill reinforces the position of trusts as part of the NHS structure. Private finance makes little or no difference to the basis on which health care is provided. There is no impact on responsibility for the provision of health care which remains with the Secretary of State as before other than that it may be easier to obtain redress against the poor delivery of those services which support the NHS. There is no impact on patients in relation to accessing health care other than improving facilities and those facilities will he realised more quickly. There is no cost impact on patients other than that the same services will cost less for taxpayers who are, of course, patients too. And there is no impact on clinical activities which can continue to be provided by NHS staff other than that they take place in a better environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, were concerned about the potential costs caused by the Bill. It was suggested that the Bill would result in significant extra expenditure for the Government. But that is really not the case. As the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum makes clear, any additional expenditure occasioned by the Bill is likely to be negligible. The reason is that in all places where NHS trusts have been dissolved, property, rights and liabilities have been transferred on dissolution. In fact, it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would walk away from liabilities to contractors, staff and patients. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that

789
the Bill does not require the Secretary of State to meet those liabilities at the time at which the body ceases to exist but ensures that they are transferred to another body which can continue the obligation. Thus, the liabilities do not actually become a charge to the Consolidated Fund or moneys voted by Parliament until they need to be paid.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, were concerned that the Bill removes the risk for the private sector. It was suggested that the provisions of the Bill undermine one of the principles of the PFI which is that of risk transfer. That is to misunderstand the situation. It is one of the central principles of PFI that the risks should be borne by those who are best placed to manage them and their consequences. The Bill seeks to ensure that private sector partners will not be left high and dry following, for example, the dissolution of a trust in any future NHS reorganisation. It does not in any way affect the many and varied types of risks which will be borne by the private sector under PFI.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I am afraid that a number of noble Lords on this side of the House do not understand the Minister's explanation of how, if the Government will act as lender of last resort or guarantor of the obligations of the NHS trust, it leaves any risk with the counterparts who contract with those trusts. They have a government guarantee on those obligations.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the private sector cannot have it both ways. It is seeking some confirmation that the Government will not rat on their obligations and yet the noble Viscount suggests that there is not sufficient risk.
I turn to the question of the relationship between the PFI and the PSBR. PFI contracts are treated in the same way as other public spending. The impact on expenditure plans for the PSBR occurs as and when the public sector spends money. That is because PFI is about buying services. Until we buy those services, we spend no money.
The noble Viscount suggested also that the capital cost of PFI schemes should be scored as public expenditure up front. But that would be wrong since the capital spending is by the private sector. But we illustrate the scale of public sector capital spending under the PFI in Table 6.5 of the Red Book.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked specific questions about the costs of borrowing. But that is only half the story. History shows that large tracts of the economy perform better in the private sector than in the public sector because the private sector is able to use resources more efficiently with the result that although capital costs are higher, total project costs are lower.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand the point which the Minister makes about relative efficiency. I asked a simple question. The noble Baroness said earlier that the Bill gives the ultimate lender that absolute guarantee. Two £25 million schemes were
790
undertaken without the Bill. The Government have now obviously been able to negotiate a keener rate in the contracts as a result of that. What is that rate?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I suspect that it will alter according to the scheme. I need to look at the detail of that and I shall write to the noble Lord. However, as I said, I believe that that is only half the story. Our experience has been that when public companies, public concerns, are privatised, they flourish and do better because the private sector is able to use resources more efficiently.
The noble Lords, Lord Rea, Lord Winston and Lord Dean of Beswick, were concerned about the high limits on trust borrowing. I assure them that the Treasury has set out very strict delegated limits on approval for the business cases which, in usual Treasury form, are not over-generous. I shall not go through them this evening because time is pressing but I shall write to noble Lords.
This Bill is designed to ensure that in the event of general or local health service reorganisation where a trust is dissolved or a health authority or an FHSA is abolished no liabilities would simply be extinguished. It gives security to all those who contract with the NHS and paves the way for the continued development of the PFI in the NHS to the benefit of patients and taxpayers alike.
Lord Winston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—with the greatest personal respect that I have for her—I feel she has made what I think is a deeply defamatory remark. I hope that she will retract it. She implied that I was a detractor of the National Health Service. I have given 30 years of my professional life to the health service. My team has raised literally millions of pounds towards the health service and I remain totally committed to it, as do all the Members of the House on this side. What we are trying to do is to sort out the difficulties which have been created successively by this Government over 17 years. I find it incredible that having raised eight specific points the Minister has been unable to answer any of them.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it has never been my intention to cause offence to any Member of your Lordships' House. If I have done that I certainly apologise. I am just very concerned when people go on and on about the NHS, the low morale, the poor pay, the this, the that, and the other. For people in the NHS it is demoralising when they are told that they are poorly paid, that they have bad conditions, that the NHS is going to the dogs, and that the principle is being eroded. I visit the NHS. I go round the whole country. I am not just in one institution. I travel throughout the whole country. I have to say that morale differs. I did not say that it was not low; I said that it was not at an all-time low. I want to defend the NHS and to say that if people are detractors of it and if they talk about low morale, that affects not only those working in the NHS but also those who want to join it because no one wants to join a sinking ship.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I must speak on behalf of

791
my noble friend and say that today the person who has discussed the state of the NHS, in the words that the Minister has just used, is the Minister herself. Everyone who has spoken from these Benches has referred to the need to improve the facilities in the NHS; to support the Private Finance Initiative where it is appropriate; and to hope that the NHS will be improved in this way. We are concerned that this Bill—as I think we have demonstrated in speech after speech with absolutely no support from the Minister's own side except the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham—will not achieve any of those aims.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is a view the noble Baroness can take. However, I have to say that it was not I who raised the issue of morale this afternoon; it was the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived;
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 13th May), Bill read a third time and passed.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
6.52 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill seeks powers to construct a new high speed railway from the Channel Tunnel to London, the first new mainline railway in this country for a century. It is a project of major national significance which will provide a high speed link with the rest of Europe. The competition for a private sector partner to build and operate the new railway was successfully completed in February this year with the selection of London and Continental Railways. The completion of the Bill will be the last major public step for this flagship project of the Government's private finance initiative. With timely Royal Assent, the rail link should open in the year 2003.
The Bill provides powers for the construction, operation and maintenance of the link between a new international terminus at St. Pancras and the Channel Tunnel. It also includes powers for associated works, including a connection to provide access to Waterloo international station, connections to other lines, provision in outline for a station at Ebbsfleet and the alteration to St. Pancras station, including advance works for the Thameslink 2000 project to enhance the capacity of that cross-London railway. The Bill contains powers for an open box shaped cutting at Stratford, of a size to accommodate a combined international and domestic station there, although the powers to turn this into a station will be sought separately. The Bill also provides powers to widen the A.2 at Cobham and the M.2 between junctions 1 and 4.
The main reason for embarking on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project was the forecast need for extra capacity for international passenger trains in several
792
years' time. The new railway will more than double the capacity for Eurostars, and it will achieve much more besides. It will cut journey times substantially; enable new express domestic services to be provided for north and east Kent, which is an area that currently has particularly slow services; increase overall capacity for freight trains through to the Channel Tunnel; boost regeneration in the Thames Gateway through new stations at Stratford and Ebbsfleet; and assist in spreading benefits to the Midlands, north and Scotland through excellent access, notably to the west coast main line.
Journey times for Eurostars from London St. Pancras will be cut by over half-an-hour compared with the current services from Waterloo. Paris will be two hours 20 minutes away and Brussels two hours for non-stop services. The time reductions for regional and Scottish services will be as much as an hour when these services start in the not too distant future. For example, the Birmingham to Paris service will be a little over four hours under the LCR's plans when the rail link opens. The reductions will increase the area of the country for which overall journey times will be competitive with air travel.
Up to eight high speed domestic services per hour will use the new line in the morning and evening peaks and the journey time reductions to London are remarkable: Gravesend would take 20 minutes rather than 50 minutes and Ashford 40 minutes rather than 75 minutes. Some 25,000 commuters from north and east Kent will benefit. The rail link is primarily a high speed passenger railway but it will have a freight capability. Two freight loops and a connection to the existing freight inspection facility at Dollands Moor have been provided in the Bill and an undertaking has been given that they will be built. The rail link will increase overall rail capacity to the Channel Tunnel, which will provide more room for future growth in demand. This is an important regional benefit. with so much of the demand for international freight through the Channel Tunnel arising beyond London.
The route for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was chosen especially to foster regeneration in the Thames Gateway area. We expect to see considerable regeneration benefits as a result of the decision to locate international and domestic stations at Ebbsfleet, Stratford and St. Pancras. Investment will be attracted to the areas served by the stations, bringing jobs to areas where they are particularly needed. It has been estimated that the regeneration benefits created will be worth at least £½ billion, with development being attracted to some 1,300 acres of derelict or underused land. These benefits cannot, of course, be gained without some environmental impact. It would be astonishing if a 68-mile railway running through Kent, Essex and London could avoid generating significant impacts. But the time taken to develop the CTRL project has been well used to produce the optimum route, always taking careful account of environmental impact.
In 1991 the Government selected a broad corridor to approach London from the east after considering the results of a lengthy comparative study of the four main options. This broad route was chosen as it had less

793
environmental impact and created more opportunities for regeneration, even though it was more costly, than the originally proposed southerly approach route. The easterly route was then refined by comparing and sifting all the possible local route variations, taking account of environmental appraisals and soundings with the local authorities. Union Railways presented the major options to the Government and in March 1993 a route for public consultation was published. In January 1994 the route was confirmed, with some enhancements. Further work was commissioned on two sections of the route that caused acute local concerns. Following this work the route for consultation was changed further to produce the route that was incorporated in the Bill on introduction in November 1994.
The process of route selection was very thorough, with proper public consultation, and with comparative environmental appraisals produced at every stage. For every mile of route selected, nine miles were rejected.
A full environmental statement was produced by expert consultants to accompany the Bill at introduction. That statement identifies significant impacts and the options for mitigation. It is a remarkable document in terms of its scope and quality for a project of this size.
The route was then considered by the Select Committee in another place and important changes were made. Supplements to the environmental statement have been produced for each change. Taking those route changes into account, around 25 per cent. of the route is now in tunnel and 85 per cent. is either in tunnel or follows existing transport corridors. I think that it can be fairly claimed that the route before your Lordships' House has been painstakingly produced and has developed into maturity. It is unlikely that there is any reasonably achievable option for a section of the route which has not at some stage been studied and rejected and had the reasons for this explained.
As I have said, the Select Committee in another place made certain locally significant changes to the route for the protection of petitioners. By significant changes I means changes outside the Bill limits which required additional provisions entailing fresh plans and environmental assessments and a further round of petitions. The most important changes were extending the long tunnel in London for a further two-and-a-half miles from Barking to Dagenham; lowering and moving the railway where it runs close to the Mardyke Park housing estate in Thurrock; and changes to reduce the impact of the approach to St. Pancras. The Government accepted all of these changes—seeking only to optimise them—at an additional cost of more than £100 million. That is a substantial sum even for a project of this size. The committee also considered and rejected other changes in the route, notably a long tunnel at Boxley near Maidstone.
It will be for the Select Committee of this House, under the proposed chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthil I, to decide whether it wishes to propose further route changes requiring additional provisions. The Government's clear advice is that the committee should not seek additional provisions. This is for two main reasons. First, the route is already of a high
794
environmental standard in terms of alignment and mitigation, with extensive use of tunnels that have added considerably to the cost of the project. Secondly, promoting additional provisions would cause significant delay and difficulty to the Bill. It would take a number of months to prepare designs, draw plans, undertake environmental assessment and then reopen petitioning. However, it will be for the committee to decide.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I now briefly describe the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and A.2/M.2 widening projects and the content of the Bill. The 68-mile long rail link starts at St. Pancras, which will be refurbished and the deck extended to accommodate the long Eurostars and the new domestic trains as well as existing trains that use St. Pancras. Underneath this deck a new station for Thameslink would be provided as an advance work for the Thameslink 2000 project that has recently been given the go ahead by the Government. The rail link route then crosses the railway lands before entering a long tunnel. Outside the Bill, London and Continental Railways propose to seek the powers for a twin track connection to the North London line that will enable more trains to run through to the west coast main line bypassing St. Pancras.
The tunnel emerges at Stratford in a long, box shaped cutting and powers will be sought separately to turn this into a new international and domestic station. LCR envisages that trains running through to the west coast main line will call at Stratford as the stop in London. Returning to tunnel, the route does not surface until Dagenham, where it runs by the existing Tilbury Loop railway and passes under the QEII bridge before entering a tunnel under the Thames. The route then runs through the Ebbsfleet Valley where there will be an international and domestic station and a connection from the north Kent line. At Gravesend a disused line will be reinstated to provide a connection to existing lines for Eurostars serving Waterloo. The route then follows the A.2/M.2 corridor, crossing the Medway on a high viaduct before entering tunnel under the North Downs. The route emerges to run through the Boxley valley so that it can then take up the M.20 corridor. Approaching Ashford, the route departs from the M.20 so that it can run into the town and serve the recently opened international passenger station. The route then regains the alignment of the M.20 and the existing railway all the way to the Channel Tunnel terminal at Cheriton.
The Bill also includes a widening scheme for the A.2/M.2 between Cobham and Junction 4. For majority of its length, this road improvement will be adjacent to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The Government agreed to the request of the local Member of Parliament, supported by the local authorities, to include the road improvement in the Bill because this will facilitate simultaneous construction and enable the combined impacts of the two projects to be considered. An environmental statement for the widening scheme accompanied the Bill at introduction and it, too, is a thoroughly professional assessment produced by independent consultants. There is also an assessment of the combined effects of the road and rail schemes.

