Sitting of 7 November 1996

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

    QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Convictions
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last three years the proportion of criminal offences that ended in a court conviction. [914]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): About 6 per cent., but the percentage for more serious offences was very much higher and many of those convicted will have committed other crimes of which they have not been convicted.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that that figure is a percentage of recorded crime only, that the level of convictions is a disgrace and that the biggest deterrent to crime is the fear of getting caught? Will he accept that it is now three times more likely that a burglar or rapist will escape punishment than when Labour was in power? Will he do something to address that problem, instead of giving us this continual rhetoric?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's comments would carry some conviction if he and his hon. Friends had been prepared to support the measures that we have taken to increase the likelihood of convictions taking place. Let me give an example: if the rate of suspects refusing to answer questions has fallen by half—as it has since we reformed the right to silence—that reform is likely to increase the proportion of convictions, yet the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, including the Leader of the Opposition, steadfastly opposed it, root and branch.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Some of those offences will be knife offences. As my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, I contacted the umbrella organisations for the
    1346
    industry in Sheffield to ensure that none of the manufacturers were disadvantaged. I sent him some of the work done by the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association. Has that been taken into consideration when framing any proposed legislation?
    Mr. Howard: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall take into account all representations, including those to which he referred, when considering proposals for further legislation on this matter.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, when someone is convicted of a criminal offence, it is important that he receives an appropriate sentence? Will he assure the House that he will continue to work towards his objective of imposing longer sentences on burglars, rapists and other people who commit violent crimes, and that he will not be deflected from that objective by the views of former Ministers, liberal judges and penal reformers? The British public are entirely behind his efforts on this front.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can certainly give him the assurance that he requests. If we are to fight crime effectively, we need both to convict the criminals and to ensure that they are properly dealt with—and properly punished—when they have been convicted. That is one of the purposes of the proposals set out in the Crime (Sentences) Bill—a Bill to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred on the radio this week, saying that he was leading the opposition to it.
    Mr. Beggs: When criminal offences involving the illegal smuggling of tobacco products into the United Kingdom occur, such as the recent large haul impounded in Belfast in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seek to ensure that the level of fine imposed on conviction matches the value of the impounded cargo and thereby protect our local newsagents and, indeed, the Treasury, which is losing valuable revenue?
    Mr. Howard: I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am not sure that we are yet ready to introduce a series of minimum mandatory fines and, in the absence of such fines, the matter is for the discretion of the court concerned, but I have great sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman makes.
    Mr. Michael: As the Home Secretary issues his soundbite attacks on the Opposition, he knows in his heart of hearts that Labour has worked hard in opposition to be tough on crime, to be tough on the causes of crime and to support the Government when they make constructive proposals. In contrast, would not a little more humility be appropriate when the Home Secretary considers the facts: that recorded crime is double the level it was when the Conservative party came to power, that fewer than one in 50 crimes end up in a punishment by a court, and that, in his county of Kent, violent crime has gone up by 300 per cent.—and robbery by 600 per cent.—since the Conservative party came to power?
    Mr. Howard: We hear these inane generalities from the Labour party, but Labour Members refuse to deal with

    1347
    the specific points such as the example that I put to them a few minutes ago. The number of suspects refusing to answer questions has nearly halved since we reformed the right to silence. When we reformed the right to silence, the Labour party—whose shadow Home Secretary at the time is now the Leader of the Opposition—opposed that reform root and branch. What we have done—not uttering inane generalities across the Floor of the House—is the way to get criminals convicted and to reduce crime.

    Handguns
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's latest proposals on handguns. [915]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The Government have introduced legislation that will stop all handguns being kept at home—.22 rimfire handguns will have to be kept in licensed, secure pistol clubs. All higher calibre handguns will be prohibited. I believe that those provisions will give the public the protection that they need.
    Mr. Winnick: Is there not overwhelming public support for a ban on handguns? Is it not a pity that the Government are not going even further, as requested by the police and as would certainly be supported by the public—although Ministers are shaking their heads? Is it not disgraceful—almost obscene—that some members of the gun lobby are reported to be urging a dirty tricks campaign against the organisers of Snowdrop? How low and deplorable can one get?
    Miss Widdecombe: I naturally deplore all dirty tricks campaigns and all low and deplorable levels to which people sink when opposing perfectly sensible legislation. I believe that the measures that we are introducing produce the right balance between protecting the public, ensuring that handguns will not be in circulation outside secure clubs and preserving what has been a perfectly legitimate sport in this country for more than 100 years.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept my total opposition, of which she knows, to this intended Bill? The Government intend to confiscate the personal property of innocent individuals. The Bill will have an enormous effect, not only on those individuals but on numerous businesses and very many others attached to the industry. The proposed compensation is totally inadequate. In a sense of fairness, will the Government accept that they are wrong? Will my hon. Friend ensure that compensation is much fairer and wider than is presently proposed, especially in the money resolution associated with the Bill?
    Miss Widdecombe: Our current proposal is to compensate people for the loss of their guns at the market value of those guns on the day before the Secretary of State's statement. We shall compensate dealers for their stocks of guns on the same basis. I am always prepared to consider any sensible and reasonable suggestion that any hon. Member on either side of the House may wish to make during the Bill's passage, but I have explained our present thinking to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Henderson: The Minister will be aware that, arising out of the gun Bill, there has been wide public
    1348
    debate not just about pistols, but about other forms of firearms currently used in the United Kingdom. Has consideration been given to airguns, which are commonly in use in many parts of the country? They are often used by young people to intimidate and harass others in the community, and can be purchased by a 17-year-old and used by a person aged 14. Does the Minister believe that there is a case for reviewing the law on airguns, considering a system of licensing, and changing the age at which people can buy or use such potentially lethal weapons?
    Miss Widdecombe: Licensing is important. That is why, although the Bill is largely geared to handguns, it includes proposals that cover rifles as well. The proposals that we have produced are in response to the independent report by Lord Cullen. It is in the public interest to get legislation on the statute book quickly. We therefore thought that we should tackle the particular problem in hand.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend say when she may be able to offer a considered response to the genuine concerns of those who shoot with muzzle-loading, flintlock or matchlock pistols, which could not by any remote stretch of the imagination be connected with contemporary crime?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have made a number of exceptions—for example, for antique guns and trophies of war. We are giving careful consideration to the definitions that we have used. We will take into account the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, and consider our response as soon as possible.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister comment on the availability of extremely dangerous shotgun cartridges, which often do greater damage than smaller bullets in handguns? Although everyone in the House accepts the argument that handguns should be banned because they can be more easily concealed, does the Minister agree that we should consider stricter licensing measures for rifles and shotguns as well, and the possibility of including such measures in the Bill?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have already said that we have tightened up the conditions for issuing certificates, especially with regard to the referees required and the proof of fitness. That applies not only to handguns, but to rifles as well. I also said, in response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), that many issues might have been considered, but, in the interests of getting legislation quickly on to the statute book to protect the general public, we have addressed principally the concerns raised by Lord Cullen.

    Schengen Treaty
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy with regard to United Kingdom accession to the Schengen treaty. [916]
    Mr. Howard: The Government have no intention of seeking accession to the Schengen treaty.
    Mr. Brown: I am delighted to hear that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that border

    1349
    controls are essential in our aim to defeat drug trafficking and all other forms of crime? May I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that there are sufficient customs officers at ports such as Immingham in my constituency, and at Humberside airport in my constituency, which are vulnerable to drug trafficking and the importing of illegal goods?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of maintaining our frontier controls. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made it clear on more than one occasion that we have no intention of doing anything to dismantle or weaken them. With reference to customs and immigration officers, my hon. Friend will be aware that we are making greater use of intelligence-led action to deal with the importation of drugs and other forbidden substances and articles into the United Kingdom. Those methods are having considerable success.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Home Secretary's opposition to the Schengen agreement extend to the work of Europol, which is essential in tackling international drug trafficking and in which British police officers play an important role? Why has the British Government resisted the development of Europol, on occasion blocking its essential provisions? Is that part of the Schengen argument?
    Mr. Howard: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has completely the wrong end of the stick. In fact, the United Kingdom Government were at the forefront of progress in establishing Europol. We continue to make progress in advancing it, and we expect to be one of the first countries to ratify the Europol convention.

    Handgun Control
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public representations he has received since 16 October on handgun control proposals. [917]
    Miss Widdecombe: Since 16 October, we have received upwards of 250 letters on this subject from right hon. and hon. Members. The Department has received more than 700 telephone calls and more than 1,200 letters from the public. The great majority of letters have been from individual shooters.
    Mr. Dykes: As to the idea of a total ban on handguns or one so close to being a total ban that it renders unnecessary the creation of new loopholes in the future, does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming views of about 56 million people are much more important than those of 56,000 shooters?
    Miss Widdecombe: As I said in response to a previous question, we are trying to strike a balance between protecting legitimate sporting rights and protecting the public. Lord Cullen produced an independent report with 24 recommendations, 23 of which we have accepted. I assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to get the balance right.
    Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister confirm that, under the proposed legislation, individuals who currently own high
    1350
    calibre weapons will receive compensation, and, there is nothing to stop them buying. 22 calibre weapons, so the estimated figure of some 40,000 .22 calibre weapons in circulation after the legislation is enacted is likely to fall far short of the mark, and people may use many more such weapons than they do at present?
    Miss Widdecombe: That is an impossible prophecy. Perhaps some people who currently own .22 calibre weapons will decide, because of the restrictions on other weapons or the inconvenience caused to some—but not all—clubs, to cease to use .22 calibre weapons. It is quite impossible to make that sort of behavioural prediction.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend concede that there is a serious possibility that the judges of the European Court of Human Rights may oblige the British taxpayer to provide compensation on a much wider basis—to those who manufacture pistols, to gun clubs owners, professional shooters and those who supply the ancillary trades? As the object of the exercise is to preserve human life, does my hon. Friend agree that, if the level of compensation were to rise to between £0.5 billion and £1 billion as some suggest, taxpayers might consider that the money would be better spent elsewhere?
    Miss Widdecombe: Our estimates are nowhere near the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend. We shall take full account of all our legal obligations in deciding how we should compensate and what compensation is proper. There are plenty of precedents for providing compensation following changes in the law. We shall do what we believe is right, and we shall put our proposals before the House.
    Dr. Godman: May I point out to the Minister that, a few years ago, two Glasgow police officers were shot dead by an assassin armed with a .22 calibre pistol. Does she realise that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland demand that any ban on pistols should include .22 calibre weapons?
    Miss Widdecombe: The statistics for homicides between 1992 and 1994 show clearly that only about 5 per cent. Involved .22 calibre weapons. I agree that 5 per cent. is too much, but it puts the problem into context. I sympathise with the relatives of the policemen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, but I believe that, by confining guns to clubs, we are tackling the problem of guns in circulation and held perfectly legally by the general public.

    Short-term Remand
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce short-term remands to allow fast tracking of cases; and if he will make a statement. [918]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We want to ensure that cases come to trial as soon as possible. All the criminal justice agencies are committed to this end and much is being done. We have also recently set up a review to identify urgently what more can be done to reduce delays, including the possibility of shorter-term remands.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as there are only 349 secure places available in

    1351
    England and Wales, a new sort of secure facility is needed in which juveniles can be held in secure conditions while their needs are assessed by a multi-agency group? The problem that is being experienced quite widely is that juveniles abscond from normal community homes, or sometimes abscond from a car on their way to such a home. We need short-term secure remand facilities.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in conjunction with the Department of Health, we have been investing sums to ensure that more remand spaces are available, but we must be interested in speeding up the process of bringing all cases to trial, whether in the Crown courts or magistrates courts, whether for adults or for juveniles. A range of studies is under way, which is being supervised by the pre-trial issues steering group. The group is endeavouring to ensure that all parts of the criminal justice system move as quickly as possible in future.

    Criminal Cases (Review)
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the criminal cases review authority to be established; and if he will make a statement. [919]
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimated date by which the body set up for the review of criminal cases will begin its operation; and what criteria will be used to determine the order of review of disputed convictions. [921]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): We expect the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be established around the turn of the year. It will be for the commission to determine its own criteria for the order in which it considers the cases that come before it.
    Mr. Mullin: Was the Home Secretary aware when he appointed Sir Frederick Crawford as chairman of the commission that Sir Frederick was a freemason—and not just any old freemason, but one of the leading freemasons in the land? May I say to the Minister that those of us who take an interest in miscarriages of justice have always been a wee bit cynical about the role of the Home Office, but even I was somewhat taken aback to find that the Home Secretary was so daft as to appoint a leading freemason to such a sensitive post?
    Mr. Kirkhope: The post was openly advertised. There were 124 applicants, and consideration of them was conducted in a proper manner in accordance with the Nolan procedures, which the House approved recently. Indeed, the appointment was one of the earliest to go through the Nolan procedures. I have no doubt that the appointee, Sir Frederick Crawford, will act with complete integrity and impartiality.
    Mr. Gunnell: Is the Minister able to say that the appointment was considered by the officer who has been given responsibility to review public appointments—Sir Len Peach? Is he able to give us Sir Len's view of the appointment? Is the Minister aware that many prisoners, including the sons of some of my constituents, are held
    1352
    without time limit because they have not agreed that they committed the crimes of which they have been convicted? In many instances they have served a longer term than they would have served if they had pleaded guilty. Will the Minister ensure that the authorities are aware of such cases and that they take into account the time that prisoners, who may be innocent, have spent in gaol?
    Mr. Kirkhope: The guidelines of the commission for public appointments were followed. Once the commission is working, I am sure that it will want to set its own timetable for the cases that it will have to consider. Slightly more than 200 cases are awaiting final consideration, and will go to the commission. It is expected that there will be an increase in the number of applications during the commission's first year of operation. Nevertheless, I am sure that it will review the nature of the cases and will have its timetable fixed accordingly.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I tell my hon. Friend that many Birmingham Members will strongly resent the slur against Sir Frederick Crawford, who did an excellent job as vice-chancellor of Aston university for many years? Does my hon. Friend accept that what a person chooses to do in his spare time should not be a bar if his abilities are such that he will fulfil correctly a job that is offered to him?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that my hon. Friend is quite right about that. As long as the proper criteria are met in appointments, and they are in accordance with the Nolan procedures, I have no reason to doubt that the chairman will do an excellent job.
    Mr. Nicholls: As one who is not a freemason and never intends to be, I find it rather distasteful that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) conducts this campaign against freemasons when, to my certain knowledge—and perhaps that of my hon. Friend as well—many of them are among the most upright people in the community and do a great deal of work for charity as well. It is rather unpleasant that hon. Members should use their position in the House to attack people of that quality and calibre.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Our major concern in relation to the commission is to have the best people doing the job. Many hon. Members have called for us to set up a commission. They expect us to set it up in such a way that it will be effective. For it to be effective, we need to ensure that the best people are involved in chairing it and in membership of it. I believe that that will occur.

    Queen's Speech
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the measures announced in the Queen's Speech. [922]
    Mr. Maclean: The Home Office measures announced in the Gracious Speech have one simple aim—to protect the public. As my right hon. and learned Friend told the

    1353
    House last week, they represent the most radical attack on crime this century. They have won wide support from the police and the public.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Bolton's police force on achieving, against the national trend, a 10 per cent. reduction in crime over the past five months? Should not those figures be published quarterly, as they always used to be?
    Mr. Maclean: Greater Manchester police have been successful in reducing crime, as have many other forces, leading in the past three years to the largest fall in crime for 40 years.
    If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the success of the Greater Manchester police in reducing crime and in more bobbies on the beat, I am very surprised at his new choice of party. I must give him the Liberal party policy document that I have here, which says:
    "Putting more police officers on the beat will … have little effect in reducing levels of crime".
    If he wants crime in Manchester to keep falling, I hope that he will change his new party's policies.
    Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the law and order measures announced in the Queen's Speech, particularly those that will ensure that sentences mean what they say, have been widely welcomed in the constituencies? Is he further aware that, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), that is certainly the case? Sentences must mean what they say, and that is clearly provided for in the Gracious Speech.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key measures in the Crime (Sentencing) Bill—of honesty in sentencing and of minimum mandatory sentences for burglars, drug dealers and serious violent and sexual offenders—have been welcomed and are widely supported by everyone except the Labour party, which dithered and sat on its hands on Monday night, was afraid to vote for them and faced the shame of some of its own members voting against them on Monday night.
    Mr. Flynn: Did not the Minister of State expose the absurdity of the Government's attempt to reduce the number of guns when she confessed this afternoon that she did not know how many people who, deprived of their high calibre guns, would transfer to .22 weapons? Does not that mean that, if all of them do that, there will be no reduction whatever in the number of guns in people's homes? Has she not exposed this afternoon the fact that the Bill is entirely futile unless it is improved by the Labour party's amendment?
    Mr. Maclean: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He is wrong on many counts. He misquoted my hon. Friend, and handguns will not be held in people's homes. It is clearly our intention that the lesser caliber .22 rimfire handguns will be held in secure gun clubs. It is right to say that it is impossible to forecast whether some people may wish to acquire .22 handguns in future or whether even more .22 handgun owners will decide that it is not worth the hassle of complying with the tough new rules and give up their .22 handguns as well. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to jump to the conclusions that he does.

    Rugby Matches (Twickenham)
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the policing of big match days at the Rugby Football Union ground, Twickenham. [923]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am assured by the commissioner that extra officers for the policing of match days at Twickenham will be deployed as and when needed.
    Mr. Jessel: I am grateful for that. Rugby football is a sport of great national importance, but is my hon. Friend aware that the combination of the increase in the number of big match days and the growing number of people who arrive by car has inflicted on my constituents who live nearby almost impossible conditions? Will he please ask the commissioner to ensure that the increase in the number of police is as large as possible so that my constituents can get in and out of their homes?
    Mr. Sackville: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents, who are, after all, victims of rugby's success. I have sat in a huge traffic jam on the A316 more than once, having the misfortune to arrive at the same time as a match is exiting, and I am aware of the effects of that and of the parking problem to which he referred. I am assured that the police will continue to take what measures they can in order to obviate that distressing problem.

    Youth Justice
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to speed up the system of youth justice. [924]
    Mr. Kirkhope: We welcome the action being taken by all criminal justice agencies to speed up the process of bringing young offenders to justice—for example avoiding unnecessary adjournments, co-ordinating their approach and sentencing persistent offenders promptly without waiting for other changes to be heard. The review on expediting justice, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned earlier, is also examining this specific issue.
    Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that, despite the painstaking work of the local police, it took more than six months to bring to trial some young hooligans who were terrorising the residents of the Downham estate in my constituency, and that, once tried and convicted, two of them were fined a pathetic £7 and £15 respectively? Does that not send out all the wrong messages to victims and offenders, and is not justice delayed, justice denied?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that the hon. Lady, herself a justice of the peace and a former teacher, will be well aware of the need for us to have a co-ordinated approach to the way in which we deal with young people. Therefore, I hope that she will support the Government's proposals to speed up such matters and bring criminals to justice.

    1355
    I am pleased to be able to announce to the House that the Magistrates Association and the Justices' Clerks Society have agreed to give guidance that, in future, instead of charges against young people being deferred pending the consideration of other charges that are still being investigated, they will be dealt with there and then in order to ensure that young people understand that they should be dealt with as close to the committal of the crime as possible.
    Mr. John Greenway: How soon will the first new secure training unit come on stream? Those units will do a great deal to improve the behaviour of young people convicted of offences. Is it not odd that one of the Opposition's five core pledges is to speed up youth justice, yet they have obstructed the development and construction of secure training units at every turn?
    Mr. Kirkhope: The Conservative party has decided to follow that course and I am glad that my hon. Friend is so supportive. I only wish that all Labour-controlled local authorities were doing their best to assist us in opening such centres. Bassetlaw council has decided to block a planning application for such a unit, when it well knows that such a move can only have an adverse impact on our ability to get such units in place and operational as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister not aware that there is no better, or worse, example of the failure of this Government after 17 years to deal with law and order than the decay and negligence now apparent in the youth justice system? The case that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) cited, in which after six months those young hooligans were fined a derisory £7 and £15 for terrorising a neighbourhood, is all too typical of the current chaos in the youth justice system. Instead of initiating studies, why does the Minister not impose clear limits on the time that it takes to get such matters to court, and ensure that in no case is the court allowed to issue another warning after previous warnings have been given?
    Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The weasel words that he is spouting do not fit very neatly into the policies and attitudes of his party. The Labour party has just published another piece of paper on the issue, but what have Labour Members been doing all these years, because they have not supported the Government in their attempts to make the justice system tougher? If the hon. Gentleman wants to help us to deal with such matters, he should support us totally by calling for tougher sentences and by supporting my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

    Crime Investigation
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to improve the investigation of crimes across police force boundaries. [926]
    Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for a national crime squad will significantly enhance the police's ability to investigate organised crime across police force boundaries at home and abroad.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that a national crime squad will build on the already
    1356
    considerable regional success that the police are having in tackling organised drugs crime? Does he agree that that, coupled with my right hon. and learned Friend's tough sentencing proposals, will send a clear message to those who destroy lives by peddling drugs?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national criminal intelligence service and the regional crime squads are a great British police success story. Last year, the total number of drug-related arrests was about 1,400, the total value of confiscated assets was more than £2 million and the total value of street drugs seized by the regional crime squads was more than £250 million. That was their success last year, and they have had even greater success this year. When the Police Bill is on the statute book, we shall have the new national crime squad, which will build on those outstanding successes.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister accept that one way of improving cross-border activity among the police is the early development of the database HOLMES 2? Will he ensure that the specification for that project includes the most far-reaching data mining processes, which have been used in experiments in Warwickshire and in his authority and by the FBI? Will he also ensure that that specification is out to tender at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Maclean: I shall ensure that the specifications for HOLMES 2, Phoenix, Quest, the national police information system strategy and the huge automatic fingerprint system are along the lines of what the police want. That is why we are creating PITO, the police information technology organisation, to ensure that the specifications are not drawn up just by politicians, but by the police service according to its needs. With the private finance initiative, we intend to deliver many of those schemes as soon as possible.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thinking behind this welcome new national squad is along the lines of intelligence-led policing pioneered by police forces such as Kent? Does he further agree that it will operate most effectively in conjunction with the measures on minimum sentences for persistent drug dealers that the Government are introducing, apparently against the wishes of the principal Opposition?
    Mr. Maclean: I congratulate Kent on its initiatives on intelligence-led policing. The success of NCIS and the national crime squads will be obviated if the Labour party do not support measures to ensure that the most dangerous and persistent criminals who are caught by the police are locked up for sufficiently long. We are aware of the two-faced attitude of the Labour party. No doubt, over the next few months, we shall hear Labour Members boasting that they have supported the Police Bill—which sets up NCIS and PITO—whereas on Monday night most of them sat on their hands. Some of them went through the No Lobby to vote against the measures that will ensure that this country's worst drug dealers are locked up for a minimum of seven years. We should not be surprised at that. They voted against every measure like that in the 1980s as well.

    Fireworks
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents which involved fireworks have been reported to the police in each year since 1992. [927]
    Mr. Sackville: The police become involved in a wide variety of incidents involving fireworks, such as illegal sale, misuse and nuisance and serious incidents of fire or injury. The statistics on injuries caused by fireworks are collected from hospitals by the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Heppell: I am sure that the Minister will want to join the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in expressing his condolences following the death of a constituent of mine, 10-year-old Dale Mitchell, who died because of the misuse of fireworks. Given that a third of firework injuries are not accidents but are caused by illegal misuse, why are there not more prosecutions for illegal misuse, and why are more people not prosecuted for supplying fireworks to under-age children?
    Mr. Sackville: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in condoling with all who have been injured. There are restrictions, and there is a wealth of education each year in an attempt to avoid such incidents. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said yesterday, he is conducting a root-and-branch inquiry into the whole issue. There is a good deal of evidence that changes are needed: every injury is an injury too many.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [944]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.
    Mr. Garnier: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the damage recently caused to his property by a gang of criminal thugs, which included two Labour councillors? Will he take this opportunity to contrast the Government's record on law and order with the pathetic performance of the smarmy army on the Opposition Benches? That smarmy army has not even criticised, let alone disciplined, those two Labour councillors.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I must say that, when I looked out of my window, it seemed like old times—the winter of discontent, with the Labour party on the streets; the mobs of the 1980s, with the Labour party on the streets; and then, in the 1990s, Labour councillors on people's private property, causing damage and disruption: and the
    1358
    characteristic of all three? Not a word of protest from the parliamentary Labour party. Labour Members talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they do not even have the energy to walk through the Lobbies when we are fighting crime.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why, 50 years ago this week, the Tories voted against the creation of the national health service?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after 50 years, the health service has been administered and supported by Tory Governments for longer than by Labour Governments. Because of that, we have made it one of the best health services in the world.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the people simply do not believe the Tories on health? Does he not remember that, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to cut taxes year on year? They went up year on year. Now the same Prime Minister is promising to increase health spending year on year. Is that not like the tax promise? Should not all Tory pre-election promises carry a Government health warning?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, health expenditure has gone up every year. If he really cares about the health service, why will he not, on behalf of his party, now give a commitment to match our pledge to increase, year on year, real-terms expenditure on the health service?
    Mr. Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister fails to understand that our national health service, set up by a Labour Government 50 years ago, was the greatest peacetime achievement of any Government this century. Is not the simple truth this: the British people know that the only way to safeguard our health service for the next 50 years is to elect a Labour Government, and the sooner the better?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The British people know that the Labour party will not give the pledge that the Conservatives have already given. After all, we hear all about windfall taxes. If they are so profitable and so available, why cannot windfall taxes finance the health service? The reason is, of course, that there is not an easy killing of a windfall tax any more than there is a genuine commitment from Labour to the health service.
    Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a seminar in my constituency, the chief economist for the National Westminster bank predicted that small businesses would be particularly vulnerable to a minimum wage? He warned that a minimum wage would cost

    1359
    thousands of jobs in Essex. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will never introduce a minimum wage?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Any fool knows that a minimum wage costs jobs. After all, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow leader of the Labour party, has already said so.
    Mr. Prescott: Don't get too excited.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am always excited by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole House is excited by him. He is an exciting person. Never has someone been so wrong, so often, on so many subjects.
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [945]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago, before my observations about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
    Mr. Gunnell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given by players of Leeds United, of Leeds rugby league club and of Yorkshire county cricket club to the urgent appeal for funds by Leeds general infirmary for essential equipment, which, it says, it cannot afford because of the national health service funding level? Is it not an absolute scandal that, after 17 years of this Government, that hospital, having closed 40 beds only last month, is forced to beg to survive?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would overwhelmingly support anyone who sought to raise funds for charitable purposes for the health service. One of the most exciting additional supports to health funding in Britain has come from the idea of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that part of lottery proceeds go to charities in Britain. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members are prepared to sneer at charitable giving in Britain. I realise that they would rather tax people into a position where charity was compulsory, as opposed to relying on people's natural instinct to give, but I cannot believe that the purpose of such a generous decision by the various players to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred is designed to turn the health service into a party political matter.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [946]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend have a chance to speak to the Prime Minister while he is in France preparing for the summit and get him to bring back a
    1360
    few souvenirs for Opposition Members? I have in mind in particular some recent issues of Le Figaro newspaper, which extolled the virtues of what had happened to French companies that had come to the United Kingdom to invest in British firms, highlighting particularly the low cost base here and the stable, growing economy.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the remarkable article in Le Figaro. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew my attention to it earlier today. The House will be pleased to know that copies of the article are on their way to this country. For the benefit of many Labour Members, translations will be freely available.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [947]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the new rules that were introduced to curb the abuse by former Conservative Ministers such as Peter Walker and Norman Tebbit, who left the Government and moved to the boardrooms of companies that they privatised while in office? Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Minister who privatised London's buses—the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—has moved from his boudoir at the Department of Transport to the profitable and sweet embrace of Capital City Bus?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will want to take that question extremely seriously because a most serious allegation has been made against my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). My hon. Friend has not accepted any job with Capital City Bus or any other company. He has consulted the advisory committee on business appointments and, of course, he will follow any advice that that committee gives.
    I want to stand back from the regrettable nature of the question asked by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and say that the only reason why no Labour ex-Ministers are in a similar position is that there have been no Labour ex-Ministers in recent memory. However, when there were Labour ex-Ministers, what was Lord Marsh doing—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was a Tory."] When he was at the Dispatch Box, he was a Labour Minister. He only became a Tory when he realised that we were right and he was wrong. What have Labour Members to say about Edmund Dell, who became head of Guinness? What do they have to say about Lord Varley, the former Energy Secretary? What about Lord Barnett, who is on the boards of a raft of different companies? It is one rule for them and one rule for everybody else—hypocrisy from start to finish.
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [948]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    1361
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jessel: As next year will be the 50th anniversary of the independence of India, and as relations between India and Britain have never been better, do the Government intend to supplement the Queen's visit to India, the visit of our Prime Minister to India as guest of honour on Republic Day and my right hon. Friend's visit to India to launch the Indo-British partnership initiative, with events in this country to mark the jubilee? Will he bear in mind that a large proportion of Indian people who are resident in Britain are natural supporters of the enterprise economy?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has left out of his list the distinguished role that he has played for 25 years as an officer and chairman of the all-party Indo-British group. He will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited my noble Friend Lord Cranborne to chair the group to determine how we can progress with such an important anniversary.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Employment Committee that, in the unemployment statistics, the Government should include details of the 12 categories excluded from those figures? In those circumstances, does he recognise that the true number of unemployed is not just over 2 million, but nearer 4 million, and that the Government's present figures are a complete sham and a fiddle?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I seem to remember the hon. and learned Gentleman producing reports saying that 100,000 jobs would go in the aftermath of the closure of the mines. Unemployment has fallen every month since.
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [949]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lidington: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports that about 40 per cent. of those leaving the jobless
    1362
    register are now setting up as self-employed to provide work not only for themselves but for other people? Does he agree that that augurs well for the present and future competitiveness of the country, enabling us to look forward to levels of unemployment continuing to fall in my constituency and throughout the nation?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, of course, right. We have the highest proportion of our population at work of any major European country. The forecasts are that our position will continue to improve. I am delighted to recognise the announcement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of a significant extension of project work to concentrate particularly on those who have been unemployed for more than two years.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [950]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michael: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen advertisements for articles such as the Vindicator knife and the Rambo short sword? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to make it illegal to advertise or offer for sale such weapons in a manner that appears to condone or encourage violence?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in discussions with Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but those discussions have not led to a simplistic definition that would have enabled the law to be changed. In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend was correct to say that this is a complex matter to which a satisfactory legal outcome has not so far been found. The whole House will be glad of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement yesterday about strengthening police powers of stop and search, particularly of those people who are likely to be carrying knives.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
TUESDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "The BSE Crisis and the Lack of Progress on Lifting the Export Ban on Beef and Beef Products" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 14 NOVEMBER—Debate on Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Debate on rail privatisation on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 13 November, there will be a debate on the identification of cattle and labelling of beef and beef products in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on cinema and television films in European Standing Committee B.
In the following week, more provisionally, the business will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Proceedings on the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [2nd allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, of which the subject will, no doubt, be announced in due course.
THURSDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the impact of a windfall tax on the privatised utilities on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 22 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that, on Wednesday 20 November, there will be a debate on waste management strategy in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 13 November:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 10495/96, Identification of Cattle and Labelling of Beef and Beef Products. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-i (1996–97).
European Standing Committee B—European Community Document: 12357/95, Cinema and Television Films. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 51-ix (1995–96) and HC 36-ii (1996–97).
Wednesday 20 November:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 9651/96, Strategy for Waste Management. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-i (1996–97).]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. In view of today's High Court ruling against the Secretary of State for Social Security—which has implications for the benefit entitlement of many thousands of disabled people and many other claimants—will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to make an urgent statement to the House on that important matter?
Recently, certain Departments have changed the way in which they handle parliamentary questions, with some apparently transferring all key statistical questions to the Treasury. In addition, Ministers' excuses for not answering parliamentary questions are becoming ever more creative, the latest example being an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who was told that the answer to his question
"is not suitable for publication".—[Official Report, 22 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 121.]
Will the Leader of the House initiate discussions on enforcing clearer and consistent guidelines to Departments on the answering of parliamentary questions?
On a totally different matter, the Leader of the House will have seen the extensive list of senior military figures who have expressed concerns about the plight of Hong Kong Gurkhas who are being relocated to Britain and are being forced to leave their wives and children behind. Will Ministers be making statements about a matter which even senior military figures have decided is an inhumane example of defence incompetence?
At this time of year, our attention turns to those who served our country in time of war. Would not it be appropriate for the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on early-day motion 19?
[That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-Service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-Service community, in direct consequence of 'Options for Change', considers that there is now a pressing need for an Ex-Service Affairs Unit within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the care and welfare of ex-Service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to the Royal British Legion's urgent call for such a unit to be established.]
In such a debate, the House would have an opportunity to discuss how to improve the care and welfare of ex-service people and their dependants. On a related matter, will the Leader of the House tell us what arrangements have been made by the House authorities to ensure that next Monday's two-minute silence of remembrance is observed by those who work within Parliament?
Mr. Newton: On the first question about the ruling in the High Court this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is studying the

1365
judgment, and clearly he has not had it very long. In due course, he will no doubt communicate the conclusions that he draws from it.
On parliamentary questions, the hon. Lady may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responding this afternoon to a number of Select Committee reports on those and related matters, including the issue to which she referred. New guidance will be issued and made openly available on drafting answers to parliamentary questions, and she might have a look at it. If she has any further comments, she can make them in the light of that consideration.
As far as the Gurkhas are concerned, the forthcoming withdrawal means that a wide range of issues affecting the Gurkhas' terms of service are being reviewed by the Ministry of Defence. That review is nearly complete, and I am confident that it will produce a fair and equitable package of recommendations that fully address the brigade's concerns.
On early-day motion 19, the Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we believe that the creation of a special unit responsible for former service people would simply add—
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We should have a debate.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman did have a debate on the matter.
The Government believe that that would simply add another tier of administration without improving the present arrangements.
On the arrangements for the observance of the two-minute silence on Monday by those working within the House, perhaps that is a matter for you, Madam Speaker, and not for me.
Madam Speaker: I should like to inform the House that my entire staff in the Speaker's Office will observe the two-minute silence, and I hope that others will follow that example.
Sir Terence Higgins: As Monday's business on gun control may result in a number of legitimate sporting clubs and other organisations going out of business or finding themselves unable to meet the financial commitments into which they have entered, will my right hon. Friend consider changing the wording of the money resolution, which would seem to rule out not only the possibility of such organisations being paid compensation, but even the possibility of a debate on such a subject?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend might well make that point in the debate on Tuesday. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), which is important, will the Leader of the House confirm that a money resolution in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is unamendable by the House? It is essential for him to consider broadening the terms of the resolution—only he has the power to do so. Otherwise,
1366
"property the possession of which becomes unlawful",
referred to in the resolution, will restrict the debate and consideration of possible compensation for anything other than the guns.
Mr. Newton: I have already undertaken to draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall do so.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the call for a two-minute silence on Monday? It will certainly be observed by my branch of the Royal British Legion.
May we also have a debate on planning procedures, so that I may draw to the attention of the House the great concern of the people of Greenford about an enormous planning application for Greenford green, granted by Ealing council, which will hugely damage the local community by drawing in large amounts of unwanted traffic, as well as destroying jobs in other parts of my constituency?
Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend said about observance of the two-minute silence. I shall certainly be trying to do so. On the latter point, the right course would be for me to bring my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Alfred Morris: As the Leader of the House will be aware, the Social Security (Claims and Payments Etc.) Amendment Regulations 1996 have reduced or withdrawn the mobility allowance from large numbers of severely disabled people, not least those with severe learning difficulties. Is it not quite wrong that we have had no opportunity to debate those regulations? When shall we be debating them?
Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman has raised such matters several times, as have other hon. Members. I am not in a position to add to what I have said before.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I revert to the question about compensation raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins)? The Leader of the House kindly said that he would draw the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary, and for that we are grateful. Could he go a stage further and ensure that a statement clarifying the position is made in the House on Monday, so that we know what that position is?
Mr. Newton: I shall draw that suggestion also to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House made a welcome suggestion, by saying that we shall be able to debate rail privatisation and highlight the many abuses, such as the award of £2.25 million in success payments to two City firms.
Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consider what is happening to answers to parliamentary questions? Frankly, they are becoming almost farcical. In recent times, I have received one answer saying that it was too

1367
soon to say and another that was factually inaccurate, which I drew to the attention of the agency head, but which still has not been corrected in the Official Report. Will the Leader of the House take that problem seriously? It is not simply a matter of reminding people that they ought to behave sensibly. The answers are misleading Parliament and it is getting beyond a joke.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Lady knows that that is the sort of matter that I and the Government take seriously, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been working on it in the way that I mentioned. It is difficult for me to go beyond that in my response, as the hon. Lady has not given me details of the questions that concern her. If she will provide me with such details, I shall see whether I can do something to help.
Rev. William McCrea: Can the Leader of the House tell me when he might find time in the programme to discuss the important issue of the underfunding of the health service in Northern Ireland, which has led to the closure of many wards and has meant that many people in the Province have failed to have the major operations that they urgently need?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can undertake to find immediate time for a debate on that matter, but I can draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is due to answer questions here this day week.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: With regard to what Madam Speaker and the Leader of the House said about the two-minute silence on Monday, would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have words with the House authorities about the annunciator system, to ensure that people know when it is 11 am, so that tours and other activities could come to a standstill, to enable people to pay appropriate respect at that time?
Mr. Newton: As I have already drawn the matter to the attention of the ultimate House authority, to whom I genuflect once again, I am sure that you will consider that suggestion, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent early debate to allow the attention of the House to be drawn to the fact that there are deteriorating road conditions on the A2 trunk road, as it runs through my constituency in north-west Kent, and to enable us to endorse the high-profile campaign being run by the Kentish Times group of newspapers demanding that safety features be incorporated on the road as soon as possible, to minimise accidents and fatalities?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will study my hon. Friend's remarks with great care.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the questions raised by my hon. Friends about the Government answering questions, is the Leader of the
1368
House aware of the alarming events of the past few days, when my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) asked for statistics on lottery pay-outs, constituency by constituency? He was refused that information, so he decided to find it out for himself. The cost was not disproportionate: he estimates that it cost £15. It showed that there was a great lottery fiddle, inasmuch as Derbyshire authorities were not getting a fair crack of the whip.
I drew that to the attention of the House at the beginning of the year, but nothing has been done—in fact, the situation has got worse. It is high time that different regions and different constituencies had a fair crack of the whip in the pay-outs.
Mr. Newton: There were two points there—one rather better than the other. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage recognises that the request for information could have been met within the £450 limit, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State is writing to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about that today; so the first point was fair. For the rest, frankly, the hon. Gentleman is on rather less safe ground. The plain fact is that lottery awards are made by people independent of Ministers; they are invited to take into account various criteria for determining the pattern of awards, and those criteria, as I understand it, are never geographical but based on quality of project.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Can my right hon. Friend ensure that a Minister of the Crown makes a statement to the House after the European Court gives its judgment on the United Kingdom's appeal against the working time directive next Tuesday? The judgment will have the most profound implications for working practices, for employment law, for competitiveness and for what should be Britain's internal social affairs. Can we have a guarantee that we shall be able to question a Minister of Her Majesty's Government about it?
Mr. Newton: There are two points. First, I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of the matter, and he will be well aware of the views expressed by the United Kingdom Government. Secondly, I shall bear in mind his request for a statement.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I remind the Leader of the House that I raised with him last Thursday the introduction of regulations on the concessionary television licence scheme? I did so after I had extended the normal courtesy of ringing the Department of National Heritage to say that I intended to raise the matter. A week has gone by, and I have heard nothing from the Department. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to say whether the regulations will be introduced before Christmas.
Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in warning me that he intended to raise the matter again. That has enabled me to be in a better position than I was last week, and I can inform him that I understand that the Department of National Heritage intends to lay regulations before the end of the year and is about to write to him about the matter. It may be of interest to the House

1369
to know that the new regulations will not only deal with sheltered housing, which is the hon. Gentleman's focus, but clarify the treatment of caravans.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend will recall that last week I asked for an urgent debate on the recent Social Security Committee report on unfunded pensions in Europe. I should again like to call for such a debate, because in Hansard of 6 November there is a question headed "Public Pension Liabilities" from my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to answer some of the points. We seem to be engaged in a debate, because I notice that the Chairman of the Social Security Committee has given notice of a question calling for a response to the report. I urge my right hon. Friend to think carefully about that and urge his right hon. and hon Friends to hold a debate rather than conducting so important a discussion across the pages of Hansard.
Mr. Newton: I think that I have demonstrated over the years that I take account of requests for debates, but I am not immediately able to respond this afternoon. I pointed out last week that we are not many weeks away from a substantial debate over several days on the Budget, when such matters would be in order.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 105?
[That this House notes the continued suffering of the people of the Sudan and the Reverend Dr Dick Rogers' 40 day bread and water sympathy vigil outside the Foreign Office; encourages Her Majesty's Government to become actively committed to the pursuit of a fair settlement of the war in Sudan as part of a multi-national effort to that end, with consideration given to the appointment of a special envoy; and calls on both sides of the conflict to enter into negotiations that embrace all parties in the country, with a view to the acceptance of the subsequent settlement by the said parties.]
The motion calls for peacekeeping in Sudan and draws attention to the 40-day vigil in Whitehall by the Rev. Dr. Dick Rogers. I urge Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to keep a closer watch on what is happening in the Sudan and to take a lead in bringing people together towards peace.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government share his concern for the people of Sudan as expressed in the motion. He may know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office explained in answer to questions on 30 October that we do not believe that a British initiative would be fruitful at the moment.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on firework safety, so that the House can assist my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in the review of firework regulations to which he referred yesterday? I ask that because of the plea in my local paper, the Bromley and Hayes News Shopper, by the brother of Steve Tinker, the man who was tragically killed last Saturday in a firework accident.
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate, although my hon. Friend might like to consider
1370
the Wednesday morning possibilities. I assure him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is well aware of the widely expressed concerns about the availability of certain sorts of firework and is reviewing firework controls and the availability of bangers.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 151, the contents of which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
[That this House notes that in response to a parliamentary question for written answer by the honourable Member for North East Derbyshire, the Department of National Heritage has supplied a computer disc to the Library which details, by parliamentary constituency, each National Lottery award made up to 30th September 1996; further notes that a list compiled by the Library from this disc shows the total amounts awarded in each United Kingdom parliamentary constituency listed in descending order with the top award of £201,480,455 and in 651st place the bottom award of only £12,000; is dismayed that there is such a massive maldistribution of awards with the bulk of awards being skewed towards a small group of constituencies and to certain parts of the United Kingdom, as illustrated by the fact that the three constituencies in north eastern Derbyshire all fall within the bottom 10 per cent. of places on the list with North East Derbyshire placed 587th, Bolsover 616th and Chesterfield 628th; further calls upon the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the National Lottery is obliged to correct this disgraceful state of affairs and to operate formulas based on equity and need, subject to regional, county and district democratic input; and regrets that the National Heritage Minister claimed it would be of disproportionate cost—defined as £450—to rank the awards per constituency when this operation only cost the Library £15.]
The Library now has a list detailing how much lottery money each constituency had received by 30 September. The sums range from £201 million at the top to £12,000 at the bottom. That is a massive maldistribution, whatever considerations are given to the needs of particular areas. Should we not therefore have a full debate about the national lottery and the way in which funds are distributed, so that they can be better related to the people who purchase lottery tickets and so that some areas are not almost excluded by the current provisions?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might like to consider trying to raise that matter on a Wednesday. I cannot add to what I said before. The lottery money is distributed by independent bodies according to the merits of the proposals that are made and I think that that is right.
Mr. John Carlisle: May I say respectfully to my right hon. Friend that he showed some irritation in answering the questions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the compensation for those who suffer through the intended legislation on firearms? Does he accept that that legislation is not worthy of a Conservative Government, and that it will affect thousands of innocent people, cause the loss of jobs and put businesses out of business? The money resolution as

1371
drafted will not cover that problem. Will he ensure that it is changed before we come to Tuesday's debate, so that the people involved are fully compensated for a loss of business incurred through no fault of their own?
Mr. Newton: I must say that I do not think that I betrayed the slightest sign of irritation when responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and others. I simply said—as calmly and straightforwardly as I could, given that it is clearly not a matter that I can decide at the Dispatch Box—that I would draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am bound to say, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has irritated me somewhat.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I hope that I do not irritate the Leader of the House. Will the House, or any of its Committees, be considering the annual report of the prisons ombudsman? He said that the Prison Service withheld vital files and lied in one case, but instead of taking appropriate action, the Home Secretary reduced the prisons ombudsman's. powers, so that he can now obtain only the files that the Prison Service wants to give him—indeed, he cannot check on the Home Secretary's and other Ministers' roles, either. Surely, that is not the right way to proceed, and the House should consider the ombudsman's report.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will himself consider the report very carefully.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time, as soon as possible, for the House to discuss the impact of the 48-hour directive and the minimum wage on employment and the economy of his country? The 48-hour directive is totally impracticable and a lunatic suggestion to be imposed on this country. On the minimum wage, we are discussing not only a level of pay below which people would not drop, but the massive impact of differentials throughout the economy. Both are job-destroying measures and both are supported by the two Opposition parties, and that will not go unnoticed.
Mr. Newton: I have already indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that the Government are aware of those concerns. I cannot add to my earlier answer, but I take note of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate a matter of great importance that was recently the subject of a lead story in "GP News", in which it was revealed that one in four of all elderly patients who were admitted to a hospital in Gloucester were suffering from the misuse of medicinal drugs? As 40 per cent. of all hospital admissions are elderly patients, does that not show that there is an extraordinary over-prescription of medicinal drugs? Most of those people were taking up to six different drugs for non-life-threatening conditions. If deaths from medicinal drugs continue at the present rate,
1372
within four years more people will die from misuse of medicines than die from all road traffic accidents. Is that not a matter of prime concern to the House?
Mr. Newton: The Government have sought to tackle issues of over-prescribing for a long time—certainly going back to my time as Minister for Health. Ministers continue to take such matters very seriously and I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to their attention.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate, or draw to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for National Heritage, my early-day motion 154, which was published today?
[That this House continues to honour, respect and cherish the name of Mahatma Ghandi; takes note that in a will made in 1940 the Mahatma left all his property and the copyright to all his writings, published or unpublished, to the Navajivan Trust, which he had set up in 1929, with absolute rights vested in the Trust, the will being duly probated after his assassination in 1948; that Mr. Kalyanam, an employee in 1948 in the office of the Mahatma, offered some of his papers for sale by Sotheby's who commendably refused to put them on sale; that the papers are now advertised for sale by auction by Phillips on 14th November, which would cause a sense of outrage in India; and calls upon Phillips forthwith to withdraw these papers from sale and to take steps to ensure the safe return of these objects as soon as may be to their rightful owners, the Navajivan Trust in India.]
Action should be taken to ensure that Mahatma Ghandi's own papers, which appear to have been purloined by a former employee of the Mahatma's, either before his assassination in 1948 or shortly thereafter, and which have been placed on sale to be auctioned by Phillips in London one week from today, on 14 November, can be safely recovered and returned to their rightful owners in India.
Mr. Newton: I should say that, as far as I know, that issue has not been raised with us by the Indian Government, either in London or, to our knowledge, in Delhi. However, I am told that the Indian Government have supported attempts to have the papers withdrawn from auction and that the sale to which my hon. Friend referred may not now take place.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House seen the feature in tonight's Evening Standard about poverty in London, which is based on the report produced by the London Research Centre, "The Capital Divided"? The report uses only official Government statistics and, as the Evening Standard says, shows that poverty in London is worse than anywhere else in Britain and spreading like a cancer. Is that not an indictment of Government policies as applied to the capital city over the past 17 years? Could we please have a debate on London? There is a Minister responsible for London, and it is about time we held him accountable for what is going on in this city.
Mr. Newton: I have not seen the feature article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall ensure that I look at it, and I am sure that colleagues will do so. I shall keep in mind the idea of a debate on London; I hope that,

1373
in return, the hon. Gentleman will keep in mind the huge amount that the Government have done—not least through the London Docklands development corporation and the huge infrastructure projects that are going on in London—to regenerate the city and provide a firmer basis for employment.
Mr. Max Madden: With the peace process hanging by a thread, will the Leader of the House persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House next week about two matters—first, about how quickly Sinn Fein would be allowed to enter all-party talks should there be a further cessation of violence by the IRA, and secondly, about confidence-building measures, especially regarding the treatment of prisoners from both communities? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is imperative that that statement is made to the House rather than to any other forum elsewhere?
Mr. Newton: Of course I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am bound to say, however, that it seems to me that our position on the talks and a settlement is clear and on the record.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), may I ask that a statement be made to the House about the report by Dr. Brian Caddy on the use of questionable forensic evidence in terrorist cases? May I ask that, in such a statement, there be specific reference to the interviews, which I understand have now been concluded, by Home Office officials with Padraig MacFhloinn in prison? He has accepted responsibility for the Warrington bombings and made a formal statement about the non-involvement of my constituent, John Kinsella.
If, in the absence of any forensic evidence and any other substantive evidence, those interviews confirm statements that John Kinsella knew nothing about the contents of the holdall that he was left, will his sentence and conviction be reviewed immediately?
Mr. Newton: I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising what is obviously an important constituency case to him. He will understand that I am not in a position to comment from the Dispatch Box this afternoon on the detail, but I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is drawn to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I take the Lord President back to the request of the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on ex-service men and women's affairs? On 1 July 1994, I instituted a private Member's motion and debate, which was approved unanimously by the House of Commons, calling for a Minister responsible for ex-service people's affairs. Since then, there have been early-day motions signed by 279 Members from all parties in the House of Commons, asking the Government to look at that possibility and to think about it again.
1374
This is not a party matter; hon. Members from all parts of the House want the Government to reconsider it. There are 1.5 million members of the Royal British Legion, and many hundreds of thousands more in the Royal Air Forces Association and the Royal Naval Association, who are bewildered and dismayed by the Prime Minister's belief that, uniquely, the United Kingdom does not need a Minister responsible for veterans, whereas most countries, including our former adversaries, the United States and Commonwealth countries, have one.
Mr. Newton: Of course I accept that that is not a marked party matter. I have not treated it as such, and nor has anyone else, to my knowledge, but it is a matter of judgment to decide the best way of providing the help and support that we all wish to give to our ex-service men. On that front, I cannot add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend reads the Evening Standard report on poverty, will he note the extraordinary correlation that the worst examples appear to occur, time and again, in boroughs that have been controlled and run by the Labour party? Is that not a reflection on Labour's approach to policies to help business and encourage employment, and is it not a further example of Labour's record in government in the 1990s?
Mr. Newton: Had I wished to he more aggressive than is my wont with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I might have added to what I said earlier about the London Docklands development corporation by saying that, until we took that out of the hands of the Labour local authorities in the area, nothing happened; had we not done so, docklands would still be derelict.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Was not the question asked by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) a gross misrepresentation of the facts? He is playing with statistics, and he knows it. Was the Leader of the House in the Chamber yesterday when I expressed my concerns about the unemployment statistics that have been published in relation to Workington constituency? I do not believe those figures. I know that they are not true; they are false figures. I asked yesterday for a house-to-house survey to be carried out in my constituency, so that the real figures can be produced.
May we have a statement at the Dispatch Box about how the figures are being compiled? If not, may we have a debate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House can press Ministers on the compilation of unemployment statistics?
Mr. Newton: I regret that I was not in the House yesterday when the hon. Gentleman asked his question, and it had not been drawn to my attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is due to answer questions on Wednesday next week.

Copyright
4.5 pm
Madam Speaker: We now come to motion No. 1. I call Mr. Secretary Lang—I am so sorry, Mr. Ian Taylor, whom I know very well. He is a most important Minister.
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 11th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Madam Speaker, you quite raised my pulse rate with that instant promotion.
The regulations implement two European Community copyright directives on satellite and cable broadcasting, directive 93/83, and on rental, lending and other rights related to copyright, directive 92/100, and also aspects of directive 93/98.
The directives harmonise rights in areas such as the rental and lending of copyright works, other uses of works, such as broadcasting of sound recordings and cross-frontier satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission. Most of those rights already exist in the United Kingdom, and the directives in many cases raise the standards of protection elsewhere in the European Union to those that exist here. So, although the directives require changes to UK law, they will be of substantial benefit to important UK industries, such as the record industry, by establishing similar and improved rights throughout the European Union.
Many, often complex, changes are nevertheless needed to bring UK law fully into line with the directives. The main changes include, first, the extension of rental and lending rights to all copyright works, whereas at present they apply only to books, computer programmes, films and sound recordings. Secondly, they give authors and performers rental and lending rights in films and sound recordings, which at present only producers have. Thirdly, they give performers rights in relation to broadcasting and public performance of sound recordings.
Extensive consultation with all interested parties—about 200 representative bodies—has been undertaken, and we have tried to find a balance that is fair to them all, which means, inevitably, that not everyone is completely satisfied.
That consultation and the complexity of the provisions has, regrettably, led to delays in implementation of the directives, which is now overdue. Implementation of the rental directive should have taken place by 1 July 1994 and that of the cable and satellite directive by 1 January 1995. We are not alone in the EU in being late. I apologise to the House, but the delay has been due to the complexity of the matter.
As there are many issues on which I could now address the House, which would take considerable time, and as I would be interested to hear which of the many aspects interest Members, I will undertake to respond to all the points raised, if I catch your eye, Madam Speaker, at the end of the debate.
4.8 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I thank the Minister for his brief—I am tempted to say terse—outline of a statutory instrument, which, as I understood it,
1376
implemented three directives: the rental directive, the cable and satellite directive, and residual parts of the duration directive which were not dealt with when that directive was substantially passed into British law.
I make it clear at the outset that the Opposition do not intend to vote against the regulations. However, it is equally clear that there is profound dissatisfaction with the way in which they have been drafted. That is obvious from the various representations that I have received. It is clear that, in dealing with copyright, the Government have been uniquely successful in once again bringing together different organisations that historically have very different perspectives but are consistently concerned about the way in which the proposals affect both individuals and the industries in which they work.
My first general question to the Minister is whether it is appropriate to deal with three different directives in a single, and inevitably complex, statutory instrument. Why could we not have dealt with the directives separately and had three separate statutory instruments dealing with each aspect at the European level? Alternatively, given the delay that we have faced, why not deal with all outstanding copyright matters in a comprehensive piece of primary legislation?
I am sure that the Minister is aware that the main criticism levelled by the various organisations affected is that they do not have the opportunity to amend the proposals. There are detailed points of criticism that cannot be dealt with in this kind of debate. Given the lack of any substantive legislation from the Department of Trade and Industry, I am sure that the Minister would welcome the opportunity to do something substantial as he whiles away his time before the general election.
My second general concern is with timing. The Minister has already made the point that the legislation is woefully overdue. The statutory instrument was laid on 19 July this year and is therefore more than two years late, as the directives' implementation date was 1 July 1994. What is the reason for the delay? I do not make that point simply to dwell upon the lack of timeliness or competence on the part of the Minister's Department, but it is relevant to the general question of whether the legislation is needed today.
We are debating directives that were agreed in 1992. Therefore, given my understanding of the processes of the European institutions, it seems reasonable to suggest that the directives were drafted in the mid-1980s—probably based on a perceived need in the early 1980s. Given the pace of technological change, the real question for the Minister is whether we should be addressing perceived needs in the early 1990s and those of the next century rather than conducting an historical debate about proposals that were drafted in an earlier age.
As the Minister said, the principal purpose of the rental directive is to provide new rights for creators and performers to earn additional revenue from rentals and lending. My third query is whether the statutory instrument succeeds in translating that aim properly into law. In the explanatory recitals, the directive states:
"Whereas the creative and artistic work of authors and performers necessitates an adequate income as a basis for further creative and artistic work… Whereas the equitable remuneration must take account of the importance of the contribution of the authors and performers concerned to the phonogram or film".
The directive's specific purpose is to ensure that the rights of performers are properly recognised in law.