795
Part I of the Bill deals with the rail link. It grants compulsory acquisition powers to the Secretary of State, with the powers to construct, maintain and operate the authorised works vested in a nominated undertaker. After Royal Assent, the intention would be to appoint London and Continental Railways as the nominated undertaker for the rail link works. There is a special planning regime and local authorities can opt for greater powers to deal with detailed matters where they adopt a planning memorandum that is being prepared with the benefit of two years' consultation with them. While there are some things that cannot be directly controlled within the Bill limits, such as the alignment of the railway, the extra powers available to qualifying authorities are unusually wide. There are also special heritage arrangements, again with agreements associated with the Bill. Part I also establishes a regulatory regime for the rail link and makes provision in respect of competition and finance.
Part II of the Bill provides for the widening of the A.2/M.2 as I have outlined. Part III has various miscellaneous provisions.
There are four particular matters on which it may assist the House if I say something more: heritage; property purchase and compensation; the competition and public financial support; and the relationship of the CTRL competition with the Bill.
First, as regards heritage, the rail link will undoubtedly have a substantial heritage impact in the St. Pancras area. I do not say this defensively, because I think that the nation's heritage will be greatly enhanced by the creation at St. Pancras of a 21st century railway use for such a fine 19th century, Grade I listed railway building. The train shed will be refurbished and the presence of an international station will create the conditions under which the Chambers—that is the Victorian hotel frontage to the station—can benefit from being brought back into some productive use. Some Grade II listed gasholders in the vicinity have to make way for the deck extension to the station to be built, but even so this loss is more than compensated for by the gain to the Grade I station. At this stage I shall not go into the requirements which the Government have imposed on London and Continental Railways, nor the controls over details that have been provided, but if petitioners raise concerns, these are matters that the Select Committee might examine.
The second matter is property purchase and compensation. The rail link will in fact require a very small number of homes to be taken and these properties qualify for voluntary purchase now. There is also a discretionary purchase scheme for properties that are not taken but are seriously affected and where hardship arises. The contentious issue is in relation to properties that do not qualify for purchase but for which there is a perception—not necessarily rationally based—that they will be seriously affected by the rail link. The Select Committee in another place viewed this as a wider issue and the Government agreed in the light of the committee's concerns to review the scope, cause and effect of blight arising during the various stages of major infrastructure projects and to consider whether
796
any practical changes can be made to the existing arrangements for property purchase and compensation. Furthermore, the Minister for Railways and Roads in another place has given an undertaking that any changes introduced to the compensation code as a result of the review will be given effect in respect of blight arising from the rail link.
The third matter is the relationship of the competition and public financial support. In February, London and Continental Railways won the competition for the private sector partner to design, build and operate the £3 billion CTRL project. The contractual details are contained in a development agreement; copies of an explanatory memorandum on the development agreement have been placed in the Library. The Government's financial contribution has a present value of £1.4 billion, which will be paid in instalments towards the end of the construction period after LCR has met at least 68 per cent. of the construction costs itself. Certain assets will be transferred that sensibly form part of the CTRL, notably European Passenger Services. This company runs the Eurostar international passenger services which are currently loss making but to which LCR can apply its expertise to bring into profit. The proportion of the capacity of the rail link reserved for domestic services will be purchased from LCR for some £340 million and these services will be franchised in due course. Land for redevelopment at St. Pancras and Stratford will also be transferred. LCR will also inherit the expertise of Union Railways, which has acted as the Government's agent and will continue to do so for the duration of this Bill. I would like to pay tribute to Union Railways for the way in which it has brought the project from its difficult early stages to the mature undertaking that we are considering today.
This leads me to the fourth matter: the relationship between the Government's selected private sector partner, London and Continental Railways, and the CTRL Bill. A huge amount of design work has been undertaken to produce the Bill design which is assessed in the environmental statement, but the final level of design, the construction design, has not been produced as yet. This will be for LCR to undertake, mostly after Royal Assent, working within the limits of the powers contained in the Bill. The consequence of this is that it is not possible to be specific at this stage about construction design details.
Instead, arrangements have been established to enable details to be dealt with later. Most importantly, in carrying out construction design work LCR is required not to worsen materially the assessed environmental impact. In addition, there are several hundred specific undertakings and assurances which LCR is bound to discharge and qualifying authorities will have detailed controls provided by the planning clause and various associated agreements. This regime compensates for the lack of detailed construction design today, which is an occasional but unavoidable source of concern for petitioners. It is to these specifically designed arrangements for dealing with detailed matters that petitioners can look for their protection.

797
The Bill and the 293 petitions that were deposited by the closing date of last Friday will now be considered by a Select Committee. This is an onerous burden and the House will share my gratitude to the seven noble Lords who have offered to serve. I am particularly grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, has indicated his willingness to accept nomination as chairman. The House will know that he has already been a distinguished chairman of two hybrid Bill committees, including the Channel Tunnel Bill in 1987. His unrivalled experience and expertise will be invaluable to the committee.
In closing, perhaps I may observe that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is one of the largest and most significant projects undertaken in this country for many years. Indeed, I feel privileged to be opening the debate today. I believe that there is a general feeling that the rail link should now proceed with all reasonable speed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Goschen.)
7.14 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill in general terms and some of its most important elements. I echo his words in giving our support to our Select Committee in this place, led by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. We wish him and his colleagues well. I also wish to put on record our appreciation of the assiduous work undertaken by the Select Committee in another place and of the successes that it was able to achieve. I wish to say how much we appreciate the work of Union Railways and to express our good wishes to London and Continental Railways for coping with the challenging work that lies ahead. Theirs is a daunting but, I hope, rewarding task.
We welcome the Bill and will do nothing to impede its progress through the House. The Channel Tunnel is a stupendous British engineering feat with the French playing an important role as our partners. One can only hope that the rail link will achieve similar distinction. As the Minister described, the potential of the link is that it can and should provide immense advantages for international rail transport between Britain and the mainland of Europe. It is extremely important that it should represent a vital link with the trans-European networks and the development of the single market which is critically tied up with the whole project. The cuts in journey time between London and Brussels and London and Paris will be remarkable. I am sure that some of the first users of the fast link will be my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: And my noble friend Lord Stoddart.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Indeed, my Lords. Perhaps during the course of this long debate we can all compile lists of those who are likely to use the link most assiduously, particularly between London and Brussels.
There are other important cuts in journey time for commuters travelling from some areas of Kent to London each day—for the most part beleaguered
798
commuters at present. Many other benefits will accrue from the Bill, so it is a vital and exciting scheme which is essential to the wellbeing of the country and, I believe, of Europe as well.
I wish also to pay tribute to those who campaigned for the promotion of Stratford as an interchange station. Many of my honourable friends in another place were in the forefront of the campaign, as were Newham council and many others. Their reward will be the benefits accrued for this country as a whole.
However, if I may say so in the kindest way, I thought that the Minister's speech was rather like a Soviet speech. It was not so much a rewriting of history but the omission of salient historical points which I should put on record during the debate. The speech was full of praise for what was going to happen, but what has happened is almost despite the Government's muddle, delays and incompetence. What we might have achieved is the realisation of the benefits far earlier. We have had an inordinate waste of taxpayers' money, the failures, and the inconsistencies of the Government's private finance initiative, much lauded by them. We have had the ideological barriers which were allowed for so long to obstruct progress, the fiasco over compensation for blight which has caused a great deal of heartbreak to many people; the lack of strategic planning by concentrating almost exclusively on the south-east and failing to appreciate that the United Kingdom as a whole should derive benefits from the scheme. Those benefits can flow only from harnessing the strength of the regions, by properly linking them to the objectives of the scheme.
In parenthesis let me add that I am glad to note that London and Continental Railways has made some provision to add to the plans the small but significant link north of King's Cross which would permit a connection to the West Coast main line. But that is not enough. Nor is there any coherent view about the role of high-speed freight traffic. Certainly the Government evince little enthusiasm for it beyond tenuous references to its "possible" development focused on in part by the Bill. Let us remember that it was not so long ago (I cannot remember exactly when) that Mr. Rifkind, virtually on taking office as Secretary of State, pledged the enhanced development of rail freight—regrettably, with little or no effect.
I turn to the delays. At the earliest, the British end of the high-speed rail link will not be completed until 2002. Let us compare that with France, which finished its high-speed link before the tunnel opened; and Belgium will complete its line by 1998. Britain's position could be characterised as "l'escargot anglais"—the British snail. There have been so many changes of mind on the part of the Government. First, they said that there was no need for a dedicated line. Then there were major policy reversals dealing with environmental damage, the nature of the consortium, the question of alignment and, above all, finance. On finance, the Government rejected the possibility of deriving European money, on purely ideological grounds expressed vehemently by the then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. That was because of the need for additionality, for

799
matching finance. The rail link, they thought, could do without any state funding whatever. I shall come to that in a moment.
On 11th June 1990, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, then Secretary of State for Transport, said, that it was,
"illegal for the Government to subsidise any fast tunnel link on the grounds that it would create unfair competition for ships, road freight and airlines".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/90; col. 4.]
Today, with—regrettably—the same Government, the taxpayer bears over 50 per cent. of the financial burden. A vast subsidy is being provided for London and Continental. I shall turn to that later, too.
What should have happened, in our view, was the application of a proper private finance initiative, not the half-baked concept that the Government have invented and which has been ridiculed in so many ways, notably by the construction industry, which finds it burdensome, complex and very difficult to operate. The Minister knows that. He has only to speak to the construction industry to appreciate its point of view. The Minister smiles. I have spoken to the construction industry and I know how it feels. What we really need is a partnership of private and public sector finance, with some sensible government guidelines as to what a national integrated transport policy should be about.
I remember crossing swords for years with the noble Viscount's predecessors. They did not understand what an integrated transport policy was. They have now come round to it. The noble Viscount understands it and the present Secretary of State understands it. But for years they denied that there was any possibility of that. We have had contortions, U-turns and so on.
I now turn to the waste of taxpayers' money. It is intimately connected with the delays—the loss of use for so many years; the humiliating comparison with the development in France and even the pace of development in Belgium. This project could have cost something in the region of £1 billion in 1989. The Government, hidebound by their belief that everything in the public sector is bad, set their face against any public involvement.
Let me turn to the realities of the U-turn and the current and future subsidies. There was not a word about it in the Minister's speech. There is to be a £1.4 billion hand-out; £3 billion worth of taxpayers' assets simply handed over; a £1.3 billion loan write-off for Eurostar; a total of £5.7 billion at least for something we could have had for far less—billions of pounds less—in 1989.
There are plum sites at King's Cross with an existing value of £5.8 million and a development use value of £10.6 million. Stratford is in a similar situation. There are station properties at King's Cross and Waterloo—incidentally, built exclusively with public money. Publicly owned assets are now in the deal that the Government have struck. All of it is public money. There is not a word about that from the Minister in proclaiming the huge benefits that he alleges from this marvellous private finance initiative.
It is all in line with the Railtrack give-away bonanza. An asset valued at £6 billion has been given away for less than half. It is the Government's belief that the
800
milchcow can be raided almost any time they like. They are all in favour of public subsidies, even though not so long ago they were dead against them.
There is also the question of blight and issues of compensation. The Government were condemned by the ombudsman for maladministration. That verdict was confirmed by the House of Commons Select Committee and unprecedently ignored, initially, by the Government. I remember crossing swords with the noble Viscount at the time. The view of the Government was that they were not prepared to accept the verdict of the parliamentary commissioner.
The people concerned, and probably many others in the future, will be involved with environmental disruption, noise nuisance, huge inconvenience, probably substantial losses in property values on the part of some, and certainly a lot of distress for many. The Minister admitted as much, and we have to accept that sad fact in a development of this kind of magnitude. Communities have been, and will be, seriously affected. We cannot dodge that. People will be irate. What they expect is a fair deal. The question is, are they likely to get it against the background that I have just described of the Minister's reaction to the report of the parliamentary commissioner?
That issue was considered in some depth by the Select Committee in the other place. The committee recognised that under current rules compensation would not be payable, as I understand it, save in respect of the use of new or altered works, and not until after the link has begun to operate. Over time such concerns are bound to grow. Members on both sides of another place expressed them very vividly.
Ministers said that people should not be given benefits and then become substantially better off as a result of compensation arrangements. They stated that repeatedly in debates elsewhere. But equally it is wrong that they should be allowed to become substantially worse off through a denial or long-term postponement of compensation.
The Government say that they will act on the report of the inquiry they have currently set up. I hope that is right. I hope they will not try to wriggle out of it. It is no use playing about with mortgage indemnity premiums. That will not be the solution to a lot of these problems.
Another fact is that, under the Bill, the Government pass responsibility for compensation to the undertaker. I suppose that could be fine. But a problem arises if the undertaker suffers a fate similar to that of those who have been engaged so far in the undertaking to Eurostar. Can it be assumed that they will always have the ability to bear the burden? What happens if they cannot do so? One's confidence in ensuring that the issue will be dealt with in an equitable way, is, as I said, undermined by what has happened in the past. I hope that the Government will react very positively when the report is published. Perhaps the Minster could indicate in his reply when that will be.

801
I was also concerned about the response of Mr. Watts, the Minister of State in another place, when Standing Committee A considered this matter on 19th March. In resisting the argument about compensation, he said:
"I do not accept that the project is wholly exceptional".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19/3/96; co1.112.]
I thought that was the whole burden of the Minister's case tonight; namely, that it was wholly exceptional. That is why I am a little worried that the Government may squirm and avoid their responsibilities. Let us hope not. Clearly this is a very exceptional arrangement.
I turn from the question of domestic properties to an issue that has been raised with me and no doubt with other noble Lords about businesses which are likely to be affected by the proposed line. Their needs should not be overlooked. There are three categories to be considered.
First, there are firms seeking alternative accommodation but unable to know when it will be, with a corresponding reluctance on the part of vendors and landlords to deal with such businesses because of the uncertainty of the completion date that will be required and the inability of businesses of that kind to find the purchase price or the rent, or to set up sufficient cash for investment which would follow the move. Amid all that, there is also the very great likelihood of a loss of jobs in consequence. The second category comprises those who will be affected by the inadequacy of three months' notice. I hope that the Select Committee will look at that. In a situation of this kind, three months' notice is hopelessly inadequate. Thirdly, there are those who will be affected by the disturbance when they are forced to remain on the site, trying to continue running their businesses amid huge disturbance and through environmental pollution, dust, fumes, vibration and noise. Are those people able to rely confidently on fair compensation?
The next point that I wish to raise briefly is the position of Crossrail. Is it to be consigned to the scrap heap or will we see it in the year 2010 or 2015? Is there some hope for it or none at all? I remember when Crossrail was much lauded by Ministers at the Department of Transport. That enthusiasm has evaporated recently, presumably under Treasury intervention. But it has already cost £140 million of taxpayers' money since 1988, with another £38 million to go down the drain over the course of the next three years. Ministers should be held to account for the way in which they have squandered that money. It is a project that is now, presumably, under wraps. Yet it could have given greatly improved access to the City and West End and provided better and faster transit for commuters into King's Cross and Stratford, so that people would be less dependent on the car.
Just as mysteriously, the confidence expressed by Mr. Rifkind, the Secretary of State, in the transfer of freight from road to rail has disappeared from the lips of transport Ministers. I recall Sir Alastair Morton's confident assertion in 1993 that the railways planned to transport 3.3 million tonnes of freight through the tunnel in 1995. In reality it was 1.3 million tonnes.
802
We believe that the requirements of freight and passengers for the regions have to be taken fully into account when the high-speed link is built and that it should happen from the beginning. It should not be left as an afterthought. The finished link must have the capacity to deal with increased future flows. Do the Government agree with that? What are they doing to secure that objective?
In conclusion, I want to emphasise that linkage to the regions and maximising their industrial and commercial potential should be an essential part of an integrated transport policy. We want to see regional services joining the high-speed link directly. They must be connected without having to enter the complex web of London's suburban railways. I repeat that it has to be planned from now and not left until the operation begins. Regional passengers should be given every facility to make full use of the high-speed link. After all, as taxpayers they have to pay for it, as I have already demonstrated.
The building of the route should provide for extensions of freight as well as expanding passenger traffic, notwithstanding complaints—echoed when the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made his speech—from the airlines in respect of short-haul flights, and the ferries that it will impact on their businesses. It is a trend that is already emerging in the propaganda from those sources.
The high-speed train should become an important element in attracting more customers to rail from road, thereby securing important environmental gains. Railtrack must also ensure that its track access charging regime will not deter this development. It must not be allowed to drive freight off the railways by rendering them uncompetitive with road, sea and air.
I believe it is right that the history should have been put on record, because it was wholly omitted from the Minister's speech. But, having said that, we wish the Bill well and hope that the project will be a great British success.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I begin with a declaration of interest. The line of rail passes through the parish of Charing in Kent, where I live. It also passes near Leeds Castle, and I am chairman of the charitable foundation responsible for preserving the castle as part of our national heritage. I have an interest too as a citizen of Britain and indeed of Europe who wants to see the high-speed line contribute to a modern 21st century network of European railways. The Channel Tunnel and the strategic rail network that ought to be associated with it is as important to Dundee as it is to Dover.
I was fascinated by the history given by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, of the efforts to establish the line. I share much of his critique of the history of the past few years. But the trouble with history is that it all depends on where one begins. My noble friend Lady Seear reminded me that these Benches, which were purely Liberal Benches in those days, backed the building of the Channel Tunnel at the time that the Labour Government in which I was a Minister were

803
cancelling the project. So we must all have a sense of perspective about these matters. But I join with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis in welcoming the Bill and in offering our best wishes to all those who will be associated with building the railway line.
I know nothing of the mysteries of the Committee of Selection. I fully endorse what the Minister said about the appointment as chairman of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, with his immense experience not only of your Lordships' House generally but of a Channel Tunnel hybrid Bill in the past. I was a little puzzled. There was, however, an earlier hybrid Bill associated with this project—the King's Cross Bill—which came to an abrupt end. I should have thought that there might be some overlap in the membership of the present Select Committee and the one which dealt with the King's Cross Bill because experience of that Bill must be relevant in a number of ways. I know, for instance, that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was the very distinguished chairman of that committee.
I wish to focus particularly on the environmental impact of the line on my own part of Kent. I feel sure that when your Lordships' Select Committee comes to consider these matters it will, in the normal traditions of your Lordships' House, look at each issue with fresh eyes and not feel bound by the actions—or lack of action—of another place.
The Select Committee in the other place did excellent work, but there is still much work to be done. That is particularly true of the rejection in another place on the grounds of cost of a long tunnel to protect the Boxley Valley mentioned by the Minister. The rail link as now planned most commendably follows the existing transport corridors of the A.2/M.2 and then the M.20 for the majority of the route through Kent. But where it switches between the two it passes through the Boxley Valley which is generally accepted as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Many of us, including Kent County Council, campaigned for a long tunnel under Blue Bell Hill and the Boxley Valley to provide maximum protection for that sensitive area. The Select Committee in another place decided that a short tunnel under Blue Bell Hill would be adequate and that cost would not justify a longer tunnel. I hope in due course that there may be second thoughts on that by the Select Committee which we can consider when the Bill comes back to your Lordships' House.
As a fall-back position the county council is now pressing for a lowering of the line to protect the beauty of Boxley Valley. That would greatly lessen the impact of the railway on the nationally designated North Downs area of outstanding natural beauty, the major section of the route where the line departs from the transport corridors. There are big issues attached to that in Kent. The sensitivity of the need to protect that green wedge is exemplified by the fact that, if development were to occur in the area, closing the green lung that now exists between the Medway towns and Maidstone, we would have an urban conurbation in Kent the size of Manchester—and all that in an area still proudly recognised as the Garden of England.
804
While I hope that the issues relating to the Boxley Valley will be reconsidered, at least those who live directly in the valley enjoyed a visit from the Select Committee of another place. In Charing we were not so lucky. The Union Railway itself defined the six kilometres of the line that runs through the Charing parish as an area where the environmental impact of the railway has a Significant Effect of Particular Importance. I emphasise the words because they are now part of the jargon of building the railway line. It is a SEPI area, like Boxley, which is a special category. However, the Select Committee in another place was not able to include a visit in its programme. I hope therefore that your Lordships' Select Committee will feel able to go and study the situation on the ground.
There are two major concerns. The first is the height of an embankment in a particularly pleasant valley through the community of what is called Westwell Leacon; the second is the plan for a freight loop at Charing Heath, which I shall come to in a moment. For reasons which remain obscure to me after long study, the height of the embankment through what is a beautiful valley has been raised to over 10 metres while Kent County Council believes that it should be at least three metres lower. At its proposed height it will be a noisy eyesore over a large area of the North Downs. An unequivocal indication that the vertical alignment should be lowered significantly will be sought by Charing Parish Council in its petition to your Lordships' House. I feel sure that the case will be listened to sympathetically by the Select Committee.
That brings me to the freight loop at Charing Heath which takes out a good deal of land and raises wider issues regarding the validity of the Government's policy on the high-speed line carrying freight. On that issue, as I shall explain in a moment, I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in his conclusions about the freight aspects of the high-speed line. Charing Parish Council received expert advice that the curve of the line is not adequate for carrying freight. That view was supported, albeit back in 1991, by one of the Government's technical advisers, Mr. G. R. Heath, of Maunsell, who concluded:
"The present proposals of the BR Rail Link are not suitable for freight".
The inevitable conclusion appears to be that, with the present curve, there can either be a high-speed passenger line without freight or a combined passenger and freight line with more limited speed—the usual Whitehall compromise of trying to get the best of both worlds. The local concern is that, once the Bill is passed and that consequence is realised, the curves may be amended by exceeding the present parliamentary limits of deviation in ways damaging to the environment and to local homes in Westwell Leacon.
I hope that the Minister, in due course, will give an assurance—perhaps not tonight, but later by letter—that that will not be the case. The worry is that there may subsequently be an order made under the Transport and Works Act, which is a possible procedure. I hope that assurances will be given that once decisions are taken in this respect, the environmental side will be sacrosanct.

805
These are technical matters, and I am a layman. But they deserve the most careful probing by your Lordships' Select Committee. The Government's position is spectacularly ambiguous on the matter of the high-speed line carrying freight. The Minister, Mr. John Watts, said in the debate in another place on 25th April:
"It is a requirement for the link to be built in such a way that freight can run on the line, but it is not a requirement that it shall run on the line".— [Official Report, Commons, 25/4/96; col. 611.]
I do not know what your Lordships make of that remarkable statement. I wonder whether the freight option should be abandoned and the Government concentrate on the best possible high-speed passenger link. It would save a lot of land at Charing Heath, a great deal of disruption no doubt at Singlewell and elsewhere along the line. In that connection I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us the latest position regarding the proposals made by Central Railways for an alternative all-freight line through Kent. That may well be a more rational way to deal with the problem.
I want to raise one or two other points. The first concerns an aspect of the noise problem mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am told that there are new electric locomotives which will help to reduce the noise but that they are sitting idly at Folkestone waiting to be introduced. I hope that the Minister can tell us what the problem is, when we can expect to see them running, and what they may do to help mitigate the noise factor.
There are then matters of compensation to be considered. I do not wish to waste time repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said so succinctly. But I support the proposals made on an all-party basis in another place for an examination by the working party set up by the Government into the question of what might be called a more general blight as distinct from the forms of statutory blight that are subject to compensation. I hope that before the Bill passes from your Lordships' House, we will have the Government's's verdict on that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and hope that it will be a positive verdict.
Finally, I turn to the concerns of farmers and landowners whose land will be required, not only for the line itself but also for the substantial construction operations that will take place. The majority of the land affected will not be required once the railways are running. Landowners and farmers should not lose land permanently when it is only required temporarily. The proper safeguards should be agreed before the Bill finally passes.
In my varied past, among various public appointments I have held, I was once chairman of the Crown Estate Commissioners. I can tell the Minister that the name of Crichel Down is engraved on the heart of anyone who ever served as a Crown Estate Commissioner. It led to the principled but very unfortunate resignation of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, as Minister of Agriculture. I would not want the same thing to happen to any Minister associated with the high-speed line. I hope that the
806
question of the return of land temporarily taken away for public purposes will be looked at very seriously by the Government.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Crook: My Lords, I have had some experience of trying to lay out railways to connect the Channel Tunnel—I refer to the previous attempt which ceased in the early 1970s—so I know the problems involved. I join in congratulating Union Railways on being able to produce a line that will do such little damage to property in terms of so few houses having to be demolished. Perhaps I may say in passing that the road construction business seems to be very much more extravagant in these matters than the railway has.
There has been a good deal of talk about the high speed connection between London and the Continent. However, what has not become apparent either from the document or from the Bill arises in a Written Answer which I have received from the noble Viscount confirming that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is to be built to accept continental rolling stock—provided, I gather, that it does not want to stop at Ashford. That must have had a significant effect on cost. I congratulate all parties on the fact that they are prepared to make a good job of the railway rather than skimp on the costs.
Although the track gauge is the same here as in most of Western Europe—that is why the Eurostar trains can run happily from London through to either Paris or Brussels—continental rolling stock is both higher and wider than the rolling stock which we normally use in this country. Therefore, one needs higher bridges and bigger tunnels. That involves a good deal more expense. None of this is apparent from the Bill. It is all a matter of agreement between the Government and London and Continental Railways. However, in principle all parties could agree to change that so that the railway would be built to the British gauge in order to save money. I would feel a lot happier if the requirement to accept the continental gauge were to be properly set into the Bill so that a change of regime or a change of ideas would not upset this very important feature of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
I support the Government. I wish the Channel Tunnel Rail Link well. I trust it will be built in the way the Government have been contemplating.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I think I am the third resident of Kent to speak, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has at some time been resident in Kent. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, standing up for Kent, with his knowledge of mid-Kent—from Leeds Castle and of Charing.
I differ sharply from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in his criticism of my noble friend's introduction of the Bill. I thought it was a model introduction. He impressed upon the House the national and historical significance of this great project which at last has come to this House in Bill form. Of course many of us would like to have seen it before. I was in favour of the Channel Tunnel in 1973–74. Who wrecked that? The

807
noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, seems to have forgotten his history. History to him is only a convenient tool for making sour remarks—the noble Lord made a nice speech otherwise—about my noble friend. He also has a rather strange position on U-turns. He seems to object to the Government having changed their mind. I am delighted. What does he do when he meets Mr. Blair and talks about Labour Party policy?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not at all upset about the Government having changed their mind. My concern was that they took so long to do so.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has moved his position a little. I have to remind the House that the perfection of a project like this, with all the technical examination that is required, with all the consultation that is required for environmental protection and with all the political and financial points that have to be considered, is bound to take years. The fact that we are meeting the scheme that is really a mid-1990s scheme will in future history be an advantage. We can do things now that we might not have been able to do in 1989. So let us try to count our blessings and not look back at what might have been before.
I wish to speak for a few minutes as a resident of Kent. I realise the national importance of the scheme. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the importance of the link to the regions. I have always been in favour of that. I am delighted at the arrangements made for better links at St. Pancras and so on. I am also delighted at the interest taken in the Midlands, in the north of England, in Scotland and in the west at the progress of the scheme.
In the course of this consultation and in the course of the work that has been done in building it all up, those of us who live in Kent and care deeply for its countryside, care deeply for its economic development and its ability to provide jobs and care deeply, too, for the close relationship of our county with France and Belgium should not miss an opportunity to pay a well deserved tribute to Kent County Council and its leaders past and present as well as to the Members of Parliament for their part in achieving this Bill and in achieving the full consultation that has led to it.
Kent County Council has more to say. I have read its petition and I hope that the Select Committee will listen carefully to what it has to say. It has given some practical advice about the Boxley Valley which I hope will be fully listened to. I agree with others that we should also pay a tribute to the painstaking and very skilled work carried out by Union Railways throughout all these years. I was a witness, at a number of consultation meetings which I chaired in mid-Kent and around Ashford, of its real willingness to listen to the people of Kent. It behaved in a model way.
I have one other thing to say about broad policy considerations in Kent. That is to emphasise the importance of the Kent structure plan, devised, created and maintained by Kent County Council. This new rail track that we are considering today fits perfectly into
808
that structure plan. I believe that the whole of Kent, and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom, should be pleased that Kent County Council is of such a quality and has such ability in creating strategies and structure plans like this. I regret—there may be other occasions on which to say this—that the ideologues in Her Majesty's Government have taken a surgeon's knife to the northern part of Kent. It is regrettable that they should do it. But it is lucky that that surgeon's knife did not operate before the arrangements for the building up of this link.
This Bill seems to me to secure what Kent needs as well as the whole of the United Kingdom. The route is the best for international and domestic traffic. The spin-off benefits for the commuter are secured; the connections with London, the north and the west are provided for; rail freight expansion, with a consequent reduction in the number of large road vehicles, is made possible; and the Channel Tunnel itself has a real chance in the future of paying its way and more. I have to declare an interest in that I am a very small shareholder and I guess that it will be very small in the future. I should have perhaps declared an interest as a resident of Kent, but I believe that I am of an age that the actual enjoyment that I get and the advantages of the new railway will be very limited. But I hope that my children benefit much in future.
Kent has suffered, and will continue to suffer, much disturbance until all the uncertainty has been removed. But wisely and courageously inspired by its county council leaders, the great majority of the residents of Kent now accept that there is not only a national need for the tunnel and a new rail link but that advantages will accrue to them as well. What a change that is from seven years ago when 10,000 Kent citizens marched on London protesting against the tunnel and the link. For that change we should pay tribute to the political leaders in the county of Kent. However, much has had to be fought through to achieve this general acceptance and much smaller things need to be fought through and discussed. I hope that the Select Committee will follow the Select Committee of the other place-1 agree with the commendation given for its work—to limit environmental disturbance generally, but particularly noise disturbance, and to have effective and timely compensation arrangements for those whose homes or businesses are affected.
I have no doubt at all that the highest priority should be given by the House and the Select Committee to getting the Bill on the statute book. I am sure that the Bill will be further improved, but the priority is getting it on the statute book so that work can begin in 1997, as planned, for no one is going to see any benefit at all until the rail link and associated work are completed.
I have a few short, detailed points to make which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, will find helpful. Some important undertakings were given by the promoters to the Commons Select Committee. Some important requests were also made by the Select Committee of the promoters. What is the status of those undertakings and requests? I would like to know that. I recognise that there must be a legal difference between an undertaking given and a clause in the Bill.