1377
Performers are clearly concerned that, far from generating new income for them, the statutory instrument is likely to place an inappropriate financial burden on the kinds of small businesses operated by many creative individuals who should benefit from the rental directive. There is concern about the expenditure likely to be incurred by authors and performers having to refer constantly to the Copyright Tribunal and to the courts as a result of this statutory instrument.
There is particular anxiety about the requirement for authors and performers to give notice before 1 January 1997—which is not far away—of any intention to exercise their right to remuneration where rental arises from agreements concluded before July 1994. That places an unnecessary burden upon them in terms of time and cost. The Minister might explain how notification will be given. Will it cover all the agreements before July 1994 or only those made between July 1992, when the rental directive was adopted, and July 1994?
Similar anxieties are expressed on behalf of performers about the meaning of equitable remuneration. How is that to be calculated? Would it not be appropriate for authors and performers to have the right to information, to allow them to calculate the basis for that which is meant by equitable remuneration?
The fairness of such payments from users, and broadcasters especially, to performers is generally speaking adjudged by statutory tribunals or courts, which examine the value of the right to the users, the extent and profitability of the use and the economic circumstances and prospects of the user. The formula in the statutory instrument does allow performers, individually or collectively, to take the user to the Copyright Tribunal on these questions, but only the copyright owner of the record.
A clear criticism of the proposals is that United Kingdom performers will be the only performers in the European economic area, not just the European Union, in such a disadvantaged position. Is that consistent with the intention that is behind the rental directive to provide a consistent approach across both the European Union and the European economic area?
It seems clear that article 182 is not properly translated into British law by regulation 20. The statutory instrument provides for the performer to exercise his or her rights to equitable remuneration solely against the record company and not against the user. Now that I have the Minister's full attention, I should be grateful if he takes up that matter. The statutory instrument fails to ensure that it is the user who should pay the equitable remuneration for the use of a record in any communication to the public. That is different from the arrangement in any other European member state.
A practical problem for performers is obtaining appropriate remuneration due to them in other countries. They clearly have a legal right under the directive, but they believe that it will be difficult and expensive to enforce. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform us of any steps that he might be prepared to take to assist United Kingdom-based performers to secure the rights to which they are entitled, given that it is his legislation that is responsible for causing the difficulty that I have outlined.
All other European countries allow the collective administration of performers' rights as against users' collective organisations. In the UK, only record
1378
companies and their organisations will be involved. That means that performers will be placed in an inferior position compared with their continental counterparts. It means also that the United Kingdom is out of step with every other system in the European Union. As it is United Kingdom music that is widely played and listened to throughout Europe, it is unfortunate that we are not giving our performers and creators of music in the UK the same rights as are available to performers from other countries.
It is clear that the identification of users and their uses of records is relatively straightforward. Performers, however, will face considerable difficulty in identifying the owners of the copyright in all the records used and in enforcing their rights against dormant or insolvent owners.
A further problem with the translation of article 182 concerns section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Article 182 clearly requires payment of equitable remuneration by the user if a record is used in broadcasting or for any other communication to the public. That is both direct and indirect broadcasting. Section 72 provides that when a broadcast is shown or played in public to an audience that has not paid an admission fee, there is no infringement of copyright in any sound recording which is included in the broadcast.. That limitation does not apply to the rights of authors, and it is almost unprecedented in other European countries.
I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why it is possible to introduce the statutory instrument without dealing with section 72 of the 1988 Act, because it is clear that the directive deals with both direct and indirect broadcasting. Indeed, if section 72 were to continue, there would be a continuing cost to performers. To repeat the point, if the purpose of the statutory instrument and the directive on which it is based is to provide greater revenue for performers, it seems unfortunate that that aspect has not been dealt with.
Indeed, if we pursue the statutory instrument without some later amendment, the United Kingdom will be out of step with all other European countries. Only the United Kingdom, Ireland and Greece have a section 72 exemption or its equivalent. It is significant—I hope the Minister will agree—that Denmark used to have a similar exemption but repealed it on the basis that it was necessary to implement the rental directive properly and to meet its Community obligations. There will be important economic consequences—estimated to be in the order of £80 million loss of income to performers and rights holders—as a result of failing to repeal section 72.
There is a further area in which performers' and authors' rights are not protected in the statutory instrument in the way in which the rental directive at least contemplated. Article 5(6) of the rental directive includes an optional provision for member states to provide for a presumption of transfer of authors' rental rights to the film producer. In regulation 12 of the statutory instrument, the Government have chosen to implement this option. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why it was not possible to leave the assignment of the copyright to be freely negotiated between the two sides. Why is it necessary to rely on the presumption in the statutory instrument? How can that be reconciled with the requirement of the 1988 Act, which says that copyright assignments must be in writing?

1379
Regulation 14 establishes the right to equitable remuneration payable by a person to whom the right is transferred or any successor in title. One of the problems for those engaged in the film business is that many film companies are formed simply for the purpose of producing a particular film, after which they have no continuing existence. Moreover, not all of them are successful, and clearly there are difficulties in enforcing rights against bankrupt organisations. Would it not be more sensible—this is the practical suggestion made by those affected—to allow that right to be exercisable against all those who benefit commercially from the rental process, including the rental outlets?
I have a final technical question concerned with satellite broadcasts, in particular the way in which the statutory instrument affects CNN International and other satellite channels that use similar means of distributing their programmes. CNN International is edited in Atlanta. It is then transmitted to British Telecom in the United Kingdom, which simultaneously uplinks the signal to the Astra satellite for pan-European broadcast. Paragraph 6 of the statutory instrument deals with satellite broadcasts made from non-European economic area states that do not provide a specified level of protection.
The concern is that, since the United States would not provide the specified level of protection, this clause would operate in relation to CNN International's broadcasts. That would mean, according to the rules, that BT, which provides CNN International's uplink facility, would be defined as "the person making the CNNI broadcast", pursuant to the proposed section 6(A)2(b) of the statutory instrument. Because of that definition and the rather artificial way in which it is constructed, the anxiety is that the statutory instrument could be interpreted as defining BT not only as the maker of the broadcast for infringement purposes but as the owner of the copyright in the broadcast. That is clearly not the directive's intention, but I, and I am sure CNN, would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that.
I have made a series of technical observations about the statutory instrument's drafting, but it is necessary, in conclusion, to make some more general observations about the way in which the Government have approached the important area of copyright.
The United Kingdom clearly has an opportunity here to make a significant contribution to Europewide and worldwide technological initiatives aimed at establishing secure electronic trading and providing protection for intellectual property of all kinds. As we move into a digital world, copyright protection will be crucial to allowing our industries, based on the development of intellectual property rights, to flourish and to compete around the world.
It is unfortunate that, in drafting the statutory instrument based on the directives, the United Kingdom has not been able to provide an approach consistent with that of our European partners, and we could not blame them if they looked elsewhere when standards were being decided. It will be unfortunate if we have domestic legislation which appears to have been drafted in such a way as to circumvent certainly the spirit of the directives when later we want the co-operation of our European
1380
partners in drafting legislation that is to the benefit and protection of performers and creators based in the United Kingdom.
As I have said, it is unfortunate that we are debating matters now which could have been dealt with many years earlier, when the pace of technological change has brought up many different issues. The key issue that we have not yet faced is digital distribution. That should be the underlying issue. Is the Minister confident that the existing copyright legislation will be sufficient to deal with the rather more complicated intellectual property that will arise as a result of the digital distribution of a wide variety of intellectual content?
Those matters will be discussed shortly at a conference in Geneva as part of the World Intellectual Property Organisation's debate. It is trying to establish standards now which will affect the way in which digital distribution develops. It is clear that the content providers, those who are responsible for creation and performing, will not be willing to see their talent exploited unless they are properly protected by the legislation that needs to be brought forward.
I hope that the Minister will tell the House that the Government are actively pursuing the matter, are concerned to see a proper protection for intellectual rights, and are not simply belatedly enforcing legislation agreed at the European level which is looking increasingly out of date.
4.25 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) made two suggestions to the Minister about potential ways forward. One was to deal separately with the different parts of the statutory instrument stemming from three different directives, and the other was that the Government should bring forward comprehensive primary legislation on the matter. I shall seek to explain why my preference is strongly towards my hon. Friend's second proposal.
During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill in the previous parliamentary Session, I suggested to the Minister, and I think that he agreed with me, that our parliamentary process has a fundamental weakness when it comes to dealing with matters such as this where the technology is moving so incredibly quickly. The context of that remark in relation to intellectual property is obvious. Given the development of digital signals, it is easy to envisage ways in which people will be able to bypass attempts to protect copyright, as readily available technologies are open to misuse.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that in a speech at the opening session of Telework 96 in Vienna on Monday I extended to all Parliaments my criticism of the Government's attempts to deal with this problem. All owners of intellectual property face a major problem in the digital age.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield cited an extremely good example of the problems we face when he referred to the CNN equation. The same applies to all existing broadcasters. One can also envisage the existence of a rogue broadcaster—the next century's version of Radio Caroline. It would be easy to bypass any attempt to regulate copyright on a world basis simply by setting up just offshore and buying a piece of satellite space.

1381
This is a serious issue, and it has enormous implications for musicians, authors and writers of software, and for every other signal that can conceivably be transmitted in a digital form. The important discussions that are taking place in Geneva through WIPO—an appalling acronym—should be uppermost in our minds.
Will the Minister tell us what contribution the Government are making to those important discussions? How will we persuade not only the countries that try to restrict incoming signals, but those that take no notice of existing copyright regulations on hard copy to participate in a regulatory regime that will work? As is often the case, we will end up having a local debate on whether one nation or another in the European Union has failed to address its responsibilities. We will not deal with the underlying problem, which is of enormous proportions: the ability of a nation or a company to bypass any attempts to regulate.
Other matters that are currently subject to directive considerations overlap into this area—some slightly and some significantly. Data protection must be carefully considered. How do we ensure that the two-way trade between ownership and protection of information is properly balanced? In another capacity, I sent a strongly worded recommendation to Members of the European Parliament on the draft directive on telecommunications data protection urging them to slow down or, preferably, to stop that directive. It strikes me as a very uncompetitive approach, which, although it may be to the advantage of Deutsche Telekom, certainly will not benefit companies in this country.
All those aspects are linked. The missing part of the equation is a strategic overview from the Government. I do not claim that the issue is simple, and the Minister will understand that I am not trying to score a cheap political point; but we have a real problem. Although we pick away on a piecemeal basis at the various issues—all of which stem from the power that will rest with the potential abuser of digital information, and all of which are closely linked—there seems to be no over-arching Government strategy.
Nor is there such a strategy from the European Union, whence the directives came. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain in detail what representations have been made in respect of procedures currently taking place in the European Union—and, indeed, in the Geneva talks, which are of the utmost importance.
If we fail to address those important matters, we shall do a massive disservice to a very large revenue earner in this country. It is not simply finding a bureaucratic solution to satisfy the whims of the drafters in Brussels that should concern us; we should be worrying about how properly to protect the important people to whom we owe so much—the authors of music, software and all sorts of technical journals whose copyright will be at risk if we do not solve the overall problem.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort to those of us who are just a little worried about the fact that we are rushing headlong, at an unstoppable pace, into a new era of communication with one missing element: a Government strategy that will make it work.
4.37 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) has already mentioned this point, but I should like the
1382
Minister to comment. It relates to matters arising from a letter that I received from Dennis Scard, general secretary of the Musicians Union. I know that the Minister has corresponded with the union, and, indeed, with hon. Members who written to his Department following representations received from it.
The union makes it clear that
"some changes have been made in response to our representations'",
and it is obliged to the Minister for that. It regards those changes, however, less as concessions than
"as an indication that the earlier drafts did not meet the objectives of the Directive or the realities of the situation."
The general secretary expresses his union's disappointment that that is still the case
"in the key issue of who the performers' right is against and the equality of that right compared to the record producer."
The letter continues:
"The Minister concedes that the term 'equitable remuneration' means a fair payment in relation to the use of the record. The fairness of such payments from users—(e.g. broadcasters) to rights owners (e.g. performers) is judged between the parties in every country, including the UK, by statutory tribunals or courts which examine the value of the right to the user, the extent of profitability of the use, and the economic circumstances and prospects of the user."
The union makes it clear:
"The formula adopted in the Statutory Instrument does not, however, allow the performers, individually or collectively, to take the user to the Copyright Tribunal on these matters, but only the copyright owner in the record. UK performers will be the only performers in the EEA in this disadvantaged position."
Is that the Minister's reading of the position? If so, and if performers in the UK will be treated differently from any other performers in the European Economic Area, will the Minister kindly reconsider the matter and find out what he can do about it? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
4.40 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: This has been a constructive debate about some complex issues and about the future of the digital age. I shall try to touch on the questions and the issues of the future.
The directives are brought together in the statutory instrument because they closely interrelate. They were not tabled by the European Union at the same time, hut, by the time we got around to it, they affected the same Act—the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. Frankly, it was just more efficient to do it this way. We should also bear it in mind that we consulted with the same dramatis personae on each of the directives. It was easier to consult on the directives at the same time than to do so consecutively, and the directives are overdue, largely because we have had such a complex and lengthy consultation. These are difficult matters to draft into UK law, as has been recognised by the hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
I know that the Musicians Union was worried about whether we had fully implemented the directives. There is a difference of judgment on what the directives obliged us to do and who we should target in relation to the use of exercisable rights. Only record producers in the UK have had rights enabling them to obtain royalties from users. We do not consider it desirable to disturb the traditional relationship between producers and end users.

1383
Granting performers rights would have disturbed the traditional pattern and would have meant, in effect, restructuring producers' rights. We felt that not disturbing that traditional relationship was the best way forward, and that has been reflected in our interpretation of the directives.
The Musicians Union also raised with us the issue of the percentage share. Performers are granted a 50 per cent. share, usually in respect of traditional forms of broadcasting and performance. The rights that are being granted in the UK will apply also to newer forms of exploitation that are emerging, but that have yet to become established in practice. In those changing circumstances, we are reluctant to prescribe a share.
This deals with another point that has been mentioned in all three speeches. We must try to anticipate changes in the market. It is clear that 50 per cent. would not necessarily be appropriate in relation to all the future technological means of delivery. For traditional uses of recordings, however, we understand that producers have already said that they are willing to share royalties on a 50:50 basis. Clearly, therefore, other means of distribution would be subject to negotiation.
Further questions were asked about the difficulty in obtaining payments from other European Union states unless rights in Britain are similar to those elsewhere. Again, the directive does not require any particular form of implementation, and we have had to make judgments as to what is most appropriate in Britain. In many cases, the rights that are referred to elsewhere in the EU again relate to rights for traditional broadcasting matters, not some of the newer ways in which we are likely to be engaged. There could be a collective negotiation of reciprocal arrangements, with performers collecting remuneration in other EU countries. The UK Government are prepared to take up any problems in obtaining remuneration with other EU Governments, as we have done when necessary.
There was a question about the exception to public performance rights in relation to sound recordings in section 72 of the 1988 Act and why that measure was not repealed, as some believe the directive seems to require. The directive does not expressly require us to repeal it. We consider it undesirable in any event to remove such a specific exception, approved by Parliament during the passage of the 1988 Act, without an equally express exclusion provision under the directive or other measure.
Our legal advice is that the exception in section 72, which is in respect of sound recordings contained in broadcasts seen or heard by non-paying audiences, is within the limitation to record producers' and performers' rights permitted by the directive. I am aware that record producers are concerned about the impact of section 72 on their economic interests, now that broadcasts are replacing the direct playing of sound recordings in certain retail outlets, but we do not consider that repeal of section 72 is an appropriate way in which to deal with any difficulties, particularly as it would also impact on other very different situations. In any event, the Copyright Tribunal is likely to deal with what is the appropriate royalty level for use of sound recordings in broadcast services specifically tailored to retail outlets.
Mr. Hoon: The Minister has mentioned the interests of record producers, but are not performers, record producers
1384
and, most significantly, record companies all united in asking the Government to reconsider section 72 because of those groups' clear concern about the impact on their income?
Mr. Taylor: There was pressure on us, but pressures would arise in following other courses. The retail trade, for example, is developing various ways of using music in their outlets. Repeal would be an extremely restrictive practice and, in the long term, it would not necessarily be in the interests of any of the parties concerned, which is why we have continued the exception in section 72, which was debated in the Standing Committee on the Copyright, Design and Patents Bill.
Mr. Hoon: Surely, if the retail trade or other organisation—restaurants, cafes, public houses, and so on—chooses to use music, particularly broadcast music, it should pay an appropriate fee for the use of that music. It paysa fee if it uses specialised music services. Why is there a distinction between the use of specialised services and the use of broadcast music?
Mr. Taylor: We should bear it in mind that, often, such organisations do pay a fee—to the broadcaster. We are not removing the exception in relation to the further reproduction of that music in any retail outlet. We consider that to be a sensible way forward, and therefore we have not made the changes that the hon. Gentleman has requested. It was a fine balance, but, having heard all the arguments, I decided that that was the right way forward. The Copyright Tribunal is considering the matter.
The hon. Gentleman talked about equitable remuneration for rental and how it is defined. The directive did not define "equitable", as what is fair in one set of circumstances may not be so in another. Nor, therefore, can the regulations set that out, but they do provide that remuneration is not to be considered inequitable simply because it is paid in a single sum or at the time an author or performer transfers his exclusive rental right to a producer—the directive says that the remuneration may be paid in either of those ways. Again, the matter will need to be tested by the Copyright Tribunal, were there to be a dispute.
Mr. Hoon: I accept that the directive does not, in any event, define equitable remuneration, but I made the point to inquire of the Minister whether he thought it appropriate that performers in particular should have the means to ascertain the information that would allow them to find out whether they were receiving equitable remuneration—information about the number of times that the music in question was used, the circumstances of the user, the number of times and the form in which the music was reproduced, and so on. That would allow them to build the sort of picture of remuneration that is obviously available to users.
Mr. Taylor: Obtaining the proper information is a matter for the traditional negotiations with producers. As we move forward, there will be cases in which producers may not have negotiated a particular package based on what they would regard as full remuneration, simply because of the commercial opportunity, but the regulations give performers increased rights to claim an

1385
equitable remuneration from producers. We have taken steps to help the producers, and I have tried to explain that to them. The assumption about the transfer of authors' rental rights in films to producers—a point raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield—received careful consideration.
Throughout, we have tried to err on the side of there being a proper way to get works to market without undue complexity. We certainly do not want to put a burden on any rental outlets, many of which are small businesses. We have had to make a decision about who are authors and about the respective rights of performers. On balance, I think that we have got it right. The statutory instruments were tabled on 11 July, and we have had extensive consultation since then. I am aware of the arguments.
The hon. Member for Ashfield raised a number of minor points on which he wanted guidance. For the sake of brevity, I shall write to him on those. However, he raised a serious point about the position of uplinks within the European Economic Area, from one area to another. It is a complex matter. We have attempted to apply the copyright law from the place from which the signal has been broadcast. Of course, there will be certain safeguards for countries if the uplinkers come from outside the EEA. Again, it is a matter of giving some comfort to the broadcasters about which copyright law applies.
I do not have details to hand about the specific case of how Cable News Network would be affected, but I am concerned about the possible effects on satellite uplinks. That point has been clarified in the regulations by reference to the use of the law of the country from which the signal originates.
Mr. Hoon: It would be helpful if the Minister would say categorically that there will not be any effect on the ownership of copyright. There is ambiguity under the provisions as drafted. I am not questioning the underlying reason behind the drafting; it is simply that, because of the way in which the rather technical provisions operate, there is concern that the statutory instrument could be interpreted as defining British Telecom not only as the maker of a CNN or similar broadcast for infringement purposes—the point just dealt with by the Minister—but as the owner of the copyright in that broadcast. I hope that the Minister will say that that is not the case; that would resolve any ambiguity.
Mr. Taylor: It is not the intention behind the regulations to affect authorship of broadcast or ownership of copyright, and we do not consider that they do so. Regulation 6 states not that the operator of an uplink station is the person making the broadcast, but rather that he is to be treated as such. In addition, we believe that it is clear from the manner in which the regulations are presented that the uplink operator should be treated as the broadcaster only for certain purposes—in relation to clearance of the rights in underlying works in broadcasts identified in regulation 6.
I stress that the regulations must be construed in the light of the directives that they are intended to implement, which similarly have no bearing on authorship or ownership of copyright in broadcast. That is also the approach that will be taken by United Kingdom courts in interpreting the legislation.
The key point is that, in attempting to implement the directives in UK law, we have tried not to disturb traditional relationships. We have tried to make it as
1386
simple as possible for content comfortably to flow into the UK market. In many cases, that means that, although we have strengthened the rights of performers and given them an underlying position in negotiations—the right to equitable remuneration regardless of the economic arrangements entered into by the producers—they should nevertheless negotiate with the producer.
The Copyright, Design and Patents Act was far-reaching in its vision of the future. It covers some of the problems relating to the new age of electronic interactivity—video on demand. We are comfortable that we have anticipated ways in which that may evolve as the information society progresses. An important point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), is that the European Commission has already published a Green Paper on copyright in the information society. Clearly, further directives that may emanate from that in due course will consider the way in which the electronic age will be accommodated. Before I conclude, I intend to deal with the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Miller: I am a little puzzled about the Minister's remarks relating to proposed section 144A(7) and the definition of cable re-transmission. I am not sure that the definition will meet what the Minister says is the intention. For example, in transmitting a compact disc that has been recorded digitally on to a network server, or in receiving a signal, encoding it oneself and putting it out on to a server through BT networks, who would be in breach of copyright? Clearly, the person doing that would be in breach, but there is some doubt whether responsibility would also lie with BT or the cable provider—or, in the case of mixed provision, a network of people. Will the Minister explain how the definition will work?
Mr. Taylor: In some cases, such matters will have to be tested in the courts. We are talking about issues such as common carriers, whether there is a burden of proof that there was a knowing breach of copyright by a carrier, whether it be a telephone company or a broadcaster; whether rights have been properly obtained; and whether they were knowingly obtained. Quite honestly, it is not for me, across the Floor of the House of Commons, to anticipate how the courts will interpret such matters, but they will need to be tested.
As media convergence comes about, many such matters will be affected. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that, increasingly in the digital age, it would be easy to lose intellectual property. There could be instant quality reproduction. That is why I have been in discussions with companies, not least the Thorn EMI laboratory, about electronic digital signatures, or watermarks, embedded into a chip, which can be picked up only by special monitoring equipment. That equipment can sensibly work out whether any broadcaster is using copyright material that has not been paid for, or material that has been paid for in the proper way. Technological solutions will have to reinforce the law as we make progress.
Mr. Tony Banks: I know that it is not the Minister's job to anticipate or interpret that which the courts might decide, but there is something that he can tell us: are performers in this country challenging the fairness of

1387
remuneration treated differently from performers in the other countries within the EEA? Are they or are they not being treated differently from all the other performers in the EEA?
Mr. Taylor: To my knowledge, our performers are not being treated differently from all other performers. There are variations within the EEA, from country to country. Many of the ways in which our performers feel they might be treated differently in fact relate only to traditional broadcast materials. To that extent, we are attempting to provide a flexible way for performers—while still protecting them—to pursue their interests and get equitable remuneration, without specifying that in statute. As we move forward to new distribution mechanisms, we shall quickly find that the 50:50 split is not tenable. It is in the long-term interests of performers for their material to be distributed more widely rather than for it to be carefully restricted and used less. Content will be king in the new age, putting performers in a much better position.
The Government have played a leading role in the development of the wider market. We are active in the preparations for the World Intellectual Property Organisation conference in December. I have had active talks with the various music organisations in this country and in Europe. Rupert Perry of EMI has played a leading role in that. I have recently been to India to talk about copyright issues. One or two European Union countries, such as Italy, do not have a good record on copyright. We are drawing attention to that. We have also had severe problems with China and Bulgaria.
We are well aware of the need for copyright. If intellectual property is not protected, there will not be a content industry capable of dealing with the pressure of public demand. It is also necessary to protect intellectual property by technological means. Electronic signatures, or watermarks, will be essential and there will be a much greater need for monitoring. Intellectual property will be important in the transmission of music, software and programmes. It will be downloadable only in a country in which a performer is confident that his copyright will be protected rather than one without secure copyright protection.
1388
That can be resolved only through the implementation of responsible policies around the world. Sir Leon Brittan will be assisting in the World Trade Organisation talks. Further talks are being held by WIPO. We are putting as steadfast a case as possible, for good commercial reasons. The music industry is one of the few in this country that export twice as much as they import. It is an important player in the national economy and we want to do everything possible to ensure that it and all the other providers of intellectual property gain secure access to world markets.
Mr. Miller: Is the Minister seeking to redefine the traditional meaning of the word "broadcast" in the context of this debate? Will he press for that definition to extend to all forms of digital transmission?
Mr. Taylor: I am cautious about broadening that definition. The hon. Gentleman will well understand that I believe that there will eventually be convergence. Even the BBC has openly announced plans for broadcasting over the Internet. There will be a convergence of all means of transmission—including cable, telephone and satellite. Broadcasters and other content providers, including the music industry, will come together in the new multimedia age.
As I mentioned in the Command Paper issued yesterday in response to the report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee on the information society, we envisage looking at the regulatory environment in the context of changing industries. The time is not yet right for that. We have made some pre-emptive moves—for example, through the regulation by the Office of Telecommunications of conditional access as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1996. We are well apprised of the changes and well aware of their significance. It is not sensible to move too far or too fast. We are watching carefully to see where technology leads.
We have to protect copyright and intellectual property. I believe that the measure will do that, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 11 th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Licensing Law (Northern Ireland.)
5.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I beg to move,
That the draft Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.
Mr. Moss: We are considering two orders, which together form a package of reforms. One deals with the licensing of premises such as public houses, hotels and restaurants, the other with the registration of private clubs in Northern Ireland to permit them to supply alcohol to members.
The orders consolidate, with amendments, existing Northern Ireland law in the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. A wide-ranging review of the laws on alcohol began in December 1992 with a review of the laws on registered clubs. A review of the licensing laws was instigated in February 1994, after it became clear that much common ground existed between clubs and licensing laws. The orders are coming before the House only now because there have been extensive consultations since then.
The orders contain many new deregulatory provisions and reflect the changing social attitudes and expectations of modern society. We have sought to strike a balance between the need to control and regulate the sale of alcohol in an effective, enforceable and equitable way and the need to have full regard to the wider public health issues. The main changes represent a balanced relaxation of the law, while preserving the safeguards necessary to promote sensible and socially responsible attitudes to drinking and prevent alcohol abuse.
I shall try to deal quickly with the more significant provisions that amend existing laws or propose new measures. I shall first explain the provisions common to both orders and then explain those unique to each.
Articles 13 and 21 of the licensing order and article 24 of the clubs order provide that liquor licences and club registrations, currently granted or renewed for a maximum of one year, may now be valid for up to five years at the discretion of the courts. That deregulatory measure will be welcomed by licenceholders and registered clubs, and will also free up valuable court time.
Article 42 of the licensing order and article 24 of the clubs order will abolish the compulsory Sunday afternoon break and allow the supply of alcohol between 12.30 pm and 10 pm on that day. That has been a contentious issue in the reforms. However, the proposal brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and 'Wales, recognising widespread demands to be able to enjoy a more leisurely lunch, to have an early high tea or, as is becoming increasingly popular, to watch a satellite football match with friends.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister clarify a point in the registration of clubs order that I cannot work out? Article 24(1)(b) says that the permitted hours are
1390
"on Good Friday from 5 in the afternoon to 11 in the evening"
Article 24(2)(b) says that the hours shall
"provide for a break of at least 2 consecutive hours between 2 in the afternoon and 5 in the afternoon on Good Friday"
Mr. Moss: That is reasonably clear. Article 24(1)(b) gives the total period during which a club can be open, provided there is a two-hour break at some stage.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Article 24(1)(b) says:
"from 5 in the afternoon to 11 in the evening".
That is six hours. Article 24(2)(b) provides for a break between 2 in the afternoon and 5 in the afternoon when the club should not be open.
Mr. Moss: I shall come back to that point when I wind up.
Now, where was I? High tea, I think. There is no evidence that the change to the law in England and Wales has led to an increase in alcohol consumption.
Article 59 of the licensing order and article 33 of the clubs order bring the law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with England and Wales with the introduction of children's certificates, which will enable young people under 18 to be in licensed premises and registered clubs up to 9 pm, provided that they are accompanied by an adult.
The presence of children in an alcohol environment has been an emotive issue in Northern Ireland, although I would inform hon. Members that children have been allowed into the bars of sporting clubs in the Province for many years. There has been a considerable demand from people in Northern Ireland to be able to enjoy a drink in the company of their family, usually as an accompaniment to a meal, and the Government are satisfied that such a proposal will also enable children to see sensible drinking in a family context. The Government have taken the power to prescribe by regulations the requirements that all licensed premises and registered clubs must meet, should that be necessary.
I come now to proposals unique to the licensing law. Article 5 creates three new categories of premises that may be licensed—guest houses, conference centres and higher education institutions. There has been a considerable demand from the public to have a drink with a meal in guest houses, and the Government, with strong support from the Northern Ireland tourist board, believe that that limited extension will assist Northern Ireland's tourism industry.
In addition, one of the fastest-growing businesses in Northern Ireland is the conference industry, and the Government believe that that industry should be given every opportunity to compete for its share of the United Kingdom market. The Province's universities also host a number of events and conferences, and having their own licences will provide them with a greater degree of flexibility.
Mr. Peter Robinson: In communications with, I suspect, all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, the Minister has suggested one or two conference centres that are likely to fall within the description, but he has added "and some others", which widened the description to one that we cannot define.

1391
How will the Government define which centres are to be allowed a licence under the heading of "conference centres"?
Mr. Moss: Many of the larger hotels in Northern Ireland now operate as conference centres, but obviously their licences will be taken care of in the usual way. The universities open during their vacations for conferences, and the measure will enable them to run sensible bars during those conferences. The Waterfront hall in Belfast will also run conferences. The definition will be easy to achieve and, in issuing licences, the courts will be quite clear as to what constitutes a conference centre. Such a centre should have facilities available for large groups of people to participate in a proper programme of discussion and debate over one, two or more days.
Article 5 also provides the powers under which regulations may be made specifying the conditions under which shops and/or supermarkets in Northern Ireland may, in future, sell alcohol alongside other goods. The provision that currently prevents mixed trading will be dropped from the legislation, thus bringing the law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government are aware of concerns that placing alcohol on a supermarket shelf could give the wrong message, and could result in impulse buying and in exposing children to alcohol in the course of shopping. For that reason, regulations will be put in place to ensure that, among other things, stores set aside a designated area for the sale of alcohol.
Article 42 changes the permitted hours for free-standing off-licences, which have been at variance with the rest of the United Kingdom since 1987, and those for off-licences in, or attached to, pubs, which have differed since 1989. The Government now propose to bring all off-sales outlets in Northern Ireland broadly into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Article 44 introduces two measures that I would wish to highlight. First, licence holders who apply for additional permitted hours will no longer be required to provide food and entertainment, but instead will be required to provide one or the other or, if they so wish, both. That change is in recognition of the contention that many people may want food or entertainment, but not necessarily both.
The second change will allow licensed premises providing food or entertainment, or both, to apply to the courts for an additional two hours on a Sunday night, taking the permitted hours up to midnight, other than on Christmas day or Easter Sunday. It is becoming increasingly popular in parts of the Province for Sunday nights to become social evenings, and the proposals are a sensible recognition of that.
Article 45 deals with small public houses that cannot supply food or entertainment and, under the present law, cannot have late licences. It is therefore proposed that such pubs be allowed up to 20 late licences a year, and the Government are confident that that small but significant concession will be warmly welcomed.
Article 51 deals with the conditions as to the sale of intoxicating liquor in guest houses and restaurants. I shall target my remarks primarily on restaurants, where I am bringing forward a number of changes that I should like to bring to hon. Members' attention. The sale of alcohol
1392
in restaurants will continue to be ancillary to the purchase of a main table meal, and to assist the policing of that provision, it will be a feature of the new order that payment for food and drinks must be on the same bill. Additionally, to curb the possibility of premises masquerading as restaurants when they are really discos or something similar, I have decided to introduce a provision prohibiting the charging of an entrance fee.
While on the subject of restaurants, I should point out that I have decided to remove the provisions whereby such establishments applying for a licence to sell alcohol are subject to an annual inspection by the Northern Ireland tourist board. That inspection was extremely detailed and did not need to be satisfied by the non-licensed restaurants. I decided that the system was over-prescriptive and have taken the opportunity to deregulate and allow market forces to operate.
Articles 67 and 68 strengthen the law in relation to the presence of alcohol at unlicensed entertainments or unregistered clubs. In relation to the former, the existing law is targeted at entertainments organised for gain and has proved inadequate. The new provisions prohibit alcohol at any entertainment outside of licensed premises or registered clubs unless it is being held for other than private gain, and places the onus on the organiser to prove that it is not being held for private gain. Article 68 prohibits illegal drinking in clubs that are not registered, and is targeted at what are commonly called "shebeens". Rights of entry have also been provided to the police to investigate suspected breaches of the law.
Article 72 introduces a new provision whereby the police may seek the suspension of a licence if any change of circumstances occurring since the grant or renewal of the licence would suggest that the licence holder was no longer a fit person to hold a licence, or the licensed premises were no longer suitable for such a business.
Finally, I shall detail proposals unique to the clubs law. Articles 3 and 15 are related, and I shall deal with them together. Article 3 tightens the existing restrictions on the sale of alcohol in clubs that have ceased to be registered. That provision outlaws the presence of alcohol in such premises and introduces an automatic five-year disqualification for clubs that are convicted of that offence. That tough new measure is in direct response to clubs that have been exploiting weaknesses in the existing law by claiming that alcohol present in the premises is not being supplied by the club.
Article 4 strengthens the existing laws by providing that, during the waiting period before a court hearing of an application for registration, clubs must have in place certain rules designed to demonstrate their ability to operate within the law. That is coupled with a relaxation of the existing laws, whereby the waiting period to be served by clubs before their applications for registration can be dealt with by the courts will be reduced from two years to one. The waiting period enables clubs to demonstrate that they are bona fide and well run, and a one-year probationary period is now regarded as sufficient.
Article 26 contains an amendment that will increase from 20 to 52 in any year, the number of special occasions on which a club may supply alcohol to 1 am. The figure

1393
of 20 was fixed in 1987 and it now seems only reasonable to permit clubs to enjoy an average of one late night each week throughout the year, subject to police approval.
Mr. Roy Beggs: While there is concern that liberalisation of the regulations could lead to increased alcoholism in Northern Ireland, residents living in close proximity to licensed premises and the premises that will have extended, late-night provision for their clientele, are concerned that they will be subjected to unnecessary disturbance arising from the late-night activities. What assurance can those people be given that, if a racket is created week on week, the Royal Ulster Constabulary will take prompt action, and the privilege that we are about to introduce will be removed?
Mr. Moss: The article enables the extension from 20 to 52, but it is an extension of permitted hours. I understand that the club would have to apply for each extension. The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn to my attention the concerns of people in the vicinity. If such an extension caused them concern or disturbance, they would be able to oppose an extension of the permitted hours in court. That is my understanding, and if I have not given the hon. Gentleman the correct answer, I shall clarify it later.
Article 40 contains significant changes to the existing law, enabling the manner in which accounts are to be kept and presented to be prescribed. Among other things, the 1987 order contained provisions to combat racketeering in the affairs of some clubs. The Government believe that it is vital that all registered clubs should manage their financial affairs in a responsible manner, and the police, along with the terrorist finance unit of the Northern Ireland Office, have warned that there is a continued need for vigilance to ensure that clubs comply with the law.
Article 42 will therefore give the RUC wider powers of entry and inspection, so that clubs can be policed more effectively. It will enable the police to enter and inspect premises, particularly those that continue to supply alcohol after losing their registration and clubs that are awaiting registration.
Article 43 will introduce a penalty points provision under which points will be attributed for certain offences relating to the keeping and presenting of accounts. It is aimed at clubs that commit serious or persistent breaches of the law in relation to their accounts. The RUC and the Northern Ireland Office requested, and strongly support, the introduction of that provision, particularly as the courts will no longer be renewing registrations on an annual basis. Bona fide, well-run clubs, which the majority are, have nothing to fear from that proposal.
That concludes my outline of the main provisions of the Orders. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the proposals comprise sensible relaxations in the law as well as maintain essential safeguards. I commend the orders to the House.
5.22 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: As the Minister said, the two measures are to some extent deregulatory, although the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 contains a restatement of existing law, which is different from the comparable legislation for the rest of Great Britain. The order is much less deregulatory than
1394
the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which brings the law into line with that for the rest of Great Britain.
When similar licensing legislation was introduced in the House for the rest of the United Kingdom, the Labour party did not oppose it and we shall not oppose the orders this evening, although I understand and am well aware of the objections—the Minister circulated them to hon. Members—to the increased availability of alcohol, particularly on Sundays.
I wholeheartedly endorse the Minister's comments on sensible drinking and striking a balance between giving people the freedom to enjoy the increased availability of alcohol, especially on Sundays, at meal times and with their families, and increasing alcohol consumption and abuse.
I agree with the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs that the original order increased the regulations applicable to clubs in certain areas and did not deal with some of the issues that the wider club movement, both here and in Northern Ireland, wanted to raise. The Minister was good enough to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, hon. Members and myself, and the draft order was amended to take account of some of the points made. I am grateful to the Minister for the time that he took to meet us and discuss the issues at length, and for rethinking the order in relation to article 43 and penalty points. As a consequence, we shall not oppose the order.
I am conscious of the Government's fears about clubs in Northern Ireland; the Minister mentioned the enforcement details. Clubs in Northern Ireland are different from those in Great Britain. The latter are usually non-profit-making or working men's clubs. In Northern Ireland, clubs are usually of a sporting nature or have some other social function. The Government have argued that some have been vehicles for paramilitary funding and, although there is no proof, that fear remains and the Government are conscious of it, as are the Opposition.
That possibility has to be borne in mind when we discuss these proposals, particularly the requirements for improved accountancy for clubs in Northern Ireland, which we welcome. When we debate such orders in future, I hope that the accountancy systems in place and the details contained in the present orders are such that we might be able to deregulate some of the prescription surrounding bookkeeping for Northern Ireland clubs, bringing them more into line with the systems that operate throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government are still overly prescriptive in a few areas, and further deregulation measures could have been implemented.
While we welcome the reduction in the waiting period for registration from two years to one, the licensing order provides for a provisional licence. We appreciate that there is a need to be able to establish that a club and its activities are bona fide and that it is seeking to obtain a licence in the proper manner. I suggest to the Minister, however, that the Northern Ireland Office could have considered a probationary licence, rather than the probationary one-year waiting period.
We also welcome the increased duration of a certificate from one to five years, which will enable clubs to enjoy a period of stability and reduce the bureaucracy surrounding annual registration—the annual visits to the magistrates

1395
and the licensing bench and all that goes with that. We are aware that the Government felt that the extension merited the penalty points system. The Minister pointed out that the deregulatory aspect of the increased duration of the certificate meant that such a system should be put in place to enable the police to monitor clubs throughout the five-year period.
An application concerning a club can still be made to the courts at any time under article 13. So an application for the cancellation of registration can be made at any time, regardless of the five-year period. Under article 8, the period for consideration of the conduct of a club in relation to the renewal of a certificate has been extended to six years. The five-year registration period is also at the discretion of the courts. I hope that the magistrates courts in Northern Ireland will honour the intention of the order that the registration period should be five years, and that registrations are not granted for one or two years.
We welcome the changes that will allow clubs to apply for registration out of time and temporary premises to be certificated. We give a cautious welcome to the extension of Sunday hours. I endorse the Minister's comments about eating times on Sunday and about sporting activities on satellite television. It is now more than a year since similar legislation was introduced in Great Britain, and there have been no particular problems with it.
We welcome the special occasion authorisations, although I am conscious of the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), that residents living near clubs or pubs that will have a licence to operate until I am should be given due consideration; we must be aware that some complaints may arise.
I hope that the courts will make a reasonable interpretation of what is a special occasion. When the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill was debated in February 1995, reference was made to the inconsistencies between magistrates in various parts of the country; what some regarded as a special occasion others regarded as not warranting an extension.
The order allows for children accompanied by an adult to be in a club until a 9 pm threshold, provided that the club has applied for a children's certificate. The licensing order contains a similar provision, and my comments apply to both orders, which stipulate that for a children's certificate to be granted, there must be a suitable environment for children. That means that there should be facilities for family meals, especially on Sundays. I welcome that, as it would allow families to enjoy meals together on Sundays—something of which most hon. Members will be conscious.
I am not sure how many clubs in Northern Ireland would be deemed to have a suitable environment or how many would even want to admit children. My club allows children to remain until 9.30 pm, and that curfew is well policed by members, who genuinely do not want to drink in an area with children.
Magistrates should consider no-smoking areas when children's certificates are applied for. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) raised that point during the debate on the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill in 1995; he objected to magistrates imposing a requirement that a club should have a no-smoking area to gain a children's certificate and maintained that they
1396
did not have that discretion. I take issue with that, and I hope that the Government, who are responsible for targets for reducing children's smoking under "The Health of the Nation", will share my view that no-smoking areas should be taken into account. For children, a suitable environment should surely be a non-smoking environment.
I fully support the idea of children being able to accompany their parents in clubs and pubs with eating facilities and a pleasant atmosphere, but I would not like children to be taken to smoky bars or taprooms with a less pleasant atmosphere. It behoves us to ensure that the environment is indeed suitable.
Some parts of the order are unnecessarily prescriptive. On article 38. can the Minister tell me why it should be illegal for clubs in Northern Ireland to advertise, when clubs in Great Britain can advertise social events and entertainment? Unfortunately, clubs in Northern Ireland do not have the system of associate membership and are restricted to the members themselves, but there is no reason why they should not be allowed to advertise events in the club to try to increase their membership or attendance.
I have already referred to the penalty points system and to the fact that the Government compromised on the issue and accepted some of what was said by the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs and by hon. Members. I hope that improved accountancy systems will enable us eventually to get rid of the points system altogether. The system is now to apply only to accountancy and bookkeeping matters, as it was felt that that was appropriate to the Government's fears about clubs and fund raising. However, the three-year period for expunging those penalty points is still too long.
Article 47 relates to the presumptions applicable in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is surprising that
"Evidence that any person obtained, consumed or intended to consume intoxicating liquor in the premises of a registered club"
is considered to be evidence that the liquor was supplied by that club and that the person consumed that liquor.
The article also states:
"Where intoxicating liquor in open vessels is found in the premises of a registered club during any period when the consumption of intoxicating liquor in those premises is prohibited…consumption…shall…be deemed to have taken place during that period".
That means that a police officer who walks into a club and sees an empty glass that may have contained alcoholic liquor can assume that liquor was consumed outside the permitted hours, which seems a bizarre interpretation of the law. There were complaints about the penalty points system. because it was felt that the presumptions could be abused if the police or the authorities wanted to close down a club quickly. I find the proof elements of article 47 surprising.
I want to deal with some issues that are not included in the order, but on which we pressed the Minister earlier in the year. One issue that is always raised in relation to clubs is associated membership. That system has been in use in the rest of Great Britain since 1875. It was supported in a letter from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote, to the licensing bench. He said:

1397
"There seems no reason for refusing the exemption to a club because it admits to honorary membership subscribing members of other clubs affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and supplies them with liquors on the same terms as its own subscribing members"
The associate membership system has been in place for more than 100 years. The Working Men's Club and Institute Union, the CIU, in Great Britain had been hoping to extend those provisions to Northern Ireland. The CIU has printed a set of model rules, which it hoped would be adopted by clubs in Northern Ireland, that would allow for associate membership but strengthen the rules for clubs there and address many of the fears that the Government have raised about improved accountancy and bookkeeping.
It appears that the model rules will not now be applied, because of the restrictions in the order. In schedule 1, paragraph 8 does not replicate the reference to temporary members in the 1987 order. There is no reference to that in the explanatory document. Temporary membership would have afforded something similar to associate membership, but it has been removed without explanation. It seems that the Northern Ireland Office is dead set against associate membership in Northern Ireland's clubs, despite its long history in this country and the fact that it has not caused problems. The associate membership system means that people attending clubs other than their own must have their membership and other details checked before they can gain entry. It is well policed and controlled by the CIU.
We will not oppose the licensing order. The provisions for the rest of the United Kingdom were debated in February 1995. There have been no significant problems with them since then. I expect that the House will soon debate further licensing deregulation, which perhaps should have been in place last year but which was rejected by the deregulation Committee in another place. There are legitimate concerns, such as the extension of Sunday drinking and the increased availability of alcohol in supermarkets and shops, and I am sure that Northern Ireland Members will list them. I endorse again the Minister's view that we have to strike the right balance between the public's freedom to drink on Sundays and the encouragement of increased alcohol consumption. Proper safeguards are essential.
We welcome the extension of licensing to guest houses, conference centres and higher education establishments. Tourism is a major industry in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. There should be a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom. The measure will help the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. There are initiatives between the tourist boards of Ireland and Northern Ireland to increase tourism in Northern Ireland, and regulating the licensing system in this way will help.
On the mixed trading provisions, I hope that there will be adequate safeguards on sales from supermarkets and off-licences. It is all too easy for under-age drinkers to obtain access to alcohol from them. We are talking about kids obtaining access not to beer or lager, but to alcoholic water, alcopops, hooch and ciders of about 9 per cent. alcohol by volume, such as Blastaways, Castaways and all the rest. They are attractive to children and easy to drink. They are a problem, and I hope that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent under-age drinking of such alcohol.
1398
We welcome the decrease in bureaucracy that results from longer licences and the idea of occasional licences, especially where the extended hours do not cause problems in residential areas. My earlier comments on magistrates' discretion apply to that.
I have touched on Sunday hours and I give that provision a cautious welcome. It is appropriate to extend Sunday hours and take away the break, but I hope that it is regarded sensibly and that the law will be used as intended to allow families to eat and drink together on Sunday afternoons or take advantage of Sunday televised sport. People have more leisure and they want the freedom to enjoy it in pubs and clubs.
We hope that the additional hours in the order are used sensibly by the licensed trade. There is always a demand for later drinking, but that must be balanced against the public's freedom to avoid rowdiness in the early hours of morning. My experience is that later closing times help to avoid pubs emptying at one time, which can lead to disorder and rowdiness. Lengthened drinking time will allow people to leave in a staggered process. [Laughter.]I mean staggered in time, not physical staggering.
I mentioned children's certificates in relation to clubs, and I would reiterate my comments on what constitutes a suitable environment. We welcome the orders and hope that they are implemented sensibly. We do not want to condone increased alcohol consumption or the increased availability of alcohol to minors, but we want the public to be able to take advantage of deregulation and have the extra freedom to drink with their children on Sunday afternoons. We shall not oppose the orders.
5.47 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I have two introductory comments. The Minister will by now have realised that, when he undertook to review licensing legislation, he took on a greater problem than he had envisaged. I am sure that he has not thanked the people in his Department and the outside interests who pushed him down that road.
Secondly, it is right that at the outset I should register a protest about the way that the legislation is being handled. We have two orders substantial in both content and size. One has nine schedules and 57 pages, the other has 113 pages and 13 schedules. They contain matters of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. The concern of people in Northern Ireland is shown by the 700 responses that the Minister received.
However, we have only one and a half hours, and the two Front-Bench spokesmen have taken half that time. That is not adequate and should be deprecated by hon. Members who believe that there should be greater opportunity to speak on such matters, especially given the backcloth that we cannot table amendments to Northern Ireland legislation. It is put through by Order in Council on a take it or leave it basis, which is most unsatisfactory in all circumstances.
I note the cost of the orders. The Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order is priced at £11 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order at £7.10. Looking at the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, with the purchase price of the two orders, we could probably have bought several rounds of drink and had change left over. The high price reflects the volume of the orders.

1399
I shall take the two orders separately at first. I can accept where the Minister is coming from in respect of the clubs order. Everybody recognises that there are unscrupulous organisations and individuals in Northern Ireland who will try to use every opportunity—whether in the drink trade or anywhere else—to gain funds for themselves or their organisations and the uses to which they might put the money would certainly be condemned by the House. I therefore entirely support the Minister's aim of ensuring that clubs are regulated in such a way as to ensure that no organisation with links to paramilitary or other such groups can benefit from the sale of intoxicating liquor and aid those groups as a consequence.
However, there has been a massive change in the club trade in the past few years. I am sure that the Minister recognises that the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs has played a significant role in regularising the clubs business in Northern Ireland. There has been a massive shift away from the shebeens that were on almost every street corner in some parts of central Belfast. There are now few clubs of questionable legality operating, and all the clubs registered with the Federation of Clubs are recognised as bona fide. The federation has played a major role in urging the Minister to ensure that the licensing laws are such that they remove from the club trade those who would not be proper recipients of a licence.
The main requirement is the one that the Minister sought to deal with under article 43—to ensure that money is not siphoned off for illegal and other purposes. In his enthusiasm, the Minister might have gone beyond what is sensible in that respect. He will want to ensure that there is appropriate legislation to give the Royal Ulster Constabulary whatever support it requires in taking action against those involved in paramilitary attempts to siphon off money from clubs. However, in the original proposal for article 43, the Minister brought in a penalty point system that removed magistrates' discretion to such an extent that we would have had mandatory sentences for technical offences.
One solicitor described such a technical offence in terms of a minor infringement, such as an individual staying a minute after he or she was due to be out of a club. Technically, that individual would be guilty of having broken the law, and the magistrate would have had a duty to require that points be set against the club's licence. It would have been ludicrous for a club to lose its licence as a result of such a technical offence because the magistrates' discretion had been removed.
I am therefore glad to see that the Minister's confidence in magistrates has increased during the draft stage of the order, and that he has removed from schedule 6 several of the non-financial elements where the magistrate would have been required to impose mandatory penalty points. I welcome that change, and the Minister can expect the support of me and my colleagues on that order.
The Minister might find less welcome my comments on the licensing order. I have several concerns about that order, the first of which relates to its very nature. It is enabling legislation, and because so much depends on the regulations and conditions that will apply to the various articles, it is difficult for hon. Members debating the merits of the order to know what the final outcome will be.
1400
The Minister's original intention expressed in a statement in January 1995 made me examine three specific areas. One of those has subsequently and, in my view, rightly been dropped from the order—the surrender requirement for licences. The House should thank the Minister for recognising that that would not have been helpful.
The general commercial value of a licence is such that many of those involved in the licensed trade use their ownership of a licence as security with their banks. Since about 1902, anyone who wants to open licensed premises in Northern Ireland has had to secure a licence from an existing licenceholder. That requirement was of benefit in preventing the proliferation of pubs and off-licences throughout Northern Ireland. In addition, licenceholders had an asset of value. I understand that about £100 million was invested in licences and that banks were greatly concerned at the prospect of so much being wiped off the balance sheets of publicans and off-licence owners, to devastating commercial effect.
The Minister has done the right thing in changing his mind. I raise this matter not only to thank the Minister, but to set down a marker, lest any successor to the Minister might be persuaded by the civil servants who originally proposed that we should go down that road. It would not help the licensed trade, nor would it help those who are against drink because it would lead to a greater number of licenceholders in Northern Ireland. The Minister has nevertheless made a brave fist of considerably extending the licensed trade in Northern Ireland through other measures in the order.
I turn now to the element dealing with mixed trading. Under the order, the Minister seems to he dragging us back to the days of what used to be called—long before the time of any hon. Member here—the old spirit grocers. Effectively, unless the accompanying regulations state otherwise, the order could result in alcohol being sold on every street corner. There will be nothing to prevent any shop from setting aside a section of floor space and employing someone over 18 for the purpose of selling liquor. The order makes it possible for alcohol to be available on almost every street in Northern Ireland. I am keen to hear what conditions the Minister will impose to ensure that we do not have, dotted across the countryside, people who will be able to run what is effectively an off-licence in every street in Northern Ireland.
The legislation is such that I suspect that it has been introduced primarily as a result of pressure by the supermarket trade—not only supermarket traders in Northern Ireland, but those with whom the Minister and the Conservative Government will be more closely associated, who are coming to Northern Ireland. I notice that J. Sainsbury plc says that it will apply for a licence for every set of premises that it opens in Northern Ireland. If it does so, it will significantly affect jobs in Northern Ireland as well as the availability of alcohol.
Supermarkets such as Sainsbury and Tesco are moving into Northern Ireland. They, and those who are already there—Stewart's, Wellworth's and so on—will undoubtedly out-price the local off-licences, where jobs will be lost.
The legislation introduces to young people the idea that drink is a normal factor in their lives. I suspect that no regulation that the Minister could frame would ensure that young people did not pass through areas where drink was

1401
available, either in shops or supermarkets. Day by day, they will have greater contact with drink, and it will be much more obvious to them that drink is available.
I note that the BBC's "Food and Drink" programme sent several under-age individuals to various supermarkets in Great Britain to test legislation currently in force which is similar to that which the Minister proposes to introduce in Northern Ireland. On every occasion, those young people were able to buy drink, whether it was from Sainsbury, Tesco, Asda or other major supermarkets. All were able to purchase drink although they were minors.
There is a much lower standard—and, I suspect, a lower level of awareness—among people who work on the tills of supermarkets than there would be in off-licences. The Minister must at least acknowledge that he will have to take steps to give him other means of dealing with under-age people who will be able to obtain drink as a result of the legislation that he is encouraging the House to support tonight.
I notice from a recent report that J. Sainsbury at York lost its drink licence because it had been caught selling alcohol to under-18s, and children of 14 and 15 were able to buy drinks on three separate occasions when they had been sent into the supermarket by the police. Interestingly, on one occasion when they did so, the person who sold them the drink said, "Put it in a carrier bag or I will lose my job." Obviously, that individual was prepared to sell drink to someone aged 14 or 15, with the knowledge that she was selling it to a minor.
The Minister increases the opportunities for under-age drinking—a problem that already causes great concern in Northern Ireland. I suspect that, almost weekly, people will visit my surgery and those of many hon. Members from Northern Ireland, especially the Belfast area, to complain about under-age youths causing problems in their area because they have access to drink. I also suspect that those people will be able to tell us where those youths are purchasing the drink. The Minister aggravates the social problems in Northern Ireland by this legislation.
I ask the Minister, why has it not been possible, at the time that we are discussing this legislation, for us to have sight of the regulations that will control what goes on in shops and supermarkets? The legislation has not come out of the blue to the Minister; he has been talking about it since the start of 1995. The Northern Ireland Office must have an idea of what the regulations are.
Some of us suspect that the Minister seeks, by the methods that I have outlined, to push the enabling legislation through the House tonight and then introduce regulations that might make the regime very liberal. They might allow supermarkets and shops to sell alcohol to the public without much restriction.
Part of the legislation deals with restaurants, guest houses and so on. The Minister again heaps up problems for the future with that provision. Once again he has an advantage over every other hon. Member, because, although we are aware of what would happen as a result of his legislation, he does not invite us to read the regulations and conditions that would apply, under the legislation, to restaurants.
It is possible that, under the legislation, not only will alcohol be able to be sold as an accompaniment to meals by bona tide restaurants whose main business is selling food, but it could be the major source of income for many of those people whose contact with food will be only a
1402
matter of convenience for their profits, who will almost run a bar. By introducing drinking into every restaurant, which would undoubtedly be the result, such regulations would destroy the family atmosphere that exists in so many restaurants in Northern Ireland. They would increase the temptation for people to remain after their meal to continue drinking, with a consequent effect not only on social problems related to drink but on drinking and driving and so on.
The Minister has built up many problems for the future in Northern Ireland as a result of those elements of the licensing order that he brings before us tonight. I shall briefly comment on how he could overcome those problems in the regulations relating to restaurants, shops and supermarkets.
I have approached the Minister several times regarding shops and supermarkets, suggesting that they should have a separate till that deals only with products from the licensed area, and that there should be a separate door to distinguish that area from the rest of the supermarket. The Minister wants to leave things as vague as possible. That is a mistake; we, if not the Minister, will live to regret that.
The Minister should consider granting restaurants a wine licence instead of a full licence. That would restrict drinking to some extent. It would also take drink away from public view. A bar is unnecessary if there is only a wine licence. If the Minister does not follow that road, he should consider restricting the floor area of the alcohol sales element of the restaurant in accordance with the size of the restaurant.
What is the Minister's definition of a guest house? Will having an upstairs room available for a lodger allow a person to hold a licence on the strength of running a guest house? Perhaps the Minister will tell us in detail how flexible he will be about that.
On the Sunday issue, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). I do not believe that there is any demand for an extension of drinking time on Sunday. I do not believe that the Minister has been pressed by the people of Northern Ireland to extend the Sunday provisions. The whole tenor of his legislation is to extend drinking time, to increase the number of outlets from which people can secure alcoholic beverages, to increase young people's exposure to alcohol, to impose on people in Northern Ireland the view that alcohol is a normal part of everyday life, and to increase the pressure to introduce them to drink.
The Minister should consult his colleagues in other Departments to learn the cost of the abuse of alcohol to many Government Departments in Northern Ireland and to local government there. If he were as aware of that as are many of us who live in Northern Ireland, I doubt whether he would try to extend the availability of alcohol to the extent that the legislation does.
6.9 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall not cover the ground that was covered by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), except to underline the concern that he expressed. There seemed to be some naivety among Members on both Front Benches when they spoke about extending the licence to stores.
I query the concern that the police might be too quick to prosecute. The evidence over the years is that they have been slow to do so. Many years ago, complaints were

1403
made to a police officer that a publican was selling alcohol to minors. The police officer claimed that there was no evidence of that, but the late Rev. Sammy Simms of the Bethany congregation gave a youngster money to go into the public house and buy alcohol, and frog-marched the constable in behind him. Although we hear it said that the law is too restrictive, it may not be restrictive enough to prevent the exploitation of men and women, boys and girls.
On a recent visit to California, I was struck by the fact that, in virtually every restaurant, and in other places, there was a sign warning of the health hazards not only of smoking, but of alcohol in certain conditions. It is important to recognise that in this debate we are dealing with one of the most serious problems of the human race, especially in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps it is because I pride myself on being an Ulster Scot that I have some sympathy with the calumny of Scotland and Glasgow in the words of the song: "There's something the matter with Glasgow, boy—she's going round and round." There is nothing wrong with the one who had imbibed, but the rest of the world is in trouble.
I shall press the Minister on the issue of designated areas and ask him to underline the fact that not only the sale but the supply of alcohol to minors is against the law. That is sometimes misunderstood. People say, "But we didn't sell it to them." However, the person who sells or gives alcohol to minors is guilty of a breach of the regulations.
In the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, article 3(2) states:
"every person who supplies, obtains, consumes, keeps for supply"
alcohol without a licence
"shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both."
It is an open breach of regulations to supply or sell without a proper licence, but that carries the same penalty as supplying alcohol to a young person, which is covered by article 34. The first offence seems more serious than the second.
I make a plea to the Minister. If the House is not prepared to do so for the nation as a whole, can we not move speedily towards the introduction of a common form of ID in Northern Ireland? A shop or club selling alcohol would no longer be able to hide behind the excuse that young people look older than they are. It is common practice in the United States for the provider to ask for an ID. If that were introduced in Northern Ireland, it would clearly identify the person and make it plain whether he or she was over 18. It would also be helpful for election purposes.
I await the Minister's response to my earlier question. We have expressed our concerns for years, but the Government keep telling us to wait until there is an Assembly. I have long contended that, until there is an Assembly, the House should legislate for Northern Ireland by Bill rather than by Order in Council, so that we can examine the legislation line by line and amend it. Drafting errors have occurred. I suspect that there is one in article 24 of the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order.
The Minister will be aware that many in my constituency have been concerned about the prospect of a floating restaurant or a floating pub on the Lagan. I have
1404
no objection in principle to it being on the Lagan, but I am not so sure that I agree with the ambiguous position of the Laganside development body, which stated earlier that it had no opinion on the matter but now clearly wants the development on the Lagan—not towards the mouth of the Lagan, but adjacent to the Queen's recreation and physical education building.
The legislation in that connection is too lax, because it does not take proper account of the objections of residents. Although no firm decision has been taken, it is strange that after a public inquiry turned down the application, there are those who are still pressing for the development against the wishes of the river users of the Lagan, the residents of the surrounding area and others.
If the Government want to discourage people from drinking and driving, it is difficult for them to require licensed premises to provide car parking spaces. Churches and other establishments in new buildings can be compelled to provide parking, but apparently no such requirement applies to restaurants or Canary wharf—on the Lagan, not in London. The calm of the area has been shattered by the provision of parking facilities. It is fascinating to note that, when the floating restaurant was originally proposed, there was a yellow line along Stanmillis embankment that would have prevented people from parking, but when the developers decided that they want the restaurant, the line was removed.
If proper regulations are not drawn up, there will be further infringements of people's liberties and rights. I sympathise with the Minister and accept the necessity for the registration of clubs. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East when he said that his party would support the Minister in that respect. I query the interpretation of some of the regulations. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said, the clubs in Northern Ireland are different from those in this country. It is not true that there are no working men's clubs in Northern Ireland—there are—but sporting clubs are now more prevalent, and shebeens have also become popular.
I ask the Minister about the success in policing those clubs that are closely involved with paramilitary activities. How many of such clubs have had funds sequestered and how many have been put out of business? That should be a touchstone for how we shall police these laws in the future. If we cannot implement the existing regulations, how will the new regulations be an improvement?
I query the views expressed by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central regarding simplified accountancy. During my lifetime, I have discovered that there are many creative accountants. It is fascinating to learn that restaurateurs can cook and that accountants can cook the books. I would like to see regulations set down that make it difficult for people to mix the books as easily as the drinks—to use a mixed metaphor.
Finally, I understand the concept of the family. I return to my comments in an earlier debate about activities on a Sunday—I prefer to call it the Lord's day. I believe that Sundays were given to us to use for the common good. Many years ago it was argued speciously that football should be played on Sunday because people went shopping on Saturday. Then there was a craze for Sunday shopping, and some football returned to Saturday as the primary league was televised on Sunday.