809
I realise that some of these undertakings may not he suitable for inclusion in the Bill. I have an unhappy experience of an undertaking being given in a private railway Bill in another place which was later breached to the disadvantage of the residents of Ashford. I hope that in the future there will not be uncertainty about the validity of those undertakings because, under the aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, when he was Chairman of Committees, I was persuaded to drop my protest. These undertakings cover some very sensitive areas, including the village of Harrietsham near where the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, lives and works.
The next point is the height of the rail track and the height of the road, which are relevant to noise. Wherever lowering is not possible, a bund is the next best safeguard. I hope that the Select Committee will pay attention to that because I have a feeling that, as a result of the long consideration given to the Boxley Valley problem, the best practical solution may well be lowering or a bund rather than tunnelling.
My next point of detail is the arrangements to limit disturbance by construction traffic, which I believe was a point made by the noble Lord opposite. They are particularly important in Kent to businesses as well as to residents.
I next come to a point touched on by my noble friend, which I believe is called "perceived blight". An inter-departmental working party has been set up to consider that problem. To whom does the working party report, and when? We would like to know because it is of the greatest importance to the people of Kent. It was announced in answer to a Parliamentary Question asked by my honourable friend Mr. Dunn on 16th March of this year.
The next matter is freight. There are different views about it. I believe that the paramount interest of Kent is to get lorries off the road, so I am in favour of freight on the new line and on the existing line. I realise that the new line may not be suitable for very heavy freight, but I believe that it is suitable for light and medium traffic. I also realise the problem as regards the size of the rolling stock which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned. I believe that there is a problem as regards the Saltwood tunnel if heavy continental rolling stock is put through on the existing line. He will know more about that than I do.
Finally, there is the difficult issue of compensation to those who suffer in their businesses or at home. Delay or unsympathetic haggling will inevitably damage the good will that has been gradually developed. I believe that good will is necessary if the work is to be completed on time. I am not advocating a bonanza, but I am asking for full and timely compensation to be paid and for those responsible to put in sufficient effort to achieve it.
Those are the points that I wish to make to your Lordships. I close by offering my best wishes to the Select Committee, particularly to its chairman, and declaring full confidence in him and his colleagues.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I begin by saying how delighted we are on these Benches to hear the well-deserved tribute by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington,
810
to the county council of Kent which has been controlled, as we all know, by a Labour-Liberal coalition for the past four years. It is good to know that it is doing so well in this field as in many others.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, the noble Lord's history is not quite right. The period is two years.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I accept the adjustment and offer my apologies.
In presenting this Bill the Minister spoke mostly about the route. I wish to speak about another, smaller aspect which the Minister mentioned, but quite cursorily—the possible effect of what is proposed on the grand old architecture at St. Pancras and King's Cross. St. Pancras is perhaps the second most important Victorian building in London after the building in which we sit. That is why I spotlisted it Grade I in 1967. The Bill removes the protection of listed building law from all buildings which are or might be concerned in the development of the proposed railway. That includes the train sheds at St. Pancras and King's Cross, and St. Pancras Chambers, otherwise known as the St. Pancras Hotel.
So our committee will want to look closely at what alternative protection will be possible. Planning and listed building law provides for public inquiries on the basis of which decisions are taken by the Secretaries of State. In the 19th century, before planning law existed, railway Bills went through which gave the proposed works final and absolute permission. There could be no further question, and I suppose it is that phenomenon which gave rise to the expression "railroading". And that inherited privilege, as it were, has continued right up to now, into the age of planning.
Indeed, a different version of the present Channel Tunnel rail project was introduced in Parliament a few years ago, and was withdrawn; that too exempted the proposed works from all planning or conservation permission. But public opinion and common sense have at last caught up, and have resulted in the recent Transport and Works Act, which provides for public inquiries pretty like normal planning and conservation law in the case of railway works. It is, in fact, a sensible modern response to the anachronism of the omnipotent 19th century private or hybrid Bill. When the CrossRail proposal comes back, I understand that it will be under the Transport and Works Act, which is as it should be. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he replies. However, the promoters of the present Bill do not invoke that Act. They and the Government have chosen to go by another route. They are in fact avoiding that Act, and one may legitimately guess that they fear the rigorous scrutiny of normal conservation law in some places and circumstances.
European law requires that a project of this size and scale must be accompanied by an environmental assessment. We should hope that the Committee will look closely at the documents which are submitted with the Bill under the general title of "environmental assessment" or "environmental statement" to see whether they comply with European law and whether they are of the same standard as would be expected in

811
a normal planning inquiry. The documents are provided by the "designated undertaker", to use the appalling jargon of the case, and by consultants presumably paid by the designated undertaker. They are not outside or objective assessments. The real environmental assessment will have to be provided by our committee. In that respect, the committee stands in direct relation to European law, as I understand it.
The environmental statement produced in support of the Bill contains some quite unacceptable parts. The one that I am concerned with is this: it gives no account of the environmental impact of the intended design of the new station buildings at St. Pancras and King's Cross, but only an account of an out-of-date one, the so-called "reference" design, which was no more than a cockshy, and which we cannot assume will bear any particular resemblance to what will actually show up. The document also states that the final design will be,
"up to the standard of Liverpool Street".
Well, that is not really a very high standard. The great shopping centre which has been inserted into the Victorian train sheds there breaks up the unity of those elaborate iron vaults. The vaults at St. Pancras and King's Cross are quite a lot more important, spacious and beautiful than those at Liverpool Street. Anything like that intrusion would be a true disaster in those two buildings. Our committee must insist that what is intended for the station designs should be published. Our committee should make its own judgment, carefully taking advice.
To sum up, the Bill before us exempts this great project from public inquiry under planning and listed building law. It deliberately avoids public inquiry under the Transport and Works Act, and it is not accompanied by an external environmental assessment. The committee of this House has a most arduous task before it. The Government will, of course, back the present hybrid Bill. They have a large financial stake in the project. It is right that all the decisions should therefore be taken in, and by, Parliament as the court of last instance, corresponding to the role of the Secretary of State under normal planning and listed building law. Since all the normal public inquiry procedures are being evaded, Parliament will have to attend to all the submissions and petitions as carefully as would a normal public inquiry—Parliament in the person of its Select Committee—and it will have to demand from the promoters the environmental assessment that is required by European law, or else do it itself.
We must all wish the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, well in that arduous and patient work.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I begin by surprising my noble friend Lord Kennet because he and I have quite often in this House and elsewhere differed on environmental matters for the simple reason that he
812
is a man of considerable sensitivity and he regards me as a barbarian. To a certain extent, he is right in that respect, but I endorse totally—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear what my noble friend said. Did he say that I regard him as a Malthusian or a Marlburian?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I said "a barbarian". Was I right? I do not think that I am a Malthusian although I have tried my best.
I endorse every word spoken by my noble friend. It would be outrageous if the architectural glories of St. Pancras and King's Cross were sacrificed in this matter. It will be extremely difficult to provide a modern extension to St. Pancras which is as fitting as is the extension to Waterloo Station, about which I have certain reservations, but I shall not go into them now.
I welcome the Bill. However, my reservations about it go back quite some time. I think that the proposed railway line is in the wrong place and that this has been unduly delayed. As I have said in the House on a number of occasions, I think that British Rail's preferred route was much better than this one. However, I shall not go into that now because it is all in the past. We must deal with the proposal that is now before us. Indeed, now that we have it and now that some decision has been taken, it is to be welcomed. I do not want to get involved in the politics of this, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who is just leaving us. I will stick entirely to technical matters. (The noble Lord can go, because I will not say any more about him, except to say that I am glad to see him here.)
I welcome the Bill because it appears that, in the fullness of time, we may have something that will be a substantial feat of civil engineering and will give greater realism and authority to the Channel Tunnel as the main route between London and the Continent and, in due course, with any luck, between other regions of the United Kingdom and Continental Europe.
I raise one technical matter on the Bill which I hope the committee will investigate. At this point, the Minister can relax. He need not listen, because I do not expect him to reply to it at the end of the debate. My comments are directed entirely to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and his committee, not the Minister. The Select Committee in another place considered the question of ground-borne noise and vibration in the tunnels to the north and east of London. It is agreed by all that those tunnels have to be designed in such a way as to mitigate the effects of these vibrations on the houses and their occupants located above the tunnels. That is a crucial design question. The local authorities in the vicinity of these two tunnels were alarmed that under the conditions in the Bill they would not be consulted about the detailed design of the rail link in the tunnels. In paragraph 100 of the report of the Select Committee of another place it is said:
"'… the reduction of groundbome noise and vibration is inherently a property of the track design, and since those are not components identified in [schedule 6], it appears to us that the local authorities can be presented at the approval of the works stage with a scheme that is incapable of any further improvement'".

813
Therefore, a detailed scheme is to be presented to them as a fait accompli in respect of which in the earlier stages they have had no satisfactory input.
I do not know whether the local authorities intend to present any further evidence to the committee. They presented evidence to the committee in another place on noise and vibration and methods of designing the tunnel. For the information of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that evidence was discussed on days 42, 43 and 45 of the oral hearings. I do not know to what extent the noble Lord can refer to these, but I hope that he can at least glance at them. He will know the position because he is a very experienced parliamentarian.
There are several solutions to the design problems. The promoters propose that the rail track in the tunnels should be supported on resilient mountings; that is, something like rubber pads under the rail track itself. That is a perfectly reasonable solution. However, the promoters argued that if the local authorities' requirements for noise and vibration standards were to be met as measured in decibels—with which I will not trouble the House because all of them appear in the evidence—a floating track slab might be needed. This is stated in paragraph 105 of the report. Whereas under the promoters' proposals the rubber pads are under the rail track itself, with a floating slab the rail track is supported on a concrete slab which forms a kind of bridge. It is that concrete slab which is supported on resilient bearings on the soffit of the tunnel. Technical problems may arise. Sometimes a slight adjustment to the shape of the tunnel is required. It will certainly be more costly than the other proposal. Nonetheless, the local authorities believe that that will provide a better noise and vibration standard and so less annoyance to inhabitants and ratepayers.
Either of those solutions will work. I believe that the floating slab is a better solution, but I do not advocate one or the other. I am alarmed by what the Select Committee of another place says in paragraph 107:
"Specifically, we cannot in any way recommend the use of an entirely unproven technology like floating track slab for tunnels in London".
Not only is that an extraordinary conclusion for the committee to reach, but I believe that it is mistaken. It may even be wrong. That statement cannot be left unchallenged, if only because the floating slab technique to avoid noise and vibration was first used by British Railways (as it then was) underneath the Barbican concert hall 30 years ago. That technique was proven 30 years ago. For the committee of another place to describe this technique as unproven is pushing it a bit or "coming" it a bit, if I may use the vernacular. It cannot be left on the record that a 30 year-old technique is entirely unproven.
I have the greatest regard for colleagues in another place, but they are not always right. The floating track may solve a serious problem and should not be disregarded. Yesterday I was sent a copy of a letter from a consulting engineer experienced in these matters. He has been engaged in railway construction in places as far afield as Hong Kong. He has said that floating slabs are fully proven in service both for metro and express lines. The speed of the train is not particularly relevant.
814
That appeared to be the committee's guideline in this matter. What is critical to the design is the load. For Channel Tunnel trains the load will not be extraordinary. It will be slightly greater than that to which we are accustomed but not extraordinarily so.
I hope that this project is successful, but I do not want it to proceed on the basis that a proven design solution is regarded as inadequate. I hope that the committee of this House will bear these comments in mind in considering the Bill. I like to see things built, and I have spent most of my life trying to get things built. I go on about it in this House perhaps at tedious length. I hope to see this railway line built even if it is in the wrong place. I do not mind that too much. I want it even if it is in the wrong place. I wish the Bill a fair wind and I wish the construction of the railway line a speedy conclusion.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should be sorry to think that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, lost anyone's interest with the floating slabs. I only regret that I cannot contribute to the floating slab debate.
I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend the Minister on the clear and eloquent way in which he introduced the Bill. This is a colossally exciting project and I have no reservation about the main thrust of the Bill. Indeed, as one of those who has taken advantage of the Channel Tunnel I join those who will be impatient to see it on the statute book as quickly as possible. I join other noble Lords in wishing the Bill well and also the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in the weeks and months ahead.
So as not to waste your Lordships' time, I shall move quickly from placing on record my sincere enthusiasm for this measure to dwelling rather sadly on its defects, as I see them. In doing so, I must at once declare an interest. I am a commissioner of English Heritage, and as such, was party to a decision to petition your Lordships in respect of various concerns it had arising from this Bill as currently drafted.
Those concerns, which I entirely share, relate to the inadequate provisions which have been made to safeguard the remarkable complex of historic buildings which survives at St. Pancras and the railway lands which lie behind the station. Those comprise the finest surviving area of Victorian townscape in London and a site of national importance in terms of its listed buildings and industrial archaeology.
I, like many others, was delighted that St. Pancras was selected as the terminus of the CTRL in January 1994, as it provided a permanent solution to the long-term preservation of the station buildings which arguably form the most important railway complex in Britain, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I, too, accepted, albeit reluctantly, that, given the national strategic importance of the project, in this particular instance a case could be made for the disapplication of normal listed building and planning controls, provided alternative safeguards were put in place.

815
In reaching that conclusion, I was reassured by the environmental appraisal prepared for the then British Railways Board by Union Railways, and subsequently published by the Government, when they announced their decision on the CTRL route and terminus in January 1994. This stated that:
"Five listed buildings would be at risk of demolition and landtake. Demolition is the least favoured option and current plans are to resite or re-use these buildings, where possible. The water tower and gasholders (grade II) are assumed to be reinstated elsewhere in the King's Cross area".
Unfortunately it appears that those earlier commitments to the re-use of those unique structures are now being disregarded. That surely should not be allowed.
The water point is a modest, but unique, structure designed in Gothic style to complement St. Pancras. It is listed grade II, which means it warrants every effort being made to preserve it. No attempt has been made, as far as I know, by Union Railways, or LCR to re-use it, even though that would be entirely straightforward. I am told that the costs of its dismantling and re-erection would be about £350,000, half the cost of re-erecting Yonsea Farm in Kent, for instance, where the principle of dismantling and re-erecting various listed buildings was established by the Select Committee on the Bill in another place. It is difficult to understand why listed buildings at the London end of the route should receive less favourable treatment.
Surely that delightful little building could simply be incorporated into the overall proposals for the new terminus as a kiosk, cafe or waiting room, or even as an operational building. I understand that English Heritage has investigated a solution to show how it could be re-used adjacent to the railway at the rear of St. Pancras churchyard for a variety of possible uses, and that that has the support of Camden Council. Its conversion and fitting out costs could be offset against a Heritage Lottery bid which is in preparation for the churchyard as a whole, as well as SRB funding for the regeneration of the railway lands, to which the Government have committed £37 million.
The triplet gasholders at St. Pancras with their inter-bracing are spectacular examples of Victorian engineering. They are a major listed London landmark of very considerable architectural and industrial archaeological interest. I revisited them only today. They are very remarkable.
It is the great circles of classical columns and lattice work beams which are the gasholders' main architectural interest. And it would be perfectly possible to re-erect them as the framework around a really visionary world-class building of the 21st century. Ideally, such new buildings would allow for the incorporation of the beautifully engineered guide-rails and should be of a scale that preserved the higher levels of the construction as a silhouette against the skyline.
I have in mind my noble friend's concern for regeneration. So what better icon for the regeneration of the whole of the St. Pancras area than a new building arising from within one of the most glorious monuments of the past. In the context of the development of the
816
railway lands as a whole (estimated at £1.5 billion), the cost at about £3.5 million would be modest and the potential advantages enormous. Why do we not see what our most gifted architects can do with them? The Sports Council has identified a real need for recreational facilities at St. Pancras, one of the most deprived inner city areas of London, and English Heritage has proved that they could be converted to cater for these needs. If so, then Sports Lottery funding is an obvious way forward.
Conservation is all about adapting the best buildings from the past to meet new needs. Where better for the Government to point the way than at St. Pancras, by insisting on the re-use of both the gasholders and waterpoint in the planning and heritage minimum requirements?
Finally, I am gravely concerned at the inadequate safeguards in the Bill for St. Pancras Chambers. The chambers is a grade I listed building. I give much credit to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for spot-listing it when he did. It is arguably one of the most important railway buildings in the world. Under the recent restoration programme it received about £10 million of public money plus £250,000 in grant aid from English Heritage for the restoration of external details, and another £50,000 for the consolidation and restoration of some of the splendid interior murals.
At present under the planning and heritage minimum requirements, LCR has only to undertake to keep the building weathertight and waterproof. There is no commitment on it, despite what my noble friend the Minister said, to bring the building back into use or to dispose of it on the open market, without reserve, if it fails to do so. English Heritage believes that there is a high risk that unless the chambers are brought back into an appropriate use a listed building of this size and splendour will deteriorate rapidly if unoccupied for a further period of eight or nine years. I share that view.
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that St. Pancras Chambers is one of the nation's architectural treasures, and that the gasholders and waterpoint are unique, and irreplaceable parts of our heritage. Can we please have an assurance that the safeguards being sought by English Heritage and other petitioners in respect of these wonderful buildings will be added to the planning and heritage minimum requirements?
I very well appreciate that much of government is about trying to reconcile conflicting aspirations. It would seem likely to me that governments are uncomfortable when they are called upon to make decisions that involve aesthetic judgment. That is not really surprising; the machinery of government hardly lends itself to such a process. Whatever the reasons, the record of successive governments in this field is not entirely reassuring.
There is a story that as late as 1951 the MoD, or its predecessor, applied to have Stonehenge removed on the grounds, I believe, that it was in the way of manoeuvres. As regards London monuments there have been some real tragedies. The destruction of the Victorian Coal Exchange is now recognised as being a terrible mistake

817
and there still exists deep and bitter resentment over the needless tearing down of Euston Arch. Those are just two examples.
The great project which is the subject of the Bill is hugely exciting. It is one that is worthy of a civilised age and it is one that should reflect credit on this Government. There is a seamlessness in the way in which each generation draws on the vision and experience of the past. Without the vision and experience of those who have gone before we would not even be discussing this Bill. How wretchedly diminished we would be if the Bill were to become law without robust protection being afforded to those exceptional monuments at St. Pancras. I urge my noble friend and the noble Lords who will serve on the Select Committee to reflect on those concerns.
8.40 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, in declaring an interest I must say that I have been a long-term believer in the need for a cross-Channel rail link not only as an important element in a European transport system but also as a physical and psychological link between this country and Europe. In other words, I am glad that the Continent is no longer "isolated", to coin a phrase.
Earlier today a Statement was repeated in this House which appeared to indicate an atmosphere of distrust and a lack of fellow feeling in this country for the European concept. I shall not go into the ins and outs of what was said, but it is clear that there is and always has been a strong undercurrent against Eurotunnel, for example, from the public, where it stems from xenophobia, and from the political side, where motives are probably rooted in constitutional and financial considerations. However, it should he pointed out that the Channel Tunnel was a project which arose from the building of the Common Market. That concept still has a strong following in this country, as was evident from the consensus between the parties during our debate.
At a different level, I believe that when the Eurotunnel scheme was selected there was a body of opinion, including the Ministry of Transport, which would have preferred a drive-through tunnel or a bridge. But both those alternatives were ruled out by technical problems. The effect was that the tunnel as built had a dual role as a road and rail undertaking and both sides of the project needed a different infrastructure.
The road element, which is the Shuttle and its related activities, depends on the road access. On both sides of the Channel an appropriate network was built up. On the British side that included extensions and improvements to the M.2 and M.20. That work was put in hand in time to be ready for the tunnel's opening and was of course paid for from taxation money.
The Bill which we are considering today relates to the rail infrastructure. Of course the French, with their greater faith in railways, planned and installed a high speed passenger system giving access to Paris, with points south and east, and to Brussels, with future connections to the north, plugging in to the rapidly developing high speed network in Europe. On this side of the Channel a fair amount was spent on improving
818
an old existing route and only today are we considering a planned direct high speed link. Not only the speed but the additional capacity will be greatly needed long before it is ready.
All that can be said in favour of the delay is that, contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, it has gradually led to an improvement in the selected route. It is certainly a great deal better than the original route proposed some years ago with the original British Rail single tunnel scheme.
It has been suggested that the Bill's provisions for financial help from public funds to a privatised concern is to be criticised. Certainly the issue of privatisation is contentious. Having once been responsible for operating a railway, albeit a small one, I can recall the benefits of having an integrated business. I find it hard to see the gain in dividing British Rail into a number of small units. That is not necessary for competition because there is plenty of that from other modes of transport.
The result of the Bill, which is quite a neat one, might be a useful combination for a joint enterprise between private management and the use of some public funds. Certainly as regards the competitive side of transport the advantage lies with the big battalions in private hands. One thinks of the results published today by British Airways which show what can be done in such circumstances and with such management.
However that may be, the nominated undertakers, as the Bill makes clear, will be involved in a competitive situation. I believe it is right that they should be given some physical clout and be spared as far as possible the situation which Eurotunnel faced of being, in effect, bankrupt before it could begin operations. Union Railways will at least have a cashflow from Eurostar and every incentive to turn that into a positive cashflow as soon as possible.
I share the view that has run through the debate that as regards the objects of the Bill there is consensus. I hope that the Bill passes through its remaining stages in Parliament and is put into operation as soon as possible.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, as a Kent resident I support the Bill. I have many reasons for doing so but I shall mention only two, the first being an undeniably selfish one. Until the new line is open, Channel Tunnel trains leave Waterloo on the existing track through Tonbridge and Ashford where they compete with commuter trains as far as Sevenoaks, which is my station. As there are four tracks on that line only as far as Orpington, delays are inevitable and, in my experience, frequent for those the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies, described as the "beleaguered commuters".
I shall benefit from a new line, but so too will thousands of other Kent residents. The train journey from London to the furthest reaches of Kent is one of the worst in the country. It now takes one-and-a-quarter hours to reach Ashford, a journey of some 50 miles. Yet one can travel the 180 miles to York in less than two

819
hours. Once the link is open, as my noble friend the Minister said, the journey time to Ashford will be a mere 40 minutes.
My support for the Bill is also influenced by our export trade requirements. The UK is peripheral geographically. Therefore, the Channel Tunnel is of particular significance in overcoming that disability. There has been substantial inward investment to this country and export manufacturing companies need fast, reliable and low-cost freight transit to Europe. That will be provided by the new link and most regions should be integrated fully into the European freight network.
The new line will lead also to a massive transfer of freight from road to rail, to the benefit of Kent residents. Unfortunately, I disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said about the freight issue. I agree entirely with the views of my noble friend Lord Aldington. I am advised that the new link will have the capacity for passenger and freight trains.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, mentioned also Central Railways which, I understand, is planning a brand new railway all the way from Redhill to Tonbridge, Ashford and Folkestone. I fear that that will cause enormous environmental damage in Kent.
I look forward to much greater use being made of the "piggy-back" concept where standard lorry trailers are carried on rail wagons. That is an exciting concept. I understand that there is a potential diversion of 400,000 trailers to rail over the medium term on a route running from the Channel Tunnel to Glasgow with links to the Irish seaports via Holyhead, Merseyside, Heysham and Stranraer. It must be right to get lorries and trailers off the road. I look forward to the end of this year when Railtrack will have completed its detailed study of the critical structures—for example, bridges and tunnels—and will have financing in place.
While I support the Bill, I have two specific concerns. The first relates to Clause 1(3)(b) which allows the promoter to deviate upwards by up to 3 metres from the centre line of the works shown on the deposited plans. Such flexibility is unnecessary with modern surveying and engineering techniques and although I understand that LCR may wish to amend the vertical alignment in certain locations to achieve a higher speed or a more cost-effective design, it should not do so to the detriment of residents or the environment.
My second concern relates to the importance of fully co-ordinating the rail link construction and the widening of the A.2/M.2 which is dealt with in the Bill. That is a vital issue for the many thousands of commuters, holidaymakers and Kent residents who will not only face the construction upheaval of the rail link but also the considerable disruption involved in widening one of the two main road corridors between the capital and the Continent. Obviously it makes sense to try to co-ordinate the work so that we have one period of grief rather than, for example, the roadworks being completed only to be followed by further disruption at the commencement of the work on the rail link, or vice versa. I should be grateful for reassurance on those two points from my noble friend.
820
Finally, I must declare an interest. As an unpaid governor of Cobham Hall School I have a responsibility to help to protect the beautiful Grade I listed house and grounds where the proposed route runs on the surface along the northern boundary. My noble friend Lord Darnley is also a governor. His family, with a little help from that genius Repton, created the outstanding park. That historic landscape is arguably the most important environmental issue outside London of the whole route, particularly bearing in mind the restrictive covenants granted by the government in 1961 which empower the National Trust to veto any development which it believes will damage the landscape.
The school will be petitioning against parts of the Bill, and I should like to emphasise two crucial points relating to security. First, the proposal to take extra land from the park in order to provide a new bridleway far too close to the school must be looked at again. After the Dunblane tragedy, noble Lords will be well aware of the need to minimise access to schools, and particularly girls' schools.
Secondly, despite the matter being raised on numerous occasions with Union Rail, no assurances have been given that security will be maintained during the construction period to protect the girls and the school buildings. Having said that, the school fully supports the rail link which, with Ebbsfleet station nearby, will create exciting opportunities in terms of access to the Continent and much greater contact with London.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I feel that it is only right at the beginning of my remarks that I should declare an interest. My interest is that I am a citizen of two fair cities in this land, Manchester and London, and I speak from that perspective.
This evening we are debating a Bill which is about building a very small section of the trans-European rail network. In the early days of railways, the Russian Tsar put a ruler on the map between St. Petersburg and Vladivostok. He put his thumb on the ruler to keep it steady and drew a pencil line between the two. His pencil went over the thumb and that is the way the railway was built. I do not argue that we should build railways now as they were built then, but that gives an indication of some of the differences which now pertain.
This new link in the trans-European rail network must be seen primarily as a link between major European cities. I was rather concerned to hear the Minister say that it would provide a reduction in commuter time for people in Kent and so on coming into London. I wonder whether that is a sensible way in which to approach this project.
In the 19th century, Britain obtained a steel backbone that links Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and London—the major manufacturing urban conurbations of our land. What we now call the west coast main line was unfortunately built cheaply. It has too many curves and rough sections and the speed of transit is too low. It must be upgraded and modernised.

821
That reminds me of when the M.1 was constructed. I am not sure how many noble Lords are familiar with the M.1 but near Luton it describes a bit of a dog leg; that is, a fairly tight curve. I can remember talking to someone who used to work for the Jaguar motor company. That company raced E-type Jaguars at Le Mans in the 1950s. The cars were driven from Coventry to London and then over to Le Mans on the roads. When the drivers drove down the M.1 the only time they had to touch the brakes was when they negotiated the corner near Luton that I have described. That tells us something about modern motorway standards. For various other reasons we restrict the speed on motorways to 70 miles an hour and therefore that dog leg on the M.1 does not have a significant effect. However, it would have had a significant effect for the drivers of E-type Jaguars travelling at 130, 140 or 150 miles an hour.
Not only do we need to improve and modernise the steel backbone that is so important to our whole national life, but we also need to extend that backbone to German, French, Italian and Spanish cities. We need to have that fast rail link between the major cities in this country and the major cities on the Continent. Therefore there is a lot riding on this Bill. I am glad that we have the opportunity in this debate to influence the Select Committee and to ask it to ensure that certain criteria are met when it considers the detail of the Bill. First, we need to advise the Select Committee that one of the key aspects of this Channel Tunnel Rail Link is that it should be a high speed rail link and a permanent way for high speed in the 21st century. It also needs to have smooth and well designed links to the west coast main line. I was glad to hear the Minister say in his opening remarks that that was a feature of the Bill. The Select Committee will have to consider the Bill closely to ensure that the fine words of the Minister are met in reality. I have to emphasise again that high speed will be of the essence.
When I started my remarks I questioned why London commuters should see a reduction in their journey times because of the building of what I would hope would be a high speed rail link. I wonder what is the justification for that. I have heard on the grapevine that some supporters of the Conservative Party will do nicely out of the new stations at Ebbsfleet and Ashford. The Minister looks askance. I am glad that he does so because that suggests that he does not agree with that rumour which has been circulating. Why do we need intermediate stops on what should be a high speed rail link between major conurbations? I pose that as a question. I hope that the Select Committee will consider that and ensure that while there may be stations on the line that might be used on occasion, there will be no restrictions on the traffic passing down that line which requires it to stop at those stations.
I wish to recount another little tale about our current railway system. Stockport is about five miles from the centre of Manchester. Every train that leaves Manchester heading for London stops at Stockport station. I asked officials why that train always stopped at Stockport, and I was advised that when the railway was built in the middle of the 19th century, as a
822
condition of the railway going through Stockport there was a requirement that every train had to stop there. I hope that sort of situation will not apply as regards this Channel Tunnel Rail Link. It would be absolute nonsense for that sort of restriction to apply in the 21st century. I hope that the Select Committee will consider what I have said in this debate. I hope that it will take on board points that other noble Lords have made and arrive, we hope, at the right judgment that will serve this country well in the 21st century.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, this Bill should be broadly welcomed. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link has had a long route march since conception in 1972. The vicissitudes encountered along the way would have broken those not of the hardest resolve. There is one aspect that I should like to comment on; that is the M.2 widening scheme. The A.2/M.2 trunk road forms the strategic highway link between London, the Medway towns, north Kent and Dover. This is my "home road". I live five miles off the A.2 and eight miles from Dover. I am another Kentish peer. The M.2 is a two-lane dual carriageway road opened to traffic in 1963.
The busiest sections currently carry in excess of 60,000 vehicles per day, with a high proportion of goods vehicles. The traffic flow is already substantially greater than the design standard for the existing motorway and is forecast to increase by about 70 per cent. by the year 2015. During peak periods Junctions 2 and 3 of the motorway become overloaded. As a result vehicles wishing to leave the motorway at these junctions have to queue on the exit slip road. That is hazardous and creates a potential for accidents. What is proposed?—the widening of the A.2 from dual three lanes to dual four lanes between Cobham junction and Junction 1 of the M.2; widening of the M.2 between Junctions 1 and 3 from dual two lanes to dual four lanes; and further improvements at Junctions 2 and 3. Most of the M.2 widening will be achieved by constructing a new London-bound carriageway alongside the existing road. The existing road will be modified to provide a new coast-bound carriageway. The scheme will require the construction of a new motor road bridge across the River Medway just upstream from the existing bridge. The new bridge will carry London-bound traffic and the existing bridge will be modified to carry the widened coast-bound carriageway. These proposals have been forthcoming following close consultation with Kent County Council and numerous other bodies.
Kent County Council has consistently supported the CTRL and welcomes the M.2 widening from Junction 1 to Junction 4. I am not sure whether I have a declarable interest in that my wife is a county councillor of 15 years standing. Kent County Council is aware of the particularly difficult period for those affected by the section of the CTRL that parallels the M.2 widening proposals between Junction 1 and Junction 3. In addition, there are two new road bridges to be constructed over the River Medway. It is absolutely imperative that these two schemes be closely integrated. That requires the two schemes to be funded and built