1405
I return to the question of policing. How do we introduce the English social environment, with the old village pub, to an entirely different cultural situation in Northern Ireland? We will destroy the family if we bring children to such places. If we are introducing laws to allow clubs to open on a Sunday afternoon so that people may watch big sporting matches, how do we explain the fact that people in Belfast have been doing that for years?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): draw the House's attention to the fact that the debate will conclude at 6.33 pm. I am sure that hon. Members want to hear the Minister answer their queries, so I ask the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to bear that in mind.
6.23 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand the difficulty that the Minister faces, but our difficulties are greater. I raised the matter of time with the Minister during my last deputation to him, but he did not tell us that he intended to combine the two orders. We could have debated each order for an hour and a half. It is absolutely scandalous to conduct the debate in this manner, and the Whips Office did not inform us of the Government's intention to move the motion to facilitate that process.
It is unbecoming of the two Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Insley) and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), that tonight they spoke for half of the allotted time and left Back Benchers little debating time. It is a very serious matter. There are 172 pages of legislation and 22 schedules upon which we are asked to comment in a couple of minutes.
I shall riot go over the ground that has been covered so ably by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I agree with the general tone of their speeches. I ask the Minister one question: how will he deal with the planning for those premises that will be able to sell liquor? We know the difficulties faced by a public house in obtaining a licence. How will the Minister deal with the widespread clamour for liquor licences? Will there be any restrictions? What does the Minister plan to do?
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East was absolutely right when he said that we should debate the regulations tonight. We are completely in the dark in that regard. I was amazed by the Minister's explanation when he said that he would minimise the dangers: he should try to eradicate the dangers that arise from young people buying alcohol on impulse. The Minister has not been fair to the representatives of Northern Ireland in his presentation of the legislation tonight. He spent a long time consulting about the legislation, and he should have given the people of Northern Ireland and Their representatives an opportunity to debate it.
The Minister is anxious to make some sort of reply to the debate, and if I were a bad boy I would stay on my feet and talk it out. However, I shall not do that. Tonight the Minister has done the people of Northern Ireland no favours—especially in his handling of the Sabbath day issue. That has serious implications. People have differing
1406
views on the matter, but those who have spoken to me say that we need not more alcohol outlets but fewer. That should be the Minister's governing principle. There are far too many alcohol outlets and we must restrict, rather than increase, their number. By contrast, we now have an open-door approach.
I conclude by referring to the sale of alcohol in spirit grocers, which ensnared young people—particularly the working-class families of Belfast—in the chain of alcoholism. One of the first acts of the old Stormont Government was to abolish them. There was a social clean-up, and young people were freed from that awful chain. As I have told the Minister, we are returning to that situation in this legislation.
6.27 pm
Mr. Moss: I shall obviously not have sufficient time in which to make even a small inroad into the queries that have been raised tonight. I promise to write to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate to answer their questions.
In reply to a number of general points raised during the debate—particularly by Conservative Members—I am conscious of the contentious ingredients in the legislation, particularly regarding licensing. That is why it has taken three years to bring the legislation to the House. I welcome the general support for the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order and I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), the Opposition spokesman, for his helpful involvement in the consultation process. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) brought people to see me to discuss the clubs order and, as a result of those representations, significant changes were made to the face of the order.
I emphasise the fact that consultation took place over a lengthy period. Although criticism has been levelled this evening at the lack of detail regarding the regulations, particularly those applying to mixed trading, I assure the House that when they are published—they are currently with our legal people—I shall send them not only to Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland but to all interested parties for comment before I commit them to the legal system. I give that promise.
We took the view that certain matters should be dealt with in the form of regulations so that we would be able to make changes at short notice if we saw that such provisions were not working in the way that we wanted.
I think that all those who have contributed to the debate have talked about mixed trading. We have made it clear that we want to achieve several objectives. We want to ensure that alcohol on sale will be kept and served within a clearly segregated area. We would, within the floor space of the supermarket, ensure that such an area was clearly defined. The area will be separated from the remainder of the shop, and access to it can he gained only by passing through some form of barrier.
Any non-alcoholic goods kept within the area must also be available elsewhere in the shop to ensure that customers do not have to go into the segregated area for non-alcoholic goods. The area will be under adult supervision at all times. It will be off limits to all persons under 18 years of age unless accompanied by an adult. The prescribed area will be situated in such a way that persons entering and leaving the shop will not have to

1407
pass through it. We shall be giving close attention to the provision of designated tills to ensure adherence to the tight regulations that we propose.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), spoke of spirit grocers. The accusation has been made that the liberalisation of the law in the licensing order will lead to a proliferation of outlets selling alcohol. It has been suggested that there will be a shop on every corner selling alcohol. I wish to make it clear that that cannot happen, for two reasons.
First, if a licence were to be obtained from the court, need must be justified. In other words, there should be inadequate provision in a locality before a licence is granted. Secondly, and most important—I am grateful for the support given by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—we have not removed the requirement of surrender. Accordingly, there is a finite number of licences to allow alcohol to be sold in Northern Ireland. That number cannot increase. Corner shops will be able to obtain licences to sell alcohol only if other licences elsewhere are surrendered. A licence is trading at about £40,000, and is used by many off-licences as security at the bank for loans. That being so, I do not believe that what we propose will lead to many shops taking up licences to sell alcohol.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [1 November].
The House proceeded to a Division:—
Rev. Ian Paisley (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to vote separately on the orders, which were put together? Are they to be voted on separately in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question is whether we are to vote separately on each of the orders. Is that right?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. The first order deals with the registration of clubs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Rev. Ian Paisley: We shall be dividing the House on the second order. Given the way that the orders were called, we can do nothing else.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, motion No. 2. I think the Ayes have it.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the other Question required to be put at that hour.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 3.

Division No. 9]

[6.36 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hawkins, Nick

Alexander, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Amess, David

Hinchliffe, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Horam, John

Barnes, Harry

Hunter, Andrew

Bates, Michael

King, Tom

Body, Sir Richard

Kirkhope, Timothy

Bowis, John

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Brandreth, Gyles

Legg, Barry

Bright, Sir Graham

Lidington, David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lilley, Peter

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

McAvoy, Thomas

Burt, Alistair

MacKay, Andrew

Campbell-Savours, D N

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Malone, Gerald

Coe, Sebastian

Moss, Malcolm

Conway, Derek

Newton, Tony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Ottaway, Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Pike, Peter L

Richards, Rod

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Riddick, Graham

Dover, Den

Shaw, David (Dover)

Duncan, Alan

Sims, Sir Roger

Fabricant, Michael

Spencer, Sir Derek

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Spink, Dr Robert

Fowler, Sir Norman

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Trickett, Jon

Gill, Christopher

Waller, Gary

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Wood, Timothy

Goodlad, Alastair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mr. Bowen Wells and Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

Hannam, Sir John

NOES

Molyneaux, Sir James

Tellers for the Noes:

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Rev. Ian Paisley and Rev. William McCrea.

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.

Licensing Law (Northern Ireland.)
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    BROADCASTING
    That the draft Channel 4 (Application of Excess Revenues) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

    FAMILY LAW
    That the draft Child Support Departure Direction and Consequential Amendments Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Question agreed to.

Pinderfields and Pontefract NHS Trusts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
6.46 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: May I first of all welcome the fact that you in particular, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair for the Adjournment debate tonight, because, although I appreciate that you will be totally neutral in chairing the debate, I want to express my personal appreciation for the work that you have done as a constituency Member on a number of the issues to which I shall refer tonight. I also express my personal appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), who hopes to catch your eye. I am grateful for his support in staying behind to speak in this important debate.
It is customary at the outset of Adjournment debates to express appreciation for being granted the debate, and although I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject, it is a matter of great concern to me that once again I find it necessary to have to draw the attention of the House to the considerable public disquiet over what is happening in the health service in the Wakefield metropolitan district.
When a similar Adjournment debate took place on 3 April this year, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the Minister who is here again tonight, remarked that that was the seventh occasion in five months that I had raised the subject in the Chamber. I take no pleasure whatever in reminding him that this is the sixth separate Adjournment debate that I have had on health issues in Wakefield in my time in the House, and I have, as he knows, been forced to raise my concerns in numerous other debates and at Question Time, including Tuesday of this week.
I have found it necessary to speak so often because, throughout my time in the House, the health service in my area has appeared to be stumbling from one crisis to another, without strategy, direction or purpose. I make it clear that I do not blame in any way those dedicated people who are involved in the front-line services in the national health service in Wakefield. We are very fortunate to have in our area some of the best general practitioners, hospital consultants, doctors, nursing and ancillary staff. Most of them believe as strongly as I do in the basic principles of the NHS, but they are deeply demoralised by the consequences of Government health policy in Wakefield and the complete lack of any clear vision for the future.
Those people will have been as angry as I was to hear the Prime Minister say only this week that the service
"is now being properly managed".
If the situation were not so serious, they would have laughed at his assertion that, as a result of this "proper management",
"money is being allocated to where it should go."
Let met set out the background to the current merger proposals. The Minister knows as well as I do that the local health managers in Wakefield have, for some considerable time, faced an impossible situation in attempting to meet growing demands with resources that
1410
have not only failed to match that growth but been skewed by deliberate Government policy away from the areas of greatest need.
In previous debates, I have drawn attention to the fact that Wakefield health authority is the biggest loser in the whole of the Northern and Yorkshire region of the NHS as a consequence of the changed national funding formula being introduced in the current financial year, under which it is regarded as some £4.5 million overfunded.
According to a letter that I have received this week from the chair of the Wakefield health authority, Mrs. Ann Bolter, the health authority is facing a projected deficit of £2,225,000 based on the estimated expenditure for the year compared with budgets. I am told that the underlying projected deficit for the authority for 1996–97 is £1.7 million and that, in preparing the budget, the health authority agreed to overcommit resources by £3.3 million to cope with increasing demands and pressure from the trusts locally for more resources.
Therefore, there is a total over-commitment of £5 million and Mrs. Bolter states in her letter that the authority will have to look for further funding in 1997–98 in addition to identifying further savings from reduced management costs and the reconfiguration of services. I shall come to what is called the reconfiguration of services, but the Minister should be aware that overall funding is not the only problem.
The Prime Minister's assertion that money
"is being allocated to where it should go"—[Official Report, 5 November 1996: Vol. 284, c. 1031.]
is particularly off target in Wakefield. Fundholding has created serious financial problems for the hospitals and a clear two-tier system of local treatment, to which I have referred on several occasions previously. I did a calculation in the last financial year based on the figures of fundholding surpluses supplied to me by the Wakefield health authority, which showed an interesting correlation between those surpluses in general practice and local hospital deficits. Therefore, the Wakefield health authority has an over-commitment of £5 million and the main provider hospital for my constituents and some of those of my hon. Friends who represent other constituencies in the Wakefield metropolitan district, Pinderfields, faced a deficit in the last financial year of £3.16 million.
The Minister has, I know, seen the letter sent to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on 16 July by Dr. R. L. Smith, the medical secretary of the Wakefield local medical committee regarding the seriousness of the situation facing Pinderfields hospital in particular. I remind him that the letter stated:
"We can no longer deliver a 'safe' service for your constituents with the cake you give to the NHS."
As the chair of the Wakefield health authority has admitted, what is termed a reconfiguration of services is seen as perhaps the only way of substantially addressing those serious problems. My particular concern is that the supposed public consultation process being undertaken on the proposed merger of the two acute trusts in Wakefield metropolitan district is fundamentally dishonest in not explaining to local people the real agenda of service reconfiguration that is being considered at present.
On Tuesday, during Health questions, the Minister referred to the fact that I was personally critical of the original establishment of three separate and competing

1411
third wave trusts within the Wakefield metropolitan district. I made it clear at the time that I believed that a health market would undermine strategic planning in health care and be wasteful of scarce resources. As the consultation document on the proposed merger makes clear, all my fears have, sadly, materialised and, if anything, the situation has become even worse than I originally envisaged.
The dishonesty of the consultation document relates to its avoidance of the key question of what the service reconfiguration will mean to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends representing the users of Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, and Pontefract general infirmary. Page 8 of the consultation document states that the merger proposal and consultation processes
"do not relate to any proposal to relocate services across the district."
It goes on to say
"such proposals would be the responsibility of Wakefield Health Authority to develop and consult upon."
The Minister is well aware that, several weeks ago, the consultation process being undertaken by the two acute trusts concerned with the merger was stopped and passed to the health authority to continue. No one has offered me a formal explanation for that. The Minister did not answer the point on Tuesday when I questioned him at Question Time, but I expect a full explanation from him tonight.
Regardless of the reasons for that development, as the matter is now formally in the hands of the health authority, in accordance with what is said in the consultation document, my constituents and those of my hon. Friends and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, now expect to be informed exactly what is proposed in relation to the relocation of services. The original excuse of this being a matter for the health authority will not wash, as the consultation process is now being handled by the health authority itself.
The Minister will recall that, in my contribution during the previous debate on the subject, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth and in meetings and in correspondence that my hon. Friends, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have had with the Secretary of State, we have consistently pressed for a wider review of health care in Wakefield prior to any decision being made on a trust merger.
Our central criticism of the current proposal, apart from the attempt to camouflage a rationalisation agenda, is that it is a piecemeal, panic measure, designed temporarily to stem the tide of huge funding problems, which does not look any further at key questions of direct relevance to Wakefield's problems. It does not touch on the enormous implications of radical changes being introduced in the operation of general practice in our area, which will clearly impact upon acute provision, and it in no way anticipates the likely changes in primary and community care. The four Members of Parliament for the area were astonished to learn from the community trust's chief executive and chair that they had not even been consulted before the formulation of merger proposals by the two acute trusts.
Bearing in mind those points and the fact that the Wakefield health authority is now responsible for the remainder of the merger consultation process, I found it
1412
interesting, to say the least, to learn this week that, in the agenda for its monthly meeting, the Wakefield health authority was considering a paper proposing
"an urgent review of acute service provision within the district."
The authority's report says:
"This work is likely to take at least six months to complete, and will be a completely separate exercise to the consultation process on Trust mergers… The process will enable a thorough consideration of strategic options for the future provision of acute services and in particular will take account of the drive towards a primary care led NHS."
We are promised yet another so-called public consultation process in the summer of 1997.
The Minister must accept that proceeding with merger proposals prior to such a review of acute services is putting the cart before the horse in a highly irresponsible way. I suspect that key personnel at Wakefield health authority, some of whom I know reasonably well and respect, know that to be the case, but they have been told to get the merger out of the way by the Northern and Yorkshire region. That is not good enough, and the Minister knows it. I want him to give a clear undertaking to block further progress on the merger proposals, and to tie them in with the wider review of acute provision that will be held in the new year.
I also want the Minister to give me a detailed explanation of the reasons for the resignation last week of Mr. Roy Cusworth, the chair of the Pinderfields trust. I wrote to the chair of the Northern and Yorkshire region. Mr. John Greetham, asking for an explanation. His reply of 1 November states:
"Roy Cusworth did not offer his resignation but decided for personal and business reasons that he did not wish to offer himself for re-appointment."
I believe that Mr. Cusworth was forced to resign, and we have a right to know why. The Minister must understand that the removal of the chair of the trust in that way has created considerable tensions at Pinderfields hospital. The consultants at that hospital met on Monday night, and have advised me through the chair of the hospital medical committee, Mr. Oliver Fenton, of their serious concern about yet another upheaval at Pinderfields, the purpose of which no one can understand. As the Minister will probably know, representatives of the Pinderfields consultants are to see the chief executive of the Northern and Yorkshire region next week to seek urgent reassurances on the position of Pinderfields, especially in the context of the proposed merger.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have serious anxieties about the future of Pontefract general infirmary if the merger goes through. I share your concerns and determination to defend the interests of the users of that hospital. In the light of recent events, I have fears for the future of Pinderfields.
Following the transfer of regional neurosurgery provision from Pinderfields to Leeds, I strongly fear that it will lose other regional specialisms, such as plastic burns and spinal injuries. It is common knowledge that certain senior consultants at Pinderfields are being head-hunted by the Leeds trusts, and that St. James's, with a deficit of £8 million, and Leeds general infirmary, with a deficit of £7 million, are desperate for the additional revenue that further regional specialisms would attract.
Clearly, the situation in Leeds and the outcome of the recent health review have an important bearing on health provision, especially regional specialisms, in other parts

1413
of west Yorkshire. I fear that, particularly since the demise of the Yorkshire regional health authority, there has been little, if any, attempt to interfere with the operation of naked market forces and the obvious ambitions of the Leeds trusts. I assume that that approach has the Government's blessing, but the logical consequence will be the reduction of Pinderfields hospital and Pontefract general infirmary to the status of cottage hospitals, as all the key specialisms would be concentrated in Leeds.
A merged acute trust in Wakefield may offer a much-needed short-term financial fix, but without the wider strategic review for which my hon. Friends and I have persistently pressed, the future direction of health care in Wakefield metropolitan district will be uncertain, leaving our services wide open to predators. The health authority recognised that fact, and the acute review proposed this week makes obvious sense, but beyond keeping the lid on things until the general election, it makes no sense for regional officials to insist on the separation of this process from the merger debate. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the points that I have made, and that he will respond positively to them.
7.4 pm
Mr. Jon Trickett: I wish to associate myself with the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and about the high quality of the staff—clinicians and managers—employed in the health service in the Wakefield area.
Until recently, I was a publicly elected representative in a major city—Leeds. I was closely involved with the Leeds health service for a considerable time. We had two relatively robust general hospitals, albeit within a flawed health care structure. Since being elected to represent Hemsworth, I have been dismayed to discover the fragile state of the health service in our district.
My constituents come within the catchment areas of Pontefract and Pinderfields hospitals. I can therefore express an overall view of the services provided right across the district. The NHS provision in the area suffers from a series of structural problems, which, taken together, produce a service in serious crisis. In no particular order, I shall identify seven structural problems.
First, the continued underfunding of the service in our area has been compounded by the recent changes to the funding formula. That means that our district is to lose several millions of pounds a year, and is certainly the worst loser in the region. Secondly, there is a lack of recognition in the funding formula of the problems that arise from trying to apply a uniform health service across such a heterogeneous set of communities as there is in our district.
The third structural problem is the acute fragmentation—almost a disintegration—of the health institutions in our district. There is clear evidence of a breakdown of confidence between the health providers: the two acute trusts and the community health trust. As Members of Parliament for the district, my hon. Friends and I have been informed of the extraordinary allegations that have been made by people in one or other of those organisations against their colleagues.
Fourthly, that fragmentation has been seriously exacerbated by the effects of the internal market. There is evidence of what can only be regarded as irresponsible
1414
poaching by each of the trusts from the others, and by trusts outside the district. More serious still is the impact of the extension of GP fundholding in the Wakefield district, to a point where every practice is part of the fundholding system, thereby achieving twice the national average level of GP fundholding. The impact of that extension of fundholding is not yet fully understood, but it is already having a serious effect on the acute trusts.
In my constituency, at least two practices have constructed, without proper planning, what can only be described as mini-hospitals, which are taking services away from the existing acute trusts. It is widely believed that services are being purchased by GP fundholders in our district from hospitals as far away as Manchester and Glasgow. I have been informed of patients being sent by taxi to hospitals in Manchester for minor ophthalmic operations. I have been told of one patient who was taken by taxi to Manchester airport and flown to Glasgow for a relatively minor operation that was paid for by a local GP fundholder.
The fifth problem is that the health service in the area suffers to a degree from regional imbalances. The presence of big neighbours, such as Leeds, inevitably causes problems for smaller hospital trusts. The sixth problem is the general morale in the district, which, as in the rest of the country, is now poor. Hospital trusts are suffering from major problems of recruitment and retention of key staff.
The seventh problem is the lack of leadership among those who have been appointed to give directions to the health service in our area. In Pinderfields, both the chief executive and, now, the chair of the trust appear to have been removed without adequate public explanation, arid with no private explanation to any of us who represent the area. I am led to believe by a senior individual in the Pontefract region that the chair of the trust there is likely to be reappointed only for a single year. Can anyone—such as the Minister—explain why such action is being taken? Why was the Pinderfields chair removed recently, and why was the chief executive removed? We have been given no explanations about that, or about why the unusual procedure of establishing a single-year appointment has apparently been adopted.
My exposition of those seven structural problems may not constitute a comprehensive description of all the difficulties facing our area's health service, and not everyone may share my analysis; but it is clear that nearly everyone who is interested in the health service in our area believes that the service faces serious difficulties. Anyone who doubts that should read this week's edition of The Independent on Sunday, which draws attention to the extraordinary fact that a whole ward of nurses has been privatised. It is understood that this is the first time that nursing for a whole ward has been put out to tender. That must be regarded as a step towards privatisation of the health service, either by stealth or, possibly, by incompetence.
The answer from those responsible for the health service in the area has been wholly inadequate. They have been unequal to the task, tackling only one symptom of the problem rather than the multiple causes. To suggest that we can solve all the problems to which I have alluded, and others as well, simply by merging two acute trusts is a grotesquely inadequate response that fails to recognise the scale of the crisis. Indeed, such a response does not address one of the structural problems that I have

1415
described. It disappoints by its lack of ambition; it was also badly bungled, and the manner in which it was executed was arguably illegal, or at least outside the law. If it was not illegal, it was certainly unethical.
How could anyone seriously believe that the public consultation could be conducted properly and transparently by individuals who not only were the authors of the merger proposals but were actively advocating the cause of the merger during that consultation—and, moreover, appeared likely to benefit from the merger? No one could have confidence in a public consultation exercise undertaken in such a way.
Particularly extraordinary is the fact that, when the views of local residents and health care users were supposedly being obtained at public meetings, members of the project team did not merely attend those meetings to provide information but advocated the proposals—and then commented on and participated in a debate that was taking place, supposedly, among health care users. Even more extraordinary, they then proceeded to vote.
At a meeting in Upton, in my constituency, an extraordinary event took place. Every member of the public who was present voted against the merger; every one of the seven votes in favour came from one of those who had been brought along by, or were apparently connected in some way with, the project team who had been charged with consulting the public. It is bizarre, surely, that one of the principal architects of the proposal for a merger, a senior executive on one of the trusts and a member of the board, was actually found to be voting in favour of a merger about which he was supposedly consulting the public.
Will the Minister now tell the House why the public consultation exercise was aborted—why it was handed over to the district health authority, and removed from the project team? I have received no explanation; indeed, I have received no information that such a change has taken place. I understand that no other local Member of Parliament has been told that a new round of public consultation has been taking place. I consider that a fundamental error. Perhaps it will be explored in other places.
Public consultation about the merger has produced overwhelming hostility from the people of the area. Other than those with vested interests in the outcome of the proposal, no significant represented body or elected individual throughout the Wakefield district—as far as I am aware—has been found to favour it. The proposal was cooked up behind closed doors, and no one has yet made an admission to Members of Parliament representing the district about who first came up with the idea.
What we do know about the mystery is that primary care providers were certainly not consulted at the time. Surely it is outrageous that the community health trust in particular—on which the merger will have a direct bearing—was not consulted when the proposal was being drafted. It is also apparent from first-hand accounts given to me—and others—by local general practitioners that they were not consulted, either. Moreover, we know that the district health authority was not directly involved in the drafting of the proposal. Finally, it appears that the consultants were not involved in the conceptual stages, either individually or as a body.
1416
Who sponsored the original suggestion, if it was not the clinicians and those responsible for the direct provision of care? It seems that the whole train of events was concocted by Department of Health officials, whose primary motivations were financial and administrative rather than clinical. There is also evidence that those same administrators had been conducting discussions with developers about a private finance initiative in relation to the district hospitals, concurrently with preparations to seek the trust merger. Indeed, one of the chairs of the hospital trusts let the cat out of the bag to local Members of Parliament when he informed us that a named private sector developer—we know the name—had requested that the discussions about the PFI in the Wakefield area in relation to the hospitals be put on ice until the proposal had been agreed.
The Secretary of State had suggested to the district Members of Parliament that he would judge any merger proposal on the basis of improvement in clinical care; yet we know that the basis of the merger document about which we are now being consulted was financial and administrative rather than clinical. Indeed, the whole thrust of the document is based on non-clinical considerations. It could not be otherwise, given the way in which the merger proposal itself originated.
Hon. Members will search the document in vain for any detailed proposal about clinical changes. A reading of the document, taken together with discussions with practising hospital clinicians, leads to the conclusion that the reconfiguration of clinical services that is implied—hut not made explicit—in the merger document will be revealed only subsequent to any decision to merge. That is clearly putting the cart before the horse. Changes in the structure of the NHS should follow clinical change, not vice versa.
A reconfiguration of the services is inevitable if a merger takes place, as we all know; yet the public have no idea what the new configuration will look like. Notwithstanding that, they are still being required to express their views during the current flawed public consultation exercise.
Although those who manage the health service in the district have not been prepared to come clean about the new configuration, I think that it is possible to guess its likely shape. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, here is my own educated guess about the likely shape of the health service in the district within a few years, given that the merger proceeds and assuming the continuation of the financing regime of the current Conservative Government.
I guess that a single privately owned acute hospital—possibly on neither of the two existing sites, and clearly geographically and clinically remote from the communities that I represent—will have emerged. Statutory ratios will have changed, and the terms and conditions of staff employment contracts will have been renegotiated. Indeed, secret discussions with the trade unions are already taking place on those matters.
The clinical services will have been transferred—sometimes out of the district entirely—and frequently devolved to fundholding practices. Already existing tensions with other health providers will be exacerbated and the community health trust's future will be placed in jeopardy. Heaven knows what will happen in the case of statutory duties of care that are owed to certain vulnerable

1417
groups. I understand that, in some cases, those duties have already been transferred out of the district to other providers.
That is not the right outcome for our district. I do not accept that the current modus operandi in relation to the consultations is valid in determining the district's needs. What is required is a halt to the merger proposal until such time as a major review, of the type described by my hon. Friend, takes into account both health needs and the district's institutional structures, dealing with, among other points, the seven problems that I outlined.
I hope that the Minister will deal with our request for an overall review and, even at this late stage, put on ice the merger discussions until we can identify the long-term future of health care, which all our citizens would dearly love to be of the best.
7.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I congratulate him on again securing time to debate a subject that is linked to health services in Wakefield—in this case, the proposed merger between Pinderfields hospital and Pontefract general infirrnary trusts. He said that this is the sixth time during this Parliament that he has raised a Wakefield health services matter in an Adjournment debate. Indeed, it is better than that. It is the fourth time since January 1995, which must be a record. I also note the interest of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) in the subject. I associate myself with the tribute that the hon. Member for Wakefield paid to the front-line staff in Wakefield, who, I have every evidence, do a first-class job on behalf of the people in the Wakefield region.
I listened to the concerns of the hon. Member for Wakefield and his case in favour of halting the trust merger consultation. He may be trying, however, to link two separate issues: the management of the acute trusts at Pontefract and Pinderfields and delivery of services. The proposal under discussion in Wakefield and in Pontefract is to merge two trusts or, to be more exact, to dissolve two trusts and create a new one. That proposal is to change the management structure of national health service trusts in Wakefield. It is not, I repeat, a proposal to change services.
I am told that the proposal has strong clinical involvement, and there is said to be clinical support for it. Separately, Wakefield health authority has recently announced that it will shortly reconsider its health strategy and will hold separate public consultation at the appropriate time next year.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister has listened to my explanation, and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), of the acute financial difficulties facing health care providers in Wakefield. Does he accept that it is a complete waste of scarce public resources to have, yet again, a public consultation, when
1418
that consultation will deal with exactly the issues about which we are concerned in the current consultation on merger?
Mr. Horam: That is a matter for the local health authority. Clearly I am in the position, in effect, of an independent person waiting to adjudicate on these matters, when and if they come to me.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I apologise for intervening again.
My intelligence on this issue is that Wakefield health authority will be happy to conduct the public consultation on the merger alongside this wider review, but it has been prevented from having the review of acute services by the regional executive of the NHS. Common sense would suggest that the health authority would want to do that, so the Government are stepping in to prevent it from proceeding in that direction.
Mr. Horam: That is not my information, which is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that a separate consultation is taking place on the merger and that, recently—certainly well after the consultation on the merger began—the health authority said that it wished to reconsider the acute side of its health strategy. That is the chronological order in which things have happened. Therefore, it would be strange for the health authority to merge the two things, having separated them to begin with. I am surprised at what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Trickett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman will know that this is the debate of the hon. Member for Wakefield, and I want to continue a little further.
Separately, as I have said, Wakefield health authority has recently announced that it will shortly reconsider the acute side of its health strategy consultation and will hold separate public consultation at the appropriate time next year. If I can come to the point raised by the hon. Members for Hemsworth and for Wakefield, it is set out in law that the Secretary of State for Health is required to consult on proposals to establish a new NHS trust. The: trust project team asked for local views with the intention of passing them to the Secretary of State. The process began in July and lasted until 22 October. It was soon realised, however, that more was needed to fulfil statutory consultation requirements. That is why the health authority decided to extend the consultation.
The health authority was asked to consult on behalf of the Secretary of State and the consultation period was therefore extended. That has meant that consultation will take longer than it might otherwise have done. The extra consultation period, however, will not be wasted. All the views expressed during both consultation periods will be passed to the NHS executive and, ultimately, to Ministers. The extension has also allowed more time for local people to advance their views—in fact, it has almost doubled the time, as I told the hon. Member for Wakefield earlier this week at Question Time.
After the consultation period has ended in January, the decision whether to merge the two trusts will be taken by Ministers. As I have emphasised, at this stage we must take an independent view of all the proposals that are referred to us. Many factors need to be taken into account

1419
when considering such a proposal. We will consider carefully both the adequacy of the consultation process and local people's views, which the hon. Member for Wakefield has stressed are so important. We will also consider the likely impact on the effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility of the potential creation of a new trust. Accessibility was referred to particularly by the hon. Member for Hemsworth, whose constituency adjoins Wakefield.
Any potential economies of scale will have to be balanced against any possible loss of patient choice. Ministers are rightly enjoined to take into account that mixture of considerations when considering the results of consultation. Until all the facts are before us, clearly we cannot comment, beyond saying that we will take it all into the account.
I understand that the hon. Member for Wakefield believes that the consultation on a proposed trust merger is already, in effect, a fait accompli. I assure him that that is absolutely not true. We have a statutory responsibility to consult publicly. Ministers need sufficient information to be able to judge the proposed merger for the value it may or may not have, and the adequacy of the consultation process that has taken place.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the "resignation" of the chairman of the Pinderfields trust, Mr. Roy Cusworth. It is more accurate to say that his period of office as trust chairman ended on 31 October, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Mr. Cusworth did not seek renewal of his appointment. He has, as the hon. Gentleman knows, other business commitments to pursue.
It should be said on Mr. Cusworth's behalf that he leaves behind an able acting chairman and a trust that has recruited 25 new consultants since 1993. The trust has transformed the quality of its treatment for elderly people and has developed a centre for enhanced eye surgery, and Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals are already co-operating with Dewsbury district hospital to provide an integrated clinical haematology service locally and for a wider population. That is a considerable achievement under Mr. Cusworth's chairmanship, and we should give him due credit for that.
At Health questions earlier this week, the hon. Gentleman and I talked about the "Cook" test, after the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The test was: will organisational change lead to better service? I have no doubt that it has led to better services in Wakefield.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth criticised the agency nurses who had possibly been brought to man a ward, but surely he agrees that it is a flexible way of manning a new ward when an extra ward is needed. We are talking about an extra facility for elderly people so that the local trust can manage resources effectively during the coming winter and have additional facilities available for elderly people. We are talking about additional facilities. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not against that.
I recognise that Pinderfields hospital trust is facing a complex set of interdependent issues. The ultimate goal is to ensure that sustainable high-quality and cost-effective
1420
clinical services are provided in modern facilities. Although the consultation on the proposed merger of the two trusts and, separately, the configuration of health services will take time, those processes should ensure that whatever solution emerges is based on informed debate among the public and the professions.
The hon. Member for Wakefield suggested that the merger proposals should be stopped or combined with a review of health services in Wakefield. In view of his great knowledge of and interest in the matter, he will recall that not long ago Wakefield health authority undertook a detailed consultation on its five-year health strategy. In fact, it was in 1994, and the health strategy was published as recently as March last year. The document covers the needs of everyone in the Wakefield metropolitan district council area. More than 1,000 copies of the full document were issued locally and regionally. A further 125,000 copies of the summary were printed, most of which were issued through the free press. The remainder were handed out at various local events throughout the district.
Representatives of Wakefield health authority also spoke about the strategy to a large number of local groups, as well as holding meetings with the three local national health service trusts and the two community health councils in Wakefield and Pontefract. Those meetings certainly included one with local Members of Parliament. It is worth stressing that Wakefield's health strategy discussed how health services in Wakefield will be shaped over the next five years. It also examined the need for a strategic shift to primary care. Local general practitioners were closely involved in the process.
We are talking about a considered, strategic examination of the health needs of the people of Wakefield. Nevertheless, the health authority plans to revisit and review that part of its health strategy relating to acute health services. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that it was sensible to do that. There are plans to take that forward in the near future. The process is likely to take about six months, and I am assured that it will involve detailed discussions with clinicians and general practitioners and active participation by the two community health councils. Public consultation will follow later in 1997. Judging by the number of debates that we have had—and your own interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I have no doubt that local Members of Parliament will be fully and actively involved in the process.
I am grateful for having had this opportunity to respond to the debate. We share the determination of the hon. Member for Wakefield to ensure that high-quality treatment and care continue to be available to people in the Wakefield area. I am absolutely sure that Wakefield health authority, as well as the trusts in the Wakefield and Pontefract area, shares that commitment. Whether a merger of the two trusts in Wakefield will assist in that process is a matter on which I shall keep an open mind until the statutory consultation is completed in January, and the results are known.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eight o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Open Government
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Government will respond to the outstanding recommendations contained in the second report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on open government, HC 84, Session 1995–96. [3055]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have submitted their response to the remaining recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the Committee is arranging for the response to be published today.

  The Government responded to the majority of the recommendations contained in the Select Committee's report on 28 June 1996. It welcomed many of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, and in particular the Committee's endorsement of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" as having been an important and valuable contribution to more open government. The Government's response reaffirmed their commitment to greater openness.

  The Government's initial response did not, however, cover seven of the Committee's recommendations which had implications for openness in government beyond the code of practice. The Government wished to await the report of the Public Service Committee on ministerial accountability and responsibility, believing that it would provide a valuable contribution to their consideration of the issues in this area. That report was published on 30 July and the Government's response to it is also being published today.

  The Government are grateful to the Select Committee on the PCA for the constructive contribution that it has made to the debate on openness. I am pleased that we have been able to agree to many of the recommendations contained in its report and that much common ground has been established between the Committee and the Government on these important issues.

  However, the Government do not accept the Committee's proposal for a Freedom of Information Act. It believes that the non-statutory code of practice has a proven record and should now be given an enhanced role as setting the clear, recognised minimum standard for providing information to Parliament, and in setting out the reasons for withholding information on those occasions when this is necessary. Given this increased importance for the provisions of the code, the Government do not believe that it would now be sensible to seek a fundamental change in its status.

  The Government will soon be issuing a revised code of practice and guidance on its interpretation, to reflect the responses to the PCA and Public Service Committees and
  594
  in the light of the day-to-day operation of the code during the last two and a half years. The ability to amend the code to reflect experience in this way is, in the Government's view, a major advantage of their preferred non-statutory approach.

  Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the second report of the Select Committee on Public Service of Session 1995–96 on ministerial accountability and responsibility (HC313). [3501]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have submitted their response to the report from the Public Service Committee on ministerial accountability and responsibility, and the Committee is arranging for the response to be published today.

  The Government are grateful to the Select Committee for undertaking this investigation which, as envisaged by the President of the Board of Trade in the debate on 26 February, Official Report, column 593, has provided a helpful basis for the Government's consideration of the recommendations on ministerial accountability made by Sir Richard Scott in his report.

  The Government reaffirm their commitment to arrangements under which it will remain properly accountable to Parliament. The Government's response to the Committee's report is addressed to this shared democratic objective.

  The Government note the Committee's decision to follow what it describes as a pragmatic approach in setting out a "working definition" of ministerial responsibility, reflected in a proposed resolution of the House. The Government agree with many of the principles underlying the working definition, and share the Committee's view that there could be value in the House making explicit how it expects Ministers to discharge their responsibilities to Parliament. The Government will initiative further discussion on a cross-party basis to this end with a view to bringing forward an appropriate motion in due course.

  The Government believe that effective scrutiny and accountability are secured by the giving of a full account through a rigorous policy on openness. The Government agree with the Committee on the central importance of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" and it will now proceed, in accordance with the Committee's recommendations, to ensure that throughout Government the code is followed as the clear, recognised minimum standard for providing information to Parliament, and in setting out the reasons for withholding information, on those occasions when this is. necessary.

ENVIRONMENT

  Chemical Plants (Unauthorised Releases)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many unauthorised releases from chemical plants have taken place each year since 1970;
  595
  how many were classified as serious; how many led to prosecutions; and what was the fine or penalty in each case. [1009]

  Mr. Clappison
  Chemical processes have been subject to prior authorisation under the integrated pollution control regime since 1990. So far as air is concerned, details of unauthorised releases, prosecutions and other enforcement action taken between April 1991 and March 1996 are contained in the annual reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which was the IPC regulator between those dates. The annual reports are in the House Library.

  HM inspectorate of pollution became a part of the Environment Agency on 1 April this year. I understand from the agency that since that date there have been 550 unauthorised releases to air from chemical processes. Few of these had serious implications. I further understand that the agency has to date carried out one prosecution in respect of those releases and that a further one is in hand. Prosecution is only one of a number of enforcement options available to the Environment Agency, which can also issue enforcement or prohibition notices.

  Energy Advice Centres
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the need for continuing financial support from(a) the Government and (b) the Energy Savings Trust for local energy advice centres funded by the Energy Savings Trust over the last three years. [2254]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department has received approximately 30 representations about the funding of local energy advice centres over the last three years. Of these, 14 covered Government funding and five funding by the Energy Saving Trust. The remaining 11 were concerned with financial support in general.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local energy advice centres which have been funded via the Energy Savings Trust in the last three years. [2220]

  Mr. Jones
  The local energy advice centres which have been funded by the Energy Saving Trust in the last three years are:

  Aberdeenshire Energy Advice Centre

  Belfast Energy Advice Centre

  Black Country Energy Advice Centre

  Bristol Energy Advice Centre

  Cardiff Energy Advice Centre

  Croydon Energy Advice Centre

  Greenwich Energy Advice Centre

  Highland Energy Advice Centre

  Islington Energy Advice Centre

  Leeds Energy Advice Centre

  Leicester Energy Advice Centre

  Lewisham Energy Advice Centre

  Lothian and Edinburgh Energy Advice Centre

  Middlesborough Energy Advice Centre

  Northumbria Energy Advice Centre

  Orkney Energy Advice Centre

  Peterborough Energy Advice Centre

  596

  Plymouth Energy Advice Centre

  Ryedale Energy Advice Centre

  Shetland Energy Advice Centre

  Solent Energy Advice Centre

  Stockton on Tees Energy Advice Centre

  Strathclyde and Central Energy Advice Centre

  Swansea Energy Advice Centre

  Tayside Energy Advice Centre

  Telford Energy Advice Centre

  Thames Valley Energy Advice Centre

  West Wales Energy Advice Centre

  Western Isles Energy Advice Centre

  Western Regional Energy Advice Centre

  Wirral Energy Advice Centre.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local energy advice centres which his Department has assessed as currently lack sufficient funding to ensure their continuing operation. [2256]

  Mr. Jones
  The local energy advice centres are the responsibility of the Energy Saving Trust. I understand that only one local energy advice centre, which failed to meet its targets on 31 August 1996, has ceased to operate.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of(a) the effectiveness of the local energy advice centres funded via the Energy Savings Trust in the last three years and (b) the need for the continuation of their services. [2255]

  Mr. Jones
  The Energy Saving Trust has now taken full responsibility for the further continuation and management of LEACs. On 12 July 1996, I approved grants totalling £4.1 million over three years to be paid to the Trust in support of this work.

  Previously, market research showed that the LEACs provide an effective and value for money service. In 1994–95, about 57,000 clients visited LEAC offices and as a result of advice received, savings were made of 21,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions and £1.8 million over the same period.

  Estuary Management Zones
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many coastal management zones are now fully integrated and operating successfully; [2596]

  (2) how many authorities have published estuary management plans; and if he will publish guidance on their implementation. [2594]

  Mr. Clappison
  In England, 20 estuary management plans have so far been published as part of the estuaries management initiative promoted by English Nature and further plans are in preparation. Estuaries represent the areas of major pressure on the coast but there are also other initiatives under way with the objectives of managing areas of open coast. On 31 October, the Department of the Environment issued a best practice guide on coastal zone management which will assist in taking forward both types of schemes.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites have been identified by English Nature as being at risk from water abstraction; and what proposals he has for the conservation of these sites and for reducing water consumption in the surrounding areas. [22562]

  Mr. Clappison
  In its report published in September 1996, English Nature reviewed 152 wetland sites of special scientific interest, of which 18 were assessed as being at high risk from water abstraction and 38 were considered to be at medium risk, with a further 23 at high risk and 10 at medium risk if water demands continue to increase. The Environment Agency will be reviewing the report with English Nature, with a view to establishing an agreed list of sites at risk and from that deciding actions which may be needed for alleviation.

  Homelessness (Durham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of homeless people in the county of Durham. [2401]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the supplementary table which accompanies the quarterly information bulletin, entitled "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985: England" for the available information. A copy of the bulletin, the latest of which provides statistics for the second quarter of 1996, is in the Library.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average level of(a) discretionary and (b) mandatory disabled facilities grants in each year since 1990. [2462]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Disabled facilities grants: England

  Average final grant payment (£s)

  Mandatory grants

  Discretionary grants

  1990

  1,820

  2,860

  1991

  2,950

  3,470

  1992

  3,740

  4,640

  1993

  4,100

  2,740

  1994

  4,190

  2,200

  1995

  4,180

  2,190

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for disabled facilities grants were refused in each year since 1990. [2463]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department does not collect regular data on unsuccessful applications for disabled facilities grant. However, recent research for the Department indicates that about 7,000 applications for disabled facilities grants in England were refused in the year 1993–94.
  598
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) mandatory and (b) discretionary disabled facilities grants have been made in each year since 1990 in (i) the west midlands and (ii) the United Kingdom. [2461]

  Mr. Clappison
  The table shows the available information about the west midlands and about England. Figures about the United Kingdom are not available as the grants system in Scotland differs from that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Disabled facilities grants: Final payments (Number of grants)

  West Midlands

  England

  Mandatory grants

  Discretionary grants

  Mandatory grants

  Discretionary grants

  1990

  40

  —

  360

  10

  1991

  990

  40

  10,790

  180

  1992

  1,590

  70

  15,450

  290

  1993

  1,450

  30

  16,720

  430

  1994

  2,090

  10

  20,410

  500

  1995

  2,310

  20

  22,730

  420

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the impact on council tax levels in the south east of England of the abolition of the area cost adjustment. [2564]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The abolition of the area cost adjustment was not proposed by the team reviewing the area cost adjustment or by other participants in the discussions this year. I have not estimated the impact on council tax levels in the south-east of England of the abolition of the area cost adjustment. To do so would involve making assumptions about capping limits in the new circumstances and about local authority responses.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals the Department's working party has made for the future of the area cost adjustment; and what assessment he has made of the impact on the Isle of Wight of the abolition of area cost adjustment. [2563]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The review of the area cost adjustment recommended a new method for calculating the adjustment, using data from the labour force survey to determine a factor for each local authority in England. Several variations of this approach were included as options in the report of the standard spending assessments sub-group to the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. No proposals to abolish the area cost adjustment were made by the review team or in the sub-group report. For illustrative purposes, the effect on SSAs for 1996–97 of abolishing the area cost adjustment has been estimated. The SSA for the Isle of Wight would be reduced by £3.4 million, which is 3.5 per cent. of its SSA.

  Conservation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites in the Solent and the
  599
  lagoons that have been submitted to the European Commission for designation as special areas of conservation. [2565]

  Mr. Clappison
  A third tranche of candidate special areas of conservation was forwarded to the European Commission on 14 October 1996; I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on Wednesday 16 October,Official Report, column 1073–74. As indicated in that reply, the Solent and Isle of Wight lagoons was one of the candidate sites. This site includes all or part of the following sites of special scientific interst:

  Brading Marshes to St. Helen's Ledges;

  Gilkicker Lagoon;

  Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary;

  Langstone Harbour.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992, and are planned for the coming year, arranged in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1893]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table sets out the number of projects and expenditure incurred in respect of information technology projects undertaken or planned by my Department for the project requested.

  Cost bands £ millions

  Projects undertaken and completed since 1992

  Projects planned for the coming year and/or ongoing

  0–1

  21

  12

  1–2

  3

  1

  2–3

  Nil

  1

  3–4

  Nil

  Nil

  4–5

  Nil

  Nil

  5–6

  Nil

  Nil

  6–7

  Nil

  1

  7–8

  Nil

  1

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of mortgage lenders provided standard assessment procedure ratings as part of valuation surveys in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996; and what estimate he has made of the likely percentages in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [2962]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is working with mortgage lenders to encourage the uptake of energy efficiency measures and to promote the wider use of standard assessment procedure ratings via mortgage valuation surveys. A total of 4,000 SAP ratings were issued by the Nationwide building society in 1995 under a joint initiative with the Department; under a similar initiative with the Halifax building society this year, 6,500 SAP ratings were issued. We are not aware of any statistics on or estimates of the percentage of mortgage lenders providing SAP ratings.
  600
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effect upon household energy efficiency measures of providing standard assessment procedure ratings in valuation surveys. [2964]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department continues to work with mortgage lenders to encourage the uptake of energy efficiency measures through the provision of standard assessment procedure ratings. In particular, the Department and the Halifax building society are co-operating on a joint project to evaluate the impact of providing SAP ratings as part of the valuation process. The results are expected shortly.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of property valuation surveys included standard assessment procedure ratings in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996; and what estimate he has made of the likely percentages in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [2963]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is working with mortgage lenders to encourage the uptake of energy efficiency measures and to promote the wider use of standard assessment procedure ratings via mortgage valuation surveys. We are not aware of any statistics collected on this subject.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1996; and if he will make a statement. [2914]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has recently consulted interested parties on the following proposal for use of the deregulation order-maker power:Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907: removal of need for local authority licences for pleasure boats on waters owned or managed by British Waterways or the Environment Agency.

  The timing of any reference to the Deregulation Committee will depend on the outcome of our consideration of the responses.

  In addition, we have recently laid draft regulations under section 37 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to remove 16 pieces of redundant health and safety legislation.

  Going for Green Initiative
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the going for green initiative over the last 12 months; and what its targets are for the next 12 months. [2965]

  Mr. Clappison
  Going for Green Ltd. is a private company limited by guarantee, with the aim of promoting sustainable development to the public and helping to change everyday behaviour in a more sustainable direction. Since becoming a private company on 1 April 1996, Going for Green has secured private sector sponsorship of £360,000 in cash and an estimated £950,000 in benefits in kind. Its programme of work has included national publicity campaigns, the publication of a green code, the establishment of sustainable communities pilot projects, a study of waste minimisation
  601
  and the development of ways of measuring the extent to which individuals' lifestyles are sustainable. This work is a fundamental part of the Government's strategy on sustainable development.

  Targets for 1997–98 are currently under discussion with the Department in the context of the company's business plan for next year.

  Sheffield Development Corporation
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Sheffield development corporation will be wound up; and if he will make a statement. [3041]

  Mr. Curry
  Statutory orders will be laid before Parliament early next year to effect the wind up and dissolution of Sheffield development corporation. Subject to parliamentary approval, the corporation will cease to act from 1 April 1997, except for the purpose of preparing its final accounts and report and winding up its affairs. The corporation will be dissolved on 1 July 1997.

  Urban development corporations were set up, with finite lifetimes, to regenerate their designated areas. Since designation on 30 June 1988 Sheffield development corporation has encouraged a grant-aided private sector development and undertaken substantial environmental and infrastructure improvements, which have helped to stimulate new jobs and new life in the city and to realise Sheffield's ambitions for a city airport.

  By the end of its lifetime, the corporation expects to have reclaimed 259.2 hectares of land, created 521,100 sq m of commercial floorspace, built or improved 15 m of road, created 17,683 permanent jobs and attracted £695 million of private sector investment. The corporation has transformed the Lower Don valley area and Sheffield will continue to benefit well into the next century.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends formally to issue the guidance to the Environment Agency required under section 4 of the Environment Act 1995. [3171]

  Mr. Gummer
  A draft of the guidance which Ministers are required under section 4 of the Environment Act 1995 to give to the Environment Agency on its objectives, including the contribution it is to make towards the achievement of sustainable development, has been laid before the House for the required period of 40 sitting days. Together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I am today formally issuing this guidance to the Environment Agency.

  We are also formally issuing to the Environment Agency a management statement which summaries Ministers' aims and objectives for the agency, its duties, powers and responsibilities, and its relationship with Ministers, Government Departments and other bodies.

  An explanatory document which restates the principles of sustainable development, provides non-statutory guidance on particular functions and offers a commentary on the agency's duty to take account of likely costs and benefits is also being provided to the agency.
  602
  Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legal advice was received prior to the Single European Act 1986 as to the effect of the term "working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers" contained in article 118a; if a copy of the advice will be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [2978]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  By convention, any such legal advice to Government is treated as confidential and its substance is not normally disclosed.

TRANSPORT

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992 and are planned for the coming year, in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1904]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department estimates that it will have undertaken or plans to undertake, a total of 181 information technology projects by the end of the year. In cost bands these are as follows:£0–£1 million—167, £1–£2 million—3, £2–£3 million—2, £3–£4 million—4, £4–£5 million—3, £11–£12 million—1. £13–£14 million—1.

  Some of these will have started in earlier years and some will last several years. So it is not possible to identify the actual costs for a specific year.

  Rail Coaches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of unserviceable passenger rail coaches that have been taken out of service in each of the last five years. [2198]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is no longer held by British Rail and is a matter for the rolling stock leasing companies.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway stations are planned to be(a) opened and (b) re-opened in the next two years by the franchise companies. [2040]

  Mr. Watts
  There are a number of proposed new stations which were the initiative of local authorities in agreement with British Rail train operating companies. These proposals are being continued by the franchisees.

  Franchisees have their own longer-term initiatives to open new stations. The LTS rail franchisee, Prism Rail, intends to open a new station at West Ham by the end of 1999. The midland main line franchisee, National Express Group, is undertaking a feasibility study for a new east midlands Parkway station with the aim of completing building and development of the station during 2001.

  Accident Reports (Leaks)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of Railtrack the leaking of accident investigation reports before their agreed publication dates. [1874]

  Mr. Watts
  I deplore the premature and unauthorised release of accident investigation reports, and the use which is made of such leaks. The reports of internal railway joint inquiries are not normally published. This is a matter for the railway parties involved.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct train operating companies to install and operate automatic train protection on all trains. [1870]

  Mr. Watts
  No. Automatic train protection would require changes to infrastructure as well as trains. Railtrack and train operators are pursuing a range of alternative measures to reduce risks arising from signals passed at danger, overspeeding the buffer stop collisions. The independent Health and Safety Commission advised that the introduction of ATP, as piloted, on a network-wide basis was not reasonably practicable, and that there were alternative safety investments which would be likely to yield greater effectiveness in terms of lives saved, and better value for money.

  Sheffield Supertram
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what income has been generated by Sheffield Supertram since it became operational; and what steps have been taken to increase this income. [2392]

  Mr. Watts
  Management of South Yorkshire Supertram is a matter for the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, which I understand has sought to increase what have hitherto been very disappointing levels of passenger carryings.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage the use of 20 mph speed limits in urban areas. [2395]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are now around 300 20 mph zones in place. These have been very successful in reducing accidents. We have recently ring fenced £1 million of transport supplementary grant for the creation of additional zones in appropriate areas.

  VHF Radio Service
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has issued to commercial and pleasure craft in respect of the phasing out of the VHF radio service. [2569]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of Marine Safety Agency to write to my hon. Friend.
  604
  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Barry Field, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the advice which has been issued to commercial and pleasure craft in respect of the phasing out of VHF radio services.
  There are no plans to phase out the use of Channel 16 in the UK in the foreseeable future. The UK is however keen to promote the voluntary adoption by non-SOLAS vessels of Global Maritime Distress and Safety Systems (GMDSS) principles and the use of automated distress calling. Further information on what is involved is contained in a Marine Safety Agency (MSA) leaflet entitled GMDSS: Radio of the Next Century which has been available for some time. The MSA is also active in promoting the positive benefits of GMDSS at boat shows and other similar commercial events around the country.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with commercial fishermen about phasing out VHF radio services. [2574]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of Marine Safety Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Barry Field, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question on the discussions that have taken place with commercial fishermen about phasing out VHF radio services.
  The fishermen's organisations are aware that the UK is committed to the continued use of Channel 16. HM Coastguard will maintain a listening watch on Channel 16 for as long as necessary after 1 February 1999 and all SOLAS Convention ships in the UK Search and Rescue Area are encouraged to continue to maintain watch on Channel 16 where possible for as long as necessary. Internationally, the UK in conjunction with other European administrations, will seek agreement at the next World Radio Conference in 1997 to Channel 16 remaining a calling frequency for non-SOLAS vessels.

  Rail Accidents
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the occasions when rolling stock operated by private freight companies have been involved in accidents on the west coast main line; [1437]

  (2) if he will list those railway accidents occurring on (a) the west coast main line, (b) the east coast main line and (c) London rail routes since privatisation. [1444]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Digital Selcall
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects the new tender for digital selcall to be published; [2570]

  (2) what plans he has to re-equip Her Majesty's Coastguard with digital selcall equipment; and when VHF will be phased out; [2572]

  (3) how many vessels in the United Kingdom rely on VHF radio for emergency purposes; and what transitional arrangements he intends to introduce for digital selcall; [2575]
  605
  (4) what discussions he has had with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution about digital Selcall for emergency use. [2573]

  Mr. Bowls
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to, my hon. friend.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Barry Field, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the introduction of Digital Selcall, how it affects the use of VHF and our consultations with the RNLI on this subject.
  The Agency awarded a contract for Digital Selcall, more properly known as VHF Digital Selective Calling (VHF (DSC)), to GEC-Marconi Communications Ltd. on 3 October to supply and fit equipment at 105 sites around the UK coastline. Her Majesty's Coastguard will begin to be equipped with VHF (DSC) from mid-January with the aim of completing in February 1999 to coincide with the start date for full implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), of which VHF (DSC) forms a part. On 1 February 1999 GMDSS will become a requirement for all SOLAS Convention vessels over 300 Tonnes.
  As VHF radio, in particular the VHF Distress Channel 16, is essential for the voice response to VHF (DSC) digital alerts, there are no plans to phase it out.
  The total number of UK vessels with VHF licences is over 51,000 of which nearly 48,000 are pleasure vessels. Vessels which do not come under GMDSS legislation are not required to fit VHF (DSC). HM Coastguard is particularly anxious that non-compatibility of distress frequencies should not constitute a risk to the safety of non SOLAS Convention vessels which do not install VHF (DSC) equipment, and Ministers have already given a commitment not only to ensure that HM Coastguard maintains a listening watch on Channel 16 post I February 1999, but also that all SOLAS Convention ships in the UK search and rescue area should be encouraged to maintain watch on channel 16 where possible for as long as necessary. In addition to that the Coastguard Agency together with the Marine Safety Agency are presently pushing for agreement by the International Maritime Organisation and the World Radio Conference that channel 16 should continue to be monitored and used as a calling frequency for some time after 1 February 1999.
  Although RNLI lifeboats are not subject to SOLAS, the requirements for GMDSS have been discussed at liaison meetings between the Coastguard Agency and the RNLI. I understand that all the RNLI's All Weather Lifeboats will be fitted with both VHF and M/F DSC equipment. The existing distress frequencies distress frequencies will continue to be used as they are at present for distress communications. Communications between RNLI lifeboats and HM Coastguard will not be affected by the introduction of the GMDSS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  State Opening (Costs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the total cost to the House of the state opening of parliament. [2806]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The total cost of the state opening of Parliament on 23 October has not yet been calculated, but some £24,000 has been set aside by the House for this purpose.

  Line of Route Visitors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans he has to improve facilities for Line of Route visitors with 606
  specific reference to a cafeteria facility, improved toilets and facilities to shelter visitors when queuing in unfavourable weather. [2945]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  On 12 July 1994, the House approved the first report of Session 1992–93 from the Catering Committee which recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted into a visitor centre to include appropriate toilet facilities. This recommendation cannot be implemented until the opening of the new cafeteria in phase 2 of the new parliamentary building. There are no plans to improve the facilities to shelter visitors queuing in unfavourable weather which have been provided with in the Sovereign's Entrance since 1990.

  Palace of Westminster (Wheelchair Access)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) what plans he has to provide facilities that will allow access to wheelchair-bound hon. Members to all relevant areas of the Palace of Westminster with specific reference to the Chamber of the Commons; [2943]

  (2) what plans he has to improve facilities to allow access to wheelchair-bound visitors to the Line of Route, Terrace, dining and Committee rooms; [2944]

  (3) what plans he has to provide facilities that will allow access to wheelchair-bound civil servants to all relevant areas of the Commons with specific reference to the Officials' Box in the Chamber. [2946]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 8 February 1995,Official Report, columns 243–45, which describes in detail the conclusions of the review by the Accommodation and Works Committee of access to the House for disabled people. Since then, the Parliamentary Works Directorate has implemented the approved improvements. These improvements enable hon. Members and civil servants who are wheelchair users to access relevant areas of the Palace of Westminster, including the Chamber of the Commons and visitors who are wheelchair users to access the Line of Route, the Terrace, and the dining and Committee rooms. There are no plans currently to make the Officials' Box in the Chamber accessible to wheelchair users. In the event that a wheelchair-using civil servant was required to support a Minister, it is envisaged that he or she would be able to do so from the area adjacent to the Officials' Box. However, a handrail has been fixed in the Officials' Box to assist persons with disabilities.

  Palace of Westminster (Works)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, columns 220–21, what were the (a) objectives and (b) costs of the work to restore (i) the two fresco paintings off Central Lobby, (ii) the fresco painting in the House of Lords Chamber and (iii) the 35 oil paintings. [2926]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The work was to conserve, restore and maintain the value of works of art. The cost to the House was approximately £30,000. The total cost of some £50,000 was shared with the House of Lords on a 60:40 basis.
  607
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, columns 220–21, what were the (a) objectives and (b) costs of the work on the second phase of overhaul of the Carriage Gates. [2905]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The work on the second phase of the overhaul of the Carriage Gates was necessary to maintain the gate mechanism for security and for stonework and metalwork restoration. The cost to the House was approximately £29,400. The total cost of some £49,000 was shared with the House of Lords on a 60:40 basis.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Work Committee, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, columns 220–21, what are the expected final costs of the full parliamentary data and video network cabling at (a) Star Chamber Court block, (b) Norman Shaw North floors 1 and 2, (c) House of Lords west front ground and first floors and (d) 1 The Abbey Garden. [2900]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The expected final cost of this year's PDVN cabling work is as follows:(a) Star Chamber Court block and (c) House of Lords west front approximately £1.6 million—shared with the House of Lords on a 60:40 basis, cost to the House £960,000, (b) Norman Shaw North floors 1 and 2 (£300,000), and (d) 1 The Abbey Garden is administered by the House of Lords, for which I have no responsibility.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, columns 220–21, what proportion of the total spending was in areas and

  Project

  Objective

  In-year cost to the House £

  In-year total cost1 £

  Reconstruction of: (a) Members' Cafeteria (b) Strangers' Cafeteria

  Following a resolution of the House, to meet statutory requirements with regard to health and safety, hygiene, fire, ventilation and other building standards

  3 million

  3 million

  Repair work to (c) the roof of the Lords' Chamber (d) the Royal Gallery

  To cure leaks

  0.66 million

  1.1 million

  (e) PDVN cabling2

  To implement the resolution of the House to install the PDVN

  Palace: 0.96 million Norman Shaw North: 0.30 million

  1.6 million 0.3 million

  (f) Connection of all hon. Members' offices to colour televisions with clean feed from the Chamber

  To implement the resolution of the House

  0.145 million

  0.145 million

  (g) New servery in the Members' Tea Room

  To implement the resolution of the House to improve health, safety and hygiene standards

  85,000

  85,000

  (h) Furniture restoration for the Members' Tea Room

  To maintain appropriate standards

  31,000

  31,000

  (i) Renovation of the Speakers outer office

  To maintain appropriate standards

  24,000

  24,000

  (j) Redecoration of the Churchill Room

  To maintain appropriate standards

  24,000

  24,000

  608
  facilities used by (a) hon. Members, (b) House of Commons staff, (c) visitors, (d) disabled visitors and (e) disabled hon. Members, civil servants and staff. [2948]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  Since Members, staff and visitors share many areas of the parliamentary estate, it is not possible separately to identify the costs. During the last three years, considerable progress has been made on improving access to the parliamentary estate for disabled people. Depending upon the nature of an individual's disability, most of the spending in the summer of 1996 has been on facilities potentially available to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, columns 220–22, what were the (i) objectives and (ii) total individual costs of the (a) reconstruction of the Members' Cafeteria, (b) reconstruction of the Strangers' Cafeteria, (c) repair work to the roof of the Lords Chamber, (d) repair work to the roof of the Royal Gallery, (e) full parliamentary data and video network cabling, (f) connection of all hon. Members' offices to colour televisions with clean feed from the Chamber, (g) new servery in the Members' Tea Room, (h) furniture restoration for the Members' Tea room, (i) renovation of the Speaker's outer office, (j) redecoration of the Churchill Room, (k) the refurbishment of the lavatories in (1) Upper Committee Corridor South, (2) opposite Committee Room 7 and (3) Commons Court block, second floor, and (l) refurbishment of the cash machines corridor; and if he will make a statement. [2947]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The objectives forecast in-year costs relating to work in the House of Commons are as follows:
  609

  Project

  Objective

  In-year cost to the House £

  In-year total cost1 £

  (k) The refurbishment of the lavatories in:

  (1) Upper Committee Corridor South

  To provide adequate capacity as required by Members

  16,800

  28,000

  (2) Opposite Committee Room 7

  To conclude last years work on adaptions to provide a lavatory for the disabled

  15,000

  25,000

  (3) Commons Court Block— second floor

  To maintain appropriate standards

  9,000

  15,000

  (1) Refurbishment of the cash machines corridor;

  To complete the wheelchair access route, improve facilities as requested by Members and maintain appropriate standards

  72,000

  120,000

  1 The cost of shared projects listed is split between House of Commons and House of Lords in a ratio of 60:40

  2 PDVN cabling was also installed in areas administered by the House of Lords for which I have no responsibility

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on torture and human rights abuses in Kenya; and what is the Government's policy on this matter. [1632]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We receive reports from a variety of sources about human rights, including torture, in Kenya. This issue forms part of our ongoing dialogue with the Kenyan authorities. We take every suitable opportunity to remind the Government of Kenya of their obligations and of our concerns on this subject.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government are making to the Government of Cameroon about the necessity of holding free and fair elections. [2657]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Our high commissioner in Yaounde has stressed repeatedly to the Cameroonian Government the importance we attach to free and fair elections in Cameroon. My noble friend Baroness Challker outlined out concerns to the Cameroonian Deputy Foreign Minister during his visit to the United Kingdom in August and expressed our willingness to help Cameroon establish an independent electoral commission.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the process of registering voters in Cameroon. [2656]

  Dr. Fox
  Registration of voters in Cameroon takes place each year from 1 January to 30 April. This year the period was extended by three months to 31 July. The Ministry for Territorial Administration estimates that 60 to 80 per cent. of those registered for the municipal elections in January have now re-registered which represents between 30 and 40 per cent. of those eligible to vote.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the possibility of free and fair elections being held in Cameroon in 1997. [2655]
  610
  Dr. Fox
  Cameroon's electoral code provides a framework for free and fair elections. We have made clear to the Cameroonian Government the importance we attach to the establishment of an independent electoral commission and offered to help, if necessary. In conjunction with a number of other donors, we are launching a training programme for 2,000 Cameroonian election observers in preparation for the next year's legislative and presidential elections.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General on what dates legal advice was given as to the effect of the term "working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers" contained in article 118a of the European Community treaty. [2979]

  The Attorney-General
  By convention, the fact of whether the Law Officers have advised on a given issue is not disclosed, nor is the substance of any advice which may have been given.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average length of time between arrest and conviction for young offenders in 1994–95. [937]

  Mr. Streeter
  The exact information requested is not available although similar figures are recorded by the magistrates courts time intervals survey. This survey collects information on defendants in indictable, including triable either way, cases against whom proceedings are completed in three sample weeks a year—in February, June and October. The June survey also collects information about proceedings in summary cases. The period which corresponds most closely with that requested is charge to verdict, although it is not possible to separate those defendants who were found guilty from those whose cases were dismissed.

  The average time from charge to verdict for defendants whose cases were dealt with by summary proceedings in the youth court, as reported by the surveys in the period

  611
  April 1994 to March 1995, was 84 days and 73 days for defendants charged with indictable and summary offences respectively. These figures include only defendants who were charged and not those who were summonsed. In addition, cases where proceedings did not progress as far as a verdict are excluded, for example, where charges were withdrawn.

  Child Sex Abuse
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to extend the period in which actions can be brought under civil law by victims of child sex abuse. [2980]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Law Commission has undertaken a comprehensive review of the law of limitation periods with a view to its simplification and rationalisation, and the Government will consider the
  recommendations made when the Law Commission completes its report. We do not plan to modify the law relating to limitation of actions before then.

  Obstetric Intervention Cases
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in the last five years the Official Solicitor has appeared in cases involving applications for obstetric interventions without the consent of the patient, and(a) in how many of these he acted as (i) guardian ad litem and (ii) amicus curiae, (b) on how many occasions the application resulted in an order, (c) in how many the use of force was explicitly authorised by the court, (d) in how many cases the patient was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and (e) in how many cases the patient was under the age of 18 years. [1844]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Official Solicitor has appeared in four cases in the last five years involving applications for obstetric interventions—emergency caesarean sections—without the consent of the patient,(a) in two cases he has acted as guardian ad litem and two as amicus curiae; (b) in each case an order authorising a caesarean section was made; (c) in two cases the use of force was explicitly authorised by the court; (d) two of the patients were detained under the Mental Health Act 1983; (e) none of the patients was under the age of 18 years. In three of the cases an emergency caesarean was performed. In one case a normal vaginal delivery took place.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance the president of the family division has issued to judges in the family division relating to applications for court orders for obstetric interventions without the consent of the patient. [1845]

  Mr. Streeter
  No guidance has been issued by the president of the family division on these matters. Every such application is to be considered by the judge concerned according to its merits.

  Outstanding Fines
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what amount of fines imposed by magistrates courts is currently outstanding; and what plans he has to allow magistrates courts to charge interest on outstanding fines; [2561]
  612
  (2) what is the percentage of fines transferred to magistrates courts by Crown court for collection which are outstanding. [2556]

  Mr. Streeter
  Separate figures for outstanding fines imposed by the Crown court and magistrates courts are not available. However, from returns made to my Department by magistrates courts I can say that the total outstanding in respect of fines imposed by the Crown court and magistrates courts was about £239 million at the end of the June quarter this year. I have no plans to allow magistrates courts to charge interest on outstanding fines.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to give magistrates immunity from court action in respect of decisions taken by them in the discharge of their official duties. [2560]

  Mr. Streeter
  On 23 August 1996, the Lord Chancellor issued a consultation paper on this subject entitled, "Liability of Judicial Officers and others for Costs in Court Proceedings". Responses are requested by 29 November 1996. The matter will then be considered in light of representations made.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department against how many magistrates' benches legal action is currently outstanding. [2559]

  Mr. Streeter
  This information is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Courts and Legal Services Act
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to bring into effect section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, in respect of(a) abolition of the £5,000 administration order limit, (b) abolition of the requirement for a county court judgment and (c) the three-year limitation period; and if he will make a statement. [2369]

  Mr. Streeter
  The delay in implementing section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is due to practical problems identified as likely to result from its operation. My Department has been seeking a way forward which avoids these problems, and this work will continue in the context of the changes to civil procedure recommended by Lord Woolf. In the meantime, a number of steps have already been taken to improve the operation of administration orders, including the introduction of guidance to court staff that the debts included in an application for such an order should be considered for composition by the district judge if the applicant cannot pay the outstanding debt within three years.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1996; and if he will make a statement. [1407]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department issues very few rules and regulations. We have no current plans to repeal or amend any rules or regulations by the end of 1996.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to support the establishment of an international criminal court at the United Nations; and if he will make a statement. [2982]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  This Department supports the establishment of an international criminal court to try certain of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. Our support for the establishment of such a court is dependent, among other things, upon its being a court of last resort in cases where states are unable or unwilling to act. A court should be established only if it is generally accepted by the international community.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in appointing a person, under section 10(3AA) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, to monitor the refusals of entry clearance where there is no right of appeal by virtue of section 10(3A) of the Act. [3602]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has invited Dame Elizabeth Anson to serve a second three-year term as the independent monitor of entry clearance refusals when her current term expires on 30 November. I am pleased to report that Dame Elizabeth has agreed to do so.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many information technology projects at the Office of the Lord President of the Council have been undertaken since 1992 and are planned for the coming year, in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1902]

  Mr. Newton
  Actual and planned Privy Council Office expenditure on information technology in the years in question is as follows:

  1992: £8,265

  1993: £11,057

  1994: £66,703

  1995: £15,165

  1996: £25,355.

  614
  These figures comprise the purchase cost of equipments, and the costs of training and maintenance. The equipments concerned are desk-top computers and printers. No specific projects can be separately identified. Figures for the three latest years include expenditure on items for the central drug co-ordination unit.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [1093]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when papers relating to the World Trade Organisation review in Singapore in December will be placed in the Library; [2319]

  (2) when Her Majesty's Government propose to produce a paper for the World Trade Organisation review. [2317]

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will shortly lay before Parliament a White Paper setting out the Government's approach to trade policy and its interaction with UK foreign policy.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will be representing Her Majesty's Government at the World Trade Organisation review to be held in Singapore in December. [2238]

  Mr. Lang
  I will lead the UK delegation to the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in December in Singapore.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what preparations have been made by Her Majesty's Government for the World Trade Organisation review to be held in Singapore in December. [2280]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have made extensive preparations for the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Singapore on 9 to 13 December, in conjunction with the European Commission and other EU member states and in consultation with UK business, consumer and other interested organisations.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Majesty's Government are a signatory to the European policy paper for the World Trade Organisation review in December; and if he will make a statement. [2277]
  615
  Mr. Lang
  The Government have discussed European policy towards the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in December in Singapore, in the Council of Ministers. The most recent discussion took place on 29 October when the Council agreed conclusions to serve as guidelines for the EU in preparation for the meeting.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will shortly lay before Parliament a White Paper setting out the Government's approach to trade policy and its interaction with UK foreign policy.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Fire Brigades Union about the control and sale of fireworks; and if he will publish his reply. [2274]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I received a considered and detailed response from the Fire Brigades Union covering all the issues set out in my Department's discussion document. I have not responded to each organisation on the comments they submitted, but all the views and suggestions received will be given careful consideration.

  Milkmen
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in the inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading into the preference by dairy companies for their own milk roundsman as opposed to an independent milkman. [2597]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I understand the hon. Member wrote to the DGFT on 8 August and that the deputy DGFT sent the hon. Member a holding reply on 28 August. In his letter, he informed the hon. Member that officials at the OFT were currently investigating this matter and that he would write to the hon. Member again when the investigating was complete. I understand that this remains the case.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the requirement on petrol retailers to advertise the price of petrol in litre units rather than gallons was introduced. [2664]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Petrol retailers have been required to display prices by reference to the litre since 1 October 1995, with the option of indicating the gallon-equivalent price alongside the price per litre.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the income to be generated from the fossil fuel levy in each year from 1996 to 2005; and what estimates he has made of the proportion that will be spent in each of those years on(a) renewables, (b) Magnox, (c) British Nuclear Fuels plc, (d) administration and (e) other. [2666]

  Mr. Page
  The Director General of Electricity Supply normally calculates the expected income from the fossil fuel levy annually, with the intention that income in each 616
  year matches expenditure. In respect of renewables, premium payments to generators under the first and second non-fossil fuel orders currently amount to almost £100 million. These will cease when their contracts finish in 1998. Payments to generators under the third NFFO order will rise as their projects come on stream, as would payments to generators under the fourth NFFO order which we intend to lay in 1997 and the fifth NFFO order in 1998. The future cost is estimated for the UK as a whole as a maximum of £150 million a year, but the actual cost could be substantially less than this if renewables continue to make good progress in converging towards the market price for electricity. The nuclear NFFO contracts will end in March 1998. In respect of Magnox, I estimate that payments in 1996–97 will amount to £680 million—of which £310 million relates to the period before the privatisation of British Energy—and to £123 million in 1997–98. Annual payments to BNFL are likely to amount to £25million in both 1996–97 and 1997–98. The annual cost of administration of the levy scheme remains fairly constant at £400,000. There is no other expenditure from the levy.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make further reductions in the fossil fuel levy. [2667]

  Mr. Page
  Responsibility for the calculation of the fossil fuel levy rests with the Director General of Electricity Supply. In July this year, the DGES announced that the levy rate would fall from 10 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. from 1 November 1996, and that he anticipated that it should be possible to maintain or reduce the rate from 1 April 1997.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in full-time equivalent terms in the coal mining industry in(a) 1992 and (b) 1996. [2665]

  Mr. Page
  Available information is as follows:

  Employees in Great Britain

  Mining and agglomeration of hard coal1

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  19912

  76,700

  700

  77,400

  19932

  32,400

  400

  32,700

  19953

  10,400

  200

  10,600

  1 Standard Industrial Classification 1992.

  2 Sources: Census of Employment September 1991 and September 1993, Office for National Statistics. The census of employment was conducted every two years, so data are not available for even numbered years.

  3 Source: Annual Employment Survey September 1995 (which replaced the biennial census of Employment) Office for National Statistics.

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many criminal investigations have been undertaken since 1 January 1995 into alleged breaches of section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986; and what(a) advice, (b) information and (c) assistance has been given by his officials to these investigations. [2632]
  617
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since 1 January 1995, one criminal investigation into alleged breaches of section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 has been undertaken. That investigation is being carried out by investigation officers, who are my officials, under the supervision of lawyers of my Department.

  Pennine Commercial Holdings
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Pennine Commercial Holdings plc have completed their report; and when it will be published. [3407]

  Mr. Lang
  The inspectors, Elizabeth Appleby QC and Peter Foss FCA, signed their report on 26 July 1996, thus completing the final stage of a series of inquiries, which commenced in 1983, into a group of six connected companies all of which were subsequently put into liquidation.

  By November 1989, the only report outstanding was that into Pennine. Although substantially complete, it remained unsigned until July, pending the outcome of appeals by individuals connected with Pennine against convictions on criminal charges relating to, among other things, the subject matter of the inspectors' inquiries.

  While the Department's general practice has been to publish reports by inspectors into public quoted companies, as Pennine formerly was, the Secretary of State has concluded that, in this case, publication is not justified.

  Limited Liability Partnerships Law (Jersey)
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take in response to the draft limited liability partnerships law in Jersey with particular reference to United Kingdom professional firms moving their nominal registration to Jersey. [3406]

  Mr. Lang
  I am well aware of the concerns of many within the professions about the possible consequences of the unlimited liability of partners in the modern commercial environment. In a big modern partnership advising on large commercial transactions it may be impossible for partners to know all other partners and their work—yet their personal assets can be put at risk by the actions of their partners. The Government are determined to maintain a competitive and up-to-date legal framework for business in the UK. We are aware of recent developments in partnership law in other jurisdictions such as the United States of America and Jersey, and responses to a recent consultation were strongly in favour of dealing with this issue. The Government therefore intend to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to make limited liability partnership available to regulated professions in the UK, subject to appropriate safeguards to protect the interests of those doing business with the limited liability partnership. To keep a level playing field with companies and partnerships registered in the UK, limited liability partnerships registered abroad but operating from a place of business in the UK will be required to file financial information equivalent to that to be required from limited liability partnerships registered 618
  in this country. The Government will publish before Easter full and detailed proposals for legislation, for consultation with all interested parties.

  Marketed Services (Productivity)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the United Kingdom's average level of productivity in marketed services; and what are the equivalent levels in other OECD countries. [548]

  Mr. Lang
  There are no published figures for average levels of productivity in market services in the UK. There is some evidence that our productivity across market services is still roughly a third less than in the US, France and Germany, but, on average, the gap has narrowed since 1979.

  Butte Mining
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates during 1993 and 1994 the then Minister for Corporate Affairs attended meetings to discuss whether disqualification proceedings should be taken against certain directors of Butte Mining arising from their conduct as directors of Butte Mining; and on what date the Minister decided that no proceedings should be brought. [2983]

  Mr. Lang
  It is not my Department's practice to comment on the affairs of individual companies.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992 and are planned for the coming year, in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1897]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested on IT projects undertaken by my Department since January 1992 is set out. Projects approved by the Department's next step agencies and funded from their budgets are not included. This information provided on projects below £200,000 and on planned projects is limited to that readily available from central records.

  Number approved

  Number planned

  Less than £200,000

  141

  7

  £200,000-£1 million

  7

  3

  £1 million-£2 million

  4

  1

  £2 million-£3 million

  2

  2

  £3 million-£4 million

  1

  0

  £4 million-£5 million

  2

  0

  £5 million-£6 million

  1

  0

  £6 million-£7 million

  0

  0

  £7 million-£8 million

  0

  0

  £8 million-£9 million

  2

  0

  £9 million-£10 million

  0

  0

  Over £10 million

  1

  0

  Privatised Utilities (Redundancies)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many workers have been made unemployed by the privatised gas, water, electricity and telecoms utilities between April 1992 and April 1996; and what is the estimated cost to public funds. [2974]
  619
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This is a commercial matter for the companies concerned. There are long-term benefits to the whole economy from allowing resources, including labour, to move to more productive uses, and to the extent that redundant employees find alternative employment there would be benefits to public funds as well as to the economy.

  British Energy
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last discussed matters with British Energy. [2977]

  Mr. Page
  Under the UK nuclear site licensing regime, nuclear operators must demonstrate the safety of nuclear installations to the satisfaction of the nuclear industry's independent regulator, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. Therefore, while Ministers might discuss, in general terms, safety issues with nuclear licensees such as British Energy, operational safety at nuclear installations is a matter for licencees in consultation with the regulator.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guarantees British Energy has given that its proposal to shed jobs over the next three years will not affect safety standards. [2976]

  Mr. Page
  For British Energy, ensuring safety at its nuclear installations is an absolute prerequisite for its future business success. In announcing its proposals to reduce staff numbers as part of its aim of reducing costs and improving the overall efficiency of the company, British Energy made it clear that these staff reductions will in no way compromise the company's commitment to safety. The nuclear industry's independent regulator, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, is being fully consulted on the proposed changes and will need to be satisfied that the proposals remain consistent with arrangements for the management of safety within British Energy.

  Alco-pop
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to ensure that alco-pop drinks are not marketed to under-18s. [1804]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government believe that self-regulation is the most effective way to control alcohol advertising. We welcome the responsible approach taken by the Portman Group and its members in drawing up a voluntary code of practice for the packaging, marketing and sale of alcoholic soft drinks in response to concerns about these drinks and their appeal to young people. There is, therefore, no need for action by Government in this area.

  Competition Law
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of submissions received in 1996 by his Department on proposals for competition law reform were broadly in favour of(a) the incorporation of measures similar to article 85 of the treaty of Rome into United Kingdom law and (b) the introduction of a prohibition approach to anti-competitive agreements. [2245]
  620
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Responses were almost universally in favour of a prohibition approach to anti-competitive agreements following the broad framework of article 85, with a majority preferring that the prohibition set out in article 85(1) should be narrowed in scope along the lines suggested in the consultation document.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress his Department has made since the publication of the Green Paper "Abuse of Market Power" in 1992; and if he will make a statement. [2244]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Government announced in April 1993 that they intended to strengthen the existing provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980 to deal with abuse of market power A consultation document issued in March 1996, "Tackling Cartels and the Abuse Market Power—a consultation document", set out specific proposals on how the existing framework should be strengthened. Draft clauses which would give effect to the proposals to strengthen the fair trading and competition Acts were published in August 1996 as part of a draft competition Bill.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the advantages of introducing a prohibition approach to United Kingdom competition law. [2248]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Government believe that their proposals to replace the present Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1977 with a prohibition of anti-competitive agreements will be a more efficient and effective way of dealing with the control of anti-competitive agreements.

  On a prohibition of abuse of market, the Government remain of the view that no compelling case has been made in favour of a prohibition-based system for the economy at large. The difficulties of clearly defining abuse risk deterring genuinely competitive behaviour. The Government are, however, happy to promote further public debate on this matter.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many submissions have been received to date following the publication of the consultation paper "Tackling Cartels and the Abuse of Market Power". [2246]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department has published two consultation documents under this heading this year, the first a consultation document on the detailed policy options for implementing the Government's proposals, the second a document containing a draft Bill.

  In response to the first document, we have received 109 submissions. In response to the second document, we have received 91 submissions to date.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much departmental time was spent in preparation of the consultation paper "Tackling Cartels and the Abuse of Market Power." [2247]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department has issued two consultation documents under this heading this year, the first a consultation document on the detailed policy options for implementing the Government's proposals, the second a document containing a draft Bill: 1.4 man years were spent in preparing the first document, 3.2 man years in preparing the second.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions took place at the Council of Ministers meeting on 25 October regarding the multi-fibre arrangement; [2987]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the World Trade Organisation regarding the operation of the multi-fibre arrangement; [2986]

  (3) what representations he has recently received regarding the operation of the multi-fibre arrangement. [2988]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has been consulting the British textile and clothing industry, retailers, importers and consumers about the basis on which the European Union should implement stage 2 of the phase-out of the general agreement on tariffs and trade multi-fibre arrangement on 1 January 1998. The General Affairs Council has not yet considered the matter but is likely to take a decision on 25 November. Decisions on this sort by textile importing countries, including the EU, are a matter for them and are not up for negotiation at the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation to be held in Singapore from 9 to 13 December.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regulations his Department proposes to repeat by the end of 1996; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each resolution repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each repeal. [1404]

  Mr. Page
  My Department currently proposes to repeal the following regulations by the end of 1996:

  Trade Descriptions (Place of Production) (Marking) Order 1988;

  The Rag Flock (Other Filling Materials) Act 1951;

  The Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Regulations 1981;

  The Stand for Carry-Cot (Safety) Regulations 1966;

  The Gas Catalytic Heaters (Safety) Regulations 1984;

  The Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985;

  The Asbestos Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1987; and

  The Quotations Regulations 1989.

  My Department currently proposes to repeal and replace the following regulations by the end of 1996:

  The Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Remedies) Regulations 1993;

  The Race Relations (Interest on Awards) Regulations 1994; and

  The Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1995.

  Since the effect in each case will be to reduce rather than increase, compliance costs, a compliance cost assessment is not required. Departments do, however, seek to estimate approximate savings wherever possible. The cost of undertaking a CCA varies from case to case, but it is generally modest. Because part of the cost falls on the businesses consulted, a full CCA would be inappropriate for measures designed to reduce business burdens. If, however, a replacement regulation would increase burdens, a CCA will be produced.

  Television Decoders
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that his television decoder to be used for digital satellite programmes is also available at fair and reasonable cost for digital terrestrial programmes. [2053]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]:] Regulations have been in place since 23 August this year, well in advance of any manufacturing agreements for decoders, which deal with the licensing of decoder technology. The regulations—1996/2185—provide that licensing of proprietary technology for conditional access to manufacturers of consumer equipment must be undertaken on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Owners of such technology, when licensing one manufacturer, must therefore consider applications for additional licences from other manufacturers—perhaps acting on behalf of other broadcasters operating on other delivery systems—and must grant or refuse such applications on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. If a manufacturer or broadcaster believes he is being unfairly refused a licence, the regulations allow him to take immediate action in court against the owner of the technology.

  Taken together, these will enable manufacturers to supply set-top boxes which either incorporate facilities for terrestrial and satellite reception, or to which such facilities could be added at a fair and reasonable cost, should they see a market for such receivers which is worth pursuing.

  The regulations also prohibit the owner of the technology from dissuading a manufacturer from including additional conditional access technology or a common interface in the same decoder. A common interface allows for the attachment of additional conditional access components and other components of the digital decoder—for example, a receiver for another deliver mechanism such as digital terrestrial.

  The Government do not intend to impose requirements which will increase the cost of set-top boxes, the equipment which will be used to decode digital television signals, by mandating the inclusion of facilities which consumers may not wish to use. However, the European standards for digital television are designed to assist manufacturers who wish to produce receivers capable of receiving and decoding both satellite and terrestrial signals, or to which additional reception capabilities can be added.

  In due course, conditional access systems are likely to be integrated in the television set, the manufacturers of which will seek to provide access to a wide range of broadcasters.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Learning Credits
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce learning credits for 16 to 19-year-old students. [2207]
  623
  Mr. Paice
  The Government propose to bring together, into a single entitlement to learning expressed in the form of a credit, their existing guarantee of training and the statutory duty of the Further Education Funding Council to secure sufficient and adequate education for young people. All young people would be issued with a learning credit as they complete their compulsory education. Learning credits, which would not be cash based, would build on the best of youth credits arrangements already operated by training and enterprise councils. Careers services, working closely with providers, would have an important role in issuing the credit as part of the information and guidance they provide to all young people.

  The Government believe that the learning credits approach, taken together with the work proposed to secure greater convergence of post-16 funding arrangements, would further strengthen the choices young people make and the responsiveness of providers to them. They intend to consult on learning credits in December, with a view to their phased introduction from 1997.

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial provision is being made to(a) the local education authority and (b) voluntary organisations in the county of Durham to increase awareness of drug and alcohol-related problems. [2406]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Under the grants for education support and training programme for 1996–97, £67,450 has been made available to Durham LEA in support of in-service training of teachers whose responsibilities include drug education in schools; and £14,000 in support of training for youth and community workers in raising their awareness of and developing skills for dealing with young people at risk from, or in the early stages of, drug abuse.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school absences of pupils have been related to drug and alcohol abuse in the county of Durham since 1992. [2407]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This information is not collected centrally. Information on levels of authorised and unauthorised absence is collected annually in respect of all day pupils of compulsory school age, but schools are not required to break their absence totals down by cause of absence.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school children in the county of Durham have received treatment and counselling for alcohol dependency since 1992. [2408]

  Mr. Burns
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available centrally.

  Physics Examinations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of students sitting the A-level examination in physics obtained passes at A, B and C grades(a) in 1976 and (b) in 1996. [2438]
  624
  Mrs. Gillan
  The percentage of students obtaining passes at grades A, B and C in GCE A-level physics syllabuses examined in 1976 were 9.5 per cent., 13.3 per cent. and 12.5 per cent. respectively. The corresponding figures for the syllabuses examined in 1996 were 20.6 per cent., 19.1 per cent. and 17.9 per cent.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will calculate the number of questions, accounting for what percentage of the marks, a candidate prepared for the 1976 A-level examination in physics could have answered in the 1996 examination; [2435]

  (2) if she will calculate the number of questions, accounting for what percentage of marks, a candidate prepared for the 1976 0-level examination in physics could have answered in the 1996 GCSE examination; [2436]

  (3) if she will calculate the number of questions, accounting for what percentage of marks, a candidate prepared for the 1996 A-level examination in physics could have answered in the 1976 examination. [2437]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The examination boards have always offered a range of physics syllabus at GCE A-level, GCE 0-level and, since 1986, GCSE. It is therefore not possible to calculate the precise number of questions common to physics examinations in 1976 and 1996.

  European Structural Fund
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much money has been withheld from the United Kingdom by the European Commission as a result of the Government's decision not to participate in objective 4 of the European structural fund(a) as a percentage of the total United Kingdom allocation and (b) in pounds sterling for the period 1994 to 1996; [2403]

  (2) what sum has been withheld from (a) the west midlands region and (b) the city of Birmingham by the European Commission as a result of the Government's decision not to participate in objective 4 of the European structural funds (i) as a percentage of the total United Kingdom allocation and (ii) in pounds sterling for the period 1994 to 1996. [2405]

  Mr. Paice
  Some 3,377 million ecu are available for spending in Great Britain under objectives 3 and 4 of the structural funds between 1994 and 1999. The objective 3 plan for 1994 to 1996 period, which was agreed with the European Commission, provided for 1,501 million of that money to be spent in the UK. The remaining 1,876 million ecu are available for spending in Great Britain under objectives 3 and 4 of the structural funds between 1997 and 1999. The plans for spending that money are currently being negotiated.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sums her Department estimates will be withheld from the United Kingdom European Commission as a result of the Government's decision not to participate in objective 4 of the European structural fund(a) as a percentage of the total United Kingdom by the allocation and (b) in pounds sterling for 1997 to 1999. [2404]
  625
  Mr. Paice
  There is no reason to believe that any sums will be withheld by the European Commission for 1997 to 1999. Officials are currently negotiating plans with the Commission for the combined budget for objective 3 and 4 between 1997 and 1999.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors underlay her Department's decision not to participate in objective 4 of the European structural fund, and what plans she has to review her policy. [2398]

  Mr. Paice
  We preferred to spend the joint budget for objective 3 and 4 on help for unemployed people. Officials are currently negotiating the use of the budget for 1997 to 1999 with the European Commission.

  Medical Pay Awards
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to make an announcement on the alignment of academic medical pay awards this year with medical pay awards generally within the NHS; and if she will make a statement. [2662]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend holds to the view that academic medical pay awards should generally be aligned with NHS medical pay awards, settled following the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body recommendations, but it is for university and college employers to set pay levels.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Education Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps her Department

  Financial Years

  Cost band

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Total

  £0-£1 million

  68

  43

  61

  71

  81

  324

  £1-£2 million

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  £2-£3 million

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  £3-£4 million

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  £4-£11 million

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £11-£12 million

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  The project numbers for 1996–97 include those planned and started. Further projects will be added for the coming year after the annual round of consultations with customers.

  Sponsor Governors
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the functions and purpose of proposed sponsor governors for county and controlled schools; under what circumstances she would expect to use her proposed powers of direction; and what financial arrangements she would expect to be agreed prior to her decision to make a directive. [2693]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department proposes to enable county, voluntary-controlled and special agreement secondary schools have to have sponsor governors. This 626
  is taking to encourage partnerships between Barnsley and Doncaster TEC and the local employment service. [2677]

  Mr. Paice
  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC has in place a joint statement of arrangement with the two local Employment Service district offices in its area, for liaison and co-operation. This results in regular meetings between the TEC, Employment Service district managers and lead suppliers to discuss and take forward operational matters.

  The statement of arrangement has been strengthened this year by the addition of specific targets for training for work referrals and starts; and arrangements for joint monitoring of performance.

  Testing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment(a) she and (b) bodies receiving public funds, have made of the impact of the joint requirements of the national curriculum and key stage testing on the ability of school staff and heads to order the manner of individual and corporate learning most likely to attain the objectives set out by The national forum for values. [2694]

  Mrs. Gillan
  None. Such assessment would be premature, given that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has only just started consulting on the recommendations of its national forum for values in Education and the Community.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992 and are planned for the coming year, in cost bands of 1,000,000. [1905]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of information technology projects undertaken since 1992 is:

  will help such schools strengthen their links with the business world and enable sponsors to take part in governance to the mutual benefit of school and sponsor. Similar arrangements exist for grant-maintained and voluntary-aided schools. We would expect a direction to be made only after a request by the governing body of a school designated as a specialist school to change its instrument of government to include sponsor governors. No financial arrangements would need to be agreed prior to a decision to make a directive.

  Competitive Admissions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who will be responsible for(a) deciding on the criteria of tests used, (b) conducting the tests or examinations and (c) establishing

  627
  arrangements for external adjudicators for a maintained school which has received approval to obtain its annual entry by means of a competitive admissions policy. [2695]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The admission arrangements of a selective or partially selective school are, and will continue to be, the responsibility of the relevant school admission authority: the local education authority in the case of a county or controlled school and the governing body in the case of a voluntary-aided, special agreement or grant-maintained school.

  Education Bill
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will send a copy of the Education Bill to each primary and secondary maintained school head teacher in England and Wales, together with a letter requesting them to report in respect of(a) each clause, (b) each group of clauses and (c) related schedules, (i) any problems they foresee in their implementation and (ii) any likely consequential effects. [2696]

  Mr. Forth
  No. Many of the proposals in the Bill have already been the subject of widespread consultation and we doubt whether head teachers would welcome such a request.

  Disabled Pupils
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has made of the resources available to each local education authority to provide(a) extra facilities, (b) extra teachers and (c) extra funds, over those allocated under local management of schools formulae, to be devoted to meeting the special behavioural and scholastic needs of pupils in mainstream (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools, not being schools already wholly devoted to the needs of pupils with innate disabilities. [2697]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for the LEAs to decide how to allocate the resources at their disposal, for which Government provision is made in the light of the full range of LEAs' responsibilities.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment from what source she expects the Funding Agency for Schools to obtain the costs of establishing a new grant-maintained school under powers granted to it. [2698]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The capital costs that fall to the Funding Agency for Schools when it establishes a new grant-maintained school would have to be met from the capital resources available to the agency. The recoupment of recurrent costs from the local education authority in which a new GM school is situated will be considered case by case.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 376, if borrowing by grant-maintained schools to expand their capacity by up to 50 per cent. by means of commercial borrowing or the private finance initiative, will be taken into account in their grant formula as distinct from the formulae used for schools of their category expanding their capacity. [2985]
  628
  Mr. Squire
  It is for the Funding Agency for Schools to decide how the sums available for GM schools' capital are distributed among individual schools in the light of the priorities for GM capital spending.

  Pupil Selection
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 379, concerning the selection of pupils for secondary schools by aptitude or ability, what studies she has evaluated in respect of the indications of general academic ability at the age of 16 years which can be predicted by tests at the age of 11 years; who are the admissions authorities determining which tests are to be applied; and how many persons will be responsible for making these decisions. [2984]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Research on value added in education consistently shows that prior attainment is the best single predictor of subsequent academic performance. Local education authorities and schools often compare the attainment of pupils entering secondary education with achievements at age 16, for management and other purposes. It is for the relevant school admission authority to decide if tests of aptitude or ability should form part of the admissions process.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 4 November,Official Report, columns 379–80, concerning the proposed duty of grant-maintained and non-grant-maintained secondary schools to consider annually the introduction of selective entry, what estimate she has made of the percentage of parents of primary school children who prefer selective admission arrangements for secondary schools; and what sample polls she has conducted concerning such preferences. [2993]

  Mr. Squire
  A survey carried out for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, published on 22 January 1996, found that half those parents surveyed favoured selective education. Existing selective schools are popular with parents and many are significantly oversubscribed.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 29 October,Official Report, column 471, concerning the successful co-existence of selective and comprehensive secondary schools, if she will list those local education authorities in whose areas such co-existence exists without prejudicing the standard of education of secondary school pupils. [2994]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend was referring to comments made by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) about educational standards in areas with both wholly selective and non-selective schools. In the majority of such areas the proportion of children receiving five or more GCSE grades A* to C is higher than the national average.

  Minority Languages
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice is issued by her Department to examination boards on the range of minority languages to be offered at A-level. [2989]

  Mrs. Gillan
  None.

  Selective Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will take steps to ascertain the views of parents of children under the age of 11 years on proposals to introduce a system of selective education within the areas of those local education authorities where no such system currently exists in the maintained sector of secondary education. [2992]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Governing bodies are best placed to assess local parental demand for the introduction or extension of selection in their schools. The Education Bill proposes that they should be required to consider the issue annually.

  Bengali
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding the availability of Bengali as an A-level subject. [2991]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has received letters about the availability of Bengali as an A-level subject from the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Bath (Mr. Foster).

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which examination boards currently offer Bengali as an A-level subject. [2990]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Northern examination and assessment board currently offers Bengali at GCE A-level.

  Personal Services
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many jobs in the personal services industry, with special reference to male escort agencies, are classed as vacancies at jobcentres; and if she will break down the information by region; [2915]

  (2) into what classification the Employment Service places jobs in the personal services industry, with special reference to jobs in male escort agencies and editing adult magazines; [2916]

  (3) what guidelines are issued to jobcentre staff in respect of training advice on personal safety to female jobseekers who have been recommended to apply for jobs in the personal services industry, with special reference to work for escort agencies and adult magazines; [2918]

  (4) if a jobseeker is entitled to refuse to attend an interview for work in the personal services industry without putting their benefit at risk. [2917]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  630
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Helen Jackson dated 7 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to write to you direct about your questions of 4 November concerning vacancies in the personal services industry advertised in Jobcentres. This falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  The information you requested on the number of jobs in the personal services industry which are classed as vacancies is not available and the Employment Service does not collect specific information on the number of vacancies with male escort agencies.
  The Employment Service does not classify vacancies as being in the personal services industry. All vacancies are classed according to the occupation.
  All Jobcentres have guidance which gives points to check when considering the suitability of vacancies to ensure jobseekers are not put at risk. Jobcentres seek as much information as possible about the job, its location, whether the duties or hours are different from those normally expected for the type of job and whether the arrangements for interview are outside normal working hours and away from the work premises. For vacancies in the personal services sector special regard is paid to these factors.
  In addition there is a leaflet available to jobseekers in all Jobcentres titled "Be Alert" which describes the steps to take to ensure personal safety when seeking work from an employer.
  Guidance issued to Jobcentres state that if they are notified of vacancies which require models, offer employment in sauna baths, massage parlours, escort and kissogram agencies, or other personal/telephone services special regard should be paid to the reputation of the employer. Details are sought of establishment and conditions of training and employment, whether the hours of work or the location or interview arrangements give cause for concern and whether there is any indication of a lack of professional standards. Jobcentres are advised that where any concerns arise around the above issues that such vacancies should he treated with caution and in any cases of doubt they should refuse to handle the vacancies.
  The Jobseeker's Act provides that jobseekers may be sanctioned for refusing or failing to apply for, or refusing or failing to accept a job notified to them by an officer of the Employment Service. Guidance to people in local offices emphasises that any vacancies offered to the jobseeker must be those which they are table to undertake. It would not be in either the jobseeker's or the employer's interests to submit jobseekers to vacancies for which they were unsuitable.
  Jobseekers are told at the time they are made aware of a suitable vacancy that refusal or failure to apply for the job, or subsequent non-acceptance of the job offered, may result in loss of Jobseeker's Allowance. This ensures that the jobseeker can make their decision in the full knowledge of the consequences.
  If the jobseeker subsequently refuses to apply for, or accept, a suitable job the case will be sent to an independent adjudication officer to determine whether the jobseeker had good cause for their refusal. The adjudication officer will examine the suitability of the job offered and the jobseekers reasons for refusal. In addition where the jobseeker refused the vacancy due to any sincerely held religious or conscientious objection this would constitute good cause.
  I hope this is helpful in clarifying the position.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many (i) head teachers, (ii) deputy head teachers and (iii) teachers took early retirement on the grounds of ill health(a) in total and (b) in each local education authority in the financial year 1995–96; and if she will make a statement. [2970]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following table shows the numbers of teachers in service at 31 March 1995 who were awarded ill-health retirement in the financial year 1995–96. The table covers the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector in England.
  631

  Ill-health retirements in financial year 1995–96 (provisional)

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teachers

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  0

  *

  18

  Greenwich

  *

  0

  16

  Hackney

  *

  *

  9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  *

  0

  16

  Islington

  *

  *

  5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  *

  0

  8

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  16

  Lewisham

  *

  0

  10

  Southwark

  *

  0

  13

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  8

  Wandsworth

  0

  *

  11

  Westminster

  *

  *

  7

  Barking and Dagenham

  *

  *

  6

  Barnet

  *

  0

  18

  Bexley

  *

  *

  8

  Brent

  0

  *

  10

  Bromley

  7

  0

  12

  Croydon

  *

  0

  17

  Ealing

  0

  *

  11

  Enfield

  *

  0

  16

  Haringey

  6

  *

  7

  Harrow

  0

  *

  13

  Havering

  *

  *

  17

  Hillingdon

  0

  *

  9

  Hounslow

  *

  *

  20

  Kingston upon Thames

  *

  *

  12

  Merton

  *

  *

  *

  Newham

  0

  0

  11

  Redbridge

  *

  0

  7

  Richmond upon Thames

  *

  0

  8

  Sutton

  0

  *

  13

  Waltham Forest

  *

  *

  16

  Birmingham

  6

  9

  93

  Coventry

  0

  *

  25

  Dudley

  *

  *

  23

  Sandwell

  *

  *

  20

  Solihull

  0

  *

  12

  Walsall

  *

  *

  30

  Wolverhampton

  0

  *

  19

  Knowsley

  *

  0

  12

  Liverpool

  *

  *

  40

  St. Helens

  *

  *

  11

  Sefton

  *

  *

  24

  Wirral

  *

  *

  26

  Bolton

  *

  *

  19

  Bury

  *

  *

  17

  Manchester

  *

  *

  34

  Oldham

  *

  *

  18

  Rochdale

  5

  *

  26

  Salford

  0

  *

  21

  Stockport

  *

  *

  32

  Tameside

  *

  *

  21

  Trafford

  *

  *

  23

  Wigan

  *

  5

  22

  Barnsley

  0

  5

  16

  Doncaster

  *

  *

  24

  Rotherham

  *

  *

  14

  Sheffield

  6

  *

  31

  Bradford

  7

  5

  37

  Calderdale

  *

  *

  20

  Kirklees

  *

  *

  38

  Leeds

  *

  6

  70

  Wakefield

  5

  *

  40

  Gateshead

  *

  *

  26

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  18

  North Tyneside

  *

  *

  9

  South Tyneside

  *

  *

  13

  Sunderland

  *

  *

  32

  Avon

  12

  7

  55

  Bedfordshire

  *

  5

  34

  Berkshire

  *

  *

  54

  Buckinghamshire

  5

  *

  41

  Cambridgeshire

  *

  5

  35

  Cheshire

  12

  7

  72

  Cleveland

  5

  11

  70

  Cornwall

  12

  7

  35

  632

  Ill-health retirements in financial year 1995–96 (provisional)

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teachers

  Cumbria

  5

  9

  33

  Derbyshire

  14

  9

  46

  Devon

  17

  9

  74

  Dorset

  6

  0

  47

  Durham

  6

  11

  82

  East Sussex

  8

  *

  37

  Essex

  9

  14

  107

  Gloucestershire

  5

  *

  32

  Hampshire

  11

  12

  123

  Hereford and Worcester

  12

  8

  58

  Hertfordshire

  *

  *

  71

  Humberside

  5

  13

  85

  Isle of Wight

  *

  0

  15

  Kent

  26

  9

  128

  Lancashire

  24

  19

  167

  Leicestershire

  6

  5

  68

  Lincolnshire

  9

  *

  40

  Norfolk

  16

  11

  57

  North Yorkshire

  7

  5

  37

  Northamptonshire

  6

  5

  67

  Northumberland

  5

  *

  25

  Nottinghamshire

  13

  8

  75

  Oxfordshire

  *

  *

  43

  Shropshire

  7

  *

  27

  Somerset

  15

  6

  48

  Staffordshire

  8

  11

  113

  Suffolk

  8

  *

  49

  Surrey

  7

  5

  50

  Warwickshire

  5

  *

  37

  West Sussex

  8

  *

  25

  Wiltshire

  5

  *

  38

  England

  479

  374

  3,627

  In order to avoid sensitive information about individuals being identified, numbers less than five are shown as asterisks.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she proposes to make regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in respect of the questions procedure. [3499]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We have today laid regulations under section 56 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. These regulations will provide someone, the complainant, who believes he or she may have been discriminated against under the Act's employment provisions with a questionnaire to ask questions of the person believed to have discriminated, the respondent. The regulations also provide for a form with which the respondent can reply. These forms will be included in a booklet together with guidance on how to complete them. The booklet will be available free of charge from jobcentres, citizens advice bureaux and the DDA information line and can be provided in Braille and audio cassette format. The procedure will assist the complainant in deciding whether or not to start proceedings and, if proceedings are started, in formulating and presenting a case in the most effective manner.

  International Labour Conference
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for publishing the White Paper on the instruments adopted at the 82nd session of the International Labour Conference 1995. [3500]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend has today published the White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference" which gives details of the instruments
  633
  adopted at the 82nd session of the International Labour Conference 1995 and sets out the Government's intentions in relation to these new instruments.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992 and are planned for the coming year, in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1903]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has undertaken 23 information technology projects since 1992 and seven are planned for 1996–97. All these projects fall into the cost band £0 to £1,000,000.

  British Museum
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what additional resources she plans to make available to the British museum to compensate for the sum paid by the British library as a contribution to the running costs of the Bloomsbury site. [2805]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have already provided some additional resources to the British museum. In November 1993, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), announced that the Government would provide the British museum with an additional £1 million per annum from 1996–97 onwards, in recognition of the consequences of the departure of the British library from Bloomsbury.

  The Government are considering the museum's case for funding most carefully. Grant in aid allocations will be announced immediately after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what regulations her Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1996; if she proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to determine the advantages or disadvantages of each repeal. [2912]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage does not plan any repeals before the end of 1996. When regulations are identified for repeal, the effect is to reduce rather than increase compliance costs. Therefore, although we seek to identify approximate savings where possible, a compliance cost assessment is not required. Because part of the cost falls on the businesses consulted, a full CCA is not appropriate either for measures designed to reduce business burdens.

HEALTH

  Homelessness
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the primary care projects in England to help homeless people funded by his Department. [1033]
  634
  Mr. Burns
  The Department has funded 35 primary health care projects in England to help homeless people to access the health care services that they need. These projects are listed in the following table. Main funding for the 35 schemes finished by 31 March 1996 but the Department still monitors the schemes and continues to make available non cash-limited funding for general practitioner sessions for 26 projects.

  Primary Health Care Projects

  Projects that no longer receive cash limited funding but continue to receive non-cash limited funding, for GP sessions only:

  Bath

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Cambridge

  Camden and Islington

  City and East London

  Cricklewood

  Durham

  Ealing

  Hereford and Worcester

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kirklees

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Leeds

  Milton Keynes

  Newcastle

  Nottingham

  Oxford

  Peasholme

  Peterborough

  Preston

  Reading

  Sheffield

  Southampton

  Toxteth

  Whitechapel

  Projects that no longer receive cash limited or non-cash limited funding:

  Blackpool

  Brighton

  Bristol

  Croydon

  Fazakerley

  Gloucester

  Hammersmith

  Maidstone

  Morecambe.

  Trust Mergers
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he gave to Wakefield district health authority in relation to the process of public consultation concerning NHS trust mergers; [1822]

  (2) what is the current position in respect of the proposed merger of national health service hospital trusts in the Wakefield district; [1815]
  635
  (3) When the decision was taken to transfer the conduct of the Wakefield NHS trust merger consultation from the project team to the district health authority; and what advice was offered by his Department at that time. [1813]

  Mr. Horam
  Pontefract Hospitals national health service trust and Pinderfields Hospital national health service trust have conducted public consultation on their proposed merger. On 7 October, the NHS executive asked Wakefield health authority to undertake a further period of statutory consultation with Pontefract and District community health council, Wakefield community health council, and staff interests at both the trusts on proposals contained in the document "An Application for National Health Service Trust Status".

  This further period of statutory consultation will end on 17 February 1997.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on the aborted initial consultation process about the merger of NHS trusts in the Wakefield district. [1814]

  Mr. Horam
  All responses to the consultation undertaken by the project team acting for Pontefract Hospitals national health service trust and Pinderfields Hospital national health service trust will be passed to the NHS executive for consideration, together with responses to the further statutory consultation.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the consultants appointed to undertake a review of the role and function of community health councils. [2660]

  Mr. Horam
  Insight management consultants were commissioned by the national health service executive to consider a resource allocation system and performance management framework for community health councils. The cost of this work will be approximately £80,000.

  Medication
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average(a) number of types and (b) quantity of preparations taken by people in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years broken down by (a) gender and (b) age bands of 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [2883]

  Mr. Malone
  No estimate has been made.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce changes in membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the quinquennial review of the authority. [3433]

  Mr. Horam
  I am pleased to announce that the following have been appointed members of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for three years from today:>Dr. Gulum Bahadur, clinical biochemist at the University College and Middlesex school of medicine;
  636
  Dr. Ruth Chambers, general practitioner and senior lecturer at the centre for primary health care, University of Keele; and fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners;
  Professor Christine Gosden, professor of medical genetics, University of Liverpool, at Liverpool women's hospital;
  Professor Stuart Lewis, professor of psychology applied to medicine in the School of Clinical Medicine at Queen's university, Belfast.

  There is one further vacancy and I expect to announce an appointment shortly to bring the number of members up to 21, including the chairman.

  In all, 15 members of the authority completed their terms this year. Ten members have been re-appointed, for terms varying between one and three years in order to avoid a large number of members completing their period of tenure at the same time:

  Term

  Diana Lady Brittan (deputy chairman)

  1 year

  Ms Liz Forgan

  2 years

  Most Reverend Richard Holloway

  1 year

  Professor Martin Johnson

  3 years

  Mr Richard Jones

  2 years 3 months

  Dr. Brian Lieberman

  3 years

  Ms Angela Mays

  1 year

  Ms Anne McLaren

  2 years

  Julia Lady Tugendhat

  3 years

  Mr John Williams

  2 years 3 months

  These appointments were all made in accordance with guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments following the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Nolan report Cm 2850–1, May 1995.

  The members have been selected on the basis of their experience and personal qualities. They have been chosen so as to ensure that the authority is informed by views and experience across a wide range of relevant disciplines.

  I am very grateful to Professor Robert Berry, Ms Joan Harbison, Professor Stephen Hillier, and Ms Penelope Keith who are retiring, having served with the authority since its inception in 1990.

  In common with all executive non-departmental public bodies, the HFEA is subject to a review every five years. The first such review of the HFEA, carried out by Mr. M. G. Lillywhite, has been completed. I have placed a copy of the report to United Kingdom Health Ministers in the Library.

  The review concluded that the case for an independent statutory body in the field of human fertilisation and embryology remains valid and that there is no other body which might perform the function of the HFEA more effectively. Mr. Lillywhite made 12 recommendations, which we have accepted and for which the HFEA has agreed an implementation plan. In particular, the authority's management statement, which I placed in the Library, announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 24 July 1996 at column 524, provides for the production of annual business plans and corporate plan. We shall also be holding the authority to account in future through an annual accountability review.
  637
  We are very grateful to Mr. Lillywhite for his thorough report. I reaffirm my appreciation of the work undertaken by the HFEA in line with its responsibilities under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Alco-pop Drinks
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation he has had with the President of the Board of Trade on the regulation of the advertising of alco-pop drinks to ensure that it is not directed at people aged under 18 years. [1802]

  Mr. Burns
  Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not directly consulted with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on this issue, the Government share the concern that has been expressed about the potential appeal of these drinks to young people. We very much welcome the industry's efforts to self-regulate through the Portman Group's code of practice for the packaging, marketing and sale of such drinks. However, the Government will continue to monitor the industry's response closely. The industry must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the public that it can regulate itself effectively.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out to ascertain whether there is a relationship between under-age drinking and alco-pop drinks. [1801]

  Mr. Burns
  We are aware of several recent surveys which have been reported in the national press. The Health Education Authority will also be publishing before the end of the year some research they have commissioned on young people and alcohol.

  The Department of Health regularly researches teenage drinking behaviour by adding questions to the biennial survey of smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds. Results of the 1996 survey should be available by Easter 1997.

  Alcohol (Young People)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out since 1990 into the relationship between alcohol and depression amongst young people. [1788]

  Mr. Burns
  As our report, "Sensible Drinking", 1995, recognised, only extremely heavy drinking—in excess of 80g—10 units—a day—over long periods of time is likely to cause conditions such as clinical depression. There is no evidence from the most recent survey of adolescent drinking, the Office of Population Censuses and Survey's "Teenage Drinking in 1994", which looked at alcohol consumption of 11 to 15-year-olds, that any of them were drinking alcohol at levels likely to lead in the short term to psychiatric disorders.

  Alcohol-related Illness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many alcohol-related deaths there have been(a) nationally, (b) in the west midlands and (c) in Coventry in each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case; [1781]
  638
  (2) how many young people experienced alcohol-related problems (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands for each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case; [1786]

  (3) what research has been carried out to determine how much alcohol-related illnesses and accidents costs the NHS each year. [1790]

  Mr. Burns
  There is no accepted definition of the term "alcohol-related".

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist general practitioners in detecting and treating patients suffering from alcohol-related illness. [1782]

  Mr. Burns
  We are currently considering what support we might give to purchasers of treatment and care for people with alcohol misuse problems. This would include general practitioners involved in the purchasing and planning of such services. We aim to produce, by next summer, guidance equivalent to the guidance we issued this year to purchasers of services for drug misusers.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase awareness among school children of alcohol-related problems. [1787]

  Mr. Burns
  Later in the year, the Health Education Authority will be launching a campaign targeted at young people with a particular focus on the short term risks of intoxication. This follows up recommendations in our report "Sensible Drinking", 1995. However, the national curriculum already requires that pupils are taught about alcohol, including the effects of misuse on health.

  Alcohol Support Groups
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding alcohol support groups(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands, have received in each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case. [1783]

  Mr. Burns
  This information is not available centrally. Purchasing alcohol services is primarily the responsibility of local authorities in accordance with the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the funding of alcohol support(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands for the coming year. [1784]

  Mr. Burns
  Purchasing alcohol services is primarily the responsibility of local authorities in accordance with the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It is for them to agree funding in the light of local priorities.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money was provided in(a) Holland, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Belgium to alcohol support groups in the most recent year for which statistics are available. [1785]

  Mr. Burns
  Comparable information is not collated centrally.
  639
  All but three of the projects costing over £1,000,000 are projects controlled by the NHS Executive.

  Free Spectacles
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in the last six months regarding the provision of free NHS spectacles for younger children; and what plans he has to improve the availability and range of such spectacles. [2700]

  Mr. Malone
  All children under 16 are entitled to national health service spectacle vouchers which their parents can use to buy a pair of spectacles outright or, alternatively, top-up to buy a more expensive pair. In the last six months I have received representations from two parents who elected to top-up the value of the voucher when buying their children spectacles.

  Finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of "alcohol dependency syndrome" in NHS hospitals in England and West Midlands, 1989–90 to 1994–95

  England

  West Midlands

  Financial year

  Number (thousands)

  Percentage change from previous year

  Number (thousands)

  Percentage change from previous year

  1989–90

  20.7

  —

  2.2

  —

  1990–91

  21.0

  1

  2.2

  -2

  1991–92

  18.4

  -13

  2.2

  1

  1992–93

  19.7

  7

  2.2

  0

  1993–94

  20.1

  2

  2.5

  14

  1994–95

  20.7

  3

  2.5

  -3

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are based on code 303 of the 9th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, alcohol dependency syndrome.

  3. Figures refer to area of treatment.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many under-18s have received treatment for alcohol dependency(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change in each year. [1803]

  Mr. Burns
  The information available is given in the table.

  Finished consultant episodes amongst under-18s with a primary diagnosis of "alcohol dependency syndrome" in NHS hospitals in England and West Midlands, 1989–90 to 1994–95

  Financial year

  England

  West Midlands

  1989–90

  53

  10

  1990–91

  80

  5

  1991–92

  50

  8

  1992–93

  82

  3

  1993–94

  74

  4

  1994–95

  98

  2

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on code 303 of the 9th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, alcohol dependency syndrome.

  2. Figures refer to area of treatment.

  3. The numbers involved are small and year-on-year percentage changes have not been shown, because they are not considered to be meaningful.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

  Alcohol Abuse and Unemployment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the relationship between unemployment and alcohol abuse. [1810]

  Mr. Burns
  None.

  Alcohol Dependency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have received treatment for alcohol dependency(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change in each year. [1800]

  Mr. Burns
  The information available is given in the table.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992, and are planned for the coming year, arranged in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1906]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of information technology projects undertaken since 1992 by the Department is:

  Number

  £0 to £1,000,000

  184

  £1,000,000 to £2,000,000

  7

  £2,000,000 to £3,000,000

  2

  £3,000,000 to £4,000,000

  2

  £4,000,000 to £5,000,000

  3

  £6,000,000 to £7,000,000

  1

  £8,000,000 to £9,000,000

  1

  £10,000,000 to £11,000,000

  1

  £11,000,000 to £12,000,000

  1

  £16,000,000 to £17,000,000

  2

  £19,000,000 to £20,000,000

  1

  £29,000,000 to £30,000,000

  1

  The number of new projects planned for the coming year is:

  Number

  £0 to £1,000,000

  33

  All but three of the projects costing over £1 million are projects controlled by the NHS management executive.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to issue free needles to diabetics; [2180]

  (2) what is the cost to the NHS of providing a free needle for use by a diabetic; [2176]

  (3) what criteria are used to determine those diabetics who are entitled to receive free needles. [2177]

  Mr. Malone
  People with diabetes mellitis who need to inject insulin can get free national health service prescriptions from their general practitioner. NHS prescriptions can currently be written both for glass insulin syringes and for the separate needles which fit them; also for disposable insulin syringes with attached needles. The cost to the NHS of a needle for the glass syringe which is intended for multiple use is 28p, and of a needle intended for single use is 2.2p. The cost of a disposable syringe with attached needle varies between 11.5p and 11.9p, depending on the size of the syringe.

  We are considering the case for making the needles to fit insulin injection pens available on GP prescription under the NHS.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many diabetics there are(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; how many there were in each year since 1990; how many require injections of insulin; and if he will express the figures to show the percentage change on the previous year; [2173]

  (2) what was the cost to the NHS of treating diabetic patients in each year since 1990 (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; and if he will express the figures (i) in real terms and (ii) to show the percentage change on the previous year; [2174]

  (3) what percentage of diabetics received free needles in each year since 1990 (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; and if he will express the figures to show the percentage change on the previous year. [2175]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  On-duty Car Signs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the provision of on-duty car signs to non-GP health professionals in the NHS; what plans he has to widen the provisions of such signs; and if he will make a statement. [2701]

  Mr. Horam
  I have received a limited amount of correspondence on this subject. It is for NHS trusts to develop workable resolutions to meet any local need, for example through dialogue with the police and local authority.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to give additional financial assistance to health authorities in respect of their responsibility for mentally disordered offenders. [2702]
  642
  Mr. Burns
  We recognise that mentally disordered offenders have specialised and complex needs, and that in certain areas there is greater pressure on mental health services to provide for their care and treatment. Current funding of mental health services already recognises, through the capitation formulae, the needs of this group of patients within the spectrum of care and allows individual health authorities to set their priorities for mental health expenditure based on the assessed needs of their local population.

TREASURY

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he last reviewed the way in which unemployment statistics are calculated; and if he will publish papers submitted to that review, together with its conclusions, in the Library; [831]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the unemployed claimant count as a measure of the scale of unemployment; [829]

  (3) what plans he has to undertake a new survey measure of unemployment to supplement the claimant count; and if he will make a statement. [830]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: I refer to the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on 24 October to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), Official Report, columns 5–6.

  In August 1995, the director of the Office for National Statistics commissioned a technical study from Dr. David Steel, senior lecturer in the department of applied statistics at the university of Wollongong, Australia. This study looked into options for producing monthly statistics from a labour force survey including unemployment figures based on the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. Following public consultation on the results of this study, the director of the ONS has decided that there is insufficient demand to justify the monthly publication of LFS data within the agency's budget. I respect that decision.

  A report on the consultation exercise will be given in the November 1996 edition of "Labour Market Trends." The latter will be published on 7 November and a copy will be held in the Library. A full set of the responses received during consultation will be available from ONS on application.

  The former Select Committee on Employment investigated the validity of the current measures of unemployment in the course of its 1995–96 Session. The Government's response was sent to the successor committee, the Education and Employment Select Committee on 24 October. I understand that the latter will be placed in the Library by the Committee in due course. In his evidence to that Committee, the director of the ONS made it clear that he was satisfied that the claimant count is an accurate measure of those people claiming unemployment-related benefits and that it is particularly useful as a short-term indicator of turning points in the labour market.
  643
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people, by region and gender, are undertaking(a) youth training and (b) training for work; and how many people, in each case, appear in the unemployed claimant count statistics. [1144]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the number of people undertaking Youth Training and Training for Work and whether they are included in the claimant unemployment statistics.
  The table below gives the latest readily available official figures. The figures relate to training starts and have been compiled from information provided by the Department for Education and Employment and the Scottish Office. It should be noted that a person can start on the same programme more than once - such cases will be counted in the figures as separate starts.
  More highly summarised information giving totals for England & Wales and for Scotland is published in the ONS monthly Labour Market Statistics First Release. The latter is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Training starts for financial year 1995–96 by gender and region (000s)

  Youth training

  Training for work

  Government office region

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  South East

  16.5

  15.3

  12.5

  6.2

  London

  14.5

  12.6

  19.3

  12.4

  Eastern

  12.1

  10.2

  10.5

  5.2

  South West

  12.8

  10.5

  13.4

  5.4

  West Midlands

  13.9

  12.9

  17.3

  7.6

  East Midlands

  13.1

  12

  11.9

  4.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  16

  14

  19.2

  7.3

  Merseyside

  6.7

  6.0

  10.7

  4.2

  North West

  19.1

  16.1

  17.3

  7.5

  North East

  10.4

  8.9

  14.5

  5.1

  England

  135.1

  118.5

  146.7

  65.7

  Wales

  9.6

  7.8

  8.5

  3.6

  Scotland

  23.2

  14.5

  23.8

  5.7

  Participants on long-term work-related Government supported training programmes, such as Youth Training and Training for Work, are not included in the claimant count or in the ILO measure of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey and never have been. People on these schemes are either contributing directly to the production of goods and services, or are receiving training in the work place. Accordingly, they are treated as employed, which is consistent with the guidelines of the International Labour Office on the treatment of trainees.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the proportion of employed men in full-time work for each year since 1979. [1668]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 5 November 1996]: The information falls within the responsibility of the chief
  644
  executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Hain, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the proportion of men in full-time work since 1979.
  Information on the number of men in full-time employment is available only on a consistent annual basis from Spring 1984 and is published in Labour Force Survey Historical Supplement 1984–1996. Information showing the total number of men in employment is published in Table 1b and information showing the number of men in full-time employment in Table 2a. A copy of the publication is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what preparations his Department has made for granting operational independence to the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement. [803]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: No such preparations have been made.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the total United Kingdom population lives in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [2131]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. William Powell, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the proportion of the total United Kingdom population who live in England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  The figures requested are shown below. They are for the mid-year 1995 and are the most recent available. The latest estimates are regularly published in Table 6 of the ONS Population Trends quarterly journal.

  Resident population estimates mid-1995

  Country

  Thousands

  Percentage

  England

  48,930.4

  83.4

  Wales

  2,916.8

  5.0

  Scotland

  5,136.6

  8.8

  Northern Ireland

  1,649.0

  2.8

  United Kingdom

  58,605.8

  100.0

  Taxation
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total United Kingdom tax is raised in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [2127]
  645
  Mr. Jack
  Information on total tax revenue by country is not available. Information on income tax is available by region in "Inland Revenue Statistics", published by the Inland Revenue statistics and economics office. Figures for 1994–95, the latest year available, are in the table.

  Proportion of total UK income tax by country

  As a percentage of total

  England

  86.5

  Scotland

  8.0

  Wales

  3.5

  Northern Ireland

  2.0

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay his decisions(a) to allow taxpayers three years to reclaim wrongly paid VAT and (b) to allow Customs and Excise to reclaim errors for six years. [2578]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government have become increasingly concerned at the large amounts of revenue at risk in taxation boundary disputes and it is not in the public interest that the Exchequer remains open to large retrospective claims, in some cases back to the introduction of VAT in 1973. The proposed three-year limit will introduce more certainty and achieves a reasonable balance between the rights of individual taxpayers and taxpayers at large. It is proportionate in effect because, at the time the transactions in question took place, both businesses and their customers will normally have worked on the assumption that tax was due.

  There are no proposals to change the six-year limit Customs currently has under its powers to assess for underpaid VAT. A six-year period for assessment is necessary to recover tax underpaid through one-sided error or carelessness and to deter non-compliance with the rules by business.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has taken in respect of the new rules on the limitation of VAT claims announced on 18 July; and if he will make a statement; [2680]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the European Commission concerning the legality of the Government's recently announced changes to the rules for reclaiming VAT; and if he will make a statement. [2682]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: Following the announcement on 18 July by the then Paymaster General that, subject to parliamentary approval as part of the Budget process, a three-year time limit on refunds of overpaid VAT, and other indirect taxes, was to be introduced immediately, Customs and Excise has deferred payments of refunds which are more than three years old.

  Customs and Excise officials recently met representatives of the European Commission to discuss the proposals for limiting refunds of overpaid VAT and other indirect taxes. The Commission noted the United Kingdom's position.
  646
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total amount due for repayment in respect of VAT incorrectly paid to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise with respect to company cars on the basis of(a) a three-year limit on reclaims, (b) a six-year limit on reclaims and (c) payment made only in respect of claims already made; and if he will make a statement. [2681]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: The High Court found in the appeals of Royscot Leasing Ltd. and Royscot Industrial Leasing Ltd., Allied Domecq plc and T. C. Harrison Group Ltd. that the relevant UK law restricting VAT input tax recovery on company cars is permitted by the EC sixth VAT directive, contrary to the appellants' contentions. No VAT has therefore been incorrectly paid to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise with respect to company cars.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women, and what percentage of the female population, were diagnosed with breast cancer in each of the last six years. [1295]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 5 November 1996]: The information falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question asking how many women, and what percentage of the female population, were diagnosed with breast cancer in each of the last six years.
  The information for England for the latest six years for which data are available is given in the table below.

  Year

  Number

  Percentage

  1988

  24,975

  0.11

  1989

  25,838

  0.11

  1990

  26,994

  0.11

  1991

  28,032

  0.11

  1992

  28,324

  0.11

  1993

  27,502

  0.11

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women in the west midlands were diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995. [1241]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 5 November 1996]: The information falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question asking how many women in the West Midlands were diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995.
  The provisional number of registrations of breast cancer in the West Midlands in 1993 (the latest year for which data are currently available) is 3,199.

  Financial Advisers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the proposal by the Personal Investment Authority to abolish the requirement for financial advisers to disclose(a) whether they are tied or independent and (b) to what extent they are paid by commission. [2630]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  No representations have been received.

  Endowment Mortgages
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since 1 January 1995, regarding alleged mis-selling of endowment mortgages; what(a) investigations and (b) studies he has commissioned on the subject; and what discussions he has had on this issue with the Securities and Investments Board. [2631]

  Mrs Angela Knight
  The Treasury has on a number of occasions received representations about concerns that mortgage advice may be unduly influenced by the commissions available, including suggestion from the Consumers Association for further regulation. New disclosure rules introduced in January 1995 have the effect that commissions on endowment policies must be disclosed to potential clients. The Treasury has not commissioned any investigations or studies on the subject. Discussions with the Securities and Investments Board take place from time to time at ministerial and official level on all issues of regulatory concern.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current total of asylum seekers being held in custody. [920]

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 1 October 1996, a total of 864 persons who had sought asylum at some stage were detained.

  Arrest Procedures
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet his European counterparts to discuss arrest procedures in the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [928]

  Mr. Howard
  I meet regularly with my counterparts in the European Union and discuss a range of justice and home affairs issues. We have not discussed arrest procedures but my hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the memorandum of understanding agreed last week between Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the United Road Transport Union which is aimed at minimising the risks run by lorry drivers who ferry sealed loads across international borders.

  Police Forces (Guns)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue new guidelines to police forces on the use of guns. [930]
  648
  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do this.

  Prisoners (Terrorist Offences)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners convicted of terrorist offences have been(a) released from prison in the United Kingdom, (b) transferred to prisons in Northern Ireland and (c) repatriated to the Republic of Ireland to complete sentences, since August 1994. [931]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since 1 September 1994, three prisoners convicted of Irish terrorist-related offences have been released from prisons in England and Wales: 16 have been transferred from England and Wales to prisons in Northern Ireland either on a permanent or temporary basis, and two prisoners have been repatriated to the Republic of Ireland to complete their sentences.

  Voting (Homeless People)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with homeless organisations to enable homeless people to vote. [934]

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials met representatives of various organisations working with the homeless as part of the review of electoral law and practice which the Government set up after the last general election.

  Victim Support Services
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the development of victim support services in England and Wales. [935]

  Mr. Maclean
  The new victim's charter, published in June 1996, establishes the continuing commitment of all the criminal justice agencies to improve their services to victims of crime. For example, last year the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board paid out £180 million to victims, making it by far the most generous such scheme anywhere in the world. And the Home Office grant to Victim Support since 1990–91 alone has risen 147 per cent. from £4,735 million to £11,682 million. This has enabled Victim Support to achieve nationwide coverage by establishing 365 local schemes and branches to support the victims of crime throughout England and Wales and to establish a witness support service at all 77 Crown court centres in the country. Victim Support's paid staff of over 800 and its 12,000 volunteers offer support to over one and a quarter million victims of crime a year.

  Prison Ombudsman
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent annual report by the prisons ombudsman. [936]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The prisons ombudsman's annual report for 1995 was laid before Parliament on 23 October. It describes the important contribution which the prisons ombudsman has made in investigating complaints about the Prison Service.

  Child Care Workers (Vetting)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the system of vetting those working with children. [939]

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the system of vetting those working with children. [940]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Police Bill makes provision for criminal record checks giving details of convictions and cautions recorded centrally to be available for all who have regular contact with children whether as employees, trainees or volunteers. Where access is both regular and unsupervised, additional information will be provided from local police records including details of convictions for minor offences and relevant non-conviction information.

  Hand Guns
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many .22 repeating hand guns are legally held in the United Kingdom. [941]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Exact figures are not available centrally. The total number of .22 handguns, both repeating and single shot, which are legally held by private individuals on firearm certificate in Great Britain is in the order of 40,000 and others are legally owned by firearms dealers.

  Knives (Advertising)
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ban the advertising of knives in ways which appear to incite or condone violence. [942]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is already an offence for a person to incite another to commit an offence. The content of advertisements is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority under a code of advertising practice which states that advertisements should not contain anything which might condone or encourage violent or anti-social behaviour.

  Open Prisons
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on open prisons. [943]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Open prisons are a valuable part of the prison estate. They provide low security places at relatively low cost for prisoners who have been assessed as presenting minimal risk to the public. Open prison regimes are based on a full working week and provide an important means of preparing prisoners for their return to society.

  Probation and After-care Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the future of the probation and after-care service. [938]
  650
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the three-year plan for the probation service 1996–99 which has been placed in the Library, and which sets out my priorities and expectations for the work of area probation services.

  Firearms Offences
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last five years the number of offences involving firearms indicating whether the weapons were(a) legally or (b) illegally held. [1665]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: Information as to whether the firearms used in notifiable offences recorded by the police are legally held is not at present collected centrally in England and Wales.

  However, a special exercise has recently been conducted to find out whether the guns used in offences of homicide were licensed or not.

  This covered the years 1992 to 1994, and out of a total of 196 homicides, information was available in 152 cases to show that 22 cases—14 per cent.—involved the use of a firearm legally held by the suspect.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 17 October on sale of drugs by Nottingham bouncers. [403]

  Mr. Maclean
  A reply will be sent shortly.

  Detainees (Birmingham Prison)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers in(a) July, (b) August and (c) September; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [1039]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of people detained in Birmingham prison, under Immigration Act powers, in July, August and September; and what were the nationalities of those detained.

  651
  The requested information is given in the attached table.

  Population of Immigration Act detainees1 in Birmingham prison on 31 July, 31 August and 30 September 1996 by nationality2

  Nationality

  Number

  31 July 1996

  Algeria

  3

  China

  2

  India

  20

  Jamaica

  3

  Nigeria

  3

  Pakistan

  2

  Others

  6

  Total

  39

  31 August 1996

  Algeria

  4

  India

  12

  Morocco

  2

  Nigeria

  2

  Pakistan

  3

  Others

  7

  Total

  30

  30 September 1996

  Algeria

  3

  India

  11

  Israel

  4

  Nigeria

  4

  Pakistan

  3

  Others

  5

  Total

  30

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Nationalities with only one prisoner are included in "other".

  Young Offenders Institute, Colchester
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the first offenders to be admitted to the new young offenders institute at Colchester. [1481]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I expect the first young offenders to be admitted to Colchester young offender institution as soon as the outstanding issues are resolved.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles aged 15 and 16 years have been remanded(a) in adult prisons and (b) in total in each of the last five years; and what has been the average period of their detention. [2314]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of juveniles aged 15 and 16 years who have been remanded (a) in adult prisons and (b) in total in each of the last five years; and what has been the average period of their detention.
  The information on the number of remand receptions for untried juvenile prisoners is given in the attached tables, along with the estimated average periods in custody for all juvenile untried prisoners.
  652
  Information on the average period spent by juveniles in adult prisons is not separately available.

  Receptions of 15 and 16 year old untried prisoners into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, 1991–95

  Age

  Year

  15

  16

  Adult prisons

  1991

  43

  91

  1992

  7

  16

  1993

  2

  16

  1994

  36

  53

  1995

  8O

  136

  All establishments

  1991

  384

  684

  1992

  354

  666

  1993

  429

  840

  1994

  613

  1,044

  1995

  604

  1,182

  Average time held in custody for untried prisoners aged under 17 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, 1991–1995

  Year

  Untried

  1991

  16

  1992

  19

  1993

  25

  1994

  32

  1995

  28

  The average days in custody are estimated from the population held on 30 June each year and the total number of initial receptions in the year. The estimate is subject to some uncertainty due to the small numbers held.

  Project Quantum
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultation has taken place with representatives of administrative, secretarial and executive staff in the Prison Service about Project Quantum; [2119]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on Prison Service jobs of the implementation of Project Quantum; [2120]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of Project Quantum on the maintenance and improvement of standards of security and control in the Prison Service. [2122]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Lynne Jones, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the Quantum Project. You asked what assessment has been made of the effects on Prison Service jobs and on the maintenance and improvement of standards of security and control and what consultation has taken place with representatives of administrative, secretarial and executive staff.
  An assessment of the effect on Prison Service jobs of the implementation of Quantum is not possible at present as the final scope of the project has yet to be decided. That decision is likely to be made following a study by suppliers during the second quarter of 1997.

  653
  As a minimum, Project Quantum suppliers will be expected to meet the Prison Service key performance indicators for standards of security and control. They will also be encouraged to improve upon them.
  During the month of September. 40 consultation sessions took place with representatives from administrative, secretarial, and executive staff in the Prison Service. These will continue throughout the term of the Quantum project. Consultation meetings have also been held with the trades unions.

  Prison Service (Redundancies)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the implementation of redundancies in the Prison Service. [2121]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about policy on the implementation of redundancies in the Prison Service.
  As an Executive Agency of the Home Office, the Prison Service must follow Home Office-wide procedures. Redundancy cannot be considered unless posts are being lost, work reduced or changed significantly. It would not be right to use public money for redundancy unless the right conditions existed.
  Before a redundancy scheme is introduced, a 90 day period of consultation with the Prison Service Trade Unions is instigated. Good communications with staff and Trade Unions is considered fundamental to the success of a redundancy programme, and staff are kept informed throughout the exercise using the normal channels of communication.
  The current redundancy scheme, the Voluntary Early Retirement and Severance scheme (VERSE), was introduced o meet the budget cuts that the Service is required to achieve. Under VERSE the aim is to achieve the required post reductions through voluntary redundancies.
  Almost 4000 applications have been received for voluntary early retirement and severance and it is expected that around 1300 staff will be able to leave under VERSE.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce new measures to combat child prostitution. [2580]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so. We believe that the present law is adequate to deter and punish those who exploit child prostitutes. We will continue to encourage all the agencies concerned to give a high priority to action to prevent the sexual exploitation of children and young people.

  Burglary Statistics
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been burgled on more than three occasions since 1990. [2446]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not available to answer the question as posed.

  The British crime survey, which is conducted by the Home Office, provides information on the extent of repeat burglary victimisation:
  654

  (a) During 1995, 0.2 per cent. of households in England and Wales had an actual or attempted burglary on more than three occasions.

  (b) In the five years 1991 to 1995 inclusive, 7.2 per cent. of households in England and Wales had an actual or attempted burglary two or more times.

  Warrington Bombing
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reviewing the conviction of John Kinsella and in obtaining a statement from Padraic MacFloinn in relation to Kinsella's knowledge about the Warrington bombing. [1092]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We expect to receive very shortly from the police a report into certain matters raised in the representations made on Mr. Kinsella's behalf. This will include a statement which, I understand, was taken last week from Mr. MacFhloinn. As soon as that material has been received, we shall consider in the context of the evidence as a whole, whether grounds have emerged on which it would be right to refer Mr. Kinsella's conviction to the Court of Appeal.

  Philip Lawrence
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his proposals for an award to commemorate the life and work of Philip Lawrence. [1094]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Philip Lawrence memorial will recognise outstanding achievements of good citizenship by young people. Details about the award will be announced as soon as possible.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the relationship between alcohol abuse and domestic violence. [1806]

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1996 British crime survey found that 32 per cent. of assailants in cases of domestic violence were said by their victims to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the assault. Home Office research study 107, "Domestic Violence", considered the interaction between alcohol abuse and domestic violence, with a review of the available literature. The research evidence suggests that excessive alcohol consumption is not a cause of domestic violence but a condition that co-exists with it.

  Alcohol-related Offences
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many alcohol-related juvenile offences were committed(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change in each year; [1808]

  (2) what was the cost of alcohol-related crimes (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change in each year; [1807]
  655
  (3) how many offences of under-age drinking were recorded (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change in each year; [1809]

  (4) how many recorded offences of under-age drinking were recorded (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands in each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change from the previous year. [1789]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alcohol-related crimes and violent crimes were committed(a) nationally, (b) in the west midlands and (c) in Coventry in each year since 1990; and what was the percentage change in each year. [1805]

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures available on violent crime for the west midlands and nationally are given in the table. Figures for Coventry, and those for alcohol-related crimes generally, are not collected centrally.

  Offences of violent crime (violences against the person, sexual offences and robbery) recorded by the police

  Year

  West Midlands

  England and Wales

  Offences

  Percentage change

  Offences

  Percentage change

  1990

  14,861

  —

  249,904

  —

  1991

  16,288

  +10

  265,085

  +6

  1992

  18,228

  +12

  284,199

  +7

  1993

  18,462

  +1

  294,231

  +4

  1994

  18,789

  +2

  310,332

  +5

  1995

  17,738

  -6

  310,936

  0

  Table A: Number of females sentenced to immediate custody, probation and community service in the West Midlands police force area and England and Wales for all offences 1990–19951

  Number sentenced

  Area/Disposal

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  West Midlands

  Immediate custody2

  127

  100

  114

  127

  136

  164

  Probation3

  647

  525

  473

  458

  599

  577

  Community service4

  138

  102

  125

  144

  220

  235

  England and Wales

  Immediate custody2

  2,216

  2,354

  2,328

  2,520

  3,149

  3,768

  Probation3

  9,606

  8,709

  7,873

  7,665

  9,646

  9,839

  Community service4

  2,108

  2,210

  2,569

  3,532

  4,340

  4,739

  Percentage change

  Area/Disposal

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  West Midlands

  Immediate custody2

  -21

  +14

  +11

  +7

  +21

  Probation3

  -19

  -10

  -3

  +31

  -4

  Community service4

  -26

  +23

  +15

  +53

  -7

  England and Wales

  Immediate custody2

  +6

  -1

  +8

  +25

  +20

  Probation3

  -9

  -10

  -3

  +26

  +2

  Community service4

  +5

  +16

  +37

  +23

  +9

  1 Provisional.

  2 Includes detention in a young offender institution, unsuspended imprisonment and partly suspended imprisonment (before 1 October 1992).

  3 Includes probation and supervision orders.

  4 Includes community service orders and combination orders (from 1 October 1992).

  1. Although there is a known shortfall, in 1995, for the total number sentenced, this did not affect those sentenced to immediate custody, probation or community service.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992, and are planned for the coming year, arranged in cost bands of £1,000,000 [1896]

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

  Offenders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women(a) have been sent to prison, (b) have been placed on probation and (c) have been ordered to carry out community service (i) nationally and (ii) in the west midlands for each year since 1990; and if he will list the figures as the annual percentage change; [2178]

  (2) how many juvenile offenders (a) received custodial sentences and (b) were placed on probation (i) nationally and (ii) in the west midlands for each year since 1990; and if he will express the figures to show the percentage change on the previous year; [2171]

  (3) how many offenders have been (a) placed on probation, (b) received custodial sentences and (c) were ordered to carry out community service (i) nationally and (ii) in the west midlands for each year since 1990; and if he will express the figures (1) in real terms and (2) to show the percentage change on the previous year. [2168]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1990 to 1995, which is provisional, is given in the tables.
  657

  Table B: Number of persons aged 10 to under 18 sentenced to immediate custody, probation and community service in the West Midlands police force area and England and Wales for all offences 1990–19951

  Number sentenced

  Area/Disposal

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19951

  West Midlands

  Immediate custody2

  438

  349

  337

  339

  336

  431

  Probation3

  758

  725

  694

  725

  903

  974

  England and Wales

  Immediate custody2

  4,495

  4,390

  4,003

  3,884

  4,316

  5,063

  Probation3

  11,092

  10,471

  9,133

  9,110

  11,145

  12,298

  Percentage change

  Area/Disposal

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  West Midlands

  Immediate custody2

  -20

  -3

  +1

  -1

  +28

  Probation3

  -4

  -4

  +4

  +25

  +8

  England and Wales

  Immediate custody2

  -2

  -9

  -3

  +11

  +17

  Probation3

  -6

  -13

  -0

  +22

  +10

  1 Provisional.

  2 Detention in young offender institution.

  3Includes probation and supervision Orders.

  Number of offenders sentenced to immediate custody, probation and community service in the West Midlands police force area and England and Wales for all offences 1990–19951

  Number sentenced

  Area/Disposal

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19951

  West Midlands

  Immediate custody2

  4,401

  3,994

  3,898

  3,779

  4,328

  4,791

  Probation3

  3,453

  3,434

  3,115

  3,561

  3,887

  3,709

  Community service4

  2,459

  2,471

  2,725

  3,378

  3,642

  3,764

  England and Wales

  Immediate custody2

  57,613

  61,249

  57,988

  58,399

  69,185

  79,137

  Probation3

  54,354

  53767

  49,881

  51,099

  59,725

  59,541

  Community service4

  38,597

  42,495

  45,381

  56,901

  61,868

  62,896

  Percentage change

  Area/disposal

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  West Midlands

  Immediate custody2

  -9

  -2

  -3

  +15

  +11

  Probation3

  -1

  -9

  +14

  +9

  -5

  Community service4

  -0

  +10

  +23

  +8

  +3

  England and Wales

  Immediate custody2

  +6

  -5

  +1

  +18

  +14

  Probation3

  -1

  -7

  +2

  +17

  +0

  Community service4

  +10

  +7

  +25

  +9

  +2

  1 Provisional.

  2 Includes detention in a young offender institution, unsuspended imprisonment and partly suspended imprisonment (before 1 October 1992).

  3 Includes probation and supervision orders.

  4 Includes community service orders and combination orders (from 1 October 1992).

  Although there is a known shortfall, in 1995, for the total number sentenced, this did not affect those sentenced to immediate custody, probation or community service.

  658 659
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juvenile offenders there were(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands for each year since 1990; and if he will express the figures to show the percentage change on the previous year; [2170]

  Table A: Number of persons aged 10 to under 18 found guilty or cautioned for all offences in the West Midlands police force area and England and Wales 1990 to 19951

  Number found guilty or cautioned

  Area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19951

  West Midlands

  13,409

  12,916

  13,004

  11,464

  12,149

  10,990

  England and Wales

  211,512

  196,415

  196,923

  176,938

  186,716

  188,425

  Percentage change

  Area

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  West Midlands

  -4

  +1

  -12

  +6

  -10

  England and Wales

  -7

  +0

  -10

  +6

  +1

  1 Provisional.

  Table B: Number of females found guilty for all offences in the West Midlands police force area and England and Wales 1990 to 19951

  Number found guilty

  Area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19951

  West Midlands

  12,998

  12,912

  14,977

  14,308

  16,270

  12,0891

  England and Wales

  229,356

  235,988

  258,990

  251,062

  251,046

  217,9832

  Percentage change

  Area

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  West Midlands

  -1

  +16

  -4

  +14

  -262

  England and Wales

  +3

  +10

  -3

  -0

  -132

  1 Provisional.

  2 In 1995 there is a known shortfall for the total number of female offenders convicted (estimated at 39,800 for England and Wales).

  Paedophile Crime
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has taken to reduce the incidence of paedophile crimes; and if he will make a statement. [925]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government are determined to do all they can to deter people from sexually abusing children, and to detect and punish severely those who do. To this end, we have already enacted the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996; and we have recently announced a number of other legislative proposals which I hope will have the support of the whole House.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total prison population(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands for each year since 1990; and if he will list the figures as an annual percentage change. [2179]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  660
  (2) how many women were convicted of crimes (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands for each year since 1990; and if he will express the figures to show the percentage change on the previous year. [2169]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1990 to 1995, which is provisional, is given in the tables.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me in the absence of the Director General from the Office, to reply to your recent Question asking, what is the total prison population (a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands for each year since 1990; and if he will list the figures as an annual percentage change.
  Information on the average prison population in England and Wales and for Birmingham prison is given in the attached table. Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland is available from the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

  Average prison population1 England and Wales and Birmingham prison, 1990–1996

  Date

  Average prison population in England and Wales

  Annual percentage change

  Average population in Birmingham prison

  Annual percentage change

  1990

  45,636

  —

  974

  —

  1991

  45,897

  +0.6

  968

  -0.6

  1992

  45,817

  -0.2

  915

  -5.5

  1993

  44,566

  -2.7

  803

  -12.2

  1994

  48,794

  +9.5

  767

  -4.5

  1995

  51,047

  +4.6

  862

  +12.4

  1 Includes prisoners held in police cells. This information is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales". Cm 3355.

  Prison Sentencing Policy
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the prison sentencing policy; and if he will make a statement. [929]

  Mr. Maclean
  I receive many representations about all aspects of sentencing policy.

  Crossbows Act 1987
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions and convictions there were under the Crossbows Act 1987 between 1990 and the last year for which figures are available. [2804]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested cannot be identified separately from other summary offences.

  Firearms
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 November Official Report, column 432, on the use of firearms in notifiable offences, how many and what proportion of firearms used in the homicides for which information is available were of categories (a) to be banned and (b) not to be banned in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. [2966]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Of the 155 homicides involving firearms in England and Wales committed during the period 1992 to 1994 where the calibre of the weapon was known, 64, 41 per cent., involved handguns of a calibre exceeding .22 inches, the calibre to be prohibited by the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.

  Of the remainder, 91, 59 per cent., involved firearms that will not be prohibited.

  Child Sex Tourism
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to tackle the problem of child sex tourism. [932]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996, which came into force on 1 October, makes it an offence in the United Kingdom to conspire or incite others to commit sexual offences against children in other countries.

  I announced in the summer, in the light of a general review of extra-territorial jurisdiction, that the Government had decided that United Kingdom courts should be given jurisdiction over acts of child abuse committed abroad by Britons or British residents.

  Provisions to this effect will be included in the Government's proposed Bill on the registration of sex offenders.

  Motorists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of motorists stopped by the police for exceeding the 30 mph speed limit were subsequently charged with an offence in each of the last five years. [2059]
  662
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: The information is not collected in the form requested.

  During 1995, 689,100 speeding offences were dealt with by official police action. The Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Motoring Offences, England and Wales 1995" issued on 29 October 1996 gives further details on the type of action taken, and penalties received for offences of speeding. Copies are available in the Library.

  Prisoners (Visitors)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what financial assistance is available for visits to prisoners by their immediate relatives, in respect of (i) travel, (ii) accommodation, subsistence and (iv) other costs; and if he will give the rates for that assistance where the prison is situated in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Scotland; [1773]

  (2) what financial assistance is available for visits to prisoners by their immediate relatives in respect of (i) travel, (ii) accommodation, (iii) subsistence and other costs; and if he will give the rates for that assistance where the prison is situated in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) England or Wales. [1778]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me in the absence of the Director General from the office to reply to your recent Questions about financial assistance for visits to prisoners by their immediate relatives.
  For relatives who qualify under the assisted prison visit scheme and who reside in England, Scotland or Wales and visit prisons in those countries, or Northern Ireland, the full cost of travel by public transport or community bus (if no more expensive than public transport) is reimbursed. For claimants who travel by car, the journey is paid at 10 pence per mile.
  Where an overnight stay is deemed necessary a contribution is made towards the cost. For prisons in the London area the rate per night is £21 for adults and £11.30 for children between the ages of three and fourteen. For all areas outside London the rates are £15 and £7.50 respectively. All applicants and their children aged over three years receive a contribution of £2.55 towards the cost of food when the total time away from home is between five and ten hours. The rate for over ten hours away from home is £5.10.
  Other unavoidable expenses such as taxi fares to remote prisons where there is no public transport, toll fees and childminding fees are met.
  The Northern Ireland Office is responsible for administering payment to residents of Northern Ireland who visit any prison in the United Kingdom.

DEFENCE

  Army Vehicle Depot
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what use of the private finance initiative is being made in the development of the new Army vehicle depot at Ashchurch; [2220]

  (2) what will be the cost of the move of the Army vehicle depot to Ashchurch; [2223]
  663
  (3) what (a) technical facilities and (b) specialist management is available at the Army vehicle depot at Ashchurch to deal with vehicles previously maintained at Ludgershall; [2242]

  (4) when he expects the Army vehicle depot at Ludgershall to close; [2225]

  (5) what plans he has to prevent traffic disruption as a result of the movement of Army vehicles from Ashchurch to Salisbury plain for training purposes; [2222]

  (6) how many civilian technicians qualified to maintain the armaments of armoured vehicles are employed in the Army vehicle depot at Ashchurch; [2221]

  (7) how many employees have agreed to move from the Army vehicle depot at Ludgershall to Ashchurch. [2217]

  Mr. Soames
  These are matters for the chief executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier K. J. W. Goad to Mr. Paul Murphy, dated 7 November 1996:
  I am replying to the recent questions you tabled to the Secretary of State for Defence as these matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Supply and Distribution Agency. For ease of reply I have combined my comments to your questions, in the order you posed them, within this one letter.
  First, you asked about the use being made of the PFI in the development of the new Army vehicle deport at Ashchurch.
  The Base Vehicle Depot (BVD) at Ashchurch has been an Army depot since 1939. As part of the Defence Cost Studies, Army vehicle storage is being rationalised on a single site at Ashchurch. The operation of the vehicle storage facility at Ashchurch is currently being subject to competition with Industry under the CFQ initiative. The necessary refurbishment of the site will be subjected to PFI.
  Secondly, you asked about the cost of the move of the Army vehicle deport to Ashchurch.
  A recent review of the Investment Appraisal which supported the move from two vehicle depots to one confirmed significant savings in public expenditure. The cost to date of moving the vehicles previously stored at BVD Ludgershall to Ashchurch, which included ancillary equipment, is approximately £200,000. Twenty one vehicles only await transportation at BVD Ludgershall which will incur minimal additional cost.
  Thirdly, you asked what technical facilities and specialist management are available at the Army Vehicle Depot at Ashchurch to deal with vehicles previously maintained at Ludgershall.
  The specific facilities for 'A' vehicles to be offered by Vehicle Depot Ashchurch are as follows:

  (a) A fuelling and de-fuelling facility.

  (b) Wash down facility.

  (c) Anti freeze facility.

  (d) Overhead servicing facilities and associated oils and lubricants dispensing/collection systems.

  (e) Appropriate security systems.

  Two senior managers at Ashchurch already have extensive armoured vehicle experience. The remaining civilian managers have familiarised themselves with armoured vehicles over the past year and this training continues. Additionally the military staff in two vehicle troops at Ashchurch have a high degree of 'A' vehicle experience.
  Fourthly, you asked when the Base Vehicle Depot at Ludgershall will close.
  Following a review of the Investment Appraisal which formed the basis for the decision, Minister (AF) announced that the Base Vehicle Depot at Ludgershall will close by the end of March 1997.
  664
  Fifthly, you asked about plans to prevent traffic disruption as a result of the movement of Army vehicles from Ashchurch to Salisbury Plain for training purposes.
  There will be no significant increase in numbers of vehicles travelling from Ashchurch to Salisbury Plain for training when BVD Ludgershall closes. Few vehicles are ever issued on loan simply for training. Vehicles are usually issued to Army units. 'A' vehicles issued to units in the north of the UK will no longer transit the route from Salisbury Plain, thus reducing such vehicle movements and the potential for traffic disruption. Other classes of vehicles issued to units within the Salisbury Plain, thus reducing such vehicle movements and the potential for traffic disruption. Other classes of vehicles issued to units within the Salisbury Plain area have, for many years, been despatched from Ashchurch; this will not change.
  Sixthly, you asked how many civilian technicians qualified to maintain the armaments of armoured vehicles are employed in the Army vehicle depot at Ashchurch.
  The one qualified Gun Fitter at Ludgershall did not wish to move to Ashchurch. The recruitment of suitable qualified civilian technical staff at Ashchurch is ongoing.
  Finally, you asked how many employees have agreed to move from the Army vehicle depot at Ludgershall to Ashchurch.
  One civilian craftsman from the workshop at Ludgershall has moved to Ashchurch.
  I hope that I have answered your questions fully. Agreed by and signed on behalf of CE ABSDA in his absence on duty.

  Unexploded Bombs (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has(a) received and (b) assessed in respect of unexploded bombs in South Yorkshire; how many unexploded bombs are estimated to exist in each of the four metropolitan borough councils in South Yorkshire; how many bombs are officially listed; what is the estimated risk associated with these; what contact his Department has had with planners, surveyors and their representative groups in this matter; what action he plans to take; and what consultation he has had with other ministerial Departments on this subject. [2679]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no record of unexploded bombs in South Yorkshire. This does not mean that no unexploded ordnance exists in the area, only that the original Home Office wartime and post-war civil defence documents on which our data are based make no mention of any. Local county or city council public record offices may provide a better source of information in this case.

  For further information on the issue of unexploded bombs, I refer the hon. Member to the letter I wrote to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 24 October. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Maintenance Work
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current backlog of maintenance work in his Department. [2800]

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

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992, and are planned for the coming year, arranged in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1915]
  665
  Mr. Arbutnot
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1996; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed, and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to determine the advantages or disadvantages of each repeal. [2911]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him yesterday,Official Report, column 519.

SCOTLAND

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many registered homeless have died from tuberculosis in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [1556]

  (2) how many cases of tuberculosis among the registered homeless have been diagnosed in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [1576]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not available in the form requested but existing data suggest that the numbers of cases of tuberculosis among the homeless are not high. Nevertheless, the expert working party, which I have set up to review the arrangements for the control, surveillance and treatment of tuberculosis in Scotland is considering the special needs of the homeless and will make recommendations accordingly.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people have died from tuberculosi.s in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [1560]

  (2) how many cases of tuberculosis have been diagnosed in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [1581]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Number of deaths1 from tuberculosis

  Number of tuberculosis cases notified

  1986

  53

  756

  1987

  42

  560

  1988

  48

  528

  1989

  56

  533

  1990

  39

  583

  1991

  56

  563

  1992

  46

  559

  1993

  58

  554

  1994

  49

  546

  1995

  39

  478

  1 Information provided by the General Register Office (Scotland).

  666
  These figures cover all forms of tuberculosis, respiratory and non-respiratory. Existing arrangements for the control, surveillance and treatment of tuberculosis are currently being reviewed by a Scottish Office working party, whose report is expected shortly.

  National Health Service (VAT)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of restrictions placed by Customs and Excise on(a) the ability of the NHS bodies to recover value added tax retrospectively on contracted-out services on the budgets of NHS trusts and (b) the use of external services within the NHS; and what assessment he has made of the losses which will be incurred in respect of these restrictions by NHS trusts in Scotland. [2341]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  HM Customs and Excise has extended the deadline for NHS bodies to submit retrospective claims for VAT refunds on contracted out services. There should be no effect on the use of external services. It is not feasible to assess whether any VAT will remain unrecovered.

  Permaculture
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of how many farms or holdings are operating on permaculture principles; and if he will make a statement. [2354]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  No estimate has been made of the number of farms or holdings operating on permaculture principles.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage permaculture within the national parks in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [2360]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There are no national parks in Scotland.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1994(a) what forms of financial aid are available exclusively for organic farmers in Scotland, (b) what administration procedures were required for its acquisition, (c) how much money was ear-marked and (d) what percentage of the money annually ear-marked was received by farmers for that year; and if he will make a statement. [2362]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Financial aid is provided through the organic aid scheme. It provides assistance to farmers and crofters who wish to convert to organic standards. The scheme requires participants to register with a United Kingdom register of organic food standards approved sector body; remain registered for the five-year duration of the scheme; and follow a conversion plan agreed by the approved sector body. Scheme provision and expenditure are set out in the following table:
  667

  Organic aid scheme (£ million)

  1994–95

  Provision

  —

  Expenditure

  —

  1995–96

  Provision

  .07

  Expenditure

  0.5 (71 per cent.)

  1996–97

  Provision

  .17

  Expenditure

  Not yet available

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths from hypothermia occurred in Scotland in each month in the four years up to June 1996. [2380]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Deaths where hypothermia1 was mentioned on the death certificate, Scotland January 1992 to June 1996

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19962

  Total

  117

  141

  136

  123

  64

  January

  12

  19

  28

  22

  22

  February

  23

  14

  23

  22

  19

  March

  12

  9

  13

  16

  6

  April

  9

  12

  12

  15

  6

  May

  4

  7

  8

  6

  6

  June

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  July

  3

  6

  3

  3

  —

  August

  1

  2

  4

  1

  —

  September

  2

  8

  3

  5

  —

  October

  14

  7

  8

  1

  —

  November

  10

  19

  8

  8

  —

  December

  23

  33

  21

  19

  —

  1 World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision) codes E901 (primary cause), 778.3, 780.8, 780.9, E901 (secondary cause).

  2 Provisional.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992, and are planned for the coming year, arranged in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1918]

  Table 1

  £ thousand

  11987–88

  11988–89

  11989–90

  11990–91

  11991–92

  11992–93

  11993–94

  11994–95

  21995–96

  Capital allocation for introduction of community charge

  6,000

  15,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  437,000

  16,000

  9,000

  7,445

  3,780

  Community charge transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  24,000

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge reduction scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140,000

  107,000

  3,050

  86

  —

  Community charge rebilling grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Council tax transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17,000

  3,137

  216

  Council tax valuation grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  7,000

  1,600

  —

  —

  Source:

  1 Scottish Office Development Report.

  2 Scottish Office Outtum figures (Branch files).
  668
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An analysis of capital costs of IT projects undertaken by the Scottish Office since 1992 and approved for 1997–98 is as follows:

  Expenditure band

  Number of projects

  £0 to £1 million

  60

  £1 million to £2 million

  9

  £2 million to £3 million

  3

  £3 million to £4 million

  0

  £4 million to £5 million

  1

  £5 million to £6 million

  0

  £6 million to £7 million

  0

  £7 million to £8 million

  1

  Dunblane
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the Bishopbriggs social work department contacted the parent whom Lord Cullen cited in his report, page 51, paragraphs 5.22, as having made complaints about Thomas Hamilton's relationship with her son; and for what reasons that contact was not made by telephone on the date of receipt by the social work department of the letter providing details of that complaint; [3017]

  (2) when the Bishopbriggs social work department received the letter cited in his report by Lord Cullen, page 51, paragraph 5.22, relating to complaints about Thomas Hamilton in connection with the Bishopbriggs boys club; and what factors accounted for the delay between the date of receipt of that letter and the related telephone call made by the social work department on 12 March. [3016]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the relevant time, the Bishopbriggs area office was the responsibility of the social work department of Strathclyde regional council. Following local government reorganisation, it transferred to East Dunbartonshire council, and I have asked the director of social work to write to the hon. Member.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of(a) setting up the community charge and (b) setting up the council tax in Scotland. [1529]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: Costs incurred by local authorities in setting up the community charge and the council tax, which were reimbursed by the Scottish Office development department through grant schemes and capital allocations, are set out in table 1. Known costs for administering local taxation collection are shown in table 2.
  669

  Table 2

  £ thousand

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Community charge registration

  9,645

  11,709

  14,048

  11,342

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Council tax valuation

  —

  —

  —

  4,908

  13,798

  14,236

  9,999

  10,243

  Community charge collection

  10,426

  25,817

  25,618

  29,595

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Local tax collection

  —

  —

  —

  8,903

  40,338

  28,722

  26,621

  30,630

  Council tax preparation costs

  —

  —

  —

  17,523

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Figures obtained from information returned to The Scottish Office by local authorities. (1989–90 to 1994–95 are Final Outturns.

  1995–96 are Provisional Outturns.

  1996–97 are Budget Estimates).

  1Is a budget estimate as final outturn figures were not collected.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the desirability of providing financial aid and incentives to encourage rural local authorities to set up specific local exchange trading schemes to help farmers during the BSE crisis: and if he will make a statement. [2313]

  Mr. Boswell
  Although we recognise that many farmers may be suffering cash flow problems as a result of the current state of markets for cattle, farming unions have made no representations to us to suggest that local exchange trade schemes would be of use to them. ff they were to do so, we would suggest that those currently engaged in auctioneering and valuation in the farming sector would be better placed than rural local authorities to set up such schemes.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the change in the level of beef imports to the United Kingdom since the onset of the BSE crisis. [2452]

  Mr. Boswell
  Imports of beef1 as recorded in the overseas trade statistics are given. Imports will fluctuate for many reasons, and it is not possible to identify separately a change linked specifically to the introduction of the BSE measures.

  000s tonnes

  £ millions

  Month

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1994

  1995

  1996

  January

  14

  15

  16

  32

  34

  38

  February

  15

  15

  13

  29

  35

  31

  March

  18

  20

  14

  39

  43

  34

  April

  19

  17

  20

  40

  42

  43

  May

  18

  24

  20

  39

  54

  44

  June

  24

  28

  20

  49

  68

  44

  July

  19

  26

  —

  45

  62

  —

  August

  20

  22

  —

  44

  55

  —

  September

  19

  26

  —

  41

  69

  —

  October

  19

  24

  —

  36

  60

  —

  November

  18

  19

  —

  39

  44

  —

  December

  16

  17

  —

  37

  39

  —

  Total

  221

  254

  103

  472

  607

  235

  All data are provisional.

  1Beef includes the following; bovine carcase meat, bovine offal and preparations of bovine meat and bovine offal.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage and total amount of BSE eradication and compensation scheme expenditure 670
  has been received by (a) farmers, (b) slaughterers, (c) renderers and (d) other recipients; and if he will make a statement. [2159]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the estimated cost of BSE measures for each financial year from 1996–97 to 1998–99 on 24 July 1996, Official Report, column 532.

  Between April and the end of October 1996, the total expenditure on BSE eradication and compensation schemes broken down by recipient was as follows:

  £ Million

  (Per cent.)

  (a) Farmers

  477.3

  (68)

  (b) Slaughterers1

  96.8

  (14)

  (c) Renderers

  77.5

  (11)

  (d) Other recipients

  48.2

  (7)

  699.8

  1 Expenditure between April and the end of October on the calf processing scheme amounted to £24.5 million. Of this, we estimate that £19.6 million will have been passed on to farmers by the slaughterers.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research funding for BSE, project by project, for each of the past eight years. [682]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: The total amount spent on research and development by the Government during 1988–89 to 1991–1992 financial years was £16.4 million, of which around £5 million was spent on MAFF-related transmissible spongiform encephalopathy research.

  A table listing the MAFF research projects undertaken on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, including BSE, which have been held on computer record since 1992 has been placed in the Library. This table includes all the projects which were current in 1992 and every programme we have introduced since then.

  Prior to 1992, MAFF research project records were not computerised and details of projects which began and ended before that year are not readily available.
  671
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total expenditure to date on the BSE eradication and compensation schemes; and if he will make a statement. [2164]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the estimated cost of BSE measures for each financial year from 1996–97 to 1998–99 on 24 July 1996, Official Report, column 532.

  The total expenditure in the United Kingdom between April and the end of October 1996 on BSE eradication and compensation was £699.8 million.

  This includes expenditure under the over-30-month slaughter scheme, the calf processing scheme, the additional EU compensation package—the beef special premium scheme and Buckler calf processing scheme—top-up, beef marketing payment scheme, the beef stocks transfer scheme, the animal feed recall scheme, aid to renderers, emergency aid to the slaughtering sector.

  Retail Beef Prices
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the change in retail beef prices over the period since 20 March. [2577]

  Mrs. Browning
  The index for the retail price of beef, as measured through the retail prices index, is given.

  Index (January 1987=100)

  February

  137.7

  March

  138.2

  April

  134.8

  May

  133.4

  June

  134.5

  July

  132.1

  August

  136.9

  September

  134.5

  Source:

  First Release: Retail prices index, (monthly series), Office for National Statistics.

  Beef Sales
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average monthly volume of British beef sold in the 12 months to 20 March; and what has been the monthly average for the period since then. [2581]

  Mr. Boswell
  The average monthly volume of UK home fed production of beef and veal between April 1995 and March 1996 was 80,400 tonnes. The average monthly volume of UK home-fed production of beef and veal from April 1996 to September 1996 was 49,500 tonnes.
  672
  Home-fed production is expressed in carcase weight equivalent, and is defined as the slaughterings of British cattle within the UK for human consumption plus live exports of British cattle. It therefore includes beef sold for export and beef sold into intervention.

  From 20 March 1996 home-fed production figures have excluded animals entering the over-30-month scheme and the calf processing aid scheme as the meat is not destined for human consumption.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992, and are planned for the coming year, arranged in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1917]

  Mr. Boswell
  In response to the above question, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have undertaken 722 information technology projects since 1992 to 1996 inclusive, and 145 are planned for 1997, subject to available funds.

  On a financial year basis, all IT projects have fallen within the cost band £0 to £1,000,000 with the exception of certain major projects which are necessarily developed and implemented in "phases" across a number of years, such as those relating to common agricultural policy reform. If aggregated to the end of 1997, these projects would fall within two bands:
  £1,000,000-£10,000,000: BSE systems, Establishment of Meat Hygiene Service;
  Greater than £10,000,000: CAP Reform, Resource Management Strategy, Farm Survey System and MAFF's corporate office system.

  Fishing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rights exist for EU countries to fish in waters controlled by non-EU countries; which countries enjoy such rights; and what sums have been paid to Governments by the EU in order to facilitate these concessions. [2487]

  Mr. Baldry
  Details of the fisheries agreements between the European Community and non-EU countries, other than those on the west coast of Africa, are shown in the following table. For details of agreements with west African countries, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 28 October 1996,Official Report, column 52.
  673

  EU fisheries agreements with countries other than on the west coast of Africa

  Country

  Fishing opportunities

  Main EU beneficiaries

  Annual Cost of agreement

  Argentina

  Quotas: Hubbsi hake—120,000 tonnes, Patagonian grenadier—50,000 tonnes, Illex squid—30,000 tonnes, Patagonian rockcod/rough head grenadier—50,000 tonnes

  Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece, Germany, Netherlands and United Kingdom

  41,500,000 ECU

  Estonia

  Quotas: Cod—530 tonnes, Herring—10,500 tonnes, Salmon—4,500 fish, Sprat—22,500 tonnes

  Denmark, Germany, Finland and Sweden

  810,000 ECU

  Farore Islands

  Quotas: Cod, haddock—500 tonnes, Saithe—2,503 tonnes, Redfish—7,000 tonnes, Blue ling, ling—3,600 tonnes, Blue whiting—25,000 tonnes, Flatfish—1,000 tonnes, Mackerel—4,910 tonnes, Others—760 tonnes

  Germany, France, United Kingdom, Denmark and Netherlands

  Reciprocal exchange of quotas

  Greenland

  Quotas: Cod—31,000 tonnes, Redfish—52,320 tonnes, G. Halibut—7,050 tonnes, Prawns—4,525 tonnes, Halibut—400 tonnes, Catfish—2,000 tonnes, B. Whiting—30,000 tonnes, Capelin—63,150 tonnes. Grenadier—9,000 tonnes, P.cod—2,000 tonnes

  Germany, United Kingdom, Denmark and France

  38,7000,000 ECU

  Iceland

  Quotas: Refish—3,000 tonnes

  Germany, and United Kingdom

  Reciprocal exchange of quotas

  Latvia

  Quotas: Cod—1,420 tonnes, Herring—3,500 tonnes, Salmon—6,500 fish. Sprat—19,500 tonnes

  Denmark, Germany, Finland and Sweden

  496,100 ECU

  Lithuania

  Quotas: Cod—2,125 tonnes, Herring—3,000 tonnes, Salmon—4,500 fish, Sprat—12,500 tonnes, Flatfish— 25 tonnes

  Denmark, Germany, Finland and Sweden

  839,300 ECU

  Madagascar

  Quota: 9,000 tonnes of tuna.Licences for 42 freezer tuna vessels and 16 surface longliners

  Spain and France

  725,000 ECU

  Mauritius

  Quota: 6,000 tonnes of tuna.Licences for 20 ocean-going tuna seiners and 100 GRT1 per month of vessels fishing by line.

  Spain and France

  485,000 ECU

  Norway

  North of 62oN— Quotas: Cod—30,050 tonnes, Haddock—3,500 tonnes, Saithe—7,000 tonnes, Redfish—3,500 tonnes, Greenland halibut—100 tonnes. Blue whiting—1,000 tonnes, Others—450 tonnes, Mackerel—10,100 tonnes.

  United Kingdom, Germany, France, Denmark, Spain Portugal and Ireland

  Reciprocal exchange of quotas

  South of 62oN—Quotas: Norway pout—50,000 tonnes, Sandeel—150,000 tonnes, Shrimp)—1,230 tonnes, Others—11,000 tonnes, Whitefish—2,560 tonnes, Herring—840 tonnes, Mackerel—240 tonnes, Industrial species—800 tonnes.

  Denmark, Sweden and United Kingdom

  Reciprocal exchange of quotas

  Poland

  Quotas: Herring—1,000 tonnes, Salmon—1,350 fish, Sprat—15,000 tonnes, Flatfish—50 tonnes.

  Sweden

  Reciprocal exchange of quotas

  Republic of Comoros

  Quota: 4,500 tonnes of tuna Licences for 37 ocean-going freezer tuna vessels.

  Spain and France

  36,000 ECU

  Seychelles

  Quota: 46,000 tonnes of tuna.Licences for 42 ocean-going freezer tuna seiners and 15 surface longliners.

  Spain and France

  3,300,000 ECU

  1 Gross registered tonnes

  Sandeels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has made to the recommendations from Joint Nature Conservation Committee that sandeel fisheries be restricted in the Wee Bankie, Marr bank and Scalp bank of the North sea. [2636]

  Mr. Baldry
  In responding to a Ministry consultation letter on technical conservation measures, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee suggested, among other things, that sandeel fisheries be restricted in an area off the east coast of Scotland. The Ministry replied, explaining the initiatives taken by the Government over the past few months on industrial fisheries. Subsequent to the JNCC letter, a major international research project has been announced to study the impact of industrial sandeel fisheries on predator species off the east coast of Scotland. The Scottish Office marine laboratory is participating in this study.

  Religious Slaughtering Methods
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) sheep, (b) calves, (c) adult cattle and (d) chickens were slaughtered by a method approved for religious reasons in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995. [2688]

  Mrs. Browning
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons his instructions to his appointed local veterinary inspectors do not require them to be present at the loading of ovine animals for export. [2689]
  675
  Mrs. Browning
  The instructions to veterinary inspectors reflect the requirements of EU legislation. Sheep consigned to another member state must be inspected within the 48-hour period prior to loading. Additionally, inspections must be carried out to check compliance with EU rules, and the spot checks carried out in fulfilment of this include supervised loadings.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to pay Richard Haddock of Collaton Barton farm, Kingswear, for the 50 cattle which were culled in early October; and what factors underlie the delay in this payment. [2910]

  Mr. Baldry
  Payment for cattle slaughtered under the over-30-month scheme typically takes 35 to 42 days. The procedure is as follows:Claims for payment are submitted weekly in arrears by collection centres acting on the producer's behalf. The Intervention Board makes payment to collection centres within 14 days of receipt of a fully documented claim. Collection centres are required to pay producers within 14 days of receipt of payment by the Intervention Board.