823
concurrently—not consecutively, which would extend the disruption and blight. Can my noble friend the Minister give some assurance on this point?
The Bill comes to us following 11 months in another place and with more than 1,000 petitions considered. The Select Committee has 293 petitions to contend with. Let us hope—it is, indeed, a plea—that it takes no notice of those petitions outside the limit of deviation. The Bill needs a fair wind. The House of Commons has been the tortoise. Let this House be the hare and speed the Bill to the statute book.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, as I listened earlier to the debate, I felt like saying, "Hooray for Kent". It seems to have a loud voice in this Chamber. I wish it well. However, there are other places in this country apart from Kent. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said that the Bill is supposed to improve communications between Europe and this country. I come from the North, as some noble Lords will no doubt know. I have always pursued the idea that, compared with the remainder of the country, the South East of England is a prosperous area. It is very congested as anyone who travels on the transport system will agree. It is congested because of its activities.
I have always considered that factor from the viewpoint of Merseyside. It created a strangulation on the proper development of the whole country, because one has to travel through that congestion to get to Europe. Therefore, I welcome the Channel Tunnel and, as a firm supporter of Europe, I strongly welcome the Bill. I give it a fair wind.
However, there are other issues to consider arising from the Bill. It is the third time that I can remember engaging in a debate on important and large-scale developments in the South-East. I sat on the committee considering the Jubilee Line development, and attempted to persuade that committee and this House to consider the consequences for the national interest of building the Jubilee Line. By national interest, I do not simply refer to the provinces; I include London. I pointed out that the development of the Jubilee Line was not a priority for London Transport. It was only third in order of priority. London Transport wanted to consider some of the other needs for London. I wonder whether the people travelling on the Northern Line and other lines of London Transport now wish that the Jubilee Line had not been completed. All the investment which should have gone to other lines went to the Jubilee Line.
There is another lesson to be learnt. Why was the Jubilee Line built? It was built to assist the private sector in its foolish enterprise in Docklands, in Canary Wharf.
Ebbsfleet has been mentioned. The Minister looked aghast when a noble Lord suggested that that proposal had something to do with the Tory Party. I shall not suggest that. However, I shall suggest that that development came about because a private enterprise firm was keen to get rid of land and sell it for development; and no one will deny that.
824
I am concerned that there is no proper link. Let me correct the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He did not hear from the Minister that the Bill proposed an improvement. He would have heard from the Minister that, outside the Bill, permission would be applied for to build the link that I want. It is not in this Bill, and I am concerned about the briefing document. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when we will have a Bill for it. The longer the link is left without being built, the longer we are left in limbo in regard to communication with the Continent; the more development continues in the South East, the worse will be the situation for Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland. The private sector will go where the profit is greatest, so it will go again to the South-East. It is essential for us to have the link. I pleaded for it at least 10 years ago and begged that something should be done.
On another occasion, an extension was planned in a Bill for the London Docklands Light Railway. I asked the committee at the time to examine the consequences on the rest of the community and our economy. My suggestion was defeated in this House; we did not consider it.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, express his concern about the rest of the country and the Bill's consequences for it. That does not prevent us both supporting the Bill, but it means that there is doubt about the Bill's consequences on the rest of the country, not only for direct communications but also for development. A limited amount of development, especially economic development, can be carried out in the country. If it takes place in the South-East because that area is nearest the tunnel, it will not take place elsewhere. A glaring example of that is the two Docklands corporations established by Mr. Heseltine, who called himself the Minister for Merseyside. Docklands in London is chock-a-block, it is so full that the ordinary people who used to live on the site have not been properly looked after. All the yuppees have gone there, the offices are there, with Canary Wharf and now more are being encouraged to go there. That is London.
Now let us look at Liverpool. We have one government office with, I think, 700 people when there were supposed to be 1,300. There are wide open spaces. An article in the Guardian on Monday described Liverpool as having had a vision of building a city before it had the problems of the 1960s. The article described what happened to Liverpool and it said, at the end: "We should not ask what happened to Liverpool people. The way we have allowed that city to go down tells us something about ourselves because we refused to move some of the activities from the South-East which did not need to be there out to the rest of the country". That is our problem, we do not consider matters from the viewpoint of the national interest.
On what grounds could anyone suggest that MI5 should be at Vauxhall Bridge? What is it doing? Spying on the Russians? Are all the spies coming down here? Is this where MI6 should be? Of course not, it has no need to be here, it could have been in Birmingham or

825
the north of England. Why in this country do we concentrate on having modern communications systems in the South-East?
Perhaps I may conclude with a story. I was chairman of the economic planning council in the North-West and we had a meeting with Ministers. We said to them: "What we will do is to send a letter out to all the industrialists in London and Manchester asking them to come along and tell us what is wrong with industry". We did that and received a letter from Manchester and one from London. The letter from Manchester was posted that night and delivered to us the following day. As for the letter from London, it was five days before it was posted. It takes weeks for documents to get from one office to another in London. The whole of the Civil Service could be outside London with communication by modern technology, saving money and improving the rest of the country. That would leave plenty of empty office space so that the private sector could do what it wants to do in the South-East. It is a simple solution, but it needs someone with a sense of purpose to consider how we distribute our resources. Fundamentally, resources are jobs.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mention the regions. Other speakers mentioned the necessity for ensuring that the regions share in the prosperity that we are all supposed to achieve from the tunnel link and the mighty vision. I was pleased to hear that. Now let us get down to facts. It is no use asking this government to do anything about planning for the good of the nation. They will not do it. They have had plenty of opportunities.
There will not be any more opportunities; very shortly there will be a change of government. I am glad about that. Now we shall know what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and his colleagues will do; namely, set up what I was tempted to ask this Chamber for tonight. I was tempted to table a Motion to instruct the committee to take into consideration the possible consequences of the tunnel on the rest of our economy. I did that once before in relation to another Bill, and it was turned down. I intended to do that tonight, but I thought it would be a waste of time. So I express my hope that, when the new Labour Administration comes in, it will set up a body to look sensibly and practically at the whole question of the national economy, and find out in particular how the South East is starving the rest of the country of resources that it badly needs.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as honorary secretary of the all party West Coast Main Line Group. As such, I am delighted to support a Bill which finally links one of our great assets, the Channel Tunnel, with another, the railways of Britain, in a state-of-the-art manner. My only regret is that it has taken so long to get this far.
Back in 1984 we were debating whether there should be a fixed link to the Continent and, if so, what form it should take. Some of us were in favour of a tunnel, added to a high-speed link. Subsequently we settled for the former. It is now up and running, and I agree with
826
those many noble Lords who have paid tribute to it tonight. Some years later we had before us both a proposal for a terminal at King's Cross and what I shall call the BR Cunard Trafalgar-led proposal for a high-speed link. Had we followed that option then, or even had the present option before us then, we might also have had everything in place by 1998—only the year after next. Tonight's proposal, on the other hand, will not be completed until the year 2003 at the earliest, and perhaps not even until 2007.
Either way, one has to assume speedy Royal Assent; detailed design work; progress with local authority planning and other statutory body consents; and last, but not least, the raising of finance. One cannot overlook the slippage on the Jubilee Line extension which arose as a result of problems in getting the finance in place.
I welcome the Bill, however much I regret the timescale. I should welcome it the more if our Select Committee could ensure decent and prompt access from the link to the West Coast main line to give the true network benefits that many of us have sought this evening. I very much hope that such a link will be available when the Channel Tunnel rail link itself is opened. I urge the committee to pursue that point.
I also welcome the fact that the Government will be paying grant to the CTRL project in return for benefits accruing to the domestic traveller. That is another idea that was floated in this Chamber as long ago as 1984. But it is one which in the future will throw up a problem in connection with the franchising of the existing domestic train operator—Southeastern Train Company, or SETCO for short. I understand that the franchise for SETCO is being offered on a 15-year basis in order to encourage the successful bidder to renew some existing stock by 1999 and to replace all the old first generation slam-door stock by its life-expired date of 2005.
My problem is this. Does the bidder go for stock with the high-speed capability required by the new route, for which government grant is being paid to secure paths? Or does it go for a dual mode vehicle capable also of running on existing routes? Noble Lords who have used Eurostar will know how relatively weak its performance is once the train emerges this side of the Channel Tunnel. I see a three-fold problem here: the length of the franchise; the purely technical problem of traction; and that of potential conflict between London and Continental and the franchisee of SETCO. That seems to me to be compounded by the fact that Clauses 16 to 21 of the Bill disapply the powers of the rail regulator, which surely could pose problems in the resolution of conflicts between the high-speed link operator and other operators.
Lesser concerns include decent road and underground access to St. Pancras International, a concern that is familiar to those of us who were involved in the King's Cross Bill and indeed in the Bill enabling us to construct Waterloo International. I am also concerned about the viability of Stratford. I hope that the viability of Stratford is not allowed to penalise or damage the viability of the link as a whole. Despite those matters, I feel that Union Rail's proposal is a worthy one. I hope that it will be completed as speedily as possible.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest in Eurotunnel and I am grateful for the many messages of support over the years which noble Lords have given to the project. It is much appreciated. Having worked on the Channel Tunnel for nigh on 15 years, I saw at close quarters the excellent and assiduous work done by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in chairing the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill. It gave me great pleasure to hear that he is proposed as the chairman of the Select Committee on this Bill. It might be said that he has waited patiently for far too long for this Bill to arrive.
As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, the regional links are extremely important. It gave me great pleasure to read that London and Continental will propose a proper double track rail link across the top of St. Pancras for frequent services from the Midlands and the north west. As the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said, it is vitally important in connecting to Stratford and Paris. Noble Lords may remember that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was a trans-Europe network priority and later on the west coast main line was added as a priority project. But they were not connected except by one emergency line. So it could be said that London and Continental has done what the Government failed to do; namely, connect two strategic links across the top of London. Certainly, I welcome that greatly.
I am somewhat concerned about when the project will start and therefore when it will finish. Clause 10 of the Bill says that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link must start within 10 years. If we allow five years for construction, it may be up to 15 years from now. It may be a coincidence but that compares very well with the west coast main line where the franchising director told a meeting in this House quite recently that the upgrading would take about 14 years to complete. So we are talking about the year 2010, or 2011 if it all goes badly. I hope that I am wrong and mistaken. Perhaps the Minister will be able to correct me later on that point.
I want to discuss one specific matter about the construction of the project before I turn to operational matters. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, King's Cross lands is one of the concerns. I do not want to trespass on the responsibilities of the Select Committee, but it appears that the Government are attempting to thwart the will of the Select Committee in another place. I believe that the Select Committee of this House should be aware of that.
At present there are a number of thriving cement, concrete and aggregate batching businesses in that area which supply the needs of the local building industry in central and northern London for concrete which is usually distributed by concrete-mixer lorries. The materials come from many parts of the country by rail, saving an estimated 30,000 lorry journeys a year—if they came in by road that would be the number of lorry journeys. It is equivalent to about 120 heavy lorry journeys per day saved by bringing in this material by rail.
In the original plans for the rail link, those businesses were to be displaced, since they were located on the routes of the various rail lines in the area and there was
828
no proposal from the promoters to offer them an alternative site, although there is an enormous area around King's Cross available for development, which I believe is there to help fund the rail link.
Those businesses therefore petitioned the Select Committee in another place, but the operator, Mainline Freight, did not do so since it was then part of British Rail. The Select Committee reported in their favour and in relation to the Tarmac petition said,
"We require the Promoters to make arrangements to relocate with modern equipment the Tarmac concrete batching plant in a suitable place in the North of the railway lands".
In response to the petition from Castle Cement, Pioneer Willment and Tarmac Quarry Products, it said,
"we were encouraged by the proposals put forward by the promoter that the businesses might remain in place where they are currently or nearby. We support these arrangements".
The Government's response to the Select Committee on that recommendation was also reasonably positive when they said:
"the Promoters will construct a rail siding with discharge facilities on the western boundary of the King's Cross Railway Lands and make land available in the north-west of the Railway Lands for the relocation of the firms if relocation proves necessary. The terms of the firms' occupation and decisions as to which firm occupies what part are expected to be the subject of further negotiations; these will include Mainline Freight, the intended holder of the long-term leasehold interest".
The petitioners were thus reasonably happy in the belief that the Government would negotiate in a positive manner to implement those recommendations. But only 11 days after that government response to the Select Committee, on the day before Mainline Freight was sold to Wisconsin—now called North-West and South Railways—the directors of Mainline Freight, British Rail and the Secretary of State for Transport signed what was called an "overarching agreement" which included, in part, Mainline Freight's future activities at King's Cross.
That meant that the promoter—the Government—could decide the location of rail freight facilities; there was no right for Mainline Freight to object to the period of notice—in other words, it could be 24 hours; the promoters could insist on the businesses moving to an interim site, but there was no guarantee of finding that site or of adequate capacity there. There was no responsibility on the promoters to find a site at all within the King's Cross lands, and the promoter can interrupt rail deliveries to any of the sites, which is not a lot of use when one is running a rail delivery business. Lastly, there was no long-term security anywhere on the King's Cross lands.
What do the parties to the agreement have in common? Mainline Freight, the British Railways Board and the Secretary of State (who is the promoter) are all government controlled. That agreement was signed the day before the Wisconsin handover, which had already been delayed. I understand why Wisconsin signed and accepted the agreement, but with the proviso that it reserved the right to sue the former directors—the government employees—of Mainline Freight for not looking after the interests of their company.

829
I believe that the petitioners' requirements could be seen to be perfectly reasonable. They were happy to move and to pay for one move. Since then, correspondence between the promoters and the petitioners and the contents of that overarching agreement seem to indicate that the Government are holding back from implementing the spirit, let alone the letter, of the Select Committee report and their response to it.
It is true that the documentation allows the Government to give the petitioners what they require, but there is no indication of commitment. Furthermore, although the land offered—but none of the other requirements—is adequate now, that land is likely to be significantly reduced if London and Continental applies to add additional tracks to connect into the north London line to get a two-track connection by a Transport and Works Act order. Will the Government still agree to relocate the petitioners on the same basis if some of their land is taken in several years' time by a Transport and Works Act order?
I believe that the Government have forfeited the trust of the petitioners, who are still seeking a positive and reasonable outcome to enable them to remain in business. They support the rail link obviously and sought to reach reasonable agreement on the issues key to their continuing viable operation. But those must be binding commitments to the continuity of operation in the short, medium and long term—adequate capacity of sidings and other facilities and reimbursement of the cost to move, apart from the first move.
Why are the Government doing that? It is extraordinary to witness the apparent lack of concern shown by the Government for the long-term success of rail freight at King's Cross for the supply of concrete materials. We have heard many assurances of their commitment to rail freight but there appears to be one overriding exception to this when more money can be made out of property—office, retail or expensive housing.
However, there is one fly in the ointment. The promoters have given an undertaking that all construction materials required for the construction of the rail link will be brought in by rail, wherever that is possible. If the promoter closes down or even interrupts the operation of this rail terminal, the concrete will have to come by road. No doubt many of the local authorities around there might have a few comments to make on that.
If the promoters are forced to close down the rail supplied concrete facilities after construction is complete, that will be a travesty of the principle of the assurances given to the Select Committee in another place. I am sure that the committee and the petitioners will take note of these government actions when seeking ever-more watertight assurances for what they want.
I turn now to operations. It behoves us all to seek a situation whereby London and Continental and other operators can operate with the maximum flexibility to provide a service to customers in Kent, across London, to and from the regions and from all these places across the Channel to adjacent member states. I wish we could
830
get away from the rather insulting words "domestic and international" when we refer to stations. Perhaps "intercommunity" would be better. I rather hope that there will not be this differentiation in the future.
I wish to raise two matters to do with operations. The first concerns the safety approval procedure. In the rail privatisation debate on 8th May I described delays in Railtrack approving safety cases for new rolling stock. The Minister said that it was the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer and owner to demonstrate safe operation. I hope that he may be able to tell us what the operator and Railtrack are supposed to do in this matter.
I turn to my second point. It is my understanding that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link will be an equivalent track authority with, so far as I can see, similar responsibilities, which include safety. If anyone wishes to operate a train on both types of track, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked earlier, will he have to get a safety case from two separate authorities, thereby costing him double the amount and taking double the time? I doubt whether many operators will bother. London and Continental is also an operator. I think it is called a semi-vertically integrated franchise, which is a rather nice expression. Unlike Railtrack, it will have the ability to give itself safety approval for its trains while refusing a competitor. I am sure that it is much too professional to do that—the people I have met certainly are—but, as the system is set up, an unscrupulous successor could do that. Surely that is another argument for having the safety standards and approval of both Railtrack and the rail link as one separate and independent organisation.
Lastly, I wish to turn to frontier controls for through passenger trains. These trains start north of London this year and, as we have heard, London and Continental is proposing frequent services from the west coast main line, via Stratford, to Paris. At present no domestic passengers may be carried on international trains. We are told that that is a requirement of the frontier control people, but let us just examine why. I define "frontier control" as Customs, immigration, security and MAFF. The authorities trumpet about drugs being caught at Dover. I was told that 90 per cent. of drugs caught in this country are caught at Dover but it is usually as a result of tip-offs. It is just convenient for the authorities.
Some noble Lords may have come on the Eurostar to Waterloo. One notices that immigration procedures are carried out on the train. It takes two people. If it is done at Waterloo, it takes 17 people. That is why they always do one train every day at Waterloo—so that they can have 15 extra people on duty. It is a great job creation scheme. All these people require expensive facilities through the Channel Tunnel. At one stage they asked for the freight shuttles to be separated from the lorry drivers when taken across the Channel because the frontier control people did not want to be sitting with the lorry drivers for 25 minutes. Frankly, that is tough. Eurostar has a separate compartment for them to rest and there are two gaols on board with meat hooks on which the handcuffs can be placed.
Ebbsfleet, Stratford and St. Pancras are all being built with segregated international, inter-community and domestic platforms, probably at a cost exceeding