  Providing, therefore, Mr. Haddock submitted properly completed documentation with his animals, he can expect to be paid shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Belfast Airport
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the amount spent on(a) accountants, (b) consultants, (c) lawyers and (d) other professionals in relation to the privatisation of Belfast airport. [1867]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department spent a total of £3,426 million on privatisation costs. It is not the practice to disclose the remuneration for individual consultancies.

  Timber (Construction Use)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to promote the greater use of timber in the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [1760]

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what administrative action he has taken to assist the introduction of the nursery education voucher programme. [1689]

  Mr. Ancram
  Action has been taken on a number of fronts as follows:

  1. A consultation document on the proposed operation of the nursery voucher scheme in Northern Ireland was issued in April 1996.

  2. The Department of Education has been involved in the tendering process to select the company to administer the voucher scheme nationally. Discussions are taking place with
  676
  education and library boards about funding mechanisms, and arrangements are being made for the inspection and registration of providers. General publicity about the scheme is planned for early 1997.

  3. The Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment has prepared a pre-school curriculum for Northern Ireland.

  4. An Order in Council to provide the powers necessary to implement the voucher scheme is expected to be laid before Parliament during November.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the per capita expenditure on the administration of the nursery education voucher programme. [1690]

  Mr. Ancram
  The estimated per capita expenditure on the administration of the nursery education voucher programme in Northern Ireland is £9.17.

  General National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number, percentage and type of schools involved in the development of GNVQ programmes in secondary education in Northern Ireland and the range of subject areas involved. [1691]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number and percentage of schools involved in the delivery of full GNVQs in Northern Ireland were as follows:

  1992–93: 6 (2.5 per cent.)

  1993–94: 65 (28 per cent.)

  1994–95: 86 (36.6 per cent.)

  1995–96: Not available

  1996–97: Not available.

  The number of schools involved in piloting part 1 GNVQ were:

  1995–96: 9 (3.9 per cent.)

  1996–97: 15 (6.4 per cent.)

  The range of subject areas offered for full GNVQs are:

  Art and Design1

  Built Environment

  Business2

  Health and Social Care2

  Hospitality and Catering

  Information Technology1

  Leisure and Tourism1

  Manufacturing Science2

  1 Also offered as part I from September 1995.

  2 Also offered as part I from September 1996.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the capital expenditure on(a) nursery, (b) primary, (c) secondary and (d) further education in each of the past five years. [1692]

  Mr. Ancram
  Capital expenditure by education and library boards on controlled schools and further education colleges, and grants paid by the Department of Education on approved capital expenditure incurred by voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools for each of the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95 is set out in the following table.
  677

  £ million

  Year

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools (including grammar)

  Further education colleges

  1990–91

  0.426

  11.263

  41.317

  7.598

  1991–92

  0.428

  11.106

  44.043

  5.553

  1992–93

  0.475

  15.160

  45.754

  8.524

  1993–94

  0.788

  16.797

  42.786

  7.393

  1994–95

  0.855

  18.442

  43.548

  7.956

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what projects have been committed under the private finance initiative to date; and what projects are under consideration. [1693]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Projects committed under the private finance initiative to date include a contract energy services scheme at Holywell hospital, car parking facilities at the Royal group of hospitals, and leasing of medical and other equipment. Details of PFI projects currently under consideration are given in the table:

  Project

  Bangor and Kinnegar sewerage treatment works

  Design, build, finance and operate

  Hydro-electric project

  Hydro Electric Scheme

  Westlink urban motorway

  Design, build, finance and operate

  Motorway emergency telephone system

  Replace and operate system

  Strangford ferry

  Replace ferry

  Holywood road, social security office

  Government office accommodation

  Hydebank

  Government Office Accommodation

  Driver and Vehicle Testing

  Vehicle testing and IT

  Agencies vehicle testing project

  Land Registry IT system

  Computerisation

  Planning Service IT system

  Computerisation

  Antrim bus station library

  Bus station library

  Ulsterbus/ Citybus

  Bus replacement

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Class 80 R stock replacement

  Ulster folk and transport museum

  Visitor centre

  North-West institute of further and higher education

  Add. Teaching Accom.

  Belfast institute of further and higher education

  Add. Teaching Accom.

  St. Genevieve's High school

  New accommodation

  Drumglass high school

  New accommodation

  Wellington college

  Refurbishment

  Balmoral high school

  Refurbishment

  Ulster hospital

  Extension/ Refurbishment

  Downe hospital

  New block/ Refurbishment

  Belfast city hospital

  New renal dialysis facs

  Belfast city hospital

  Car park facilities/site

  Causeway hospital

  Contract energy services

  Daisy hill hospital

  Renal dialysis facilities.

  Craigavon area hospital

  Contract energy services

  The Department of Education is also undertaking a market sounding study of its schools estate in order to assess the wider potential for PFI in respect of over 100 high-priority schools projects.
  678

  Education and Training Targets
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the national targets for education and training for the year 2000; and what has been the Northern Ireland achievement against those targets in each of the past five years. [1694]

  Mr. Ancram
  The following national targets for education and training for the year 2000 apply in Northern Ireland:

  Foundation Learning

  (1) By age 19, 85 per cent. of young people to achieve five GCSEs at grade C or above, an intermediate GNVQ or an NVQ level 2.

  (2) By age 19, 75 per cent. of young people to achieve level 2 competence in communication, numeracy and information technology; and 35 per cent. to achieve level 3 competence in these skills by age 21.

  (3) By age 21, 60 per cent. of young people to achieve two A-levels, and advanced GNVQ or an NVQ level 3.

  Lifetime Learning

  (1) 60 per cent. of the work force to be qualified to NVQ level 3 advanced GNVQ or two A-level standard.

  (2) 30 per cent. of the work force to have a vocational, professional, management or academic qualification at NVQ level 4 or above.

  (3) 70 per cent. of all organisations employing 200 or more employees, and 35 per cent. of those employing 50 or more, to be recognised as investors in people.

  The information available about progress in Northern Ireland towards those targets is as follows:

  Foundation targets

  Percentage

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Foundation target 1

  56.4

  63.2

  64.5

  n/a

  Foundation target 3

  41.0

  43.0

  42.5

  n/a

  n/a = not available.

  Lifetime targets1

  Percentage

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Lifetime target 1

  34

  36

  37

  Lifetime target 2

  20

  21

  21

  Lifetime target 3

  percentage of organisations with 200 or more employees recognised as investors

  0

  1

  percentage of organisations with 50 or more employees recognised as investors

  0.5

  1

  Notes:

  There is currently no measure for foundation target 2.

  Source:

  1 Labour Force Survey (Spring).

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) grammar school and (b) secondary school pupils are entitled to free school meals [1799]

  Mr. Ancram
  The percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals in(a) grammar schools was 9.6 per cent. and (b) in secondary schools was 35.3 per cent.
  679

  Reading Recovery Programmes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the use of reading recovery programmes in Northern Ireland and his assessment of their effectiveness. [1791]

  Mr. Ancram
  Training for teachers in the reading recovery approach is available in four board areas, and will be in the fifth from September 1977.

  The Queen's university of Belfast school of education is carrying out an evaluation of the effectiveness of reading recovery in two board areas, and the findings of the evaluation are expected shortly.

  Education (Attainment Levels)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what analysis he has made of(a) the impact of the earlier age of starting school in Northern Ireland upon attainment levels in Northern Ireland education; and (b) the impact of month of birth in the transfer test. [1793]

  Mr. Ancram
  (a) The earlier school starting date came into operation in 1989; the first cohort will not leave school until the summer of 2002. No analysis of the impact of the earlier starting age has been carried out, but there is a substantial body of evidence supporting the view that early years education makes a positive impact on educational attainment in the longer term.

  (b) There is a known correlation between age and test performance. To allow for the difference in age between the oldest and youngest children taking the tests, an allowance is made for younger pupils. This is calculated for each child in accordance with the day of his/her birth. The younger the child, the larger the allowance will be. There is a well-established practice in relation to the tests. No analysis of the process as such has been undertaken.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about how frequently(a) primary school, (b) secondary school, (c) grammar school and (d) further education colleges are inspected. [1795]

  Mr. Ancram
  All grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland are inspected at least once every five years.

  There is a general—full—inspection of each college of further education every eight years and an inspection of a key aspect of provision in each college at least once every four years.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of four-year-olds who are not in school receive nursery education; and what percentage of three-year-olds receive nursery education. [1797]

  Mr. Ancram
  Compulsory school age in Northern Ireland begins at four, so if a pupil is four on or before 1 July, they begin primary school the following September: 31 per cent. of three-year-olds received nursery education in 1995–96.

  Private Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of 12-year-olds in Northern Ireland receive private education. [1798]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on pupils receiving private education is not available, but 0.3 per cent. Of 12-year-olds in Northern Ireland are educated in independent schools.

  School Staff
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff, fulfilling what functions and at what cost, are employed in the Department of Education in direct funding and contact with schools. [1792]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Education employs 25.41 staff in both direct funding and contact with schools, at a cost of £484,331 per annum—current rates. Collectively, these staff perform the following functions:
  Advising voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools on procedures and requirements relating to school meals provision and processing grant claims in respect of expenditure incurred by these schools in providing this service.
  Policy/resourcing/payment of grants/guidance on all financial and audit matters relating to the voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated school sectors.
  Planning and approval of capital schemes and the payment of appropriate grants in relation to voluntary grammar, grant-maintained integrated and maintained schools.
  1 full-time equivalent

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Worthignton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the availability of grammar school places for those from the (i) Protestant and (ii) Catholic traditions in each of the education and library boards; and in which areas there is relative under provision. [1794]

  Mr. Ancram
  While it should be noted that many grammar schools are attended by both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils, the distribution of grammar school places between schools under Roman Catholic management—denominational schools—and others—non-denominational schools—in each board area in the 1995–96 school year, the most recent statistics available, is as follows:

  Grammar school places

  Denominational

  Non-denominational

  Belfast

  5,894

  10,126

  Western

  7,382

  3,896

  North Eastern

  3,830

  9,824

  South Eastern

  2,872

  7,264

  Southern

  7,352

  3,605

  Total

  27,330

  34,715

  There is evidence of a relative shortfall of grammar school places in Londonderry, Belfast, Newry, Banbridge, Bangor and Carrickfergus. Steps are being taken to address any underprovision, subject to the availability of capital resources.
  681
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of 11-year-olds in Northern Ireland attend grammar schools. [2491]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1995–96, the percentage of 11-year-olds attending grammar schools in Northern Ireland was 34 per cent.

  Raising School Standards Initiative
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the (i) progress and (ii) evaluation of the raising school standards initiative. [1796]

  Mr. Ancram
  The raising schools standards initiative was launched in 1995 with the aim of improving standards in schools with particular problems of educational and social disadvantage.

  All schools in the programme are working to approved action plans and receiving the necessary financial and professional support to ensure delivery.

  The schools have been inspected during 1995–96 and will be inspected again in 1997–98. The findings will contribute to an evaluation of the approach. In addition, the institute of education, university of London, is undertaking a research project within participating schools which assesses progress using the "value added" approach. This report is expected in December 1998 and will contribute to the final evaluation which will be available in 1999.

  Mobile Classrooms
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the trend in the number of temporary mobile classrooms in use in Northern Ireland. [2032]

  Mr. Ancram
  Detailed information to establish a trend in the number of mobile classrooms in the schools estate is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) five, (b) six and (c) seven-year-old children are being taught in classes over 30 in size; and how many such classes there are. [2033]

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not collected in the form requested.

  Education Administration Costs
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy in respect of the level of costs of educational administration in Northern Ireland; and what assessment he has made of the level of these costs relative to those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [2031]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government believe that the costs of educational administration in Northern Ireland should be reduced through annual efficiency savings, through the 682
  restructuring of the education and library boards—which I announced earlier this year—and through the development, where practicable, of regionalised services.

  The different local government structures in the United Kingdom do not permit direct comparisons with the costs of educational administration elsewhere.

  Homework Centres
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evaluation has taken place of the 12 homework centres in Northern Ireland referred to in his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 644; what conclusions he has reached in respect of future projects; and what proposals he has for expansion of the projects. [2063]

  Mr. Ancram
  Eight homework centres, funded through the making Belfast work programme, have been evaluated by the education and training inspectorate. This evaluation concluded that the most successful centres share the following characteristics:a location which is readily accessible by the pupils that the homework centre is intended to serve;
  they are based within schools, have access to the wider facilities and resources of the school, and involve activities to develop pupils that extend beyond the completion of homework set by the school; and
  evidence of commitment and active support by the principal of the school at which the centre is based and principals of other main participating schools.

  The future expansion of homework centres is subject to availability of resources and competing priorities.

  Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of higher education students with homes in Northern Ireland go to Great Britain or Irish institutions to study; and what percentage return for employment in Northern Ireland on completion of their studies. [2064]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1994–95 32 per cent. of Northern Ireland domiciled full-time undergraduate new entrants to higher education went to institutions in Great Britain and 7 per cent. to institutions in the Republic of Ireland; 19 per cent. of Northern Ireland domiciled full-time undergraduates who graduated from Great Britain higher education institutions in 1994–95 returned to Northern Ireland to take up employment.

  No information is available on the destinations of Northern Ireland domiciled graduates from Republic of Ireland institutions.

  Education Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in(a) cash and (b) constant price terms the resources that have gone into education in each year since 1979, and the percentage of the departmental budget which has been devoted to education in each year. [2065]
  683
  Mr. Ancram
  The information is set out in the table:

  Education as percentage of

  Year

  Education cash £m

  Expenditure1 1996–97 prices

  (a)NI expenditure2

  (b)NI managed block3

  1979–80

  388

  1,017

  15.9

  20.5

  1980–81

  458

  1,014

  15.8

  20.6

  1981–82

  499

  1,008

  15.5

  20.7

  1982–83

  534

  1,007

  15.3

  20.8

  1983–84

  556

  1,002

  14.6

  20.3

  1984–85

  580

  995

  14.1

  19.7

  1985–86

  602

  979

  14.1

  20.2

  1986–87

  695

  1,097

  15.4

  22.4

  1987–88

  750

  1,124

  15.5

  22.3

  1988–89

  812

  1,141

  15.9

  20.7

  1989–90

  898

  1,179

  16.6

  21.8

  1990–91

  1,004

  1,221

  18.2

  24.5

  1991–92

  1,124

  1,284

  18.7

  25.5

  1992–93

  1,203

  1,319

  18.3

  25.3

  1993–94

  1,248

  1,330

  17.6

  24.9

  1994–95

  1,295

  1,356

  17.5

  25.1

  1995–96

  1,350

  1,380

  17.3

  25.0

  1996–97 planned

  1,395

  1,395

  17.4

  25.5

  1 Includes youth training programme expenditure prior to 1992–93, when responsibility for this activity transferred to the Department of Economic Development.

  2 NI expenditure is the total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility within the control total. It includes NIO expenditure, and for the years prior to 1988–89, cyclical social security benefits.

  3 Includes expenditure by the NIO and NI Departments, excluding national agricultural and fisheries support, and most social security benefits expenditure.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the percentage of education and library boards' budgets which must be delegated to schools; and what plans he has to change it. [2066]

  Mr. Ancram
  The LMS arrangements in Northern Ireland do not provide for fixed levels of delegation, but list specific areas of expenditure which boards either must delegate or may delegate to schools. Under these arrangements, education and library boards presently delegate to individual schools 86 per cent. of the funds capable of delegation. The boards retain resources to cover centrally funded services, such as landlord maintenance, curriculum advisory and support services, home-to-school transport, and educational welfare and psychology services. Levels of delegation are reviewed annually.

  Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his target date for the implementation of his proposals for the incorporation of colleges. [2489]

  Mr. Ancram
  For planning purposes, the target date for the incorporation of colleges is 1 August 1997.

  School Assessments
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in incorporating a value added element into the assessment of schools. [2490]

  Mr. Ancram
  It will not be possible for value added to be determined until the assessment outcomes for a cohort of pupils at consecutive key stages can be compared. Assessment of pupils' attainments at the end of key stages 1, 2 and 3 became a statutory requirement from 1 September 1996; it will be a further three years before the best means of establishing value added measures can be determined.

  University Places (Costs)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the per capita cost of a full-time university place excluding student support in(a) real and (b) constant price terms in each of the past 10 years. [2492]

  Mr. Ancram
  The recurrent cost per full-time equivalent student, excluding student support, at universities in Northern Ireland has been as follows:

  (a) Cash price (£)

  (b) Constant 1993–94 prices £)

  1986–87

  4,290

  6,345

  1987–88

  4,501

  6,320

  1988–89

  4,553

  5,966

  1989–90

  4,929

  6,064

  1990–91

  5,187

  5,908

  1991–92

  5,275

  5,653

  1992–93

  5,232

  5,392

  1993–94

  5,185

  5,185

  1994–95

  5,059

  4,958

  Source:

  Universities statistical record data (1996–87 to 1993–94); HESA data (1994–95).

  School Transport
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on school transport; what savings he expects to make in a full financial year as a result of policy changes; from which school sectors; and what impact he assesses this will have on enrolment. [2493]

  Mr. Ancram
  From the beginning of the 1997–98 school year, assistance will be provided only to pupils who are unable to gain a place in a suitable school or institution of further education within statutory walking distance of their home. Statutory walking distance is defined as two miles for primary school pupils and three miles for other pupils.

  It is estimated that savings of some £3.4 million per annum in total will be achieved when the policy is fully implemented.

  The estimated savings in each sector are:

  £million

  Primary

  0.5

  Secondary/Grammar

  2.5

  Further education

  0.4

  685
  The policy change is not expected to affect overall enrolment figures, although variations to enrolments at individual schools are expected. The extent of these will be determined by whatever choices parents make for their children in response to the new transport arrangements.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what powers exist for(a) Customs and Excise and (b) other authorities to prevent the importation of illegal fireworks through ports into Northern Ireland. [2495]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Where Customs and Excise officials know that cargoes include fireworks, they check for compliance with the British standard and routinely advise the Health and Safety Executive and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If, however, random searches at ports reveal fireworks which have not been listed as such, officials detain them and notify the RUC.

  Fireworks coming into ports in Northern Ireland must comply with the Explosives Act 1875, as amended, and they must be authorised and appear on the "List of Authorised Explosives" issued by the Health and Safety Executive. They must also be classified in accordance with the Classification and Labelling of Explosives Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1991 and it is an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Order 1978 not to comply with these regulations.

  The Placing on the Market and Supervision of Transfers of Explosives (Enforcement) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 give an inspector appointed under article 21 of the Health and Safety at Work Order 1978 the power to seize and detain, in accordance with section 74 of the Explosives Act 1875, fireworks which he has reasonable cause to believe will be unlawfully acquired, used or dealt in.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the RUC about its powers to deal with fireworks in Northern Ireland. [2496]

  Sir John Wheeler
  When consulted on the draft Explosives (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 the Chief Constable indicated that he would wish to have various, additional powers to enter, stop, search and seize in relation to offences committed under the new regulations.

  The Secretary of State gave this request the most careful consideration, but was not persuaded that such additional powers, which Parliament has reserved solely for the prevention and detection of serious and violent crime, were wholly appropriate to offences committed under the fireworks legislation.

  Teacher Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent teacher education falls within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council; and if he will make a statement. [2497]

  Mr. Ancram
  Provision for teacher education in Northern Ireland is not included under the remit of the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure will be incurred in respect of his proposals for reducing the number of education and library boards(a) before parliamentary approval has been given and (b) before the proposals are carried out. [2498]

  Mr. Ancram
  Expenditure requirements for the restructuring of the education and library boards in the next financial year have yet to be determined. Expenditure in the current financial year is not expected to be significant.

  Orange Parade
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when he was informed by the Chief Constable of the decisions to (i) prevent and (ii) allow the Orange parade which marched down Garvaghy road on 11 July; [1767]

  (2) what consultations he had with the Chief Constable of the RUC regarding the decision to prevent the passage of an Orange parade along Garvaghy road, and what subsequent consultation he had with the Chief Constable prior to the decision to permit the passage of the parade; [1768]

  (3) if he will publish the directions issued by the Chief Constable in relation to the Orange parade at Garvaghy road, Portadown between 6 and 11 July. [1770]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made in the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 15 July Official Report, columns 787–90, which set out the events surrounding the parade at Drumcree, and to the Chief Constable's BBC interview of the previous day referred to in that statement, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he gave to making an order under article 5 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in respect of circumstances on the Garvaghy road between 6 and 11 July; what advice he sought on this matter; and on what basis a decision was made not to issue any such order. [1769]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not make an order under article 5 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 because the Chief Constable did not advise him to do so.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations were made to him during the period 6 to 11 July regarding unwillingness of members of the RUC to enforce the directions of the Chief Constable made on 6 July. [1771]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: None.

  Beach Safety
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to ensure the safety of people on beaches along the North Down littoral from the wash of passenger ferries. [2459]
  687
  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about wash from passenger ferries and what is being done to ensure the safety of people on North Down beaches.
  An Extraordinary Meeting of the Belfast Lough District Safety Committee Working Group will take place on 13 November 1996 to discuss wash from ferries. The meeting is to be chaired by the Marine Safety Agency's Regional Chief Surveyor and will be attended by representatives from all interested parties including the ferry operators. North Down Borough Council and the police.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were transferred from reduced earnings allowance to retirement allowance between 1 April and 1 October in each Benefits Agency region. [2683]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration or reduced earnings allowance, payable under the Industrial Injuries scheme, 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. Peter Hain, dated 6 November 1996:

  Budget allocations for Out of Hours Service

  Area directorates

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  Tyne Tees

  48,630

  50,037

  82,273

  87,360

  74,539

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  42,624

  20,963

  69,200

  73,182

  72,385

  North and West Yorkshire

  40,388

  76,468

  95,277

  104,892

  77,523

  Glasgow and Paisley

  27,088

  35,871

  101,271

  111,251

  135,276

  North Central and West Scotland

  31,860

  75,859

  159,744

  174,392

  184,286

  East of Scotland

  29,081

  83,305

  179,008

  164,201

  183,169

  East Midlands

  30,534

  45,016

  68,024

  71,202

  73,350

  Midlands South West

  30,710

  30,633

  52,066

  46,796

  48,491

  West Mercia

  35,514

  32,202

  52,074

  45,627

  33,265

  Wales

  35,180

  37,505

  57,600

  57,419

  61,434

  Merseyside

  28,247

  74,988

  108,472

  105,936

  119,108

  Greater Manchester

  28,046

  64,894

  96,729

  75,716

  85,402

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  31,060

  55,801

  95,039

  76,555

  83,673

  Anglia

  18,431

  30,463

  64,344

  56,395

  70,705

  Chilterns

  11,341

  24,002

  55,407

  62,047

  64,644

  South London and West Sussex

  15,122

  9,008

  14,122

  30,396

  33,524

  West Country

  22,132

  146,208

  205,600

  233,070

  263,211

  East London and Essex

  21,866

  33,018

  42,821

  60,332

  57,462

  South East

  13,644

  17,281

  37,870

  40,453

  35,838

  Wessex

  19,857

  43,634

  82,655

  76,413

  76,389

  Totals

  561,353

  987,156

  1,719,596

  1,753,635

  1,833,674

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy that the practice whereby hospital case notes are currently supplied free of 688
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people were transferred from Reduced Earning Allowance (REA) to Retirement Allowance (RA) between 1st April and 1st October in each Benefits Agency (BA) region.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are collated by BA Area Directorates, not on a regional basis.
  In order to assess those people who might be transferred to Retirement Allowance under amending legislation (Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases)(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996) which came into force on 24 March 1996, the Benefits Agency identified all Reduced Earnings Allowance recipients over pensionable age as at 24 March 1996. From 24 March to 30 September 1996, 21,299 have had their entitlement to REA transferred to RA. This includes REA recipients who attained pension age before and after 24 March 1996.
  The information is shown in the attached table.
  I hope this reply will be helpful.

  Benefits agency area directorate

  Number of REA cases transferred to RA

  East London and Anglia

  857

  Chilterns

  402

  London South

  2,019

  West Country

  878

  Mercia

  2,640

  West Midlands

  780

  Wales

  2,109

  North West Coast

  1,767

  Greater Manchester

  1,666

  Yorkshire

  2,002

  Tyne Tees

  4,398

  West of Scotland

  507

  East of Scotland

  1,172

  Overseas

  102

  Total

  2,1299

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  charge by the NHS to the Benefits Agency medical services will continue, should private companies win the contracts currently on offer under the contracting out of the operations of the Benefits Agency medical services; and if he will make a statement; [754]
  689
  (2) if he will make it his policy that the practice whereby external medical opinions are currently obtained free of charge under NHS authorisation to the Benefits Agency medical services will continue, should private companies win the contracts currently on offer under the contracting out of the operations of the Benefits Agency medical services. [755]

  Mr. Burt
  We are currently discussing this issue with officials from the NHS executive. These discussions should be concluded within the next few weeks. Whatever the outcome of these, it is imperative that the provision of these services will not lead to any increase in the expenditure of public funds.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that, where private contractors be charged for the service whereby external medical opinions are currently obtained free of charge under NHS authorisation to the Benefits Agency medical services, his Department will guarantee that the private companies will not reduce the number of cases for which external medical help is sought; and if he will make a statement. [753]

  Mr. Burt
  In any case referred to an external medical supplier, the contractor's doctors must be able to supply adequate reasons for the advice being given. If it RS not possible for them to advise on the evidence already available then they must seek information from other sources. The Department will not be satisfied with advice which is not fully supported by documentary evidence. This will be stated in the terms of the contracts with any private contractors and will be rigorously monitored by the contract management team. It is not anticipated that the number of requests for further medical evidence will be reduced.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will stipulate in the contracts awarded to companies bidding to undertake the assessment of claims for incapacity benefit currently performed by the Benefits Agency medical services the target number of clients for this benefit to be seen per session by doctors employed by these companies to evaluate the eligibility of claimants; [751]

  (2) if he will stipulate in the contracts awarded to companies bidding to undertake the assessment of claims for incapacity benefit currently performed by the Benefits Agency medical services, (a) the annual number of cases to be reviewed, (b) the annual maximum number of clients that will be deemed eligible for incapacity benefit and (c) the total amount of benefit to be authorised. [737]

  Mr. Burt
  The Benefits Agency has never set targets covering the number of people who should be allowed or disallowed benefit.

  Performance indicators and targets for the potential service provider of the medical service have not yet been set: they will be matters for discussion and negotiation prior to contract(s) being awarded.

  The set targets will relate to how the service is delivered rather than decisions on entitlement to benefit.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which were the companies involved in(a) the partnering exercise and (b) the collaborative study into the Benefits Agency medical services before the decision to
  690
  contract out the Benefits Agency medical services; which were the companies that were later involved in tendering for the subsequent contracts; and if he will make a statement; [746]

  (2) which were the firms that were involved in the feasibility study to determine contracting out of the Benefits Agency medical services and which have been shortlisted for the three geographical areas; when he expects the final decision to be (a) made and (b) announced; and if he will make a statement. [747]

  Mr. Burt
  A partnering project team was established in September 1994 to look for ways in which the private sector could be involved in the future delivery of a medical service. Advertisements were placed in the national press seeking expressions of interest from suitable companies to undertake a collaborative study with the project team. The companies chosen to take part in the study were BMI, Capita and Serco.

  The three companies undertook independent studies of the Benefits Agency medical services, BAMS, organisation. Assessment of their reports concluded that the work of BAMS could be contracted to the private sector.

  In June 1996 an advertisement was placed inviting expressions of interest: five companies were subsequently chosen to enter into negotiations with the Department for the provision of a medical service. Those companies are Andersens, BMI, Capita, EDS and Sema.

  Some of the information that was made available during the collaborative study is now out of date. Shortlisted contractors who have been invited to enter into negotiations will receive all relevant information to ensure they fully understand the requirements, and to ensure that they are able to develop proposals based on the same information. No advantage will accrue to the companies who participated in the collaborative study.

  A final decision and subsequent announcement is anticipated by April 1997.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that any private company bidding to undertake the medical assessment of claims for incapacity benefit from the Benefits Agency medical services and acquiring confidential data in the course of their assessments will be legally prohibited from (i) using and (ii) disclosing that information for their other commercial interests in(a) private health care and (b) all other commercial applications; and what measures his Department intends to use to investigate such eventualities. [759]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department places strong emphasis on customer confidentiality and would demand the same standards from the successful contractor or contractors. The contractor(s) will have a mandatory contractual requirement to conform to the security policy of the Department which is based on Government security policy.

  The successful bidder or bidders will be required to ensure that any data or information passed to them by the Department or a third party, or revealed during the course of the contract, is used only for the purpose directly relating to the Departments business and only by the appropriate staff.
  691
  Rigorous monitoring systems will be put in place to ensure on-going compliance with the requirements.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following his Department's decision to contract out the functions of the Benefits Agency Medical Services, he will give the rationale for his Department's decision to use the negotiated procedure in respect of contracting out the functions of the Benefits Agency medical services, rather than the restrictive procedure for the shortlisted firms. [748]

  Mr. Burt
  The use of the negotiated procedure is considered to be less adversarial than the restrictive procedure. It provides an opportunity for meaningful two-way dialogue, allowing the necessary flexibility for discussions and negotiations, thus ensuring better informed and higher quality bids.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that, following his Department's decision to contract out the functions of the Benefits Agency medical services, commercial considerations will not affect the decisions to obtain the consultants' reports that enable doctors to make full and professional assessments of claimants for incapacity benefit. [752]

  Mr. Burt
  In the majority of cases, a consultant's report is obtained at the request of the customer. On

  occasions the contractor or contractors will need to obtain a report from a consultant as this will represent the most satisfactory way of establishing the evidence necessary to advise the adjudication officer.

  Post contract management arrangements will ensure that the contractor(s) achieve the correct balance between customer care and profits.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will revise(a) the target number of clients for incapacity benefit seen per session by doctors of (i) the Benefits Agency medical services and (ii) any private contractors successful in their bid to take over the functions of the Benefits Agency medical services and (b) any other aspect of the service; and if he will make a statement. [750]

  Mr. Burt
  One of the primary objectives in contracting out Benefits Agency medical services is' to improve the provision of a medical service to the Department.

  The Department will be specifying the outputs in terms of service delivery in a way that is measurable.

  Whilst the output will be specified, how the contractor achieves the specification will not, thereby providing the contractor with the maximum flexibility for delivery of the service.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if individual members of the assessment panel responsible for the recommendation for full contracting out of the functions of the Benefits Agency medical services were allowed to put in a bid for the resulting contracts; and if he will make a statement. [749]

  Mr. Burt
  The medical service to be contracted out to the private sector was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community and Government Opportunities.
  692
  Following the response to a questionnaire completed by the private sector and individuals working in the Benefits Agency medical services, a full and auditable evaluation of responses was undertaken resulting in five private sector companies being invited to go forward to the next stage of the procurement process.

  No individuals included in the assessment panel are involved in the bidding process for this service.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efficiency savings his Department estimates will accrue from the decision to contract out the functions of the Benefits Agency medical services. [767]

  Mr. Burt
  It is not possible at this stage to estimate the precise level of savings. However, experience of similar exercises within the Department has identified that efficiencies will be gained in all cost areas of the contract or contracts.

  Benefits Agency (Emergency Services)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the last five years and for each Benefits Agency office the cost of operating the out-of-hours service. [1431]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 6 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list for each of the last five years and for each Benefits Agency office the cost of operating the out-of-hours service.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The total budgets allocated for the operation of the Out of Hours Service for each of the last five years were as follows:

  1992/93: £0,561 million

  1993/94: £0,987 million

  1994/95: £1,720 million

  1995/96: £1,754 million

  1996/97: £1,834 million.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.
  The budgets allocated to each Area Directorate are detailed in the attached table. Each Area Director decides on the distribution of these budgets to District Offices to support the operation of the Out Of Hours Service across their Area and details could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incapacity benefit claimants have been found to be fit for work by the all-work test since its introduction; how many such claimants have since claimed benefits as being unemployed and seeking work; and how many have obtained employment. [1406]
  693
  Mr. Burt
  Up to the end of September 1996, around 178,000 incapacity benefit claimants had been found capable of work following the all-work test. A total of 73,000 claimed unemployment benefits. A total of 47,000 have since left the register and around 10,000 were placed in employment or on training schemes by the Employment Service.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992, and are planned for the coming year, arranged in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1916]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Compensation Recovery
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on proposals to reform regulations governing compensation recovery; if there will still be a threshold for compensation payments below which recovery will not take place; if he will review cases affected by current rules backdated to 1990; how he will ensure that compensation components for pain and distress are properly identified; and when he intends to bring forward the proposed legislation. [1549]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 5 November I996]: We have introduced a Bill into the House of Lords today to reform the compensation recovery scheme. We propose that, from October 1997, the compensator will become liable for the repayment of all benefits paid as a consequence of the accident, injury or disease. The compensator will be permitted to reduce relevant damages where a corresponding benefit is repaid to the Department. Damages for pain and suffering will not be reducible. We plan that the new rules should apply to all compensation claims determined on or after the point of change. The present small payments limit of £2,500 below which recoupment does not take place, will be removed. There will be no entitlement to reopen cases determined before the point of change.

WALES

  Public Transport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives are being pursued and how much funding is available to promote increased use of public transport; and if he will make a statement. [1866]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities have been given powers to promote public transport in their areas. Including concessionary fares schemes, this support is estimated at some £18 million in 1995–96. In addition, assistance is available to local authorities for major projects, as well as through the capital challenge scheme, the strategic development scheme and the bus priority scheme. This support includes more than £8 million over the three years from 1996–97 to improve rail links between Cardiff and the valleys.
  694

  Drug Action Team
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to encourage the formation of a regional drug action team in north Wales. [1929]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend issued "Forward Together-A Strategy to Combat Drug and Alcohol Misuse in Wales" in May 1996. In it, he asked all those organisations which have a part to play in combating drug and alcohol abuse to come together to form drug and alcohol action teams in each of the five new health authority areas; to submit local strategies and plans to him by December 1996; and to implement them from April 1997.

  Nursery Voucher Road Show
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what will be the total cost of the nursery education voucher road show to his Department; [1490]

  what is the itinerary of the nursery voucher roadshow; [2014]

  (3) to whom invitations have been sent to attend the nursery voucher roadshow. [2013]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend and I are determined that the voucher scheme will be implemented in Wales as smoothly and efficiently as possible. It is important that providers of nursery education in the maintained, private and voluntary sectors have full information about the detailed operation of the scheme. To that end, the Welsh Office is proposing to hold a number of factual information seminars and is currently assessing demand among private and voluntary nurseries and playgroups for seminars in Cardiff, Swansea, Carmarthen, Llandudno, Wrexham and Llandrindod Wells. So far, over 360 organisations have said they want to attend. The cost of the seminars is expected to be between £2,000 and £3,000, depending on numbers and locations.

  Local education authorities were invited to consider holding joint LEA/Welsh Office seminars for schools, but have declined, many, I understand, making separate arrangements to brief their schools.

  Dentists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent initiatives he has taken to assist the recruitment of dentists to rural areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [1750]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The £3 million initiative, announced in September last year, enabled Welsh health authorities to offer grants to attract new dentists, into those parts of Wales where they are most needed, and to expand the community dental service.

  The initiative has been very successful. Just under £2 million has been offered as grants for 56 new dentists. Twenty-seven of them are already in place and another 14 should be operational by January 1997. Grants of £25,000 are still available to attract new dentists to certain part of mid, west, and north, Wales.
  695
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State foe Wales (1) how many NHS dental practitioners there were in Wales in(a) each year since 1990 and (b) at present; and if he will make a statement; [1853]

  (2) how many dental practitioners undertaking national health service work there were in Wales by county in each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement. [1858]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the following table.

  Number of general dental practitioners treating at least some NHS patients1

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Clwyd

  108

  111

  105

  102

  114

  117

  125

  Dyfed

  96

  98

  101

  104

  104

  105

  101

  Gwent

  123

  125

  139

  135

  135

  138

  143

  Gwynedd

  66

  69

  65

  66

  67

  66

  65

  Mid Glamorgan

  135

  134

  123

  134

  126

  125

  129

  Powys

  34

  34

  36

  35

  34

  33

  35

  South Glamorgan

  132

  131

  129

  127

  133

  133

  145

  West Glamorgan

  133

  135

  134

  128

  130

  132

  133

  Wales

  827

  837

  832

  831

  843

  849

  876

  1 At 30 September.

  19961

  Bro Taf

  216

  Dyfed Powys

  136

  Gwent

  158

  Morgannwg

  170

  North Wales

  183

  Wales

  863

  1 At 30 June.

  Railways
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation his Department has carried out of the effect of the imposition of a minimum passenger requirement as currently stated on the north Wales to Crewe train services; and if he will make a statement. [1862]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am sure that passengers will welcome the availability for the first time of contractual guarantees of minimum service levels.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his Department's responsibilities in respect of(a) Regional Railways and (b) InterCity West Coast in respect of (i) overcrowding, (ii) punctuality and (iii) reliability; and if he will make a statement. [2260]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These are matters for the Franchising Director, who sets specifications and places requirements on the train operators through the passenger service requirements and franchise agreements.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of tuberculosis among the registered homeless have been diagnosed in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [1575]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  696
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have died from tuberculosis in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [1559]

  Mr. Jones
  The information requested, supplied by the Office for National Statistics, is given in the following list:Deaths from tuberculosis1: Welsh residents, 1986–1995

  1996: 38

  1987: 23

  1988: 35

  1989: 26

  1990: 30

  1991: 29

  1992: 36

  1993: 28

  19942: 25

  19952:32

  1 International Classification of Diseases (9th revision), codes 010–018.
  2 Figures for 1993 and 1994 represent the number of deaths occurring in each year. All the other figures are the number of deaths registered in the year. Also, new procedures for coding cause of death from 1993 and the absence of medical enquiries mean that figures for 1993 onwards may not be exactly comparable with earlier years.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of school leavers in Wales have been vaccinated against tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement. [1561]

  Mr. Jones
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Over the last three financial years, the average number of BCG, tuberculosis, vaccinations given each year to children aged 15 and under in Wales for their individual protection was 24,000. A further 1,2000, on average, were found to have an existing immunity to tuberculosis. For those aged between 10 and 15 years, the number of children in each school year in Wales is between 36,000 and 38,000—provisional January 1996 figures.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of tuberculosis have been diagnosed in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [1580]

  Mr. Jones
  The information is given in the following table.

  Number of cases of tuberculosis notified

  1986

  251

  1987

  232

  1988

  201

  I989

  210

  1990

  194

  1991

  166

  1992

  205

  1993

  199

  1994

  181

  1995

  184

  697
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many tuberculosis cases recorded in Wales since 1979 related to(a) children, (b) men and (c) women; and if he will make a statement; [2271]

  (2) how many tuberculosis cases have been reported since 1979. [2268]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information for 1995 is given in the following table.

  Number

  Children

  19

  Men

  92

  Women

  66

  Total1

  184

  1 Includes age/sex not known.

  The numbers of notifications of tuberculosis for earlier years, giving an age and sex breakdown, are published in table 4 of "Communicable disease statistics", series MB2—No. 6 for 1979 to No. 21 for 1994—available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning efforts to limit tuberculosis cases in Wales. [2269]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The department has taken a number of measures to combat tuberculosis (TB).

  In 1994, the United Kingdom health departments established the interdepartmental working group on TB to consider what further action could be taken to improve current measures to control, and prevent, cases of TB. Two reports emanating from the group, "Recommendations for the prevention and control of TB at local level" and "TB and homeless people" have recently been widely disseminated to the NHS in Wales. In addition, the Department has convened a small working party to consider arrangements for a framework to audit TB, in Wales, including arrangements for diagnosis, reporting and contact tracing. It is anticipated that the audit will be completed by the end of 1997.

  Updated guidance on TB with recommendations of persons who should be immunised with BCG vaccine, contained in the UK Health department's memorandum, "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", was issued to the NHS in Wales in September. In particular, this advice recommends the continuation of the school BCG immunisation programme.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is undertaking to assist the recruitment of general practitioners to rural medical practices; and if he will make a statement. [1740]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are already a number of fees and allowances available specifically to general practitioners in rural areas. Additionally, in Wales the financial allocation to health authorities includes a rurality component to help defray additional costs associated with rural practices.

  Drug Reference Groups
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he plans to take to establish drug reference groups in north Wales; and what financial help he plans to make available. [1928]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have recommended that drug and alcohol action teams establish implementation teams and local advisory teams to assist them in achieving their local strategies to combat drug and alcohol abuse.

  Some £3 million of Welsh Office funding for drug and alcohol initiatives was transferred to health authorities in 1994 to help them support local action.

  My right hon. Friend and I established a Welsh drug and alcohol unit with new funding of £1.5 million over three years, to provide advice and support to organisations throughout Wales.

  Cadw
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when does Cadw plan to establish an office in north Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17471

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to Cadw under its chief executive, Mr. Tom Cassidy. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. J. Cassidy to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 7 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question in which you ask when Cadw plans to establish an office in North Wales.
  Cadw has a works management unit in Caernarfon and our professional and field staff frequently travel throughout Wales. They provide a direct point of contact for members of the public who may be potential grant applicants; offer advice to local authorities on statutory procedures and best practice in conservation; and liaise with a range of bodies and organisations which have an interest in preserving and promoting the built heritage.
  I am most anxious that the services available from Cadw should be readily accessible, but I do believe that service to and communication with the public are already at a high standard and I have no plans to supplement the unit in Caernarfon with an office in North Wales.

  Police Authority Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the subject of the funding of police authorities during the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [1855]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I received 22 representations between 1 May and 31 October. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend will make announcements about the funding of police authorities shortly after the Budget.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proposals he has to improve the railway services of North West Regional Railways in respect of the Wrexham to Bidston railway line; and if he will make a statement; [2265]
  699
  (2) what proposals he has to improve the railway services of North West Regional Railways as they are provided on the Holyhead to Crewe railway line; and if he will make a statement. [2264]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The level of service on North West Regional Railways is a matter for the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the train operator. I understand that the franchising director is currently consulting local authorities and rail users' consultative committees about the draft passenger service requirement for North West Regional Railways, which will specify minimum service standards. When assessing bids for the franchise, the franchising director will take into account proposed improvements to the level and quality of services.

  Green and Brown Field Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of(a) green field and (b) brown field sites which will be developed in the next five years. [2257]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on which to make estimates of green field and brown field development sites is not collected centrally. The Government's policy is that full and effective use should be made of brown field sites to reduce pressure for development on green field sites.

  Rural Areas (Development)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned of low impact development in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [2345]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Welsh Office officials keep abreast of, and appraise, all published research that is relevant to the development of rural Wales. In planning terms, no research on low impact development has either been commissioned or is pending. Our policies for rural Wales are set out in "A Working Countryside for Wales", CM 3180, published on 13 March 1996.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of Japanese companies intending to locate in Wales in the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [2259]

  Mr. Hague
  A number of Japanese companies are considering investing in Wales, some for the first time, some reinvesting in existing operations and another is contemplating a joint venture. While we will do all that we can to convert these prospects into projects, it would be unwise to speculate further at this stage.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Japanese companies have located in each of the counties of Wales since 1990. [2258]

  Mr. Hague
  Since 1 January 1990, the Welsh development agency has recorded projects by nine Japanese companies carrying out new investments in Wales; four entering into joint ventures; three acquisitions; and 41 expansions of existing operations.
  700
  Ten projects have been recorded for Clwyd; five for Dyfed; 13 for Gwent; one for Gwynedd; 15 for Mid Glamorgan; two for Powys; eight for South Glamorgan; and three for West Glamorgan.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority the proportion of children who received free school meals in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in the most recent year for which figures are available. [2004]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is contained in the following table.

  Number of pupils taking free meals on the day of the Schools' Census (16 January in 1996) expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils in attendance on that day, by unitary authority

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Blaenau Gwent

  29.3

  21.1

  Bridgend

  23.5

  15.9

  Caerphilly

  29.1

  20.8

  Cardiff

  29.0

  17.8

  Carmarthenshire

  20.9

  13.9

  Ceredigion

  17.9

  11.3

  Conwy

  20.5

  17.1

  Denbighshire

  19.7

  12.9

  Flintshire

  16.1

  10.1

  Gwynedd

  21.3

  13.9

  Isle of Anglesey

  24.0

  14.7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  34.0

  19.7

  Monmouthshire

  13.9

  9.4

  Neath Port Talbot

  26.0

  17.4

  Newport

  29.8

  18.2

  Pembrokeshire

  25.2

  17.1

  Powys

  12.8

  6.8

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  29.1

  19.9

  Swansea

  24.8

  19.8

  Torfaen

  26.8

  20.4

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  19.5

  12.4

  Wrexham

  18.6

  13.1

  Wales

  24.0

  16.1

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to invest in the Wrexham to Bidston railway line; [2263]

  (2) what plans he has to invest in infrastructure relating to the Holyhead to Crewe railway line. [2262]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The level of investment in rail infrastructure is a matter for Railtrack.

  Mobile Mass Radiography Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will restore the mobile mass radiography service to Wales. [2270]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The service was particularly successful, when introduced in the 1950s, in its aim of identifying patients with TB. It would be an inappropriate use of resources, in view of the relatively low annual number of TB cases now being reported in Wales, to continue a mass service.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish an urgent review of the emergency planning arrangements for(a) industrial plants and (b) nuclear plants in Wales to take account of the recent industrial accident at Avonmouth. [2124]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The monitoring of emergency planning arrangements is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. Sites with significant chemical hazards are already required to prepare on-site emergency plans under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984. The regulations also require the appropriate local authority within whose area such a site fails to prepare and keep up-to-date an off-site emergency plan.

  The operators of nuclear power stations are required under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and 1969 to have an emergency plan approved by the Health and Safety Executive for each installation and to exercise these arrangements regularly.

  Two new European directives, covering the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances and basic safety standards, will have relevance for emergency planning requirements over the coming years.

  A487 (Bypass)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review his time scale for the construction of the Penygroes and Llanllyfni bypass on the A487 trunk road, with a view to bringing forward the commencement date; and what is the earliest possible date by which legal procedures and land acquisition could be completed to facilitate such a start if finance was, at that date, available. [2203]

  Mr. Hague
  The forward trunk road programme was reviewed as part of the process of preparing the Welsh Office's departmental report in March. This scheme was placed in the "in preparation" pool of the programme. It commands a high priority but is unlikely to start be fore April 1999. It is not possible to give a precise date for a start of work. The scheme is being progressed as quickly as the constraints of undertaking the detailed design work, completing the necessary statutory procedures and the availability of finance allow.

  Aberconwy Borough Council
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the consequences of his predecessor's decision not to cap Aberconwy borough council in 1993. [2005]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1993, Aberconwy borough council was capped at the budget it set. That decision was taken because of the flooding in Llandudno which created unexpected expenditure pressures on the local authority.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1996; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the 702
  estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each repeal. [1405]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992, and are planned for the coming year, arranged in cost bands of £1,000,000. [1919]

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

  The Old School and School House Caergilig
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the application and supporting evidence presented to him prior to making an order for the disposal of property known as The Old School and School House Caergilig, Ynys Mon. [2488]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A copy of the relevant documents has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 1 November,Official Report columns 295–96, if he will list the main sectors of NHS expenditure covered by the cash limit increase for vote 4 resulting from take-up of end-year flexibility; if he will list those health authorities affected by the take-up and the corresponding sums; and if he will make a statement. [3029]

  Mr. Hague
  More than £20 million of the expenditure requirement relates to NHS trusts and GP fundholders exercising their freedoms to carry-forward funds from year to year. Other main areas of expenditure include: the programme to expand dental provision; the clinical effectiveness scheme; and the provision of repayable loans to meet in-year service pressures. The precise amounts at authority level have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 1 November,Official Report columns 295–96, what assessment he has made of the consequences of the transfer of responsibility for urban investment grants to the Welsh Development Agency; from which bodies or departments responsibility for urban investment grants has been transferred and in what proportions of the total sums involved; if administrative staff previously responsible have been transferred with the responsibility; and if he will make a statement. [3025]

  Mr. Hague
  The urban investment grant scheme was previously operated by the Welsh Office; £3,882 million has been transferred to the WDA for 1996–97 to fund ongoing and new project. The Welsh Office staff previously responsible for management of the scheme are
  703
  on secondment to the WDA until the end of December to ensure a smooth transition in the administration of the scheme.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) on 1 November,Official Report, columns 295–96, if he will list the principal reasons for the increase in the running costs limit of the Office of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in Wales. [3027]

  Mr. Hague
  The reason for the increase in the running costs limit of the Office of Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Schools in Wales is the take-up of end-year flexibility as announced by the chief executive in his response to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 12 July 1996,Official Report, columns 326–31. This will be largely used for funding early retirement; helping OHMCI to meet the targets set in the White Paper "Development and training for Civil Servants: A Framework for Action"; IT training; and, administrative support for nursery inspection.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 1 November,Official Report columns 295–96, if he will list the approximate percentages of the increase in his Department's running cost limit in the present financial year that is accounted for by (a) the BSE crisis, (b) the costs of the north Wales child abuse inquiry and (c) other reasons; what impact each of these factors has had on the head count of his Department's employees as to (i) permanent and (ii) temporary staff; and if he will make a statement. [3023]

  Mr. Hague
  The increase will be applied to a number of the Department's budgets, largely to support additional work on BSE and the north Wales inquiry. The work is involving some re-deployment of permanent staff supplemented by temporary support staff recruited in the usual way. A number of these staff also carry out other duties.

  My Department keeps under continual review its staffing requirements to ensure that these and other areas of business are taken forward appropriately.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 1 November,Official Report, columns 295–96, what proportion of the cash limit increase in vote 2 is covered by the take-up of end-year flexibility; if he will list the principal schemes covered by such end-year flexibility take-up; and if he will make a statement. [3030]

  Mr. Hague
  Of the £14,906 million cash limit increase for class XIV, vote 2, £11,357 million was covered by the take-up of end-year-flexibility. Of this total, £1,378 million was allocated to the capital provision of grant-maintained schools and £127,000 to the Welsh Office multi-media and portable initiative. The balance contributed towards the net increase of £25.313 million in the Welsh Development Agency's grant in aid.
  704
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 1 November,Official Report, columns 295–96, what assessment he has made of the principal reasons for the lower than expected claims for agrienvironmental and farm conservation schemes; what impact the BSE crisis has had on the level of such applications; and if he will make a statement. [3026]

  Mr. Hague
  When payment rates are determined under environmental land management schemes administered by my Department, careful consideration is given to the need to achieve satisfactory uptake levels. Regular payment reviews are also undertaken to ensure that payment levels continue to be appropriately set. An example of this is the 20 per cent. increase in payment rates under the moorland scheme.

  Payment levels alone may not be the only factor resulting in lower than anticipated uptake. Socio-economic evaluations of the impact of each scheme are carried out on a five-yearly basis. The reports of the socio-economic evaluations of the Cambrian mountains and Lleyn peninsula environmentally sensitive areas are available in the Library of the House. Reports relating to other schemes will be placed in the library of the House as they become available.

  An assessment of the impact of BSE on the uptake of schemes has not been undertaken, although an increase in interest has been noticed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 1 November,Official Report, columns 295–96, if he will list the principal components of that net cash limit increase in vote 3 which arise from the take-up of end-year flexibility. [3028]

  Mr. Hague
  As announced by my hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 12 July, end-year-flexibility entitlements for class XIV, vote 3 totalled £1,177,000. Of this amount, £262,000 was taken up to cover capital expenditure on the central Government roads programme and £915,000 to cover additional departmental running costs, including costs associated with the north Wales child abuse inquiry.

  Rugby World Cup
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made to maximise the economic benefits to Wales of the holding of the final of the 1999 rugby world cup. [3013]

  Mr. Hague
  My hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) has responsibility for the co-ordination of my Department's efforts to maximise the economic benefits arising from the rugby world cup. He has established a Welsh Office liaison group with core representatives from the Welsh rugby union, the Wales tourist board, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Welsh Local Government Association, and Cardiff Marketing. Cardiff county council is also invited to attend. The group provides a focal point to ensure that Wales as a whole gains the maximum economic and tourism benefit from the event.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 4 November,Official Report, column 350, on the Welsh Development Agency's budget, if the sum of £20 million for the LG project is provision for 1996–97 alone; if it is the total provision by the Welsh Development Agency for the project; what is the planned expenditure for 1995–96 by the Welsh Development Agency on the LG project; and what elements of the LG project the £20 million provision will fund. [3021]

  Mr. Hague
  The £20 million allocated to the WDA of the LG project is for 1996–97; and additional spending requirements will be met as part of the WDA's normal priorities; the details of the funding arrangements are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 4 November,Official Report, column 350, on the Welsh Development Agency's budget, when construction of the LG factory is planned to commerce; and how much of the £20 million committed in grant in aid for the LG project is allocated to (a) land acquisition, (b) site preparation and (c) factory construction. [3022]

  Mr. Hague
  Construction of the LG electronics development is expected to start in January 1997; construction of the LG semiconductors development is expected to start in March 1997. Details of the funding arrangements are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 4 November, column 350 on the Welsh Development Agency's budget, what is the source of the additional £25.4 million of central Government provision for the Welsh Development Agency for 1996–97. [3020]

  Mr. Hague
  The additional provision of £25.3 million in class XIV, vote 2 for the grant in aid to the Welsh Development Agency has been funded mainly from (i) end-year flexibility entitlements carried forward from previous years, (ii) a switch of resources from class XIV, vote 1 as a result of claims proving lower than expected agri-environmental and farm conservation schemes, and (iii) numerous cases of virement within vote 2.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority as regards the movement of staff from Crickhowell house to other Government-owned premises in the Cardiff area; what estimate he has made of the savings in rent for those market-tested units of the authority leaving Crickhowell house for other Government-provided accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [3014]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The authority is considering options, on a commercially confidential basis, to re-locate staff from Crickhowell house. If this takes place, it will be essential to demonstrate value for money for the health service and a final decision has not been taken.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) of 1 November,Official Report, columns 295–96, if he will list the principal reasons for the increased grant in aid for the Cardiff Bay development corporation during the current financial year; what impact the current increase has had on previous estimates of (a) the final outturn cost of the barrage and (b) the current cumulative total public expenditure by the corporation; and if he will make a statement. [3024]

  Mr. Hague
  The grant in aid has been increased to fund additional estimated expenditure on inward investment projects, which could add to the cumulative total public expenditure by the corporation, and to fund the cash flow demands of the barrage project. The estimated final outturn cost of the barrage project remains within the £191 million announced to Parliament.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning approval for the split up of GP fundholding practices; and if he will make a statement [3012]

  Mr. Hague
  From 1 April 1996, the minimum list size criterion for standard GP fundholding in Wales was reduced to 4,000 from 7,000. Thirty-seven practices previously within 17 fundholding groups, applied to change their status, and were approved. Some 31 are now single practice funds; six practices remain in three groups.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements for compulsory competitive tendering for work subject to the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 will apply to local authorities. [3524]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has given very careful consideration to the timetable for the re-introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for this work after local government reorganisation. We have consulted on the regulations which provide for the re-introduction of compulsory competitive tendering and, separately, have received representations that a number of local authorities are continuing to have operational difficulties in complying with the timetable which was announced in June 1995.

  My right hon. Friend has concluded that authorities should be given an additional six months for the re-introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for this work, that is to 1 October 1997. Welsh Office officials have written today to local authorities and other interested parties seeking comments on this proposal. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  An announcement on the way in which compulsory competitive tendering will be extended to professional services and housing management will be made shortly.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

UNESCO
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the importance of education, science and culture to sustained economic and social development in the developing countries, they will now rejoin UNESCO.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have no immediate plans to rejoin UNESCO. This issue is being kept under review in the light of progress with reform in the organisation and other financial priorities.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that, with a lot of hard work, much has been done to put right what was certainly badly wrong with UNESCO? Does he further agree that, with 18 per cent. of our bilateral aid budget being spent on education, it is essential to be there ensuring that UNESCO is working for the things that we believe to be important and not in any way working against them? If we want the status of being one of only five permanent members of the Security Council, do we not have to take the responsibilities that flow from that? Therefore, should we not be giving a lead in getting the UN system right?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We have publicly acknowledged that good progress has been made by the organisation in putting its house in order since the United Kingdom withdrew in 1985. We believe that there is still scope for further reform in more decentralisation and improved programme focus. As the noble Lord mentioned, the United Kingdom continues to fund UNESCO-type activities, such as educational assistance, through our bilateral aid programme. We believe that bilateral aid provides better value for money for both donor and recipient. It allows us to exercise tight control over the use of funds. As regards the UN Security Council, the noble Lord will be well aware that the United States is also not a member of UNESCO and is not showing any indication of rejoining.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who remember UNESCO recall that it had nothing whatever to do with education, science or culture? May I urge my noble friend that the Government should not waste any money by rejoining this absurd body?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government agree that the discussion which will take place next year on the adoption of a declaration about the human genome at the General Assembly of UNESCO will be an added reason for us to hurry up and rejoin, but if not, why not?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that I made it clear in my first Answer that there is a question of priorities as regards finance. Finance may be better placed through our bilateral programme than through UNESCO. The assessed contribution to UNESCO would be about £11 million per annum. If we believe that those funds are better spent through our bilateral programme, we shall do so.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the aims of UNESCO and those of the ODA are very similar? As regards the ODA, is my noble friend aware that that body is closely monitored by the National Audit Commission? Would it not be folly to put some of the money that now goes into the ODA into UNESCO until that body has monitoring of its expenditure similar to that which we have through the National Audit Commission?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I agree very considerably with what my noble friend has said. However, it is something that we shall keep under review. When further reform has taken place, we shall review the situation again. It is not counted out, but it is not counted in.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, although we followed the United States out of UNESCO, we are not waiting to follow the United States back in? A committee of the other place investigated the British refusal to stay in UNESCO and I recall that it concluded that the US Heritage Foundation had lobbied both the Reagan Administration and the British Government to take a decision which in many ways was not in our national interest. Is the decision to be taken on our own or shall we simply follow the American lead?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as in all areas, it is a decision that we shall take on our own.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the noble Lord said that UNESCO is putting its house in order, would not that process be speeded up and a better job done if we were inside UNESCO rather than outside it? Would not the considerable amount more than £11 million that UNESCO spends be better spent if we were there to introduce the monitoring system about which the noble Lord, Lord Clark, has just spoken?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am sure that we would be happy to give advice; but advice can be given without us being part of UNESCO. We have given a very good lead to the world with the ODA about the way to control funds and expenditure. If UNESCO wants any advice, I am certain that we shall be happy to give it.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that it is not a very convincing position to say that we are there to offer advice but are not prepared to join and to play our part? If we really are not only concerned about what UNESCO might do wrong, but about its potential to do right, would it not be much better to be in there leading in the right direction? Has the noble Lord studied the remarks of the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who has referred in another place to the stringent criteria laid down by UNESCO and to the national and international prestige which would flow from Greenwich being recognised as a UNESCO national heritage site? Is not that facing both ways at once? Either we respect the organisation or we do not. If we do, should we not be playing our leading part within it?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is slightly off the track of the original Question. However, I have stated and I reiterate that we are continuing to keep this issue under review and when we feel it is appropriate and when we believe that financial priorities allow us to do so, we shall certainly reconsider the position. Indeed, we are continuing to keep the matter under consideration.