831
£100 million. That is a complete waste of money, but when one gets north of London the situation becomes even worse. Originally, I believe that Eurostar trains going north of London were going to have separate platforms, but that was found to be impossible. Then they were to have moveable barriers to allow only international travellers on the train. Now, I believe that there is to be only one door opening, so they cannot be expecting many passengers when the train stops at Peterborough, York or Crewe. That cannot go on. It has been a nice, cosy relationship between government departments and government-owned railways until now. London and Continental has now arrived and it is rightly beginning to question things. I understand that it is thinking of converting the mobile gaol and the immigration staff rest compartment into private compartments for revenue-earning business use, and that is great. I understand that it wants to add national passengers.
I know that there will be a problem with the west coast and east coast main line franchisees because they may oppose it. In my view that is tough: it is up to the franchising director to sort it out. Of course, we need Customs, immigration, security and MAFF, but we need to try to resolve this matter so that they work to the benefit of the customers and do so on the train between Ashford and Lille. That will enable all these extra facilities to go and national passengers to travel on international trains.
Many of these subjects, I am sure, will be discussed at later stages of the Bill. I conclude by adding my congratulations to the staff of Union Railways who, I believe, have acted in a most comprehensive and sensitive manner in developing this project. They have worked extremely hard. I support this Bill and I wish it a safe and secure passage through this House.
9.42 p.m.
The Earl of Darnley: My Lords, I am an enthusiastic supporter of a high speed rail link between Cheriton and London. Ever since the decision was taken to build a tunnel on its own, a modern and efficient railway link to London and a main rail network beyond, has been inevitable. In 1987, much of the debate centred on what share of the cross-Channel passenger and freight traffic the shuttle service could capture from the ferries. Not much attention was paid to how many of the large number of passengers flying daily between London and Paris and Brussels could be converted to through rail services. Equally, diverting freight from the road-ferry mode to through liner freight trains took second place to discussion on the number of lorries that could be diverted on to the shuttle at Cheriton and away from their familiar ferries at Dover.
In a remarkably short space of time Eurostar has become an enormous success, capturing a sizeable share of the airline traffic between London and Paris. The new owners have announced plans to expand the service greatly. Freight had a slower start, but a number of trains do pursue a circuitous route around London to link up eventually with the main lines to the north and west of the country.
832
The problem faced by both passenger and freight through services is that whereas much of our rail network is modern and laid out for fast running, the South Eastern Railway was designed to lower standards and with commuters in mind. It is already congested; spare capacity is scarce and the running of international freight trains poses operational difficulties. Lack of rail capacity in Kent will restrict the traffic that can use the tunnel and will do nothing to persuade freight to turn to rail for its long-haul cargoes, which is a major objective of many transport and environmental policies. This new rail link will make possible a full-blown inter-city passenger service between London, Paris and Brussels and will open up the possibility of direct services to other centres on the Continent. It will be designed to carry freight and by its very existence it will also free up capacity on existing lines for freight trains. Best of all, by terminating at St. Pancras, it will enable direct connections to be made to other mainlines in the north and west of the country.
At this point, I must declare an interest in that I have a family connection with the area of land at Cobham Park and Ashenbank Wood which lies on the proposed route of the high-speed rail link. Indeed, it is my intention to petition the Select Committee of this House to seek to reduce the impact of the new railway on the environment and the historical importance of the site.
I hasten to say that I do not criticise the designated route of the railway. On the contrary, it is infinitely preferable to increase the size of an existing traffic corridor by routing the railway alongside existing main roads rather than create a new one out of virgin countryside. The proposed Ebbsfleet station will be much welcomed in north-west Kent. It is an area that is hungry for investment and jobs and it suffers from what can only be described as an inadequate rail service to London.
Inevitably, a major infrastructure project, however welcome and however much needed, cannot be created without some cost to the environment. It is that aspect that concerns me. I mentioned earlier my association with the Cobham section of the railway. That is arguably the most environmentally and historically sensitive part of the entire route outside London. Excellent research has been done for the environmental statement and the baseline condition has been well documented. Cobham Hall, a Grade 1 Elizabethan mansion, stands no more than half a mile from the proposed route of the railway and will be protected from it by its pleasure gardens and the remains of its park, which are listed Grade 2 starred by English Heritage. Ashenbank Wood is a site of special scientific interest, and a Roman villa nearby is an ancient monument. In addition, the whole area falls within an area of outstanding natural beauty.
There is no doubt that the damaging consequences of building the railway could be largely eliminated if it were to be placed in a bored tunnel at this point. That view is shared by the borough council and all those who are concerned with preserving the importance of the site. There would also seem to be topographical and

833
geological reasons to support that course of action which, until now, has been ruled out on the grounds of cost.
Instead, a great deal of work has been done by Union Railways on ways of mitigating the effects of this major civil engineering project both during the construction phase and thereafter. Union Railways has been most sympathetic to the concerns of those affected, but has been hampered in the first instance by not being able to commit finance; and, secondly, because much of the engineering design has yet to be completed.
My concern, which I know will be shared by others all along the route, is that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before proper undertakings can be put in place to protect the environment. That not only involves the costing of the various options, but a clear commitment that when the time comes the finance will be available.
I welcome this most exciting infrastructure project, but I must make a plea that decisions affecting the environment are not made on grounds of cost alone, as once destroyed, our heritage is gone for ever.
9.48 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I firmly believe that we have had what can only be described as a splendid and well-informed debate on the Bill. I do not think that I have ever had the pleasure of sitting through the Second Reading of a Bill on which there has been such an extraordinary degree of consensus about the value of what we are doing although a number of points of detail have, of course, been raised. Some of those points are probably matters for the Select Committee to consider; others raise more general concerns. I shall certainly do my best to discuss those. I shall follow that with a very careful reading of Hansard tomorrow. As I am replying to a three-hour debate and may miss some points, I shall write to noble Lords where necessary.
The quality and thoroughness of this debate illustrate the work that has already gone into the preparation of the Bill. I particularly welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. His support was qualified almost immediately by a party political broadcast and what my noble friend Lord Aldington described as a selective memory test on the issue of Channel tunnels and what had happened over the past few years.
The first major issue is the length of time taken to bring this project to its present stage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Aldington that we now have a very mature, fully worked out plan that has been prepared in the most extraordinary detail. It brings major benefits to this country and to the travelling public—not just transport benefits, which are considerable, but infrastructure and regeneration benefits. That is important and must be the basis on which we consider the project.
The project was never intended to be completed at the same time as the Channel Tunnel. The need for it arises from a future, not current, need for more railway capacity between London and the Channel Tunnel. The noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the way in which the link had been taken forward in France. In France the
834
TGV Nord was always planned to be ready at the same time as the Channel Tunnel. Moreover, the TGV runs through flat and sparsely populated northern France. I believe everyone recognises that that is much easier to plan than a railway that runs through the rolling Kent countryside, urban Essex and London. Of course, we might all have hoped that progress would be quicker. However, the proposals first advanced for the link would probably not have been capable of winning public approval, and rightly so. The route would have run through densely populated south east London and there would have been no offsetting benefits. The scheme eventually chosen for inclusion in the Bill had to juggle a wide range of interests, including the transport value of the link, the opportunity to catalyse the economic regeneration of the Thames Gateway, and the important need to secure those benefits, while successfully limiting the impact on the environment.
The history lesson continued. Various versions were put forward from different corners of the House. I enjoyed the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as the champion of private enterprise, on the rail link to St. Pancras. Of course, I accept that now, but it is important to bear in mind the success of the PFI and the fact that this project is being brought forward as a flagship PFI project.
A comparison has been made between the proposal made now and the proposal in 1990 rejected by my noble friend, Lord Parkinson. I believe that there are four key reasons why the present deal is so much better than that rejected by my noble friend, the then Secretary of State. First, the route is much more environmentally sensitive than the earlier proposals, with about 25 per cent. now in tunnel and about 85 per cent. either in tunnel or in existing major transport corridors. Secondly, in terms of economic regeneration, the stations at Stratford and Ebbsfleet in particular contrast with little or no regeneration in the 1990 route. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was concerned about the stations. He flung out a few references to accusations, which I will not go into at this stage. If the noble Lord believes them he is also accusing his honourable friends in another place of corruption and various matters which I know he would not do. When the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, refers to those rumours I am sure that he does not believe them either.
The new route is operationally and commercially superior to the earlier proposals. We now have a well structured contract with a private sector promoter which minimises the risks to the taxpayer.
There was discussion on the question of public money going into the rail link but not into the Channel Tunnel. The link could not be built without public sector support unlike the tunnel itself which Eurotunnel and the banks were confident from the outset could be built without public money support. Public sector support for the rail link is justified, not just needed. CTRL will deliver huge benefits to the public, including vastly improved international and domestic services. I do not see why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, should be upset by the word "international". It means "between countries", and that is probably the situation.

835
The link will also stimulate regeneration, as we have heard, in the Thames gateway and East London around Ebbsfleet, Stratford and beyond. So there is no mileage to be had in the U-turn scheme of things. My noble friend Lord Parkinson, the then Secretary of State for Transport, did not rule out a government contribution in principle, and that is worth bearing in mind.
My noble friend Lord Astor was right to draw attention to the benefits of the link for the residents of Kent, and the reduction in journey times, which are so marked. That is in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who felt that because there was an advantage that must automatically take away from the other advantages of the scheme. The two are not mutually exclusive. There are many benefits from the link. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive.
We discussed the important issue of freight. There was something of a division between the Liberal Benches and those of the Labour Party. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, judged that the interests of freight had in some way been overlooked. I do not believe that to be the case. As I said in my opening remarks, the CTRL will have a freight capability. The Bill already provides for two freight loops and a link to the freight inspection site at Dollands Moor. What is more, there are clear undertakings that they will be built.
The key point is that the link will also substantially increase overall rail capacity to the tunnel. The benefits will be to London and to industrial and commercial centres elsewhere where a great deal of actual and potential demand for international freight traffic occurs.
We had some contributions, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, in his characteristically forthright and explanatory style, about the issue of regional links and why it is important to ensure that the CTRL connects properly to the rest of the country. There is nothing between us on that. At one stage I thought the noble Lord was encouraging me to move the Channel tunnel up north. Even the power of this Government would not be able to run to that. I doubt whether he will find that idea even in the somewhat far-fetched proposals often put forward by the party opposite. Nonetheless, I recognise, and agree with him entirely, about the importance of ensuring that the benefits from this link flow throughout the country, and indeed they will.
We have already heard about the linkage that will occur in London: easier connections to the West Coast main line. That was a point picked up by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Berkeley, and others, and was generally widely welcomed.
The issue of blight and compensation was raised by a number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Aldington. It is an important issue whenever one is considering a major piece of transport infrastructure. It is, of necessity, a complex issue. It might help if I took just a few moments to explain what is being done. First, the rail link route has been selected carefully, as we have heard, including the sensitive use
836
of tunnelling so that few homes have to be taken. In fact there is an average of one home being taken for every mile of route, which is an extraordinary figure.
For homes that are required to be taken for the rail link, voluntary purchase by Union Railways is available from now at the request of the owner. The terms are the unblighted value of the property as if the CTRL project did not exist, plus all fees, disturbance and home loss payments. The majority of affected homes have already been purchased. Any homes required for the building of the rail link which have not been acquired voluntarily by the time of Royal Assent will be subject to compulsory purchase at that time on the same terms. As regards the residential owner-occupiers whose properties are close to the surface sections of the rail link which are not taken, a discretionary purchase scheme is operated by Union Railways.
The Select Committee in the other place was satisfied with the treatment of those with properties taken or seriously affected by the rail link. Its concern was the blight which petitioners claimed spread further from the rail link which we term "generalised blight". That is the subject of the Government's review, as I mentioned in opening the debate, and I shall comment on that briefly in a moment.
As regards those adjacent to the railway, noise insulation will be available when the criteria for the national noise insulation regulations for railways are met. In addition, the discretionary purchase scheme will continue until a year after opening the rail link. Thereafter, under the statutory provisions for injurious effect, compensation will be paid for loss of property values arising from physical effects of the rail link such as noise. Those arrangements are modelled on the procedures used for roads. There is no question of those affected by the rail link being treated less favourably than those affected by reflective road schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned the PCA report, the ombudsman and so forth. We have already rehearsed those arguments at Question Time and so forth, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied if I direct my remarks to the review and its timing. However, if he requires a fuller explanation I can of course give one.
The Select Committee in another place requested the review that we have discussed. The Government have agreed the terms of reference of the review, which were publicised on 18th March. More than 130 organisations with an interest in compensation and blight issues have been contacted with a view to presenting evidence to the review. A discussion paper setting out the key issues which the working group wishes to see addressed in evidence will be published soon. We have promised that copies of the document will be placed in the Library of the House. Promises have also been made that a progress report on the review will be published in the autumn. That is probably as exact as I can be at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Aldington raised the issue of compensation for business. That is a complex issue which depends on the amount of land that is taken, whether it is necessary for the business to move out,

837
whether part of the whole of the land is taken, and so forth. Comprehensive and complex safeguards are built in and I shall be happy to write to my noble friend with the detail of those. Indeed, I shall place a copy in the Library for other noble Lords who are interested in the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, raised the issue of the Boxley tunnel. Some of the issues can be classified as general and some are for consideration by the Select Committee. However, it was helpful that the noble Lord raised those issues. The Boxley Valley was considered by the Select Committee in another place and the tunnel was rejected. It is notable that Kent County Council is not seeking the tunnel through the Boxley Valley in its petition to your Lordships' House. Others may seek a tunnel but the county council does not and it is worth bearing that in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, also asked about the provisions of the Bill compared with the Transport and Works Act and the way in which the two relate. The development agreement regulates London and Continental to build the CTRL on the lands identified in the Bill. There is no question of using the Transport and Works Act to change the route. I can say that clearly to the noble Lord and I hope that that provides him with the information that he seeks.
My noble friend Lord Aldington asked about the status of the various undertakings that have been given. The Government have given a clear undertaking that requirements will be placed on London and Continental. Accordingly, the development agreement with LCR requires it to honour the undertakings and assurances given during the passage of the Bill. To assist in what might be an otherwise complicated process, a register of all the assurances and undertakings given is being kept. I understand that so far there are about 400 entries.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, raised the issue of the gauge. As he rightly said, a number of Written Answers have set down in some detail the facts in relation to many of the questions surrounding that. Suffice it to say that there is a requirement in the development agreement—the contract between LCR and the Government—that LCR must build the link to a continental gauge capable of taking the largest freight trains. Therefore, there is no need for any provision to be written on the face of the Bill.
My noble friends Lord Astor and Lord Pender were concerned about the interrelationship between the road widening scheme of the A.2/M.2 and the CTRL. An absolute future guarantee of the start of new road projects can never be given because of reasons of government budgeting. Nevertheless, the Government recognise the advantages of the co-ordinated planning of the CTRL and the road-widening scheme and construction within the same time-scale. Indeed, it was in order to maximise the opportunities for those benefits that the A.2/M.2 widening scheme was included in the CTRL Bill. I hope that that explanation is of use to my noble friends.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the issue of CrossRail. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport indicated in a Statement
838
in another place on 27th February, we expect CrossRail to come after the Jubilee Line extension, Thameslink 2000 and the CTRL. We believe that that is a sensible sequence. I am sure that it is widely recognised that we cannot undertake all those major new rail projects at the same time and that there must be priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked about the Class 92 locomotives and why they are taking so long to be introduced into service. They are the most complex locomotives ever developed in the UK and additional work on the track circuits has been required to ensure that they operate safely. I have some other information about that which may interest the noble Lord. Suffice it to say that they will not run on the link until it is built.
Heritage issues have been a central area of concern in the debate today. My noble friend Lord Cavendish was quite right to draw attention to all the important heritage issues which pertain to the Bill and notably those in connection with St. Pancras and the gasholders. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, contributed at some length to that discussion.
There was mention of the disapplication of the planning legislation. Although Clause 12 and Schedule 7 selectively disapply the relevant provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 for works required to construct the CTRL, I can give an assurance that there is no intention whatever to ride roughshod over legitimate heritage interests. On the contrary, to replace the safeguards in disapplied legislation, the Government have been negotiating with English Heritage and local authorities on agreements as regards listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas. They have also negotiated with English Heritage in relation to agreements on ancient monuments. Those agreements are tailored to the particular requirements of the project.
In recognition of the special nature of St. Pancras terminus and its setting, in close co-operation with English Heritage and the local planning authority, the London Borough of Camden, we have developed a series of planning and heritage minimum requirements specifically for St. Pancras. My noble friend Lord Cavendish was good enough to recognise that the Government have made considerable efforts to put in appropriate safeguards, although he still feels that changes should be made. I am sure that such issues will be discussed when the matter comes before the Select Committee.
The minimum requirements target the features of the building which must be preserved and determine the way in which its heritage setting should be conserved and enhanced. That includes requirements relating to traffic control to minimise impact on listed buildings, their setting and the conservation area of St. Pancras. The chambers themselves constitute an exceptionally important building, as denoted by their Grade I listing. Both the chambers and the adjoining train shed are recognised historic landmarks of national importance. Those facts are recognised by the special arrangements that have been made. The buildings are to be regularly monitored and kept in a safe, secure, weather tight and

839
waterproof condition, externally and internally. In addition there are detailed requirements as to the works which can be carried out inter alia to the train shed, booking hall, ticket office and the German gymnasium.
The gasholders were referred to by my noble friend. English Heritage accepts that the gasholders will inevitably be displaced by the CTRL works. That is my understanding. Discussions with English Heritage and the London Borough of Camden on the subject are ongoing and I hope will lead to an agreement soon. We need to await the outcome of current discussions about the priority which the gasholders should have among the range of St. Pancras heritage projects.
My noble friends Lord Darnley and Lord Astor referred to Cobham Park and mentioned that there are petitions on that subject. The issues surrounding this area were extensively discussed in the Select Committee in another place and the request that the route be put in a tunnel in this area was rejected by the Select Committee. Since then, however, Union Railways has participated in a joint study with local consultees, which include both the county and the borough councils, on additional mitigation options and additional community amenity measures for this area. A study has recently been published by officials, and Union Railways Limited has given it serious consideration.
My noble friend Lord Astor was concerned about the upward limits of deviation. I can reassure him that this is a standard provision in railway Bills and is needed for a variety of technical reasons, for example as regards the accuracy of the mapping base. In many locations undertakings have been given to limit the upward deviation where there are physical constraints to be negotiated. If there are further locations where a stricter limit than three metres is desirable, those could of course be put to the Select Committee for consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked a number of questions. He was concerned about the King's Cross concrete batching plants. He gave us the background on that. The noble Lord helpfully quoted from the Government's response to the Select Committee of 13th February on this point, and he has saved me from doing so. He must have seen my brief before I did. That response sums up the Government's position. As was made clear during the debate for Report/Third Reading in another place on 25th April, there has been no change in the Government's position. The Government will comply fully with the undertaking given to the Select Committee. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance.
As regards the position of main line freight, as the noble Lord said, an over arching agreement has been entered into which provides for a long-term lease to be granted for the existing site occupied by the three companies concerned, and a new site is to be made available under the undertaking given to the Select Committee. That lease, which is consistent with the Government's undertaking to the Select Committee, is currently under discussion between the parties concerned and will be granted soon. I know that one of the companies involved has raised a concern about the
840
possibility of temporary relocation, if that proves necessary. I appreciate that the upheaval of moving the plant of those companies twice would be extremely undesirable. To the extent that relocation cannot be avoided if the longer-term site is not available when the current premises have to be vacated, an interim location may be necessary. However, in the unlikely event that that circumstance arises, my department and the CTRL promoters will take all reasonable steps to ensure that any interim arrangements do not prejudice the long-term position of those businesses or the provision of a rail facility at King's Cross.
The noble Lord asked about the freight services and safety. I am sure that he knows the answer to that question as well as I. However, I shall repeat the question for the benefit of other noble Lords. The question was: if freight operators wish to run trains on both the Railtrack network and on the Channel Tunnel rail link, will they need to get separate authority to do so, and as a consequence produce separate safety cases? The design of the link and the safety measures employed are such that potential freight operators will need to seek separate authority. However, that may not mean producing a separate safety case although any safety case would need to satisfy both Railtrack and LCR. That is, of course, entirely logical given the different technical standards on CTRL and the existing Railtrack network. I should press on in the 26th minute of my response. If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not satisfied, I shall be delighted to write to him further on that.
As I said in my opening remarks, we believe that the committee has a substantial task ahead. However, the Government's clear advice is that the committee should not seek any changes to the route outside the Bill's powers.
That rehearses all that I said in my opening remarks. However, I believe that it is worth saying again, although it is the Government's advice and it is for the Select Committee to decide.
We have had an extremely wide-ranging and important debate about all the issues surrounding the rail link. We can conclude that the link will bring major benefits to this country, more international and domestic train capacity, faster journey times, and a welcome regeneration for areas which badly need it. It is certainly an embodiment of the principle and spirit of the PFI, exemplifying the private and public sector relationship at its best.
The Bill will open up a new era in rail travel. I believe that that was the sentiment of the House this evening. We wish the Bill a good passage, and I commend it to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
10.17 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

841
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Bill—

L. Ampthill (Chairman),

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Cadman,

L. Inchyra,

L. Methuen,

L. Milner of Leeds,

L. Shaw of Northstead.

That four be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and that, if the Committee think fit, such places may include points in England, France and Belgium along the present and proposed railway routes between the Channel Tunnel and the termini of scheduled passenger trains using the Channel Tunnel;
That the evidence taken before the Committee be printed from time to time and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee do meet at half-past ten o'clock on Monday, 3rd June.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Marriage Ceremony (Prescribed Words) Bill
10.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time,
The Bill is important in that it aims to allow for alternative forms of the prescribed words that are used in marriage ceremonies. I am grateful that Her Majesty's Government have signified that they have no objections to this Bill, the provisions of which are a logical consequence of one of the recommendations in the I990 White Paper Registration—proposals for change.
Your Lordships are familiar with the changes that have taken place in the liturgies of the Church of England over the past few decades. That process of liturgical revision, much of which has centred on the type of language that is used, has also taken place in the Roman Catholic and Free Churches. This Bill aims to bring into line with that process of revision those words which must be used within the marriage ceremonies other than those of the Church of England or the forms of usage of the Jewish community and the Society of Friends.
At the present time the specified words of declaration are,
"I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, AB, may not be joined in matrimony to CD",
and the specified words of contract are,
"I call upon these persons here present to witness that I. AB, do take thee, CD. to he my lawful wedded wife (or husband)",
or, if the marriage is solemnised in the presence of an authorised person without the presence of the registrar,
"I, AB, do take thee. CD, to be my wedded wife (or husband)".
842
The style, vocabulary and grammatical construction of these forms of words are increasingly found to be discordant with the rest of the rites now used in the Roman Catholic and Free Churches. In addition, they are seen to be alien to the natural mode of expression of the couple who must repeat them laboriously after the officient. An additional effect of this form of words for the declaration is that it appears to endow this part of the rite with greater weight than the altogether more important formula for the exchange of contract.
The Roman Catholics and the Free Churches consider themselves discriminated against in this regard in comparison with the Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Quakers and the Jews and in comparison with the churches in Scotland none of which is required to incorporate these formulae in their rites. The Church of England and the Ecumenical Joint Liturgical Group are fully in support of the removal of this discrimination.
The effect of the Bill will be to provide two alternative formulae to the existing words of declaration. The first modernises the statement so as to read:
"I declare that I know of no legal reason why I may not be joined in marriage to"—
the person concerned. The second takes the form of a question and answer, reading, "I am", in response to the question:
"Are you free lawfully to marry AB?".
This second form is particularly favoured by the Roman Catholics as it matches other questions and answers in their marriage rite. The Bill also provides that the shorter form of words of contract in the Act may be used, whether or not a registrar is present. The only change of wording is to substitute "you" for "thee". The Bill does not, of course, replace the existing statutory words; it simply provides alternative formulae.
Finally, I point to the fact that, although the primary purpose of the Bill is to permit alternative words in a marriage solemnised in a church, it also enables the alternative words to be used in a marriage in a register office and in certain other forms of civil ceremony, including marriages in approved premises under the Marriage Act 1994.
I hope that the House will give its support to the Bill which will tidy up something which is, on the one hand, minor but in the context of a ceremony, an irritating anachronism.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
10.22 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, as the wholly inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, whose name appears upon the Speakers' List, may I say that the House will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for introducing this Private Member's Bill.
First, perhaps I may say that I speak entirely for myself since, to use the words of the Bill,
"alternative words of declaration and contract",

843
is not, to my knowledge, an issue on which the Labour Party has yet adopted a fixed and declared policy position. I must also declare an interest as a vice-president of the Prayer Book Society, which exists to save and defend harmless the Book of Common Prayer against all the assaults of its enemies. However, I think I may say without fear of successful contradiction that the noble compilation of Cranmer and others stands in no particular or peculiar peril from the modest proposal contained in the Bill before us tonight.
The changes proposed in Clause 1 as an addition to Section 44(3) of the Marriage Act 1949 are not unreasonable in themselves but, as the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians puts it in Chapter 6, verse 12 (and I quote him or her):
"all things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient".
May I ask the right reverend Prelate how great was the swell of unrest and protest against the words of the Marriage Act 1949 which made it necessary to bring in this Private Member's Bill? Was there any research? For example, was there a full survey of the registrars to ask their opinions? How were the views of the consumers of the service established and obtained?
Since this Bill, as is customary in another place, passed through all its stages without exciting very much discussion, I should be grateful if the right reverend Prelate could say a little more by way of explication about the benefits which the changes would bring and to whom those benefits would principally accrue, and what perils and dangers would await us all, in this world and the next, if by any chance, through the sundry and manifold changes of the world, the Bill were unfortunate enough not to secure its Second Reading here tonight?
10.25 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark on securing the introduction of the Bill, which has been considered and passed to this House from another place. I congratulate him also on the explanation he gave, which certainly helped with some of the queries I had in relation to the Bill. It was instructive to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in his beautiful use of English, raise queries on the Bill.
As the House heard, the purpose of the Bill is to introduce greater choice for people who are getting married by allowing the use of more modern language in the marriage ceremony for those couples who want it. As the right reverend Prelate said, the 1990 White Paper, Registration: Proposals for Change, recognised that there was a case for providing modern-day language alternatives which had substantially the same effect as the contracting and declaratory words prescribed in the Marriage Act 1949. The proposals in this Bill have broadly the same purpose.
844
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, had a number of queries concerning the Bill, one of which related to its benefits. The benefits for his countrymen are that they will be able to be married in their own language and in their own chapels.
I have listened with interest to what has been said. I congratulate the Churches Main Committee on the work it carried out, and once again congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark on his work.
10.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his encouraging words, the kindness of his remarks about the Churches Main Committee and the explanation of this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his animated intervention and his series of questions. I could expect nothing less from a vice-president of the Prayer Book Society, even at this late hour.
As I indicated in my speech, there has been a full discussion on this matter, with a Green Paper, but also in preparation for the White Paper, including the proposal that the words should be modernised. No single objection was raised. I cannot give an answer as to whether the registrars were fully consulted on what the score was at the end. I doubt whether anyone can.
I also indicated—and it is important that I repeat this for a vice-president of the Prayer Book Society—that the traditional Prayer Book words will not be replaced but an alternative will be provided. I do not know what the perils and dangers may be for those in this world and the next. I have never made a study of either the furniture of Heaven or the temperature of Hell, so I do not know those things.
Since we are in the business of quoting from St. Paul, I shall simply say: yes, he did say those words about certain things being expedient, but the same author in the same book said: "I would rather speak five words with understanding than ten thousand words in an unfamiliar tongue." So to those who are being married with these words, in these days, I rather think the tongue will be more familiar if the alternative words are used. Those matchless words of Cranmer are slightly out of date for the modern couple. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty nine minutes past ten o'clock.

  Fire Safety Review
  Fire Safety Review
  Sporting Club Police Raid: Media Presence
  Sporting Club Police Raid: Media Presence
  Deportation
  Deportation
  British Council Restructuring Costs: Government Assistance
  British Council Restructuring Costs: Government Assistance
  EU General Affairs Council, 13th-14th May
  EU General Affairs Council, 13th-14th May
  St. Helena: Demonstration
  St. Helena: Demonstration
  Albanian Elections: Monitoring
  Albanian Elections: Monitoring
  Council of Europe: Croatian Application
  Council of Europe: Croatian Application
  Dr. Seyfettin Kizilkan
  Dr. Seyfettin Kizilkan
  Europe: Human Rights Policies
  Europe: Human Rights Policies
  Russia: Nuclear Safety
  Russia: Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Sam Rainsy
  Mr. Sam Rainsy
  Sifiso Mahlangu
  Sifiso Mahlangu
  Europe: Human Rights (Interim Measures)
  Europe: Human Rights (Interim Measures)
  Christmas Island Tests: Atmospheric Effects
  Christmas Island Tests: Atmospheric Effects
  UK-US Ballistic Missile Defence
  UK-US Ballistic Missile Defence
  Economic Activity: Definition
  Economic Activity: Definition
  Road Works: Advance Warning Signs
  Road Works: Advance Warning Signs
  Rail Freight Operations
  Rail Freight Operations
  Mozambique: Oil Pollution Preparedness
  Mozambique: Oil Pollution Preparedness
  Liberian Maritime Registry (Operation)
  Liberian Maritime Registry (Operation)
  Post Offices
  Post Offices
  Trade Marks: Retail Services
  Trade Marks: Retail Services
  Scottish Fishery Management (Trout and Char)
  Scottish Fishery Management (Trout and Char)