Recruitment and Assessment Services
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who has purchased Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS), and for how much.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, Recruitment and Assessment Services was sold to the Capita Group plc. The consideration was £7.25 million.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what sense he thinks it makes to sell an asset like that for that amount of money and to incur an annual cost thereafter? Can he tell us the cost, for instance, of the three extra posts, of the monitoring and research and of the fixed contract? It simply does not make sense to me and I should be very glad if my noble friend could reassure me.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I note my noble friend's concerns which she reiterates from the debates that we held in your Lordships' House earlier in the year. As to the proceeds of the sale, the sum of money realised, £7.25 million, is substantial if considered in relation to the turnover of RAS, which is £9.1 million. However, the sum of money generated from the sale of RAS was never a primary consideration. What mattered were the wider benefits of the sale and the fact that value for money for the taxpayer was achieved. In fact, the net present value of the sale to the taxpayer was in the
724
region of £6 million. Therefore, to answer my noble friend's question, the costs arising out of the sale of RAS amount to approximately £1.25 million.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government have landed us in a quite disgraceful situation? Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, what conceivable experience have the people at Capita—or whatever it is called—of running a recruitment and advisory service? Secondly, for the relatively small sum of money that the Government have achieved in selling RAS, do they not realise that they have jeopardised something which has been an independent national asset and widely admired throughout the world? They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Capita Group plc is a well established publicly quoted company specialising in consultancy and other professional services to business. I believe that it enjoys a high reputation in its field. In the Government's view, RAS has found a good home where it can develop its activities and simultaneously maintain its high standards. As the noble Lord will recall, control of the standard of service provided by RAS lies in the terms of the contract which the customer departments have entered into. Adherence to the requirements of the contract will be subject to scrutiny by departments as well as to an independent audit. Nothing in the sale jeopardises the key point which I know that all of your Lordships are keen to see preserved, which is the independence and impartiality of the Civil Service.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this whole episode—first, the debate and Division in your Lordships' House in March and then the evidence given before the Select Committee—has left the very unfortunate impression that when the opinion of your Lordships' House becomes inconvenient it is to be put aside and trampled underfoot?
Earl Howe: Not at all, my Lords. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the Government agreed either wholly or in spirit with almost all of the recommendations in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee. In effect, the Government accepted nine out of the 10 recommendations made.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend able to assure the House that there is a clause in the contract to prevent the company passing into foreign ownership?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend will recall that that point was covered in our debate in July. The fast-stream contract will entitle the Government to terminate the contract in the event of a takeover. The Government would be able to decide whether they were satisfied with the proposed new owner. The new owner would, of course, wish to ensure that the main Civil Service customers were fully satisfied. If they were not, any such takeover might well not proceed given the value and the prestige of the fast-stream work.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that was not the question that his

725
noble friend asked him? The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was what would happen if the company passed into foreign ownership. The noble Earl did not answer that question.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I did answer the question. I said that the Government were entitled to terminate the contract if they felt that the owners of RAS were not suitable.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the main recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on the Public Service was that the Government should think again, and clearly they did not do so? Further, what arrangements have the Government made to monitor the effect of privatisation on the recruitment of high calibre graduates and other personnel into the public service, and will the results of that monitoring be reported annually?
Earl Howe: My Lords, to answer the second question of the noble Baroness first, there will be an annual report published by the OPS on the performance of RAS. As to the first question, I am sure that the noble Baroness will recall that the terms of reference of your Lordships' Select Committee did not include the wider question of whether privatisation should proceed. It addressed itself to narrower issues. Of course, I am aware that the opinion of the House was against the wider issue, but that does not negate the point I made earlier about the Government's acceptance of the majority of the recommendations made by your Lordships.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the answer of the noble Earl to my noble friend Lord Harris mean that the Government would be quite satisfied with foreign ownership of this company?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is of a hypothetical nature. It would depend upon who the prospective new owners were. The qualifications of the prospective new owners would have to be judged on their own merits. I cannot possibly say at this juncture what the Government's response would be. But the key point is that, if the Government were unhappy with the suitability of the new owners, they could terminate the contract and make other arrangements.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in reply to an earlier question, the noble Earl said that the Government would carefully monitor the performance of this new organisation. Is this not a little remarkable since the Government have already admitted—indeed, it was part of the grounds for privatisation—that they were incapable of supervising the RAS while it was in the public sector? Have they had sudden access to intelligence in this matter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is perfectly natural for departments to benefit from the fast stream of the Civil Service to ensure that the standards to which RAS
726
operates are of the highest. They will be able to do that under the contract. It is right and proper that they should be able to do it, and the contract facilitates that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is slightly disturbing to have these nasty tangs of xenophobia in this House from the Benches opposite? Does he agree also that it is overwhelmingly in our national interest not to object to foreigners taking over companies in other countries? After all, that is currently the ambition of a number of major British companies.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I believe that he makes an excellent point.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, did my noble friend note that when the Select Committee had before it the Deputy Foreign Minister he said quite clearly that he had already made up his mind? He made it perfectly clear then that no notice would be taken of what was said—whatever was said.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I note my noble friend's strong view on the matter. I can only repeat to her that the recommendations of your Lordships made for a better contract and arrangement with the new owners in the end. For that the Government are grateful to the House.

Women at Work and Family Life
3.24 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the Equal Opportunities Commission pamphlet Pregnancy need only be a pause in your career puts the correct emphasis on the responsibilities of parenthood.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the publicity devised by the Equal Opportunities Commission—which is an independent, statutory body—is to draw the attention of women who are at work and have become pregnant to their financial and maternity leave entitlements. It is in no way intended to indicate anything about parenthood or bringing up a child.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for not really answering my Question. Does he agree that to state that having a baby is merely a pause misleads and fails to recognise the necessary lifelong commitment of work, expertise and sacrifice in having a family? Does it also suggest that the vitally important role of motherhood is secondary to having a job?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only repeat what I originally said. These are the words of the Equal Opportunities Commission and I am advised that they

727
are in no way intended to indicate anything about parenthood or bringing up a child. More and more women now choose to go out to work and balance the demands of family and work. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I believe that parents are best placed, in the light of the available evidence and benefits, to make decisions as to what is appropriate for their children. I do not believe that it is a matter on which the Government should take greater responsibility.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that some time ago the education programme of the Equal Opportunities Commission played an important part in helping to familiarise working women with the very complicated changes that had taken place in maternity provisions, and that the particular reference in the Question was part of that programme? Does the noble Lord also agree that the Equal Opportunities Commission has, since its inception, consistently attempted to create circumstances in which working women are able to make a real and informed choice about future career patterns and the proper care of their children?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as to the first point, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the complexity of the benefit arrangements and therefore the duty on the Equal Opportunities Commission and others to provide advice upon them. That is exactly what the commission has done, particularly in light of the various changes that have been made to those particular benefits. It is also right to stress that in the end the parents of the child must decide the appropriate arrangements. Therefore, it is right that the EOC and others should ensure that the appropriate information is available to parents so that they can make the right decision in their own lights.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the most important point is that commercial and industrial firms and public institutions should set up family-friendly employment policies to enable skilled and well qualified women to combine happy and responsible family life with successful careers and ensure that their talents, skills and experience, which have been achieved through substantial private and public investment, are not wasted?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to point out that there is no reason why women cannot combine a working life and a family life. To deny them that is to deny them choice and the economy the benefits of the education of a large number of women. I point out to my noble friend that women with qualifications above A levels have the highest rate of economic activity: approximately 82 per cent. compared with 47 per cent. for unqualified women. The same difference is broadly true of women with children aged under five.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that fathers also have some responsibility in relation to parenthood and therefore parental leave has importance in that context?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as a father I believe that fathers have considerable responsibilities in the upbringing of their children. That is why in all of my responses I have been careful to make clear that I believe these decisions are best made by both parents, not merely by husbands or wives, on the best available advice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many of us believe that young women of today do a marvellous job in bringing up their children? They are probably burdened with a far greater amount of work than people of my generation, when more help was available. Does my noble friend agree that young people, both fathers and mothers, are to be congratulated on the way they cope with their family responsibilities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, speaking as a young parent I take that praise personally. I echo what my noble friend has said. Many young people do a splendid job. It is unfortunate that much of the press, in terms of the rotten apples, focuses on the very small minority who are not doing well. As my noble friend puts it, most do an excellent job.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, given the acceptance that raising children is a serious responsibility for all parents—that is, working and non-working, male and female—will the Minister accept that the whole community has an interest in supporting successful parenting, which involves a range of practical measures across departments to support families with children and to tackle the very worrying growth in the number of children being brought up in poverty?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government pursue a range of practical measures, but I suspect that the noble Baroness is taking a more statist approach than I should like to take. The important point to remember, and I cannot stress it enough, is that in the end the parents are best placed to make the appropriate decisions about their children. The more the Government try to take over those decisions and activities the more the responsibility is removed from the parents.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that those men and women in this country who are lucky enough to have jobs work longer hours than any of their counterparts in Europe in their anxiety to keep them? Is not that the main reason why so many children are denied proper parental care? Would the Minister care to speculate on the reaction he might have received had he put the idea that it was necessary for a woman to chose at any point between a career and motherhood to his noble friend Lady Thatcher?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I made a veiled reference to some highly successful people who had managed to combine motherhood and parenthood with very important jobs. Without mentioning my noble friend, I was referring to her.

729
As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, perhaps I may remind him that we have possibly the second highest rate of employment in Europe and the second highest rate of female employment. That is largely as a result of the policies which Her Majesty's Government have been pursuing.

Pakistan: Asylum Decisions
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the developing situation in Pakistan, it is their intention to remove Pakistan from the list of countries designated under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we have no plans at present to remove Pakistan from the list.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not that an astonishing Answer not merely in response to the enforced change of government which took place last week but also following the report of the special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights who, in the middle of October, before the change of government, found that there was endemic, widespread and systematic use of torture while people were in the custody of police, army and paramilitary forces and that the majority of women held in police custody were subjected to some form of sexual abuse, including rape? It can hardly be claimed that the new government, not being democratically elected, will have a better record. Surely the Government have an obligation to think again about the use of the white list in Pakistan?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is only recently that we had a long and detailed discussion on this matter. The incidence of human rights violations had decreased during the 10 years of Mrs. Bhutto's government, which has now changed. They took steps to ensure protection of, and respect for, human rights, including the establishment of a human rights cell with powers to promote human rights awareness.
We regularly raise concerns about human rights with the Pakistan Government and we will continue to do so. The only event that has changed the situation, no doubt giving rise to the Question because it is this week's emergency Question, is the latest accusation made against Mrs. Bhutto. All I can say is that Pakistan is still calm. We look continually at the situation. It would be open to the Government, if they wished, as a first step to suspend certification claims under the designation procedures. However, at this moment we see no reason for doing so.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the previous government had ceased to
730
function; that fundamental rights and the constitution have not been suspended; and that any change should be seen as a change for the better?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Viscount has made the most pertinent point. What has occurred is entirely constitutional; the president has acted in an entirely constitutional manner. We are monitoring the situation, which we understand is calm. There are no reports of violence or demonstrations. Elections have been called for 3rd February next year, and we will work closely with the caretaker government. However, there are serious allegations of corruption and extra-judicial killings and they must be investigated.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister read the report of Dr. Nigel Rodley? Has she noted that in addition to the statement quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, Dr. Rodley stated that there is a climate of impunity in Pakistan such that over a 15-month period not a single officer was prosecuted for any of the thousands of violations of human rights which occurred, particularly in Karachi? Has the Minister noted that in a statement President Leghari specifically mentioned the thousands of people killed in Karachi and the fact that the previous government had failed to take any meaningful action against those responsible for the atrocities? Will the Government at least call for an independent inquiry into the killings, as has Amnesty International, preferably accompanied by a promise of indemnity and protection for any witnesses who might appear before it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes, I have read the report. The assessment, which will be updated with the latest events, takes into account what has been stated by Amnesty International, the UNHCR and other foreign governments and what has been passed to other government departments by Foreign Office intelligence. The assessment is written in the light of all that information.
There are 132 million people in Pakistan and we have taken the view that in general the situation is safe. However, the fundamental point as regards considering claims for asylum is that every single applicant, whether from a designated country or not, will be given full consideration without prejudice in the first instance and that a certificate will be issued only if the person goes to appeal. As your Lordships know, because Pakistan is a designated country a certificate will be given if there is no proven case of there being a genuine fear of persecution.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her remarks are a little puzzling? Did she not say that on more than one occasion the Government have made representations to the Government of Pakistan concerning human rights in that country? If that is the case, how can it be that Pakistan is still on the white list? Surely, making representations about human rights

731
implies that there are abuses in that country, which would suggest that the country should not be on the white list.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I never used the term "white list" and therefore I do not recognise it. I repeat that there are 132 million people in Pakistan and we will make representations about human rights where we believe that it is pertinent to do so, not only in respect of Pakistan but many other countries. Often the particular point we make will apply to a small group of people or an individual case of a breach of human rights and we apply as much pressure as we can bring to bear with the influence that we have. But we believe that, in general, life in Pakistan is safe for its people. That does not preclude the fact that individual applications for asylum will be considered and where there is a genuine fear of persecution, proven consistent with the United Nations convention, refugee status will be given.

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to restate, with amendments, Part IV of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brightman: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Land Registration Act 1925. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Brightman.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This important Bill develops and builds upon the Government's long-standing commitment to the highest standards of maritime safety and of vigilance to prevent the pollution of our waters and coast. We believe that the measures in this Bill will make an important
732
contribution to those aims. We have been encouraged by the wide support that the thrust of our proposals has received during public consultation.
Our approach to meet those commitments is fourfold: entailing the prevention of incidents occurring in the first place; mitigating the effects when they do happen; ensuring that those who suffer the consequences receive timely and fair compensation; and learning the lessons that will help to prevent a recurrence.
The Government have long taken steps to investigate the causes of incidents, a function now discharged by the independent Marine Accident Investigation Branch. As well as investigating incidents, it makes recommendations about how they could be avoided in future. However, following the grounding of the "Braer" tanker in January 1993, we decided that a broader view was needed and we appointed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, as chairman of an inquiry into what further steps could be taken to improve safety at sea and to prevent pollution.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, rose to the occasion with his thorough and challenging report Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas published in May 1994, in which he made 103 recommendations for action. We warmly welcomed his report and our detailed response was published in February 1995. We accepted 91 recommendations and have now implemented over half of them. I have arranged for the latest progress report of action taken to be placed in the Library of the House. As well as having a major impact on UK maritime policy, his report has been acknowledged internationally as an authoritative major work of reference on the subject. The report recognised that much has already been done. But it identified a number of areas where measures already in place could be reinforced or where there were gaps which could be plugged.
The Government acted quickly in many areas where there was no need for international agreement or legislation. We have pursued international action on key issues and this Bill will implement the recommendations which the Government accept which require legislation.
The Bill's provisions can be grouped under a number of headings: measures designed to minimise or prevent marine accidents or marine pollution; measures to better deal with such accidents when they occur; measures to ensure that insurance is available and that reasonable compensation can be paid; and the statutory framework for a possible future charging mechanism for marine services. The opportunity is also being taken to legislate on a number of other matters relating to maritime security and safety.
I turn first to the question of prevention. We are proposing in Clause 8 to apply appropriate safety standards to foreign as well as UK registered ships operating in our waters, save those on innocent or transit passage. We are also establishing our right, recognised in international law, to inspect ships found within our territorial waters and to detain them if they are unseaworthy. Where a ship could pose a safety or pollution hazard and has no valid reason for being in our waters, we are taking powers to order them to move

733
on, regardless of whether it is seaworthy. For both measures, rights of innocent and transit passage would be preserved.
The report looked particularly at the problem of ships undertaking fish transhipment in our waters, commonly known as "klondykers". Klondykers can provide a useful market for UK fish but it is true that they have a poor track record for safety and pose a pollution threat to our coastline. Action by the fisheries departments to restrict the numbers of licences on grounds of fish conservation has already reduced their number. We now propose, through Clause 11, to provide for safety standards to be applied to such vessels. If they are not found to comply, the clause provides for the transhipment operations of the vessel to be suspended.
To reduce the possibility of marine pollution, the report made specific reference to the adequacy of waste reception facilities in our ports. Following wide consultation, I announced in January a package of 18 measures to prevent illegal discharges of waste from ships. The measures mix the "carrot and stick" approach providing for better use of port waste reception facilities and enhanced detection and punishment of those who continue to illegally discharge at sea.
We see port waste management plans as an important way forward. Many ports are already preparing these on a voluntary basis and that is our preferred approach. However, Clause 5 would allow us to make such plans mandatory for all ports, harbours and marinas to require them to alter charging practices, if those were acting as a disincentive to the use of reception facilities and to make the discharge of wastes mandatory. If such measures were necessary, they would be carried out by order and would follow further public consultation with interested parties. The Bill also provides for five-fold increases to the fines which a magistrate may impose for an illegal discharge, through Clause 7. This is part of our policy of preventing pollution by increasing both incentives and deterrents.
I turn now to emergencies at sea. We are committed to doing all we can to take preventive action, and when incidents do occur, to minimise their impact. The first four clauses of the Bill would all assist in this aim. Clause I would give the Secretary of State the power to issue a direction to establish a temporary exclusion zone around a casualty at sea for reasons of safety or the prevention of pollution. No ship would be allowed to enter a temporary exclusion zone unless directed by the Secretary of State or unless exercising a right of transit passage. Ships entitled to exercise these rights would be encouraged to avoid the zones for their own safety. For other ships, failure to comply with the zones would be an offence. The inspiration for exclusion zones follows what has already been established for temporary exclusion zones in the air.
The report recommended strengthening the Government's powers of intervention to minimise the impact in cases or threatened cases of pollution from a shipping incident. The current test for intervention stipulates that the power can be exercised where an accident has occurred to or in a ship where pollution is likely to occur "on a large scale". Clause 2 would make
734
the test less onerous by changing the wording to "significant". The clause also extends the geographical limit of the powers. The opportunity is also being taken to give greater flexibility for fire services to fight fires at sea in Clause 4, by amending the Fire Services Act 1947.
The third group of measures covered by the Bill relate to liability and compensation and to insurance. The UK has played an active part in negotiations to secure agreement where international co-operation is necessary. A recent major success has been the adoption by the International Maritime Organisation—the IMO—of the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention. The UK played a key role in the negotiation, ensuring that the final instrument was both balanced and workable. We believe that that convention provides major additional protection to coastlines. The UK was the first state to sign up last month. The Bill will enable legal effect to be given to the convention, through Clause 13. Its implementation is supported by all UK interests. We are working within Europe and with other key states to bring about a co-ordinated ratification, and so reduce the potential competitive disadvantage to any single nation.
The Bill contains provision in Clause 14 for the UK to implement and ratify a protocol to amend the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The protocol would increase the amount of compensation available for non-oil claims.
In addition, we are taking action internationally on insurance. As a result of a UK-led initiative, the IMO is considering the development of an international regime to require all ships to carry documentary evidence of the owner's ability to meet third party liabilities. No such requirement currently exists, except for oil tankers. An irresponsible minority of shipowners operate without insurance, and are thus able to gain a commercial advantage over responsible shipowners. Clause 15 contains an enabling power for the United Kingdom to introduce a requirement for shipowners to have insurance. Our preference would be to exercise this power in the context of international agreement.
When the Government invited the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to make his report, he was asked to consider the international and economic implication of any new measures. He endorsed the user pays and polluter pays principles, in accordance with which the shipping industry should bear the costs it imposed.
Clause 12 contains enabling powers to recover the standing costs of emergency response, emergency towing, the costs of inspection where not already recovered and the costs of standard setting activity. However, we recognise that such charges could have implications for the competitiveness not only of UK ports and shipowners based in UK ports but also for exporters and importers using our ports. We take these issues very seriously indeed for the competitiveness reasons that I detailed. We have, therefore, clearly stated that our preferred approach would be to implement these provisions in the context of an international agreement. I take considerable pains to re-emphasise that statement.

735
We are also taking measures to amend the way that the General Lighthouse Fund may work in the event of international agreement on charging. These changes may be necessary because the existing General Lighthouse Fund arrangements may not be compatible with any new international scheme or, indeed, may conflict with such a scheme. The provisions in the Bill relating to the fund are designed to address that precise problem. However, I understand that there are concerns from certain quarters that the effects of these clauses may go substantially further than that. That is why I can assure the House that there are no wider implications or intentions. I take the opportunity of this Second Reading debate to emphasise that assertion which was not perhaps sufficiently well explained before the Bill came to your Lordships' House.
The opportunity is also being taken to introduce a number of other, mostly minor, changes to merchant shipping legislation. For example, we are seeking to lighten the burden on the registrar general to record and preserve all documents transmitted to him, of which most are seldom required.
The measures contained in the Bill are the result of extensive work and consultation and they owe much to the careful deliberations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. It is a Bill which contains a wide variety of measures, all of which are designed to reduce the possibility of pollution and indeed to make our ships safer. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has been to the Library to ascertain whether in fact the progress report to which the noble Viscount adverted in the first few moments of his speech is available there. At present I am told that the document cannot be located, is it not somewhat surprising that a report which ought to have been available to enable noble Lords to enlighten themselves as regards its contents, which are relevant to today's debate, should have been placed in the Library—indeed, if it is there at all—at such very short notice?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if the document has not been placed in the Library, I certainly apologise. It should have been; and, indeed, I was informed that it had been. I can only apologise to the House. However, it is worth pointing out that it is merely an update of an update as regards where we are at present. The information about our response to the report has been available for nearly 18 months and there has been a full update on it. The progress report merely identifies the most recent developments. Nonetheless, I certainly take the noble Lord's point. I shall endeavour to find out what has happened in that respect.
The noble Lord interrupted me as I was about to approach the last sentence of my Second Reading introduction speech. Beyond thanking the noble and learned Lord again for his contribution to bringing matters to where we are now, I was merely going to say that the
736
measures contained in the Bill are wide and varied. They are all designed to ensure that our shipping is safer and that we have less chance of pollution around our coasts.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Viscount Goschen.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. It was not my intention to be unhelpful, but in future perhaps such a document should be placed in the Library of the House at an earlier stage. It must be relevant to consider the most recent developments. However, the Minister is quite right to say that we have had an opportunity to consider the Government's response to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. Nevertheless, it is important to be brought up to date. We have no opportunity today to consider the document.
I should also like to echo the plaudits offered by the Minister to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his committee for the outstanding contribution that they have made, both nationally and internationally, in connection with maritime safety and, indeed, as regards the protection of the maritime environment. I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord that classification societies, about which I know and with which I am in contact, have examined with great care what he has had to say. In fact, the whole maritime industry has shown its keen interest by the contributions that it has made to the Government's request for it to be involved in the consultation. My only reservation about that is the very short period that the Government gave for the consultation. I believe that it should have been longer because, in many respects, this is a highly technical Bill. It is in no way contentious from a party political point of view. Indeed, it would have been better if such matters had been addressed with rather longer deliberations. But, there it is; that is in the past.
While examining the Bill with care, as I am sure the Minister would expect us to do—and, indeed, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, would expect us to deliberate very carefully about the Bill—we wish to give the legislation a fair passage. We have agreed to a shortened Committee stage by agreeing to the Bill being considered in a committee off the Floor of the House in the Moses Room. I believe it is right that this should be the case.
I should like to thank the Minister for the very careful consideration that he has given to most of these matters, perhaps to all of them. If I may say so, the noble Viscount is an extraordinarily helpful Minister. I say that while speaking from this Dispatch Box, although I may not be here for much longer. Indeed, I may be on the other side of the House quite soon.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Clinton-Davis: Be that as it may, my Lords; indeed, I did not expect to receive wide acclamation from the other side of the House on that point.
At the outset I ought to declare an interest. I am president of the United Kingdom Pilots' Association (Marine) and the noble Lord who preceded me in that

737
respect is also present in the Chamber today. That is something of a handicap in relation to such debates because I shall not address the pilotage issues. As and when they arise, they will be dealt with by my noble friend.
There are areas which are not included in the Bill at this stage; for example, where the Government accept recommendations in principle or are engaged in consultation about them, especially international fora. The House will expect the Government to advise it of the progress being made in the course of the debates that we will have at a later stage. We shall seek to make those opportunities available.
However, in addressing the Bill, it is impossible to divorce its provisions from the general maritime malaise which affects this country and indeed Europe—but perhaps more this country than most other countries in Europe. The effectiveness with which we are able to address maritime safety (integrally related as it is to issues affecting pollution) especially in the medium and long term, are to some extent at least influenced by the state of our own shipping industry.
I congratulate the Government in respect of many of the initiatives which they have taken in the IMO. However, it would be nothing other than superficial to deny that the strength of our own maritime industry is integrally related to the influence that we can wield in the councils of the world. I wish to make a few points about that at the beginning of the debate before I discuss the provisions of the Bill, in respect of which I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions.
It was some six years ago that the Department of Transport—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was Secretary of State at the time—and the General Council of British Shipping, the predecessor of the Council of Shipping, produced a report of a joint working party. That report was produced because the GCBS, the owners, the unions and the Government—the Department of Transport at least—were deeply concerned about the state of our maritime industry. The report referred to British shipping as a vital national asset. It is, and it was then of course. The report referred to the significance of this country's strategic defence. It referred to the critical importance to this country of the industry because we are a trading nation. The report mentioned deep concern about the industry's decline. Of course it paid obeisance, I suppose, to the fact that the Government were part of this; it stated that the industry was leaner and fitter. I disputed that then, and I dispute it now. The report drew attention to the disturbing shortage of junior officers and to the detrimental effects of an industry in decline on marine-related activities in the City and in many other organisations dependent upon skilled mariners.
The number of seafarers and officers had declined then; it has declined substantially since then. Overall, the situation has undoubtedly become worse. Recruitment and training are woefully inadequate. Although the Minister will say there has been some improvement in recruiting cadets, it is still grossly inadequate to meet the needs of this country today and in the future as, internationally, the shipping industry
738
begins to burgeon. Are we capable of capturing a substantially increased share of that market? I fear the answer would indicate a pessimistic situation. I believe that the root cause of all this is a familiar combination of weak management, an undue pressure for fast profits and, most particularly, government inaction.
Over the past few years we have seen an emergence from the depths of recession on the part of international shipping. Certainly the European Commission is seeking to address that as regards European shipping. Incidentally, I should like to know what the Minister's reaction is to the latest document which has been produced by the Commission, and DGVII in particular. I do not think the Minister serves the cause of shipping well in this respect. I know he tries hard and I salute him in what he is able to do, but it is not right to pretend that things are other than what they are. When we have addressed these issues to the Minister he has said, in a succession of debates—as did his predecessors—that our shipping is leaner and fitter.
Viscount Goschen: Hear, hear!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister says "Hear, hear!". It is certainly leaner to the point of being anorexic, but it is also geriatric. Perhaps I should not use that word in this Chamber, but I have done so in relation to shipping. Old ships are more vulnerable. Our ships are ageing remarkably. That is not good for British shipping because we need to have our ships replaced or refurbished, especially in the liner trades. We must have properly certificated officers and crews coming into the profession on a much greater scale than is happening at the moment if it is to take advantage of this upturn in international shipping.
Flagging out by shipowners of their ships to other and often less reputable registries goes on. Over the past 16 years the number of ships flying European Union flags has more than halved; in Britain the position is even worse than that. In 1980 the flags of member states of the European Union carried 33 per cent. of world shipping. The figure is now down to 14 per cent. We know that flagging out takes place for labour and tax reasons. Huge tax advantages accrue to shipowners regardless of the true interests of member states and of the European Union as a whole. The question which has to be addressed is how we can establish conditions whereby European Union flags will be supported by shipowners on economic grounds. The relevance of what the Commission puts forward in that regard is important. I should like to know the Minister's views on that.
We have to ensure that inspections of substandard vessels, or vessels which are alleged to be, or suspected of being, substandard, are increased. Therefore there must be no reduction in the number of trained inspectors. The quality and number of inspections throughout the European Union must achieve a much higher standard uniformly. Some ships (not all flags of convenience ships) are, as the Transport Select Committee of the House of Commons said the other day, "flags of shame". Indeed that is demonstrated vividly by the incidence of shipping accidents in the first

739
six months of 1996. Over 7,000 lives have been lost in that short period as against half that number in the whole of 1995. Therefore we must make it increasingly difficult for substandard ships to operate and to remain in business. I submit that all these are points which are indivisible from the purposes of this Bill and the report.
Although the Bill is generally commendable, I wish to discuss some areas where we shall wish to probe the Government closely as to their intentions and purposes. I just give notice of that at the moment. At the outset I should say that the Bill introduces a number of miscellaneous measures which have to be read in the context of the 1995 Act, which lays down the consolidated regime. We are addressing here a wide, complex area. It is necessary to undertake considerable research to become really informed about this matter. Is that the best way to procure clarity in the legislation? What reasons did the Government seek to adduce for failing to accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which came into force about two years ago, after many years of gestation? What is the Government's position on that? One of the difficulties, it seems, is that the Government are unable to secure voting rights in the Law of the Sea tribunal until that is done. If they are concerned about maritime limits around Rockall, I believe that constitutes no substantive reason for not acceding. Is that the Government's position?
Clause 1 represents a significant power to enable the effective control of an actual or threatened pollution incident. That is to be welcomed. The power is restricted to territorial waters, or waters defined in Section 129 (2)(b) of the 1995 Act. What are the Government's intentions concerning the specification of such waters? As far as I know, no such Orders in Counsel have yet been laid. Am I right about that? I certainly stand to be corrected. But should not the Government ensure that the power is available regarding waters beyond the territorial sea, as permitted in Article 221(1) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea?
Having raised those issues, perhaps I may say how much we welcome the widening of the definition of harm to "significant" in Clause 2 which was recommended by the noble and learned Lord.
Clauses 1 to 3 deal with powers of intervention after a casualty or risk has arisen. Recommendation 59 of the report advocated a new concept of marine environmental high risk areas—I do not much like the acronym MEHRAs—to prevent or mitigate the risk of pollution. In response the Government say that the issue is under consideration. What are the Government's proposals? What is their timetable?
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with port reception facilities. In that context, seafarers are often placed in unenviable situations where, despite their own desire to avoid pollution, ports do not provide adequate facilities and owners do not wish to delay a ship for cost reasons. It is the owner, I believe, on whom greater emphasis needs to be placed in terms of prosecution and ultimate conviction and penalty. But why should not harbour authorities be obliged to provide plans for those now?
740
How would the Government implement such requirements? Would it be by primary legislation or other means? What proposals do the Government have in that regard?
The Government were encouraged in recommendation 27 of the report to pursue a North Sea agreement to secure a greater harmonisation of approach regarding European ports. Is anything happening in that regard?
Clauses 9 and 10 deal with enhancing port state control powers. A definition of a "port" was suggested in recommendation 102. I may have missed it, and perhaps the Minister will put me right if that is so, but has that definition been applied in the Bill?
Clause 10 applies only to the territorial sea in preventing the parking of vessels. Have the Government any plans to extend such powers to waters beyond the territorial sea in circumstances where we should be entitled to do so under the Law of the Sea Convention?
Perhaps I may say a word of caution about the power to move on vessels. I do not believe that it would be wise to overlook the fact that ships carry seafarers, and their interests could be jeopardised if a ship is moved on in certain circumstances. If the ship is unseaworthy or improperly operated we should proceed to detain it until the deficiencies have been rectified.
Clause 11, implementing recommendation 77, fails to implement the recommended requirement that vessels should have adequate insurance. The Minister dealt in part with that in relation to klondykers. It is true that Clause 15 provides powers regarding insurance. But why does not Clause 11 include insurance as a prescribed requirement for holding a licence? The Minister commented, in some respects adversely, about klondykers. It is an important issue. I recognise that the Government would prefer international action in this regard and I share their concerns about the issue. But it has been raised, as the Minister said, at the Legal Committee of the IMO. However, unless swift action can be guaranteed, we shall have to consider other steps. In our view no commercial vessel should be allowed to operate without appropriate, effective and enforceable insurance covering third-party risks and cover regarding hull and cargo. I also believe that it would be wise to make the proceeds of any such insurance payable to the maritime creditors and not to the owners because there have been far too many abuses in the past. It is, after all, innocent third parties who all too often are the victims of unscrupulous behaviour in that regard.
I turn from that to the environmental consequences of deliberate or accidental discharges of oily waste. It is right to bear in mind that, in the context of pollution of the sea overall, it is land-based sources which constitute between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. of such pollution. Having said that, we cannot be complacent about the situation affecting direct pollution of the sea by vessels. Damage to birdlife is absolutely colossal. A huge number of birds were oiled in the "Braer" incident, and nearly four times as many in the "Sea Empress" incident. Added to that is the whole question of compensation which should be payable.

741
One of the issues which arose in relation to the "Sea Empress" was the adequacy of salvage tugs around the United Kingdom coast. The Government have been giving the matter consideration since, I think, June 1994 or 1995—over a long period. Charges are currently being made by people who have been directly affected. But the existing arrangements for compensation are not working satisfactorily. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that when he winds up.
So far as concerns the "Sea Empress", the Minister will recall that I took the view—I discussed the matter with him outside this Chamber—that just as in the "Braer" case, the MAIB inquiry should have been coupled with a reconvening of the Donaldson Committee. I believe that the noble and learned Lord would have been prepared to have had his committee reconvened. There are wider issues than can be covered by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. There were lessons that could have been learnt on a broader basis. I ask the Minister even now, delayed though it has been, to give consideration afresh to this proposal.
I have not had time to deal with as many issues as I would have wished. I should have liked to have dealt with the auditing work of classification societies. I believe that the Minister should move with care about further delegation, as was recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I believe that it is important, too, to examine carefully, as the Minister indicated, all the implications of charging for the standing costs of counter-pollution measures, emergency towing, and so on. Overall, however, I adopt the same belief as the Minister about the way in which that has to be handled. I am not convinced that it is a matter which should fall on the taxpayer rather than the industry; and that is the approach that the Minister adopted.
We need to look carefully at the role of the coastguard in directing operations when we have polluting incidents of a serious kind.
It is not my intention to be unduly critical of the Bill. We support its purposes. We believe that it is absolutely right that the Government have acted. I have some reserve about the period of consultation; I believe that we would have benefited from hearing further views. However, I wish the Bill well. I hope that in the course of our further deliberations the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions that I posed. In other words, I give him notice as regards the remaining stages of the Bill. We support the Bill.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the House. Because of previous commitments I am unable to stay until the end of the debate. We, too, on these Benches very much welcome the thrust of the Bill which implements many of the recommendations in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I should like to add my word of praise for the report. It is beautifully written and a pleasure to read. Would that many of the other reports that we receive and read were to meet that standard.
The report studied ways of preventing pollution from merchant shipping and, as mentioned, made no fewer than 103 recommendations. Many of those called on the
742
Government merely to press for action by international organisations, principally the IMO but also the European Union in the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control. Unilateral action by the United Kingdom could not be effective in such cases. One recommendation called on the IMO to complete at an early date its overhaul of the STCW, the convention on standards of training, certification and watch-keeping. I shall refer to that later. Other recommendations called on the Government to take action themselves. It is these that the Bill sets out to implement.
The Bill is largely devoted to making the polluter pay. I shall mention some of its most important provisions. First, to help minimise the deliberate discharge of oil, harbour authorities will be obliged to provide at suitable charges waste reception facilities so that ships can clean out their tanks safely. Shipowners will become liable for fines of up to £250,000 for illegal discharges of oil and up to £25,000 for discharging other hazardous pollutants. They will be required to have insurance or other financial securities to cover the cost of a clean-up operation and the associated compensation payments that could arise after an accident at sea. The Government will also have power to establish a temporary exclusion zone to isolate a marine casualty from other vessels and to require an affected ship to move in order to prevent or minimise the risk of pollution. Those are all highly desirable provisions.
In addition to measures to minimise pollution, the Bill strengthens the Government's ability to impose stringent safety regulations for all ships, United Kingdom and foreign, that enter our waters. That is the aspect on which I shall concentrate.
Schedule 1 to the Bill will come into effect as soon as the Bill is passed. It will give far greater powers to port state authorities to take action against sub-standard ships. They already publicise the worst cases that are detected—called the "rust buckets"—in a monthly list of "ships of shame". The key role of port state authorities in that respect was emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in this House on 25th January 1995 in a debate that I introduced on accidents at sea. The noble and learned Lord said:
"I am certain that I shall never live to see the day when the IMO is in a position to control shipping on a world-wide basis".
He added:
"Port state control is our only defence at the moment"— [Official Report, 25/1/95; cols. 1116–1117.]
It would be splendid if the extended powers of the port state authorities were to be effectively implemented. That might turn port state defence into attack. There are, however, problems. One is that port state inspectors are on the whole very reluctant to detain ships, whatever the deficiencies. There are a number of reasons for that. First, causing undue delay to a ship carries a penalty in that owners must be compensated; and determining whether the delay is undue is always a value judgment.
Secondly, inspectors often feel under pressure. They know the fear of harbour authorities that when ships are detained and occupying berths the normal flow of traffic will be interrupted and that that has financial implications for them. Finally, since there are brownie points to be

743
garnered by inspectors from the number of inspections they carry out, there is always a temptation to choose to inspect safe ships, which can be done very quickly, and to avoid prolonged inspections of ships which are known to be in poorer condition. I hope that all those difficulties can be overcome and that, as a result, the owners of "rust buckets" are forced to scrap them.
Most sub-standard ships are registered under flags of convenience. Since their owners pay little for maintenance, often engage poorly trained crews and are charged little in taxation, they can as a result offer very low freight rates. Were the new powers of port states to lead to their removal from the sea, there could be a much needed increase in freight rates and reputable shipowners could embark upon building new ships. Accidents at sea are much commoner among old ships, and the merchant fleets of the world, not only that of the United Kingdom, are ageing rapidly.
The future of world shipping could hang upon the efficient use by port state authorities in many countries of the powers now vested in them. There might even be a chance for the number of ships on the UK register to go up, thus helping to reverse the steep decline in our shipping industry to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred.
The powers of port state inspectors have been increased in another way, quite separately from the Bill. As I mentioned, the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked the Government to press the IMO to hasten a revision of the STCW convention. One of the most striking signs of real urgency to do something about the state of world shipping was the way in which the IMO responded—possibly as a result of pressure from our Government. Not only did the revised convention introduce new provisions; it was also agreed that it would come into effect in February 1997, unless by then a significant proportion of member states objected. The normal IMO practice of requiring positive ratification by member states—a process which can take years to complete—was abandoned.
Port state authorities had long been entitled to check the structure and equipment of ships and also to check that crew members were all properly certificated by the flag state. They were, however, bound to accept the validity of such certificates. But a wise convention gave them the new power to test, after any accident or polluting incident, whether crew members actually possessed the skills that had been certified.
Introducing the debate on 25th January 1995 I quoted one of the responses to a Nautical Institute questionnaire sent out in 1994. It stated that,
"far too many flag authorities are able to issue so-called STCW certificates of competence which are not worth the paper they are written on".—[Official Report, 25/1/95; col. 1103.]
Many maritime colleges in countries such as the Philippines, which supplies large numbers of mariners, are known to be very poorly staffed and equipped. The importance of the new powers in the revised STCW convention is clear. If the convention can bring about improvements in the competence of crews, that will be
744
just as important for safety at sea and for the avoidance of accidents leading to pollution as will the elimination of sub-standard ships.
All in all, we welcome the Bill and hope that it reaches the statute book at an early date.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking noble Lords for the very kind, indeed flattering, remarks that were made about the report, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. From time to time I feel some embarrassment at the extent to which my name, so to speak, has become unilaterally connected with that report. It was not a one-man venture. There were, in fact, a team of four, all of whom made substantive and very considerable contributions to the work as a whole. They were: Mr. John Rendle, Professor McIntyre and someone who tends to be forgotten, Mrs. Angela Moss from the Department of Transport. The report is as much their work as mine and if they get round to reading the Official Report they will be as appreciative as I am of the tributes that have been paid to their work as much as mine.
I welcome the Bill, not because it gives effect to so many of the recommendations in the report, but because I am convinced that it will make a real contribution to the United Kingdom's abilities in the fight against pollution.
I do not wish to go through the Bill clause by clause, saying what a good thing it is. I just wish to say a few words about three of the clauses: Clause 2, which deals with the intervention powers; Clause 15, which enables the Secretary of State to bring in compulsory insurance; and Clause 12 and Schedule 2, which deal with funding.
As noble Lords will see, Clause 2 seeks to amend Section 137 of the 1995 Merchant Shipping Act by providing a more sensitive trigger for the right of the Secretary of State to intervene following a shipping casualty. The Minister pointed out that there is an alteration in wording as to the type of pollution that confronts him and the geographical area. Where the provision fails to go far enough is in a quite different respect. It fails to widen the categories of person to whom directions can be given under Section 137 of the 1995 Act. At present one can give directions to the owners of the ship, the master of the ship and to salvors in possession of the ship. However, there is no power at present to give any direction to harbour authorities in whose harbour or near whose harbour the ship may be; nor is there a power to give any direction to cargo owners.
I say nothing about what happened in the case of the "Sea Empress" because I do not know the facts. Like your Lordships, I merely read about it in the newspapers and, also like your Lordships, long experience suggests that that is the least reliable source from which to investigate anything. The "Sea Empress" illustrates the point that we can have a major incident which involves a harbour authority as well as the various other people to whom Section 137 applies at present. I could have found out but I do not know whether the "Sea Empress" was within

745
harbour limits at the time when she hit the rock. I suspect that she was but it does not matter for present purposes. However, I have no doubt whatever that where many people are involved, including harbour authorities, ultimately there must be one person who is in charge. The buck must stop with someone and that someone must be the representative of the Secretary of State.
Of course, it is not a military operation in which the field marshal, the representative of the Secretary of State, issues a battle plan and no argument is allowed. Of course there must be discussion; of course advice must be taken and whoever is in charge will seek co-operation and will usually get it. But the Secretary of State must accept ultimate responsibility. In my view, if the buck is to stop in that way, it is essential that the representative should have the power to tell harbour authorities what they are to do and what they are not to do. He should have overriding power.
The Government's answer to that heretofore, in response to private representations, has been to refer to the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985. It provides the Secretary of State with some intervention powers strictly defined by that Act. In my view, they are quite insufficient for present purposes. Under Section 3 of the 1985 Act, the Secretary of State's powers relate only to the securing of the safety of the vessel or the safety of a person. They make no reference whatever to pollution. If an oil tanker is leaking heavily but is not itself in danger because the difference in specific gravity between the oil and the seawater which is replacing it is relatively small, the Secretary of State would have no power to act under the Act.
Furthermore and even more seriously, the powers only come into force or the Secretary of State only has the right to exercise them if he decides to cancel an order by the harbour master, either refusing to allow a vessel to enter the port or requiring it to leave the port. That could happen. But if the vessel is in the middle of the port and the harbour master chooses to do neither, the Secretary of State has no powers at all. So I ask the Minister to consider carefully whether he should make the relatively simple amendment of adding harbour masters to the persons to whom directions should be given under Section 137.
I also mentioned cargo owners. With a container ship with a massive cargo, there is nothing they can do to help; but with an oil cargo or with certain specialised types of cargo, it may well be that the cargo owner has better facilities than anyone else for discharging that cargo or assisting in its discharge and receiving it ashore. I fail to see why, if he cannot obtain co-operation, the Secretary of State or his representative should not be entitled to give directions to the cargo owner as to how he should assist in the general operation. It has been said in the past and it may be said that those powers will never really be needed. As to that, I only say that I am sure that co-operation works in many cases, but the powers have been used no fewer than six times since 1978. In my view, their existence is just as important as their exercise.
746
Perhaps I may mention the apocryphal story of the office boy who was summoned to the presence of the managing director to discuss his rather curious behaviour and even more curious dress when in the office. The managing director was a kindly man; he ended by addressing the office boy: "Well, Jones, you've heard what I have said. They are only suggestions, but I hope you will remember who is making them". That is the position in which I wish to place the Secretary of State's representative.
Clause 15 concerns insurance. The provisions are only enabling provisions but very necessary as such. The two points I wish to raise which I hope the Minister will bear firmly in mind are the following: first, it is essential that we go further than requiring a contract of insurance to be produced. I could enter into a contract whereby I insure the vessel against its liabilities. On the face of the Bill as it stands, assuming that it is implemented, the shipowner would have fulfilled his obligations. When a claim was made on the policy, it would be found that there was a woeful lack of assets to back that policy. So some change will have to be made in the wording. It may be that an "approved" contract of insurance is required, I do not know. But some qualifying words are needed to ensure that not just any policy will do.
My other point has already been mentioned. If at all possible, it is important to ensure that the claimants against the ship have direct rights against the insurer. If they do not, a number of things may happen. The shipowner may collect the money and depart; he may collect the money but, being unable to depart with it, may find it shared out by his other multitude of creditors; or situations may arise in which the insurers start alleging breaches of contract by the ship as an excuse for not paying out. I accept that those problems may not be soluble other than in an international convention-based context, as they have been solved in the context of the oil convention and the HNS convention. But I hope that they will be borne in mind. My point about a Donaldson contract of insurance being wholly unacceptable is something which could be dealt with on a domestic basis.
My final words concern Clause 12 of Schedule 2 and the charging provisions—the user pays, the polluter pays and so on. It is very dangerous ground for an ex-judicial Member of this House to trade in. It is highly political dynamite. I simply say that the report goes very carefully into a possible solution involving two different funds. Who contributes to them is not a matter for me. I should like just to emphasise that the point of having funds was to ensure that, in so far as the industry does pay, its payments are ring-fenced and cannot merely be used by the Treasury as an additional source of taxation. I hope that, whichever way round the Dispatch Boxes may be after April, that will be borne in mind and in so far as the industry does pay, its funds will be ring-fenced.
Again, I thank your Lordships for the very kind reception given to such work as I have done that has contributed to the Bill.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the very clear explanation that he gave in introducing the Bill. I am also exceedingly glad to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, who mastered the subjects involved in this very wide maritime field. Soon after his report was published, I presided over a very large meeting of the Parliamentary Maritime Group at which he spoke on his report and answered most effectively a penetrating range of relevant questions.
The Bill is mostly concerned with the recommendations in the Donaldson report, which was published in May 1994. The Donaldson inquiry was established after the "Braer" incident in January 1993, but it was a general inquiry. I make that point because there has been misunderstanding in the media and elsewhere to think that it was just looking into the "Braer" incident. It was a much wider inquiry. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord and his team, whom he mentioned, on what they have done. Since the publication of that report, the "Sea Empress" accident occurred in February. That disaster underlined the need for most of the Donaldson recommendations to be acted upon soon. I welcome the fact that a place has been found for the Bill in this shorter than usual Session of Parliament. The Government have accepted the large majority of the Donaldson recommendations.
The virtue of a Second Reading debate is that one can consider those recommendations which are included in the Bill and also recommendations which are not in the Bill. It seems that most of the recommendations which require legislation are in the Bill. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made use of this Second Reading debate to make a wide-ranging speech about the international shipping industry in general. He made use of this valuable opportunity.
In the Bill I welcome the proposals for powers to be granted to the Government to establish temporary exclusion zones and to extend the scope for intervention by the British Government both in general and on occasions when pollution incidents have occurred. As my noble friend Lord Goschen and other noble Lords will recall, in the Bill there are two particular subjects which have been raised by me in debates and at Question Time. The first is about improving at ports and terminals reception facilities for waste, and not only oily waste. The principle has been generally accepted. What is now needed is a comprehensive system which is then made obligatory. We also need to encourage foreign ports, especially in western Europe, to adopt similar arrangements.
The second subject is the application of fines for marine pollution offences. In the Bill (Clause 7) the maximum is increased fivefold. My noble friend the Minister gave me a foretaste of that in response to my questions a few months ago, and again I welcome it. But what I pointed out and about which I complained was the low level of fines that in practice have been imposed. The average fine recorded in annual figures has been derisory compared with the maximum. I accept that this is a delicate matter and the Government cannot
748
dictate to the courts or interfere. That is a principle that we all respect. The decisions are for the magistrates to take in the circumstances of each different case. But I hope that after the Bill is enacted the Government will ensure that the new maximum fine is made widely known to all concerned.
Most of the pollution of the seas, originating at sea rather than from rivers and land sources, is the result of deliberate discharges at sea or in or near ports. Pollution which is most difficult to police is not near land but where winds and currents can distribute it along our coasts. It includes garbage as well as oily wastes. In Recommendations 15 to 28, the Donaldson report made excellent suggestions in this field. Some have been accepted by the Government and others are under consideration. Monitoring, detecting, identifying and penalties are the essential parts of this deterrent operation.
I am glad that the Bill contains provisions for the fish factory ships, following Recommendation 77 in the Donaldson report. As has already been mentioned, these are known as klondykers. I remind your Lordships that their main function is to be at anchor receiving fish caught by local fishermen. In the United Kingdom most of them have been stationed on the coast of the Scottish West Highlands at Ullapool, for more than 20 years; more recently they have been stationed at Lerwick in Shetland. They have provided a very useful secondary market for our fishermen, especially when there is a surplus of fish being caught. In the United Kingdom they deal mostly in mackerel.
The klondykers have come from eastern Europe and beyond, not from within the European Union. They themselves do not fish in European Union waters. For them it was a time of crisis when the Soviet bloc and the Soviet Union were breaking up and after that period. Some of them had inadequate insurance, if any, and Clause 15 should help deal with that in the future. Some were simply substandard rust buckets. I hope that as the countries of eastern Europe settle down, following the disappearance of the Iron Curtain, only ships in a good state and properly insured will come to the United Kingdom. They are needed by British fishermen and those foreign seamen are, on the whole, popular in the maritime areas of Loch Broom and Shetland, where they are anchored for weeks or months. I raise the question—the matter can be pursued in Committee or at Report stage—as to whether stronger powers should be granted to our Government and Parliament to control those klondykers in the future.
Points of interest in the Donaldson report but not matters for legislation are, for example, the suggestion in Recommendation 20 for the worldwide use of the English language in maritime affairs. That is in order to improve safety. That is accepted in principle by the Government, but I see that there may not be international approval for it, particularly from the French, who are always possessive about their language.
Another recommendation is for the use of transponders by wider categories of vessel. They are automatic ways of identifying vessels from the land and there should be a programme for introducing

749
them internationally. The Government accepted that in principle. It is not a matter for legislation but I draw your Lordships' attention to that excellent recommendation.
Recommendation 61 on routeing and navigation off North-West Scotland is of particular interest to me. I am glad that the Government accepted that and will support it through the IMO.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—I am an old-timer in these matters, having been in both Houses of Parliaments for nearly 40 years—was the founder of an organisation known as ACOPS (Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, now called the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea). That was a far-sighted act and I must declare an interest because for two periods I was chairman of that organisation. We must pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, because that was the first organisation in the United Kingdom to monitor and record oil pollution and make recommendations as to how it should be dealt with.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I omitted to declare my own interest in that regard and offer my apologies to the House. I am currently chairman of the organisation and I pay tribute to the work that was done in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in supporting my noble friend Lord Callaghan.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that comment. It indicates that this is a measure on which there is all-party support and we ought to make sure that the Bill proceeds through Parliament quite quickly, though we make the points we want to make about improvements or future measures that can be taken to follow it up.
As a somewhat light-hearted postscript perhaps I may point out that the clearing of the beaches in Wales this year after the "Sea Empress" episode was carried out with great industry and efficiency. But two days ago it was reported in the press that some areas had again been polluted by oil—this time it was 4,000 bottles of suntan oil unintentionally dislodged from a cargo vessel at sea. That confirms the intention of the Bill to cover all possible, even unexpected, sources of pollution.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, this is the second Second Reading this week of a Bill which is of importance to the National Trust, and once again we warmly welcome the Government's proposals. The reason it is important to the trust is simply that we protect for the nation, mostly through ownership, around 600 miles of coastline. That is a lot of coast and comprises nearly 40 per cent. of what is officially designated as Heritage Coast. Almost all of that coast is open to the public and is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of visitors, mostly for its superb scenery and wildlife.
A pollution disaster like that of the "Sea Empress" grounding off St. Ann's Head was a traumatic shock for us, not least because St. Ann's Head is in the trust's ownership, as is much of the Pembroke coast and the Gower, all of which were affected. Mercifully, the oil
750
slick stopped just offshore of Lundy island, just off the North Devon coast. That was literally providential. Nevertheless, along the South Wales coast our staff and hundreds of volunteers worked around the clock seven days a week on the big clean-up. I do not need to go into that in any detail except to remark that our visitor numbers are 10 to 15 per cent. down, bookings of our holiday cottages suffered and the coastline at our Stackpole education centre was badly affected.
Like a major fire or a break-in of a country house, pollution disasters are the kind of thing one hopes will not happen. When it does it is traumatic. It is for that reason that we regard this as a timely Bill. As has been said, it is also a technical Bill and I confess that I do not understand all its detail. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to just a few points.
The essence of the Bill is to implement the great majority of the excellent recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and his team, whose report was published in 1995. The Bill before us does not deal with two of the recommendations, Nos. 59 and 85, both of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in his opening remarks. The first concerns the marine environmental high-risk areas and the second the need for adequate provision of salvage tugs at strategic locations.
I do not need to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, except perhaps to remark that it has been stated that if there had been a proper salvage tug in Milford Haven last February, the worst of that disaster might have been avoided. I am aware that both recommendations are under consideration and I accept that neither needs legislation. I note also that they are part and parcel of the raft of necessary measures required to protect our coast adequately and both are in urgent need of progressing.
I turn now to the Bill itself. In general terms, it will do a lot to improve the protection of our shores. In particular, we welcome the provisions relating to port reception facilities (Clause 5) to which I shall return in a moment. We also welcome the realistic fines which are proposed. In that connection, am I right in believing that the quantum of fine can be altered—for example, to take account of inflation—by Order in Council or by some other simple method? I should know the answer to that, but perhaps the Minister (who knows all these things) can confirm whether that is right. The provision in Clause 10 for powers to move ships is important, as is the power to inspect and detain vessels in Schedule 1.
I turn to two aspects—I believe I speak for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as well as for the National Trust—which need to be tightened up. I want to make a third point also relating to clarification. First, in relation to waste management plans (Clause 5), the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said all that needs to be said. We support him over the need to make the harbour authorities prepare plans rather than making it the responsibility of the Minister to start the relevant process.
Secondly, a similar point arises as regards the making of regulations in respect of the transhipment licences—the Klondykers. There again, the noble Lord,

751
Lord Clinton-Davis, probably said all that needs to be said. He also included in his remarks the suggestion that such licences should also require adequate third party insurance or other security. In that respect, Clause 15 is perhaps not quite sufficient.
Finally, and following on the last point, it appears that the present position of third party losses is currently unsatisfactory if our experience of the "Sea Empress" case is anything to go by. I refer to the difficulty of fully recovering our clean-up costs and business losses. It is probably the case that Clause 15 will now deal with this situation in future in a more satisfactory way.
There is the further point as regards damage to what I believe are termed "non-use resources"—that is to say, resources to which a monetary value cannot readily be ascribed. The obvious example is the destruction of wildlife; for example, birds. I understand that in the United States liability for such damage is now provided for under the Oil Pollution Act 1990. I shall be most interested to know either today or through a letter what the Government's thoughts are on that matter. As I see it, Clause 15 does not go into it. I accept that this is a very difficult area, but the losses incurred are nevertheless very real, albeit difficult to estimate.
I suggest that these three points—waste management, transhipment licences and insurance cover—can best and most easily be examined in Committee. In the meantime, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this measure and I wish it a speedy passage.
5 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in thanking the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. I also commend him for the other ways in which he has sought, perhaps not always successfully, to improve maritime safety. I and my colleagues in the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, of which I am a trustee and in which I declare an interest, wish him success, not least in his arguments with the Treasury.
A measure of the importance of the Bill is that some 6,500 foreign ships visit our ports every year. There are some 80,000 ship arrivals annually in the United Kingdom of which 32,000 are tanker movements. Increasingly, cargoes carried by ships are potentially hazardous or polluting, as we have heard. Those pollutants include oils, chemicals and gaseous mixtures. So Clause 13, which brings into effect the 1996 convention on hazardous and noxious substances is welcome.
As has been emphasised, shipping accidents are increasingly likely to cause immense environmental and economic damage, long-term damage to marine life and devastation to fishing and tourism. Oil pollution is simply the most visible form of environmental damage caused by shipping accidents. Some of the chemical cargoes carried in ships are so noxious that they can still be toxic in large concentrations of water as, for example, in the case of the flag of convenience cargo ship "Perentis" which sank in the Channel in 1989. It carried
752
six tonnes of the chemical Lindane, which is toxic to the nervous system and used as a pesticide. It is banned in many countries. The container has never been found and is lying at the bottom of the sea, presumably waiting to break up and discharge. It is one of the many environmental time bombs in our waters.
The waters around the United Kingdom contain some of the world's busiest and most dangerous sea routes, requiring the highest standards of shipping and, I emphasise, as did the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, seamanship. So Britain has a vested interest in marine safety. But, increasingly in our waters, we are seeing substandard ships, which are poorly maintained, poorly operated and crewed by seafarers many of whom are only there because they are prepared, or are forced, to work for coppers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, the Minister has shown a welcome awareness of the dangers inherent in the situation. Therefore, we welcome the adoption of the Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-Keeping Convention 1995, which should come into effect next spring. The decision to invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to undertake the inquiry was far-sighted, as demonstrated by the results.
The Bill is a partial response to the report and in itself can provide only a partial response to the critical needs of the situation. I hope that the Bill will be improved in detail and that it will be backed up through executive action by the Government. National legislation cannot provide the whole response. On the one hand, owners, seafarers and their unions, charterers and insurers all have their part to play as well as the Government. On the other hand, as has been emphasised again and again, co-operation in setting and enforcing standards at the international level is critical.
In their report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his colleagues looked beyond the "Braer" grounding and drew attention to the impact of the depression suffered by the shipping industry. We, too, must look beyond this Bill and see it in the context of our failures of over-tonnaging, debilitating competition and an increasing rate of exodus to the flag of convenience registers. Many of those registers lack the ability or the political will, or both, to police effectively, if at all, the standards of the ships on their books. Many have little or no connection with the country whose flags the ships fly. The Bill seeks to grapple with the rise in the number of such registrations, which has been matched by a decline in worldwide shipping safety standards. Flags of convenience now account for some 40 per cent. of the world's fleet, but they account for 60 per cent. of the world's shipping losses. These are the ships sailing into our ports and now carrying more than twice the volume of UK deep sea trade carried in United Kingdom registered ships. That is why we need to take action to deal with them.
What the Minister said about the importance of international co-operation was emphasised by both employers and seafarers' unions at this year's maritime session of the ILO, which made some welcome, agreed progress on hours of work, minimum standards and labour inspection. The Minister and others have paid

753
tribute to the IMO. I would like to pay tribute to the determined leadership given by Mr. Bill O'Neill, secretary of the International Maritime Organisation, in the drive towards improving shipping safety, notably through better implementation of IMO agreements by flag states, which again is reflected to some extent in this welcome Bill.
However, merely improving our capacity to monitor and deal with the substandard and dangerous foreign tonnage, which is infesting and, as we have heard, often polluting our waters, is not enough. We have to deal with the root causes. If we are going to deal effectively with them, it means that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has reiterated time and time again, we have to make it more expensive for owners and managers to run, and for charterers to hire, a dangerous ship. The OECD study on the competitive advantages of the non-observance of international standards, published earlier this year, showed that shipowners can more than halve their costs by flouting internationally agreed safety rules.
Clause 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Bill seek in part to address that point. But the danger is that they may be a move in the wrong direction or at best a wrong move in the right direction. In the port state control context, charges or even fines are less likely to reduce sub-standard operation than punitive detention. I would like to see the Government affirming their support for the principle of punitive detention in appropriate cases and working for agreed action on an international basis by all port state control states.
Even if it is accepted that charging may be part of the answer, it would in my view be wrong to impose on all shipowners blanket charges for a range of services such as port state control, the investigation of marine accidents, search and rescue, and emergency towing. That would, according to the compliance cost assessment, impose charges of some £20 million to £30 million a year on the maritime sector as a whole and good owners would be subsidising substandard operators.
I took note of the caveat expressed by the Minister and of his hope that we should not find it necessary to impose such charges, but I suggest that to put such provisions on the statute book would be a constant temptation, if not to him, then to the Treasury. What we should be doing is punishing the malefactors. While port state control costs about £1 million a year to operate, barely £60,000 a year is generated by charges for second inspections of ships failing checks. Such charges do not provide a sufficient deterrent to substandard operators. They should at least be increased to a generally punitive level and, where appropriate, be complemented by punitive detention. That would begin to make some of the rust-bucket operators sit up and take notice.
But are the Government prepared to address their mind to ways of penalising other parties who contribute to the survival and operation of substandard ships, including classification societies, cargo owners and charterers? Are the Government prepared to address their mind to ways of encouraging good practices? There is in particular ample evidence that many
754
classification societies completely fail to establish and enforce satisfactory safety standards. Too many of the ships failing port state control inspections are "in class", as demonstrated on occasion by their masters producing faxed certificates of safety provided without any actual inspection.
Insurers, too, have a responsibility. Perhaps in the spirit of the comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, the insurance market might suggest to the Liberian authorities that unless they mend their ways—and their ships—their ships and cargoes will not get any insurance. If that is regarded as too draconic, how much more open to criticism is the owner who deliberately sends a ship to sea in a condition which endangers the lives of its crew? And how much more reprehensible are the governments and classification societies which actively connive with him in doing so? Perhaps, as an alternative, we should, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has been heard to suggest, require owners to travel on their ships.
What I hope your Lordships will resist is any attempt to introduce charging into this area as a means of raising revenue for the Treasury—in effect imposing a new tax on those who operate safe ships. I echo the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that any revenue so raised should be ring-fenced. Any revenue which might accrue from selective and punitive charging should be applied to enforce standards of safety and, in particular, to reverse the cuts in expenditure imposed by the Department of Transport on the two major maritime safety agencies, the Coastguard Agency and the Marine Safety Agency. Those cuts are ill advised, reduce the ability of the front-line agencies to combat the increasing problems around our coast and, indeed, run counter to the purported direction of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, practically opened his report with the statement:
"It is generally accepted that human error is the cause of about four fifths of marine accidents".
He continued:
"We are surprised that the figure is so low: we believe that human error, at some stage … is the root cause of virtually all accidents".
A third-world crew can be employed for around one-third of the rate of a north-west European crew. What owners are buying for that is inexperience, poor training, inadequate or non-existent certification and language and communication problems—in short, they are buying unsafe ship operation. What we are getting are hazards on our seaways and in our ports, pollution, environmental contamination and deaths at sea. The revised STCW convention and the new international safety management code will do something to address poor operational standards. What they will not in themselves do is make good the shortages of skilled and experienced officers or counter the continuing fall in cadet recruitment to which your Lordships, among others, have repeatedly drawn attention and to which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred today. Only if we get that right will the main provisions of this useful Bill and the international conventions to which it seeks to give effect secure the objectives of improving maritime security and increasing the safe operation of the world's merchant fleet.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one who over 30 years ago was Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I very much welcome the Bill, which deals with a number of very important issues. It was lightheartedly described by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham as a "rag-bag of useful changes". Characteristically of him, that is probably an accurate description. I rise mainly to say how glad I am that Her Majesty's Government are tackling possible changes which could improve the position of British shipping.
Although very little has been said about it in the course of the debate, we are considering the Bill against the background of a serious and alarming decline in the British Merchant Navy. Many of us find it sad to see how British commercial shipping has diminished. Not only is that sad; it is also dangerous. Not only is it economically damaging for the country, but it could be a military danger. If we were ever involved in a war—I hope that we will not be, but we may be—it is possible that we might be blockaded and shipping from other countries might not be able to reach us. I hope and believe that it is the intention of the Government to reverse that alarming decline in the British Merchant Navy.
The reduction in the number of British ships has undoubtedly affected the matter and it is to remedy that position that a good many of the Bill's provisions are being brought forward. I very much hope that they will be effective. I shall refer to only one or two matters in a Bill of which, generally, I fully approve and which I enthusiastically support.
I turn first to Clause 7 which covers the penalty for discharging oil in certain UK waters. The amount that can be imposed by way of fine in respect of that matter is very much increased. The figure is multiplied by five. I ask my noble friend the Minister why a limit is being imposed at all. If damage in excess of £250,000 is inflicted, why should those responsible not pay for it? Given both the increasing size of tankers and the price of oil, it is more than possible that a disaster may occur in which considerably larger amounts will be involved.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may assist my noble friend if I intervene at this stage. I believe that the fines to which he refers relate to deliberate rather than accidental discharge, although the two may come together. The provision is designed primarily to address circumstances in which people make a deliberate decision to discharge oil. There is a compensation regime in place to take account of oil that is discharged by accident. I hope that that helps my noble friend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. However, as I read Clause 7(1), if oil is accidentally discharged and does damage that is greater than the worth of the figure prescribed in the Bill, it will not be possible to impose a fine on those responsible for the discharge above that figure. Will my noble friend consider whether there is any need for a
756
limit to be imposed in the Bill when it could simply provide that there was a liability for whatever damage was shown to be effected?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, perhaps it is more appropriate for me to pick up that point in my concluding remarks. I understand that the fines relate specifically to the magistrates' court, but if a case goes to the Crown Court there is no limit to the fine.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, contrary to all traditions of the House, perhaps I may try to assist at this stage. One is considering fines, not compensation. There is no simple limit to compensation. Compensation may run to millions of pounds. Nothing about the size of the fine will affect the amount of compensation. The fine goes to Her Majesty but the compensation goes to the people who are injured.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, who knows more about this subject than anyone else in the House. I am considerably relieved to hear that if more than £250,000 worth of damage is done, that higher amount can be recovered from those responsible for it. In that case there seems to be even less point in imposing a limit on the other aspect. I hope that that will be carefully looked at again.
Clause 16 makes very proper arrangements for the provision of discharge books to British seamen employed on foreign ships. That is an extremely helpful proposal and can mean a great deal to individual seamen. Unfortunately, foreign ships now carry a good deal of our trade. Sadly, many of them have a large number of British subjects serving in them as seamen. If that is so, it is right that they should be entitled to discharge books when they leave that employment.
Finally, Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State power to require that the insurance of ships covers, inter alia, any damage that they do. That seems to me to be of the greatest importance. If it means that ships using certain waters must be insured for damage that they do up to any amount, that is extremely reassuring. But on my reading of the Bill I am not sure that that is the fact. When my noble friend comes to wind up I should be very grateful if he would confirm that.
Meanwhile, it is a very great pleasure to see a Bill of this kind tabled in this House. It is also good to see that the Opposition support the Bill, as the Opposition spokesman made clear in his excellent speech. The best we can do is to make such suggestions as we can, as I have ventured to do, for minor improvements but, on the other hand, to speed the passage of the Bill into law, because the sooner it is law the better.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have welcomed the Bill, which seeks to give legal effect to a further raft of recommendations in the excellent report of the noble and learned Lord, who sits behind me, and his consorts. I am not quite so happy about the funding arrangements in Clause 12, but I will return to those later.

757
Speaking generally, all of us are appalled by maritime disasters such as those involving tankers that have affected our coast recently. All of us have good reason to he highly concerned about this matter. None of us can fail to be moved by pictures of oil-covered seabirds dying and all the rest of it. However, I am delighted that the Government have sought to go down the road of careful consideration of the implications of those incidents rather than legislate on the hoof, as was the case in America following the "Exxon Valdez" incident where the Oil Pollution Act 1990 turned out to be a real disaster. I welcome the measured response of the Government in reaction to these disasters.
It is inevitable and understandable that those most affected by the disasters who live in the locality should be the loudest protesters, but it must not be forgotten that we are an island race and we live by trade. Ships are vitally important to us. I cannot help feeling that the same people who are so quick to protest would also be the first to complain if they got into their motorcars to fill up at the local petrol station and found that none was available. These matters must be kept in context.
Referring to pollution and oil pollution in particular, one tends to forget that in global terms a very large percentage arises from natural sources. I believe that the figure is approximately 70 per cent. That is also something of which we should not lose sight.
As I have said, we are an island race and we trade by the sea. I am as concerned as other noble Lords who have voiced fears over the decline of the Merchant Navy. For years we led the world, and I believe that we did a very good job. Inevitably, matters decline after a certain time. The shipping industry is by nature cyclical. Therefore, I think one must accept in some part the decline that has taken place. My hope is that we have now reached a point where we can build upon what is left. Far from the merchant fleet being a poor measly skeleton that is about to disappear—as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested—at present it is extremely efficient. Indeed, in some ways we lead the world. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow, is not in his place today. When I spoke to him last night he said that he hoped to be here. The recent tie-up that he has engineered between his own P&O container company and that of Nedlloyd, the Dutch container company, astounded the rest of the container shipping world and is a pointer to the way ahead; they have taken the lead. Therefore, I believe that our shipping industry is far from dead.
The measures that we are taking to deal with the oil disasters are proceeding slowly and, by and large, effectively. Obviously, we cannot get it right straight away; it will take time. I understand that there is widespread concern that the existing arrangements for compensation through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund are not working as well as had been hoped. I know that many of the fishermen at Milford Haven feel dissatisfied that they are not being adequately compensated. There is a general feeling that the fund in its dealings is not being as just as insurers generally are.
758
Before turning to the Bill, I must declare an interest in that I am a director of a company which carries out a certain amount of consultancy work in European marketing for Associated British Ports. Speaking on behalf of British ports, perhaps I may touch certain aspects of the Bill. I know that, generally, the proposals are welcome and that the Government have listened to what the ports have said during the consultation process. The proposals in Clause 1, dealing with temporary exclusion zones, are most welcome and go some way towards offsetting a weakness in the existing arrangements in the areas outside port limits. However, the ports believe that where temporary exclusion zones are set up within the harbour areas they should be made by the harbour master, using his existing powers of direction. I believe that the coastguard is strongly in support of that point of view.
As regards waste reception facilities, I know that ports welcome the Government's acceptance of a flexible voluntary approach in preference to a mandatory system. I know that there are moves elsewhere in the Community to make the discharge of waste mandatory in ports and therefore that means mandatory reception facilities. If we are to come to that in due course, I seek an assurance from the Government that the principle of mandatory discharge of waste will only be pursued in such a manner that port authorities do not require to take over liabilities which properly rest between the shipowner and the waste reception industry. I realise that that route would require close consultation between the Departments of Transport and the Environment, which are not noted for getting on too well with each other.
Clause 6 deals with indemnities in connection with counter-pollution measures and that is important as regards ports. One of its main uses might be to indemnify a port authority where, by reason of circumstance, it is appropriate for a harbour master to use his resources to deal with an incident which is technically outside the harbour limits. The proposal is a welcome step forward.
As regards Clause 20, there is an element of disappointment that the Government have not taken the opportunity in the Bill to address the problem which exists for harbour authorities when the owners and insurers of a vessel simply abandon it as a wreck. I understand that the Government intend to address that problem and will be consulting. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, not necessarily tonight but later.
I turn to the concerns regarding Clause 12 and funding. When the Bill was published it came as something of a bombshell to the general lighthouse authorities. I refer to Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commission for Irish Lights. Again, I must declare an interest as a younger brother of Trinity House, albeit a non-pecuniary interest.
The general lighthouse authorities were not consulted in the initial consultation process in February which dealt with charges for maritime services. It was consulted when the draft Bill was published in June. Indeed, some of its recommendations have brought forth Clauses 17 and 18, which are very welcome. However,

759
there was no mention of funding in the draft Bill. The General Lighthouse Authorities were not consulted on the funding aspect until it saw what the Bill contained.
As we have heard, Clause 12 provides enabling powers for extending the scope for charging for maritime services. They also empower the Secretary of State to terminate the General Lighthouse Fund and to amend, modify or repeal provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 relating to general light dues or general lighthouse authorities if, in the view of the Secretary of State, the levying of general light dues becomes incompatible with the UK's obligations under Community law or international agreement. The Minister has referred to that and has struck a slightly apologetic note for the fact that the consultation process was not quite as it should have been. I accept that and hope that he will comment further on it at the end of the debate.
I understand that as regards international agreement discussions have been taking place in Europe with the idea of persuading other European countries to follow our system of light dues, which we believe is the best and the fairest. Shipowners pay in proportion to their use, no cost is imposed on government and the system works very well. Therefore, it is right that the Government should seek to persuade the rest of Europe to follow our example. I also understand that those discussions still have a long way to go and that certain countries do not like the idea. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that that can be used as a reason for inserting a provision into the Bill at the last moment without consulting with those who are most directly affected. Of course, one must not forget that the General Lighthouse Fund is shipowners' money. It also includes Trinity House pensions—I shall only touch on that because it is a complex subject—and the Secretary of State is, in effect, trustee of those moneys.
I believe that those are proper concerns and I hope that in winding up the Minister will be able to give us a little more confidence that the funds will not be used for other purposes. We have already heard calls from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson that the money should be ring-fenced. I believe that we must ensure that the money must not be used for other purposes.
Perhaps I may make a general comment touching on training and seafarers, mentioned by two noble Lords. I believe that the training of personnel is fundamental to increasing safety at sea. During the course of visits to the Missions to Seamen and other organisations, I have seen many ships. There is no doubt that conditions on some ships are appalling and I do not know how the crews manage to survive. On the other hand—and this is part and parcel of the great changes that have taken place in shipping—modern container ships carrying 6,000-plus containers are run by 14 people. That may be very efficient in economic terms but it is a far cry from the days when a 10,000 tonne cargo ship had a crew of 60 or 70 people. There was a community on board, a community of spirit. You could find people to talk to. On some of these modern ships, you are very
760
lucky if you can find anyone at all to talk to. That does not make for good conditions at sea. It is a very lonely life today compared with what it used to be; added to which, ships do not stop in port for weeks on end where the crew can go and enjoy themselves in the fleshpots. Modern ships are in and out of port in a matter of hours.
Therefore, we must not forget the enormous changes which have taken place in shipping. They are not always for the better. One looks towards the human element involved in running those ships. I make that a passing comment to wind up my remarks. But I welcome the Bill and I know that we shall have further deliberations on it, to which I look forward.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very proud to follow my noble friend Lord Greenway, who speaks with such great authority on matters maritime. Like my noble friend, I must decare an interest and, indeed, it is the same interest because we share membership of the Brotherhood of Trinity House.
Your Lordships may remember an occasion when Winston Churchill, wearing a strange uniform, was seen by a French military attaché. On being asked what it was, he said that it was that of the Le frère ainé de la Trinité. Although I do not appear in that garb, it is in that capacity that I have to declare an interest. But my objections to the provisions to which my noble friend drew attention in Schedule 2 are based not in any way on membership of that lighthouse authority but on the fact that they are grossly offensive on constitutional grounds.
I share in the general approbation and admiration expressed for my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson and his masterly report. I certainly share the general approval of the main provisions of the Bill. That being so, it makes it more extraordinary that there are these provisions in Schedule 2.
Your Lordships may remember a story, almost certainly apocryphal, but widely believed, which goes back to the days when a divorce could be obtained only by an Act of Parliament. That was before the Family Law Act of last Session, whereby a spouse can be repudiated without cause on the giving of 18 months' notice. But before that it required a parliamentary provision.
The story goes that a town clerk, having tired of his wife, was promoting a local Private Bill and slipped into the schedule a provision divorcing his wife. I thought of that immediately when I saw this admirable Bill which has tucked into the schedule a piece of gross bureaucratic aggrandisement.
What does it do? In the first place, it is a Henry VIII clause. It gives the Secretary of State power, by delegated legislation, to amend primary legislation. But it is a particularly virulent Henry VIII clause which calls to mind the unpleasant old age of that monarch. Not only does it give power to amend primary legislation by statutory instrument but it does more, as my noble friend pointed out. It gives power to transfer and to wind up the General Lighthouse Fund which, as my noble friend

761
said, is the shipowners' money, and convey it to the Consolidated Fund. And it does that, as I said, without recourse to primary legislation.
But it does even more. It gives future powers dependent on the view of the Secretary of State that the law requires to be brought into line with some as yet unknown, undefined European provision or provision of public international law.
As my noble friend pointed out, those provisions have not been discussed at all with the lighthouse authorities. The Secretary of State is not necessarily the last word in legal wisdom. There have been all too many cases in the past few years when the Government have been reversed not only in the municipal courts but in the European and international courts. Why then should we vouchsafe to the Secretary of State power to alter the law to transfer other people's funds on the happening of some unspecified future event?
Of course, that provision being a Henry VIII clause, it will go before the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. But I beg the noble Viscount not to try to brazen out the case before that committee, but with graciousness to withdraw those objectionable provisions which have no real relevance to the Bill.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for the way in which he introduced this important piece of legislation. It brings back many memories. It seems that I was working on this only yesterday, but it was some years ago. I am glad that the Government have found time to introduce this Bill. It is worthy of a speedy passage through both Houses of Parliament because there has been a great deal of consultation on much of the Bill and that consultation has been taken into account.
However—and this has not yet been said—we must not lull ourselves into a false sense of security and think that, because we have this Bill, all accidents will stop and that the Government can do everything. Shipping is not that type of industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, much of the pollution which comes from the sea arises through natural causes. But moreover, there is a huge responsibility on the flag states and the IMO because shipping is such an international business. The more we tighten the screw at this end, and quite legitimately, the more it will mean that certain ships and certain owners will move from this country and go overseas. Because we have tighter controls in this country, some will be tempted to take their cargoes to the Continent where they will not be subject to such strict port state control—at least, they hope not. They will then break bulk and bring their goods over here in smaller vessels. That will probably not do our merchant fleet or our ports any good.
However, we are right to commend the Government on not moving from the point that they have strongly upheld; namely, that there should be the right of innocent passage and the right of transit. I remember that after the "Braer" incident there was an immediate outcry from all quarters that we should automatically close the international right that we had entered into for
762
an innocent right of passage. I am glad that the Government did not give way to that outcry then and I am equally glad that they have not done so now.
It was as a result of the "Braer" incident that my right honourable friend John MacGregor asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to look into the whole issue of safety at sea around our coasts. I, too, should like to thank the noble and learned Lord and his team for the very hard work that they undertook and accomplished so quickly and effectively. From my experience, many such reports which have been prepared at the request of Secretaries of State—and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be aware of this—have gathered dust on shelves without having been implemented or even read. But this report has been most widely and, indeed, internationally read. I hope that it will become a benchmark for other countries as well as our own.
I should like to take up one point which arose in the preamble of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am sorry that his preamble took so long and he was unable to get to the Bill, or indeed most of it. The point that I should like to raise refers to the reduction in the number of seafarers. Of course shipping has changed and the number of seafarers in ships has reduced, but my concern is for the future. As the noble and learned Lord points out in his report, port state control is probably our most effective barrier. The reason that we administer port state control so well in this country is that the majority of our inspectors have been at sea, have lived in the conditions which exist on boats and can, therefore, argue with the captain from their experience. I hope that we shall continue to produce inspectors of that calibre, not just inspectors who know it from the book and from diagrams but who have not actually worked at sea, survived the storms and learnt from experience what ships can take. That is my main concern in regard to seafarers.
I turn now to the Bill. I should like to mention a few points just briefly. Most of what I had intended to say has already been covered, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, so I shall not repeat those points. As regards Clause 7, I very much took the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. It is all very well having a large fine, but how are we to get the magistrates to impose it if they will not impose a smaller fine effectively? Does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department intend to issue a circular to magistrates asking them to take particular note of the provision in that clause?
Clause 15 deals with insurance. It brings me back to an earlier point that I made; namely, that where we tighten the screw in this country there is likely to be an effect on shipping and shipowners. Can my noble friend the Minister please tell me what is happening in Europe with regard to insurance? Are they going to insist on the same rigorous standards as we do, especially as regards the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, concerning the need to have effective insurance and the money to substantiate the claim? Alternatively, are we going ahead of the pack? Finally, what are the other states doing in that respect?

763
I turn now to the controversial issue regarding Clause 12 and Schedule 2 to the Bill. It does not surprise me that I find myself on the opposite side of the fence to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I thoroughly support both the clause and the schedule. I understand the concerns about enabling powers, but I believe that it is quite right that the polluter and the user should pay. The maritime industry, like any other industry, should indeed bear the full cost of what it incurs. At present, we cannot claim back some of the costs that we use for port state control and the inspection of ships. That has always seemed to me to be rather ludicrous. It seems to me to be even more ludicrous now as a result of the report of the noble and learned Lord. I am glad that the opportunity has been taken to include in the Bill provision whereby that could be increased. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble Earl has missed the point which arises at the end of that schedule and in connection with the matters to which we referred; namely, the appropriation of the General Lighthouse Fund, the making of subordinate legislation to alter primary legislation and to do it before any question has yet arisen, because we do not know what the state of the law will be.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should tell the noble and learned Lord that, as I said, I understand his concerns about the enabling part of the provision. However, I believe that the lighthouse funds are ring-fenced at present. That is the point that I was about to make. I was also going to say that I hoped that any funds arising in this respect in the future would continue to be ring-fenced.
My final point deviates from the Bill and returns to the general point that I made about the international nature of shipping and incidents. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me what has happened so far as concerns the captain of the "Braer"? For example, what action has the flag state taken? Further, what have the management company or, indeed, the Greek authorities done? Of course, I may be a little out of date and my noble friend may already have given the House such information. If that is the case, I apologise. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is a good example of where we ought to know whether the international community is working in the same direction as we are. If it is not, we shall have even more work to do in the IMO and with the other port state control countries to encourage the laggards to come up to our high standards.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I wish to add my welcome to the Bill which has been welcomed by all noble Lords who have spoken so far. I consider it to be an important Bill, as it will improve safety at sea and go some way towards overcoming the difficulty of dealing with pollution problems. However, some of
764
its clauses do not relate to the Donaldson Report; I wish to speak on those which apply to the general lighthouse authorities.
I declare an interest which will, perhaps, also indicate the background to what I have to say. For many years I was a commissioner of Irish Lights, including a term as chairman. The commissioners of Irish Lights are the general light authority (GLA) responsible for the aids to navigation around the coasts of Ireland. I have recently retired as a commissioner but retain certain connections with the commissioners.
Clause 17 clarifies the GLAs' ability to lease out excess capacity. There was previously some doubt about procedures and the GLAs support this clarification. Clause 18 is important as the GLAs require information from government departments to support collection of light dues. Both these clauses were the subject of consultation with the Department of Transport with which the GLAs have an open and constructive relationship. At least, they thought they had such a relationship until they read Schedule 2 to the Bill at the end of last week. That schedule, if passed, will give the Secretary of State extraordinary powers which could prejudice the working arrangements of the GLAs. It seems remarkable that a policy of open consultation should suddenly change to one of secrecy on fundamental matters. Inevitably, the question comes to mind: what is the hidden agenda?
Schedule 2 and Clause 12, if passed, will give the Secretary of State power to wind up the General Lighthouse Fund and pay this into the consolidated fund. The GLF is a deposit account for shipowners' moneys paid over to fund the GLAs statutory responsibilities. It has been recognised as a private fund. To pay that into the consolidated fund in my view would be improper and may verge on misappropriation. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has spoken on the matter at length and I support all that he has said. I know that similar views are held by the Northern Lighthouse Board. The Lights Advisory Committee, LAC, is the shipowners' committee which represents the views of shipowners to the Department of Transport on all matters concerning the GLAs. The LAC also finds the proposals objectionable and wishes them to be removed. It has made representations. The Chamber of Shipping has similar views.
There are at present no signs that the Community is about to introduce a uniform method of dealing with payments for light dues. It is difficult to understand why the department should have attempted to deal with a hypothetical question whose form is unknown and which may be many years away. If a Community obligation or any international agreement were to require change in the levying of light dues, primary legislation will almost certainly be required. Therefore, why put these powerful measures in the Bill? I hope that the Minister can enlighten us. I hope that the Government have not given up efforts to persuade other members of the European Union that the UK method of collecting light dues has many advantages as it is in line with Community policy that the user pays. The GLF holds moneys paid by shipowners and the Secretary of State, in effect, acts as trustee for that fund and has a

765
duty to ensure that the aids to navigation provided are necessary and are operated efficiently. That came out in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in 1982.
The GLF also holds staff contributions of the three GLAs towards pension provision. Staff pensions as they arise are paid for out of the GLF and the Secretary of State, in addition to being trustee for the shipowners' funds, is de facto trustee of the GLAs' pension funds. These pension funds are a matter of concern to the three GLAs and raise difficulties with the auditors of the GLAs' accounts. This matter is well known to the Department of Transport which is working to find a solution. It would seem absurd if the complexities of pension funds have to be included in the Bill. If Schedule 2 remains part of the Bill, that will certainly be necessary.
If passed in its present form the Bill will grant the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers without apparent reason, and subject only to approval by resolution of the House of Commons. I wonder whether the Secretary of State might fear that the possibly greater knowledge of this subject in this House is an obstacle to be avoided. In view of the opposition to these powers, which has been expressed by all interested parties, I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in asking the Minister to remove Schedule 2 from the Bill so that any problems which arise can be dealt with by the normal process of consultation.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Napier of Magâla: My Lords, I join noble Lords who have already spoken in welcoming the Bill. Any measures that lead to safer ships and cleaner seas are to be welcomed. I believe that the Bill generally achieves its objectives. I also wish to add my voice of admiration for the comprehensive report produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his team. It is a most excellent report.
However, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we must recognise that the measures in the Bill—even assuming that the enabling legislation can be translated into effective regulations—would not have done anything to prevent the "Braer" disaster in the Shetlands in 1993 which initiated the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, nor to prevent the "Sea Empress" disaster in South Wales earlier this year. We have to recognise that there is a malaise in world shipping. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that it is such a significant matter in the UK, but there is irresponsible shipping in the world.
I believe that the most effective clause in the Bill in the long term could prove to be Clause 15. That concerns the enabling legislation for compulsory insurance. I believe most people in the country would be amazed that ships can sail around the world without insurance. It is a sad state of affairs in this organised world that we do not have some sort of regulation on that already. Obviously it would be better if that were achieved with worldwide agreement and the IMO could proceed with that matter. However, it is a difficult matter. I believe it can take 10, 15 or sometimes more years for the IMO to adopt resolutions. I wonder
766
whether the noble Viscount has any information as to whether any progress in the international sphere on the question of ships' insurance could be brought forward using the faster procedures that have been introduced in the IMO recently. In the absence of international agreement, do the Government intend to proceed alone in that matter, in which case by how much do the Government think such a measure will raise shipping costs in the UK? Is that a worthwhile cost in terms of the extra protection that it might give to our coasts?
I wish to comment on Clause 5 which concerns waste reception in ports. Presumably the objective is to encourage ships to use the shore reception facilities. I received a slight impression this afternoon that this was considered something new. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, implied that there was something new in having shore facilities. Of course the MARPOL conventions have been implemented since the mid-1980s and have been subsequently refined in regulations in this country both as regards oily noxious liquids and garbage wastes. Have there been complaints from shipping companies as regards the inadequacy of reception facilities in ports in this country? Obviously shipowners are always complaining about costs, but have there been substantive complaints about that matter? Are there not already sufficient regulations to rectify that matter?
Clause 12 deals with the funding of maritime services. I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. Why do the Government wish to introduce the change in the funding system at this stage? It is a general clause. It is flexible and to that extent it is commendable. However, until it is known which direction the remainder of the EC and other countries of the world will take as regards funding government responsibilities, and possibly lighthouse navigational aids' costs, is the provision relevant in the Bill? Does it not detract from what otherwise would appear to be a highly commendable Bill? I am glad that the Government recognise the competitive nature and value of shipping and ports in this country. I am glad that the Bill will go forward.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it has been a good and interesting debate, despite the fact that, unusually in your Lordships' House, it has not attracted a single bishop or a noble Baroness. In its way it has been a somewhat monochrome debate but nonetheless expert for that.
My noble friend Lord Perry of Walton spoke, as did a great many noble Lords, on shipping. In speaking from these Benches at this stage, it is my duty to pick up one or two of the environmental points which have been raised by noble Lords. However, perhaps I may make a brief comment on Schedule 2. It has not been pointed out that in its report on the Bill the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee commented on this matter. In paragraph 4 of its report it stated that the affirmative procedure is in the House of Commons only and that that is the appropriate degree of parliamentary control

767
over the Henry VIII provision. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he speaks on Schedule 2 with which no doubt he will deal in detail.
On the environment side, there is a problem in dealing with klondykers. In Clause 11, the Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to take action against klondykers in certain circumstances. That is right and proper. However, I wonder whether it is right that the Bill provides only an enabling power. The pollution problem from klondykers in the UK, notably Shetland, has been well documented. It is a current problem. We therefore recommend that the Bill should provide the necessary regulations without the interim step of an enabling power.
Section 100G(5)(a) of the 1995 Act provides for fines not exceeding the statutory maximum of £5,000. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke about that point. In addition to provision for higher fines, the section should also provide for trans-shipment licences for a particular vessel to be withheld for a defined period. That is because experience in Shetland has shown that certain klondykers, for example, the "Borodinskoye Polye" and the "Pionersk", have a poor record of paying what they owe, at least regarding clean up bills. Almost certainly there should be some strong enforcing power to back that up.
Thirdly, the question of uninsured ships has been dealt with fairly generally. Section 192A gives the Secretary of State the power to require ships to be insured. An enabling power alone is appropriate for most classes of vessels but is possibly not enough in dealing with klondykers. There is already evidence that klondykers operating in UK waters are not insured; and that, coupled with recent pollution incidents in Shetland involving klondykers, should be adequate justification for the Government to include specific regulations for klondykers in the Bill. Following his admirable report, I was interested in the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, about the need to amend the power to give directions to harbour authorities and cargo owners.
As your Lordships have been told, and as most erudite noble Lords know, MEHRAs are marine environmental high risk areas. One major disappointment in the Bill is the omission to address ships' routeing measures and the identification of marine environmental high risk areas. The international debate on particularly sensitive sea areas—the internationally recognised term for the identification of areas of sea that are extremely sensitive and threatened by shipping activity—has ground to a halt. It requires national action to stimulate the international framework through the International Maritime Organization to provide the necessary protection for our coastline and marine environment from shipping activity.
In his report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recognises that ship routeing measures adopted so far in the UK have been essentially reactive. The report identified the need for a new type of area—the marine environmental high risk area—and recommended that the Government and their statutory advisers identify areas meriting special protection. The
768
report suggests some examples of possible MEHRAs including Skomer off the Pembrokeshire coast, adjacent to the site of the grounding of the "Sea Empress".
While MEHRAs may not be officially sanctioned by the international community through the International Maritime Organization, the international shipping world could not afford to ignore them. Furthermore, the identification of sites at a national level which are perceived to be extremely sensitive and threatened by shipping activity, and the complementary introduction of associated measures to address shipping activity within and adjacent to the area, for example, through routeing measures such as areas to be avoided, would help to stimulate the international debate on the identification of particularly sensitive sea areas.
The Government are missing a one-off opportunity to introduce measures for the identification of MEHRAs, to provide the appropriate measures for safe shipping within and adjacent to MEHRAs, and to stimulate the international debate on particularly sensitive sea areas. We welcome the Bill. We hope to give it as fair a wind as possible. But there is room for improvement. We shall hope to address that aspect in Committee.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, first, as have other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for what I believe is a comprehensive and far-sighted report. It has given us a fantastic base from which to discuss the Bill. I pay tribute, too, to the Department of Transport for its helpful response, which arrived reasonably quickly. It has been useful.
As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, we welcome the Bill. We have had a wide-ranging discussion, with contributions from experts on all sides of the House. The debate reflects the interest and commitment of this House in supporting the principles of the Bill in a positive way, with the possible exception of lighthouses, to which I shall come later. I was also grateful to receive a large amount of briefing from interested parties. In winding up, perhaps I may comment on a few of the main items of concern in the Bill and on what is not in the Bill.
Earlier this year we discussed the "Sea Empress". That ship was owned by one country, chartered by a company registered in a second country, with a cargo of oil owned by a third country but being sold to a fourth, and crewed by members of a fifth or possibly sixth country. It was eventually saved by an ocean-going tug crewed by six or seven Chinese speakers. We discussed that previously. It is not surprising that there was a problem in co-ordinating the rescue. That is an example of the problems in defining what is a UK ship. When considering the Bill, we must bear that point in mind.
Shipping is something of a free-for-all industry. As my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest said, it carries environmental time bombs. I like the idea of owners travelling in their ships. Perhaps that would improve the safety of some. There is little regulation and little control; and there is an element of passing the buck to other countries, coupled with a fear that any unilateral

769
regulation or stronger enforcement would have a very serious effect on the competitive edge of ships serving UK ports.
Given the drastic run-down of the UK fleet, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, we really cannot refer to "UK registered ships"—although the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to the P&O fleet. It would be interesting to know where those ships are registered and which nationals crew them. I am sure it is a very effective fleet but I doubt very much whether all British nationals are involved. The noble Lord was concerned about the price of petrol. But I am not sure that that is an argument against any regulation. All transport is subject—
Lord Greenway: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I was not concerned about the price of petrol. I was trying to say that people shout and scream about certain disasters, but if the ships that bring oil to our shores were not allowed to come here for environmental reasons there would be no petrol at the pump with which to fill up their cars. They cannot have the argument both ways.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I understand what he says and I agree with him.
My point is that all transport has to be subject to some kind of regulation and control. It has to be subject to monitoring, enforcement and accident investigation. If we consider other types of transport, in the air industry the CAA plays a major role; road transport is to some extent regulated and controlled by the Department of Transport; for the railways there is the Health and Safety Executive. However, even in the Bill, I still detect a comparative free-for-all for the big shippers. Perhaps the word "klondykers" fits here. Perhaps the Minister will explain what the word means in the circumstances referred to by so many noble Lords in the debate.
I have a feeling that the Government are frightened of introducing too much regulation. Trade has to come to the UK somehow. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, expressed a fear that ships would go elsewhere. Freight has to come to this country, by ship, tunnel, air or whatever. As we found in legislation following the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster, if Britain leads it is often followed by the European Union. My message to the Government is to have a little more courage, more power to the elbow. The Bill is a good start—but it is only a start.
To turn to one or two of the main points in the Bill, we welcome the new wording in Clause 2, "significant pollution", as providing a wider definition of the scope of the legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made the very powerful point that it probably needs to be widened a little further so that real control can be exercised by the Government when a disaster occurs. We certainly support that.
Nick Ainger, the Member of Parliament for Pembroke, where the "Sea Empress" accident occurred, has also stated on many occasions that he believes that experts responsible only to the Government must take
770
charge of a salvage operation and have the power to commission commercial salvage contractors with the resources to provide successful salvage rather than allowing commercial interests to outweigh the national and environmental interest. That is a very strong point.
I turn to Clause 10, which deals with the parking of ships. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred to the matter. Several consultees have commented that this measure would simply transfer the problem of parked ships to somewhere else. That may be true, but it is better than leaving matters as they are. If elsewhere the European Community follows this lead, it is a start. It is no reason for not having this legislation, which we strongly support.
There is, however, concern on the part of pilots that they may be required to become involved with a ship that is not capable of being moved. They remind us that Clause 21(1) of the Pilotage Act 1987 states that a pilot shall be guilty of an offence if he,
"does any act which causes or is likely to cause the loss or destruction of, or serious damage to, the ship or its machinery".
Those matters will need to be examined in Committee.
I now turn to lighthouses. I am no expert, although I do a spot of sea-sailing. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, spoke very powerfully about the idea of winding up the General Lighthouse Fund. I cannot add anything of the quality that they brought to the debate. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said that the legislation is required because the present regime may conflict with future legislation. I am not sure that that is a very good reason for doing it now.
We received very strong comments from the General Lighthouse Fund. As we have heard, it is private money. The private status of the fund was confirmed by the Government in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in 1982. The Treasury saw the GLA service as being provided by the private sector for the private sector. Is this back-door nationalisation? I hope the Minister can give some explanation as to why this measure is so necessary now.
The noble Lord, Lord Napier of Magdâla, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis spoke about insurance. Both were strongly in favour of comprehensive insurance policies for all ships coming to British ports or waters. Road vehicles are insured; train operators must have £155 million of cover. That figure came out of the privatisation process. I do not think anybody would necessarily disagree with it. The air industry has insurance, so why not shipping in the same way? I refer to any shipping entering UK waters, not just visiting ports.
Perhaps the Minister will explain the purpose of Clause 19, relating to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and say whether the RNLI approves it. I am sure that the idea is excellent, but what is the purpose of it? I should like to hear some explanation.
I now turn to what was not included from the Donaldson Report. A general comment would be: "information". There are many ways in which the report identifies the lack of information on ships; the quality

771
of the mechanical equipment; the electrical equipment; the crews; the cargo, and what is discharged. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned tagging. It is an extremely important method of knowing where a container or load is. I know of a new approach called "active tagging" which is being tested at the moment on some dozen ships around the world. One of the containers bearing such a tag got lost, and about a month later was found well into the middle of the Sahara in Upper Volta being used as a chicken-house. It is useful to be able to locate a container in that way and that example emphasises the importance of proper and adequate statistics, monitoring, records and assessment of where the risks are.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It's a fowl situation!
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.
The Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea has made strong representations that there need to be detailed surveys of shipping volumes and practice to enable appropriate recommendations for change to be made. That is a matter for the IMO. Crew competence, age, conditions, maintenance and identity of the flag state are also mentioned. However, I can see nothing in the Bill to deal with the various elements of "information".
I move to paragraph 22 of the Donaldson Report and the Government's response which concern non-accidental discharges of oily wastes, garbage and noxious liquid substances. Recommendation 22 suggests that the Government should,
"regard the adoption of the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea as special areas for oily waste as a long-term aim".
The response states that the point is under consideration. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when the consideration will be complete.
I turn to Recommendation 59 of the Donaldson Report. Several noble Lords mentioned MEHRAs or marine environmental high risk areas. We support the principle and the recommendation that,
"the Department of Transport should monitor MEHRAs to see whether Masters' behaviour has changed".
There is a half-page response stating that it is "under consideration" by the Government. I have a feeling that they do not wish to make it too complicated by putting extra lines on marine charts. If you cannot read a marine chart, you should not be driving a vessel anyway. The Government use that as a weak excuse for not putting a different coloured line to designate an extremely important recommendation from the Donaldson Report.
Recommendation 99 is for the Government to make an annual report to Parliament on the implementation of the Donaldson Report. The CAA and the railway inspectorate produce them. It would not be a marine inspectorate report but a progress review on an extremely important accident report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The Minister kindly told us that there was a report in the Library. I could not find it but, as usual, our Library did so and it was delivered to us late in the day. We have not had a chance to study
772
it because it is 60 pages long. I thank the Minister for at least telling us about it, although it was too late for the debate. May we expect an annual report on progress?
In conclusion, we welcome the Government bringing forward the legislation. Information, monitoring and enforcement will be the key to its success. From the Minister's opening remarks, it appeared that he is adopting an open mind on some details in the Bill. That was my impression and I therefore look forward to a positive discussion in the Committee stage that will follow soon.
6.33 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I feel sure that we shall have a positive discussion in future stages of the Bill. At this point I wish to say how much I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, winding up this incredibly interesting debate for the Opposition. I understand that it is the first time he has performed the task from the Opposition Front Bench so he has our congratulations. We have had an interesting debate and it has again shown the level of expertise contained within your Lordships' House, particularly on all matters maritime.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter commented that the Bill might be described as a "rag-bag" of various measures. That would be a difficult assertion to contradict. The number of measures in the Bill is large and the provisions are wide and varied.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. I did not make that comment. I quoted a remark made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I stand corrected. With two such notable neighbours on the Privy Council Benches, it is important for me not to confuse their remarks by attributing one to the other. No doubt my noble friend endorsed the remark. Suffice it to say that the Bill examines a wide variety of areas of shipping policy all addressed to producing a safer and more pollution-free environment.
The first point is that shipping is an important business in the United Kingdom. We are an island nation and, as we heard, 95 per cent. or thereabouts of our goods arrive and depart by sea. It is therefore of key economic importance to the competitiveness of industry to have and be served by a strong shipping sector.
There was little in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with which I disagree, but we must be careful about talking down the shipping industry in the United Kingdom. It has proved itself to be highly competitive. We are world leaders in a number of sectors. We should consider the container sector, the crew sector, the ferry sector; and there is a wide variety of expertise in high-tech shipping in the ports industry here. We do very well. Of course, we recognise changing world circumstances and the tendency towards flagging out, but that does not alter the fact that a great deal of effort is put in by the United Kingdom shipping

773
industry, which is often represented by the Chamber of Shipping, promoting the industry and recognising its ability to compete.
As was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Epping Forest and Lord Clinton-Davis, there are a number of unfair subsidies faced by British shipping. To go into the wider arena, one area of our policy must be that in our response to Commission documents when we are discussing shipping in Europe we must stand firm against unfair state subsidies.
The other area in which there can be significant unfairness—and one searches for an expression other than "level playing field", but I believe we understand what that means in the circumstances—is over sub-standard shipping. That is why the Government put so much effort into port state control and working within the International Maritime Organization to attempt to level the unfair advantage. First, there are the safety and anti-pollution benefits; and, secondly, there is the competitive angle.
At the beginning of my remarks I wish to endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Caithness: one cannot legislate against accidents. But we all realise that we must put into place the best framework that we can to try to prevent accidents and pollution where possible. However, I certainly endorse what my noble friend said about the impossibility of legislating against accidents.
To conclude my introduction to the wider issues of shipping, which were dwelt on at length by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Murray, we do not believe in following some of our European neighbours into an ever-spiralling level of state subsidies. We believe we should keep up the pressure on sub-standard shipping through port state control, by putting funding into training and by raising the number of cadets coming into the industry. The schemes that we have had—the Government's assistance for training schemes and the development of the certificated seafarers scheme—have been a great success. That targeting has produced benefits in terms of the number of cadets coming into the industry from the low point in the mid-1980s. We have also sought to deregulate and remove any reasons that shipowners might have to flag out, but keeping our tight safety regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Government consider that the long-term interests of the UK will be best served by accession to the United Nations' convention. The timing of our accession remains under review. A number of uncertainties with regard to fisheries and related issues mean that now is not an appropriate time to accede.
The pollution exclusion zone was established by order earlier this year. It affords us the means to provide full protection within the zone. That was one of the noble Lord's associated points. The international convention and the Law of the Sea Convention both confirm the right of coastal states to take measures beyond the territorial sea following a shipping casualty to protect the coastline from a serious threat of pollution. In those circumstances, therefore, a temporary exclusion zone established under the power provided by Clause 1 would
774
be binding on all ships, UK or foreign. In all other cases, an exclusion zone beyond territorial waters would be binding on UK ships only.
The provisions of the Bill and UK powers are not affected by the fact that the UK is not yet a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. The terms of the convention are widely regarded as customary and international law.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, questioned the name of the klondykers. It just appears to have happened. Presumably there is something of a gold rush fever about heading for transhipment licences. In that connection, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why insurance is not a prescribed requirement for holding a licence. Clause 11 provides for transhipment activities to be suspended if insurance requirements are not met. I hope that that will meet his point.
When Clause 15 is enacted, we shall first look at its application to klondykers. Certainly, there have been considerable problems with uninsured klondykers, including a number of the vessels in the area around the Shetland Islands, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, alluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why Recommendation 102 on the definition of a port had not been implemented. The purpose of the recommendation was to enable detention in a port but the Bill goes wider. The amendments made in Schedule 1, in particular to Sections 95 and 284 of the Merchant Shipping Act, allow detention anywhere in our territorial waters. By that means the Bill goes considerably beyond what was recommended.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry, talked at some length about port state control, which we clearly believe is a very important factor in our ability to control substandard shipping. He felt that there was a tendency to target good ships. That is not the case. Of course we shall still inspect some good ships, but the clear emphasis must be on seeking out those which are substandard. Our inspectors are required to make professional judgments and commercial matters would not enter into their decisions on the actions that must be taken when they find a substandard ship. So the policy is to target vessels and that means making the best use of the port state control resources at our disposal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned a number of points with regard to the intervention powers. As we heard, under Section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 the Secretary of State has overriding authority to direct operations following a shipping casualty if it is necessary to minimise pollution. The powers of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution are exercised by the marine pollution control unit of the Coastguard Agency. As stated in the national contingency plan, the MPCU's normal approach to a marine emergency is to consult the owner, master, salvor and insurer of the ship in order to agree the course of action to be pursued. In most cases there will not be cause to use the Secretary of State's statutory powers of intervention; but, rather like the office boy and the boss, to which the noble and

775
learned Lord alluded, they are there as a powerful reserve. We must also take into consideration the speed at which consultation can take place and so forth. Nonetheless, the intervention powers are there. They are extremely powerful.
I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said about what he considered to be two omissions from the ability of the Secretary of State to direct. As we heard, the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985 gives harbour masters the power to exclude dangerous vessels. However, the Secretary of State can countermand the direction of the harbour master if he considers that it is necessary to provide a ship with a safe haven. Intervention powers can also be used to override a harbour master's power if the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to prevent pollution. Nonetheless, I shall certainly consider very carefully the noble and learned Lord's suggestion that even with those powers there is a gap. We shall consider between now and another stage whether there is a gap and whether it can be plugged. I welcome that suggestion from the noble and learned Lord.
Much the same is true about the question of cargo interests. The noble and learned Lord made a proposal to the effect that the Secretary of State's intervention powers should be extended to enable directions to be given to cargo interests. That met with considerable interest around the House. I certainly agree that it needs to be given further thought, just with the proviso that we need to guard against any possible conflict between the proposed power and current international law. But, again, it is certainly worth considering.
On the subject of insurance, the noble and learned Lord evinced concern that if Clause 15 were enacted as currently drafted, shipowners could have insurance documentation with no substantive backing—just a paper policy with nothing behind it. The intention behind Clause 15 is to enable the Secretary of State to specify the types of insurance or other security that would be acceptable. But we shall look to see how we could provide for effective—I stress that word—insurance, addressing the point about dubious contracts, without trying to do the impossible, which would be to try to become the world's policeman on the matter. That clearly is not something we could do. But, again, we shall consider the problem very carefully.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. He is giving a very positive response to the debate and I am sure the whole House appreciates it. With regard to the question of insurance, which is a very basic issue, does he propose, in the light of this debate and prior to the Committee stage, to enter into further consultations with experts on this issue? I feel that it is tremendously important.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, experts via your Lordships' House, and indeed Members of this House are experts on this matter as well, have given opinions. But we would welcome receiving other opinions. I am sure that this is something that will be discussed
776
in considerable detail at Committee stage, which I understand is to take place using the Moses Room procedure. The Government are very grateful to the House that that has been proposed. Nonetheless, we shall certainly be open to consideration of that matter.
The level of fines was discussed by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. As has been widely acknowledged, it is not appropriate for the Government to tell magistrates the level of fines that they should impose, beyond setting the maximum. It is for the courts to determine the appropriate penalty for each individual pollution offence, having considered all the relevant information. My noble friends recognised that point.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Caithness who asked whether we would promulgate information on the subject. We shall provide information on the aims of government policy on marine pollution. We shall write to the Magistrates' Association to explain why we have decided that increases in the maximum fines are needed. The proposed increases have already been drawn to the attention of the working group on the enforcement of financial penalties.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, described the work of the National Trust and its responsibilities, voicing his concerns at maritime pollution. He spoke briefly on the "Sea Empress" incident. Those issues have been considerably rehearsed but there are some important points that I should like to take up, not at this point but perhaps at a later stage of the Bill or in another forum, where we can talk at greater length about the specific "Sea Empress" issue.
The substantial clean-up work following the "Sea Empress" incident has been completed. However, recent storms resulted in some oil reflecting dramatic and unexpected movements of sand on beaches. Oil has been uncovered and recovered. It came ashore at Tenby and was cleaned up as it did so. There are now four people in a single hit squad and three engaged on beach walking. At the peak of activity, around 220 people were engaged in clean-up operations, though the total number involved was very much higher than that. While it is considered that the clean-up operations have gone well, their effectiveness will be considered by the committee established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to see what are the environmental implications of the incident.
Comment was made by a number of noble Lords on compensation. We should recognise the valuable work done by the P & I Club and the IOPC Fund in reacting as quickly and efficiently as they could. However, I recognise that there are anxieties in relation to the level of compensation and the agreement or otherwise of some claims. The position is that £5 million has been paid to date in compensation, mainly to fishermen. It is too early to assess the total financial effect of the incident. The 75 per cent. limit on compensation payments remains but we hope it will be lifted at the next meeting of the international fund's executive committee. However, that is a matter for the members of the committee. In the meantime, arrangements for the payment of additional moneys in cases of genuine financial hardship remain in place.

777
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, commented specifically on compensation for financial losses with regard to birds and general amenity. I can advise him that the IOPC Fund provides for reasonable measures to restore the natural environment following an oil spill and the proposed HNS Convention about which we have heard will do the same. The IOPC Fund also provides compensation for the costs of bodies such as the RSPCA to clean oiled birds. We do not subscribe to the notion of punitive damages per se as applies in the USA oil pollution Act of 1990.
The noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, among others, discussed the issue of marine environmental high risk areas. Concern was expressed that the Bill contained no specific provisions regarding their establishment. We do not believe that such provisions are necessary as we consider that we already possess adequate powers to declare an area as high risk. However, any interference with or restriction of rights of innocent or transit passage would have to be submitted to and approved by the International Maritime Organization.
I turn to what has perhaps been the uniquely controversial part of the Bill; that is, the provisions with regard to charging and in particular with relation to the General Lighthouse Fund and any changes to it. On the wider point of charging, I understand the anxieties put forward by the shipping and other industries affected by the costs imposed concerning our national competitiveness. I seek to re-emphasise that our preferred approach is to react to international agreements and to take forward our charging proposals on that basis.
More specific questions were raised with regard to the General Lighthouse Fund itself. I listened carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, had to say on the subject. Ministers before me have quaked in their boots upon hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, on the subject of Henry VIII clauses. I hope the House will tolerate my speaking in some detail on the thinking behind these provisions, though I feel sure that even with the no doubt eminently satisfactory explanation that I shall attempt to provide there will be further questions which I hope we will be able to address further at a later stage.
The Bill contains a proposal in Schedule 2, paragraphs 3 and 12, which provides for contingent powers to amend light dues and the consequent operation of the General Lighthouse Fund. Those provisions are explicitly contingent on other events, which I shall set out. They were not included in any detail in the consultation document, mainly because the relationship between the GLF and any fund established to meet the costs of a marine emergency had not been fully evaluated at that time. However, there was reference to light dues in the February 1996 consultation document. I acknowledged before and am happy to do so again that it would appear that communication was not adequately taken forward in terms of fully explaining the Government's plans and for that I apologise.
778
The Government believe that it would have been unwise to contemplate the creation of new arrangements for funding maritime services without also considering the potential effects on the existing GLF. Including contingent proposals for the GLF in the Bill raised some questions in regard to the Government's intentions, many of which we heard this evening. I contend that ignoring the GLF would have been an unsatisfactory approach.
The current initiative within Europe to develop a "user pays" principle in regard to the funding of maritime services carries full government support. I was urged by at least one noble Lord to reinforce our commitment to see more development within Europe towards the application of "user pays" and I can more than happily re-emphasise that at this Dispatch Box. Indeed, we raised the issue at the Council of Transport Ministers in Luxembourg at the beginning of October, arguing that a system of funding and charging ought to be developed. Such a system may require changes to the GLF so as to integrate current UK arrangements into a broader system. The nature of any European arrangements has not yet been settled but it seemed sensible to make provision for that on a contingent basis.
I offer a further assurance that nothing in the Bill changes the statutory position of the responsibilities of the three general lighthouse authorities to provide aids to navigation. Any possible change in their role is in connection with light dues and that is purely a consequential development of the contingent proposal in Schedule 2 to amend or replace light dues. I am advised that the provision at Schedule 2, paragraph 5, is narrowly drawn to deal only with the precise function of collecting light dues.
In summary, the proposals in the Bill with relation to the GLF are not based on any proposal to reorganise the three authorities as some people—though not in the course of tonight's debate—have said. Proposals deal with the possible implications for the General Lighthouse Fund and the introduction of a more broadly-based funding system for maritime services. Such a system does not yet exist but it seems sensible to make contingent provision for it. There is no provision for a funded pension scheme which would cost a considerable amount to create. Therefore, raiding the GLF, as has been put forward as being the Government's intention, would be a significant cost on the Exchequer because of the large liabilities attached to it that have to be met.
I hope that those remarks about the funding arrangements with particular regard to the GLF will have given some comfort to noble Lords who are understandably concerned about that. Nonetheless, I certainly undertake to read extremely carefully what has been said about these matters. When we come to future stages of the Bill, I am sure that they will be heavily debated.
I am well aware of the clock and that I am going on at some length this evening. I hope that the House will tolerate that. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, made a remark about the Liberian flag. It is often seen to be an

779
inadequate flag, but we certainly wish that many other flags achieved and maintained the same standards. It is commonly, and erroneously, said to be a very poor flag.
I have trespassed considerably on the patience of the House in giving such a long response. Nonetheless, I hope that I have been able to address at least a number of the concerns that have been put forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept from us that we have not only tolerated it well, but we welcome the fact that he has dealt with the matter at length and answered many of the points raised by noble Lords, or at least given the Government's version? We do not believe that that was wrong on his part. He has done the House proud tonight.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful for those words. It is kind of the noble Lord to say so.
There are a couple of other points that I was asked. One referred to the RNLI. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the request came from the RNLI, with its full support.
I believe that this is an important Bill. The provisions have been soundly and widely welcomed this evening. There is still some detailed work to be done and we look forward to that.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at two minutes past seven o'clock.

  Prison Chaplains: Multi-Faith Courses
  Prison Chaplains: Multi-Faith Courses
  Ballot Papers: Fraudulent Titles
  Ballot Papers: Fraudulent Titles
  Absent Voting Forms
  Absent Voting Forms
  Foreign Diplomats: Working Spouses
  Foreign Diplomats: Working Spouses
  Homicides: Firearms Figures
  Homicides: Firearms Figures
  Defence Helicopter Flying School
  Defence Helicopter Flying School
  Immigration Act: Detainees
  Immigration Act: Detainees
  Electoral Registration Publicity: Cost
  Electoral Registration Publicity: Cost
  Secure Training Centres: Sites
  Secure Training Centres: Sites
  Polling Stations: Accessibility
  Polling Stations: Accessibility
  Government Services: Electronic Delivery
  Government Services: Electronic Delivery
  Dounreay: Newspaper Report
  Dounreay: Newspaper Report
  Plutonium Cargo: Newspaper Report
  Plutonium Cargo: Newspaper Report
  THORP: Commissioning
  THORP: Commissioning
  Remploy: Performance Figures
  Remploy: Performance Figures
  Environment Agency: Guidance Documents
  Environment Agency: Guidance Documents
  Asylum Seekers: "Grace Days"
  Asylum Seekers: "Grace Days"
  Crown Servants in Overseas Posts: Eligibility
  Crown Servants in Overseas Posts: Eligibility
  Turkey: Treatment of Prisoners
  Turkey: Treatment of Prisoners
  Botswana: Wildlife Conservation
  Botswana: Wildlife Conservation
  Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds
  Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Review
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Review